Ian & Stuart's Australian Mac: Not for Sale/Another.not.for.sale (Australia).iso/wide open road/sumeria/Science/veli1.txt

Text File | 1994-09-05 | 53KB | 968 lines

the controversy around Immanuel Velikovsky of "Worlds In Collision" fame
continues to simmer & might boil up over the stove during the upcoming
internationa symposium slated for Thanksgiving weekend in Portland
entitled: "Velikovsky- Ancient Myth and Modern Science"  whether you love
him or you hate him, for this news group the conclusion is that the birth
of science was found in the ancient observation of the heavens.  why is
open to question but the following may open the discussion:





The following series of articles was posted to t.o by the Efemeral Research
Foundation.  I have retained it and simply include it in any large collection
of catastrophist literature.  I do not see any copyright signs in it, and
assume that they, as I, simply wish this material to reach as wide an audience
as possible.

...............................................................................
...............................................................................

VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--Introduction

It was Immanuel Velikovsky's claim in "Worlds in Collision" that the spectacle
of VENUS AS A COMET-LIKE BODY MARAUDING ABOUT THE HEAVENS was once witnessed
by ancient cultures all around the globe.

The next 4 postings (VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--One, Two, Three, Fnotes) comprise an
article recently published in AEON, a Journal of Myth and Science.

The article shows that the EVIDENCE in favour of Venus' comet- like past is
far more pervasive than Velikovsky ever imagined.

It was Velikovsky's thesis that many ancient myths commemorate spectacular
cataclysms associated with the various planets.  Ev Cochrane shows strong
support for this radical view--evidence from the mythology and astronomy of
both the Old World and the New World.

In Ev Cochrane's words: "A Golden Age at the dawn of time was recalled as the
well- spring of civilization and deemed to be the gift of Saturn for the
simple reason that spectacular events associated with the period of that
planet's dominance provided the "divine" inspiration for the origin and
development of cities, laws, religious rites, systems of writing, etc."

"Our entire conception of the recent history of the solar system--not to
mention celestial mechanics and a host of other sciences--is fated to be
turned upside down."

The title of the article is: TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF MYTHOLOGY: VELIKOVSKY'S
CONTRIBUTION

The author is:   Ev Cochrane

The article was originally published in November 1992 in: *** AEON--A
Symposium on Myth and Science ***  Vol.III, No.1.  Available from 2326 Knapp,
AMES, IOWA, 50010, USA (subscription: $US40).









VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--One
[this and 3 other postings comprise an article from
***AEON--A Symposium on Myth and Science***,
Vol. III, No. 1, November, 1992]
*******************************

TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF MYTHOLOGY: VELIKOVSKY'S CONTRIBUTION

By: Ev Cochrane

When all is said and done it may well turn out that Velikovsky's most enduring
claim to fame will be his singular contribution to comparative mythology;
specifically, the thesis that many ancient myths commemorate spectacular
cataclysms associated with the various planets. This is truly an original
thesis, with little if any precedent in the writings of previous
scholars.[Fn.1]

As is the case with any truly seminal work, "Worlds in Collision" raises as
many questions as it answers. Indeed, questions inspired by Velikovsky's work
have since launched hundreds of studies, more than one of which portends a
revolution in our understanding of ancient mythology. Why is it that the
planet Saturn was reckoned the first king by peoples around the world, and why
is it that the Golden Age associated with that planet- king is recalled with
nostalgic veneration? Why was that same planet called by the name of the Sun?
Such questions formed the backdrop of David Talbott's "The Saturn Myth,"
itself a landmark contribution to comparative mythology.[Fn.2]

One could propose equally provocative questions about the other planets. Why
is it that the planet Mars was represented as a warrior equipped with sword
and/or club by peoples the world over? Why was the red planet consistently
associated with images of the World Pillar, the latter object being envisaged
as the upholder of the ancient heavens?[Fn.3]

Why were the greatest of ancient goddesses--Inanna, Ishtar, Astarte, Isis,
Anat, Aphrodite, etc.--invoked by the epithet Queen of Heaven and specifically
identified with the planet Venus?[Fn.4] Why were those same goddesses
associated with a destructive epiphany said to have threatened the very
foundations of heaven and earth?[Fn.5] Only Velikovsky, among the hundreds of
scholars who have explored these traditions, dared to ask the question: Is it
possible to explain the myth of the goddess from the behaviour of the planet?

Close upon the heels of each of these questions follows a host of others,
equally inexplicable from the conventional perspective which imagines the
planets to have varied little in their orbits and appearances over the course
of the past billion years.

A YOUTHFUL SCIENCE

Before proceeding to our discussion of Velikovsky's particular theory it may
prove illuminating to view it from the perspective provided by the history in
the field. The scientific roots of comparative mythology can be traced back to
the 17th century, when the likes of Samuel Bochart, Bernard de Fontanelle, and
Sir William Jones were composing their works.[Fn.6] These scholars documented
the striking similarities which exist amongst the mythologies of the world's
various cultures. It was in the latter part of the nineteenth century,
however, that real progress was made towards developing a science of
mythology, with numerous attempts being made to reduce the phantasmagoria of
the world's mythology to a common denominator, frequently a nature-allegory of
some sort.[Fn.7] Famous examples include Muller's sun-god, Kuhn's storm-god,
and Mannhardt's fertility- daemon.

In the twentieth century these ideas fell out of fashion, to be replaced by
the grand interpretations of myth inspired by such figures as Frazer and
Freud. Frazer, like other prominent members of what came to be known as the
Cambridge school (Harrison, Cook, Murray, Cornford), sought to explain the
content of myth by reference to archaic ritual. According to this view, myth
was to be interpreted as the spoken or written correlate of things done in
ritual. The myth of Osiris' death and dismemberment, for example, was
interpreted as providing the rationale for an Egyptian harvest-ritual
commemorating the annual death of the vegetation-spirit.[Fn8.]

