Atlantis and the Rise of the Nusantara: Reflective Imagination for National Identity

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.

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.

From a theoretical perspective, Santos' approach aligns with the idea of cultural diffusionism, which states that the world's great cultures emerged from a single central center and then spread to other regions. He positions Sundaland as the "cradle of civilization," the birthplace of agricultural technology, maritime navigation, and religious cosmology, which later influenced Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Greece. If this assumption is correct, then the Indonesian archipelago is no longer viewed merely as a recipient of external culture, but rather as a primary source forgotten due to the dominance of colonial epistemology (Glover & Bellwood, 2004).

Santos also emphasized that the rejection of this hypothesis is not merely academic but also ideological. This is because recognizing Atlantis as located in the Indonesian archipelago would undermine the grand Western narrative about the center of civilization. This is what is known as "intellectual arrogance" in modern archaeology, where alternative theories are often marginalized not because of weak data, but because they contradict the dominant paradigm. In other words, Santos' hypothesis demands epistemic courage to revisit the history of human civilization without euro-centric tendencies.

Philosophically, Santos's argument offers an epistemic solution. He asserts that myth and science are not mutually exclusive, but rather two distinct ways of remembering humanity's collective history. By rereading Plato in light of modern geology, oceanography, and anthropology, we can discover the deepest meaning of Atlantis: that humans once lived in a civilization in harmony with nature, and its collapse was the result of a global ecological catastrophe. This reflection is relevant to modern challenges, as the world once again faces a climate crisis that could potentially submerge coastal cities.

Thus, Arysio Santos's scientific argument not only opens a new discourse on the location of Atlantis but also invites us to reconsider the paradigms of history, archeology, and the philosophy of civilization. If Atlantis truly existed in the Indonesian archipelago, then the Indonesian people are not merely inheritors of a local culture, but guardians of humanity's universal heritage. And from this perspective, Atlantis is not merely a story of the past but also a philosophical warning about humanity's future.

Traces of Atlantis in the Indonesian Archipelago: Mysteries and Ancient Sites

Discussing Atlantis in the Indonesian Archipelago is not merely geological speculation, but also requires an examination of the archaeological, mythological, and cosmological traces left behind on this archipelago. If Atlantis truly existed on the Sunda Shelf, its legacy should still be recognizable through the remains of ancient sites, local traditions, and mystical narratives that persist to this day. This perspective opens up space for re-evaluating Indonesian cultural sites as markers of the existence of a high civilization, not merely fragmentary local relics.

One of the most controversial sites is Mount Padang in Cianjur, West Java. Geological research conducted by the Ancient Catastrophe Team (2013) found indications of man-made structures beneath layers of soil and rock that are over 10,000 years old. If this hypothesis is correct, Mount Padang is much older than the Egyptian pyramids, making it a candidate for the oldest pyramid in the world (Natawidjaja, 2013). This site is not simply a collection of megalithic stones, but rather a monumental construction reflecting the technical, astronomical, and cosmological capabilities of ancient societies. Mount Padang can thus be seen as a "fossil of civilization," aligning with Arysio Santos's claim of Atlantis in the Indonesian archipelago.

Besides Mount Padang, Borobudur and Prambanan are the pinnacle manifestations of Indonesian cosmology and spirituality. Borobudur, with its mandala architecture, reflects a highly sophisticated understanding of the cosmos: the human world (kamadhatu), the transitional world (rupadhatu), and the world of enlightenment (arupadhatu). Prambanan, with its Shiva-Brahma-Vishnu trilogy, reinforces the religious awareness that humans are an integral part of the universe. These sites demonstrate that the Indonesian archipelago is not merely a peripheral region of India or China, but rather the center of original cosmological creation. If Atlantis is a symbol of cosmological civilization, then Borobudur and Prambanan affirm that this legacy continues (Soekmono, 1995).

Another often overlooked landmark is the Adam's Footprint in Baduy, as well as the ancient temples in Karawang, Banten, and Jambi. The Baduy believe that Adam's Footprint is an ancient cosmological site that connects humanity to its origins. Meanwhile, the temple complex in Muara Jambi is one of the largest in Southeast Asia, indicating a high level of intellectual and spiritual activity. Even in Karawang, the remains of megalithic sites and temples illustrate the continuity of religious traditions from prehistory to Hinduism and Buddhism. The Indonesian archipelago's metallurgical tradition, which produced keris (the Indonesian keris), gamelan (the gamelan), and bronze casting systems, is evidence of technological sophistication often overlooked in mainstream archaeology (Simanjuntak, 2012).

