Richat Structure, The *

Published August 18, 2011

The Richat Structure or Guelb er Richat in Mauritania” is regarded by geologists as a highly symmetrical and deeply eroded geologic dome. It was first described in the 1930s to 1940s, as Richât Crater or Richât buttonhole. Richard-Molard (1948) considered it to be the result of a laccolithic thrust. A geological expedition to Mauritania led by Théodore Monod in 1952 recorded four ‘crateriform or circular irregularities” in the area.”^(q)

The feature was thought by many to be an impact crater until it was identified as the remains of a possible ‘salt dome’^(a). Some of the more enthusiastic supporters of the ‘Electric Universe’ school of thought have sought to identify the feature as the consequence of an electrical discharge.^(e)

This is outlined in an April 2022 paper by Andrew Hall, explaining what he calls the ‘Keystone Pattern’.^(r)

Even creationists have claimed that the original surface of the ‘Structure’ had been eroded by Noah’s Flood^(t).

The concentric circles of which the structure is composed is clearly revealed by satellite imagery. However, these characteristics are not visible when walking across the structure^(u). The scientific consensus today is that the structure is a natural geological feature. In more technical terms a geological ‘dome’ is “A structure that plunges in all directions to form a circular or elongate structure is a dome. Domes are generally formed from one main deformation event, or via diapirism from underlying magmatic intrusions or movements of upwardly mobile, mechanically ductile material such as rock salt (salt dome) and shale (shale diapir). The Richat Structure of the Sahara is considered a dome that has been laid bare by erosion.”^(k)Further geological data was available on a German website^(v).

It did not take long before it was compared to Plato’s description of Atlantis. However, Ulf Richter has pointed out that it is too wide (35 km), too elevated (400 metres) and too far from the sea (500 km) to be seriously considered the location of Atlantis. Nevertheless, researchers such as Robert deMelo are still prepared to consider it a possible location candidate^(b).

50 km west-southwest of Richat is a similar though smaller feature, the Semsiyat Dome, having a diameter of just 5 km^(o).

A 2023 geological study^(z) of the Richat feature is worth a read.

In 2008, George Sarantitis put forward the idea that the Richat Structure was the location of Atlantis, supporting his contention with an intensive reappraisal of the translation of Plato’s text^(g). His theory has been published in Greek^[¹⁴⁷⁰], with an English translation now (2017) imminent.

In 2006 George S. Alexander and Natalis Rosen were struck by the similarity of the Richat feature with Plato’s description and decided to investigate on the ground. Instability in the region prevented this until late 2008 when they visited the site, gathering material for a movie. The film was then finalised and published on their then-newly-established website in 2010^(c).

In 2008, Charles Giuliani self-published Alternative View of The Distant Past ^[1969]. In this wide-ranging book, the author tackles the story of Atlantis and endeavours to identify the Richat Structure as the location of Plato’s city of Atlantis. His speculations lack scientific evidence and contradict reason. The main weaknesses are his dating of Atlantis (9600 BC) and the logistical problems of launching an attack on Athens 4,000km away from Richat at a time when archaeology indicates that seafaring was carried out with little more than dugout canoes or rafts.

In 2013 further support for linking Atlantis with Richat came from Jose D.C. Hernandez with a rather convoluted theory in a paper entitled A Celestial Impact and Atlantis^(f).

Even more bizarre is the claim by Anthony Woods that although Ireland was the island of Atlantis, the city of Atlantis (Cerne) was in Mauritania and is known today as the Richat Structure!

Towards the end of the 2018 media ‘silly season’, the YouTube channel Bright Insight made a pathetic attempt to breathe new life into the Atlantis in Sahara theory. However, it fails on one simple fact; it is not submerged, but for good measure, when Alexander and Rosen investigated the Richat Structure they could not produce a single piece of physical evidence from the 35 km wide site. Where was the bustling port described by Plato? I could go on, but remember, it’s not called the silly season without reason.

