Caral is an important site in the Supe Valley of central Peru near the coast and was part of the Norte Chico civilisation. It was occupied during the third millennium BC, although some push that back as far as the fourth millennium. Caral is claimed to be the oldest urban settlement in the Americas(a), although other sites in the region may challenge that.
The 600 hectare site includes a pyramid complex that may have preceded those of the Egyptians. An early quipu was also found at the site suggesting some form of continuity with the later Inca civilisation.
In the 1950’s, further south, in the Manchay Valley near the capital Lima, Karola Siebert was convinced that she had found Atlantean remains, while further south again, over the border in Bolivia we have Jim Allen’s chosen location for Atlantis near Lake Poopó.
A French website(b) has on offer the strange idea that the longitude of Caral in Peru and that of Xian in China and their respective relationships with the Prime Meridian at Greenwich and the longitude of Giza have some bearing on the location of Atlantis, which the author, Fabien Pardo, places in the Antarctic!
I reject all South American locations as possibly Atlantean and do so principally because the idea of an attack on Athens being launched from the west coast of South America, thousands of years ago, is, to put it kindly, just silly. However, it is quite clear that this region has had a fascinating prehistory and should keep archaeologists busy for generations to come.
Fabien Pardo and Jean Seimple announced in 2016 that “The Greenwich Meridian commemorates and secretly indicates the exact position of the capital of Atlantis! qui est appelé de nos jours, l’Antarctique. which is called nowadays, Antarctica” and “Remember that Atlantis is not a geographical place but the name of a civilization spread all over the Earth.” (a)
Kevin Christopher is a confirmed sceptic, whose paper, Atlantis: No way, No How, No Where (a), is widely available on the internet. It is a lightweight offering, frequently quoting two of the most extreme location theories, such as, Bolivia and Antarctica as justification for his view that the Atlantis story is ‘entirely fictional’.
Christopher also questions the chain of transmission of the story, describing it as ‘tenuous’. If Plato had concocted the Atlantis tale, it is reasonable to expect that he would also have invented a more straightforward provenance. Consequently, any perceived difficulties in this regard, actually enhance the credibility of the narrative.
Jean Seimple is the pen name of the latest recruit to the Atlantis in Antarctica club. However, his version of the theory is rather more exotic than most others. He supports his ideas with a 20-minute YouTube clip(a) in which he manages to link the angle of gabled roof supports over both the King’s and Queen’s chambers in the Great Pyramid together with the latitude of Greenwich and identify pointers to an ice-free Antarctica and Plato’s lost Atlantis! This is one for the totally gullible.
Seimple has a website(b) supporting his book, Pour Eux v 1.618 (For They v 1.618), which can be downloaded in the original French or an English translation.
July 2016 saw the site ‘updated’(c).
Richard Bowdler Sharpe (1847-1909) was an English zoologist, who specialised in ornithology. In 1893 he suggested that a huge continent centred on the South Pole had existed in the southern hemisphere. Newspaper reports tell us that this highly speculative continent had embraced “South America, Madagascar, Mauritius, New Zealand and Australia; and thus he explained the existence of the cognate struthious birds that now exist, or once existed, in those countries.”(b)
It might seem strange that Sharpe did not mention Antarctica, but, it is understandable, as the first recorded and confirmed landing on Antarctica did not take place until 1895(a).
Invasion today, as in the past, is usually the consequence of a shortage of resources (food, metals, oil, water), climate change (affecting food supply), overpopulation (also affecting food supply) or political upheaval. Although I do not speak as a military strategist, it would seem obvious that if, for any of these reasons, a state is forced into an expansionism, it will first look at their nearest neighbours and assess the chances of military success. It is obvious that before the introduction of airborne attacks, propinquity in the form of contiguous territory or short sea journeys have always been critical for a successful invasion(a) and the continued control of occupied territories. This is borne out by the simple historical fact that all the earliest empires, which were located in what we now call the Middle East, expanded through the invasion of its neighbours.
However, over-expansion can be costly and potentially dangerous. With particular reference to the fall of the Roman Empire, Rachel Nuwer noted in a recent BBC article(c) that. “By the end of the 100 BC the Romans had spread across the Mediterranean, to the places most easily accessed by sea. They should have stopped there, but things were going well and they felt empowered to expand to new frontiers by land. While transportation by sea was economical, however, transportation across land was slow and expensive. All the while, they were overextending themselves and running up costs.”
Many people think that military intelligence gathering is a relatively modern development. However, ancient documents, including the Bible, have accounts of spying thousands of years ago. Mary Rose Sheldon has produced an invaluable sourcebook on the subject, as well a volume on Spies in the Bible, while Peter Dubovsky, in his Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies, focuses on espionage described in 2 Kgs 18-19. It is reasonable therefore to assume that Atlantis also exercised due diligence and endeavoured to assess their opponents strengths and weaknesses before invading.
Boris Rankov has noted(b) in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History that military intelligence in ancient times had its value limited by the “slowness of communications, which meant that it was often out of date before any response could be brought to bear.” This, of course, ties in with the then established practice of invading those within your immediate proximity; supply lines are shorter and information more up-to-date. In turn, it implies that Atlantis was within relatively easy striking distance of Athens!
Even in modern times the same constraints determined the actions of invaders. Hitler could not have invaded Russia without first controlling Poland and Romania. Even expansionist Japan, although an island nation, expanded into Korea and Manchuria (China) and following the attack on Pearl Harbour spread even further within the same region.