Although Freud wrote little on myth himself--"Moses and Monotheism" being
perhaps his deepest foray into the area--his psychoanalytic writings had a
profound influence upon the ideas of other scholars such as Jung, Roheim, and
Rank, each of whom devoted extensive works to uncovering the psychological
determinants of myth. The writings of Jung and Rank, in turn, exerted a
formative influence upon subsequent scholars such as Campbell and Kerenyi,
whose works have done a great deal to bring the subject of mythology to the
forefront of public consciousness.

Alas, the schemes of Frazer and Freud were fated to be replaced as well, and
in recent years the theories associated with the names of Dumezil,
Levi-Strauss, and Eliade have dominated the scene of comparative mythology.
The first two scholars were heavily influenced by the pioneering efforts of
the sociologist Durkheim, who sought to establish a correlation between the
central themes of myth and underlying cultural patterns.[Fn.9] Dumezil, for
example, looked to the tripartite structure of ancient Indo-European society
for the origin of particular patterns of myth. According to this view, the
behaviour and functions of the warrior-class that distinguished ancient Indo-
European societies accounts for the fascinating mythology associated with
heroes of the warrior-type (Heracles, Indra, Cuchulainn, etc.).[Fn.10]

Levi-Strauss, on the other hand, looked to the structure and function of the
human brain to explain the origin of societal patterns together with their
attendant mythological motives.[Fn.11] The myth of Oedipus, according to this
view, owes little to forbidden psychological urges. Rather it reflects the
universal tendency of human beings to think in terms of binary operations,
such as black/white, good/evil, heaven/hell, etc., the function of myth being
to provide a logical form of mediation between apparent or real
contradictions.[Fn.12]

Viewed from this brief historical perspective, Velikovsky's thesis can be seen
as forming a logical variation upon the nature-allegory school of comparative
mythology. Like that school, and in stark contrast to that which grew up
around the ideas of Levi-Strauss, Velikovsky sought to provide an objective
historical basis for the central themes of ancient myth, the principal
difference being that he substitutes the planets for the sun (or some other
meteorological phenomenon) as the primary referent of myth.

ON PLANETS AND MYTH

Historically, the planets have been virtually ignored by comparative
mythologists. A notable exception to this statement is the monumental treatise
by Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend--"Hamlet's Mill." Originally
published in 1969, and promoted by the authors as a "first reconnaissance of a
realm well-nigh unexplored and uncharted," Hamlet's Mill documented the
surprising prominence of the planets in ancient myths the world over:

>The real actors on the stage of the universe are very few, if
>their adventures are many. The most "ancient treasure"--in
>Aristotle's word--that was left to us by our predecessors of the
>High and Far-Off Times was the idea that the gods are really
>stars, and that there are no other actors. The forces reside in
>the starry heavens, and all the stories, characters and
>adventures narrated by mythology concentrate on the active
>powers among the stars, who are the planets.[Fn.13]

Hamlet's Mill warrants mention here not only because it represents a
significant contribution to scholarship, but because it provides compelling
evidence in support of more than one of Velikovsky's controversial theses;
this despite the fact that the authors arrived at their conclusions
independently of Velikovsky and would no doubt be horrified at the prospect of
seeing their researches mentioned in the same breath as those of the author of
"Worlds in Collision." Regarding the planet Saturn, for example, de Santillana
and von Dechend found that it figured prominently in myths of World-ending
cataclysm, Phaethon's fall and the Deluge being among them. This finding
recalls Velikovsky's understanding of Saturn's recent history--deduced from
ancient myth--whereby it experienced a nova-like flare-up and inundated the
surrounding cosmos with fire and flood.[Fn.14]

Unlike Velikovsky, however, de Santillana and von Dechend were hamstrung by a
conservative approach to astrophysics and this, in my opinion, prevented them
from entertaining the possibility that ancient myths recounting cataclysms
involving the respective planets were indeed based upon cataclysmic events.
Confronted with Plato's clear statement that Phaethon's fateful ride had
reference to a great cataclysm caused by a deviation amongst the heavenly
bodies, de Santillana and von Dechend nevertheless object: "The Pythagoreans
were neither idle storytellers, not were they even mildly interested in
unusual sensational `catastrophes' caused by meteors, and the like."[Fn.15]
Here the authors of Hamlet's Mill failed to heed their own advice: "The only
thing to do is proceed inductively, step by step, avoiding preconceptions and
letting the argument lead toward its own conclusions."[Fn16]

Upon discovering the intimate association of Saturn with the Pole, de
Santillana and von Dechend failed to ask the obvious question whether Saturn
has always travelled on its present orbit? And when confronted with
unequivocal testimony from the Gilgamesh Epic that the ancient sun-god rose
and set over the same mountain (confirmed by traditions throughout the ancient
world), de Santillana and von Dechend once again turned a deaf ear: "The sun
is not in the habit of rising on the same spot every day, and it needs no
profound astronomical knowledge to become aware of this fact."[Fn.17]

How, then, did the authors of Hamlet's Mill explain their findings? Here the
authors credited the ancients with a sophisticated understanding of
astronomical principles, particularly so the precession of the equinoxes,
supposedly discovered by Hipparchus in 127 BCE, but according to de Santillana
and von Dechend, already well-known in the Near East several millenia
earlier.[Fn.18] It was the diffusion of this ancient "science" (by whom or by
what means is not explained) which accounts for the presence of identical
mythical motives around the globe.[Fn.19] Not surprisingly, this hypothesis
has failed to find favour among historians of science, nor, for that matter,
has Hamlet's Mill had any discernible impact upon subsequent studies of
ancient myth.[Fn.20]

ARCHAEOASTRONOMY

In recent years interest in traditions surrounding the planets has surged due
to the emergence of archaeoastronomy and ethnoastronomy as serious fields of
research.[Fn.21] Scholars in these respective fields comb the architectural
structures, sacred writings, and iconography of ancient cultures in both the
New World and Old for some reference to celestial goings-on.  Here, too, more
than one of these researchers has stumbled across evidence supportive of
Velikovsky's general thesis of planetary catastrophism, although the
far-reaching ramifications of such discordant data are typically
(mis)interpreted in a more conventional manner. For example, one leading
scholar--Anthony Aveni--has called attention to the remarkable "coincidence"
that both Maya and Babylonian astronomers credited Venus with a 90 day period
of invisibility at superior conjunction despite the fact the true period is
closer to 50 days.[Fn.22] How this could be Aveni offers nary a clue.

