Alexander the Defeated

Alexander the Great invaded India after the conquest of Persia. In the battle of Jhelum, he defeated Porus and in a dramatic interaction between the victorious and the defeated, Porus impresses Alexander by his boldness and gets back his kingdom as a reward.

This is the most popular story that commemorated Alexander’s invasion in India. It depicts a victorious and brave Alexander. But what if all these tales about a victorious invader were a myth? What if history presents a completely different and gloomy picture of Alexander’s invasion in India? What if the actual history and modern research topples the well groomed representation of a victorious Alexander and reveals a sad, devastated and defeated Alexander?

Well, that is what the true history has to say. Quite astonishingly, all the chronicles and writings about Alexander’s Indian adventure that we have today were actually composed two to three centuries after the death of the Macedonian hero. Modern research revealed that the alleged sayings and letters those were assigned to Alexander are mostly fake. Often the ancient Greek writers, who wrote about Alexander’s Indian campaign, had exaggerated the facts to a greater extent. What is most startling is that the Indian contemporaries of Alexander had often neglected the invasion of Alexander and had not mentioned it in their works. Most important was the work of Kautilya. As a shrewd politician, Kautilya should not have missed out the invasion of Alexander had it been of a greater importance. Further, since the illuminated days of Buddha, the pali and Sanskrit literature had recorded Indian politics, economy, society in a great detail. They left distinct records about Bimbisara and Ajatsatru. They spoke about the Magadhan kings, the Mauryas and so on. But why did the keen observers of Indian politics miss out the invasion of Alexander? All these suggest that Alexander’s campaign failed to acquire any significance in the political context of India. It was perhaps the earliest European scholars who nurtured with the Indian ancient, found Alexander's invasion an important tool to legitimize the European presence and interests in the Indian subcontinent. Thus they portrayed the stereotypical image of a victorious Alexander in the Indian context.

Alexander fought a total of six battles in India, and interestingly enough the Greek and Roman chroniclers often failed to mention the actual outcome of those six encounters. In the first encounter, Alexander fought for four days against the Swat people. Massaga was the stronghold of the warlike and prosperous Swat tribe. On the first day of this four day battle, Alexander was forced to retreat. The same fate awaited him on the second and third days. When Alexander lost men and was on the verge of defeat, he called for a truce. However, Alexander treacherously slaughtered the unaware and unarmed Swat population as they slept in the night of the fourth day believing that the battle was over.

In the second and third battles at Bazaira and Aornus, Alexander faced similar fate and ultimately resorted to pure and simple cheating to win those places. But these unsuccessful military campaigns had reduced the strength of the Macedonian army. With this reduced and broken force, Alexander faced Porus in the much hyped battle of Jhelum. The ancient chroniclers mentions of a huge army of Porus and gave some figures of his strength. But what was the strength of Alexander’s troop? The greek and roman chroniclers preferred to keep silent. However, the flow of events since Alexander invaded India suggests Alexander led a weak and small Macedonian army in the build up to the battle of Jhelum. Though the numerical majority might not be the x-factor in winning battles after the coming of gunpowder, in the days of Alexander, numerical majority decided a battle fought on land. Moreover, a large regiment of elephants that constituted the first row of Porus’ phalanx was a decisive factor also. In any case, the Macedonian horses would be frightened and the infantry would be trampled by the advancing elephants. Where Alexander’s troops failed against the petty regional tribal chiefdoms, how could they have crushed the huge and increasingly powerful army of Porus?

Ancient texts reveals that Alexander was seriously wounded and his horse Bucephala and his trusted general Nicaea died in the first charge of Porus. And yet, quite illogically, the ancient writers concluded the battle in favour of Alexander. The most popular version speaks of Alexander being the winner and that Alexander orders porus to surrender and thus follows the well known myth.

The events that followed the battle speak against Alexander’s victory. Those were:

Firstly, in his next two campaigns at Sangala and Malli, Alexander’s cavalry was totally destroyed and Alexander himself had to leave the troops on foot!!!

Secondly, whatever land that was gained was added to Porus’ kingdom. Alexander fought battles as if he was the general of Porus and especially in Sangala campaign where Alexander lost hundreds of soldiers. But the gains were not for him, but for Porus.

Thirdly, king Abhisares, a lesser monarch had shown the audacity to defy Alexander’s warnings and despite this show of defiance, a world conqueror like Alexander did not attack the lesser and weak king. Why? This suggests that Abhisares was quite sure that Alexander lost all his strength.

Fourthly, when Alexander was fighting on the battlefield, Porus’ army rested in the garrison both at Sangala and Malli. If Alexander would have defeated Porus at helum, the opposite would have happened. It is quite illogical that the victor would engage his weakened force in battle in order to conquer new territories for the conquered and subdued. Alexander was mortally wounded in these campaigns also.

All these evidences and suspicious silence of the Greek and the Roman chroniclers suggests Alexander’s total defeat at Jhelum. It is also obvious that he signed a sort of subsidiary alliance with Porus. If the myth that I mentioned at the beginning had really taken place, then Alexander and Porus must have interchanged their positions. And that was history.

Alexander’s Indian campaign was a great blunder on his part and it certainly scripted the fall of this much celebrated conqueror.

What was the real cause of Alexander’s death?

Alexander the Great, also known as Alexander III, king of Macedonia, as we all know was one of the most successful military commanders in the history of Ancient Greece. He was born in the year 356 BC to King Phillip II and Queen Olympias. By the time of his death in 323 BC, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks. However twelve years of constant military campaigning finally took a toll on his health and he succumbed to a curious “illness”, leaving behind no clear successor. But did he really die of natural causes? The purpose of this article is to examine the causes of his premature demise.

For 12 years Alexander had personally led his men from the rugged highlands of Macedonia, in the north of the Greek peninsula, first destroying the rebellious Thebes, then crossing the Hellespont—today's Dardanelles—to begin his revenge on Persia. His troops fought their way across Anatolia, subjugating the great Persian Empire, defeating even the Bactrian armored cavalry, and winning onward, undefeated, as far as the Beas River in India. Alexander had been wounded many times, but nothing, it seemed, could overcome his boundless energy, his iron constitution, and his capacity for quick recovery. And now struck this curious ‘fever’, which modern doctors believe was typhoid, "complicated by bowel perforation and ascending paralysis."

There are various theories on the actual cause of Alexander’s death. Modern historians are generally divided on this issue. On the afternoon of June 10-11, 323 BC Alexander died in the palace of Nebuchadrezzar II of Babylon. Many ancient historians, like Plutarch and Arrian, believe that it was caused by the relapse of malaria which he contracted some 12 years ago. However a startling new theory has come to light which suggests that he was poisoned. Yes poisoned.

