The Reflective Canopy Model and the Mytho-historical Record DWARDU CARDONA 1. Introduction In November, 1991, I was invited to Haliburton for a seminar, sponsored by the Canadian Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, by Milton Zysman who specifically wanted me to criticize the reflective canopy model he had painstakingly reconstructed in an endeavor to account for what he calls the lost universe of the ancients. What follows below is based on the paper I read at the above mentioned seminar as also on additional inputs by Zysman himself who saw no reason to keep from me certain weaknesses in his theory which I had originally either ignored for the sake of brevity or, in some cases, even totally overlooked. [*!* Image] The manner in which cosmologists have presented the cosmos as described in the Book of Genesis. It is thus only fair that, in evaluating and/or criticizing Zysman's model, my own should be held at bay. The comparison of Zysman's model with the competing Saturnian scenario, while tempting, shall not be relied upon. Instead, the reflective canopy model shall be tested against the mytho-historical record on the basis of which all historical cosmological models have to be reconstructed. To cover each and every aspect of Zysman's complex model is, of course, not possible in a critique that, for want of space, must necessarily be kept as short as possible. My intention, therefore, is to stress those aspects of the model which constitute its major components and which, together, serve to illustrate its central the-matic structure. 2. The Model and its Precursors Harking back to an idea that owes its inception to William Whiston, Zysman looks upon comets as having been responsible for terrestrial catastrophism. In 1696 it had been Whiston's belief that the Noachian deluge was caused by a previous close passage of the comet of 1680.^(1) More recently, cometary catastrophism has once again been brought to the fore by Victor Clube and Bill Napier.^(2) In between, there lived Ignatius Donnelly and Immanuel Velikovsky, both of whom attributed terrestrial catastrophism to the close passage of cometary bodies.^(3) Somewhere along the way, through some remarks made to him by Henry Zemel, Zysman became acquainted with the works of Isaac Newton Vail who, in 1886, had come to the conclusion that the Earth had once been girdled by a doughnut-like structure of ice crystals which, in keeping with Genesis 1:6-8, he alluded to as the firmament.^(4) Donald Cyr, who is currently one of Vail's staunchest supporters, has published numerous articles on the subject in his recently defunct periodical, Stonehenge Viewpoint.^(5) There, one can not only read about this firmament, or canopy, but also its reflective properties, the aspect of the theory that most appealed to Zysman.^(6) He thus found himself wondering whether the celestial apparition that the mytho-historical record alludes to -- the sun of night and its appendages -- could have been the reflected image of some terrestrial object on the mirror-surface of the sky rather than the planets which other scholars had vouched for. And, given that this reflective canopy was situated high enough above the surface of the Earth -- four Earth-radii is Zysman's current estimate^(7) -- why couldn't the Earth itself have been the reflected object? Wouldn't such a reflection have given the appearance of a globe suspended in the sky overhead? Could not the reflection of the sunlit surface of our own globe have been the glorious sun that ancient man venerated as his god? 3. The Spherical Canopy In my evaluation of Zysman's model at the seminar mentioned above, a certain amount of disappointment was registered by those in attendance -- including, to my surprise, Zysman himself -- for my neglect in criticizing the physical feasibility of the formation of such a canopy and the manner in which it could have been sustained. There were various reasons behind my glossing over of the subject, not the least of which was my own deficiency in matters of physics which had cautioned me to steer clear of those areas in which my ignorance might show through. But, at Zysman's own request, I shall now attempt to offer what little of worth I can muster on this particular subject. In Zysman's scenario, the formation of Earth's reflective canopy is the direct result of the cometary catastrophism that he espouses. Thus, as he has so far explained it in brief, at some time in the distant past, the Earth must have encountered "large amounts of charged space debris [presumably left behind by the close passage and/or disintegration of a comet], which created a translucent mirrored hemisphere ... "^(8) Granted that Zysman has yet to fill in the details, this does not say much for the mechanics involved and, at the distance estimated by him, one wonders whether such debris would not more readily have assumed a flat, or disc-like, distribution, due to tidal perturbations, as with the present Saturnian rings.