The Indonesian archipelago also harbors geological and volcanic sites steeped in mystery. Lake Toba in North Sumatra, formed by a supervolcanic eruption approximately 74,000 years ago, left traces of a global ecological disaster that altered the Earth's climate. Lakes Above and Below in West Sumatra and Lake Singkarak reflect the interconnectedness of geology with local mythology, often associated with stories of great floods. Even more challenging is the claim of a structure resembling a great wall beneath the sea in Papua, which local divers report resembles a man-made stone wall. Although still controversial, findings like this add to the list of questions about the possibility of traces of ancient civilizations buried by the geology of the Nusantara.

In addition to physical sites, the Indonesian archipelago is also rich with mystical narratives about supernatural cities. Stories about the city of Saranjana in South Kalimantan, Padang 12 in West Kalimantan, Wentira in Central Sulawesi, and even the magical village of the "Bunian People" in West Sumatra reflect the collective memory of hidden "other civilizations." In Lvi-Strauss's structural anthropology, such myths can be read as symbolizing historical trauma---perhaps distant memories of the sinking of large landmasses and the disappearance of ancient cities (Lvi-Strauss, 1963). This means that myths of supernatural cities are not merely folklore, but rather hidden fragments of ancient history.

This phenomenon becomes even more meaningful when linked to evidence of Austronesian seafaring prowess. Before Europeans set sail, the ancestors of the Indonesian archipelago had explored the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. Outrigger ships and star-based navigation systems were maritime technologies that enabled the Austronesian diaspora to travel to Madagascar, Hawaii, and Easter Island (Bellwood, 2007). This maritime prowess aligns with Plato's description of the Atlanteans as skilled sailors and masters of the seas. In other words, Austronesians were the "children of Atlantis" who spread their seafaring and cultural heritage across the oceans.

From a philosophical perspective, the entirety of the ancient sites and mystical narratives of the Indonesian archipelago form the cosmological architecture of civilization. Atlantis, in Santos's view, was not a single city, but rather a cultural network that combined spirituality, technology, and maritime affairs. Borobudur affirmed cosmological superiority; Mount Padang held the secrets of prehistoric technology; the Austronesian diaspora demonstrated global navigational skills. If these traces are read as a mosaic, Atlantis truly exists as the "spirit of civilization" of the Indonesian archipelago, continuously transforming throughout history.

However, reading the traces of Atlantis in the Indonesian archipelago must also be done critically. Some claims still await more rigorous scientific validation. Mount Padang, for example, continues to generate debate among archaeologists and geologists. Similarly, reports of an underwater "great wall" in Papua still require methodological verification. Such critique is crucial to prevent the Atlantis narrative from becoming trapped in pseudoscience and instead remaining grounded in reliable empirical research.

On the other hand, openness to alternative interpretations paves the way for the deconstruction of colonial epistemologies. Until now, Indonesian sites have often been viewed as peripheral to India or China, rather than as original centers. By linking them to the Atlantis hypothesis, we are given the opportunity to reposition the Indonesian archipelago as a cradle of civilization. Of course, this repositioning does not negate global archaeological findings, but rather offers a pluralistic way of reading human history.

Within the framework of postcolonial theory, the narrative of Atlantis in the Indonesian archipelago can be understood as a form of resistance against the hegemony of Western knowledge. Local knowledge, mythology, and alternative archaeology are restored to their dignity as legitimate epistemic sources. Thus, Atlantis becomes not only an archaeological object but also a symbol of the decolonization of knowledge: the recognition that human history did not begin and end in Mesopotamia or Greece, but rather had other equally legitimate centers.

The traces of Atlantis in the Indonesian archipelago ultimately prompt philosophical reflection. If our ancestors once lived in cosmological harmony and technological prowess, why are Indonesians today often trapped in epistemic dependence on the West? Could awareness of the Indonesian Atlantis be a turning point for the nation's intellectual awakening? These questions remind us that history is not only about the past, but also about how it inspires the future.

Thus, Mount Padang, Borobudur, Prambanan, Tapak Adam, the mystical cities of the Indonesian archipelago, and the Austronesian diaspora are not merely isolated fragments, but rather a larger mosaic pointing to the memory of Atlantis in the Indonesian archipelago. Atlantis here is not merely a sunken land, but a symbol of civilization that once existed, still has traces, and has the potential to raise new awareness about the archipelago's position in world history.