This theory derives from the story of Justin and Curtius. The original story states that Cassander, son of Antipater, the viceroy of Greece and his brother Iollas together conspired to bring about the downfall of the young monarch. Many around Alexander, including his most trusted generals, had powerful motivations for seeing Alexander gone. The poison that finished him off is commonly believed to be strychnine, a curious poison which is mainly used for killing small vertebrates like rodents. It causes muscular convulsions and effectively paralyses the spinal cord and the brain. According to the story, it was Iollas who actually administered the poison after Cassander had mixed it in his wine. However according to R. Lane Fox, the strongest argument against the poisoning theory is the fact that twelve days had passed between the start of his illness and his death and in the ancient world, such long-acting poisons were not available. But even then the poison theory is quite a plausible one.
The Diadochi, were supposedly the rival successors of Alexander’s huge empire. It is believed that it was actually the Diadochi, and not the sons of Antipater, who had a hand in Alexander’s “natural” death. Alexander had no natural heir and many close to him wanted to take advantage of that fact. According to T. Peter Limber, Alexander, on his deathbed, assembled his closest companions, to hear his answer to the inevitable question: to whom would he leave the then Macedonian empire? His answer is still debated. Arrian quotes it as, “Hoti to kratisto” – which means “to the strongest” or “most able”. If Alexander meant “to the strongest of my generals”, then he was almost certainly predicting a series of succession wars (which actually happened). Yet he had already handed his royal ring to Perdiccas, his second-in-command, thus appointing him regent. A final ambiguity is that instead of “Hoti to Kratisto”, the dying man may simply have said “Krater’oi”, referring to arguably his greatest and most trusted general, Craterus, whom he had already appointed as the regent of Macedonia! And shortly after Alexander’s death, Craterus was assassinated. By whom it is not known. What is known is that his empire was split between the Diadochi.

However most modern historians scoff at the poison theory and call it an attempt to “further romanticize the fanciful legend of Alexander”. According to John S. Marr of the Virginia Department of Health, Richmond and Charles H. Calisher of the Colorado State University, it was a disease, which was a combination of the recently-discovered West Nile Fever and Encephalitis, which actually felled the young king. In the 3rd century BC, a disease caused by West Nile virus arrived in Mesopotamia for the first time in recorded history, killing indigenous birds and an occasional human and causing only incidental febrile illnesses in many others. Over subsequent centuries the virus may have devolved, becoming less pathogenic for indigenous birds, while retaining its potential as a dangerous human pathogen. We now know that unexplained bird die-offs can foretell human cases of disease caused by West Nile virus. In 323 BC, a similar event might have been considered an omen of Alexander the Great’s death. Greek historian C.N. Sbarounis supports the natural cause theory but says that it was actually acute pancreatitis, which is usually caused by heavy alcohol consumption that vanquished the unconquerable king.

Many historians, like Plutarch and Aristobulus, back the “Typhoid Fever” theory. Historian Niel Roffe Chamberlain as well as a medical team headed by Dr. David W. Oldach and others from the University of Maryland laid out the case of typhoid fever in the 1998 June issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. An important clue is that he suffered from severe abdominal pain. This could have been the result of a perforated bowel caused by untreated typhoid fever.
However a new theory has come to light which suggests that Alexander might actually have been done to death by his beloved wife Roxana. She was the daughter of a Bactrian named Oxyartes of Balkh in Bactria (then eastern Persia, now northern Afghanistan), and married Alexander in 327 BC after he visited the fortress of Sogdian Rock. Historian Graham Philip and jounalist Steve Connor support the theory that it was actually Rozana who murdered the young monarch out of sheer jealously after Alexander professed his love for Hephaestion, son of Amyntor and a Macedonian aristocrat (this further backs claims that Alexander might actually have been bisexual). Another theory has been put forward by University of Otago poisons expert Dr. Leo Schep, who may actually hold the key to the mystery that has baffled historians for nearly two and a half thousand years. His theory is one of the leads in a documentary, Alexander the Great's Mysterious Death offering a plausible explanation for Alexander's untimely death, based on scientific and forensic research on information that has come down through history. Dr Schep had his theory on the murder weapon taken up as the lead case scenario, after fielding a call from a researcher with UK film company Atlantic Production's researcher late last year. He supports the poison theory completely but has withheld the identity of the supposed murderer, which will be disclosed later this year at a press conference after all the evidence pointing to this theory has been thoroughly confirmed. However many historians remain skeptical and unconvinced.

The mystery of Alexander’s death, as we can see, is a multi-layered and rather complex one. No clinching evidence has been found till date to support either the “natural causes” theory or the “poisoning” theory. What we have before us is a theory which is extremely hypothetical and not very substantial. Alexander’s death till now has been one of History’s great mysteries and one which has been widely debated in academic circles. Whether there is any truth in Dr. Schep’s claims remains to be seen. Whether any evidence will be found regarding the death of the enigmatic king only time will tell. From a purely personal point of view, I feel that Alexander’s death might not have been due to natural causes and there’s certainly more to it than meets the eye.

The pyramid is highlighted in red, and its two diagonals are extended beyond the end of the pyramid to the north-east and north-west. The mass of squiggly lines above the pyramid is the Delta of the Nile River, and, as you can see the two diagonals encase the Nile neatly and entirely. As we can well understand it needs a lot of technological advancement to actually make something of this magnitude.Did the Egyptians have someone walk hundreds of miles to the end of the delta and hold a really, really long piece of string while someone walked all the way back to the site of the pyramid. Then, those two people stood there while two more people repeated the process on the other side of the Pyramid. Just so that they could build a big building in such a way that its diagonals lie on those two lines??..Astonishing isn't it?

The big dark shape on the upper left of this diagram is the great pyramid. If you look at the compass rose in the bottom right, you can see that the pyramid is lined up exactly with the magnetic North Pole, a difference of only 16 minutes, or some absurdly small number like that (there are 60 minutes in one degree). How could the Egyptians possibly have built their pyramid facing the exact magnetic North Pole without even having a compass? a compass was not invented for a few thousand years after the ancient Egyptians were long gone? IS THAT LIKELY????






This is a photograph of the Great Pyramid of Giza, and its neighbor, as seen from the Sphinx, on the evening of the summer solstice. As you can see, the sun is setting in the exact center of the two pyramids. COINCIDENCE??? For the Egyptians to be able to do this, they must have known the day of the summer solstice, and they therefore, must have known the exact length of the year, or 365.25; once again, a fact not discovered until long after the Egyptians were gone.