Early November 2018 saw the British tabloid press give further coverage to Jimmy Corsetti’s ideas^(i)(j)(The Sun gave his name as Jimmy Bright!). His theories are totally dependent on the destruction of Atlantis having occurred around twelve thousand years ago. He does not explain how an attack was launched from Mauritania on Athens which did not even exist at that time. Corsetti, like many others, needs this very early date to explain why the Richat Structure is not underwater today but was gradually uplifted as a result of tectonic forces in the region. However, Plato clearly states that the submerged Atlantis was still a hazard to shipping in his day, a period when the Structure would have been at its present elevation. As no geologic event has occurred during the two and a half millennia since Plato, which could have raised the Structure from the seabed to an elevation of 400 metres 500 km from the Atlantic, we are obliged to give greater credence to the scientific conclusion that the Richat Structure is a natural feature. Corsetti does have at least one fan⁽ⁿ⁾.

It was in 2018 that Corsetti published a video promoting the Richat Structure as Atlantis, which received extensive coverage. Steven Novella, a well-known Atlantis sceptic, published an article debunking Corsetti’s ‘evidence’ in some considerable detail^(s). However, while I would endorse Novella’s arguments^(l) regarding the Richat Structure, I strongly disagree with Novella’s closed-minded attitude towards the existence of Atlantis as well as Corsetti’s attention-seeking location choice for Plato’s island. I would add that Corsetti has his date wrong and that to launch an attack on Athens nearly 4000 km away by land (3000 km by sea) from the ‘Structure’ is logistical nonsense.

In a recent conversation with Joe Rogan, Corsetti claimed that since the Structure contains salt, it MUST have been submerged and no other explanation is possible. However, as I have pointed out above the Richat feature is an eroded ‘salt dome’ and quite naturally has salt in it without the need for submersion.

The natural geological origins of the Richat Structure are discussed in some detail in a 2005 paper by three Canadian scientists in the journal Geology, produced by the Geological Society of America. It would be interesting to hear the response of Corsetti to facts compared with his daft speculations^(w).

However, in 2018, Martin K. Ettington published a booklet entitled The Real Atlantis ^[¹⁶⁴¹^] in which he also insisted that the Richat Structure is the remains of Atlantis but with no real evidence to support his contention.

In Joining the Dots ^[¹⁵⁹⁰^] and in Atlantipedia.ie I have consistently argued that in ancient times, proximity is an essential logistical requirement in order to achieve a successful invasion. This was particularly true in ancient times when all empires expanded through the invasion of neighbouring territories. The Richat Structure is many thousands of kilometres from Athens, so to suggest that an attack was launched from Mauretania on Greece is simply ludicrous.

There is a relatively recent website^(m) dedicated to promoting the ‘Structure’ as the location of Atlantis. It is well presented by its author Gergely (Gregory) Dzsida with plenty of content. Unfortunately, I cannot accept its basic claim, To my mind, it fails to answer Richter’s arguments regarding, size, elevation and location as well as my point regarding proximity.

Not unexpectedly, Jason Colavito has a few thoughts to add to this latest Atlantis in Sahara kerfuffle^(h).

Although the Richat Structure as the location of Atlantis conflicts with details in Plato’s account as well as reason, it still gathers supporters based simply on its circular shape. A recent example of this came from a Danish commentator, Palle A. Anderson^(p).

An even more ridiculous suggestion was offered in 2021 by Carlos Bisceglia in Atlantis 2021- Lost Continent Rediscovered in which he proposed that Atlantis was known to the Egyptians as the ‘Land of Ma’ and that its capital was the Richat Structure together with the Semsiat Dome, mentioned above, which is 50km away. In order to explain how his Atlantis is not submerged, Bisceglia has proposed that the Land of Ma became confused with the submerged Land of Mu (Sundaland) in the Pacific and that “it is possible that Solon or Plato confused ‘the Land of Ma’ with the ‘Land of Mu’, and thus two completely independent accounts were merged into one.” He adds “how the Egyptian priests knew this is a mystery. Evidently, some survivors from Sundaland arrived in some way in Egypt”

In April 2022, David Edward published Atlantis Solved: The Final Definitive Proof ^[1926], which also endorsed the Richat Structure as the location of Atlantis. The author of this slender 99-page book admits to being greatly influenced by the earlier claims of Jimmy Corsetti.Edward was obviously unhappy with my comments, so he wrote to me complaining that I was costing him hundreds of books sales a day, a claim supported by as much evidence as there is for the Richat Atlantis^(y).