Thus there are clear signs that planets will soon be receiving their just due
as objective referents of ancient myth. Most significant, perhaps, is the fact
that even in the works of such scholars as Levi-Strauss--whose interpretation
of myth is diametrically opposed to that of Velikovsky--there can be found
concessions that planetary bodies formed a prominent factor in the origin of
ancient myths: "Max Muller and his school must be given credit for having
discovered, and to some extent deciphered, the astronomical code so often used
by the myths."[Fn.23]









VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--Two
[this and 3 other postings comprise an article from
***AEON--A Symposium on Myth and Science***,
Vol. III, No. 1, November, 1992]
*******************************

TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF MYTHOLOGY: VELIKOVSKY'S CONTRIBUTION

By: Ev Cochrane
*******************************

VELIKOVSKY AND ATHENA

If, then, Velikovsky's primary contribution to a science of comparative
mythology is the emphasis upon planets, the question arises as to the
evidentiary basis of this claim and its ramifications for a science of
mythology? Here we will briefly discuss Velikovsky's analysis of the myth of
Athena--arguably the best example of his method.

If one were to judge solely by its prominence in Worlds in Collision, one
would have to acknowledge that the myth of Athena's birth forms the
cornerstone of Velikovsky's approach to ancient mythology. That said, it is
puzzling to find that there has been virtually no discussion of this myth or
of the theoretical methodology which inspired Velikovsky's thesis of the
recent birth of the planet Venus, one of the most sensational and heavily
discussed claims of Worlds in Collision.  Inasmuch as Velikovsky offered a
revolution in our understanding of ancient mythology--indeed of ancient
history in general--one would have thought that a close scrutiny of his
initial premises would have been in order to see whether such a revolution was
truly in order. Rather than a close scrutiny, however, Velikovsky's thesis has
generally met with unquestioning acceptance amongst his followers, and with
almost complete silence by his critics.[Fn.24]

The mythology of Athena, Velikovsky maintained, commemorated spectacular
events involving the planet Venus--or, to be more specific, the protoplanet
Venus whilst undergoing a comet-like phase. And, in fact, the oldest extant
account of Athena's epiphany as a war-goddess, that found in the Iliad,
presents the goddess as a comet-like body shooting across the heavens: "Like a
blazing star which the lord of heaven shoots forth, bright and scattering
sparks all around, to be a portent for sailors or for some great army of men,
so Pallas Athena shot down to earth and leapt into the throng."[Fn.25]

This passage, of course, has long been the subject of scholarly debate and was
duly emphasized by Velikovsky. Unbeknownst to Velikovsky, however, was the
fact that other traditions surrounding Athena present a similar picture of the
goddess.[Fn.26] Athena's intimate association with the Palladium (Palladium is
the diminutive of Pallas), for example, has long drawn the attention of
scholars, the latter object being described as a meteor-like object which fell
(or was thrown) from heaven.[Fn.27] This tradition brings to mind Athena's
intimate relation to (and probable identification with) Zeus' thunderbolt--the
latter object being described as a fiery, serpentine-formed body thrown from
heaven. Such traditions suggest that Homer's choice of imagery with regards to
the goddess' spectacular epiphany was truly inspired.

Although some early mythographers had sought to identify Athena with the Moon,
Velikovsky was the first to see an association between that goddess and the
planet Venus. In support of this thesis, Velikovsky compared the mythology of
Athena with that of surrounding other goddesses whose identification with
Venus was beyond doubt (e.g., Inanna, Ishtar, Astarte, etc.). Early Sumerian
texts, for example, described Inanna as flying about the skies in
serpentine-form and raining down destruction.[Fn.28]

In a recent paper devoted to the mythology of Athena I was able to show that
Athena's epiphany as a war-like goddess conforms to a universal pattern,
having close parallels in the traditions surrounding other great
goddesses--Inanna, Hathor, Anat, and Kali among others.[Fn.29] Moreover, our
analysis of the mythical imagery surrounding these goddesses confirmed two
points: (1) each of the goddesses is explicitly described as a celestial body,
identifiable with the planet Venus; and (2) the imagery surrounding each
goddess is consistent with that universally associated with comets (e.g.,
long, dishevelled hair; serpentine form; identification with a torch;
association with eclipses of the sun; etc.).

It is readily apparent, therefore, that Velikovsky's hypothesis is not as
far-fetched as it might appear at first sight. Indeed, as David Talbott and I
have attempted to document in a series of essays, the truth of the matter is
that the evidence in favour of Venus' comet-like past is far more pervasive
than Velikovsky ever imagined.[Fn.30] In addition to the evidence gathered
from comparative mythology one might point to the common terminology shared by
comets and Venus. Certainly it is significant to find that the oldest terms
employed to describe comets--e.g., "hair- star", "torch-star", "serpent-star",
"smoking-star", "bearded- star", etc.--were likewise ascribed to the planet
Venus, alone among the planets.[Fn.31] Upon what hypothesis other than
Velikovsky's is it possible to account for this convergence of language?

Equally compelling is the fact that the ancient mythology surrounding the
planet Venus overlaps to a remarkable extent with that associated with comets.
It is well-known, for example, that from time immemorial comets were
associated with such motives as the end of the world, eclipses of the sun, the
death of great kings, etc.[Fn.32] An especially intriguing motive identifies
comets with the departing souls of great kings.[Fn.33] The imagery attending
the death of Caesar is perhaps the most famous example of this ancient and
widespread motive, recalled in the famous words of Shakespeare as follows:
"When beggars die there are no comets seen; the Heavens themselves blaze forth
the death of princes."