This image is a diagram of the stars of the Belt of Orion. Now look at the diagram of the pyramids below.

Though this fact is not as remarkable, the positioning of the three Pyramids of Giza are exactly aligned with the position of the three stars in the belt of Orion, both in position and in size. While it is possible, it would create many difficulties for the Egyptians in terms of measuring huge distances. Not only this, but in fact, at the time that the pyramids were supposedly built (about 3000 BC), the stars that make up the Belt of Orion were not exactly at the correct angle to match up with the pyramids. If the location of the stars is traced back over thousands of years, the time at which the belt is exactly aligned with the pyramids is in fact 10,500 BC.

A time when there were supposedly no civilized humans living on the earth. Another fact to support this is, if you consider the Sphinx, a lion with a human head and then look at the size of the body, you can see that the body is perfectly proportioned for the head of a lion, not the human head. This human head looks tiny and silly sitting on top of the body. This is because the Sphinx was actually built in 10,500 BC, around the same time as the pyramids, with a real head of a lion. Evidence to support this is that there are signs of water erosion all over the Sphinx. The last time that there was any water nearby, aside from the Nile is around 10,000 BC. Also, the constellation of Leo the Lion (thus closely related to the Sphinx), was in fact rising directly behind the sun in 10,500 BC.

Are Egyptologists then saying that the Egyptians built their pyramids to be in the exact shape of Orion's Belt, but purposely aligned them differently from what was actually in the sky? That after they built the Sphinx, they purposely made the head look small and funny? Then, they broke their backs carrying water from the Nile just so that they could put water erosion lines all over the body????.. sounds silly doesn't it?
This is a photograph taken on the day of the winter solstice from the entrance of the Great Pyramid. The Big shape silhouetted in the middle of the photograph is the Sphinx. Since this is only a photograph, and not a movie, you can't get the full effect. But even in the photo, you can see that the sun is tracing around the Sphinx's head. In actuality, the sun rises exactly at the left side of the base of the Sphinx's head. Then it traces it all the way around until it sets on the right side of the Sphinx's head. COINCIDENCE???

Had the Egyptians done this, since this occurs only on the day of the winter solstice, they would have had to have known the exact length of a year.
IS THAT LIKELY???

I purposely put all these pictures and explained them as i wanted to make sure that everyone faces the similar strong impact that i experienced when i came across these facts..what do you have to say to these pieces of evidences?

Various theories on the Sphinx

Now the other view of the Great Sphinx was that its builder was a civilization that existed before the Egyptians. This civilization existed in the Ante-Diluvian age (i.e. before the great Flood). The time frame this group placed on the construction of the Sphinx is between 5,000 – 10,500 B.C. The Egyptians came later and built their tombs and temples along side and on top of these great structures.Now the evidence consists of first ancient astronomical and astrological calculations of the stars and secondly of geological evidences that the Sphinx and other monuments of Giza suffered water erosion. It is this evidence that has turned the Egyptologists’ world upside down. Many have chosen to ignore the evidence.Robert Bauval, a Belgian construction engineer, had a flair for astronomy. He saw that the monuments in the Giza region on the earth mimic various constellations in the sky. It was this piece of evidence that the Egyptologists had ignored.He showed that the three pyramids align with the stars in the Orion constellation. Mathematicians and astronomers endorsed his calculation. Graham Hancock makes the following quotes about Bauval’s calculation. "…the Giza monuments as a whole were so arranged as to provide a picture of the skies not as they had looked in Fourth Dynasty around 2500 B.C., but as they looked…around the year 10,450 B.C.".Using Bauval’s method, archaeology-astronomy and the computer model for stars for 2,500 B.C. and 10,500 B.C. shows why the Sphinx has the form of a lion’s body. He showed that the Sphinx facing east or the raising sun is clearly a marker for the spring equinox. Now Leo is the zodiac sign that conforms to a lion’s body. The sun rose in the constellation or house of Leo during the time of the spring equinox 10,500 B.C. This was also at the same time the Orion constellation lined up with the pyramids and other monuments had aligned with various other constellations.Secondly, a geologist at Boston University, Professor Robert Schoch, verified that water eroded the Sphinx. Geologists know scientifically that wind/sand erosion on limestone differs from water erosion. Schoch states that the pattern of erosion on the limestone body of the Sphinx is consistent with water erosion. Many of his colleagues back his findings.The erosion "…is entirely consistent with precipitation-induced weathering where you have water, rain water beating down from above (p. 422)." He also placed the age of the Sphinx between 5,000 - 7,000 B.C.John West says for a majority of the 4500 year period that the Sphinx was built, it would have been buried in sand up to its neck. This means that it could not have suffered wind/sand erosion if it was buried most of the time. There is no other monument that has suffered this type of erosion during this same period. Thus, the weathering was due to thousands of years of heavy rainfall, before the existence of Egypt.Now these two findings permanently altered mankind’s view of the Sphinx and advanced ancient civilizations. It is the first time hard evidence has verified ancient legends and myths concerning previous advanced civilizations.Even if these new findings are proven wrong, the old Egyptologists’ model of the Sphinx has been permanently changed from its rigid model that refused to reexamine itself in face of new evidence.

Is the Sphinx older than 7,000 years?What are the Biblical implications of a 7,000-10,000 year old Sphinx?

Now if the Sphinx is proven to be 7,000-10,000 years old, this posits a dilemma to Biblical chronology and the history of mankind. Because the time span from Adam-Eve to our present time is 6,000 years according to Biblical chronology, a 7,000-10,000 year old Sphinx implies that there were civilizations that existed before Adam and Eve, for which there is no scriptural support.Many think this would undermine Moses’ account of creation and the Bible. Yet it is quite obvious from Moses’ account that he left out many things, or they were not revealed unto him, such as dinosaurs and other animals that were extinct at the time of his vision 1490 years before the Messiah’s birth.