Atlantis as Reflective Imagination

Reading Prof. Arysio Santos' theory about Atlantis in the Indonesian Archipelago does not have to be solely framed within the framework of historical claims that demand archaeological verification. Furthermore, this hypothesis can be interpreted as reflective imagination, namely an attempt to interpret history and mythology to build a new awareness of national identity. Reflective imagination is not a baseless fantasy, but rather a philosophical contemplation that links the past with the present to formulate a vision for the future. Within this framework, Atlantis serves as a mirror that allows the Indonesian people to reflect on who they are and the roots of their civilization.

From Ricoeur's (1984) hermeneutical perspective, historical imagination is not a denial of fact, but a creative form of giving meaning to incomplete fragments of reality. Just as texts are always open to interpretation, ancient history presents "empty spaces" that demand interpretive imagination. The theory of Atlantis in the Indonesian Archipelago, while controversial, provides an opportunity for this nation to reinterpret global history from its own perspective. Thus, Atlantis serves as an interpretive horizon for Indonesian identity.

Atlantis, in Santos' narrative, is depicted as a maritime civilization with advanced agriculture, technology, and high spirituality. Reading this reflectively means realizing that the Indonesian archipelago's identity is not merely a hybrid of foreign cultures, but an entity with deep civilizational roots. In other words, Atlantis can be positioned as a symbol of the glory, creativity, and spirituality of a nation that once stood tall on the world stage. This imagination is important because it reverses the colonial logic that consistently positioned the Indonesian archipelago as the periphery of history.

In the tradition of the philosophy of history, Hegel once positioned the East as the infancy of civilization and the West as its maturity (Hegel, 1956). This view gave rise to a Eurocentric tendency that viewed Asian nations, including the Indonesian archipelago, as mere recipients of civilization. Reading Atlantis as the Indonesian archipelago is a deconstructive way to counter this bias: the Indonesian archipelago is no longer positioned as a consumer of civilization, but rather as a producer---even the initial center of world civilization. Atlantis becomes a counter-narrative to claims of European hegemony.

Furthermore, Atlantis as a reflective imagination can also be understood through Halbwachs' (1992) theory of collective memory. A nation's collective memory is not simply an accumulation of historical facts, but also a construction of meaning that guides identity. Cultural traces, ancient sites, and even myths about the mystical city of the Indonesian archipelago, when read within the horizon of Atlantis, form a collective memory of past glory that strengthens the nation's self-confidence. It serves as a mnemonic device---a tool of memory---to combat the inferiority instilled by colonialism.

Thus, Atlantis is not simply about what was lost, but about what remains alive in the nation's consciousness. Borobudur, Prambanan, the keris (the Javanese keris), gamelan (the Javanese gamelan), wayang (the wayang puppet), and the Austronesian nautical system are evidence that the spirit of that civilization continues to pulsate. Atlantis, in this form, is a Jungian archetype: a collective symbol that continues to emerge in various cultural manifestations, signifying a shared source of psychic energy that transcends time (Jung, 1969).

In the context of the modern Indonesian archipelago, Atlantis can serve as an inspiring paradigm. The nation that gave birth to Borobudur and built a maritime network extending to Madagascar and the Pacific should not feel inferior to the West. The reflective imagination of Atlantis provides a psychological foundation for building national self-confidence. He stated that this nation was once a center of world knowledge, spirituality, and trade---and therefore could once again become a major player in global civilization.

However, it is also important to emphasize that reflective imagination is not a glorification of the past. Reading Atlantis as the Nusantara should not stop at romantic nostalgia, but rather be guided by critical reflection. The question is not simply "are we Atlantis?", but "how can Atlantean consciousness guide us in building a new civilization?". This critical reflection demands that we reimagine our relationship with nature, technology, and spirituality, as Atlantis was once depicted as a prosperous society that was later destroyed by greed.

Atlantis as a reflective imagination also recalls Spivak's (1999) postcolonial theory of "the subaltern can speak." To date, Southeast Asian nations have rarely been given space to voice their own historical narratives. Reading Atlantis in the Nusantara means giving voice to the subaltern---allowing this nation to articulate itself not as an object of Western history, but as a subject of world history. In this way, Atlantis becomes a symbol of epistemological decolonization.

