ATLANTIS IN ANTARCTICA
According to Plato, Atlantis was destroyed by a natural event about 9,000 years before his time, that is, in coincidence with the end of Pleistocene. It can be assumed, therefore, that the end of Atlantis was strictly related with the events that provoked the end of Würm glaciation, the mass extinction of the Pleistocene mega fauna and the sudden disappearance of the Magdalenian cultures. In order to understand what really happened, it is necessary to know precisely what the climatic and geographic situation was at that time, and which were the causes that changed it.
Throughout a thorough examination of all available evidence about the last glaciation, the author reaches the conclusion that it was due to a different position of the poles and to a lower tilt. Its end was due to a sudden shift of the poles, together with an increase of the tilt. This hypothesis has been proposed several times in the past, but so far without a satisfactory physical explanation about the possibility of a very rapid shift of the poles. Such an explanation is proposed by the author, together with a mathematical demonstration, starting from the consideration that the enormous free liquid surface of the oceans is a source of instability for planet Earth, so high that a “kick” provided by the impact of a relatively small celestial body is sufficient to trigger a process, that in a matter of days can produce a permanent shift of the poles. The shift is characterized by wide fluctuations of the sea level (up to several hundred meters), earthquakes, volcanism, a world wide hurricane, with very strong winds, exceptional rains and floods, and permanent climatic variations.
According to this scenario, the geographic situation before the end of Pleistocene was the following: North Pole somewhere around southern Greenland; South Pole at the edge of Antarctica, towards Australia; sea level about 130 meters below the present one. The Pacific side of Antarctica was covered by a thick ice-cap, as of today, while the Atlantic side was ice-free and enjoyed a mild climate. An oceanic stream flowed towards South America and Antarctica from South-East Asia, where man had developed means of navigation since 50.000 years ago (Australia was colonised by sea at that time). Rafts could have been carried along that stream to Antarctica, where the different environmental conditions stimulated the start of agriculture and in the end of the first human civilisation, while the rest of the world continued to be Palaeolithic. A sudden shift of the poles, triggered by an asteroid impact, put an end to this civilisation and buried its remains under a thick layer of ice, out of reach for archaeologists.
Atlantis, however, had thousands of ships, a good many of which managed to survive the disaster, recovering along the coasts of America, Africa and Asia, where the survivors merged with local populations, giving origin to all ancient civilisations.
1. CLIMATIC SITUATION AT THE END OF PLEISTOCENE
It is well known that the poles have often changed their position on the Earth’s surface during past geological eras. The marks left by thick ice sheets in Africa and India, the residual magnetism in ancient rocks, the old coral reefs’ and coal deposits’ distribution and so on, all together are compelling evidence that the poles have wandered from what is today’s equator to the actual poles.
Scientists attribute this “wandering” to the drift of continents and to the displacement of large quantities of materials, due to erosion and sedimentation processes, which in theory can provoke a very slow drift of the poles: a few centimetres per year at the most, but in hundreds of millions of years it can result in shifts of thousands of kilometres.
There is strong evidence, however, that this phenomenon could be much faster. It appears, in fact, that at the end of Pleistocene, the North Pole was located somewhere between Eastern Canada and South Greenland; during the 12th millennium somehow it moved to its current position.1 This is supported by an impressive quantity of evidence which can be summarized as follows:
a) between 50,000 and 12,000 years ago a huge ice cap, more than two miles thick, spread from the Hudson’s Bay area southward, down to the latitude of New York, and westward to join, at its maximum extent, glaciers flowing down from the Rocky Mountains, in Alaska. During the same period Northern Europe was covered by ice caps, which at their maximum extent reached the latitude of London and Berlin. The quantity of water trapped in these ice sheets and in the glaciers scattered around the world was so large, that the sea level was about 130 meters lower than today.
b) The current scientific explanation for the existence of these “eccentric” ice caps is that they were due to a cooler climate all over the world. But this theory is contradicted by the absence, during the “Ice Age”, of ice sheets in Alaska and Siberia, which were actually populated, up to their northernmost regions, by one of the most impressive zoological communities of all times. Millions (according to F.C. Hibben) of mammoths roamed the coasts of the Arctic basin. Animals as large as this can be found today only in tropical regions, or in other areas where the supply of fodder is guaranteed all the year round.