The greater question is NOT whether mankind’s Biblical chronology is just 6,000 years old, but if Elohim has created and destroyed life many times prior to Adam and Eve. Thus, could the new heaven and earth have been Adam’s and Eve’s appearance in a renovated earth (Rev. 21:1-4)? This would explain how the Sphinx can be a monument left over from a civilization and world prior to Adam and Eve.When one looks at certain Biblical events in time, they seem to support the notion of Elohim creating and destroying life many times before creating Adam and Eve. For example, with Noah and the flood, one sees the earth’s population being destroyed and being repopulated by Noah and his offsprings. When Egypt was destroyed by plagues one can see it was repopulated and rebuilt. These are few instances of this principle being repeated over and over in time our creation.Now a belief in an Eternal Creator Yahweh-Elohim presupposed that Moses’ account of creation is NOT the first physical creation ever created. This would imply that Adam and Eve were not the first human creatures that Elohim created.There is not enough information in the book of Genesis, to reach any decision on this. Yet there is scientific evidence which appears to prove that the earth and life upon it is more then 6,000 years old.In an article in the issue of "PLIM REPORT," entitled "Elohim and the Ages," it shows that after a "week of ages" there is a always new order of things, meaning a new creation coming forth again. This article also shows that there are legends and myths in other cultures that state that mankind had been literally wiped out or destroyed many times before on the earth and repopulated by Elohim.An examination of the Bible for Sphinx-like creatures might shed some light on the subject that many of the experts and researchers have overlooked.

Does the Bible refer to the Sphinx?
Now there is no mention of the Sphinx in the Bible. Yet many visions from Elohim shown to the prophets of Israel reveal the principles of the design and the purpose of the Great Sphinx, as are confirmed in various legends and myths.Both the Great Pyramid and the Sphinx are older than the Old Testament. What this means is that civilizations prior to Israel had physically documented what the prophets of Israel later saw and documented in their visions.What this shows is that Elohim and His angels had always intercourse with mankind and the various civilizations throughout the ages. Elohim has never been absent from His creation. Now both Ezekiel the prophet and the Apostle John described something in their visions, which seems very similar to the Sphinx.
Does John speak of sphinx-like creatures?
Now the Apostle John in Revelation wrote in the fourth chapter that he was in the Spirit on the Sabbath day. He states he saw a door in heaven open and Elohim sat upon His Throne (Rev. 4:1-2). There was a sea of glass before the throne (Rev. 4:6) and round about the throne there were four beasts. John describes them as follows. "And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle. And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come (Rev 4:7-8)."Now the beasts around the throne of Elohim in heaven are reflected in the form of the Great Sphinx and also the zodiac. Also these beasts around the Throne were guardians to the Throne of Elohim as the Great Sphinx was believed to guard the Great Pyramid. So, it appears that the Great Sphinx and the Great Pyramid are reflections of what is in Heaven.
Did Ezekiel see Sphinx-like creatures in his vision?
Now the prophet Ezekiel further confirmed what the Apostle John saw in his vision. He states that a fiery whirlwind cloud enfolding upon itself appeared unto him in a vision. He saw four creatures within this fiery cloud that had the appearance of a man. Now each one had four faces and wings (Ezk. 1:5-7). Each one of these creatures also had feet in the form of a calf.Ezekiel described the four faces of the creatures that were below the Throne of Elohim (Ezk. 1:26-27) as follows. "As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle (Ezk. 1:10)." Thus, these four angelic creatures symbolically represent the whole angelic host that is around the Throne of Elohim. Thus, one can see the symbolic representation of the Great Sphinx in the earth-plane which many of the mystics wrote about concerning the Sphinx.
The Bible verifies that the Great Sphinx was the result of someone having a great vision from Elohim who allowed a civilization to mimic the principles that were in heaven—as above so is below (Rom. 1:19-20). This is proven by the four cardinal points of the compass (North, South, East, West) and the fixed astrological signs of Aires, Capricorn, Libra, Gemini. These beasts around the throne of Elohim have great spiritual meaning.

My intent was not only to give the reader a brief history of the Sphinx, but also to show how new information challenges old theories. It also shows how little modern man knows about the history of this blue marble called earth. The Sphinx’s purpose was both symbolic and religious in nature.Clearly, if the old model cannot explain anomalies, such as the Sphinx, then it has to be reevaluated in light of new information for this is the scientific method. Traditional thoughts of Egyptologists and flimsy evidence should not prevent us from considering new information with a new model.The works of Graham Hancock, John West, Robert Bauval and others have definitely challenged the orthodox model of human history with proof that shows that previous civilizations had advanced knowledge that we are not privileged to today. The Sphinx, the Pyramid, Stonehenge, the drawing in the Nazcan plains of Peru, and other ancient sites throughout the world shows this. Mankind was much more advanced than the cave man, who supposedly began the history of man.Finally, it must understood that the Sphinx appears to be similar to the creatures that surround the Throne of Elohim as the Apostle John and the prophet Ezekiel describe in their visions. What this shows is that Elohim revealed the image of the Sphinx to various civilizations prior to the prophets of Israel seeing it.

The sphinx guarding Luxor's pyramid is one and a half times the size of the real thing!

When was the Sphinx built and Who built it?

The Sphinx is one of the most easily recognized symbols of ancient Egypt. It is part of Khafre's pyramid complex. Now Khafre is quite possibly the greatest maker of statues of the pyramid age ( ca.2575-2467 B.C. ) Through archaelogical studies of the Sphinx Temples, many possibilities for its purpose have been suggested. One concept is that the Sphinx represents the Sun god, the king as the god Horus , or a king in the leonine form of a god. Unfortunately, the builders of the Sphinx left no writing as to its purpose, just as they had left the Sphinx in a unfinished state.There have been numerous attempts at restoration on the Sphinx over thousands of years.Over the centuries , all the restoration has actually changed the shape of the Sphinx from its original form. In the 18th Dynasty , the Pharaoh known as Thutmose IV , included in the restoration the "Dream Stele" , which was carved into the chest of the Sphinx. Symbolizing the relationship between the Pharaoh and the gods. And , again ,even the most recent attempts at restoration have changed the outward appearance of the Sphinx. Maybe , it is our opinion , that it is time to let nature take its course and man should stop interfering with the effects of time.

Now there are basically two schools of thoughts concerning the origin, age, and the builder of the Sphinx in Egypt. The established group are Egyptologists who believe that Pharaoh Khafre built the Sphinx around 2500 B.C., which is about the 4th dynasty. This theory makes the Sphinx about 5,000 years old according to Dr. Zahi Hawass, Director of Giza Saqqara of the Egyptian Antiquities Organization (p. 348) as stated in Graham Hancock’s book 'Fingerprints of the Gods' (1995 Crown Trade Paperbacks).
Now the other school of thought does not believe that the Egyptians built the Sphinx, but think that it was built by an advanced civilization 8,000 to 10,000 B.C. This school of thought has been around for hundreds of years, but new findings give it more credibility. Recently, Graham Hancock, John West, an American scholar, Robert Bauval, and others have presented certain evidence that challenges the traditional thoughts about the Sphinx and the whole Giza complex.They present proof that may cause a rethinking of the model used to determine who built the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid and for what purpose. Their proofs consist of basically two pieces of evidence. First the geological indications that the Sphinx’s erosion was due to water rather than wind/sand making it much older than previously thought, according to the book Fingerprint of the Gods. Second, astronomical alignments show that the Sphinx was clearly an equinoctial marker facing east, which identifies the exact position on the horizon that the sun dawns on the spring equinox (1st day of spring) according to Graham Hancock’s and Robert Bauval’s book The Message of the Sphinx (p. 59).Many of the legends of the Egyptians and Arabs support this position. They believe that an advanced civilization prior to the flood (i.e., in the Ante-Diluvian Age) built these structures.

