Uncle Hyena (unclehyena) wrote,
Uncle Hyena

Filch and the Sphinx

I've been working on the next installment of the "Filch" story, and it isn't going well. It is GOING, however. I guess in the extended "Alcoholic Muse" metaphor, this means that Faye has shown up for work, but is seriously hung over. Ah, well...

Writing under these circumstances puts me in a bad mood anyway, so let's find something to rant about, shall we? How about intellectual inertia in the fuzzy subjects?

As fuzzy subjects go, History is probably the least fuzzy of the lot; there is real truth to be had there, but it is usually significantly obscured and often utterly inaccessible (contrasted with Psychology, the fuzziest of them all, in which there is no guarantee whatsoever that central truth exists). This being the case, certainty in the absence of evidence is frustrating.

I recently stumbled across a reference to the age of the Sphinx of Giza, and since I am vague on such things, I spent a little time doing research, and ended up gnashing my teeth. In short... The traditional creation date for the Sphinx is about 2500 BC, because it is a bloody great stone thing, and because it is near a number of other bloody great stone things that can be accurately dated to that time. HOWEVER... There is strong (though not conclusive) geological evidence that it was built between 6000 and 5000 BC, a claim that is dismissed by the archaeological community because there is no other evidence of an advanced culture in the area at that time.

Now, to me, several million pounds of cut stone that can be reasonably dated by geological evidence to a given period COUNTS AS EVIDENCE OF A CIVILIZATION. 2500 years of significant annual flooding and 4500 years of subsequent civilization and concomitant structural cannibalization can make physical evidence really hard to find, particularly when no one wants to look...

I am not saying the Sphinx really does hail from the earlier date; I don't know. The thing is, neither does anyone else, and yet academic charlatans are busy shouting that they do. Morons.

Of course, there is still an earlier date, based on Astrology and hallucination, that is relies mainly on the idea that the constellation we know as Leo has been associated with lions or leonine creatures for the last 12,000 years. While this is not utterly inconceivable, it IS wildly improbable. It is also contrary to the aforementioned geological evidence. None of which has stopped a couple of pseudo-academic charlatans from turning the idea into a meal ticket.

Ah, to be sufficiently morally depraved to take the Hubbard option...

Uncle Hyena
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.