It is counter-intuitive that during the Ice Age one of the largest zoological communities, since the dinosaurs, existed in those very areas which are today regarded, due to their extreme climatic conditions, as amongst the most hostile on Earth. With the mammoths there were dozens of other animal species, the majority of which are extinct today. We find the reindeer next to rhinoceros, the mammoth near the hippopotamus, lions side by side with bears, leopards and Przewalski horses. There were also giant beavers and big-horned deer, camels, sabre-tooth tigers, buffaloes, aurochs, and many other species.
Such an extraordinarily varied and numerous animal community – the like of which can be found nowhere on Earth today – seems to challenge current opinion on climatic conditions during the Ice Age. Moreover, this community disappeared when the Ice Age ended – exactly at the moment when, according to modern theories, climatic conditions were supposed to have become milder and more supportive of life. This mysterious, now-vanished fauna populated the Siberian islands well inside the Arctic Sea; their remnants can be found on islands located at only 1000 km from the north pole. This suggests strongly that in the late Pleistocene (a period during which global climate was supposedly much colder than it is today, especially at the high latitudes) the Arctic Sea was in fact much warmer.
c) On the other side of the world, climate was cooler in Australia and New Zealand, then partially covered by large glaciers. But there is solid evidence that Antarctica, now completely covered by a thick layer of ice, must have been then partially free of it. Sediment cores collected in the Weddell area, show that in the late Pleistocene large rivers must have flowed in this part of Antarctica. And it’s a well known fact that no ice older than 10.000 years exists on that area. Again, this is a strong suggestion that the climate on that part of Antarctica must have been much milder at the end of the “Ice Age” than it is today.
A shift of the poles, occurred around 11,500 years ago, could explain completely and coherently that climatic situation, and the situation that came into being after that date.
2. ON THE POSSIBILITY OF INSTANTANEOUS SHIFTS OF THE POLES
The hypothesis that the position of the poles might change quickly, first began to be given serious consideration during the 19th century. Some of the greatest scientists of the time, however, including J.C. Maxwell and Sir George Darwin (son of the more famous Charles Darwin), decided that the stabilising effect of the equatorial bulge was so great that no conceivable force could make the Earth shift on its axis, except for a collision with another planet. They therefore dismissed the idea of any shift of the poles as impossible and, in fact, not worth discussing.
Charles Hapgood2 tries to overtake this problem, by proposing a theory that explains the shift of the poles as the result of the shift of the whole crust of the Earth. In this way the latter would keep its axis of rotation unchanged, but the poles and the whole Earth’s surface would shift and change latitude.
The evidence proving that the poles where in different positions during the Pleistocene era is quite impressive, and this explains why Hapgood’s research was encouraged by scientists of the calibre of Einstein. But his theory meets with so many difficulties that it appears highly controversial and is decidedly rejected by most scientists.
Furthermore the theory does not explain some of the key peculiarities of the climate changes of the late Pleistocene – most significantly the speed with which these changes appear to have taken place. According to Hapgood’s theory it took the north pole at least two thousand years to move from its previous position to the present. The evidence we have, underlined by Hapgood himself, however, supports a much faster climatic change.
It appears that we can explain completely and coherently what took place at the end of Pleistocene by admitting the possibility of a shift of the poles of the same magnitude Hapgood hypothesises, but in a much shorter time: not more than a few days, or weeks at the most. This possibility has always been rejected because nobody so far has been able to imagine a force, or a mechanism, capable to provide a convincing explanation for such a phenomenon. According to current scientific views, the only way to make a planet change its axis of rotation is that of “adding” to it a mass comparable to its own. But at least one other way exists, one that has not been considered yet -- that of “re-shaping” its equatorial bulges around a different axis.
