Hapgood’s Pole Shift Hypothesis Revisited

In Before Atlantis I apply Charles Hapgood’s hypothesis that Earth’s poles have shifted several times over the past 100,000 years to understand the alignment of numerous ancient sites across the world and to use the hypothetical alignment of the these sites to ancient poles as a new means of dating the sites. This article presents a revised version of Hapgood’s original pole shift hypothesis.

Milankovitch Cycles

It is widely accepted in the scientific community that climate patterns are driven to a large extent by the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth. The amount of radiation depends on a combination of factors including changes in the eccentricity in our orbit around the sun, axial tilt or obliquity, axial and apsidal precession, and orbital inclination. The combination of these effects gives rise to what are called Milankovitch cycles.

Although there is extensive evidence that the variation in solar radiation is an important factor, there are certain problems with Milankovitch’s model related to the timing of the cycles and their correlation with climate events. Perhaps the biggest problem is that the magnitude of climate changes have turned out to be far greater than what is predicted by the model.

Pole Shifts

The idea of pole shifts originates in a talk given in May 1872 by the French ethnographer Charles-Étienne Brasseur de Bourbourg called “Chronologie historique des Mexicains.” He interpreted passages in the lost Codex Chimalpopoca that beginning about 10,500 BCE, four periods of cataclysms had changed the world, each caused by a temporary shifting of Earth’s axis [1]. In the mid 1900s Hugh Auchincloss Brown [2] and Charles Hapgood [3] proposed that shifts of the geographic pole could explain ice ages, mass extinctions, and other worldwide events. Hapgood proposed that an asymmetrical accumulation of polar ice created a force that caused the crust of the Earth to displace, i.e., slide over, the mantle. Albert Einstein later determined that this force was insufficient, leaving Hapgood’s hypothesis without a physical cause.

In the 1990s, a team led by Joseph Kirschvink found paleomagnetic evidence of a massive 90° pole shift 500 million years ago at around the time of the Cambrian explosion [4]. Although there is some indication that the magnetic pole has deviated significantly from the geographic pole over the past 100,000 years, paleomagnetic evidence of a shift in the geographic pole over this period is inconclusive. Perhaps the best independent evidence supporting Hapgood’s pole shift hypothesis is the alignment of over four dozen sites to four previous locations of the North Pole as described in Before Atlantis.

Adjusted Timeline

Rather than interpreting the ice ages as global climate events, Hapgood believed the spatial patterns of climate change were best explained by changes in the geographic location of the North Pole. By examining patterns of climate change, he estimated that three pole shifts had taken place during the past 100,000 years: 1) from Hudson Bay (60˚N 73˚W) to the current pole, 12,000 to 17,000 years ago, 2) from the Atlantic Ocean between Iceland and Norway (72˚N 10˚E) to Hudson Bay, 50,000 to 55,000 years ago, and 3) from the Yukon (63˚N 135˚W) to between Iceland and Norway 75,000 to 80,000 years ago (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Hapgood’s original timeline relating climate change to pole shifts.

Figure 2 shows an adjusted timeline based on currently accepted periods of glacial and interglacial events in Europe and North America. Before 125,000 years ago, during the Illinoian glaciation, we propose that the North Pole was in the Bering Sea north of the Aleutian Islands. At the start of the Sangamon interglacial period it shifted to a location in the Norway Sea. During this period the climate in North America became warmer and Europe became colder. Sometime between 75,000 to 125,000 years ago the pole shifted towards Greenland. About 75,000 years ago the pole moved to a location in Hudson Bay at which time the climate in North America became colder. Finally 12,000-17,000 years ago after the pole shifts to its present location, both North America and Europe become warmer.

Figure 2 Revised timeline based on more recent glacial data

Figure 3 shows our refined pole location model and adjusted timeline. In Before Atlantis it is argued that the pole spent more time in the Norway Sea than it did in Greenland based on a greater number of sites discovered to be aligned to the Greenland pole. As this interpretation may not be correct, the order and timing of these two pole shifts remains an open question.

Figure 3 Hapgood’s original poles (H) and refined pole locations based on site alignments and current climate data. Google Earth


[1] Howard F. Cline and John B. Glass, eds., “Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources, Part Two, ”Handbook of Middle American Indians 13.

