Atlantis

Atlantis is something that almost everyone knows something about, and everybody knows something different. I myself used to study about Atlantis, but never got very “deep” into it simply because there wasn’t that much literature on the subject in the 80′s and 90′s. There was an odd book or TV special here and there, or an occasional reference in a fictional show. I recall something in the Conan cartoon show about him being a descendent of Atlantis (there’s Jason Colavito’s Lovecraft connection as Lovecraft was friends with, and occasionally shared universes with Conan’s creator Robert E. Howard). That was all we had for the most part. As a result, I would have to say that my former belief in the evidence of the ancient astronaut theory was colored more by Atlantis than by aliens. Tangentially related to Atlantis, and basically the same idea, are Mu and Lemuria, both in the Pacific Ocean.

The basic theory I was familiar with is this:  that there was an advanced island civilization who, through pride or misbehavior, angered “the gods” or else caused a mishap with their technology, and sank the continent into the Atlantic Ocean as a result. Other theories blame the Biblical flood which became a suitable alternative after I became a Christian. From these basic details of an island nation sinking, it’s messy as almost everyone has come up with more details to add to the story, and like a bad version of Star Trek, the new details often contradict the old to no one’s benefit.

Though not always directly related to the ancient astronaut theory, the lost continent of Atlantis is at least a cousin due to claims of ancient high technology and lost knowledge, and it certainly features in some of the alienist theories. There’s also the connections to Theosophy and as noted earlier, Lovecraft. Certainly some theories of Atlantis name it as a candidate for an alien garrison and David Hatcher Childress, who appears on Ancient Aliens, has sometimes credited Atlantis for a majority of the world’s ancient temples, odd artifacts, and megalithic structures. He has also claimed that they were a global civilization.

Being that there is this connection to ancient astronauts, a look at Atlantis is in order. Rather than looking at every Atlantis claim that floats by, a good look at the foundation of the theory will show that the lofty spires of Atlantis theory and literature are all built on a sinking foundation of sand. Because if the foundation is weak, nothing else built on it is of any consequence.

Starting with Atlantis, it seems that pretty much the only ancient source mentioning Atlantis is the writings of Plato.

Dr. Heiser shares Plato’s original description of Atlantis and mentions a book by Joscelyn Godwin about a good scholarly look at Atlantis. Here’s the quoted text from Plato:

“For it is related in our records how once upon a time your State stayed the course of a mighty host, which, starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot. For the ocean there was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say, ‘the pillars of Heracles,’ there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together; and it was possible for the travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses that veritable ocean. For all that we have here, lying within the mouth of which we speak, is evidently a haven having a narrow entrance; but that yonder is a real ocean, and the land surrounding it may most rightly be called, in the fullest and truest sense, a continent. Now in this island of Atlantis there existed a confederation of kings, of great and marvelous power, which held sway over all the island, and over many other islands also and parts of the continent (Timaeus 24e–25a, R. G. Bury translation (Loeb Classical Library).”

You can read the translated parts of Plato’s works talking about Atlantis here and here. The key point to take away from Plato’s mention of Atlantis is that many scholars believe that he used it fictitiously. Oddly, many who cite Plato as proof cite the Timaeus and not the Critias, because Critias is where Plato describes not only some sort of stellar phenomena, but also describes Atlantis in great detail, and one would expect the greater description to be used more often to prove the existence of Atlantis. The fact that people lean more on the Timaeus, implies a fiction. But, there are smarter people than me (besides the majority of Plato scholars) who agree Plato uses Atlantis as fiction.

Thomas Kjeller Johnson, author of Plato’s Natural Philosophy A Study of the Timaeus-Critias has this to say:

“Are we as readers supposed to take the Atlantis story as ‘real history’? The dialogue invites us to raise this question but also to reflect on its terms. In this chapter I argue that the story should be seen as ‘history’ only in a special Platonic sense: it is a story which is fabricated about the past in order to reflect a general truth about how ideal citizens would fare in war. The story thereby provides a practical example of how virtue, understood along the lines of the Republic, would prevail in this world even in the most adverse of conditions.

As we have seen, the Timaeus-Critias tells two stories. One is an account of the war between ancient Athens and Atlantis; the other is an account of the creation of the kosmos and everything in it. Critias and Timaeus tell their stories in response to Socrates’ request to be entertained in return for the entertainment he provided yesterday, which was an account of an ideal city very similar to that of the Republic.”

I would urge anyone interested in what exactly Plato’s writings on Atlantis were all about to read that book as well as the original sections about Atlantis here and here, and especially this article which establishes the fiction of Plato’s Atlantis so concretely, that there’s practically no reason anyone needs mention it again.

For the sake of argument though, what if Plato was describing an actual real place? A real place called Atlantis? If he was, we have a few problems.

• Although Atlantis is said to have sank long ago in Timaeus, the sea (where Atlantis is just beyond the Pillars of Hercules, aka Gibraltar) the sea is said to be impassable due to mud. There doesn’t seem to be any record of this anywhere else and certainly isn’t the case now.
• The tale that Plato quotes was said to be from a King Solon who learned it from Egypt. If Egypt had knowledge of Atlantis why haven’t any archaeologists found evidence or hieroglyphs of such in Egypt? Archaeologically, Egypt has been pretty well tapped out for a long time. And no, Edgar Cayce’s channeled message about records beneath the Sphinx doesn’t count as such a place has not been discovered. Scholars have a good handle on what Egypt knew in antiquity, and Atlantis wasn’t something they knew about.
  • Speaking of Edgar Cayce’s channeled information, channeling, fabricated ancient texts, and high conjecture seem to be the only proof of Atlantis and its society. Cayce, Helena Blavatsky, David Childress and others rely heavily on messages from spirits, mistranslations, vague speculations, outright lies and made up documents to support their claims. If such a great civilization had existed, one would expect more reliable proof.
• The Critias gives very exact descriptions of Atlantis, that it was basically an island and that there were alternating concentric rings of land and water. If such a continent, larger than “Libya and Asia put together” in such a unique configuration had sank, it would have been found by now as evidenced by other land formations beneath the waves that will be addressed later. There are no concentric circled formations in the Atlantic Ocean, certainly not the size of two countries put together.
• Here is a troubling tidbit to those who claim Atlantis was technologically advanced. In both the Timaeus and Critias, there is absolutely no mention of advanced technology. Even if Plato’s Atlantis was real, he does not give them credit for the pyramids (which mentioning Egypt would make sense), nor does he attribute lasers, flying machines or even megalithic structures to them. If a real Atlantis existed and had these, it’s safe to assume they would have been mentioned even in passing.
• With one exception (actually, a couple more 1 and 2), continents can not be underwater, and really do not sink. Certainly not suddenly And if Atlantis had, it would have been found like these were, especially given its unique configuration.
• Atlantis is mentioned in an ancient text, like the city of Troy (which was actually discovered), but that doesn’t mean that it’s good proof Atlantis was real.
• There have been a number of underwater ruins discovered and cited as Atlantis. Ruin, after ruin (update), after non-submerged ruin; and to my great disappointment even Santorini and Bimini Road, long time favorites, have been debunked. Bimini road in the Caribbean, like Japan’s Yonaguni “pyramid,” have been proven to be natural formations.

With only one real source, Plato, in antiquity for Atlantis; numerous problems with the reality of Plato’s Atlantis, and no physical evidence for its existence, why are we still looking? How is it the ancient astronaut crew and pseudo-archaeologists continue to claim it was such a great thing? Why do people believe Atlantis was responsible for the world’s megaliths? Why?

Ignatius Donnelly.

Before exporting Prince to the world, and importing Jesse Ventura as governor, Minnesota boasted a hybrid/proto-Erich von Daniken/Zecharia Sitchin with a pinch of Velikovsky named, Ignatius Donnelly. In addition to being a congressman, Donnelly was also a fringe writer and supporter of various peculiar theories which he expounded on in books like Atlantis: The Antedeluvian World and Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel. It seems he wrote that Atlantis was not only advanced, but also really the pre-flood world and that it was destroyed by the Biblical flood. His second book blames a comet for the flood and the destruction of society as a whole. (There was also a Jack Van Impe special “Atlantis in the Bible” years ago that played the same tune more or less.)

As mentioned in the above link, Donnelly’s work basically set the stage for many of the works on Atlantis that followed him, but there’s an added “bonus” to consider. It also spawned, or at least perpetuated an awful legacy in the twentieth century.

