Claim/criticism: "Atlantis sank, the Andes didn't they are high. The Andes have only uplifted inches over centuries/millenia. We are looking for a site underwater, and Tiahuanaco and South America are not. Atlantis can't be dry land based theories. The sinking event can't be a geologically impossible scenario. These processes couldn't have destroyed a landmass the size of a continent, ie it is not a sunken continent."
First let us look at different versions of the 2 sections about the sinking in the 2 parts of the Atlantis Account:
- "... there occured violent/terrible/portentous/exceeding-great earthquakes and floods, and in a single day and night of (extraordinary) rain/destruction all your warlike men in a body sunk into the earth, and the island/nesos (of) Atlantis in (a) like manner disappeared, and was sunk beneath the sea. And that is the reason why the sea/pelagos in those parts is impassable and impenetrable/unsearchable, because there is such a quantity of shallow mud in the way; and this was caused by the subsidence of the island."
/ "there were earthquakes and floods of extraordinary violence, and in one (grievous/dreadful) day and night all your fighting men were swallowed up by the earth, and the island/nesos (of) Atlantis was (similarily) swallowed (up) by the sea/thalassa and disappeared/vanish(ed) (away); that is why the sea/pelagos/ocean in/at that area/spot is to this day impassable to navigation, which is hindered by mud just below the surface, the remains of the sunken island."
/ "one (grievous) day & night befell them, all the warriors in your land / the whole body of your warriors were swallowed up by the earth, and the island/nesos (of) Atlantis in (a) like manner disappeared, and (was) sank/sunk below the sea ... the pelagos/ocean there is unnavigible, being blocked (up) by very-shallow-shoals / the-shoal-mud / quantity-of-mud, which the island caused as she/it settled down." (Timaeus 25d-e.)
- "... afterward sunk by an earthquake, became an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to the ocean."
/ "... subsequently overwhelmed by earthquakes, and is [now] the source of the impenetrable mud which prevents the free passage of those who sail [to the sea beyond]." (Critias 109a.)
- "a large island was swallowed up." (Marcellinus.)
- "not far to the west of Europe ... memory of a larger island ... which had been swallowed up by the sea." (Proclus.)
- their "islands are uprooted and carried away .... The might of Nun (the Ocean) broke forth and fell in a great wave upon their towns and villages", also that the head of their cities was submerged. (Medinet Habu inscription about the Sea Peoples.)
The Atlantis Account only tells us what seemed to happen at the time, it doesn't tell us how long it lasted for or what happened ever since then. Atlantis may only have been "sunk" for a certain amount of time and may not have been/stayed "sunk" permanently. Also in some catastrophes there can be more than one movements (up & down) in different directions at the same time or succesively. Some versions of the Account don't necessarily say Atlantis sank/subsided or was submerged, the verses various say it disappeared/vanished, or sank beneath/below the sea, or subsidence of the island, or was swallowed up by the sea, or sunken island, or the island settled down, or sunk by a quake, or overwhelmed by quakes, or memory of a larger island, and mud caused by the subsidence, or mud remains of the island, or shoals/mud the island caused as it settled down, or became a barrier of mud, or is now the source of the mud. The "sinking" of Atlantis might not be totally literally true and people might be taking the Account just a little bit too overliterally. When the Bible says Joshua halted the sun & moon they didn't really literally stop did they? When the Celts said the saky fall on heads it is not quite literally correct is it? The ancient sources saying "the Sun god descended into & travelled through the underworld" isn't quite literally correct is it? Scientists said they saw with their own eyes "Venus turning inside out" but someone said to me "it didn't literally/really/actually turn inside out".
The Atlantis Account is clear that Atlantis was a large island (see the chapter on Atlantis' size), but it is not necessarily clear whether the whole large island "sank" or only the royal island capital city "sank".
Some other sources like the Medinet Habu inscription, Proclus, and Marcellinus seem to agree that Plato's account implies that the whole large island sank.
If the whole large island of Atlantis "sank":
There are 6 scenarios for the "sinking" of Atlantis. Either the land went down (sink/sank/sunk, subsidence), or the water went up (submergence, rising sea levels, tidal bulge, flood), or the water went down (rain/flood), or the water went sideways (slosh, tidal wave / tsunami), or the land went sideways (continental shift), or the land and water went sideways (crust displacement / pole shift, axis tilt, expanding globe).
Atlantis' sinking can't be submergence by rising sea levels because there are no submerged large landmasses in the Atlantic except for the continental edges, and the Atlantis Account says that the whole island was sunk not just the edges, and it doesn't say that any other continents parts were also sunk in the same event. Also, if the sea-levels were lower then the straits of Gibraltar would have been land then.
Atlantis sinking can't be the Great Flood because only Atlantis and Athens were effected, not the whole world. Atlantis was a separate land mass while in the bible the continents didn't split-up until the Flood or after. There was not definitely any rain in Atlantis' sinking though some translations say "in a single day and night of (extraordinary) rain". The Great Flood was for 40 days while Atlantis was only a single day and night. There were not necessarily any quake(s) in the Great Flood like there was in Atlantis' sinking (though the break up of the fountains of the deep in the Flood has been suggested to by some to be plate tectonics).
Atlantis didn't literally sink or subside. There is no large sunken/submerged landmass in the Atlantic, or the Mediterranean, or the Indian ocean, or the Pacific (though some claim otherwise). The mid-Atlantic is emerging up and out not down and in. None of the continents wholly sank/sunk literally except for suberged continental edges.