If Earth was a perfectly rigid and spherical body, a single man walking on its surface could make its poles shift. In fact, the stability of Earth is provided only by its equatorial bulges, some 12 km thick, very small with respect to the Earth’s mass. Move the equatorial bulges and the poles will move accordingly. Impossible? Not really, if we consider that two thirds of the Earth’s surface is covered with water; and it is a well known fact that free liquid surfaces induce instability. Earth is an inherently unstable planet, especially if we consider that 30% of the stabilizing equatorial bulge is made up by water.
If large quantities of water would move from one latitude to another, the poles would shift accordingly (experience shows that a simple tsunami is enough to make the poles shift of by a measurable amount). Let’s see how this instability can result in a wide and permanent shift of the poles.
3. HOW THE POLES CAN SHIFT
We know for certain that the Earth was hit by comets and asteroids many times in the past. If it didn’t have oceans and atmosphere its surface would be marked with huge numbers of craters like the Moon and Mercury. G.W. Wetherill has estimated that in the last 600 million years our planet has been hit by at least 1,500 objects with a diameter larger than one kilometre.
The majority of these collisions is caused by a class of asteroids named by astronomers “Apollo objects”, or “NEOs” (Near Earth Objects), whose perihelion lies inside the orbit of Earth, and therefore they have periodically the chance to collide with it. The total number with a diameter of one kilometre or more is estimated to be between 1,000 and 2,000, and the probability of a collision with the Earth is estimated at 5. 10-9 per year per single Apollo. Therefore we have a probability of at least 4 collisions each million year, with objects as large as one kilometre or more. As the size of the objects becomes smaller, this probability grows exponentially to reach one impact every few centuries for objects of 100 to 200 metres diameter.
Some of the largest “mass extinctions” of the past (like that of the dinosaurs) happened in coincidence with an impact. But it’s not at all clear how such an event could provoke a world-wide catastrophe. The scenarios the Scientists have come up with so far do not look enough convincing. None of these scenarios, however, has taken into consideration the possibility that such an impact could provoke an almost instantaneous shift of the poles. This is because, compared to Earth, a one-kilometre-wide asteroid is like a tiny sphere of 2 millimetres next to a ball of 25 meters. Its mass is absolutely negligible. The displacement of the poles due directly to it, if any, can be measured in the order of centimetres.
What can not be neglected, however, is the torque provoked by the impact. Due to the very high speed of the asteroid, the impulsive torque it delivers can be of sufficient magnitude to overcome, for an instant, the reaction torque developed by the Earth. The torque, in itself, lasts for a too short period to produce any measurable effect; yet it can be demonstrated that it could trigger a process that in the end would result in a change of the axis of rotation.
Let’s see how.
Earth is a gyro. A gyro subject to a disturbing force reacts with a movement called “precession”. Unfortunately the precession phenomenon has been studied exhaustively only for the case when the precession’s rotation is much smaller than the gyro’s main rotation, the only interesting case for technical applications. Scientists, therefore, are not familiar with the case in which the two rotational components have the same order of magnitude. This case is examined by the author5. who demonstrates that when the torque reaches a critical value, equal to the maximum reaction torque that can be developed by the gyro itself, the instantaneous axis of rotation become permanent, i.e. the gyro changes its axis of rotation. The new axis, coinciding with the axis of precession, is maintained even if the disturbing torque diminishes again, as long as its value is higher than zero. Only if and when the torque is completely null (or becomes negative), does the gyro recovers its previous rotational axis.
The behaviour of the Earth when subjected to a disturbing torque is obviously the same. Simple calculations allow us to establish that an object as small as a half-kilometre-wide asteroid, hitting the planet at the right angle, is capable of developing an impulsive torque of the same magnitude of the maximum Earth’s reaction torque. In this case the Earth assumes, for a very short instant, a different axis of rotation.
Immediately after the impact the torque should go down to zero, and the Earth should recover its previous rotational axis. But if the torque exerted by the sun-moon attraction has the same direction, the torque cannot be zeroed and therefore the Earth keeps “memory” of the impact and of its direction. This “memory” consists of an extremely small rotational component, with the same direction as that of the sun-moon torque, in the order of 1 millionth of the normal rotation. What is particular in this rotational component is that it is fixed with respect to the Earth. If the latter was a solid gyroscope, this situation would last indefinitely unchanged. The planet, however, is not homogenous and rigid. First of all it is covered by a thin layer of water, which reacts immediately to any change of motion. Second, even the “solid” outer shell is in reality plastic and can be easily “re-shaped” by centrifugal forces.