Hitherto unnoticed, however, is the fact that the very same imagery was
associated with the planet Venus, in the Old World as well as the New![Fn.34]
One of the most pivotal events in the sacred history of ancient Mexico, for
example, recalled the cataclysmic occasion upon which the fiery soul of the
ancient sun-god (Quetzalcoatl) departed and became the planet Venus! The
Mesoamerican scholar Nigel Davies, upon acknowledging that this was the
original significance of the myth of Quetzalcoatl's death and transfiguration,
nevertheless objected that such an interpretation is hardly to be entertained:
"At some point in the account, history ends and legend begins, unless one is
really to believe that the planet Venus was actually formed from his body and
had not previously existed!"[Fn.35]

Here it may well be asked: Granted that Velikovsky may have been right with
regards to the presence of cometary imagery in the cult of Athena, of what
significance is this finding for modern science, gleaned as it is from the
most obscure niches of Greek mythology? It is the far-reaching ramifications
of this finding for ancient history and astronomy, of course, which have long
intrigued Velikovsky's admirers and incensed his detractors.  Stated simply:
If the spectacle of Venus as a comet-like body marauding about the heavens was
once witnessed by ancient man the world over, our entire conception of the
recent history of the solar system--not to mention celestial mechanics and a
host of other sciences--is fated to be turned upside down.

VELIKOVSKY'S METHODOLOGY

If, as it would appear, Velikovsky's initial foray into comparative mythology
produced some brilliant insights and offered a promising key to understanding
the ancient myths, to what extent is it possible to speak of "Worlds in
Collision" as providing a model for a science of mythology? Here, as is so
often the case in Velikovsky's writings, it would appear that brilliant
insights do not necessarily reflect a systematic methodology nor a logical
progression of ideas. Rather, traditions from throughout the ancient world are
marshalled forth at length with only minimal analysis or discussion of the
historical issues involved (e.g., is it possible to speak of Sumerian accounts
of the dragon-combat as reflecting historical events of the mid-second
millenium BCE?). Why he chose one tradition over another conflicting tradition
typically remains a mystery. At his best, Velikovsky deduces the right
explanation upon a modicum of evidence, not from any detailed examination of
the sources. Prominent examples here include his insights into the origins of
the imagery surrounding the dragon and witch.  Elsewhere Velikovsky combs the
relevant sources and uncovers nary a credible idea; e.g., his discussion of
the Oedipus myth.[Fn.36]

Nor, for that matter, is Velikovsky's analysis of the traditions surrounding
Athena without its flaws. Consider his discussion of Athena's epithet
Tritogenia, which Velikovsky would interpret as reflecting the planet-goddess'
destructive influence upon a lake (named Triton) on the African coast shortly
after her "birth." In this interpretation Velikovsky was following a late,
patently aetiological interpretation of Augustine.[Fn.37] The fact that lakes
with this name could be found wherever prominent cults of Athena were
localized went unnoticed, with negative implications for Velikovsky's
interpretation of the goddess' epithet.[Fn.38]

The pitfalls inherent in Velikovsky's lack of a systematic methodology are
best illustrated, perhaps, by the tension in his work between myth as
astronomical allegory and as literal history, particularly as it applies to
his discussion of the Exodus. It was Velikovsky's interpretation of the
unusual circumstances surrounding the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt, of course,
which formed the theoretical basis for both "Worlds in Collision" and "Ages in
Chaos." Yet here, too, this pivotal event has been virtually ignored by
subsequent scholars influenced by Velikovsky, despite the fact that his
interpretation of the Exodus provided the fulcrum for his radical
reconstruction of ancient history.[Fn.39]

The circumstances which inspired Velikovsky to abandon his medical practice
and emigrate to America whereupon he would launch his extensive researches
ultimately culminating in "Worlds in Collision" are well-known and need not be
rehashed here. By his own admission, Velikovsky was so disturbed by the
appearance of Freud's "Moses and Monotheism"--the central thesis of which
maintained that Moses was an Egyptian whose monotheistic religion was inspired
by the religious reforms of the heretical king Akhnaton--that he felt
compelled to write a book in order to set the record straight about the
priority of Moses.[Fn.40] It was while researching this book that Velikovsky
arrived upon the idea that a great cataclysm provided the backdrop for the
Hebrew Exodus from Egypt, and for the next ten years he was to explore the
ramifications of this hypothesis.

Fundamental to Velikovsky's understanding of ancient myth, as we have
observed, is the belief that it encodes historical events, albeit on occasion
in a figurative and symbolic manner. In some notable instances, as in the myth
of Athena's birth or the Deluge, myth relates spectacular events involving the
respective planets. Elsewhere, however, Velikovsky suggested that myth would
be found to record biographical events from recent history. The Greek myth of
Oedipus, according to Velikovsky's analysis, refers in large part to court
intrigue in the Egyptian Thebes of Akhnaton.[Fn.41]

An issue never addressed by Velikovsky is the following: Why do some myths,
such as that of Athena's birth from the head of Zeus, commemorate the
spectacular behaviour of planets, while others, such as that of Oedipus,
commemorate the extraordinary deeds of human beings? Velikovsky's dualistic
approach to ancient mythology, needless to say, raises a host of questions
regarding his methodology, not the least of which is by what criteria does one
distinguish between the two types of myth?

In order to adequately appreciate the ramifications of this apparent
contradiction in Velikovsky's writings for his historical reconstruction--as
well as for a science of mythology--it is necessary to attempt a definition of
myth, however tentative.









VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--Three
[this and 3 other postings comprise an article from
***AEON--A Symposium on Myth and Science***,
Vol. III, No. 1, November, 1992]
*******************************

TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF MYTHOLOGY: VELIKOVSKY'S CONTRIBUTION

By: Ev Cochrane
*******************************

ON MYTH AND SACRED HISTORY

Countless definitions of myth have been offered, needless to say, none wholly
satisfactory. For our purposes here we would endorse the opinion of Eliade,
who defines myth as sacred traditions about the origin of the world:

>Myth narrates a sacred history; it relates an event that took
>place in primordial Time, the fabled time of the `beginnings.'
>In other words, myth tells how, through the deeds of
>Supernatural Beings, a reality came into existence, be it the
>whole of reality, the Cosmos, or only a fragment of reality--an
>island, a species of plant, a particular kind of human
>behaviour, an institution.[Fn.42]

In his voluminous writings on myth, religion, and related subjects, Eliade has
argued that myth is typically a sacred story related about primordial events
which are believed to have happened at the dawn of time, involving such themes
as the creation of the world, the flood, wars of the gods, the dragon- combat,
the origin of culture, etc. Mythological themes formed the focal point of
early culture and religious ritual, countless aspects of daily life being
designed to commemorate these sacred events through imitation, mimicry, and
simulation. Ancient cities and temples, to take but one example, were designed
and oriented in accordance with the sacred original:

>All the Indian royal cities, even the modern ones, are built
>after the mythical model of the celestial city where, in the age
>of gold, the Universal Sovereign dwelt. And, like the latter,
>the king attempts to revive the age of gold, to make a perfect
>reign a present reality.[Fn.43]

What was true for ancient architecture was also true of ancient law,
sacrificial rites, art, sports, war, etc. In each case the local custom was
expressly patterned after the divine prototype, revealed in the distant past.

A recurring theme in Eliade's writings is the intimate relationship between
myth and history. Not only does profane history reveal numerous attempts to
commemorate the sacred events of myth (wars of conquest, for example), but on
occasion myth can be found to masquerade as history. Indeed, as numerous
scholars have come to recognize, it is not always easy to distinguish between
cosmological myth per se and sacred history as found in many cultures. In
early Rome, for example, Dumezil found that although much of its ancient
mythology had been lost, it resurfaced as "history" in the accounts of Roman
historians.  The famous account of Rome's first war and the taking of the
Sabine women is a case in point.[Fn.44]

Countless other examples could be offered in support of Dumezil's hypothesis.
The greatest god of ancient Egypt--Osiris- -can be found masquerading as a
mortal king in "histories" of the Hellenistic period. Quetzalcoatl, the
greatest god of Mesoamerica, was represented in similar fashion by Aztec
chroniclers. Indeed, the "historization" of great gods as early "kings' and
"heroes" is so commonplace in ancient traditions that one would be justified
in speaking of a rule governing the composition of tribal histories.

To return to Velikovsky's historical reconstruction: How, then are we to
interpret the Hebrew tradition of the Exodus?  As myth--defined, it will be
remembered, as sacred traditions concerning the origin of the gods and
world--or as an objective history of real people and events? If we approach
the Old Testament account of the Exodus from the standpoint of comparative
mythology it is evident that it contains more than a trace of mythical
elements which, were it not that these particular traditions are so dear to
us, we would otherwise recognize as being typical of cosmogonic myth.  It is
well-known, for example, that numerous peoples traced their origins to a great
god/hero who personally led them upon an extended migration to their ultimate
homeland.  Thus the earliest settlers of Italy were said to have been led
there by Mars; the Norse remembered a similar migration led by Odin; while the
ancient Aztecs were said to have followed Huitzilopochtli to Mexico
City.[Fn.45] While it was commonplace in the last century to interpret such
accounts in a Euhemerist fashion--e.g., as actual migrations led by men of
flesh and blood--to do so today seems hopelessly naive.

A mythical aura surrounds other aspects of the Exodus-account as well. The
parting of the Red Sea, as several scholars have recognized, is strangely
reminiscent of the Symplegades- motive.[Fn.46] Here, it will be remembered,
the hero barely succeeds in passing through some treacherous feature of the
natural landscape such as clashing rocks, while his evil pursuer is caught and
killed.[Fn.47]

The slaying of the Pharaoh, similarly, given his explicit identification with
the dragon Rahab in Rabbinic sources, appears to bear more than a trace of the
imagery associated with the dragon-combat. The latter theme, alluded to in
numerous passages in the Old Testament, refers to the primeval occasion in
which the demon of chaos was vanquished by Yahweh himself (or with the aid of
a supernatural warrior-hero).[Fn.48] The episode of the wandering in the
wilderness also has numerous parallels in the myths of other lands, a period
of wandering frequently distinguishing the events associated with the Creation
prior to the Creator finding a suitable spot to settle.  The darkness said to
have accompanied the period of the Israelite's wandering, similarly, would
appear to relate to the darkness which is typically said to have preceded
Creation, such darkness signifying a time of chaos.

The pillar of fire, said to have led the Israelites during their nocturnal
peregrinations in the desert, has long troubled all but the most pious of
scholars: "Of all the mysterious phenomena which accompanied the Exodus, this
mysterious Pillar seems the first to demand explanation."[Fn.49] The account
in Exodus 13, so difficult to reconcile with what we know about the facts of
"history," is in perfect accord with the facts of comparative mythology, where
the World Pillar forms a universal motive.[Fn.50] Indeed, in many traditions
the World Pillar is expressly described as a pillar of fire.[Fn.51]

In short, while this is not the place to argue the probable origin of the
Exodus traditions in early Hebrew cosmological myth, enough has been said,
perhaps, to at least suggest this possibility. And such a conclusion, should
it be confirmed by future research, would significantly undermine the
rationale behind Velikovsky's attempted historical reconstruction.