What is the intent of this article?
Now the intent of this article is to briefly investigate the old and new theories about the origin, purpose, and builders of Sphinx. It will also explore the implications of these new findings.This article will show also the reality of the Sphinx using the Bible and the Tabernacle for the Sphinx also appears to have close similarities to the creatures seen by Ezekiel and the Apostle John in their visions.

Now no one knows how the Sphinx looked at its completion because both natural erosion and destruction at the hand of man have altered its original form. Archeologists and historians found many pictures of the Sphinx drawn with wings, the body of a lion and ox, and the face of man. Today only the face of a man and body of a lion are apparent on the Great Sphinx.Now the Sphinx faces east or the raising sun. Many Egyptologists overlooked this simple fact, which will play a major part in identifying its purpose.The Sphinx was carved out of a single piece of stone weighing hundreds of tons. It is over 200 feet in length or about as long as a city block. According to Manly P. Hall’s book The Secret Teachings of the Ages (p. XLII), the Sphinx is about 70 feet in height and is 38 feet across the shoulders. Now no one knows what types of tools were used to carve the stone.

Although there are no records regarding the construction of the Sphinx, there are records of its restoration. The "Sphinx Stela," a stone-engraved inscription dated around 1400 B.C., is the oldest record concerning the Sphinx. According to Fingerprints of the Gods, it describes the restoration of the Sphinx by Pharaoh Thutmosis IV (1401-1391 B.C.) of the 18th Dynasty.The Stela states that during a hunting trip Prince Thutmosis became tired and slept in the shadow of the Sphinx. He had a dream that the Sphinx promised to reward him with a double crown of Egypt if he would remove the sand from it and restore the sculpture.According to Manly Hall’s book and Max Thoth book Pyramid Prophecies (p. 158), another account of this legend states that the god appeared unto Prince Thutmosis asking him to do the same. Due to erosion of the stela inscription, no one knows how this promised was fulfilled.Basically, this granite inscription described the form of the Sphinx as a lion’s body. It also stated that the embodiment was "a great magical power that existed in this place from the beginning of all time (p. 11)," according to the book The Message of the Sphinx by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval (1996 Three Rivers Press).Now this stone inscription did not explain the purpose, the original designer and builder, or the date of the Sphinx’s erection. However, it did cause a great controversy. On line 13 of the inscription it contains the first syllable "Khaf" and it has been associated with King Khafre of the Fourth Dynasty of Pharaoh, who reigned during 2520-2494 B.C.From this inscription the orthodox view found in any textbook and encyclopedia states that King Khafre built the Sphinx. It will be shown later that a minority group does not accept this view.Since the Sphinx is located in a desert region, the sand constantly recovered it. In the last 200 years the Sphinx has been excavated and re-excavated four or five times. Basically, this has been the history of the Sphinx.

If you have gone through my earlier posts on Atlantis then you would be familiar with the name of Edward Cayce. He also spoke of The Sphinx and this is what he had to say about it.He stated in some of his trances that Egypt was the repository for records of the alleged civilization of Atlantis, about 10,500 B.C. This repository was an underground library, called the Hall of Records," that contains the wisdom of Atlantis. Cayce said that during this period this was the first attempt to restore and add to the Sphinx.Cayce claims that the Sphinx points in the direction of the "Hall of Records." His reading states: "There is a chamber or passage from the right forepaw of the [Sphinx] to this entrance of the Hall of records, or chamber," as quoted by Graham Hancock Many of his followers believe this chamber will be found before the end of the 20th century.Now in the 1980’s and 1990’s the Edgar Cayce Foundation conducted quite a bit of research in Egypt around the Sphinx to verify Cayce’s reading. Although researchers from all over the world have begun to look for this chamber with very sophisticated instruments, they have not found the Hall of Records."

In the book of Genesis in the Old Testament there is no reference to the Sphinx or any other monuments that antediluvian civilizations built. In fact, there is very little written in Genesis on how far mankind’s technology advanced in this age. The seed of Cain was described as craftsmen of iron and brass (Gen. 4:17-22). It can be said that at the time of the flood these civilizations were at their zenith.Clearly, no one can be sure if the Sphinx and the monuments of Giza were built in the Antediluvian age. If they were, this chronology assumes that the Sphinx is no more than 6,000 or 7,000 years old, which fits into the Biblical time frame.
Manly Hall states in his book that there are many myths and legends surrounding the Sphinx. The Bible will show later that there is quite a bit of truth in many of these myths and legends.The most popular myth was that "…the Sphinx was the true portal [entrance] of the Great Pyramid…(p. XLII)" Mr. Hall quotes from P. Christian’s book Historie de la Magie (Paris, 1876). P. Christian states that "The Great Sphinx of Gizeh served as the entrance to the sacred subterranean chambers [of the Great Pyramid] in which the trials of the initiate were to be undergone …(p. XLII)." Now P. Christian claims that sand and rubbish covered a bronze door in the forelegs of the Sphinx that the Magi sprung open. Now various diggings around the Great Pyramid have not verified any of these basic claims about the Sphinx.The consensus about the Sphinx is that some priestly class erected it for some symbolical purpose. It is clear from the granite Stela, inscription by Pharaoh Thutmosis IV of the Fourth Dynasty, that many of previous eras believe that there is something magical about this Sphinx.

As was stated earlier in this article, the traditional view of Egyptologists is that the Egyptian Pharaoh Khafre of the fourth Dynasty built the Great Sphinx along with the Great Pyramid, about 2500 B.C.. Hancock states in his book Fingerprint of the Gods that there are three pieces of evidence Egyptologists use to support their position (p. 158).First, they mention the interpretation of the Khafre name on the Sphinx Stela, in which vast portions of the text are eroded. The second piece of evidence attributes Khafre as the builder of the monuments in the Valley of the Temple, which Hancock says is a very shaky premise. The third proof is that the face of the Sphinx is thought to resemble a statue of Khafre.These are the so-called facts that Egyptologists used to determine the sphinx builders. They are flimsy at best and are definitely not smoking guns. Any layman knows that if this evidence were presented in a criminal case, it would be thrown out of court....

continued..