^(9) Various rings around the Earth had already been posited by other scenarists. As early as 1884, Oskar Reichenbach, one of the earliest cosmic catastrophists on record, theorized that, due to the Earth's early equatorial eccentricity, our globe "cast off" a sizable chunk as well as a series of rings which "became envelopes." In time, the sizeable chunk became the Moon while the "remnants" of the rings "gradually descended" in "catastrophic downpours of solids, liquids, and gases during periods of convulsions ... " The world's oceans were formed from this catastrophic downpour.^(10) [*!* Image] Isaac Newton Vail (1840-1912) The originator of the reflective canopy theory In 1913, in his Welt-Eis-Lehre, Hans Hoerbiger also posited a temporary ring of debris around the Earth which had resulted from the break-up of a previous terrestrial satellite. In fact, Zysman's figures 6a and 6b, which are used to illustrate his work, are lifted from the 1949 book by Hans Bellamy who was Hoerbiger's foremost spokesman in the English-speaking world.^(11) (Why Zysman saw fit to utilize these diagrams, which depict the formation of a ring around the Earth when his theory calls for a spherical shell or envelope is not made clear.) A temporary icy ring around the Earth was again posited as the result of a disintegrating icy satellite that approached too close to Earth, this time by Donald Patten, in 1973.^(12) In both these last two cases, the dissolution and precipitation of the contents of these rings was held responsible for the occurrence of Noah's flood. Also in 1973, Charles McDowell reversed the process by assuming that a terrestrial ring had been formed by the disruption of the oceans (caused by a passing body?) which erupted into space, and which later precipitated back to Earth to cause the flood of Noah.^(13) In 1988, even David Talbott was forced to posit "an Earth-surrounding band of dust or ice" which he needed to occlude "the terrestrial view of the Sun," a condition that his "Sunless" model seems to demand.^(14) [*!* Image] Vail's canopy as published in his 1902 book The Earth's Annular System Transient ring systems around a primeval Earth are not, however, the unique domain of fringe theoreticians. Mainstream science has also considered the formation of such terrestrial rings. Thus, in 1980, John O'Keefe was of the opinion that a temporary ring system around Earth could have been formed from debris hurled into orbit, which would have produced a severe climatic event at the end of the Eocene. This Saturnian-like ring, according to him, would have been composed of tektites and other litter spewed into space by an erupting volcano on the Moon.^(15) (O'Keefe's postulate was later picked up by Clube and Napier but they suppressed all mention of the lunar volcano, thus giving the false impression that O'Keefe's "debris" was generated by heavy meteoric impact.)^(16) [*!* Image] The break-up of a previous terrestrial satellite at a distance of 1.8 Earth radii as theorized by Hans Hoerbiger in 1913. (Zysman's Fig. 6b.) A year later, in 1981, in an essay heavily burdened with Velikovskian overtones and sensationally illustrated by April Lawton, Lloyd Motz presented a doomsday scenario projected into the far future. In describing the end of the Solar System, Motz predicted that, due to the "tremendous pull of the earth's tidal action," the Moon will fall apart and form "a ring of particles circling the earth."^(17) Lawton's dramatic illustration of the event depicts "pieces of the shattered moon" as they "orbit the earth, forming rings much like Saturn's."^(18) In 1984, shifting the scene back to the past, two independent teams, one led by Al Cameron and Willie Benz, the other by Jay Melosh and Marlan Kipp, simulated terrestrial impacts on a large scale through the use of supercomputers and classified military computer programs. These simulations showed that a Mars-sized impactor would have blown away much of proto-Earth's mantle, exposing its iron core. The impactor itself would have merged with the Earth and, while much of the ejected material would have fallen back to gravity's lure, a great quantity of it would have settled into "a thin ring, like Saturn's" around the Earth. In time, this material would have aggregated "into individual moonlets" which would finally have coalesced to form the Moon.^(19) The following year, Richard Durisen presented a variation on the same theme. Keeping to a Mars-sized impactor, Durisen theorized that the impact would have taken place at a time when the Earth was still in a molten state. The impact would have increased the Earth's rotation, enabling it to fling some of its molten material into space to form a thick ring around it from which, eventually, the Moon would have been formed.