Velikovsky's handling of the Exodus material illustrates what would appear to
be a glaring flaw in his approach to the ancient sources. For want of a better
term, I would note that Velikovsky tended to favour a literal interpretation
of the ancient traditions. If the texts say the sea parted allowing for the
escape of the Israelites, Velikovsky seeks a meteorological explanation of
such an event. If the texts say that the Israelites wandered forty years in
darkness in the wilderness, Velikovsky imagines the sun being obscured for a
period approximating four decades. If the texts say that manna rained from the
heavens, Velikovsky envisages carbohydrates falling from the skies and seeks
to provide a physical explanation for such an occurrence.[Fn.52]

Although Velikovsky's interpretations here are within the realm of
possibility, he offered no arguments which would preclude other, less exotic,
explanations of such traditions. A prolonged eclipse of the sun, for example,
such as that described in Exodus, would naturally tend to disrupt the accurate
keeping of time, and thus the tradition of a 40 year period of darkness might
simply be a conventional way of saying "a significant period of time" (40
years, after all, is a suspiciously common span in ancient texts). Certainly
it would seem to be a hazardous enterprise to make of such traditions a
foundation block in a radical reconstruction of ancient history.

In retrospect, Velikovsky's analysis of the Exodus-traditions seems naive,
especially so inasmuch as it comes from a distinguished psychoanalyst who made
his living analyzing dreams, where the phenomena of displacement, distortion,
and condensation feature prominently. Indeed, as one peruses the wealth of
mythological material in Velikovsky's works one is amazed at the relative
dearth of analysis offered by him. In most cases the myths are simply accepted
at face value, as literal records of ancient experience. Had Velikovsky
applied his formidable analytic tools to the mythical elements co- mingled
with the Exodus account, he would have found, I suspect, that the flight of
the Israelites, the fall of the Pharaoh, the prolonged darkness, the time of
wandering, and the pillar of fire are all susceptible of alternative
explanation, one involving less strain on credulity.

CONCLUSION

Granted that our analysis has some merit, the question arises as to how and
why Velikovsky went wrong? I, for one, would suggest that Velikovsky
needlessly compromised his magnificent insight that myth commemorates the
spectacular behaviour of planets in an attempt to proffer a scientific
explanation to accommodate the sacred history of the Jewish people. Had
Velikovsky pursued a more systematic approach in his mythological exegesis, he
would have discovered, I would suggest, that the sacred history of the Jews is
best understood by comparison with that of other peoples, and that such a
comparison reveals that history to be less a record of human behaviour than an
allegorical account of planetary goings-on, albeit one that has been
suppressed and "historicized."

Alas, if Velikovsky's historical reconstruction rests uneasily upon the
historical/mythological record, such is not the case with his thesis of
planetary catastrophism, which is confirmed again and again by the ancient
sources. Indeed, it is my opinion that Velikovsky's theory offers the best
hope for a resolution of the most fundamental questions facing comparative
mythologists. For the truth of the matter is that neither Eliade nor any other
scholar has offered a satisfactory explanation of the content of myth. A
glaring weakness in Eliade's interpretation of myth, for example, is the
inability to account for the universal belief in a former Golden Age ruled
over by a primeval king under whom all manner of customs were revealed.  Yet
as Velikovsky suggested--followed by David Talbott, Dwardu Cardona, and
myself--such traditions are readily understood if once upon a time the planet
Saturn ruled the visible heavens during an unprecedented period of prosperity
and cultural advancement.[Fn.53] A Golden Age at the dawn of time was recalled
as the well-spring of civilization and deemed to be the gift of Saturn for the
simple reason that spectacular events associated with the period of that
planet's dominance provided the "divine" inspiration for the origin and
development of cities, laws, religious rites, systems of writing, etc. Having
been, as it were, originally "revealed" by God on high, these patterns of
behaviour were not only held to be sacred, they remained canonical for all
time. To quote Eliade: "This `sacred history'--mythology--is exemplary,
paradigmatic: not only does it relate how things came to be; it also lays the
foundations for all human behaviour and all social and cultural
institutions."[Fn.54]

No doubt we are still a long way from satisfactorily decoding the astronomical
events encoded in ancient myth. Of this much, however, I feel confident:
Velikovsky's discovery of the prominent role played by Saturn and the other
planets in ancient thought not only ensures his place amongst the truly
important figures in the history of science, it provides the all-important
theoretical foundation for a science of mythology.








