Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings: Evidence of Advanced Civilization in the Ice Age

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 IslesDepicted in the _same_ inaccurate way across the maps:-Norway, the Baltic Sea, British Isles, Atlas Mountains, Red Sea, AntilhaDepicted in inaccurate, but _different_ ways across the maps:-Cuba, Greenland, Brazil, Southern Africa, IndiaLooking 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.

I first read this book years ago and found it really addresses an early history of mankind's need to see what's around the corner. Keep an open mind when reading and realize that this is not fiction Hapgood is trying to uncover.

Interesting read, as a friend said there is so much accepted history no one wants to untertake updating it !

I'm critical of the critics of this book. I feel like too many are coming at it purely from a literary perspective and over analyzing in their arrogance. This is a book for geographers, cartographers, and GIS nerds. Graham Hancock mentions it in some of his lectures, but from his comments I dont think he actually read it, because he makes assertions about the Pireaus Map that arent in this book.The arguments in the book are extremely convincing circumstantial evidence for geographers. Unfortunately the only way to prove them is to recover the actual purported source data that the Pireaus was created from, a map that now is almost surely dust, or locked away forever in the Vatican Archive or hidden with Templar treasure.Simply put; It was impossible to create a map as accurate as the Pireaus at the time it was created. Calculating accurate longitude was a mystery in those days. Creating that data by chance is highly, highly, improbable.The creators of the source map clearly knew: the exact dimensions of the Earth, how to calculate longitude, how to use trigonometry to create accurate, navigable map projections of the earths curvature.The most interesting part of the research is that this team reverse-engineered the projection used from the source map. They determined Its prime meridian as the meridian of the Great Pyramid and the center of the world-wide projection somewhere south of the pyramids in Egypt.The Renaissance cartographers did not have these skills, The Greek/Alexandrian cartographers did not have these skills, from what we know of Egyptians, they did not have these skills either.There is some lost civ, or knowledge, or history behind these maps. That much is clear to me. Maybe the evidence is so old that all thats left is dust.... or granite.

These maps prove that a lot took place before our recorded history. And if they knew the ice-free coastline of Antarctica prior to 12,500 years ago, there was a lot taking place that isn't in the history books.

This book is not for everyone. To enjoy it you nee3d to have a real interest in old maps and/or an interest in early trading routes as well as an interest in early civilizations during the ice age. This project was begun by a college professor and his students. It turned into a larger project than they thought it would be but they have done an exceptional job on it.There initial search led them to what is called the Piri Re'is. Piri Re'is. was a Turkish Admiral and the map is dated from 1513 However it is believed by many to be a copy of prototypes drawn in pre-Hellenic times and perhaps as early as the last Ice Age. One of the most startling features of the ancient maps is that it appears that Antarctica is partly free of ice.This is not a book to read and forget. If one is very interested in searching earth as far back as possible having this book near you to refer to as needed is a tremendous help.

at last a proper scientific investigation into the ancient world and what happened to Atlantis. (spare me the rubbish about the Thera volcano please it bears no resemblance to anything in plato's writings). The book presents incontrovertible proof that there was a worldwide maritime civilisation in existence thousands of years before history would have you believe. no extraterrestrial involvement needed (hooray), even Einstein knew this theory was right. So if that civilisation could disappear without trace due to a worldwide flood caused by cometary impact ours could too. It was first published 50 years ago but is still relevant

Because of the heavy reliance on maps, and past experiences of how those sorts of books (illustrated) work out with Kindle, I was dubious - but a lack of space forced me to go for the virtual version of the book. Big mistake; the illustrations on the Kindle leave everything to be desired, and the book suffers badly as a result. Buy the physical version instead.The book itself appears to be a very interesting and thought-provoking read. It does challenge entrenched views and with some complex logic - complex enough to be credible over a long period of time, rather than fast-talk con-man complex. I don't feel completely convinced by the central argument, but I can't refute it articulately either. Another read - ideally this time of the physical version - would be instructive.

I bought this for an old friend's birthday present (he owns a boat) and he told me he found it fascinating and appreciated the gift. He also commented that it was great to get something different from the usual books on fishing.

bought as a well received gift

I enjoyed very much, I am fascinated by the idea of a lost civilization and the evidence presented is extremely good. Well presented and clearly explained making it accessible to the layman. Clear maps, and charts.