Unfortunately, Donnelly’s Atlantis also seems to be one of the leading sources for the Aryan race myth that was one of many factors (along with evolution/eugenics, and earlier beliefs) cementing ill-placed feelings of racial superiority. In addition to Blavatsky’s Theosophy, it’s possible the Nazis and other movements were influenced by Donnelly’s writings on Atlantis and an advanced Aryan race lost to time. Here’s what one author had to say:

“The Atlantis myth had a surprising role in 20th century nationalist ideology. Within Germany, Britain and even the United States, theories were developed on the racial significance of the Atlantean myth. Godwin provides a fascinating account of the search for traditional roots which lead some theorists to travel into the haze of prehistory to find cultural justification in imagined civilizations.”

Going back a bit further, the Aryan/Atlantean myth is also believed by some to have shaped early American ideologies (and here for what it’s worth) as far back as Francis Bacon and as such, it’s not a stretch to imagine that it was one factor in justifying the eviction of the Native Americans from the land. Logically, in the eyes of early pro-Atlantean Americans, if the white man was “superior” by their reckoning, and the Natives were “squatting” on “our Atlantean land,” then the genocide of the Native Americans at the hand of white settlers and the American government may well have been wrongly cast as “taking back our land” to reclaim Atlantean/Aryan heritage.

It’s also been speculated that this Aryan myth was the motivation behind Teddy Roosevelt’s “Imperial Cruise” which also seems to have been a factor in Japan’s sense of racial superiority during the twentieth century. “Racial superiority” that resulted in World War II atrocities like the Rape of Nanking, an event that Japan still has not apologized for to this day.

Continuing to give credit to Atlantis (and by proxy, aliens) for the pyramids, temples, mysterious constructs and everything else continues this Aryan racism to a lesser degree by implying that the natives who constructed all of these things were incapable and inferior. If the natives are viewed as such, they become unable to make advanced constructs and a “superior race” (or perceived heir to the Aryans) had to have made them and is obliged to reclaim them. And that is one of the chief problems of the ancient astronaut/Atlantis theory, it essentially says that only aliens and white men were smart and advanced enough to make megaliths, which certainly is not true. With that mindset, anyone who doesn’t fit that ideal is inferior and must be tended to by the “superior” group. White man’s burden in other words.

Traditionally it seems that belief in Atlantis, especially as a progenitor for people groups, has often resulted in genocide and the heirs of Atlantis (ie, white people) are duty bound to revive what was lost. Hardly the hallmark of a “superior” race.

Mu and Lemuria

With Atlantis out of the way due to lack of evidence, several “problems” related to the existence of Plato’s island, and the rotten fruit born of the Aryan/Atlantean myth, Mu and Lemuria are the only candidates left for an Atlantis-type place. Mentioned earlier, Mu and Lemuria are basically the same idea as Atlantis. Island continent. Disaster. Sank into the ocean. Except in the Pacific.

Now to be fair, there are actually four (Sundaland, Mauritia, Zealandia, and the Kerguelen Plateau) submerged continents on this side of the world in the Pacific, but they are not Mu or Lemuria. At least, not quite.

The name Lemuria actually originated with zoologist Phillip Sclater in the late 1800’s to explain why lemurs were found on Madagascar and India but nowhere else. To explain this, he proposed a continent or land mass stretching from India to Madagascar that by then had to have sunk to the ocean floor.

“This was indeed my own opinion when, writing in 1864 upon the mammals of Madagascar,12 I proposed the name Lemuria for that ancient land which formerly must have occupied part of the bed of the Indian Ocean and constituted the home of the lemurine family, now so widely scattered. But I need hardly point out how difficult it is to reconcile this theory with the hypothesis of a former land-connection of Madagascar and the Antilles through Africa, which I have previously adverted to.”

As noted earlier, this was actually sort of true, in that Madagascar and India were connected and they have called the landmass Mauritia. But rather than being a large Lemuria, it’s believed by scientists to have been a small slice of land between India and Madagascar when the two were closer together. The larger Lemuria was just speculation (by a zoologist) in a time when plate tectonic theory hadn’t been fully formed, and after tectonics were realized, Lemuria was discarded. Lemuria certainly is not needed anymore given that Mauritia and current science have explained Sclater’s mystery.

Of course this didn’t stop the New Age and occult from latching onto the idea. Not satisfied with one sunken continent, Helena Blavatsky possibly borrowed from her predecessors, probably Donnelly, and wrote about Lemuria. She seems to have assigned many Atlantean attributes to Lemuria and even seems to have peopled it with white folks. Understandably, more recent critics aren’t all that impressed with her theories.

“According to L. Sprague de Camp, Blavatsky’s concept of Lemuria was influenced by other contemporaneous writers on the theme of Lost Continents, notably Ignatius L. Donnelly, American cult leader Thomas Lake Harris and the French writer Louis Jacolliot.”

It should be noted that any information, but especially archaeological information that Blavatsky revealed to the world should be suspect. Much, if not all of her work derives either from channeling or from “lost texts” available only to her. Sounds familiar… Information gleaned from channeling is either outright fabrication, or involves entities that lie habitually, or at least have a horrendous rate of inaccuracy. As such, information shared by channelers is often incorrect, and rightfully, few take it seriously. Just ask Blossom Goodchild who was stood up by alleged channeled aliens a few years ago on October 14. But really, channeling, Theosophy and such are all another ball of wax, and it is pretty safe to disregard many, if not all of their claims in the area of verifiable truth.

Being that the term Lemuria was coined by a nineteenth century zoologist for an admittedly hypothetical land and with no Lemuria in that area on the ocean floor, Lemuria ought to be discarded entirely. The only proof of the alleged Lemuria society and continent are non-existent ancient texts or channeling, it’s safe to assume that like Atlantis, Lemuria does not exist.

However, there is still Mu. Mu seems to, me anyways, to be pretty interchangeable with Lemuria in many ways, but it sort of has a different origin. This being the case, some of Lemuria will overlap here with Mu.

Mu seems to have originated with the work of abbe Charles Étienne Brasseur de Bourbourg, an official for the Catholic church. He is said to have traveled to South America and visited Mayan ruins. Through his experiences there, or even back home in the old world, he came across Mayan hieroglyphs and tried to decipher them. It seems he initially attributed them to Atlantis in the Atlantic, and Mu/Lemuria in the Pacific depending on which source you read. The important thing here is to note that he gave Atlantis credit for the Mayan creations.

Really, Mu seems to have come from Augustus Le Plongeon and James Churchward. Following in the footsteps of Brasseur de Bourbourg, Le Plongeon made an incorrect claim that Egypt derived from the Mayan civilization. He had seemingly come to this conclusion after somehow translating Mayan writings, though he never discovered anything that would help him decode the Mayan language. Although he used the word Mu, or “Moo” it appears that he connected this Mu with Atlantis more than any other place even though there is no evidence of any “super civilization” influencing the Maya and other South Americans.

Whatever the case, serious scholars have never given much credit to Le Plongeon’s theories:

“Augustus Le Plongeon, one of the earliest individuals to investigate extensively the Maya, had been dismissed since the turn of the century by nearly all Mayan scholars as little more than a troublesome eccentric. He had spent considerable time working in Yucatan, but his theory that the Maya founded world civilization never found support in the scholarly community. His extraordinary record of Mayan sites documented by photography, drawings, and plans was all but forgotten.”

And not surprisingly, there’s an occult and possible Theosophy link there too, although the author of the article couldn’t determine exactly how deep those relationships went.

“The search for every trace of Le Plongeon took me to evermore obscure corners. He was a Freemason, and during her last years, Alice had contact with the Theosophical Society founded by Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. In 1890 Alice delivered a lecture titled “The Mayas” to the Blavatsky Lodge of the society.”

That brings us to James Churchward, an associate of Le Plongeon’s. He was the one to move Mu to the Pacific. Here, Jason Colavito breaks down how Churchward referenced an imaginary Naacal tablet as proof for a Pacific continent called Mu (but basically the Theosophical Lemuria). Colavito also explains how Churchward and Blavatsky essentially shared the same basic ideas regarding this imaginary continent. Again, the idea of a “master race” of Aryans shows up on Mu/Lemuria, but:

“Churchward’s emphasis on the superiority of White Aryans and monotheism, it becomes possible to understand his Mu myth as an attempt to strip Theosophy of the Oriental trappings of its Indian mysticism.”

There’s also some more about Churchward as well as “proof” of Mu/Lemuria, most of which seems to have been obtained by channeling either by Cayce or other “psychics,” so beware. I link to it only to show you that rather than relying on verifiable truth, the only evidence has been obtained by dubious methods. Interestingly, the various psychics all cite different date ranges – off by thousands of years – for the destruction of Lemuria. The linked article discusses some of the physical evidence for Mu, which isn’t that convincing.

In any case, if Churchward’s Mu is basically Lemuria, it’s already been proven not to exist above, and even some claiming evidence of Mu more recently, that too has been debunked.