Furthermore, Atlantis as a reflective imagination has a deep spiritual dimension. The Nusantara is known for its local wisdom, which views nature as a sacred cosmos. In the Atlantean imagination, a harmonious relationship with the cosmos is the cornerstone of glory. This reflection challenges materialistic modernity, which often neglects the spiritual. By reviving "Atlantis Nusantara," this nation can offer an alternative paradigm: a civilization balanced between science, technology, and spirituality.

The practical implication of this reflection is the repositioning of the Indonesian archipelago in the modern world. If it was once the center of maritime civilization, it can now once again play a strategic role as the world's maritime axis. If Atlantis was once known for its wealth and fertility, Indonesia can now lead the world in equitable ecological and agrarian innovation. Atlantis becomes a vision, not just a memory---a vision of the Indonesian archipelago rising as a pioneer of a new civilization.

Thus, reading Santos's theory as a reflective imagination is not merely an intellectual exercise, but a cultural strategy and identity politics. Atlantis in the Indonesian archipelago is a symbol that confirms the nation's roots in world history. It is a counter-narrative to Western hegemony, as well as a driving narrative for national awakening. Atlantis is not merely lost, but something that must be rediscovered in our collective consciousness.

From Mystery to Identity: Atlantis and the Rise of the Nusantara

A reading of the theory of Atlantis in the Indonesian Archipelago, put forward by Prof. Arysio Santos, leads us not only to debates in geology, archeology, or philology, but also to a profound reflection on national identity. The narrative of Atlantis, believed to have resided on the Sunda Shelf and the Indonesian archipelago, is not merely a historical claim, but also a foundation for reinterpreting Indonesia's position in the global arena of civilization. Within this framework, Atlantis is not merely a mystery of the past, but a symbolic source of energy for the revival of the Indonesian Archipelago in the contemporary era (Santos, 2005).

First, we can see how the Atlantis narrative aligns with Indonesia's vision as a Global Maritime Axis, launched during the administration of President Joko Widodo. This concept speaks not only of geopolitics or economics, but also of the imagination of identity. By reminding us that the ancestors of the Indonesian Archipelago were skilled sailors, masters of the oceans, and guardians of the maritime silk road, the Atlantis narrative reinforces the historical legitimacy of Indonesia's maritime vision. It's as if, by rereading Atlantis, the Indonesian people have found a mirror to recognize their true face: a maritime nation that was once a hub of civilization.

Second, the claim of Atlantis in the Indonesian archipelago fosters national self-confidence. For centuries, Asian nations, including Indonesia, have often been positioned as passive recipients of Western civilization. However, by imagining the Indonesian archipelago as the heart of Atlantis, history can be rewritten from a more equitable perspective: that the West, too, may have learned from the East. This narrative is not merely romantic, but a discursive strategy to break through entrenched epistemic colonialism (Quijano, 2000). With Atlantis, the Indonesian people are invited to hold their heads high before the world, not only as inheritors but also as creators of civilization.

Third, Atlantis serves as an inspiration, opening horizons for future development rooted in local wisdom. Plato described the Indonesian archipelago as a land of advanced agriculture, an orderly social system, and high spirituality (Plato, Critias). This image can be reread as an encouragement for Indonesia to build a modern civilization that is not uprooted from its land. Sustainable agriculture, environmentally friendly technology, and ecologically based maritime management are the actualization of Atlantis in the 21st-century context. Atlantis, then, is not just a fairy tale, but an ars memoriae---a repository of collective memory that guides the nation into the future.

From a theoretical perspective, this idea can be explained using Benedict Anderson's (1983) imagined community approach. Atlantis Nusantara serves as a new founding myth that strengthens the collective imagination of the Indonesian nation. It creates a narrative of togetherness that transcends ethnic, linguistic, and religious barriers, placing the entire Indonesian archipelago within a unified framework of a great civilization. In global identity politics, this kind of myth plays a crucial role in building moral legitimacy and a deeper sense of nationalism.

Furthermore, Atlantis also paved the way for the revitalization of Indonesian spirituality. Atlantis, depicted as a prosperous and religious land, can be understood as a symbol of balance between materiality and spirituality. In the current context, Indonesian spirituality is reflected in the Tri Hita Karana philosophy in Bali, the Cosmological Silahturahmi in the Javanese tradition, or the Huma Betang in Kalimantan. Reading Atlantis as a mirror, the Indonesian nation is reminded that true development does not only pursue economic growth, but also harmony between humans, nature, and God.