Under the effect of this tiny rotational component, sea water begins to move towards a circle perpendicular to that rotation (the new equator). This is a very small effect, and if it was the only component, the resulting equatorial bulge would be of a few meters only. But as this happens, the value of the rotational component increases, at the expense of the main rotation, therefore increasing the centrifugal force which makes more water move towards the new equator, thus increasing the force and so on. This process starts very slowly, but accelerates progressively, until the centrifugal force developed by this rotational component grows strong enough to induce deformations of the Earth’s mantle.
From here on the equatorial bulge is quickly “re-shaped” around the new axis of rotation and Earth will soon be stable again, with a different axis of rotation and different poles.
This mechanism shows that the Earth’s poles, contrary to what has always been postulated, can make “jumps” in a matter of days (that is almost instantaneously) of thousands of kilometres, due to the effects of forces at first sight negligible, such as the impact of a medium-size asteroid and the Sun-Moon gravitational attraction on the equatorial bulge, combined with the effects of water mobility and the plasticity of the mantle.
4. PHENOMENA WHICH HAPPEN DURING A SHIFT OF THE POLES
The adjustments of the equatorial bulge necessary to provoke a huge shift of the poles are very small, compared to the diameter of Earth (at the most 7/800 meters, for a shift of about 20%, that is no more than 1/10,000th of the Earth’s radius). Almost imperceptible as the planet is concerned, but nonetheless of considerable impact for what concerns the biosphere.
Even small readjustments of the equatorial bulge cannot happen without causing fractures of the crust, which would provoke earthquakes of great magnitude. A sudden burst of volcanic activity in all areas subjected to strain is also expected. These are impressive phenomena, but local, and not destructive as the floods. On the whole the oceans’ water and the atmosphere follow the rotational movement of Earth, but they are not tied to it. If the Earth would change the direction of its rotation, they would, at first, thanks to their inertia, keep up their previous motion, thus provoking a huge hurricane all over the continents, with violent winds and torrential rains. The water of the oceans would play a even greater destructive role. We must expect wide fluctuation of sea levels in many parts of the world, predictably in the order of hundreds of meters.
Permanent changes of the climate all over the world are also expected. A key element which has a tremendous effect on the climate is the inclination (tilt) of the axis of rotation with respect to the ecliptic. A high value of the tilt (let’s say more than 30%) would provoke very cold winter, but extremely warm summers even at the poles, with consequent melting of all ice caps. On the contrary a low value of the tilt would provoke the expansion of huge quantities of ice at high latitudes and altitudes, with subsequent lowering of sea level. On the other hand the climate would be more stable along the year, with very small seasonal climatic differences and a prolonged growth of vegetation. This would bring about the disruption of today’s climatic barriers, with subsequent spreading of tropical species towards northern regions and viceversa.
The latter appears to be the situation that existed in the Pleistocene era, when imposing zoological communities thrived at the very edge of polar ice caps. The shift of the poles that put an end to this situation, provoked also an increase of the tilt, thus creating the today’s environmental conditions, that were fatal for the Pleistocene mega fauna.
5. MYTHS ABOUT THE UNIVERSAL FLOOD AND THE END OF THE WORLD
The 10th millennium B.C.6 appears to be critical under several aspects. A geological era, the Pleistocene, came to an end, marked by a burst of volcanism, strong earthquakes, and unprecedented floods all over the world, due to exceptional rains and temporary fluctuation of the sea level, and finally a permanent climatic change.
Most of a megafauna that thrived for more than 100.000 years declined to extinction. Man, without doubt, suffered the consequences of the disaster that marked the end of Pleistocene on the same level as animals. It was precisely in that period that the Palaeolithic cultures, which had thrived for more then 30 millennia, all of a sudden disappeared. The majority of the human populations were exterminated.