Looking back, all of this started with Plato’s Atlantis. From there, fringe researchers, New Agers, and occultists have all stuck their finger in the pie in naming Atlantis as the source of civilization and the world’s great structures. When that foundation started to crumble, an island in the Pacific was invented. Given the mountain of channeled and lost text evidence, compared to the lack of actual physical evidence for Atlantis and Mu/Lemuria, it’s a safe assumption that none of them actually existed, or else they would have been found.

The only ancient evidence for any of this is Plato, and he used Atlantis fictitiously. All of the advanced aliens, Aryan Atlanteans, or Aryan Mu-Lemurians were all an invention of Donnelly and his intellectual descendents. A lone exception would be Bacon’s New Atlantis, which was an allegory for a utopian society or a blueprint for where he wanted America to go.

When one also considers the claims that the inhabitants of these places were all “advanced white/Aryan” who created the megalithic sites of the natives of the world as “outposts;” and the racist ideologies of Theosophy and genocidal Nazism that also spring from these theories, one has to admit the idea of Atlantis, Mu and Lemuria become less and less attractive.

The ancients didn’t need aliens or Atlanteans to explain who made the world’s mysterious places, and neither do we.

Further Reading:

http://maya.csueastbay.edu/archaeoplanet/

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/08/reviewing-gavin-menzies-atlantis-pt-1.html

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/08/reviewing-gavin-menzies-atlantis-pt-2.html

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/08/reviewing-gavin-menzies-atlantis-pt-3.html

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/08/reviewing-gavin-menzies-atlantis-pt-4.html

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/08/reviewing-gavin-menzies-atlantis-pt-5.html

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/08/reviewing-gavin-menzies-atlantis-pt-6.html

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/08/reviewing-gavin-menzies-atlantis-last-part.html

www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/06/exclusive-the-secret-story-of-the-us-governments-involvement-in-the-1973-pepperdine-atlantis-expedition.html

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/05/a-view-of-atlantis-1883.html

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2013/02/the-atlantis-hoax-of-1912.html

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/04/atlantis-in-america-origins.html

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/09/on-atlantis-berossus-and-alternative-scholarship.html

“Atlantis and the Cycles of Time: Prophecies, Traditions, and Occult Revelations” by Joscelyn Godwin

Dr. Heiser shares Plato’s original description of Atlantis and mentions a book by Joscelyn Godwin about a good scholarly look at Atlantis. Here’s the quoted text from a href=”http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2012/08/reviewing-gavin-menzies-atlantis-last-part.html” target=”_blank”

- Peter Venkman, “Ghostbusters”

In “Ghostbusters,” Ray sees a stack of books and is excited because he thinks he has found proof of paranormal activity. To him, it’s obvious that a ghost stacked the books. Peter, wisely, awaits further evidence before jumping to the same conclusion. Probably because finding something unusual doesn’t always mean that it requires an unusual origin.

Like in the real world, sometimes strange things can have a good explanation. Or at least don’t necessitate a weird one, regardless of how mind boggling it seems at first.

The stone spheres of Costa Rica are one such item. They are unusual in their own way and serve no obvious purpose. The stones are made of lava stone, and many have been found, moved, or destroyed. There are many of them, and they required obvious skill to manufacture.

So because they are ancient and out of the ordinary, with no obvious purpose, the usual rogue’s gallery of relic manufacturers compete for the credit of making them. Various “researchers” have claimed that the spheres were made by:  aliens, Atlantis, Mu, Lemuria, the Olmecs, or some other ancient highly technological society.

The alien/ET theory seems to have originated with Erich von Daniken. Though Jason Colavito has thoroughly picked apart many of von Daniken’s theories here and here, thus casting all of von Daniken’s credibility into doubt, it is worth mentioning his theory of alien origin for the spheres. This was rumored to have been divulged in “Chariots of the gods” some time in the 70’s, and it’s not really clear if anyone still believes that today.

David Hatcher Childress, who is usually an ancient high technology proponent, claimed in a video available on UFOTV that the spheres were made with power tools, and were only possible through this means. In this video, he seems to lean most heavily towards the Atlantean viewpoint to explain the origin of the spheres.

Here are a few of Childress’ claims, paraphrased as close to the exact quote as I could get:

• How were they made? The ancients had some kind of power tools and engineering capabilities, much like what we have today. In fact, the machining of these perfectly spherical stone balls is something that is so difficult it could only be done with power tools.”
• “No idea for the purpose of the balls or even how they were constructed.

The mystery of their construction, is something he brings up multiple times, because if he can sell the fact that high technology is the only way, one has to then buy into the subsequent parts of his theories, namely that the indigenous people could not possibly have done it, therefore, Atlantis.

• The stone balls found in the tombs were put there by people who found them and didn’t know what they were for.
• They were washed up by some tidal wave that hit the southwest coast. And the balls were deposited in mountain jungles…
• The indigenous people of Costa Rica didn’t actually build or machine these, they found them in the jungle and attributed them to the gods.
• Who made the balls? We haven’t figured it out. The people who built other megaliths. Maybe the Olmecs, who had machine tools. They were part of an elaborate map system for transoceanic society, but that doesn’t explain the really large balls.

He further claims in his speculation on Atlantis (a topic for another day), that Atlantis was a global, maritime civilization and that they had a presence on all the continents. He also claims that one of the mysteries of Atlantis is these giant stone balls and other giant balls in the world are often associated with Atlantis, presumably because they were found on many continents, and because other civilizations made stone balls, they must have been from the same civilization.

Because it certainly isn’t logical to assume that other indigenous peoples could conceive of spherical shapes, they certainly never would have seen the sun or the moon or rolled clay around in their hands…

As you can see there are a number of claims, pretty much all of which have been explained by a real scholar, anthropologist Professor John Hoopes. Hoopes has not only examined the Costa Rican giant stone balls, he has a Website explaining them and the errors in many of the claims. He also wants to preserve them as an UNESCO site to protect them.

First, not a single power tool was needed in the creation of the balls. There certainly is no evidence that the Olmecs were even involved with these spheres. There’s also no evidence that they, or any other ancient civilization possessed power tools of any sort. The “Ancient Aliens Debunked” movie (on the main page of this site) does an excellent job of giving good explanations as to how things were done without power tools. Since there is no proof of ancient power tools, some other method of making them must have been used. In direct opposition to Childress’ theory of power tools, Hoopes explains (emphasis added):

“We think the main technique that was used was pecking and grinding and hammering with stones,” said Hoopes. “There are some spheres that have been found that still have the marks of the blows on them from hammer stones. We think that that’s how they were formed, by hammering on big rocks and sculpting them into a spherical shape.”

Further information on construction can be found at his Website.

With how they were made out of the way, it becomes easy to see that anyone could have made them. Since anyone could have done it, Atlanteans, aliens or other fantastic beings/tools don’t even have to enter the picture, because plain old indigenous people, could very well have done it. Logically then, the balls were made by the Indians native to the area, not found by them and used later. Hoopes speculates that relatives of nearby tribes were the makers of the stone balls.

“The balls were most likely made by the ancestors of native peoples who lived in the region at the time of the Spanish conquest.  These people spoke Chibchan languages, related to those of indigenous peoples from eastern Honduras to northern Colombia.  Their modern descendants include the Boruca, Téribe, and Guaymí.”

Another claim that Hoopes refutes is Childress’ claims that the spheres are “perfect,” a claim shared with other Atlantis theorists. Professor Hoopes reveals that many of the spheres were never properly measured, and the ones that have been measured were not perfect, exceeding the “2mm” variation cited as proof of perfection.

Now that it’s plain that the balls weren’t made with power tools, weren’t made by Atlanti-aliens, and aren’t “perfect,” it’s also a good time to note that they aren’t even as old as Ancient Atlanti-alien theorists cite. The dating of the balls, according to Childress, falls into 10,000 BC range. Other Atlantis proponents go back a couple more millennia, but none of them reveal where they got this number from, nor do they explain how they got around the problems most scholars face in dating the balls. One of the biggest difficulties in dating the balls would be that many of them have been moved from their original location, and thus contain no nearby artifacts that can be carbon dated. Even so, a few of the stones have been dated, and they aren’t as old as you would think.

“In the soil immediately beneath this ball he found the broken head of a painted human figurine of the Buenos Aires Polychrome type, dated to AD 1000-1500 (examples have reportedly been found associated with iron tools).  This suggests the ball was made sometime between AD 600 and 1500.”

There’s little point in looking at this last claim, as it’s more incidental. That is Childress’ claim that the balls were washed up in a huge tidal wave. Hoopes doesn’t address it, but there is no evidence to support such a claim. Even so, a little logic goes a long way.