Furthermore, Atlantis Nusantara also serves as a symbol of resistance against global homogenization. Amidst the rapid flow of capitalism and modern technology, the Indonesian nation risks losing its cultural roots and local wisdom. Atlantis offers a counter-narrative: that Nusantara modernity can be built from local foundations, rather than simply imitating the West. This is the idea of glocalization, where global values meet local strengths (Robertson, 1995). Atlantis, in this context, becomes both an anchor of identity and a beacon of development direction.

On the other hand, the Atlantis narrative can also be read within the framework of civilizational dialogue. While the veracity of Atlantis in the Nusantara remains a matter of debate, what is more important is how this narrative can serve as a bridge for dialogue between nations. Atlantis allows the Indonesian people to enter the discourse of global civilization with a more equal position: not merely as the "periphery" of the world, but as an alternative "center" that once existed and may yet rise again.

Critics may argue that Atlantis is merely a myth, not a historical fact. However, it is precisely within the realm of myth that symbolic power operates. Like Rome with the story of Romulus and Remus, or America with the myth of the Frontier, the Indonesian people also need a grand narrative to sustain their existence. Atlantis Nusantara, in this case, functions as mythopoeia---the creation of myths that provide direction and meaning to collective life. In other words, the truth of Atlantis is not measured solely by archaeological facts, but by its ability to inspire and energize.

From this perspective, the narrative of Atlantis must be positioned as a force for social transformation. Atlantis is not simply a story of a lost past, but rather a force for shaping the future: building a global maritime axis, developing technology in harmony with nature, and cultivating a spirituality rooted in Nusantara cosmology. Atlantis is a historical call for the Indonesian people to become not merely consumers of globalization, but architects of a new civilization.

Thus, from mystery to identity, Atlantis Nusantara provides a bridge between history, myth, and vision of the future. It connects collective memory with the nation's ideals. It connects the past with the direction of a new civilization. And most importantly, it affirms that the revival of the archipelago does not have to start from scratch, but rather from the great legacy that once existed, now waiting to be reawakened.

Conclusion: Imagination, History, and Hope

The question of Atlantis---whether it truly existed in the Indonesian archipelago or was merely a classical Greek myth---will continue to be a subject of intense academic debate. However, beyond this debate lies a far more important meaning: Atlantis Nusantara is a space of reflective imagination that provides this nation with the opportunity to liberate itself from Western epistemic hegemony. By rereading Arysio Santos' theory, we reaffirm that knowledge does not always have to come from Western academic centers but can also emerge from alternative perspectives rooted in the history and geography of the Indonesian archipelago.

This reflective imagination serves as a counter-narrative to epistemic colonialism, which for centuries has positioned Indonesia merely as an object of research, not a subject of knowledge. By positioning the Indonesian archipelago as Atlantis, we shift the orientation: from the periphery of the world to the center of civilization. This narrative allows for the emergence of new forms of pride, while also affirming the cultural claim that the Indonesian nation possesses an intellectual heritage equal to that of other nations.

Furthermore, the imagination of Atlantis Nusantara serves as an ars memoriae---a collective memory space that connects the nation's past, present, and future. Atlantis is not simply the story of a sinking continent, but rather a reflection of how civilizations can collapse and rise again. In this perspective, Atlantis serves as a metaphor for Indonesia's own history: a nation that once experienced maritime glory, then fell under colonialism, and now stands on the verge of a new renaissance.

In the tradition of the philosophy of history, Hegel (1956) described history as a dialectic between the rise and fall of civilizations. Atlantis Nusantara can be read within this dialectical framework: the sinking of the Sunda Shelf 11,600 years ago was not an end, but a negation that paved the way for a new affirmation---the birth of the maritime nation now known as Indonesia. Thus, Atlantis is not merely a myth of the past, but rather a call to revive long-hidden potential.

Furthermore, Atlantis Nusantara can be understood as an imagined future in the sense proposed by Benedict Anderson (1983). If imagined community is the basis for nation-building, then Atlantis can be the basis for an imagined destiny---a shared, imagined destiny for the future. In this context, the narrative of Atlantis not only binds national identity but also provides orientation for future development and civilization.

Atlantis is also significant as a symbol of resistance against the reduction of modernity, which is often measured solely in terms of industrialization and capitalism. Plato described Atlantis as a land advanced in agriculture, technology, and spirituality (Plato, Critias). This interpretation can serve as inspiration for building an Indonesian development model based on ecological harmony, not on natural exploitation. In other words, Atlantis Nusantara reminds us that the future of this nation must be shaped by a balance between science, local wisdom, and spirituality.