The few survivors were the direct progenitors of the present populations of the world. Memory of events of that kind cannot have been completely lost. In fact memory of a great catastrophe, the “universal flood”, right at the beginning of the “current” human kind, is part of the cultural heritage of most of the world populations. Some traditions indicate without any uncertainty even the exact epoch.
“9000 years ago... there was an island in front of the strait that you call the Columns of Hercules... “. The author of these words is Plato, the great Athenian philosopher who lived in the 4th Century b.C. In his dialogues "Timaios" and "Kritias" he describes a terrible catastrophe, the destruction of Atlantis, which occurred exactly coinciding with the end of the Ice Age.
Also the events described are the same, according to our scenario: “in the following period, great earthquakes and floods occurred, in the space of one day and one tremendous night, the island of Atlantis disappeared, sinking into the sea."
Literally interpreted, the words of Plato mean that the island had sunk. It should be noted, however, that it is physically impossible that a great extent of land could subside or raise more than a few tenths of a millimeter per day, let alone some thousands of meters!
The meaning of that information given by Plato is perfectly clear if we consider that, in the final analysis, it must have come from the report of a direct eye-witness, one of the survivors who personally lived through this tragedy. That witness, however, could not have been able to establish whether this phenomenon was due to a sudden sinking of the land or rather to a raising of the sea level. To an observer without a fixed reference point, a raising of the sea level is exactly the same as a sinking of the land. Some of the survivors must have handed down to posterity a version of the catastrophe which, evidently, spoke of a sinking of the land.
If the hypothesis given above is exact, then some traditions must exist which reflect the point of view of those survivors who had a more correct vision of the phenomenon and therefore handed down the account of a great catastrophe caused by a huge raising of the sea level. Actually traditions which reflect this point of view are to be found; so many that it can be said that there is no race of people on Earth which does not have memories of this event.
They are the well known chronicles relating to the Universal Flood. All those myths report that the flood was due mainly to the rising of the sea level, together with torrential rains and strong winds. These are the more destructive phenomena that occur during a shift of the poles.
6. GEOGRAPHIC SITUATION OF EARTH AT THE END OF PLEISTOCENE
The myths about the universal flood, the end of Atlantis and the end of the world, all together are circumstantial evidence in favour of a shift of the poles at end of Pleistocene. But this can hardly be accepted by archaeologists and historians, because of an apparently insurmountable problem. Those traditions, in fact, tell us of an advanced civilization existing “before” the end of Pleistocene. The Noah of the Bible, as well as all the others, was a member of a society which practiced agriculture, lived in towns and built large ships; certainly not Paleolithic.
All available data, instead, show that the end of Pleistocene was the watershed between Palaeolithic and subsequent cultures. Agriculture, in fact, started at the same time in six different areas of the world, apparently without any connection between them: Central and South America, the Fertile Crescent, Central Africa, China and South-East Asia (fig. 1).
Figure 1. The six areas in the world where agriculture started almost at the same time after the end of Pleistocene (from Cavalli Sforza)
Nobody so far has been able to explain why and how this could have happened; but in any case there is no doubt that it happened “after” the end of Pleistocene. That’s why those myths appear to be devoid of real historical contents and are not taken into consideration.
The situation changes at the light of this new scenario. Let’s see how.
7. MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF ATLANTIS
We had reached the conclusion that the island Atlantis was indeed swallowed by the waters, as reported by Plato, but at the most only for a few days. Atlantis, then, has not disappeared our sight, but it must still be clearly marked on our maps. But where? The indications given by Plato at this purpose have to be taken with caution.
What we have to assume as reliable are the geographical information of an "absolute" nature, those which describe the island by itself. They must have been handed down by the tradition without alterations or doubtful interpretations. All information of a “relative” nature, instead, i.e. al those which describe the island in relation to other geographical entities, are the product of subsequent speculation and interpretation, and therefore have to be regarded as such.
On the basis of the “absolute” information, Atlantis appears to be a well defined geographical entity, which interacted with other neighboring entities, but without a precise location. It is up to us to fit it correctly on the map. Obviously all its characteristics should be exactly as they have been described by Plato, otherwise we are back to the un-acceptable assumption that only what fits with our theories is true. In other words, if Atlantis really existed, it had to be as Plato described it; otherwise it’s not Atlantis.