First, many of the stones are heavy. A tidal wave depositing them in the mountain jungle would take a lot of energy, not to mention probably a much higher sea level than we have today. Even taking into account the possibility of a global flood, what force would be stirring these balls and depositing them all over the globe and especially in the high mountains the Childress claims? Second, why and how would a wave deposit them in more than spot around the world? Third, if the presence of stone balls around the world is evidence of a global civilization (because they appear on multiple continents) why would a wave be needed in the first place? Why not just say the ancients placed them everywhere, if they made them originally? I would speculate that they could be used as evidence for one or the other, but attributing them to an advanced global civilization and a tidal wave is just unnecessary. Pick one or the other. In any case, there does not seem to be any evidence that this happened, and until there is, there’s little point to debunk it. Especially given that the local Indians have been made the chief suspect in their construction.

Looking back, the claims that Childress and others make citing the Costa Rican stone balls as proof of aliens, Atlanteans, or other ancient high technology are all easily debunked. John Hoopes, an actual anthropologist has examined them and seeks to have them recognized as a UNESCO site, and his examination demonstrates that they have rather mundane origins. If they were proof of ancient high technology, he’d probably be the loudest voice supporting the theory if only to have a reason to preserve them and receive more grant money. His scholarly-ness and refutation of the high technology angle speaks volumes on its own.

Further reading:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322143217.htm

http://naturalhistorymag.com/picks-from-the-past/191353/prehistoric-stone-balls-a-mystery

http://web.ku.edu/~hoopes/balls/

http://web.ku.edu/~hoopes/balls/intro.htm

http://web.ku.edu/~hoopes/balls/errors.htm

web.ku.edu/~hoopes/balls/faq.htm

For more information from a skeptical point of view see Skeptoid’s article on this device. Here is an excerpt:

“We know a lot about where and when the device was made from the inscriptions in the bronze. The back face is covered with instructions for its use, as is its inside if you open the device. These include descriptions of the controls, various calendars, and mentions of the celestial bodies tracked by the device. By the language and terminology used, as well as by the context of its find among the other artifacts recovered from the Antikythera Wreck, we now have a pretty good idea of where and when it was built: The middle of the 2nd century BCE, probably in Syracuse or Corinth.”

Jason Colavito is a bestselling author and editor based in Albany, NY. He is internationally recognized by scholars, literary theorists, and scientists for his pioneering work exploring the connections between science, pseudoscience, and speculative fiction. His investigations examine the way human beings create and employ the supernatural to alter and understand our reality and our world.

He has published several books including The Cult of Alien Gods: H.P. Lovecraft and Extraterrestrial Pop Culture (Prometheus Books, 2005); Knowing Fear: Science, Knowledge, and the Development of the Horror Genre (McFarland, 2008); and A Hideous Morbidity: An Anthology of Horror Criticism from the Enlightenment to World War I (McFarland, 2009). His newest book, Cthulhu in World Mythology, will be published later this year by Atomic Overmind Press. In 2011, Colavito launched his own line of print-on-demand books collecting rare texts about alternative history, the occult, and speculative fiction.

Colavito’s research on extraterrestrials and H. P. Lovecraft was featured on the History Channel in 2009, and he has provided research assistance and consulted on such programs as Secret History of UFOs (NatGeo), Monster Quest (History Channel), Ancient X-Files (NatGeo UK), and William Shatner’s Weird or What? (History Television Canada/NatGeo UK).

Colavito began debunking fringe science and revisionist history in the web-based magazine Lost Civilizations Uncovered in 2001. Since then, his work has appeared in Skeptic magazine, Humanist Network News, Swift, The Canadian, and TVTome and other outlets. Colavito has also worked as a consultant for major museums.

In addition to nonfiction writing, Colavito has also authored several short stories. Colavito’s speculative fiction has appeared in a number of outlets, including the anthologies 2012 AD (Severed Press, 2010), Elements of Horror (Elements of Horror Press, 2010), and Letters from the Dead (Library of the Dead Press, 2010), as well as magazines such as Twisted Dreams.

Colavito holds a Bachelor of Arts from Ithaca College in Ithaca, New York where he majored in both anthropology and journalism. A summa cum laude graduate, Colavito was recognized as the Distinguished Graduate in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, and he was made the Jessica Savitch Communications Scholar for his work in journalism. In 2004, Colavito placed his first professionally published article, “Charioteer of the Gods,” in Skeptic magazine. Shortly thereafter he sold his first book, The Cult of Alien Gods, to Prometheus Books.

Colavito is currently pursuing a number of projects, both in nonfiction and fiction.

The Owlman has big bug eyes and a round, space-bubble head. He also has one arm pointing to the sky and another to the ground. Proof enough, for some at least, that the Owlman is representative of an ET visitor. Whatever way you look at it, it is an odd portrayal of a human-like figure to be sure, most likely why it has been selected as proof of alien contact.

But like so many of his companions in the “I’m-proof-of-ET” pieces of artwork club, there is really little information about the Owlman available. Outside of the fact that he’s called “astronaut,” and occasionally referenced as possible proof of alien visitation, there is little else on the beaten path to help you learn about the glyph. Regardless if you’re for or against paleo-contact.

In other words, almost nobody has taken a critical look at the Owlman, one way or the other. That is except for this article  which mentions “Jaroslav Klokocník y Frantisek Vítek.” Klokocnik and Vitek have posited perhaps the best theory to explain the astronaut. That is, the figure is not an astronaut, but a fisherman, and that he’s holding a fishing net.

Still, another article gives us perhaps the best explanation of Vitek’s theory. (translated via Google)

“One particularly enigmatic figures is called Astronaut, 30 meters high, engraved on the side of a hill. As interpreted by Erich von Däniken, the ancient inhabitants of the region would have represented an alien.

The astronaut upward course in the right hand holding a red … A fishing net, say scientists checos.A feet of the figure, perhaps a fish or two, one above the other. The astronaut is a fisherman course, say the engineers and Frantisek Klokocník Jaroslav Vitek. And indeed, the archaeological investigations have revealed an intense exchange of goods between the coast and the mountains and the fish was one of the most important items of exchange.

Czech experts point out that some of the local archaeologists have accepted his hypothesis. Everything about it fits perfectly: the figure of the fisherman served for orientation, the fish symbolizes prosperity.

Near the spot where the fisherman is recorded, can be seen on the ground two parallel lines that guided travelers probably from the coast. Jaroslav engineers and Frantisek Vítek formulated Klokocník also hypothesized that the figure of the fisherman was a kind of billboard.”

While it is quite difficult to see the fisherman elements in most photos,  once you do see it,  it becomes obvious that the “astronaut” really is the “fisherman.” Here is an artistic reproduction of the glyph on the hill. In his right hand is a fish on a line, his left holds a fishing net. Take a look at that, then compare that with the aerial photo at the beginning of this blog post. The fishing theory starts to hold a lot more water.

Given that there appears to be documented evidence of some sort of trade between the Nazca and the people on the coast, fisherman showing up in Nazca art is plausible. It’s also well known that many of the figures portrayed in the Nazca Lines, like the spider and the monkey etc. are also represented in Nazcan pottery art.

Nazcan Fisherman

The same would be true with the astro-fisherman, as there are a number of Nazcan pots depicting fishermen. Add to this that it has been pointed out that the skirt-like garment that the owlman is wearing is probably the traditional celebration garment worn by fisherman back from a successful trip. Or, my theory, possibly a poncho, which is a traditional Peruvian clothing staple. With evidence pointing to a fisherman, it’s not farfetched to postulate (as some have above) that this perhaps served as a billboard to let passing traders know to “stop here” with fish. Or perhaps it was a sign to their gods to bless the fish trade on their behalf.

In any event, the fish, the skirt and the net are there suggesting a fisherman, and it’s highly unlikely that ET would stop by Earth in a poncho for a fishing trip.

I talk about our recent blog post on the Epic “UFO Battle” of Nuremburg in 1566 and I also play a clip debunking Marshall Masters and his theories about Planet X.
Download Mp3 here
Nuremburg UFO “Battle” Blog post:
http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/nuremburg-ufo-battle-debunked/

Just about everywhere you read it, the story goes like so. Residents woke up early one April morning and saw the spectacle in the above woodcut, which clearly looks like the final space battle from Return of the Jedi complete with X-Wings, explosions and Darth Vader’s star destroyer. Making this even more convincing is that some of the objects are said to have fought for a while, and some crashed as seen in the lower right hand corner. Orbs and crosses fighting. Tubes and a giant arrow. Crashing ships. Has to be a space battle.

