The central premise of this book has two parts. First, the portolan maps (like the one on the cover) that came into use in medieval Europe were not a new advance. These portolan charts, Hapgood sets out to prove, are the rediscovery of ancient maps that required a great deal of geographical and mathematical knowledge. This leads into the second part, Hapgood asserts that the geographical and mathematical knowledge was far beyond not only the medieval sailors, but the ancient Romans, classical Greeks, Carthaginians, and even the Phoenicians. The extraordinary claim of the book is that only a race of "ancient sea kings" currently undiscovered by modern society were capable of making these maps.
Hapgood's theory about the portolan charts being copies is very believable. It's very fascinating too. He shows the grotesque maps of the most educated medieval scholars and then he shows the shockingly accurate portolan charts. The maps advance or change little for several centuries after the earliest maps. Even more impressive are the inaccuracies of the maps. If a person makes a map, the areas nearest them should be the most accurate while the areas farthest from them should be the least accurate. However, the portolanos show the opposite! On several navigators' maps (including Columbus) their _homes_ and their discoveries are the _least_ accurate parts of the map. This is symptomatic of someone trying to add their own patch to a quilt that was made with skills far beyond their own.
Hapgood then creates an odd definition for the portolan maps. The average portolan, if you look through them, has a very accurate Mediterranean Sea, North Africa, Western Europe, Black Sea, Asia Minor, and a few of the Atlantic Isles. Each map tends to have its own unique errors, added by the mapmaker. Hapgood discards these errors as additions and views only the accurate portions of the map as coming from the true portolanos and thus the ancient sea kings. The problem with this is that there are a few errors that are common to almost all portolanos. Two people can investigate the same area independently, and come back with identical, accurate maps. Two people can be identically right, without ever meeting. However if they come back with maps that have identical inaccuracies, then one of them must have copied from the other.
The common errors should have been the best clue as to true authors of the portolanos, but Hapgood ignores them as aberrations, even as they continue to appear on map after map. Hapgood includes a map from China that doesn't show Europe, a map from Europe that shoes deformed, abstract art China, and a Map from North Africa shows a warped China _and _ Europe all under his broad field of ancient maps. His theory is that the warped parts of the map are later additions, while the accurate parts of the map are copied from the maps of the ancient sea kings. The whole book is fascinating, it's beautiful, I learned so much from reading it, but Hapgood's bold theory is supported by flawed research.
Hapgood begins to attribute some of the errors on the maps to rising sea levels. He points out that if these maps are ten of thousands of years old, then perhaps they were made when the sea levels were lower. It becomes apparent that Hapgood subconsciously hoped for this ancient civilization, and let his conclusion direct the research. Atlantis fans praise this book and the portolan hypothesis, but if you trace the origins of maps without using "accurate" as a synonym for portolan, it become unlikely that they could have come from Atlantis.
First consider which areas in the portolanos were shown in what way:
Accurate across all the maps:
-Mediterranean Sea, North Africa, Western Europe, Black Sea, Asia Minor, a few of the Atlantic Isles
Depicted in the _same_ inaccurate way across the maps:
-Norway, the Baltic Sea, British Isles, Atlas Mountains, Red Sea, Antilha
Depicted in inaccurate, but _different_ ways across the maps:
-Cuba, Greenland, Brazil, Southern Africa, India
Looking at this, it's possible that the "ancient sea kings" who authored the charts went to any of the places not depicted on the maps and any of the places depicted inconsistently across the maps, but there's no way to know one way or the other. It's possible they went to any of the places depicted consistently wrong and very likely they knew of them. It's very likely they went to the places that were depicted with consistent accuracy. This paints a portrait of a sea faring civilization that traveled the Atlantic Ocean, Black Sea, and Mediterranean. This also fits with the way the Sahara is represented. The mountains are illustrated as a barrier that separates North Africa and the Sahara from the Atlantic Coast almost to the Nile.
While the inaccuracies can vaguely point to the where, the accuracies can point to the when. There have been several Earth altering changes in the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and the Atlantic:
16000 BC Sea levels rise over the Celtic marshes connecting England to Europe and create the modern British Isles.
5600 BC The Bosporus is breached by sea waters turning a massive freshwater lake into the Black Sea we're familiar with.
1627 BC The island of Santorini explodes creating it's current unusual shape. (As a fascinating side note, this explosion was a main factor in the fall of the Minoan civilization. Quite a few people believe _it_ is the real inspiration for Atlantis.)
The maps can't be older than 16000 BC, because the English channel is represented accurately, not as vast swamp plains. The maps can't be older than 5600 BC, because the Black Sea is illustrated accurately. The maps can't be older than 1627 BC, because the island of Santorini is drawn post-explosion. It's currently is a c-shaped island and a smaller island that form a ring around the blown out, volcanic peak. It's a quite distinctive shape and on some portolanos (Maggiolo family chart) it's clearly labeled.
That rather vaguely puts the author of the portolanos as living in seafaring civilization that traveled the Atlantic, the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean some time between 1627 BC and 1339 AD. I know, pretty vague.
Atlantis may have existed, humans may have landed on Antarctica when it was green, and the portolanos may borrow bits from maps even older than they; but the book is unable to prove it. Despite the fact that I openly disagree with it, it's still very thought provoking. It gives me dreams of wild crusaders discovering maps of America in holy ruins. It's well written and honest. The maps are beautifully reprinted. I disagree with the book and I'd recommend it to anyone.
ONE LAST NOTE:
If you get this, you'd do well to pick up No Longer on the Map, by Raymond H. Ramsay. There are a lot of bizarre and mysterious things on these old maps and Ramsay does a lot to clarify what those oddities are.
THE VERY LAST NOTE:
Even though the portolanos don't appear to be antediluvian check out Atlantis Maps dot com for some interesting explanations for some of Hapgood's Antarctic maps may be.
ONE MORE NOTE:
Some one recently pointed out to me a 1492 map by Jorge Aguiar. I said that I didn't believe the portolanos were older than 1627 BC, because Santorini/Thera is drawn in its crescent shape. In the Jorge portolano where our crescent shaped island should be there is a larger, fatter island with several outer bays. If that is an accurate portrayal of pre-explosion Santorini it would make the maps much older, but still younger than 6000 BC.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Customers who bought this item also bought
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Reviews with images
Book great! Publisher very bad
The book is fantastic, but the printing of it was so bad it was hard to read. It makes me sad to write a less than stellar review for such a good book!
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on May 3, 2012
Reviewed in the United States on February 23, 2024
Reviewed in the United States on April 11, 2023
Reviewed in the United States on March 18, 2023
Reviewed in the United States on February 11, 2020
Reviewed in the United States on January 2, 2013
Top reviews from other countries
sputnik1
another great book by charles h hapgood
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on November 13, 2013
