3. Atlantis in Antarctica

With reference to the works of F. Barbiero and R. Flem Ath the theory of Atlantis as being Antarctica is investigated. The very cold climate, in a continent covered by ice since more than undreths of thousands years, proves it couldn't hail a civilisation like Atlantis.

During the first years of ‘70s in Italy was published a book entitled “A civilization beneath the ice”, written by Flavio Barbiero an engineer graduated at Pisa university. For the first time the name of Atlantis was identified with Antarctica thanks to a revolutionary theory that actually gathers lot of proselytes thanks to the best seller “When the sky fell” by Rand and Rose Flem Ath.

We shall speak mainly about Barbiero since father of the theory and being more serious than others. He was learned on the findings and theories of Charles Hapgood, who in his researches collected some ancient maps concerning areas of the world not officially discovered when they were traced out. In his book “Maps of the ancient sea kings” he analyzes the most interesting ones showing the shapes of the emerged continents. The most famous is the one belonged to the Turkish admiral Piri R’eis, dating back 1513 AD and later discovered in 1929 at Istanbul. It shows rather exactly the profile of south America facing the Atlantic. The data about mountains, animals, rivers and small islands are quite precise. The profile of South America is tied to the one of Antarctica as it’d appear if free from ice. This map was a partial copy (as stated in a note on the map by the same admiral) of some that Colombo used for sailing towards the Atlantic. Several researches showed the correspondence between the coasts of the map and the actual coasts of Antarctica freed from ice. So Hapgood thought there was a civilization able to travel through the oceans and trace out precise maps of the continents. Furthermore the maps of Fineo, Mercator (XVI century) and Bauche (1737) show the whole Antarctic continent before it was officially discovered in 1859. Bauche splits it into two islands. Anyway the profiles don’t match the real ones (even if freed from ice) and someone thinks they are the representation of the “inferior world”, some kind of continent they believed to exist and that they placed there. Other people think it is the real proof a civilization found Antarctica before ours.

Whatever we believe, Hapgood thought the catastrophe of ice melting was caused by pole shifting. In his opinion this was possible because the rigid crust could shift in a softer deeper layer called astenosphere. This explanation is actually confuted by the existence of plate tectonics: they lay on the softer mantel slowly and each in its own direction; for some geologist there is however the possibility the poles were really placed differently (1) and the Earth’s axis had a different inclination. Indeed, studying the distribution of flora and fauna during the ice age we can trace out the climate in some areas of the world. In America great part of USA was covered by ice and so in Europe, where they could reach the Alps. Siberia was inhabited by mammoths, and their bodies, whose stomach still contained fresh frozen herbs, were discovered during XX century. Siberian mammoths 12,000 years ago suddenly died and were hibernated for thousands and thousands years. In America they were wiped out together with some other kinds of animals at the same time. Before this holocaust a narrow part of Antarctica facing the Atlantic was likely free from ice thanks to a favorable latitude. So it could be inhabited and in some way civilized. Barbiero also told it was the most obvious point from were the civilization could be exported to other areas of Earth. The period of animal extinctions matches the one given by Plato for Atlantis’ end. In fact the catastrophe shake the entire world even ancient Athens and the Mediterranean civilizations.

Barbiero had an interesting explanation concerning the hypothetical disappearance of the whole island of Atlantis. People escaping from the coasts probably saw the weaves becoming stronger and invading the landscape. Then, if Earth’s axis really changed also the stars in the sky weren’t in the same positions as before. If people tried to come back to Atlantis following the stars again (as coordinates) they obviously took the wrong path maybe finding just water instead of Atlantis’ coasts.

Antarctica (like Plato stated) is a continental island beyond Gibraltar and it’ also rich of mineral resources. Placing Antarctica at the center of the world (2) the true ocean spoken by Plato would be easily identified with the tree actual oceans which give shape to a unique mirror of water. The opposite continent would become all other continents. Anyway Antarctica is not in front of Spain.