What happened to Hatshepsut?

Born in the 15th century BC, Hatshepsut, daughter of Tuthmose I and Aahmes, both of royal lineage,[ check the family tree for better understanding] was the favorite of their three children. When her two brothers died, she was in the unique position to gain the throne upon the death of her father. To have a female pharaoh was unprecedented, and probably most definitely unheard of as well. When Tuthmose I passed away,his son by the commoner Moutnofrit[possibly a daughter of Ahmose I], Tuthmose II, technically ascended the throne. For the few years of his reign, however, Hatshepsut seems to have held the reins. From markings on his mummy, archaeologists believe Tuthmose II had a skin disease, and he died after ruling only three or four years. Hatshepsut, his half sister and wife, had produced no offspring with him (her daughter Nefrure was most likely the daughter of her lover Senmut), although he had sired a son through the commoner Isis. This son, Tuthmose III, was in line for the throne, but due to his age Hatshepsut was allowed to reign as queen dowager.Hatshepsut was not one to sit back and wait for her nephew to age enough to take her place. As a favorite daughter of a popular pharaoh, and as a charismatic and beautiful lady in her own right, she was able to command enough of a following to actually take control as pharaoh. She ruled for about 15 years, until her death in 1458 BC, and left behind more monuments and works of art than any Egyptian queen to come.

Hatshepsut is given a reign of about 22 years by ancient authors. Josephus writes that she reigned 21 years and 9 months, while Africanus states her reign lasted 22 years, both of whom were quoting Manetho. It is also at this point in time that Hatshepsut disappears, as is indicated by the fact that Thutmose III's first campaign was dated to his 22nd year, which would also have been Hatshepsut's 22nd.Dating the beginning of her reign is more difficult, however. Her father's reign definitively began in either 1506 or 1526 BC according to the low and high chronologies, respectively.However, the length of the reigns of Thutmose I and Thutmose II cannot be determined with absolute certainty. With short reigns, Hatshepsut would have ascended the throne 14 years after Thutmose I's coronation.Longer reigns would put her ascension 25 years after Thutmose I's coronation.Thus, Hatshepsut could have assumed power as early as 1512 BC or as late as 1479. Older chronologies dated her reign from 1504 to about 1482.Modern chronologists tend to agree that Hatshepsut reigned from 1479 to 1458, but there is no definitive proof.

Hatshepsut, as a female, had many obstacles to overcome. There was always a threat of revolt, especially as her bitter nephew came of age. Using propaganda and keen political skills, she deftly jumped each hurdle she
faced. To quell the fears of her people, she became a "king" in all statuary and relief during her reign. She even dressed in the traditional garb of male rulers: the shendyt kilt, the nemes headdress with its uraeus and khat headcloth, and the false beard. Although there were no wars during her reign, she proved her sovereignty by ordering expeditions to the land of Punt, in present-day Somalia, in search of the ivory, animals, spices, gold and aromatic trees that Egyptians coveted. These expeditions are well documented in the hieroglyphic inscriptions on the walls of her temple. With these inscriptions are included incised representations of the journey, including humorous images of the Puntites and their queen, at whom the Egyptians no doubt looked while restraining a giggle; the queen has folds of fat hanging over her knees and elbows, her back is crooked and she has an aquiline nose. To the short, thin Egyptian she was probably quite a sight.

Hatshepsut, in a final bid to be recognized as a legitimate queen, constructed a fabulous temple in the Valley of the Kings, of all places, by a tall plateau at Deir-el-Bahri, across the Nile from Thebes.Hatshepsut was a master politician, and an elegant stateswoman with enough charisma to keep control of an entire country for twenty years. Her charisma and experience could carry her only so far, however. She used two devices to ensure the legitimacy of her position. The first was to emphasize not only her relationship to Tuthmose I, but her favor from that popular ruler. She claimed to have been handpicked by her father, above her two brothers and her half-brother. In her temple are written the words of Khnum, the divine potter who sculpted the forms of the gods: I will make you to be the first of all living creatures, you will rise as king of Upper and of Lower Egypt, as your father Amon, who loves you, did ordain.

This assertion has validity, as other texts indicate. Her second conceit was more doubtful, however: she claims a direct divine lineage. As in the previous passage, she claims Amon is her father. On the walls of her tomb is inscribed a story detailing the night the Theban god Amon-Re approached Aahmes in the form of Tuthmose I. Amon took the form of the noble King Tuthmose and found the queen sleeping in her room. When the pleasant odours that proceeded from him announced his presence she woke. he gave her his heart and showed himself n his godlike splendour. When he approached the queen she wept for joy at his strength and beauty and he gave her his love...

These propaganda worked well to cement Hatshepsut's position. But as Tuthmose III grew, her sovereignty grew tenuous. He not only resented his lack of authority, but no doubt harbored only ill will towards his step-mother's consort Senmut. Senmut originally intended to be buried in the tomb he designed for Hatshepsut, but was actually buried nearby in his own tomb. Not long after his death, however, his sarcophagus was completely destroyed. The hard stone that had been carved for his funerary coffin was found in over 1,200 pieces. His mummy was never found. Hatshepsut's mummy was likewise stolen and her tomb destroyed. Only one of the canopic jars was found, the one containing her liver. After her death, it is presumed that Tuthmose III ordered the systematic erasure of her name from any monument she had built, including her temple at Deir-el-Bahri. Since most of the images of her were actually males, it was convenient to simply change the name "Hatshepsut" to "Tuthmose" I, II or III wherever there was a caption. Senmut's name was also removed. Whether Tuthmose killed Hatshepsut, Senmut and Nofrure is questionable but likely. Since he paid little respect to her in death, it is quite possible he paid even less in life.Towards the end of Tuthmose III's reign an attempt was made to delete Hatshepsut from the historical and pharaonic record. This elimination was carried out in the most literal way possible. Her cartouches and images were chiselled off the stone walls - leaving very obvious Hatshepsut-shaped gaps in the artwork - and she was excluded from the official history that now ran without any form of co-regency from Thutmose II to Thutmose III. At the Deir el-Bahri temple Hatshepsut's numerous statues were torn down and in many cases smashed or disfigured before being buried in a pit. At Karnak there was even an attempt to wall up her obelisks. While it is clear that much of this rewriting of history occurred during the latter part of Thutmose's reign, it is not clear why it happened.