The fundamental point upon which Plato insists again and again is that Atlantis was an island. There can be no doubt on this point, nor upon the nature of the "sea” which surrounded the island: it was a real ocean. This ocean was in its turn surrounded by an almost continuous stretch of land; "...and the land that completely encompasses it you could correctly call a true continent".
Other important geographical features are the dimensions, the climate and the geological nature of the terrain and finally topographic features. First of all we can say that it was an island of large dimensions, "larger than Libya and Asia put together". What does it mean? In the Kritias a great plain is described, the precise measurements of which were “of 3,000 stadia one way and 2,000 from the sea to the centre": about 190.000 square kilometers! The plain was surrounded by mountains, which “surpassed in number, greatness and beauty all those now existing ". Plain and mountains formed a single state, or "province" as Plato calls it, whose total surface area we can estimate as being not less then 400,000 sq. kilometers. Plato, however, clearly states that Atlantis was composed of nine more of these "provinces", or kingdoms, confederated but autonomous. We can reasonably presume that the other nine kingdoms had an average extension more or less equivalent. Atlantis, therefore, must have had a total surface of at least 4 million sq. kilometers. Truly a continent!
As for the climate, according to Plato’s description it was extraordinarily favorable, such as to make possible the cultivation of a great variety of plants and to produce two harvests a year. Regarding the geological characteristics of the island, Plato affirms that it "furnished all those solid and fusible substances obtained from the mines".
In conclusion, then, we have to look for an island having an area of the order of millions of sq. kilometers, entirely surrounded by an ocean, itself surrounded by a more or less continuous stretch of continents; an island rich in metals and favored, before the Flood, by a mild climate.
With these limitations there is little to choose from; the only land which completely matches these requirements is... Antarctica.
Looking at a map of the world, one realises that Antarctica is exactly at centre of three oceans (fig. 2), and it is completely surrounded by all the other continents.
We have also to keep in mind that at the end of Pleistocene the Atlantic coast of Antarctica was at a lower latitude, and a warm oceanic stream flowed along it. Therefore it had to enjoy a mild climate.
Figure 2 – Antarctica is at the centre of the three oceans and of all continents
8. HOW ANTARCTICA WAS POPULATED DURING PLEISTOCENE
The geographical situation of the world before the end of Pleistocene had to be as follows: the north pole was more or less at the centre of the northern ice caps, that is between South Greenland and Canada (fig.3).
As a consequence, the South Pole had to be displaced towards Australia of about 20 degrees. The side of Antarctica facing Oceania, that is, the Marie Byrd Land and the lands of Adelie, Wilkes and Queen Mary, were completely covered by ice as of today. An impressive ice cap that reached far inside the continent, with glaciers flowing until the opposite side in the Atlantic.
On the contrary the coasts facing America, Africa and Asia, that is Palmer Peninsula, the Weddell sea and the Land of Queen Maud, until Mackenzie Bay, had to be ice free (a part the glaciers that crossed them). No ice older then 10.000 years can be found today in this part of Antarctica.
Figures 3 and 4: Distribution of the ice caps in the northern and southern hemispheres and the likely position of the Poles at the end of Pleistocene
Being the sea level about 120 meters lower than the present one, the profile of Antarctica was more or less as it appears on fig. 5.
Figure 5 – Approximate profile of Antarctica at the end of Pleistocene, with the likely position of the pole. The side towards Australia was covered by a thick ice-cap, while the Atlantic side was ice-free. The Peninsula was separated from the main continent.
With the south pole shifted towards Australia, the line of the equator passed then to the North of Ceylon and Malaysia (see fig. 6). Below the equator the Trade Winds blew constantly westwards and like the Trade Winds of today, gave rise to an oceanic current that flowed down the coast of South Africa, pointing directly towards South America and then Antarctica. Therefore any floating object leaving from the coasts of the Indian Ocean, would inevitably have been carried by winds and currents towards South America and Antarctica (fig. 6).