In a 2021 paper^(x), Thorwald C. Franke listed a number of reasons why ‘Richat’ cannot be considered as the location of Atlantis. He did not present his selection as definitive but did claim that “our small list is already quite sufficient to establish that this hypothesis does not stand the slightest chance.”

Also in 2021, the prolific Shifu Careaga published a lengthy paper challenging Jimmy Corsetti’s Richat theory. At the start of the paper he offered the following reasons for rejecting Corsetti’s claims.

“Mr. Corsetti’s hypothesis is clearly and definitively incorrect for all of the following reasons:

That region of Africa has not been submerged in over 99 million years4, and its uplift and downthrust values are stable
At the time of the Younger Dryas, the sea level was lower and could not have made the richat area an island.
The richat formation is not concentrically circular.
It could never act as canals or hold water.
It is itself on a tilt (and we will look at the topographics and satellite data on this)
There are no mountains immediately to the north.
The Atlas Mountains are named for King Atlas, who was named for Atlantis (perhaps), not vice versa.
The regions is not 1000 miles past the Pillars of Heracles (straits of Gibraltar)
The whale carcasses found are from clear fluvial megatsunami inundation, as Jimmy himself points out” ^(aa)

Although not all on Careaga’s list are show-stoppers when combined with the fundamental objections noted above from Ulf Richter, the Atantis in Richat theory looks quite flimsy.

^(a) https://web.archive.org/web/20160326200714/https://www.atlantis-schoppe.de/richter.pdf

^(b) http://www.gpofr.com/documents/2012Atlantis.pdf

^(c)Visiting Atlantis | Gateway to a lost world (archive.org)

^(e)Earth’s Richat Crater (archive.org)

https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050407richat.htm

^(f)https://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/a-celestial-impact-and-atlantis/

^(g) The System of Wheels – Plato Project (archive.org)

^(h) https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/youtube-video-claims-atlantis-is-located-in-the-sahara-desert

⁽ⁱ⁾ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7681682/atlantis-sahara-desert-conspiracy/

^(j) https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1042776/Atlantis-found-lost-city-Sahara-desert-atlantis-eye-of-sahara-location-conspiracy

^(k)https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-geology/chapter/outcome-geologic-structures-from-deformation/

^(l) https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/no-atlantis-has-not-been-discovered-in-north-africa/

^(m) Learn from Ancient Civilizations | Find Atlantis Together (archive.org)

⁽ⁿ⁾ https://steemit.com/atlantis/@libertyacademy/atlantis-found-in-west-africa-the-evidence-is-overwhelming

^(o)Are the so-called impact craters in Mauritania kimberlite pipes ? (archive.org) (see the end of page)

^(p) The Real Atlantis – where is it? (planker.dk)

^(q) Richat Structure – Wikipedia

^(r) The Keystone Pattern – The Thunderbolts Project™

^(s)https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/no-atlantis-has-not-been-discovered-in-north-africa/

^(t) https://creation.com/eye-of-the-sahara

^(u) https://www.forbes.com/sites/francistapon/2018/07/30/going-into-the-eye-of-the-sahara-the-richat-structure/?sh=70ca6a873cf5

^(v)richat description (archive.org)

^(w) https://archipel.uqam.ca/272/1/Matton_etal05.pdf

^(x) Against the 10,000 BC Belief Complex – Atlantis-Scout

^(y)Private Correspondence.