Depicting an aurora on 28.12.1560

While it is tempting to dismiss this whole event as a hoax, and some have, or poo-poo it away as a mass hallucination due to ergotism, there are a few facts that make that very hard to do. Mainly the fact that Hans Glaser, the artist who did this woodcut, was a real person, who really did do woodcuts and this woodcut is actually from the time and place that it says it is and is depicting a real event that witnesses saw. For all intents and purposes, it seems like a legitimate case.

You can read all about it here with the help of Google translator or Babelfish and here. You can also see a pretty comprehensive gallery of Hans Glaser’s work here.  I encourage people to understand the genre of the 15th century woodcut, or “broadsheet”, which was the early predecessor of today’s newspaper, actually it is more accurate to say they were the predecessors to today’s Enquirer because they contained the news of the weird or violent, and they had no problem stretching the truth to sell a few copies, and nearly a quarter of them are astronomical phenomenon like auroras which are interpreted as signs from God, which I’m sure made them sell more copies.

Unfortunately, despite being very convincing proof of aliens at first glance, and after a superficial perusal of the facts (which is all I and many ever do) seemingly confirming a space oddity, the most likely explanation is rather mundane.  The best possible explanation for the Nuremberg 1561 UFO Battle is merely several atmospheric phenomena, most notably a “sundog” or “parhelion,” which kicked the whole thing off.

The sun dog on the right (Vädersolstavlan) was interpreted as an omen of God’s revenge on King Gustav Vasa

Sun dogs are weird looking enough to make it seem that something really odd is going on in the sky. But a sundog is basically Earth’s atmosphere or ice in the upper parts of the sky acting as a prism or reflective device and making the light from the sun or moon do whacky and sometimes zany things, and Nuremberg had perfect conditions for this to occur.  Sundogs and the phenomenon that often occurs with them were also seen with religious significance back in olden tymes.

In fact one of the first sundog sightings we know of was depicted in a famous painting called Vädersolstavlan, and it was interpreted as an omen of God’s forthcoming revenge on King Gustav Vasa for his having introduced Protestantism during the 1520s

Very often these wood cuts, some of which are obviously depicting sundogs, are interpreted as messages from God (often because of the “crosses” in the middle of the sun) God is said to be telling them to do all kinds of things, in fact the Nuremburg woodcut which we are talking about today  was interpreted as meaning that they should go to war with the Turks.

A sun dog interpreted with religious significance in a woodcut because of the “cross” in the middle.

Looking at the description of the event, modern pictures/videos and other old depictions of similar events, you’ll soon see that a sundog really is a more plausible explanation than the Galactic Empire paying a visit.

So what I will do is go point by point through the translated description of these events on the woodcut itself (see appendix at the bottom of the page for the full translation of the text.)

First the sun showed and was seen with two bloodcolored, halfround strokes like the diminishing moon right through the sun,

 and in the sun, above, under and on both sides stood bloodcolored and partly blueish or ironcolored, also blackcolored round orbs.

Here is a photo of a sun dog, with a halo and a red orb. If there’s one red orb, perhaps in other events there could be more than one, and depending how light refracts (remember sundogs are like prisms) there could be multiple colors depending upon how light refracts through the clouds.

The same on both sides and in circled plates around the sun – there were such bloodcolored and the other orbs in great numbers, standing three in a row, sometimes four in a quadruple, also alot as singles. And between such orbs alot of bloodcolored crosses have been seen, and between such crosses and orbs were bloodcolored strips, thick behind ["streyme hinden dick"] and to the front a bit smoother than … [ ? "hocken rho[?]“].

 “Circled plates” may be referring to halos. So it seems there’s halos and multiple orbs in groups and separate. Here’s one sun halo that looks vaguely plate-like, with links to other sun halos. Below are some videos showing a halo with multiple orbs. Some of the orbs in the second video take on a little bit of a cross-like shape with the light flaring that may or may not be due to lens issues. Most of the orbs on film are the usual sun-colored kind, but recall that the Nuremberg event was between about 4 and 5 AM, when the clouds and sun could have been a reddish and orange, perhaps lending to other colors not seen in pictures or video. Note in the videos the orbs are connected via rod-shaped light beams.

Video of a Chinese sundog with reddish and slight rainbow orbs

Here are some strange shapes. Note tube or rod-like shapes that are actually part of a reflective arc. Some of these shapes are obvious in the woodcut. You can see that these rods and such can be found in the above pics in various ways, connecting orbs or as part of halos. My personal theory is that the “rods” mentioned in Nuremberg were actually incomplete or broken up arcs of halos.

Mixed in between together with others stood two big tubes, one to the right and the other to the left [hand's side], in those little and big tubes were three, four and more orbs.

A sun, halo, two half orbs, rod shapes, etc. Note the dramatic addition of a hand and a plant, demonstrating artistic license is being taken in some the art depicting these events, suggesting that Glaser’s depiction may not be exactly what witnesses saw.

Here is a photo of some strange shapes in the sky, some of which look very similar to Nuremberg. Note that some of these could be seen as tubes or rods, especially if they were incomplete and there are still orbs present.

This alltogether began to fight ["streyten"], the orbs first in the sun moved towards the ones standing at both sides, so the ones, which were outside, moved together with the orbs out of the small and large tubes into the sun.

Also the tubes moved towards each other like the orbs and everything fought and battled ["gestritten und gefochten"] with each other nearly one hour long. And after the battle, which moved for a while into and again out of the sun from one side to the other most violently, exhausted itself by each other

The shapes fought, but we’re not given much detail about what this fight consisted of. Were there lasers? Light flashes? Or did the objects just chase and run into each other? The woodcut does not say. This alleged fighting can possibly be explained by this video describing how different shapes are achieved, seemingly based on where the sun is in the sky. Note that the multiple suns (sundogs) appear at the beginning, then give way to other aspects, like tubes just like was explained in the woodcut. The “fighting” could be as simple as one shape moving slightly and changing shape as the sun moves, and appearing to push other shapes out of the way.

So it can be seen that many of the shapes described in the Nuremberg UFO Battle can occur naturally. Every single one of them. The cross shapes, multiple orbs, half orbs, colored orbs and rods. It’s also important to note, that Hans Glaser depicted these shapes all happening simultaneously due to his one-page limit, when the description claims that this all happened over the space of an hour and somewhat sequentially. A fact which no other source (especially pro-UFO sources) mentions. First there was some weird stuff with the sun, then orbs and rods, then all of that disappeared and was followed by the giant black spear. Also, the shapes in the woodcut are shown all jumbled together and randomly strewn about, though nothing in the narrative says this was the case. Glaser was not a witness, so he would have no clue whether things were all jumbled (as depicted) or more uniform and geometric (as what happens in nature) and he’s doing his best to depict what was seen by others (at least one, possibly many witnesses, who perhaps exaggerated what they saw and had a different vantage point) over the course of an extended period of time, and that means everything gets thrown together.

And that is a key thing to note. This woodcut is not a photograph, and it seems many (I once thought it was as good as one myself) try to use it as though it was as authoritative as a photo, and even photographs are suspect these days. Glaser was making an artistic representation of what witnesses saw. We have no indication or proof that he witnessed it, and like a police sketch of a criminal described by a witness, the details are not completely accurate, and quite possibly full of error. Recall that the UNAbomber’s police sketch looked pretty much nothing like the man they actually caught, tried and convicted.

But even if what Glaser depicted, an alleged battle in the sky between these shapes, is even close to what was actually seen, it still is not proof of alien ships. Fighting or otherwise. A great example of why is another artistic depiction of another event seen in the sky, also depicted by Herr Glaser. A number of people reported seeing knights fighting each other in the sky late at night, and yet no one is claiming this is proof of aliens in any way and certainly no one is claiming this actually happened as literally as depicted. That’s because these knights fighting in the sky were likely another natural event. One source (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1976JHA…..7..145G) suggests that these knights was actually an aurora borealis. For one reason or another, the witness or Glaser probably embellished what was seen or reported. For one reason or another, one or both parties attached religious significance to this aurora, perhaps via a shared societal pareidolia. In fact pereidolia (attaching religious significance to normal events) can explain a lot of the unusual stories of that day. And pereidolia is still common today, just ask someone who’s seen the face of Jesus in a tortilla, or Mary in a piece of toast.

Here’s the picture of knights fighting in the sky, suggested to be actually the northern lights, reported by a variety of common and upperclass folks. The text also mentions the Apostle Paul, angels as well as God and Jesus Christ, meaning that they thought there was something more to it than auroras for some reason or another. Again if anyone wants to take a stab at reading and translating, have fun. It’s also important to note that Glaser is again, depicting in art what someone (or many somoeones) said they saw. We have no way of knowing whether the witness(es) said “I saw knights fighting in the sky” or “I saw clouds and lights in the sky, and they kind of moved around. I don’t how to describe it, maybe it was like, you know, how knights kind of move when they fight.”

