I found a debunking site for ‘alternative histories’.

Here at the Hall of Maat.

My brother is very into ancient civilisations and the sphinx being aligned with Orion… so I was looking around for some reliable information on the geology of the Sphinx. If you want a site that has some good, referenced resources about that kind of stuff, the Hall of Maat is a fun site to have a nose through. The authors really despise Graham Hancock.

I am also interested in this kind of stuff, but I’m not so open minded that I let my brains leak out. I’ve spent a fair bit of time on the subjects on the site; and though there is seem reasonable evidence for city building to have been going on during the ice age in the far East, the claims of a city 30,000 years ago in the bay of Cambay are just ridiculous. As is the 10,000 year old or more date for the Sphinx. In the short space of time it’s been uncovered, it’s suffered pretty seriously from erosion (big flakes of limestone are peeling off it) and the claims that it’s all been caused by heavy rain during the Saharan wet phases are pretty weak.

All in all, not a bad site.


2 responses to “I found a debunking site for ‘alternative histories’.

  1. Hi,

    What would be your best guess for early dates in the bay of Cambay?

    I’ve heard of dates for the Sphinx of about 2500-3000BCE.

  2. The Cambay sites.. well the IVC civilization seems to be an extension of the farmers expansion from Anatolia. My suspicion is that they were Indo Europeans. This would mean that they were 7k to 8k at the oldest. If there is a city down there, it’s probably from the land being lowered by an earthquake, as that area is pretty active.

    I’m just too familiar by now with the dates on the spread of agriculture and pottery to buy the ’30k year old cities’. 15k in east Asia I might go for, as they had domesticated rice by that point (you need a bulk carbohydrate crop to fuel an urban development) and they had pottery about 16k ago there. There’s also evidence the Jomon were growing crops at that era from their tooth decay, so it’s possible. I’ve got a page on my other ‘weird’ blog on this.

    The ‘potsherds’ they got out from Cambay had the same TL date as the seabed they were in, which suggests they are just accreted clay and not pottery. There’s just no evidence of a very old date on that one. That there’s a sunk city under there isn’t impossible though.

    The date for the Sphinx is given about 2,500 BC. If it’s wrong it’s probably not by much. The reason for the excessive weathering on it is, apparently, that it’s made of very poor quality stone. According to some of the pages on HOM the recently uncovered bits have already started coming off in great big flakes. My own page on it.

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