Every skeptical review of Hapgood's ideas that I have read states that one of the main reasons for the dismissal of his conclusions is that the Antarctic Peninsula is missing from the supposedly accurate ancient maps of Antarctica. This is no minor problem, I can see where they are coming from.
 The missing part is not just the narrow string of islands but also the quite substantial 'base' of the peninsula. That this 'error' is common to all the old maps may suggest it is not a mere map making error...
I will go into my explanation for the omission at a later time. I would like to read what others here think of the problem since I have not heard a decent explanation for the problem by anyone, including Hapgood.

I look forward to this.

Here is my explanation from Chapter 2, The Antarctica Maps:

So the best explanation I have is that the Palmer Peninsula, which tectonically is believed to be separate from Western Antarctica, is also separate from Western Antarctica when the is ice cap is removed. I believe the path of the channel between is still partially defined by the Pine Island Glacier in the west and Rutford Ice Stream in the east.

Still why such a large mountainous island would be omitted is a little puzzling, but again it may go back to my argument that these were territorial maps and the Palmer Peninsula, or Island back then, was a separate territory. It may also be that these maps, which were likely on animal skins, may have omitted Palmer 'Island' in order to obtain the best fit for the portions of the continent that were most important to the mapmakers.

This is the part of the theory that keeps me from buying into it completely, so if you have a better explanation I certainly welcome it.

-Doug

 Hi Doug,

Unfortunately I do not have much crucial new evidence to present on the matter of the Antarctic peninsula. It is more like an argument based on logic and reason, nevertheless I do offer an explanation which I think is the best option we have.

As you point out the basic proportions of the Antarctica maps are very accurate, with major bays being in the correct location. The exception is the Antarctic Peninsula. What I suggest is that the Antarctic Peninsula was underwater at the time the ancient mariners mapped Antarctica. This explains why the omission is common to all the maps and suggests that the upheaval which raised the Antarctic Peninsula to it's present 'height' occurred after the mapping culture became extinct and the maps were no longer updated. You have said that the peninsula is tectonically separate from Lesser Antarctica and this may be interpreted in favor of my view. My hypothesis also explains why the region on the Antarctica maps where the peninsula would have joined Lesser Antarctica, appears as a coastline with various inlets and coastal features, as that region would have been a coastline while the peninsula was underwater. This hypothesis may also conveniently explain why some of the coastline on these maps (Fineus, Schoner, Mercator) appears quite differently to the coastline of today's Antarctica - such as parts of Greater Antarctica. Clearly, the Antarctic Peninsula is the most glaring difference.
 I am not suggesting that the geological phenomenon which altered the 'altitude' of the Antactic Peninsula is the same reason for the other differences between the maps and today's Antarctic coastline. Changes in sea level or gradual movements may be the reason for those other 'minor' changes in coastline. I suppose that I am saying that geological changes or changes of coastline may be more abrupt or happen at a faster rate than is presently assumed.

So, sometime between the end of the map making culture's voyages and the rediscovery of Antarctica in the 19th century, the Antarctic Peninsula must have emerged from the ocean according to my view. Since we don't have a date for the mapping culture we have know way of knowing just how long ago the maps were made but surely they can't be any older than ten thousand years! (and that's being generous!)

Now in my search for evidence I came across various information which I have interpreted as evidence for a date of about 1500 AD for the upheaval of the Antarctic Peninsula. It is in the form of radio carbon dates of mega-tsunami occurrences on the south-east coast of Australia. Also, Gavin Menzies in his book about the Chinese ocean navigators suggests that there were Chinese vessels wrecked  on the South island of New Zealand and a Southern Ocean isalnd about 1500AD (very uncertain). I think the tsunamis that hit Australia may have been set off by the upheaval of the Antarctic Peninsula, and the wrecks if they exist were caused by the tsunamis also in that part of the world.

All this is so very speculative and hardly convincing I know but it is all based on the clear observation that there is no way those Antarctica maps could have been accidently drawn so accurately. With this theory I explain away the main objection to the maps genuineness at the same time as turning it's weakness into a strength. If we accept the maps are genuine I can see no other way to explain the Antarctic Peninsula ommision to my satisfaction. Of course it now adds another far-fetched element to the hypothesis overall but hey, why stop there? 

Hello Geo,

Thanks for posting this. This concept should probably be out there at least just for consideration. I believe I may have given the idea some brief consideration myself when reconciling the missing peninsula, but quickly discarded it because there is little basis for it aside from an ancient map that might be a genuine depiction of a deglaciated Antarctica sans Palmer Peninsula.

Given that Schöner did scale an ancient map to his globes of 1515 and 1520, it is almost unthinkable that he abandoned reasoned cartographic methods similarly practiced and very clearly acknowledged by Piri Reis and suddenly resorted to inventing a landmass for his globe of 1524. The first two are clearly ancient maps of the ancient world. The latter, if based similarly on world landmasses, finds Antarctica as the only landmass with any similarity and the similarities are indeed striking.

Yet as you have stated, the omission of the Palmer Peninsula is clearly an enormous exception in an otherwise accurate portrayal.

I personally do believe that cataclysmic events shaped a large portion of Earth's current geology, and in that light geological changes have occurred rather rapidly in contrast to the slow gradual view endorsed by uniformitarians. But as flawed as I believe the uniformitarian theory of plate tectonics is, there are certain elements upon which it is founded that are very solidly grounded and within either the current or what I believe will be the new paradigm I can see no way to reconcile the event you are proposing. I can think of no viable instance where the mountainous Palmer Peninsula could be completely submerged while the remainder of the Antarctic continent remained virtually at the same sea level that it does today.

So based on this, I prioritize the list of possibilities a little a differently:

• The map does not depict ancient Antarctica. (This may be your number 1 as well.)
• Palmer Peninsula is actually an island when the continent is deglaciated and was intentionally omitted perhaps due to its lack of importance in the eyes of the people that charted it and/or due to the possibility that inclusion of the lengthy island within the constraints of the medium used—likely an animal skin—would have forced the cartographer to shrink Western and Eastern Antarctica and along with them reduce much of the continent's more intricate details.
• The peninsula was submerged, but breached the surface—by nearly 2 miles in places mind you—after the continent was charted due to an undefined cataclysm.

Basically, weighting the scale with current consensus and my findings, I give option 1 an above 50% chance of probability, option 2 has a sub 50% placing and option 3 garners 0%.

Just my opinion, and yet I personally lean toward option 2 with lesser odds. So like you I am relying on pure speculation as well, but favor going a slightly different direction. I could warm up to option 3, but I would need to see a more detailed theory with sufficient evidence from a geological standpoint before I would be willing to do so.

BTW, sorry for the late response. Things have been a little bit hectic around here as of late and I wanted to have time enough available to compose an adequate reply.

-Doug

Hi Doug,
No problem with the late reply, it's a lot more than anyone else is doing. Actually I was wondering recently if there had been any new work done on the ancient maps, but I could not find anything. It looks as if you are the only one doing new research on these Antarctica maps. It's a shame that it is not taken more seriously.

 

As far as I know it seems researching the maps was a short-lived craze beginning with Hapgood, expanded on by Rand & Rose Flem-Ath, and popularized by Graham Hancock. Aside from individuals referencing their works, I'm not sure there has been much of anything new out there until now.

-Doug