Were the ancient maps work of Atlanteans living in Antarctica? If Atlantis was the first civilization and its survivors really civilized other continents then a representation of the original motherland must have survived somewhere. That is what lead Barbiero to analyze some medieval geographic maps. So in his book he comments several maps representing Europe, Turkey, North Africa: the known lands in medieval age. He compares these maps to Antarctica. Anyway the results aren’t so reliable. These medieval maps indeed were based on the same principles: Earth is plain, and encircled by a river called “ocean”. The shape of Antarctica could roughly match a circle and so a first similarity comes from that. Barbiero also told in these maps the rectangular canal system of Atlantis is visible. To tell the truth it’s more clear they showed the Mediterranean island instead and anyway they’d be a too rough representations of the perfect and narrow net of canals described by Plato. People who drew that maps know very well what they were going to represent and never had maps of Antarctica as source. Many of these maps are quite exact representations of Europe while others are so confused they could show anything.

The Temple of Ezekiel is suggested by Barbiero to be the one of Poseidon in Atlantis. Of course its description doesn’t match anything of what Plato stated and it’s clear it was placed in Asia Minor and not in a far island like Antarctica.

Beyond all there’s a serious reason which forbids Antarctica to be Atlantis. Even if a part of Antarctica could be free from ice the remaining lands (more than 70% of the island) were covered by deep layers of ice. That means the climate couldn’t be favorable, featuring a mild Winter as Plato wrote. The whole island had a fine climate and the whole island was politically divided into 10 kingdoms where each king ruled. It’s difficult that some king enjoyed ruling over a desert of ice. Plato is very clear stating that and Antarctica can’t give support for such conclusions.

Barbiero pointed out the ice packs of Filchter and Lassiter (3), placed North, as possible location of the rectangular plain described by Plato. The city would have been located in the actual island of Burkner which was once a 700 meters high mountain. A little too high for being encircled by a city and Plato said the hill (where th city was built) was very low on each side. 700 meters are enough to classify it as mountain. All other ideas of Barbiero are sometimes brilliant and reliable but the problem of ice covering still forbids Antarctica to be Atlantis.  

Plato said some minor islands before and after Atlantis made the way between Europe and the “opposite continent”. This cannot be true for Antarctica since from Gibraltar there aren’t relevant islands across the route.

Barbiero took part to two expeditions in Antarctica, even if they weren’t very lucky owing to some bad circumstances. He found the trunk of a tree buried beneath the ice but it wasn’t never examined with C14 tests.

Rand and Rose Flem Ath, in 1995, dusted out Hapgood’s books again and in their best seller also showed a further clue which is absolute false.

They think the map of Atlantis drawn by Jesuit Kircher in his book “Mundus subterraneus”  (XVII century) is a copy of an original one coming from Egypy. Nobody, even the most proud atlantologist, was ever so brave to tell such a thing. Indeed the Jesuit never said such thing and he put a note in the map stating it was drawn in accordance with the Egyptian description (since Plato told the tale of Atlantis came from Egypt). So he drew a big island between Spain and America, as it was clear from Plato’s dialogues.

The Flem Ath believe the big island is Antarctica, Spain is South Africa, Africa is Magadascar and America is Cile. That is completely wrong since they aren’t analyzing an original map but a draw everyone can made after reading Plato’s dialogues.

Their other ideas aren’t so brialliant as Barbiero’s and they show lot of data that doesn’t imply necessarily Atlantis was Antarctica.

Anyway their work was more successful than his and was celebrated by writers like Colin Wilson, Robert Scoch and Graham Hancock, which sold out some best sellers concerning alternative archaeology. Terrific.  

 In the table below is a checklist comparing Atlantis and Crete/There features. As for the chpater 6 of section 1 (Atlantis found) 1 point for correct chack, -1 for uncorrect check and 0 for uncertain checks.