From the perspective of postcolonial theory, as argued by Gayatri Spivak (1988), colonial epistemology creates a "subaltern" that is denied space to speak. The Indonesian archipelago as the possible center of Atlantis is a concrete example: even when there are scientific arguments supporting it, mainstream archaeological discourse attempts to silence it. Thus, what is at stake is not only historical truth, but also who has the right to define history itself.
However, criticism cannot stop at deconstruction. It requires a solution in the form of epistemic disobedience, as argued by Walter Mignolo (2011). This means that nations outside the West must have the courage to construct their own frameworks of knowledge, based on historical experience, local archaeological resources, and their cultural cosmologies. In this context, the theory of Atlantis Nusantara should not be seen merely as a historical claim, but also as an attempt to resist epistemic domination, to reclaim the right to interpret the past from one's own perspective.
Furthermore, this epistemic critique also paves the way for repositioning the Indonesian archipelago on the map of world civilization. If Atlantis is indeed the sunken Sunda Shelf, then Indonesia is no longer merely a "successor" to external civilizations, but rather a "giver" of civilization, bequeathing maritime traditions, metallurgy, agriculture, and cosmological spirituality to the world. Thus, the reflective imagination of Atlantis is not an empty fantasy, but a decolonial strategy for building pride in national identity while simultaneously shifting the center of gravity of world history.
This is where the urgency of reading Atlantis as an epistemological symbol lies. It is not simply a lost land but also a representation of the loss of voices from the non-Western world, marginalized in the construction of global history. Discussing the Atlantis of the Indonesian Archipelago means discussing our right to write history from our own perspective. In this way, Santos's theory becomes a gateway to establishing epistemic equality: that the East, including the Indonesian archipelago, has not always been on the periphery, but has been---and can return---to the center.
Therefore, epistemic critique of Western hegemony does not stop at dismantling historical biases but must be directed at restoring the nation's imagination. Atlantis Nusantara symbolizes Indonesia's transition from a subordinate narrative and the development of a new vision as a maritime and agricultural nation that was once the center of world civilization. Thus, Santos's theory, while controversial, serves a strategic purpose: raising historical awareness and opening horizons for the future.
Prof. Arysio Santos' Scientific Argument
Prof. Arysio Nunes dos Santos, a multidisciplinary scientist from Brazil, proposed the radical hypothesis that Atlantis was not merely a myth, but a real civilization that flourished in the Sundaland region---which now encompasses the maritime region of the Indonesian archipelago---around 11,600 years ago. Santos' claim stems from Plato's accounts in Timaeus and Critias, which describe Atlantis as a prosperous, technologically advanced landmass that sank due to a major catastrophe. Santos interprets Plato's description as remarkably consistent with the geological, oceanographic, and paleoclimatological conditions that existed in prehistoric Southeast Asia, particularly during the final Ice Age (Pleistocene) when rising sea levels submerged much of the Sunda Shelf (Santos, 2005).
Geologically, the Sunda Shelf is a vast landmass connecting the major islands of Southeast Asia, including Sumatera, Java, Kalimantan, and the Malay Peninsula. During the ice age, the polar ice caps melted, and global sea levels rose by approximately 120 meters. This event submerged a previously fertile and vast land area, forcing its inhabitants to migrate and leaving behind a cultural heritage that spread throughout the world (Oppenheimer, 1999). Santos' hypothesis thus provides a scientific explanation that the lost civilization of Atlantis was not merely a Greek myth, but rather a collective historical record of the loss of the center of human civilization in Southeast Asia.
Plato wrote that Atlantis was a land of extraordinary fertility, capable of producing abundant harvests, rich in gold, silver, and rare metals, and strategically positioned for maritime trade. When empirically tested, this description certainly meets these requirements. Paleoecological studies indicate that the ancient Indonesian archipelago possessed abundant biodiversity and mineral resources. Furthermore, its geographic location at the crossroads of global maritime routes makes it a potential early center of trade and cultural exchange (Adams, 2010). Thus, Santos's argument relies not only on mythological imagination but also on cross-disciplinary empirical data.
Furthermore, oceanographic and climatological research supports the claim of the sinking of Sundaland. Analysis of marine sediments, coral reef formations, and underwater geological remains shows evidence of a massive sea-level rise around 9,000--11,000 years BC. This drastic change is believed to have caused the disappearance of the vast landmass that served as the center of ancient human settlements. This phenomenon aligns with the deluge myths found in various cultural traditions worldwide---from Gilgamesh in Mesopotamia, the story of Noah in the Hebrew tradition, to the flood myths of Java, Sunda, and Bali. Santos interprets these flood myths as a collective narrative about the loss of Atlantis in the Indonesian archipelago (Santos, 2005).
From an anthropological perspective, Santos's argument is also supported by evidence of the spread of Austronesian culture. Linguists have found that Austronesian languages spread from maritime Southeast Asia to the Pacific and even to Madagascar, indicating the presence of an early center of civilization in this region (Bellwood, 2007). If Sundaland is Atlantis, then the Austronesian migration represents a concrete form of post-drowning diaspora. This simultaneously positions the Indonesian archipelago not as a historical periphery, but as a center that contributed to the foundation of global civilization.
Comparisons with Egypt and Mesopotamia further strengthen Santos' argument. Plato described Atlantis as a civilization older than Egypt and Greece. If Atlantis was located on the Sunda Shelf and sank around 11,600 years ago, then chronologically this claim is valid. Mesopotamian civilization only emerged around 5,000--6,000 years ago, while Ancient Egyptian civilization flourished around 3,000 BC. Thus, Santos' version of Atlantis has logical chronological priority, simultaneously shifting the hegemony of Western historiography, which has focused the "beginning of civilization" on the Middle East.