FOOTNOTES TO:
TOWARDS A SCIENCE OF MYTHOLOGY: VELIKOVSKY'S CONTRIBUTION

By: Ev Cochrane
*******************************

1.  How Velikovsky first came to entertain such a novel idea as
planetary catastrophism is something of a mystery. Jan Sammer,
Velikovsky's personal secretary during the later years of his
life, has expressed the opinion that the decisive event was most
likely Velikovsky's discovery in an obscure work of Brasseur de
Bourbourg of a quote from Varro, in which it was said that the
planet Venus once changed its appearance and course in the sky.
This finding, coming as it did during the inspired period
associated with his attempt to deduce the nature of the
cataclysmic circumstances surrounding the Exodus, led Velikovsky
to consider the possibility that a cataclysm involving the
planet Venus was behind that event. For Velikovsky's account of
these discoveries, see Stargazers and Gravediggers (New York,
1983), pp. 38-42.
2.  Talbott has acknowledged that his researches were directly
inspired by Velikovsky's intriguing ideas regarding Saturn's
cataclysmic past.
3.  E. Cochrane, "The Spring of Ares," KRONOS XI:3 (1986), pp.
15-22; E. Cochrane, "Indra: A Case Study in Comparative
Mythology," AEON II:4 (1991), pp. 61-66; D. Talbott, "Mother
Goddess and Warrior Hero," AEON I:5 (1988), pp. 53-65.
4.  W Heimpel, "A Catalog of Near Eastern Venus Deities," Syro-
Mesopotamian Studies 4:3 (December 1982), pp. 9-22.
5.  E. Cochrane, "The Birth of Athena," AEON II:3 (1990), pp.
10-18.
6.  For a survey of early scholarship in the field, see B.
Feldman & R. Richardson, The Rise of Modern Mythology 1680-1860
(Bloomington, 1972).
7.  See the discussion in J. Puhvel, Comparative Mythology
(London, 1989), pp. 13-20.
8.  J. Frazer, The Golden Bough Vol. 4: Adonis, Attis, Osiris
(New York, 1961), pp. 97-114.
9.  Lyttleton hold the fundamental Durkheimian principle to be
as follows: "That the persons, places, events, and situations
that received expression in myths are inevitably representations
of important social and cultural realities." See C. Lyttleton,
The New Comparative Mythology (Berkeley, 1973), p. 4.
10. G. Dumezil, The Destiny of the Warrior (Chicago, 1970). For
a survey of Dumezil's extensive writings see C. Lyttleton, The
New Comparative Mythology (Berkeley, 1973).
11. "[Myths] teach us a great deal about the societies from
which they originate, they help us lay bare their inner workings
and clarify the raison d'etre of beliefs, customs ... and most
importantly, they make it possible to discover operational modes
of the human mind, which have remained so constant over the
centuries, and are so widespread ... that we can assume them to
be fundamental and can seek to find them in other societies and
in other areas of mental life, where their presence is not
suspected," Quoted in I. Strenski, Four Theories of Myth in
Twentieth Century History (London, 1987), p. 132.
12. C. Levi-Strauss, "The Structural Study of Myth," in Myth: A
Symposium, ed. by T. Sebeok (London, 1965), pp. 81-106.
13. G. de Santillana and H. von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill (Boston,
1977), p. 177.
14. I. Velikovsky, Mankind in Amnesia (New York, 1982), pp. 99-
102.
15. G. de Santillana and H. von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill (Boston,
1977), p. 252-253.
16. Ibid., p. 49.
17. Ibid., p. 293. The authors' discussion of the World Tree
provides a perfect example of their tendency to "correct" the
ancient testimony in order to conform with the tenets of
astronomy. Upon discovering countless examples of Trees said to
have spanned heaven, supporting or obscuring the Sun, the
authors remark of the Indian Pillar (Skambha): "Skambha ... was
the World Tree consisting mostly of celestial coordinates, a
kind of wildly imaginative armillary sphere." Ibid., p. 269.
18. Ibid., p. 66-67.
19. Ibid., p. 3.
20. An exception to this statement is the recent study offered
by J. Worthen, The Replacement Myth (Tucson, 1991), which
betrays more than a trace of the influence of Hamlet's Mill.
21. See, for example, the following books: A. Aveni, ed., Native
American Astronomy (Ft. Worth, 1977); idem., Archaeoastronomy in
the New World (Cambridge, 1982); World Archaeoastronomy
(Cambridge, 1989); J. Carlson, Astronomy and Ceremonny in the
Prehistoric Southwest (1987); idem., "America's Ancient
Skywatchers," National Geographic 177:3 (March 1990), pp. 76-
107; R. Williamson, Archaeoastronomy in the Americas (Los Altos,
1981); idem., Living the Sky (Boston, 1984); E.C. Krupp, ed.,
Archaeoastronomy and the Roots of Science (Boulder, 1984).
Notice also the appearance of such journals as Archaeoastronomy,
published by The Center for Archaeoastronomy (1978 to present),
and Archaeoastronomy, Supplement to the Journal for the History
of Astronomy (1979 to present).
22. A. Aveni, Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico (Austin, 1981), pp.
187, 327.
23. C. Levi-Strauss, The Naked Man (New York, 1981), pp. 45-46,
71, 235.
24. An exception is offered by D. Cardona, "Child of Saturn,"
KRONOS VII:1 (1981), pp. 56-58.
25. Iliad 4:73-79. While this passage has been the subject of
various translations--the above is W. Rouse'e translation, The
Iliad (New York, 1938), p. 49--several distinguished scholars
have pointed to a comet as the source of Homer's imagery. See
the discussion in W. Gundel, "Kometen," RE, op. cit., p. 1145.
See also the discussion of this passage in B. Dietrich, "Divine
Epiphanies in Homer," Numen 30:1 (July, 1983), p. 56 who
translates as follows: "Like a comet which the son of Kronos,
crooked in counsel, sends in a shower of sparks as a shining
portent to sailors and the widespread army of peoples."
Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 178, and I. Fuhr, "On Comets, Comet-
like Luminous Apparitions and Meteors," KRONOS VII:4 (1982), p.
54, likewise compared Athena's descent to a cometary apparition.
It was apparently Dio Cassius 78:30:1 who first compared
Athena's epiphany to a comet.
26. E. Cochrane, "The Birth of Athena," AEON II:3 (1990), pp. 5-
28.
27. See the discussion of Worner, "Palladion," in W. Roscher's
Ausfuhrliches Lexikon der griechischen und romischen Mythologie
(Hildesheim, 1965), pp. 3448-3449.
28. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (New York, 1973), pp.
185-186.
29. E. Cochrane, "The Birth of Athena," AEON II:3 (1990), pp.
10-18.
30. D. Talbott & E. Cochrane, "The Origin of Velikovsky's
Comet," KRONOS X:1 (1984); idem., "On the Nature of Cometary
Symbolism," KRONOS XI:1 (1985); idem., "When Venus was a Comet,"
KRONOS XII:1 (1987).
31. E. Cochrane, "On Comets and Kings," AEON II:1 (1989), pp.
53-75.
32. G. Jobe, Dictionary of Mythology, Folklore and Symbols (New
York, 1961), p. 360. See also E. Cochrane, "On Comets and
Kings," AEON II:1 (1989), pp. 53-75.
33. E. Cochrane, op. cit., pp. 56-58.
34. Ibid., pp. 60-64.
35. N. Davies, The Toltecs (Norman, 1977), p. 395.
36. I. Velikovsky, Oedipus and Akhnaton (Garden City, 1960). For
a detailed critique of Velikovsky's interpretation of the
Oedipus myth see E. Cochrane, "Velikovsky and Oedipus," AEON I:6
(1988), pp. 14-38.
37. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (New York, 1973), p. 178.
38. Given the prevalence of "Lake Tritons" one would be inclined
to suspect a celestial prototype behind the localized
imitations. Indeed, in a future paper I hope to be able to
establish the origin of this epithet.
39. Indeed, of Velikovsky's reconstruction of the events behind
the Exodus little has been written since the publication of
Worlds in Collision in 1950. A few exceptions to this general
statement include J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest
(Sheffield, 1978); A. de Grazia, God's Fire (Princeton, 1983);
B. Feldman, Passover Marvels (Philadelphia, 1978); and E.
Cochrane, "In Search of Moses," an article distributed at the
annual Canadian Symposium for Interdisciplinary Studies in
September of 1983. Velikovsky's critics, of course, such as
Forrest and Stiebing, have not overlooked Velikovsky's handling
of the Exodus material. See W. Stiebing, Out of the Desert
(Buffalo, 1989), pp. 113-123. B. Forrest, "Papyrus Ipuwer and
Worlds in Collision," SIS Review 6:4 (1984), pp. 108-111.
40. I. Velikovsky, Stargazers and Gravediggers (New York, 1983),
pp. 27-31.
41. See footnote 36.
42. M. Eliade, Myth and Reality (New York, 1975), p. 6.
43. Idem., Cosmos and History (New York, 1959), p. 9.
44. G. Dumezil, Archaic Roman Religion Vol. 1 (Chicago, 1970),
pp. 66-77.
45. On the migration(s) led by Mars, see W. Roscher, "Mars,"
Ausfuhrliches Lexikon der griechischen und romischen Mythologie
(Hildesheim, 1965), col. 2425-2427; on the migration led by
Huitzilopochtli, see H. Alexander, The Mythology of All Races:
Latin American (New York, 1964), p. 114.
46. A. Coomaraswamy, "Symplegades," in Studies and Essays in the
History of Science and Learning Offered in Homage to George
Sarton (New York, 1947), p. 477.
47. On the Symplegades motive see A. Cook, Zeus Vol. 3:2
(Cambridge, 1940), pp. 975-1015.
48. Velikovsky himself dismisses this view in Worlds in
Collision, op. cit., pp. 94-95. For a valuable discussion of the
dragon-combat in the Old Testament see J. Day, God's Conflict
with the Dragon and Sea (London, 1985), pp. 88-101.
49. W. Pythian-Adams, quoted in Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 95.
50. See here M. Eliade, Myths, Rites, and Symbols (New York,
1975) pp. 380ff. See also my discussion in "The Spring of Ares,"
KRONOS XI:3 (1986), pp. 15-21.
51. In addition to the pillar of fire in Plato's vision of Er,
witness the following passage from Euripides' Bacchae: "So spake
he [Dionysius], and there came `twixt earth and sky a pillar of
high flame."
52. Other examples of this tendency in Velikovsky's writings
include his interpretation of the Deluge as water emanating from
Saturn and inundating the Earth, whereupon it came to form the
Atlantic Ocean; his expectation that gold would be found on
Jupiter, presumably deduced from the report that Zeus-Jupiter
once rained "gold" on Danae; and his hypothesis that vegetation
proliferated on Earth in the wake of a nova-like explosion upon
Saturn, apparently deduced from the numerous myths in which new
flowers appear in the wake of a death of a great god or goddess.
See I. Velikovsky, Mankind in Amnesia (New York, 1982), p. 99.
53. I. Velikovsky, Mankind in Amnesia (New York, 1982), pp. 97-
100. D. Talbott, The Saturn Myth (New York, 1980); idem.,
"Reconstructing the Saturn Myth," AEON I:1 (1988), pp. 5-36; D.
Cardona, "The Road to Saturn," AEON I:1 (1988), pp. 108-129;
idem., "Intimations of an Alien Sky," AEON II:5 (1991), pp. 5-
34.
54. M. Eliade, Rites and Symbols of Initiation (New York, 1975),
pp. x-xi.