For many years Egyptologists assumed that it was a damnatio memoriae, the deliberate erasure of a person's name, image and memory, which would cause them to die a second, terrible and permanent death in the afterlife. This appeared to make sense. Thutmose must have been an unwilling co-regent for years. But this assessment of the situation is probably too simplistic. It is highly unlikely that the determined and focused Thutmose - not only Egypt's most successful general, but an acclaimed athlete, author, hstorian, botanist and architect - would have brooded for two decades before attempting to avenge himself on his stepmother. Furthermore, renowned Egyptologist Donald Redford states that:
"Here and there, in the dark recesses of a shrine or tomb where no plebeian eye could see, the queen's cartouche and figure were left intact ... which never vulgar eye would again behold, still conveyed for the king the warmth and awe of a divine presence."
Furthermore the erasure was both sporadic and haphazard, with only the more visible and accessible images of Hatshepsut being removed. Had it been more complete we would not now have so many images of Hatshepsut. It seems that Thutmose must have died before his act of vengeance was finished, or that he never intended a total obliteration of her memory at all. In fact, we have no evidence to support the assumption that Thutmose hated or resented Hatshepsut during her lifetime. Had he done so he could surely, as head of the army (a position given to him by Hatshepsut, who was clearly not worried about her co-regent's loyalty), have led a successful coup. It may well be that Thutmose, lacking any sinister motivation, was, towrds the end of his life, simply engaged in 'tidying up' his personal history, restoring Hatshepsut to her rightful place as queen regent rather than king. By eliminating the more obvious traces of his female co-regent, Thutmose could claim all the achievements of their joint reign for himself.

The erasure of Hatshepsut's name, whatever the reason, allowed for her to disappear from Egypt's archaeological and written record. Thus, when 19th-century Egyptologists started to interpret the texts on the Deir el-Bahri temple walls (which were illustrated with two obviously male kings) their translations made no sense. Jean-Francois Champollion, the French decoder of hieroglyphs, was not alone in feeling confused by the obvious conflict between words and pictures:
“ If I felt somewhat surprised at seeing here, as elsewhere throughout the temple, the renowned Moeris [Thutmose III] , adorned with all the insignia of royalty, giving place to this Amenenthe [Hatshepsut], for whose name we may search the royal lists in vain, still more astonished was I to find upon reading the inscriptions that wherever they referred to this bearded king in the usual dress of the Pharaohs, nouns and verbs were in the feminine, as though a queen were in question. I found the same peculiarity everywhere... ”
These two statues once resembled each other, however the symbols of pharaonic power: the Uraeus, Double Crown, and False beard have been stripped from the left image. Images portraying Hatshepsut as Pharaoh were destroyed, or vandalized within decades of her death.
These two statues once resembled each other, however the symbols of pharaonic power: the Uraeus, Double Crown, and False beard have been stripped from the left image. Images portraying Hatshepsut as Pharaoh were destroyed, or vandalized within decades of her death.

Of interest on this topic is the recent discovery of nine golden cartouches bearing the names of both Hatshepsut and Thutmose III near the obelisk at Hatshepsut's temple in Luxor. Further study may shed additional light on the question of their relationship and the eventual attempt to erase Hatshepsut from the historical record.

While this account is the most accepted of theories, the Hatshepsut Problem was a source of endless debate near the turn of the twentieth century. The archeaologists Edouard Naville and Kurt Sethe went head-to-head on the order of rule between the three Tuthmoses and Hatshepsut. Since it is generally assumed that if one ruler's name is replaced with another, the second ruler is in power at the time, a confusing problem exists. Theoretical timelines indicate that the succession followed this sequence:

1. Tuthmose I 2. Tuthmose III 3. Tuthmose III and Hatshepsut, together 4. Tuthmose III alone 5. Tuthmose I and Tuthmose II 6. Tuthmose II alone 7. Hatshepsut and Tuthmose III 8. Tuthmose III alone

This sequence seems as illogical as it is complicated, and only after the discovery of the tomb of Ineni, the architect of the tomb of Tuthmose I. His description follows a more intuitive sequence, and disproves the previously-held belief that only Tuthmose III would put his name in Hatshepsut's place.Not only was Hatshepsut's name erased, but some of her monuments were destroyed. She built two obelisks of red granite, the largest built to that point. This was a continuation of the works of her father, who was not able to complete all his construction plans. Her name appeared on the obelisks, but instead of toppling them, Tuthmose III ordered them sheathed in masonry. Their gilded pyramidions were probably the only original elements to be exposed. Later, one of the obelisks was destroyed after all.

In all, Hatshepsut accomplished what no woman had before her. She rule the most powerful, advanced civilization in the world, successfully, for twenty years. Even if there were some who resented her success, her success stands for all eternity.

A discussion on Peter James theory of Atlantis

As i had promised,i am back with my discussion on the theory of tantalis and atlantis being the same.Let us take a closer look at the theory of Peter James,as it would be better for us to then discuss and put our point further on it..

The Sunken Kingdom provides a solution to a mystery which has baffled scholars for nearly 2,400 years - since Plato first wrote about Atlantis in Timaeus and Critias. Written by an outstanding historian and
archaeologist,Peter James, this book takes an entirely new approach. It reviews previous theories, some fantastic, some more rational, and shows why they will not work. Atlantis could not have been in the Atlantic, nor was it the volcanic island of Santorini near Crete, as currently held. Through a careful analysis of the sources, it becomes clear that the story of Atlantis came from western Turkey, where a major Bronze Age city was devastated by an earthquake and submerged beneath a lake.James has also hypothesized about the location of Atlantis. By first claiming that references to mythological Tartarus by Plato were infact meant to identify a Lydian king by the same name, he goes on to identify Atlantis with a hypothetical lost temple city called Tantalis, corresponding to modern-day Manisa in Turkey.He took a clue from Plato's mention of king Tantalus, and investigated the city of Tantalis (also Tantalos) in the province of Manisa, Turkey. In addition to having very similar sounding anagram names, numerous inscriptions and ancient writings from the region matched the Atlantis story. Tantalis, formerly a wealthy city state, was destroyed when a powerful earthquake,struck and caused a lake to flood the city.Atlantis could not have been in the Atlantic, nor was it the volcanic island of Santorini near Crete, as currently held.