Moving back to the space battle.

With most of the shapes in the Nuremberg 1561 Battle explained as natural, there are still a couple things unexplained, the large black spear and the alleged crash. First, the crash.

everything (as drawn above) fell from the sun and the sky down to the earth like burning alltogether and vanished ["vergangen"] down on the earth gradually [? "allgemach"] in a big smoke.

Something that sets this sighting apart from many others is the fact that there was a crash. Or was there? The most obvious question here is if there was a crash, where is the wreckage? Where are the bodies? Why does the woodcut (or any other source) not mention finding anything where these things supposedly crashed? Why does Nuremberg make very little of this event to this day? If real alien spaceships had crashed 500 years ago, the world would be a lot more technologically advanced than we are now just from reverse engineering the ships. Starting from Germany. Nuremberg would likely have been impressed enough to erect a memorial of some sort and would probably be the capitol of the world based on technological superiority. Or at least one would expect more mention than just a single woodcut. Yet, there is no evidence of any of that. This woodcut article is all that exists for proof of anything happening that day. There’s no wreckage. No alien bodies. No technology was harvested from crashed UFOs. In short, there is no physical evidence of anything that crashed.

Fall Streak

One possible explanation for this seeming smoky fall to the ground and disappearance could be as simple as what’s known as “fall streaks.” Fall streaks often accompany cirrus clouds and are made up of ice crystals. The same ice crystals that cause sundogs, because wouldn’t you know it, cirrus clouds are one of the chief ingredients in the creation of a sundog.

“Many cirrus clouds produce hair-like filaments, similar to the virga produced in liquid–water clouds, called fall streaks, and they are made of heavier ice crystals that fall from the clouds. The sizes and shapes of fall streaks are determined by the wind shear.”

After such events something like a black spear, the shaft from sunrise [east] and the head towards sundawn [west], has been seen with big thickness and length.

This could be a number of things associated with sunrises/sets and or fallstreaks. It could be referring to a crepuscular ray, or a shadow caused by the fallstreak.

So how is it that a few uncommon, but otherwise normal weather events can capture the attention of a population enough to be printed news and a “sign from God” in a time when printing was fairly new, and then capture the attention of ancient astronaut theorists 500 years later?

It’s probably due to the fact that the media always has and probably will always do two things to achieve their end goal, which is to make money. The first thing that almost all media does is to find a sensational story, or make it sensational. The more unbelievable, the more people will want to know about it, which hopefully leads to more sales. These 16^th century woodcuts served the same role. It probably didn’t help that all of these woodcuts were only one page, because the publishers more or less thought common folk were too stupid to read more than a page or so. Having only one page to tell a story probably meant it better be a good one.

Though the reformation had already occurred, it was still only about 50 years old, and in all likelihood the Catholic Church still held a good deal of clout. The media of the day seemingly played on this given fact and the general uneducated, superstitious state of the average person to remain in the Church’s good favor when they wrote stories. That’s probably why so many stories were of the “sign from God” category. Since the printer was required to have a license, staying in the Pope’s good graces would probably be a good idea. If the common people could be made to believe that a weird or uncommon natural phenomena was an omen or a sign from God, the Church would benefit, and the media of the day could keep their job.

At the end of the day, it’s easy to see that the Nuremberg 1561 event was not a battle between alien spaceships, but rather a series of weather events given greater significance than they deserved due to a reasonably superstitious atmosphere, a sensationalist/biased media and a consumer public hungry for outrageous stories.

Appendix:

Full Translation:

translation by “Stapledon”

“In the year 1561 on the 14th day of April in the morning between … [difficult special time phrase] … and … [difficult special time phrase], that is in the morning between 4 and 5 on the little clock, a very horrible vision showed at the sun when she rised and was seen at Nuremberg in the town and in front of the gate and at the countryside by alot of male and female persons. First the sun showed and was seen with two bloodcolored, halfround strokes like the diminishing moon right through the sun, and in the sun, above, under and on both sides stood bloodcolored and partly blueish or ironcolored, also blackcolored round orbs. The same on both sides and in circled plates around the sun – there were such bloodcolored and the other orbs in great numbers, standing three in a row, sometimes four in a quadruple, also alot as singles. And between such orbs alot of bloodcolored crosses have been seen, and between such crosses and orbs were bloodcolored strips, thick behind ["streyme hinden dick"] and to the front a bit smoother than … [ ? "hocken rho[?]“]. Mixed in between together with others stood two big tubes, one to the right and the other to the left [hand's side], in those little and big tubes were three, four and more orbs. This alltogether began to fight ["streyten"], the orbs first in the sun moved towards the ones standing at both sides, so the ones, which were outside, moved together with the orbs out of the small and large tubes into the sun.

Also the tubes moved towards each other like the orbs and everything fought and battled ["gestritten und gefochten"] with each other nearly one hour long. And after the battle, which moved for a while into and again out of the sun from one side to the other most violently, exhausted itself by each other, everything (as drawn above) fell from the sun and the sky down to the earth like burning alltogether and vanished ["vergangen"] down on the earth gradually [? "allgemach"] in a big smoke. After such events something like a black spear, the shaft from sunrise [east] and the head towards sundawn [west], has been seen with big thickness and length.

[It follows a lengthy phrasal standard passage from a typical christian viewpoint of that time, about warning signs of Godfather, the sin of the non-believers and the awaited day of judgement etc. Not very related to the event as such, but there is a hint by Hans Glaser, that the "signs" in the sky were significant in quality and numbers in the recent time.]”

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/paranormal/the-ufo-battle-of-nuremberg-1561-t21213.html

(Author’s note:  Based on my rudimentary German (yes, I at least admit I’m not an expert in languages) and ability to quasi-read calligraphy, this translation appears to be reasonably accurate. Stapledon’s last paragraph omits the specific details mentioning God, but does mention in summary that there was a religious worldview interpreting the event. If anyone is bored enough and can read the calligraphy well, please share it and a translation in the comments.)

a href=”http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO”

Schoch’s  early date for the Sphinx has been subsequently used by folks like Graham Hancock to support his theory of the existence of ancient civilizations like Atlantis. Others have noted Schoch’s work to promote the idea of  a prehistoric alien visitation and similar ideas. I think such theories are unnecessary in light of the evidence I will present in this article.

Unlike similar debates with ancient alien implications this one has played out in scholarly circles, most of the articles being published in the late 90′s and early 2000′s. For a very thorough, unbiased cataloging of this scholarly debate I would recommend this series of posts from  David P. Billington’s website.

One of the first things I think it is important for anyone that believes Schoch’s model to understand is that this debate is not really about the sphinx itself, but rather it is mostly about the western side of the enclosure wall in which the Sphinx sits. If you do an image search for “water erosion Sphinx” or a similar phrase, you will not typically see close up pictures of the Sphinx itself, instead you will see a lot of pictures of the western enclosure wall, and the western side of the southern enclosure wall.

Colin Reader, a British geologist who was inspired by Schoch’s claims did a study of his own which concluded that the water erosion that was noted by Schoch is not evenly distributed at the site, and he concluded that the western enclosure wall was not eroded by rainfall per se, but rather rainfall run-off (explained below.) Rainfall run-off would explain the extreme water erosion on the western side of the enclosure, and why the same characteristics could not be found either on the other enclosure walls, or on the Sphinx itself. ((Reader, Colin (2002). “Giza Before the Fourth Dynasty”, Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum http://www.thehallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=93))

The Giza Plateau has an eastward sloping topography which causes a natural rainwater run-off into the west part of the Sphinx enclosure which would erode the limestone along the exposed western enclosure walls and selectively exploit any joints exposed along the cut face. This view is contrasted with Schoch’s initial assertions which stressed that direct rain was the cause of the erosion of the Sphinx enclosure, not rain run-off such as Reader proposed.

Reader’s theory was met with more enthusiasm than Schoch’s by mainstream egyptologists, who by this time had realized that they too had better come up with a theory on this anomalous weathering on the enclosure wall. But there was a problem with Reader’s theory as far as they saw it. If Reader was right, it would mean that the the Sphinx was about 400 years older than they thought, and even though Reader’s date was 3000 to 5000 years after Schoch’s  it was still not something they were excited about agreeing to, though at present they have settled on a type of stalemate, calling Readers theory “possible” but not “proven.” ((A. J. Shortland, C. J. Doherty, Comments on ‘A Geomorphological Study of the Giza Necropolis, with Implications for the Development of the Site’ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-4754.00010/abstract))

The reasons that Colin Reader proposed that Khafre didnt build the Sphinx often were the same ones that Schoch was using with a few notable differences. Primarily because if the erosion was caused by the water drainage coming into the enclosure, then the Sphinx would have had to have been built before the quarries which lay to the west. This is because the natural path that the water would have taken on the way to the western enclosure wall would have been forever interrupted when the large quarries were made.