^(z) Eye Of The Sahara or Richat Structure » Geology Science

^(aa) (PDF) Ashes of Atlantis – part 1 | Shifu Careaga – Academia.edu (archive.org) *

Tagged Andrew Hall, Anthony Woods, Carlos Bisceglia, Cerne, Charles Giuliani, Concentric rings, David Edwards, George S. Alexander, George Sarantitis, Guelb er Richat, Jimmy Corsetti, Joe Rogan, Jose D.C. Hernandez, Martin K. Ettington, Mauritania, Natalis Rosen, Noah's Flood, Palle A. Anderson, Richard-Molard, Robert deMelo, salt dome, Semsiyat Dome, Shifu Careaga, Steven Novella, The Richat Structure, Théodore Monod, Thorwald C. Frake, Ulf Richter, YouTube

Hancock, Graham

Published June 8, 2010

Graham Hancock the well-known investigator of prehistoric mysteries has never discussed the Atlantis enigma in depth. In fact, he once remarked on BBC Television that he avoids using the word ‘Atlantis’ in his books “because most people when they hear the word Atlantis immediately think that they’re dealing with the lunatic fringe”.

Furthermore, he emphasises the potential value of myths as transmitters of historical facts, albeit distorted.

In his 1995 tome on civilisations submerged at the end of the last Ice Age, Fingerprints of the Gods ^[275.462] he briefly discusses the subject of Atlantis. He accepted that the Atlantic was not harbouring any lost continent, although he was seeking a continental-sized home for his vanished civilisation. Paul Heinrich has posted a review^(v) of ‘Fingerprints’.

Similarly, in his earlier work, The Sign and the Seal ^[678.319], Hancock had clearly discounted the Atlantic as the home of Atlantis. At this point, he appeared to be considering the Antarctic location proposed by the Flem-Aths.

His book, Underworld ^[274] was published in 2002 and was followed by a TV programme, Flooded Kingdoms of the Ice Age, which was based on it. The latter evoked a highly critical review^(s) from N.C. Flemming, who has written widely on maritime matters including sea-level changes and sunken cities ^[1682]. Hancock wrote an equally strong response^(r) to this.

Hancock maintains an interesting website⁽^a⁾that is regularly updated with contributions from a wide range of contributors. His bestselling Fingerprints of the Gods is now available online^(b).

The other side of the coin is that Hancock’s evidence supporting his theories has been heavily criticised as flawed^(g) and misleadingly presented^(h).

Hancock “ regularly draws attention to what he considers mystical relationships between the Great Pyramid of Giza and the radius, circumference, and axial precession of the earth…….. Proponents of these “mystical” relationships contend, in addition to existing in the first place, that the relationships must be purposeful and therefore provide direct evidence of advanced capabilities in technology, mathematics, and precise astronomical observing techniques that scholars have long asserted were not available to humans when the pyramids were constructed.” These are among the opening remarks by Thomas W. Schroeder, who published two papers in 2019 criticising Hancock’s scholarship.^(y-z)

E.J. de Meester who proposed an English location for Atlantis, before his website went offline, was critical of Graham Hancock’s hyperdiffusionist concept of Atlantis commenting that “In 1999 Discovery Channel broadcast a three-part series called ‘Quest for the lost Civilisation’.In it, Graham Hancock stated that the pyramids, Angkor Vat, Stonehenge, the stones of Carnac, the Nazca lines, temples in Mexico and the statues of Easter Island were all part of an ancient global civilisation of seafarers who were apparently obsessed by astrology. The temples of Angkor Vat (in Cambodia) were said to be built in the shape of the zodiac sign Draco, the pyramids of Gizeh in the shape of Sirius; the Sphinx is supposed to be looking at the sign of Leo. It’s all rather vague. Hard to say whether it’s nonsense or not. More information can be found in Hancock’s books, like ‘Fingerprints of the Gods’^[0275] and ‘Heaven’s Mirror’ ^[0855] .” De Meester’s comments are still (2023) available on the archive.org website^(ar).

For my part, I consider this hodgepodge of locations presented by Hancock as parts of his global civilisation to be utter nonsense. The sites listed above have little in common; Carnac and Stonehenge are probably the only two that might be considered to be related. Perhaps the most obvious weakness in his claim is the fact that some of the sites are separated by millennia. Easter Island, Angor Wat and Nazca were developed long after Atlantis was submerged.

Further criticism of Hancock’s scholarship has come from>>the late Garrett Fagan (1963-2017)<<, particularly in relation to his comments regarding Antarctica.^(aa)

Jason Colavito has written^(c) a critical review of Hancock’s work and his recent advocacy “for ayahuasca, a South American hallucinogen. Since taking the drug for his 2005 book Supernatural, Hancock has supported the concept that mind-altering substances give their users access to a spirit world where one can commune directly with the ‘gods’.”

