400 year old Sahara Desert, or why people forgot everything they knew about Africa

"All right, Beatrice, there was no alien. The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus." - Kay, MIB.

I always thought that Sahara Desert was thousands of years old. Of course, the official version confirmed it in the most scientific way possible, "During the last glacial period, the Sahara was much larger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries. The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps because of low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets to the north. Once the ice sheets were gone, the northern Sahara dried out. In the southern Sahara, the drying trend was initially counteracted by the monsoon, which brought rain further north than it does today. By around 4200 BC, however, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today, leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara. The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago."


Scientific American reports that they updated the age of the Sahara Desert to a whooping 3,000,000 years old.

Apparently, some cartographers of the "not so distant" past, failed to consult with the scientists of the 20th and 21st centuries. Somehow, in the 16th, and 17th centuries the map makers forgot to update their maps with the wisdom of the scientists of the future. Instead they depicted the Sahara Desert the way it was back then, 400 - 450 years ago. And what a beautiful site it was: lakes, rivers, cities, people, animals. Everything but the Great Egyptian Pyramids, so to speak.

Years: 1475 - 1570 - 1595 - 1642 -1658 - 1688
1475_africa_map_toscanelli.jpg 1570-Africae_tabula_nova.jpg 1595-Mercator_Africa_037.jpg 1642 Nova Totius Terrarum Orbis Geographica Ac Hydrographica Tabula.jpg 1658_africa_map.jpg 1688_africa_map_original.jpg
And then, all over sudden people got dumber. Well, either dumber, or the Mankind suffered some serious case of global amnesia. For whatever reason the Africa had to be re-discovered all over again. Blank uncharted territories cover the continent of Africa in the areas which were well known before.

Years: 1782 - 1802 - 1812 - 1842 - 1853 - 1860
1782_africa_map.jpg 1802_Africa.jpg 1812-Africa_map.jpg 1842_africa.jpg Carte_afrique_1853.jpg 1860-Africa-white-spots_2.jpg

1592 Prioris Hemisphaerii, totiusque Geographici
Prioris Hemisphaerii, totiusque Geographici.jpg

1592 Africa
Today's scientists give us tons of false information (read BS) about so many things, that sometimes it's hard to figure out which part could be trusted. I choose to trust the cartographers who put these maps together at the time when they were alive, just like I trust Piranesi with what he depicted for us. Coincidentally, Piranesi lived at about the same time when the transformations started to happen.

Dear scientist: It's probably fun sitting in some lab, building a "scientific" model of the formation of the planet, as long as you do not push it onto people through educational channels. And if your models do not match eyewitness accounts, than may be you should check your data (hint: you can start with maps above). When you teach people about what happened millions of years ago, yet have no clue about a few hundred years back... you probably have an agenda.
  • The definition of historical science is using knowledge that is already currently known to tell the story of what happened in the past.
If reading documents, researching, investigating and being truthful about contents, interpretations and findings qualifies as science, than I guess it is. But this interpretation does not appear to fit historians I know.

Google Books Ngram: Sahara

The Sahara Desert
I do not speak or read Latin, but using Google Translate is not that hard. Desertum translates to desert. Now we simply need to figure out what a desert is. We are lucky, for Geology.COM makes this question easy to answer.

What is desert?
A desert is a landscape or region that receives very little precipitation - less than 250 mm per year (about ten inches). Approximately 1/3 of Earth's land surface is a desert. There are four different types of deserts based upon their geographic situation:
  1. Polar deserts
  2. Subtropical deserts
  3. Cold winter deserts
  4. Cool coastal deserts
The two largest deserts on Earth are in the polar areas.
  1. Antarctica
    • The Antarctic Polar Desert covers the continent of Antarctica and has a size of about 5.5 million square miles.
  2. Arctic
    • The second-largest desert is the Arctic Polar Desert. It extends over parts of Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia. It has a surface area of about 5.4 million square miles.
As shown on the map below, deserts occur on all of Earth's continents.