Under close analysis,the theory of Thera being the kingdom of Atlantis broke down.Plato described a catastrophe involving earthquake and flood, yet the Thera event was a volcanic explosion. The Greeks were reasonably informed about ancient Cretan civilization - as echoed in the stories of Minos, Theseus and the Minotaur in the Labyrinth - so it seems unlikely that they would have, first, learnt about Crete from the Egyptians, and second, not recognised what their source was ostensibly describing. It also became clear by the 1980s that the explosion of Thera did not, after all, bring about the end of Minoan civilization. It was time for a new approach to the Atlantis problem.Most theories about Atlantis have been constructed by believers, who have identified its 'real' site in myriad locations from the British Isles and Greenland to Carthage and Thera. On the other side are the sceptics who have dismissed the search for Atlantis as futile. Many years ago it was decided that the only way forward was to suspend any naive hope of finding a 'real' Atlantis, and to concentrate instead on the key question: can we identify a source behind Plato's claims? It had an unexpected bonus.

The crux of the problem is the supposed Egyptian connection. The ancient Egyptians took a dim view of foreigners and the idea that they preserved a detailed tradition describing two remote civilizations - Atlantis and its rival Athens - is highly improbable. Even more far-fetched is the idea that the Egyptians, who took pride in being the 'oldest' civilization, could have recorded events which took place a thousand years before their own beginnings.Alternatively, is it possible that Plato was right that Solon gathered the story on his travels, but mistaken in assuming that this was during his famous visit to Egypt? Solon travelled elsewhere, notably to the kingdom of Lydia in western Anatolia (Turkey). There, at the court of king Croesus - proverbial for his riches, but historical nonetheless - Solon is said to have swopped stories not only with the king, but with the great fable-writer Aesop.It was to Anatolia that many other clues began to lead, beginning with Atlas, the famous Titan of Greek myth who was condemned to the edge of the world to support the skies when his race was defeated by Zeus and the Olympians. Atlas, Plato tells us, was the first king - and eponym - of Atlantis. Analysis of the myths surrounding Atlas and his family suggests that the Greeks believed that his 'home', before he was banished to the west (i.e. the 'Atlantic'), lay to the east and that the Greeks may have learnt the idea of the sky-supporting giant from that quarter. This is confirmed by a mass of pictorial and literary evidence from the Hittite civilization of Bronze Age Anatolia, which provides exact parallels to
the classical Greek concept of Atlas.

It was a short step from there to see what the classical traditions of Anatolia - and in particular Lydia - had to say about the 'original' Atlas. Classical scholars have long accepted that another mythological figure, Tantalus, is essentially a Lydian version of Atlas. Tantalus, too, crossed the Olympians, and was condemned to an eternal torment which gave us the word 'tantalise'. In the version given by Homer his punishment was everlasting hunger and thirst, but the more common tale was of a rock which perpetually swayed over his head. Other versions say he was attached to the rock, that he was condemned to support it and that the 'rock' was the sky itself. And Tantalus, like Atlas, is once thought to have ruled an earthly kingdom. When Tantalus was struck by Zeus' lightning for his sins, the city he founded was shattered by an earthquake and drowned beneath a lake. The name of his city was Tantalis. There was already enough circumstantial evidence to vindicate Plato's claim that he had not invented the Atlantis story. His putative source, Solon, could have picked up in Lydia the story of Tantalis which had all the key elements for its later exaggeration into Atlantis - from its fabulous wealth and transient empire to its catastrophic transformation into a 'sunken kingdom'. As Tantalus was identified with Atlas, the scene could have been mistakenly transferred to the far west, the location of Atlas after his downfall. Once in the Atlantic, the story of the 'sunken kingdom' could grow uncontrollably during its retelling through the generations from Solon to Plato.

The Questions which now arose was: could the site of the legendary Tantalis be located, and did such a place ever exist? Clues from classical writers such as Pausanias made it clear that Tantalus' lost city was believed to lie near Mount Sipylus, modern Manisa Dagh, twenty or so miles inland from the modern port of Izmir (Smyrna) on the Aegean coast. Classical writers describe Tantalis/Sipylus not only as the original capital of Lydia, but as the ancestral seat of the Mycenaean kings. Substance was given to this by a lengthy text from the archives of the Hittite Emperors, composed about 1400 BC, describing the troubles they had with a vassal ruler from a western vassal in league with the Mycenaeans. His seat, 'the mountain land of Zippasla', can be reasonably located in Lydia, and identified with Sipylus. Slice by slice, the ruler of Zippasla (Madduwattas by name) swallowed up all the smaller states of western and southern Anatolia and even challenged Hittite authority in Cyprus. How far the men from Zippasla got is hard to say - but Hittite authority was only properly re-established in Anatolia some fifty years later.If the kingdom of Zippasla lay at Sipylus, where was its capital? Here history, archaeology and legend seem to converge neatly. When Peter James went to Turkey in 1994 it was not too difficult to locate the site of legendary Tantalis. Until about thirty years ago there was a small lake just to the north of Mt Sipylus and a few miles away from a magnificent (and almost undatable) rock-cut tomb which Pausanias described as 'the by-no-means inglorious grave' of king Tantalus. A hundred and fifty years ago the lake was much bigger, and after doing the initial groundwork, to find that 19th-century scholars, including Sir James Frazer, had already identified it as the spot where the ancients believed the lost city lay submerged underwater. As the location for a real city, it would be hard to improve: it lies on a fertile plain between the ancient caravan route skirting the mountain and the river Gediz, main artery of Lydia. Yet we are not reliant on merely theoretical considerations. Three hundred feet up the mountain-side a thirty-foot sculpture of a Mother Goddess gazes out over the very spot where Tantalis was thought to lay. Pausanias claimed that it was carved by the son of Tantalus and that it dates to the Late Bronze Age is undeniable - from its style and from the Hittite hieroglyphics which were incised into the carving about the 13th century BC.It would be strange to imagine that this unique sculpture was not prepared for the worship of a highly organised community, settled in the plain below. For this, and a host of other reasons, it is not difficult to believe that here there was once an important Late Bronze Age centre. Most likely it was the Zippasla of the Hittite documents and almost certainly it was the Sipylus or Tantalis of classical texts. For its fate we only have the traditions to go on, but the belief that it was totally devastated by an earthquake is not outlandish. The Izmir region, as travellers to Turkey will know, lies in one of the worst earthquake zones of the world,while the appalling damage suffered by the cities of Lydia during the great earthquake of AD 17 is well documented. Hopefully excavation will one day determine whether a Bronze Age city at Mt Sipylus - like the Atlantis of legend - was really destroyed by an earthquake and consigned to a watery grave.

Though this theory does seem much more plausible and probable than the others i have elucidated before,but maybe in the next few years we will start to challenge this as well..With the dearth of real data to provide us with further clues and concrete documents it is very difficult to really tell whether Atlantis is Tantalis or whether it really did exist or not...