[2] Hugh Auchincloss Brown, Cataclysms of the Earth (Twayne Publishers, 1967).

[3] Charles Hutchins Hapgood, Earth’s Shifting Crust: A Key to Some Basic Problems of Earth Science, (1958, foreword by Albert Einstein).

[4] Joseph L. Kirschvink, Robert L. Ripperdan, David A. Evans, “Evidence for a Large-Scale Reorganization of Early Cambrian Continental Masses by Inertial Interchange True Polar Wander,” Science, 􏰉Vol. 277, No. 25, July 1997.

17 Replies to “Hapgood’s Pole Shift Hypothesis Revisited”

  1. Mark – It’s always great to see another intelligent perspective on pole shifts and ancient civilizations. Looking forward to reading your book, and I hope you’ll read mine and consider discussions, guest posts, etc. I just promoted you on my blog, including:

    Consider buying Mark’s new book as a gift ($9.99 Kindle, $26.99 Paperback)
    Before Atlantis: New Evidence Suggesting the Existence of a Previous Technological Civilization on Earth – https://www.amazon.com/Before-Atlantis-Suggesting-Technological-Civilization-ebook/dp/B07HLC677X
    and of course my book ($7.99 Kindle, $14.99 Paperback)
    Pole Shift: Evidence Will Not Be Silenced – https://www.amazon.com/Pole-Shift-Evidence-Will-Silenced-ebook/dp/B07CGX3RRT


    1. Codex Chimalpopoca: You mentioned the interpretation to include pole shift suggestions. I can’t easily find this online, where to look? I’m glad I came upon both you and Mark!


    2. Mark – CORRECTION! My previous reply had me confused which site I was on. I had been on another site that referred to you!

      Codex Chimalpopoca: You mentioned the interpretation to include pole shift suggestions. I can’t easily find this online, where to look? I’m glad I came upon you Mark!


  2. Thank you for this page as it has helped my views somewhat.
    In view of the common rubbishing (by the usual suspects) of the reality of the Piri Reis map, could you please add a picture showing the three south poles that would be the southern equivalents to those poles as if I am correct, then the 15000-75000 southern pole would do much to prove that the above map has more truth in it than many believe. I have spent no little time in Tasmania’s wilderness and although no geomorphologist I am certain that the marked glaciation evidence there points to more than just a recent ice age.


  3. Thanks to my daughter’s school globe I was able to guesstimate the 25000-75000BC site as 60 105 or SSW of Australia and that would make the Antarctic land mass near Cape Horn relatively free of ice and perhaps even mild in climate (Piri Reis said IIRC “a mildly warm climate” which is probably pushing it but well before the climate furore nonsense Tasmania in summer often (and still does), had very hot summers). The fact that much of the interior detail of Antarctica was ignored would indicate either knowledge that it was perhaps simply unexplored by the original mapmaker although part of Antarctica had to be snow & ice covered. Any civilization there would have been crushed to powder centuries ago although mineral studies could find traces if it were advanced.

    IMHO the crust movement and pole shifts with or without precipitation by external events are useful and explain much and that science is now treating any disagreement that upsets accepted “fact” as heresy and punishing accordingly and I can assure you there that stepping out of conformist line IS punished.
    So many thanks for the reply..


  4. Addendum: I have felt for years that the margins of the now extinct(thanks to the indigenous habit of fire hunting) Great Inland Sea of Australia should be more carefully checked for evidence of ancient stonework hidden under the sand nearby. TBH I just have the impression that Terra Australis was inhabited long ago and not by the current indigenes but I cannot explain why I feel this.


  5. The present indigenous Australians look physically exactly like Tamils I have no idea of the DNA but having mixed with both groups quite a bit, I feel certain of it. The ones that they err…”replaced” (see “killed off” the men and enslaved the women) were a slightly lighter shade of dark brown and this was apparent as the intensity of the darkness decreased as you moved NW to SE (as noted by early visitors and settlers)as I guess extermination was replaced by enslavement. The Tasmanian indigenes, the sole survivors of the originals were even more primitive than the newer ones but still had their habits. Neither of these groups could be classified as human remnants of aa advanced civilization. I have no idea of the origins of the first group and they could even have been still present along with an advanced civilization who failed to see any need for continental domination and extermination.
    I must check that book ….thank you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s