Figure 6 – Representation of the world at the end of Pleistocene, with the poles displaced. Any floating object escaping the coasts of South-East Asia would have been carried towards Antarctica by the ocean’s stream
It is certain that the Paleolithic populations of Indonesia had invented some kind of boat, rafts probably, at least 50.000 years ago. It was precisely on that date, in fact, that man reached Australia, undoubtedly by sea. 40 thousand years, therefore, have elapsed since the first appearance of seafaring populations in south east Asia until the end of Pleistocene, during which time it was inevitable that groups of people coming from the coasts of the Indian Ocean would have reached Antarctica.
At that time its Atlantic coasts enjoyed a mild climate, but were devoid of most of the vegetables that assured the survival of those people in their original land. It was this fact that probably forced those Palaeolithic sailors to make the first experiments of agriculture, planting seeds and vegetables that had been carried onboard their rafts.
The invention of agriculture prompted as a consequence the construction of new working instruments, new types of dwellings, a new social organisation and so on: the first steps towards a technological civilisation.
A peculiar characteristic of Antarctica at that time, easy to verify on a map, is that it could be reached by floating objects coming from all over the world, but not vice versa. A raft escaped from the coasts of Antarctica would have been carried in circle around the island itself or right in the middle of the Pacific ocean. The first civilisation, therefore, should have developed in Antarctica in complete isolation with the rest of the world, as none could have been able to leave the island and export elsewhere the first fundamental conquests on the way to civilisation.
Only when it achieved a technological level such as to consent the construction of large oceanic vessels they were able to reach the coasts of neighbouring continents. At that point, however, the technological gap between them and the Palaeolithic populations, that continued to inhabit the rest of the world, was too big in order to allow any reciprocal influence.
Colonies were no doubt established in the Peninsula (at that time an island) and most probably at least along the coasts of South America. As the level of the sea was at that time about 130 meters lower than today’s, their archaeological remnants are out of reach for modern archaeologists. As for the towns and whatever other structure built on Antarctica, they have been buried and swept to the sea by the ice cap that covered also this part of Antarctica, starting from the end of Pleistocene. Therefore, no recognisable traces of the civilisation of Atlantis are to be found on the continents.
9. – THE UNIVERSAL FLOOD AND THE DESTRUCTION OF ATLANTIS
To recap, the situation at the end of Pleistocene should have been the following: the Atlantic coasts of Antarctica enjoyed a mild climate and a civilisation had developed there, which level was not inferior to that of the more advanced ancient civilisations known to us. Colonies had to be established on the Peninsula and even on South America, along the coasts that were subsequently submerged by the rising of the sea level. All the rest of the world was inhabited by Palaeolithic populations.
At this point Earth was hit by an asteroid, or more probably a comet, thus triggering a wide shift of the poles.
Antarctica was first submerged by a dramatic rising of the sea level, although temporary, and in the following years was covered by a thick layer of snow and ice. The only survivors took refuge onboard the ships, of which, according to Plato, there were a very high number. Most of them were lost during the hurricane, but a certain number managed to reach safely the coasts of America, Africa and Asia (fig.7). There, each of them, merging with local Palaeolithic survivors, gave origin in complete autonomy and isolation to a new population, the culture of which was derived from that of Atlantis. In the following millennia those populations spread all over the rest of the world.
Figure 7 – Spreading of ships from Antarctica during the universal flood along the coasts of the world and subsequent diffusion of civilisations
The universal flood, in conclusion, has provoked the “explosion” of a civilisation, that up to that moment had been confined in Antarctica alone (and probably along the costs of South America), scattering its “fragments” all around the world (except Australia, facing the side of Antarctica completely covered by the ice cap). All the non-palaeoltic cultures of Earth, therefore, should have been originated, in the end, from some groups of survivors of Atlantis, who at the beginning had more or less the same basic culture and the same kind of information, both scientific and historical; but from then on they developed in complete isolation from each other.
The remnants of the mother civilisation have been cancelled by the ice and by the rising of the sea level.
REFERENCES
Barbiero Flavio (1974), Una civiltà sotto Ghiaccio (A frozen Civilisation). Nord, Milan
Barbiero F (1995), On the possibility of very rapid shifts of the poles, Quaderni di Matematica, Bergamo University