********************************
See the postings ***VELIKOVSKY UPDATE--One, Two, Three***
for the body of this article.
********************************
This electronic version of the article was prepared by:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*          ===              Efemeral Research Foundation    *
*       //  |  \\            Exploring the Saturn Myth      *
*     //    |    \\                                         *
*    ||-----o-----||                                        *
*     \\    |    //         Internet:  [e-mail]   *
*    //\ \..|../ /                                          *
*   ||  `../.\..'   AARNet/ACSNet: [e-mail] *
*   `=''  /   \                                             *
*        /     \              APC Networks:  peg.abeggs     *
*       /       \                                           *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *









                      ______________________________




                      ______________________________
                   /                                  \
                  //  ****    *****    ****   ***  *  \\
                 ///  *** *   ***     ***  *  **** *  \\\
                ////  ***  *  ****    ***  *  *** **  \\\\
               /////  ******  ***     ***  *  ***  *  \\\\\
              //////  ***  *  *****    ** *   ***  *  \\\\\\



    AEON is a journal of science devoted to the collection and exploration
    of archaeo-astronomical traditions  and analysis of common patterns in
    ancient myths from  around  the  world.   Articles and abstracts build
    upon the pioneering work  of  Immanuel  Velikovsky, author of the best
    selling "Worlds In Collision".   Featured topics include:

    Evidence  of  catastrophic  planetary  interactions  in historic times

    Reconstruction of standard archaeological dating systems

    Evidence for cataclysmic evolution and extinction

    Astral worship in  the  Egyptian  Pyramid Texts, the Veda, and ancient
    Babylon and mythological traditions surrounding the planets in general

    Astral myths of the  American  Indians, astral worship in Meso-America

    The  role  of  Osiris  in Egyptian myth; Thor; the Mother goddess; the
    birth of Athena; Oedipus in Compartive Mythology; etc.

    Common elements in the  myths  of  Heracles, Indra, and Cuchulainn; in
    the myths of Heracles  and  Gilgamesh  and  myths  of  the Deluge from
    around the world




    Please send all manuscripts and inquiries to:

    AEON
    2326 Knapp,
    Ames, IA, 50014.

    email:  [e-mail]

    Subscriptions are $40 per year* $55 foreign air mail.