Lemuria Revisited

Lemuria (or Mu) is to the Pacific what Atlantis is to the Atlantic. Researchers have envisioned the “sunken Continent” of Lemuria as in the picture above. That idea of Lemuria may be inaccurate. The theory of plate tectonics suggests that Continents do not just sink and disappear.The ancient Epics also mostly speak of large masses of land disappearing not because they sank but because of water levels rising (for reference see my book). The idea of Continents sinking has little basis either in ancient accounts or in modern science. It is a creation of 19th Century Theosophists. If I am correct that the great flood caused global water levels to rise, destroying previously inhabited land, then Google Earth can, perhaps, give us a more accurate idea of where Lemuria may have been:


Here you can see that even in those ancient days of lower water levels much of the Pacific was water but that there may have been a large landmass between New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. Another candidate for land having disappeared is Southeast Asia:


Hawaii seems to have been a few times larger, but the rest of the Pacific would have been water, just like today:



If you browse around Google Earth you can easily see higher and lower elevations for yourself and conclude from that what land may have been lost.

There is a real basis for land lost in the Pacific. The legends and myths of most native tribes of North and South America, of Pacific Islanders, of the Asians, of the Maori in New Zealand and the Epics of the Indian Subcontinent tell us so.

I bring this up because the Lemuria idea has been “dismissed” on the basis of plate tectonics. Consider this entry in the Encyclopedia, which is typical of the contemporary doctrine:

Lemuria  is the name of a hypothetical “lost land” variously located in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The concept’s 19th-century origins lie in attempts to account for discontinuities in biogeography; however, the concept of Lemuria has been rendered obsolete by modern theories of plate tectonics. Although sunken continents do exist – like Zealandia in the Pacific as well as Mauritia and the Kerguelen Plateau in the Indian Ocean – there is no known geological formation under the Indian or Pacific Oceans that corresponds to the hypothetical Lemuria.

Though Lemuria is no longer considered a valid scientific hypothesis, it has been adopted by writers involved in the occult, as well as some Tamil writers of India. Accounts of Lemuria differ, but all share a common belief that a continent existed in ancient times and sank beneath the ocean as a result of a geological, often cataclysmic, change, such as pole shift.

My issues with this stance: Even if it is true that land does not sink, what about water levels rising? In the same breathe it is admitted that Continents such as Zealandia have in fact sunken! So the  obvious question would be: What difference does it make if the sunken land is called “Lemuria” or “Zealandia”? “Zealandia” is a modern label to the sunken land. Changing a label does not change the fact of large masses of sunken land. The paragraph is saying “Well, Lemuria did not sink, Zealandia sank. So the idea of a sunken pacific Continent is obsolete!”. That doesn’t make any sense.

Of course I mustn’t conceal that geologists believe Zealandia sank 35 Million years ago – which is way out of range of the times the ancients referred to. But the dating methods used to determine such enormous time-spans are speculative at best. They assume a very slow evolution while discounting sudden cataclysmic events or external intervention. Unfortunately the so labeled science of “Catastrophism” (as opposed to Gradualism) is also considered “obsolete” in modern thinking. To me it would seem that a mix of Gradualism and Catastrophism, rather than clinging to one side, would provide more accurate data.

The excerpt above also makes the statement that the concepts origins are with 19th Century “occult writers”. It is true that Mu and Lemuria theories were developed by theosophists in the 19th Century, but the idea of sunken land does not originate there. Not by a long shot. It originates with the ancients and their origins and creation mythologies.

A close-up of Zealandia:

Zealandia was Lemuria

Clearly, rather than having been “rendered obsolete”, the idea of sunken land in the Pacific is simply being refined as new data becomes available.

If large landmasses sank more recently (12 000 to 18 000 years ago), there would have to be evidence for habitation both under and above water. The Islands in those areas would have to show signs of prehistoric habitation and divers might expect to find “lost cities”. Legends of the Hopi tribe even predict that one day we will find flying machines buried at the surface of the pacific, from a time before the flood. The Hopi themselves say they come from a “sunken land” somewhere across the pacific ocean.

So is there any evidence of such? Yes. It is scarce. But it is surfacing slowly but surely. The Yonaguni Monment is a recent example. One of the best examples thus far are the prehistoric structures on the Island of Nan Madol, in Micronesia. Nobody really understands who built them or for what purpose or even when. It is not understood why their roads and stairs trail off into the ocean. But readers of Atlantis-topics understand very well why roads might go from land into the ocean: Because they were once above water.

Much of the ancient town is either destroyed, eroded or submerged, but here are some images of what remains:

nan madol submerged

Stairs just trailing off into the Ocean…

stairs into ocean nan madol


Nan Madol Submerged:

nan madol mu submerged


Nan Madol from Above:

prehistoric nan madol



It us not understood how and especially from where these gigantic blocks of stone were transported:

nan madol giants

nan madol mu

What makes this semi-submerged city even more intriguing is that it is nowhere near the places we just talked about. It`s smack in the middle of nowhere, in the pacific. So are the theosophists right after all? I don’t know. All I know is that it’s important not to label certain lines of thought as “obsolete”. All that does is close minds. It causes people to stop looking where more can be found. It`s a sort of academic laziness that is caused by cognitive overwhelm.

You can read about Nan Madol and the many rumours surrounding it (such as Platinum Caskets containing the Bones of Giants being hauled away by the Japanese in WWII) elsewhere. My intent was merely to present an example.

Nan Madol may be the most widely publicized ancient site in the pacific but it is not the only one. Ancient structures are scattered all over the pacific. They are just not widely reported on. Some haven’t even been researched yet. And plenty haven’t been discovered. In fact, among many pacific islanders there is the cultural and religious idea that such sites should be kept secret and that revealing their locations evokes an ancient curse. So islanders themselves will sometimes actively prevent research and discovery along these lines. What follows is a much lesser known ancient site, namely Moorea on Tahiti.

An ancient stone carvings above and under water on Moorea, Tahiti:


submerged lemuria tahiti

moorea mu

A few hundred years ago, both islanders and visitors (among them Captain Cook) witnessed a step-pyramid in Moorea. This picture of it was drawn in 1799. Today only a rubble of rocks at its base remains:

pyramid tahiti

Arahurahu Marae, a restored ancient temple on Tahiti

Arahurahu Marae

Tahitan Megaliths:

Tahitan Megaliths

The case on “Lemuria” is not closed, it is just beginning to unfold. A comparative study of the mythology of the Islanders, the Maori and South America will reveal the essentially same story, from which we can piece together at least some of our fascinating distant history.