In addition Reader proposes that the Sphinx was carved by an early solar cult on the plateau, which is why the Sphinx is facing toward the rising sun. He also proposes that it likely once had the head of lion and not a man, but that the head was carved down to look like the head of Khafre during the time that the Sphinx was integrated into Khafre’s memorial complex, which may explain the current disproportionately small head in relation to the bigger body. It seems that Schoch is endorsing this lion view on his website too.

In many ways this debate comes down to rainfall, when was it happening at Giza, and how much of it was there? As I have already stated Schoch’s model emphasized that rainfall, not rain run-off was responsible for the deep erosion on the western enclosure wall, and therefore Schoch needs a lot of rainfall, and a lot of time to make his theory workable. Whereas Reader’s theory, since it proposes that the collected water from the plateau gathered together and drained at the western enclosure wall, he needs a substantially less amount of rainfall and time to account for the erosion of the limestone wall.

So lets talk about rain. Despite what a lot of the websites and documentaries that talk about Schoch’s theory try to make you believe, the increased period of rainfall that Schoch always sites did not just end abruptly 10,000 years ago. I will quote from Reader’s article published in the journal Archaeometry called “A Geomorphological Study of the Giza Necropolis, with Implications for the Development of the Site:”

“The rainy conditions of c. 5000±7000 BC, to which Schoch attributed the degradation of the Sphinx, will have been separated from these later arid conditions by a transitional phase, during which increasingly arid conditions will have been interrupted by occasional, probably seasonal rains. Flood damage to Menkaure’s valley temple (Reisner 1931) attests to the fact that, even during the late Old Kingdom, rainfall run-off was a significant agent of erosion at Giza.” ((http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-4754.00009/abstract))

In other words there is more than enough rain to cause the erosion during the time that Reader is proposing for the Sphinx, especially when you consider that Reader’s theory needs only a tiny fraction of the rainfall that Schoch’s theory needs. But again this transitional period between 7000 BC and 2350 BC had plenty of rain, and even short bursts of rain which would cause the kind of flash flooding that could cause very quick erosion, Reader sites other examples of this on the Giza plateau in the excerpt above.

Though Schoch has not written anything new in the scholarly journals about this, he did briefly interact with Reader’s points in a point counter-point which I have put together, and will post at the end of the article. Also in an interesting twist, in a June 2005 interview Schoch endorses Reader’s theory about the water run-off and the quarries, but says he doesn’t think that even with run-off being the primary agent of erosion, it would be enough water to cause the erosion seen on the western enclosure wall, obviously implying that he still thinks it needs the increased rainfall of his much earlier period. Though his reasons for this belief are not clear, he offered that though he agrees that the limestone is of poor quality on the wall, suggesting it could be eroded easily, it is not as bad a some writers suggest. (( This interview with Robert Schoch originally appeared in Issue 1 of our free online magazine SUB ROSA June 2005))”

As far as I am aware Schoch has never interacted with Readers’s responses to his criticisms ( which are listed below), nor has he explained why he thinks the limestone rocks would need more time or more water than what there was during Reader’s earlier date. He does however make points regarding the context of the site, and his own subsurface findings which are discussed at length below.

To be sure there are other types of erosion, besides water run-off going on at the Sphinx enclosure and on the Sphinx itself, but almost all parties agree more or less on the basics of the others these days, even the mainstream guys.

The Sphinx is made up of three different types of limestone, each with different strengths. The top and the bottom parts are much stronger than the middle part which makes up most of the body of the Sphinx, and is badly eroded by a number of factors. As I said almost all parties agree, including Schoch and Reader, that the erosion seen on the Sphinx itself is caused by a number of factors including rainfall (not run-off.) Even the conventional date for the Sphinx allows for a couple hundred years of light rainfall. (( K. Butzer: Environment and Archaeology: An Ecological Approach to Prehistory (Chicago, 1971) ‘… extensive sheet washing – in the wake of sporadic but heavy and protracted rains – are indicated c. 4000-3000 BC. Historical and archaeological documents suggest that the desert wadi vegetation of northern and eastern Egypt was more abundant as late as 2350 BC, when the prevailing aridity was established.’ )) In addition all parties now agree that salt exfoliation, or “chemical weathering” proposed by K. Lal Gauri also is playing, and has in the past played a major role in the erosion of the Sphinx. Here is a description from Colin Reader about this process which can, and does happen even in the desert conditions today:

“Dew, forming at night on the exposed limestone, removes soluble salts from the surface of the rock. Capillary forces draw this solution into the pores of the limestone matrix, where further salts are dissolved from the internal pore walls. As daytime temperatures rise, the solution begins to evaporate, precipitating salt crystals within the confined neck of the pores. The pressure which the crystals exert as they grow, leads to flaking of thin rock layers from the surface of the limestone.”

Schoch has another line of evidence which centers on what Schoch believes to be subsurface weathering of the floor of the Sphinx enclosure. He attained this data from non invasive seismic geophysical surveys. This part is a bit technical for me but it was explained to me this way by someone involved in this debate who wished to remain anonymous:

“What Schoch tried to do was date the exposure of the enclosure floor to dry-air weathering. When rock is exposed to the atmosphere, it begins to undergo chemical changes and the depth of this change or weathering can be a measure of how long the rock has been exposed. What Schoch did was measure the depth of weathered rock using sound waves (these bounce back very fast if the rock is sound and more slowly if it has weathered). He found that the rock under the floor, along the sides and front of the monument, had weathering that was twice as deep as the rock under the passage in back of the monument. From these findings, he concluded that if the back passage was excavated by Khafra, then the main body of the Sphinx would have stood on an exposed floor beginning sometime between 4750 and 7000 BCE.”

Colin Reader’s response to this is typical of the other geologists that have reviewed Schoch’s claims in this regard.

“Schoch has made the point that I have not commented on the geophysical data that he had obtained from within the Sphinx enclosure, nor have I considered the implications of this work on the dating of the Sphinx.
My reason for not addressing the seismic investigations was primarily connected with the value of this form of investigation when used in isolation. Geophysics, provides an immensely useful range of non-destructive tools, however, in all cases these techniques can merely be considered as prospecting tools. It is common for one geophysical technique to show anomalies where no features exist and visa versa. In addition, different results can often be obtained by the same technique if additional factors come into play. Conclusions drawn from geophysical investigation should always be confirmed by intrusive methods. No intrusive investigation has been undertaken by Schoch.

An illustration of the vagaries of geophysical survey is provided by the team from Waseda University in Japan (Yoshimura et al19&20), who used two advanced geophysical techniques within the Sphinx enclosure: ground penetrating radar (GPR) and microgravity techniques. In their first season, Yoshimura et al used GPR with a frequency of 150MHz and identified two potential cavities in front of the Sphinx. During their second season, however, the same techniques were used but with a reduced frequency of 80MHz: no significant anomalies were encountered at the appropriate locations. It is not possible to be certain which set of geophysical data is to be believed, however, as Yoshimura et al state20 – ‘It was found that the existence of a cavity could not be confirmed without a boring operation’.

In Schoch’s opinion, however, the seismic geophysical surveys undertaken by Dr Thomas Dobecki and himself21 confirm his pre-5000BC date for the original construction of the Sphinx. Schoch’s argument can be summarised as follows:
After excavation of the Sphinx, the newly exposed rocks, particularly the floor of the enclosure, began to weather. In his recent criticism of G:TT8, Schoch appears to advocate arid, sub-aerial weathering as the main agent of this degradation, dismissing the effect of modern rainfall etc. However, in his earlier papers, particularly the first paper that he co-wrote with Dobecki21, a wider range of weathering agents are considered including sub-surface dissolution and karstic development (related to dissolution of the limestone). Schoch considered that if the Sphinx had been carved in one operation, the depth of weathering below the floor of the Sphinx enclosure would be uniform. He argued that the shallower weathering at the rear of the Sphinx, indicated that the excavation at this location had been cut more recently. Zahi Hawass22 has indicated that a number of masonry blocks on the rear of the Sphinx, date from the Fourth Dynasty. Schoch associated this restoration with excavation at the rear of the Sphinx and, on this basis, argued that the more shallow weathering represented a late phase of excavation, limited to the rear of the Sphinx enclosure, which had been undertaken in the Fourth Dynasty. As the weathering elsewhere across the floor of the enclosure is between ‘fifty to 100%’ deeper, Schoch argued that the enclosure had been excavated some 50 to 100% earlier than the Fourth Dynasty – that is about 7000 to 5000BC. In this way, Schoch‘s was able to ‘confirm’ his early date for the Sphinx, which he had initially established on the basis of a known period of rainfall.