The ancient land-based empires were dependent on military might, whereas others, such as the Phoenicians, expanded their influence through trade, supported by extensive merchant fleets. However, over time, Phoenician or more correctly Carthaginian rivalry with Rome led to disastrous wars.
One of the primary military concerns today, as in ancient times, will be to ensure that its men are fed and watered and consequently there will be a need to keep its supply lines as short as possible.
The nearest possible belligerent to the west of Athens was across the Adriatic in Italy. I argue elsewhere that according to Plato, southern Italy constituted part of the Atlantean domain (see Etruscans). I suggest that the Atlantean invasion of Greece was probably launched from there. The motivation is unclear, but we can speculate that success in Greece would have been followed by the control of the entire Aegean, including Crete, offering a huge expansion in trade.
The alternative is that the nearest part of Atlantis was elsewhere, necessitating the bypassing of other territories on the way and stretching supply and communication lines more than desirable. Italy looks the best bet, with forces added from the Atlantean HQ in Sicily or Sardinia, possibly travelling through the Strait of Messina, sometimes identified as the location of the Pillars of Heracles.
In the south, the Atlantean forces in North Africa (Ancient Libya), if not augmenting the attack on Greece, were probably planning their invasion of Egypt (Timaeus 25b & Critias 114c). Success there would have been followed by a two-pronged attack by both northern and southern Atlantean forces on the eastern Mediterranean coast, later known as the Levant, giving them total control of the eastern Mediterranean Basin.
Invasion requirements are the strongest argument against any of the fanciful Atlantis theories that place Plato’s Atlantis in Antarctica, the Andes, or North America. It is ludicrous to claim that any invasion force came across the Atlantic to attack Greeks and Egyptians. That there were remarkable early cultures in both North and South America is absolutely undeniable, however, it is foolishness to claim that they had any connection with Plato’s story.
Diego Marin, Ivan Minella & Erik Schievenin are the three young authors of The Three Ages of Atlantis . The three currently live in Italy and are respectively a physicist, archaeologist and a geologist. Their basic theory is that the original Atlantis was located in Antarctica and that following a shifting of the Earth’s axis, this prehistoric civilisation was destroyed by the ensuing super-floods around 15,000 years ago. They claim that other super-floods also had global effects 11,600 and 8,700 years ago.
Appendix A is concerned with a claim that the Sumerians may never have existed and that the Sumerian language is artificial, invented by Akkadian priests for liturgical purposes.
These three scientists devoted an extensive Appendix B to a study of Edgar Cayce’s ‘revelations’ and their concurrence with their theories. Their use of Cayce is a clear abandonment of the scientific method and gives every reason to treat everything they have written with very great caution.
Fritz Nestke & Thomas Riemer are the German authors of Atlantis – ein Kontinent tau (ch) t auf  published in 1989 six years before Rand & Rose Flem-Ath published their ‘Atlantis in the Antarctic’ theory in When the Sky Fell.*However, twenty years earlier Flavio Barbiero published a parallel theory , although I don’t know if Nestke & Reimer were aware of his book written in Italian!*
In support of their contention Nestke & Riemer have produced a ‘corrected’ translation of Timaeus 25d which they claim should read;
“… and Atlantis’ island as of disappeared even in its sea (removed from view) why it is now being impossible – because the slush of frozen sea even there is a very real obstacle – close gain access to the island” (p.170).
Like the Flem-Aths Nestke & Riemer also propose that a Pole Shift played a part in the destruction of Atlantis.
Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) is not known to have made any specific statements regarding Atlantis, but a number of commentators have suggested that he was not only aware of Plato’s story but had consulted charts, such as Toscanelli’s(a), that depicted a mid-Atlantic island. De Gomara was insistent that Columbus had read Plato’s Timaeus and Critias, while the historian, Bartolomé de las Casas (1484-1566), claimed that Plato’s story inspired Columbus to embark on his voyages of discovery!
The Flem-Aths in their Atlantis Beneath the Ice, which is a 2012 revised version of When the Sky Fell, begin the book with a reference to a memorandum sent by Charles Hapgood to President Eisenhower. In it Hapgood sought the president’s assistance in locating a map used by Columbus, which he believed to still exist in Spanish archives. This map was apparently used to produce the famed Piri Reis Map that allegedly depicts an ice-free Antarctica. The Columbus map was not found.
Philippe Buache (1700-1773) was a French royal geographer who produced a map of Antarctica, apparently ice free, showing the landmass being composed of two separate islands. In 1958 a seismic survey of Antarctica seemed to confirm that configuration. This begged a number of questions. How could Buache have known this, without having earlier maps available to him? How could man have drawn maps of territory covered by ice for hundreds of thousands of years? Some felt that this complemented the evidence for an ice-free Antarctica provided by the Piri Reis Map. In turn, this gave some further support to those that advocate an Antarctic location for Atlantis. However, the two maps contradict each other, which should not be the case if they were based on surveys carried out by an advanced prehistoric civilisation.
However, the weight of the present ice cap has depressed the land to such an extent that if removed, it has been calculated that the isostatic rebound would be as much as 500 metres, which would give us a single landmass. This casts doubt on the possibility that a two-island ice-free Antarctica ever existed and consequently that the Buache Map is only speculative.
This is reinforced by the fact that “the French legends that cover the Buache Map also provide a clue as to the way the map may be read and understood. For example, the words conjecturée (conjectured) and soupçonnée (suspected) can be found on parts of the southern continent, indicating that this landmass was not copied from some ancient map, but was a hypothesis by Buache.”(b)
Another critical review of the Buache Antarctic map is to be found on the bad archaeology website(a).