In April 2015, Hancock was due to engage in a debate with Zahi Hawass on the subject of their conflicting views of ancient history. However, when Hawass saw that Hancock included an image of Robert Bauval in his presentation, he refused to continue with the arranged format^(d)(t).

In September 2015, Hancock published his, Magicians of the Gods ^[¹¹¹⁹^], which worryingly sounds like a von Däniken book title! Already, he is trailing this publication with teasers, such as a claim that he has finally identified the ‘smoking gun’ that demonstrates that a cometary impact destroyed an advanced civilisation in the Antarctic 12,800 years ago^(e)Shortly after the initial report was published, Hancock had to correct errors in it^(f), the principal one being that the impact site was the North American ice cap NOT Antarctica. An interview with Hancock shortly before the publication of ‘Magicians’⁽ⁿ⁾is online as is also a review of the book itself^(o). A full-length video lecture based on the book is available online^(x).

Hancock also climbed aboard the Gobekli Tepe bandwagon, incorporating it along with Noah’s Ark and Atlantis into one narrative^(p).

Hancock’s book also engages in scaremongering, with a sales-boosting prediction that an asteroid impact is possible in 2030 when the Earth once again enters the orbit of the remains of Encke’s Comet!

Jason Colavito’s critical review of ‘Magicians‘ is now online^(j). A more favourable evaluation of his book is now available from Dr Jon Epstein of Greensboro College, who expresses some interesting views on the closed-mindedness of many academics^(k). Epstein’s review prompted further comments from Colavito^(l). Following correspondence between Epstein and Colavito, additional claims of academic conspiracy to block Hancock have emerged.

Michael Shermer, a professional sceptic, attacked Hancock’s ‘Magicians’ in a Scientific American article arguing first of all that, “no matter how devastating an extraterrestrial impact might be, are we to believe that after centuries of flourishing, every last tool, potsherd, article of clothing, and, presumably from an advanced civilization, writing, metallurgy and other technologies—not to mention trash—was erased? Inconceivable.” ^(ab)

Hancock recently received the endorsement of the South African Professor of Philosophy, Bert Olivier, which swiftly produced a response from Colavito^(q).

Hancock’s next book, America Before, published in April 2019, proposes that North America was inhabited 130,000 years ago and was home to an advanced civilisation that was destroyed by a cometary impact at the end of the Younger Dryas period, around 10,000 BC. The fact that this is contradicted by Plato does not seem to bother him. Hancock proposed cometary impact damage as the cause of Atlantis’ demise, Plato says flooding. I would prefer Plato’s account as he was nearly two and a half millennia nearer the event. Hancock claims that Atlantean survivors spread their alleged high-tech civilisation around the world. Plato does not describe Atlantis as any more advanced than any other culture. Hancock offers no tangible evidence for his claim.

When asked what he meant by ‘advanced’ Hancock revealed^(u) that “I think we’re talking about a civilization – more than 12,000 years ago – which was as advanced as our civilization was, say in the late 18th century or early 19th century. In other words, they could navigate the world, they could explore the world, they could measure the world accurately, they had precise astronomy, they could create beautiful maps that were accurate in terms of latitude and longitude. That kind of level of civilization.”

In late 2022, Hancock had a TV series entitled Ancient Apocalypse transmitted on Netflix. It was, of course, joyously greeted by his fans, but received more muted reviews in other quarters^(ad). Not unexpectedly Jason Colavito^(af) and Thorwald C. Franke (Newsletter 206)^(ae). Murdoch’s The Sun tabloids offered a voice^(ac) for the cries of protest from academics. It appears that the series has been used as a multi-episode aggressive rant against conventional archaeology. Perhaps it was just the ayahuasca speaking.

In response, this week (Dec.2, 2022), the Society for American Archaeology published an open letter^(ah) to Netflix and the television production house ITN requesting that they re-classify its new series Ancient Apocalypse as a work of fiction rather than a docuseries^(ag). Eventually, Hancock responded with a lengthy article^(al) described by Jason Colavito as ‘hysterical’^(am), but in my view, it contains many interesting points.