The Atlantis narrative offers Indonesia an opportunity to revive the vision of a Global Maritime Axis. If our ancestors were skilled sailors who sailed the oceans as far as Madagascar and the Pacific, then Indonesia's maritime revival in the 21st century is not a pipe dream, but rather a continuation of a long history. Atlantis serves as both a reminder and a catalyst, that maritime affairs are not merely geopolitical, but the core of this nation's identity.

However, Atlantis Nusantara must not cease to be a romanticism. It must be transformed into practical energy. Atlantis must inspire equitable agrarian policies, environmentally friendly technology, cosmopolitan yet locally rooted education, and maritime politics that connect Indonesia to the world. In this way, the Atlantis myth will find its actualization in the real lives of the Indonesian people.

Within this framework, Atlantis Nusantara also functions as a civilizational manifesto. It claims that the archipelago was not only once the center of civilization, but is now poised to regain that position. Atlantis is thus not simply a story of sinking, but a story of rebirth. It is a "functional fable," meaning it provides direction for the nation's collective action.

Of course, some will continue to view Atlantis as mere fiction. But that is precisely where its symbolic power lies. In philosophy, myths are not judged by their factual truth, but by their power to construct meaning. Atlantis Nusantara, like the founding myths of other nations, serves as a foundation of imagination that supports the continuity of collective identity and ideals.

Reading Atlantis as part of a nation's identity, we learn that history is not written solely with the ink of facts, but also with the light of imagination. Facts provide the foundation, but imagination provides direction. Without imagination, a nation will lose its vision. Without vision, a nation will lose its purpose. Atlantis, then, is the light of imagination that guides this nation toward a new renaissance.

If Atlantis once sank due to arrogance and greed, then the revival of Nusantara must stem from a deep ecological awareness, social ethics, and spirituality. Atlantis reminds us that civilization can collapse if it does not maintain balance with nature and morality. Therefore, the revival of Nusantara in the 21st century will only be valid if it is built on a foundation of justice, wisdom, and harmony.

Ultimately, we must understand Atlantis Nusantara as a narrative of hope. The hope that this nation can overcome the wounds of colonialism, political fragmentation, and ecological crisis. The hope that Indonesia can emerge as a great, just, and wise maritime nation. The hope that the archipelago will not only repeat its past glory but also create a new civilization that will set an example for the world.

Thus, despite academic controversy, Atlantis Nusantara is a story of resurrection. It is not merely a sunken myth, but a lighthouse that illuminates this nation's path to the future. Atlantis, in this sense, is Indonesia itself: a once-glorious civilization that has sunk, but is now ready to rise again on the world stage.

--------------

Referensi:

• Adams, J. (2010). The Atlantis Debate: A Geophysical and Historical Perspective. London: Routledge.
• Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
• Bellwood, P. (2007). Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. Canberra: ANU Press.
• Broad, W. (2001). The Oracle: Ancient Delphi and the Science Behind Its Lost Secrets. New York: Penguin.
• Glover, I., & Bellwood, P. (2004). Southeast Asia: From Prehistory to History. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
• Oppenheimer, S. (1999). Eden in the East: The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
• Santos, A. N. (2005). Atlantis: The Lost Continent Finally Found. Bloomington: AuthorHouse.
• Eliade, M. (1963). Myth and Reality. New York: Harper & Row.
• Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. New York: Pantheon.
• Mignolo, W. (2011). The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham: Duke University Press.
• Morwood, M., & Jungers, W. (2009). Homo floresiensis: Made in Indonesia. Nature, 459(7244), 41--42.
• Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global Modernities (pp. 25--44). London: Sage.
• Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage.
• Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the Subaltern Speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Trigger, B. (2006). A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lvi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
• Natawidjaja, D. H. (2013). Laporan Penelitian Gunung Padang. Bandung: LIPI.
• Simanjuntak, T. (2012). Megalitik di Nusantara: Identitas dan Jejak Peradaban. Jakarta: Gramedia.
• Soekmono, R. (1995). Pengantar Sejarah Kebudayaan Indonesia. Jakarta: Yayasan Kanisius.
• Mahan, A. T. (2013). The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660--1783. New York: Dover Publications. (Original work published 1918).
• Plato. (1997). Critias. In J. M. Cooper (Ed.), Complete Works. Indianapolis: Hackett.
• Plato. (2008). Timaeus and Critias. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power, eurocentrism, and Latin America. Nepantla: Views from South, 1(3), 533--580.