Atlantis and the Search for a Lost Civilization
Atlantis is one of the most famous civilization myths in human history. First appearing in Plato's dialogues Timaeus and Critias, around the 4th century BC, Atlantis is depicted as a prosperous, civilized, and militarily powerful land, only to sink overnight due to a cataclysm. Plato's narrative, while philosophical and allegorical in nature, has long been a subject of debate among historians, archaeologists, and philosophers. The question remains: did Atlantis really exist, or was it simply Plato's metaphor for human arrogance defying the cosmic order?
The obsession stems not only from the exotic allure of a lost land, but also from Atlantis's tapping into humanity's collective longing for its origins. Official modern archaeological histories often emphasize the great civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece. However, the myth of Atlantis suggests that before all these, there once existed an older and greater cultural center. This is why Atlantis has continually been the subject of repeated searches by both scientists and spiritual explorers. From a theoretical perspective, Atlantis can be viewed through the perspective of myth as history, namely how myths function as repositories of collective memory that preserve fragments of historical truth. Eliade (1963) argued that myths often serve as "sacred histories" containing cosmological and anthropological dimensions. If so, Atlantis is not merely Plato's allegorical tale, but most likely humanity's ancient memory of a real geological catastrophe---such as the rising sea levels at the end of the Ice Age that submerged the Sundaland.
The search for Atlantis also represents an attempt to unravel the epistemic limitations of modern archaeology. On the one hand, conventional science demands material evidence in the form of artifacts, texts, and soil stratification. However, on the other hand, alternative theories---such as those proposed by Prof. Arysio Santos---offer a multidisciplinary approach: geology, paleoclimatology, linguistics, and even comparative mythology. This tension demonstrates the tug-of-war between hegemonic "official science" and "alternative science" that seeks to break through the dogmatic boundaries of modern science.
Atlantis, in this sense, is not merely an archaeological object, but an epistemological symbol. It challenges humanity to transcend the dichotomy between myth and history, between local knowledge and modern science. Atlantis presents a space for contested discourse where claims to truth are determined not only by material evidence but also by the courage to reinterpret humanity's collective heritage. Habermas's critical philosophy of knowledge and human interests is relevant here: knowledge is never neutral; it is always linked to particular interests, including monopolizing the narrative of civilization.
If so, Atlantis must be read not simply as a "sunken land" but as a symbol of the discontinuity of human history. It represents the eternal question: is what was lost truly annihilated, or merely buried in the memory of the earth and humanity? Within this framework, Atlantis becomes a metaphor for humanity's search for identity, an attempt to understand its origins and plan its future. In other words, Atlantis is not simply a story of destruction, but also of the hope of resurrection---a vision that from the ruins of an old civilization, an opportunity to build a new, more just and civilized civilization arises.
Therefore, to talk about Atlantis is to talk about humanity's deepest reflection on ourselves and the world. Atlantis is a mirror: it reveals both our arrogance and our longing for a harmonious cosmos. Atlantis is a universal symbol of the origins of civilization, but in the context of the Indonesian archipelago, it can be further interpreted as a trace of identity awaiting rediscovery. Herein lies the urgency: Atlantis is not merely a historical enigma, but a source of inspiration for redefining the nation's revival.
Epistemic Critique of Western Hegemony
The history of modern archaeology demonstrates a strong tendency to place the center of civilization in certain regions considered "cradles of civilization," namely Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece. This narrative, constructed in the 19th century, when European colonialism was at its peak, led to the development of archaeology within a colonial epistemological framework. It is as if world civilization originated in the Mediterranean and the Near East, while other regions were merely peripheral or recipients of cultural spillovers. This mindset gave rise to a cultural hierarchy: the West was positioned as the center of rationality and progress, while the East, including the Indonesian archipelago, was positioned as exotic, traditional, and backward.
This tendency is not neutral. Michel Foucault (1980) reminds us that knowledge is never free from power relations; it is a product of "regimes of truth" determined by who holds power and how discourse is constructed. In the archaeological context, Western dominance perpetuates what Edward Said calls orientalism, an epistemic construct that denigrates the East in order to secure colonial legitimacy. Thus, when alternative theories such as Arysio Santos's propose the possibility that Atlantis was located in the Indonesian archipelago, Western archaeology tends to reject them, not only for methodological reasons, but also because they threaten the hegemony of established narratives.
This rejection often manifests as an attitude that could be called "intellectual arrogance." Santos, for example, is accused of being speculative and unscientific, even though his arguments are supported by geology, paleoclimatology, and comparative linguistics. Behind this rejection lies an attempt to maintain an epistemic monopoly: that the origins of civilization must remain rooted in the Mediterranean region. In other words, what is being defended is not only factual truth, but also the geopolitical position of science.
This colonial epistemology places the Indonesian archipelago on the fringes of history. Archaeological discoveries in Indonesia---such as Homo floresiensis on Flores, the megalithic sites of Mount Padang, or the remains of Austronesian civilization---are rarely placed alongside Mesopotamia or Egypt in global discourse. Yet, when examined critically, this evidence demonstrates that the Indonesian archipelago has a long history of human and cultural development. This neglect demonstrates a structural bias: the center is always in the West, the periphery always in the East.