The uproar over the Hancock-Netflix series continues unabated with Colavito offering the following addition to his website^(ai) and a longer piece on The New Republic website^(aj); “It has also sparked unparalleled outrage from archaeologists and journalists, resulting in dozens of think pieces decrying the show’s many false claims and illogical arguments, analyzing its racist implications, and declaring the series everything from “fishy” to the “most dangerous” show on Netflix. “Why has this been allowed?” asked Britain’s The Guardian. The answer to that seemed pretty obvious: Hancock’s son, Sean Hancock, is Netflix’s senior manager for unscripted originals.”

The Guardian newspaper (UK) took another perceived aspect of the series to accuse “Hancock – who describes himself as a journalist presumably to avoid being called a pseudo-scientist” – of taking “the story to a new controversial level in suggesting that survivors of such a deluge were the instigators of the great works of other civilisations, from Egypt to Mexico and Turkey to Indonesia. As (Flint) Dibble states, such claims reinforce white supremacist ideas. ‘They strip indigenous people of their rich heritage and instead give credit to aliens or white people.’ In short, the series promotes ideas of ‘race science’ that are outdated and long since debunked.”^(ak).

On April 2023, Jason Colavito reported^(an) “In a surprise move, Graham Hancock pulled out of June’s Cosmic Summit, a meeting of catastrophists in support of the theory that a comet hit the Earth at the end of the last Ice Age and destroyed a high-tech lost civilization. Atlantis speculator Jimmy Corsetti, who was also scheduled to speak, also said he would not be attending. Corsetti claimed he had been ‘removed’ against his will from the list of speakers, leaving the conference in chaos.” There is some suggestion that problems arose over a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). Hancock offered the following explanation on his website^(ao) “Serious concerns have been brought to my attention that has caused me to lose confidence in the fundamental philosophy and direction of this conference.”

In June 2023, Michael Shermer published an article in Skeptic magazine that attacked Hancock’s theories generally and the 2022 Netflix series in particular^(ap).

The Netflix episode dealing with the Maltese megaliths has drawn criticism from archaeologists in Malta, one of whom appeared briefly in the episode and later implied that her appearance was “manipulated to suit the narrative that the series is trying to push.” ^(aq)

Archaeologist Flint Dibble agreed to go head-to-head with Graham Hancock on the popular Joe Rogan Experience in April 2024^(as). This lengthy encounter is available on YouTube^(at). Because the discussion lasted over four hours, Jason Colavito could only see and review parts of the show^(au). I get the impression that the debate did not produce the fireworks anticipated by some. I also wonder why Dibble had to wear a now clichéd Indiana Jones fedora hat.

^(a)https://www.grahamhancock.com

^(b) https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/egipto/fingerprintgods/fingerprintgods.htm#contents

^(c) https://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/09/graham-hancock-maya-knew-about-5000-year-cycle-of-bureaucratic-civilization.html

^(d) https://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockG15.php

^(e) https://metro.co.uk/2015/05/18/comet-which-hit-antarctica-13000-years-ago-wiped-out-advanced-civilisation-5202576/

^(f) https://m.facebook.com/Author.GrahamHancock/photos/a.10151524582402354.1073741825.31260747353/10153324831577354/?type=1&theatre

^(g) https://web.archive.org/web/20200225173834/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/atlantis.html

^(h) https://www.luckymojo.com/hancocklecture.html

⁽ⁱ⁾ https://web.archive.org/web/20200804080428/http://csglobe.com/exclusive-comet-three-times-bigger-than-dinosaur-killer-could-soon-destroy-earth/

^(j) Magicians of the Gods Review – JASON COLAVITO (archive.org) *

^(k) “But then, just for the hell of it, you decide to up the ante”- Review- Graham Hancock’s Magicians of the Gods – Camel City Dispatch (archive.org)

^(l) https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/greensboro-college-professor-graham-hancock-is-showing-archaeologists-how-to-ask-real-questions