So we are left then with that Atlantis must be one of the continents (bordering the Atlantic), and the sinking event must be either continental shift (and sea slosh) or Earth crust displacement / pole shift, or else only the royal island capital city sank/sunk. There are evidences for either or both of these events in American history, and both are good possible matches for the sinking of the whole large island of Atlantis.
Possible evidences for continental shift and/or crust displacement / pole shift include:
- Sources agree that the Account implies that "the metropolis of Atlantis was destroyed by a devastating physical destruction of unprecedented proportions".
- Crust displacement / pole shift has become an accepted academic theory in recent decades.
- Some translations do say that Atlantis "sank", but others say it was "swallowed up" (Timaeus 25d-e, Marcellinus, Proclus).
- "there occured terrible/portentous/exceeding-great earthquakes & floods" (Timaeus 25d-e). "overwhelmed by earthquakes" (Critias 109a). "in 1 day & night overwhelmed beneath sea in extraordinary earthquake(s) and flood(s)" (Philo). Both continental shift and crust displacement / pole shift would involve such big quakes.
- The Sea Peoples' "islands are uprooted and carried away .... The might of Nun (the Ocean) broke forth and fell in a great wave upon their towns and villages". Both crust displacement and continental shift entail sloshing of seas over the land.
- Mass extinction sites from Alaska to Mexico and from Bogota to Fuego.
- Kirchir's map possibly shows [South] America closer than [North] America to the Old World?
- Eels, butterflies, lemmings, and birds going out into the Atlantic might imply that the Atlantic was once narrower width due to continental shift, or due to submerged continental edges and/or submerged mid-Atlantic islands? (Though some claim that these animals migrations claims are not true?) Similarily, some classical source mentioned ships/boats similarily going-out to look for Atlantis and not finding it where it had been or where they thought it had been.
- Continental shift would alleviate the Atlantis distance dispute because the Atlantic would have been less distance across.
- Stonehenge damaged on the south-west side.
- It is the opinion in some sources that the Atlantis Account implies a "change in the path of the sun" ("Phaethon", and/or Atlantis was "then beneath the sun"). Peru/Tiahuanaco/Tiwanaku was on the equator at one time according to pole shift(s) maps. Perhaps compare the "hitching post of the sun" at Macchu Picchu?
- The two + and x compass points crosses in the Inca picture from the Coricancha might also possibly imply pole shift? - The tilted route of Viracocha may also imply pole shift? - Flem-Ath said that the [?west] coast of (North) America once faced-south in a previous pole position, like the Account says the side of Atlantis faced south?
- If America/Atlantis continenally shifted it would have genuinely appeared to have sunk and vanished/disappeared.
There is certainly a match in Tiahuanaco & the Andean region for the sinking of the royal island capital city of Atlantis (and for the sinking of the chief city of the Sea Peoples), whether the city sank with the whole large island or whether only the royal island city sank and not the whole large island. There are evidences in local traditions and in archaeology of floods and quakes at Tiahuanaco described in similiar words to the floods and quakes etc in the Atlantis Account. Eg:
Tiwanaku: tradition/myth/legend: - Tiwanaku was Flooded (refs include Sykes) - Local Peruvian/Andean myth attests a flood called 'Unu Pachacuti' "water overturns land" (ref Jim Allen). - There are also stories of a lost underwater city 'Wanaku' in lake Titicaca not far from Tiahuanaco.
Tiwanaku & nearby: archaeology: - Cerro Santo Vilca / Pampa Aullagas earthquake damage on west. - "blocks tossed/scattered" - cracked 'Gate(way) of the Sun'. - "broken megaliths" - There is also evidence of subsidence in the ocean trench off the coast of Peru. - A source says Tiahuanaco is also covered in lava. - Tiwanaku suffered "an avalanche/flood of water, and a sudden upheaval of unknown nature". - Tiwanaku was Flooded (refs include Fasold). - "... many more still lie buried in the ground under layers of sediment from ... flooding from Lake Titicaca." - "There were two Tiahuanaco's, one the visible ruins, the other the subterranean and invisible."
There is even a possible match at our Tiahuanaco site for the one day & night mentioned in the Atlantis Account. "... legends claimed that Tiwanaku was built in a single night, after the Flood...." "... all that are there appeared overnight." Inca king-lists & myths have a "night without/withno sunrise/dawn for 20 hours" or 'chamak-pacha' "period of darkness" ca 1400/1394/1391 bc which is parallel to the "sun stood still" & "long day" of Joshua ca 1393 bc in the bible. Both are roughly same date as the Atlantis war/sinking date of ca 1400s bc (900 yrs before Amasis) of some chronologists.
There are evidences that the Titicaca region was once lower and was suddenly quickly raised higher withint the lifetime of ancient humans & civilisation. Eg: - Evidences that Andes/Peru once had a Pacific ocean geo-climate. - The fauna of Peru is similar to that of the Pacific. - Calcified remains of marine plants in the Andes. - Raised beaches with human cultural remains like nets high up in the Andes. - "Titicaca contains known sea life"? - "sea ports in the Andes". - Tiahuanaco was flooded. - They could not have built some of the megalithic/monolithic structures in such high altitude rarified air. - Lake Titicaca's "old water lines are slanted/tilted". - Cracked & strewn buildings & blocks at Tiahuanaco. - "mega disaters Pumapunku"? - Lissner (after Posnansky) says Tiahuanaco is covered in lava. - Hercules holding Antaeus up off the earth could possibly connect with the Andes were raised higher? - The Atlantis Account might even imply this by saying "*quake(s)* and flood(s)". (Andes uplifted evidences refs: Darwin, Velikovsky, Lissner, Berlitz, etc.)
For the muddy shoal/sea matches evidences see the chapter on "the Atlantic sea or ocean"?