When most people think of a desert, they imagine a landscape covered with sand and sand dunes. Although many deserts are sand-covered, most are not. Many desert landscapes are rocky surfaces. They are rocky because any sand-size or smaller particles on the surface are quickly blown away. Rocky deserts are barren wind-swept landscapes.

To keep things simple, and based on the above official information, we can conclude that:
  • Desert = snow
  • Desert = tundra
  • Desert = sand
I doubt that ancients ran around with a ruler trying to determine what areas of this world qualify to be called deserts. This 250 mm standard most likely belongs to our approximate time frame. That leaves us with the word "desert", and what meaning of this word prompted to classify certain areas as deserts.

This is where we get a chance to use Google and Google Translate again:
Now let's see how Merriam-Webster defines both noun and verb forms of the word "desert".
  • Noun
    1. land with usually sparse vegetation
    2. an area of water apparently devoid of life
    3. a desolate or forbidding area
    4. archaic: a wild uninhabited and uncultivated tract
  • Verb
    1. to withdraw from or leave usually without intent to return
    2. to leave in the lurch
    3. to abandon (military service) without leave
As we can see, the presence of sand is not a requirement for the area to be called a desert. In other words the fact that this "desertum" word, in its various forms, is present on some of the maps, does not place mountains of sand in the areas where we can see them at today.

  • 8. Tachort (river), rises from certain Mountains near Libya, waters the Town of that Name, and runs through a Forest into the Lake.
    • How many rivers, lakes and forests do we know today in this part of Libya?
Here is one additional map with Techort on it.

There are other rivers, lakes and places from the above maps mentioned in this book. As far as I understand this book is a translation from Latin. The Latin version predates 1714 English copy.

This is what the area might have looked like in color prior to whatever buried it under the "sands of timr". The map is dated with 1592. Dates are complicated, and if you hang around, and do some proper blog reading you will understand why. One thing I'm convinced in, this map is not showing Africa millions of years ago. I'd estimate we are seeing 1400-1670 time frame on the conventional time scale.

There is a reason why maps changed, and the truth is not within the common narrative.

The official description of the below 1802 map: One of the first maps of Africa to show the true state of geographical knowledge of the continent, hence the vast areas of the map with no information - this was Arrowsmith's style when he mapped Africa, the America's and other parts of the world where geographic information was both unknown and evolving.


1635 - 1802

I do not mind our Sahara desert being millions/thousands of years old. Unfortunately, our scientific community has no proof of that. Such dating relies heavily on the power of the educational system, lying/misleading historians and public ignorance.
  • Example of the lies: look up the official explanation of why African maps between 1500-1800 do not correspond to what we are used seeing today.
Sahara Desert is clearly not thousands of years old. Why we are being fed this false information is a totally different topic. Whatever initially happened in the 18th century, changed the face of this planet in multiple locations. Sahara Desert is just one of those.

The Eye of Sahara and Weapons of Mass Destruction
It appears that we have hundreds of different size craters spread out through out the entire African continent. None of those is bigger then the mysterious Eye of Sahara. The formation is 25 miles in diameter. Our "scientists" claim that it was formed 100 millions of years ago. Considering that this formation is not on the maps predating the 19th century, we could make our own conclusions. I can.


Then we have a bunch of smaller craters all over the African Continent. As an example I could use the 8 mile wide Aorounga Crater claimed to be 345 millions years old.


There are multiple others, named and unnamed out there: Tenoumer Crater, Aouelloul Crater, Ouarkziz Crater, Talemzane Crater, Tin Bider Crater, Aorounga Crater, Amguid Crater... and there are more. Here are Google assisted Sahara Craters and African Craters.

sahara_craters.jpg african_craters.jpg

KD: It appears someone very powerful whacked the entire African Continent a few hundred years ago. Hundreds of cities and towns were destroyed. Millions, if not billions of people could have been killed in the process. Yet we are being fed a bunch of baloney about millions of years, and meteorite craters. Be dull, or be attentive.

Further reading:
Yes, this World has a secret to keep...