It is necessary to question, however, the validity of Schoch’s key assumption: that the results of the seismic geophysics actually represent evidence for weathering rather than some other factor. Schoch’s conclusion, that the seismic survey indicates anomalous shallow weathering at the rear of the Sphinx, is only one possible interpretation of the data. As discussed by Harrell11, there are other equally valid interpretations, including one in particular that may cast some doubt on Schoch’s interpretation.

In his original KMT article5 Schoch discusses four seismic lines within the Sphinx enclosure. The line at the rear of the Sphinx (line S3) suggested a depth of weathered limestone in the order of 1.2m. Three further lines (S1, S2 and S4) on the north and south of the Sphinx, parallel to the body and in front of the paws, indicated weathered rock to 1.8 to 2.5m depth. However, the KMT article simplified the original seismic work, omitting any discussion of seismic line S9, which ran across the floor of the Sphinx temple. In their joint paper21, Dobecki and Schoch report that S9 indicated weathering to 1.2-1.5m depth. In addition, they state that the depth of weathering indicated by S4 (in front of the Sphinx) approached 4m, not the 2.5m stated by Schoch in KMT. If these depths are plotted on an east-west section through the Sphinx enclosure and Sphinx temple (bearing in mind that the floor of the Sphinx temple is cut three metres lower than the floor of the Sphinx enclosure) the ‘weathered’ depths can be connected by a sub-horizontal line that closely parallels the dip of the strata. Schoch’s ‘weathered zone’ may, therefore, be a function of the structure of the Member I rock – reflecting the bedding of the limestones beneath the Sphinx enclosure.”

To make a long story short, if Schoch is right about this subsurface weathering, he will need to have cores drilled at the site to prove it, as it will be assumed to be the sloping natural bedding otherwise. Regrettably, the Egyptians drilled below the floor in the 1990s to determine how high the water table had risen but they did not preserve any samples of the subsurface rock. A sample may be possible to take if somebody remembers to do so the next time there is drilling to monitor the water table.

In conclusion, I think that the following points are persuasive:

• The very selective severe weathering, on the western side of the enclosure wall, and not on the other sides of the enclosure, or on the Sphinx itself are very positive signs for Reader’s theory being true, especially considering the positive evidence for the Sphinx enclosure being a natural drainage for the plateau.
• The rainfall during Reader’s revised construction date (400 years earlier than the mainstream view, but 2500-5000 years later than Schoch’s) was more than enough to produce the erosion seen at the Sphinx site. The rainfall tapered off over thousands of years, it did not abruptly end.
• The other aspects of this debate, such as the context and the other buildings around the area are in Reader’s favor which can be understood by reading some of the articles below.

See the links section below for more reading, this issue requires more reading if you want to be fully informed on it.

Also check out Reader’s responses to Schoch below, as far as I know there has been no further public interactions after that point.

Links:

http://www.thehallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=93

http://www.davidpbillington.net/sphinx2.html

http://wayback.archive.org/web/jsp/Interstitial.jsp?seconds=5&date=1311133458000&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ianlawton.com%2Fas4.htm&target=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.archive.org%2Fweb%2F20110720034418%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ianlawton.com%2Fas4.htm

http://www.robertschoch.net/Comments%20By%20Robert%20Schoch.htm

Reader’s response to Schoch’s criticims

Schoch: In my opinion, the nature and degree of weathering and erosion (degradation) on the Sphinx and in the Sphinx enclosure is much different than what would be expected if the Sphinx had not been carved until 2800 B.C., or even 3000 B.C. Also, mudbrick mastabas on the Saqqara Plateau, dated to circa 2800 B.C., show no evidence of significant rain weathering, indicating just how dry the climate has been for the last 5,000 years. I continue to believe that the erosional features on the Sphinx and in the Sphinx enclosure indicate a much earlier date than 3000 or 2800 B.C. It strains credulity to believe that the amount, type, and degree of precipitation-induced erosion seen in the Sphinx enclosure was produced in only a few centuries.

Reader: A series of First and Second Dynasty mudbrick tombs are situated on a limestone ridge at Saqqara, overlooking the Nile Valley. These early tombs, which conventionally are considered to pre-date the Sphinx, show little evidence of degradation by rainfall. Schoch has taken this in support of his pre-5000BC date for the Sphinx, arguing that the rainfall which eroded the early Sphinx had ended by the time the later mudbrick tombs were built.
We know, however, that significant rainfall has been experienced in Egypt and that, in the appropriate hydrological setting, the resultant run-off can lead to considerable destruction. Reisner showed that sometime after its Fourth Dynasty construction, mudbrick elements of Menkaure’s valley temple were damaged by rainfall run-off. I also consider run-off to be a significant agent of degradation at the Sphinx. Unlike the Sphinx and Menkaure’s valley temple, however, the mudbrick tombs at Saqqara were built on an area of high ground and do not lie within any natural catchment. These tombs will not, therefore, have been exposed to any significant run-off.
That the First and Second Dynasty mudbrick tombs at Saqqara do not show any evidence for erosion is, therefore, a function of their hydrological setting rather than their age. Although it is beyond question that these tombs will have been exposed to rainfall, the fact that they are not significantly degraded, as Schoch has pointed out, demonstrates that rainfall itself has not been a significant agent of degradation in Egypt.

Schoch: I do not find dating the Sphinx on the basis of “the known use of stone in ancient Egyptian architecture” convincing. I would point out that massive stonework erections were being carried out millennia earlier than circa 2800 B.C. in other parts of the Mediterranean (for instance, at Jericho in Palestine). Even in Egypt, it is now acknowledged that megalithic structures were being erected at Nabta (west of Abu Simbel in Upper Egypt; discussed in the text of my book, VOICES) by the fifth millennium B.C. and the predynastic “Libyan palette” (circa 3100-3000 B.C.), now housed in the Cairo Museum, records fortified cities (which may well have included architectural stonework) along the western edge of the Nile delta at a very early date. I find it quite conceivable that architectural stonework was being pursued at Giza prior to 2800 or 3000 B.C.

Reader: Having advocated a pre 5000BC date for the excavation of the Sphinx, Schoch has attempted to establish a role or context for his early Sphinx. In search of such a context, Schoch has suggested links with Jericho (from where stone masonry is known, ca. 8000BC) and to stone artefacts from the Nabta Playa in southern Egypt from about 6000BC.
I have investigated these suggested links and have found them both unconvincing. With respect to the possibility of links with Jericho, Michael Baigent in his book Ancient Traces16 links Predynastic pots found at Giza (see also my paper2), to evidence of traders from the Jericho region who had settled in the Late Predynastic town of Maadi, across the Nile valley from Giza. Baigent describes how many of the pottery remains encountered during the archaeological excavation at Maadi, were clearly influenced by Jericho – evidence, he concluded, that people from Jericho had settled in Maadi, bringing with them their knowledge of working masonry and, he implies, building the Sphinx.
Whilst this link is intriguing, it can not be substantiated by archaeological evidence from the site. An important publication on the subject is “Maadi I – the pottery of the PreDynastic Settlement”17, in which the authors discuss the presence of Palestinian (including Jericho) pots of Chalcolithic age (4000-3000BC). Not only is this date not consistent with the 5000BC date advocated by Schoch for the construction of the Sphinx, the authors note that the Palestinian pots were of a single type and represented only some 3% of the total assemblage. Given the rich variety of forms of Palestinian ware, the firm conclusion reached was that these pots were not imported in their own right, nor were they brought with settlers – their presence in Egypt was simply due to the fact that they were the standard container for a certain class of goods imported from Palestine.
As for the Nabta Playa, well the Sphinx and Sphinx temple actually have very little in common with the stone circle discovered at this site in southern Egypt (dated to approximately 6000BC18). The scale of the two monuments could not be different, the Sphinx is some 74m long, whereas the Nabta circle is only 4m in diameter. Unlike the Sphinx temple particularly, which consists of carefully quarried, worked and placed masonry, the Nabta circle is built from roughly hewn blocks. A number of large worked stones have also been found buried in the sand at Nabta. Whilst these monoliths show some advanced features of working in stone, they do not represent masonry and can not, therefore, be associated with the Sphinx.
These distant sites (Jericho and Nabta) fail to provide the early context for the Sphinx that Schoch has sought. More to the point, however, is that we do have archaeological evidence from Egypt for the period ca. 5000BC. The capabilities of the culture from this time are well established, however, they do not include the working of stone masonry.