^(20) In 1989, in an effort to account for the discovery of lunar meteorites in Antarctica, it was theorized that such ejecta, which could have taken up to a million years to reach the Earth, would probably have ended up forming "a temporary ring around [our globe], similar to Saturn's but on a more modest scale, before eventually falling to Earth."^(21) It can thus be seen that the idea of cosmic debris orbiting the Earth is neither unheard-of nor far-fetched. On the other hand, the foregoing compendium should have made it clear that all those who, for whatever reason, have been led to posit such an orbiting cloud of debris have kept that cloud, or aggregation, compressed into a ring, often described by the proponents themselves as having been akin to the present Saturnian one(s). And this, of course, is in keeping with presently-known mechanics as they pertain to tidal forces. The rings around the planets Saturn, Jupiter, and Ur-anus are prime examples of this force. And, in fact, this can also be demonstrated by the recently discovered toroidal dust belt that appears to be orbiting the Earth at present.^(22) This dust belt does not envelope the Earth within a spherical husk the way Zysman would have his cometary debris do. [*!* Image] The ring of debris formed around the Earth from the break-up of Hoerbiger's satellite. (Zysman's Fig. 6a.) Zysman might argue that the debris in his scenario is postulated to have been charged and that, therefore, it would have been attracted by the Earth's magnetosphere and taken on a spherical shape. Thus, in a privately-circulated set of theses he states that the Earth's electro-magnetic field, "highly charged from the recent encounter," would have outlined these "magnetic" particles "into the unusual yet characteristic web-like pattern" of the field.^(23) Three objections can be raised against this. The first is that, had the debris been charged, it would more probably have been attracted toward the funnels of the magnetosphere as, indeed, some of the Sun's charged particles are. The debris would then have congregated around the north and south magnetic poles rather than forming a spherical shield. The second is that the Earth's magnetosphere itself is anything but spherical, being compressed by the solar wind on the sunward side and extremely elongated away from the Sun. Thus even if this charged debris was somehow to settle along the magnetosphere's lines of force, the resultant shield would have been anything but spherical. In fact, it would have been so distorted that, granting it a reflective underside, any image thrown against its concave surface would have been reflected back with equal distortion. [*!* Image] A simplified diagram of the Earth's magnetic field. On encountering this field, the charged particles from the Sun that make up the solar wind part and flow around it. Some of the particles, however, find themselves chan-neled through the "funnels" at north and south, known as the polar cusps, where they either become excited to form auroral displays or are trapped in the Van Allen radiation zones. And, finally, the limit of the magnetosphere is far above the 16,000-odd miles of the four Earth-radii at which Zysman would have his spherical canopy, reaching to 40,000 miles from the Earth's surface on the sunward side and as much as 240,000 miles above the sunless hemisphere. I very much doubt that Zysman can have his charged canopy lower than these limits because charged particles cannot cross, let alone penetrate, magnetic lines -- vide the stream of charged particles from the Sun which opens up on encountering Earth's field and only comes together again once it has passed the field. (Those few particles which are trapped within the funnels of the magnetosphere, as mentioned above, "slide" down outside the magnetic lines. In other words, they follow the lines but do not cross or penetrate them. In effect they are simply "falling" into the neutrality of the polar cusps.)^(24) 4. The Reflective Surface Even under present conditions, the sky is known to reflect, refract, and otherwise bounce back some peculiar images. Solar and lunar halos, with or without parhelia or paraselenae, tangential arcs, and even pillars, while not as common as the simpler coronas, appear frequently enough in a complexity of forms in polar regions. Much like the phenomena with which Zysman deals, these apparitions are all due to the presence of ice crystals suspended in the atmosphere which act as a mirror in refracting solar or lunar illumination. [*!* Image] A broader view of the Earth's magnetosphere, compressed by the solar wind on the sunward side and extremely elongated away from the Sun to form what is known as the magnetotail (the end of which is not here shown). Shadows of airplanes upon clouds are also often surrounded by multi-hued auras, or glories, when seen from above, an effect that owes its origin to droplets in the cloud itself which reflect and scatter light waves.^(25) And what are rainbows if not colossal auras^(26) created by the refraction of sunlight by moisture in the atmosphere, each droplet of which acts as a minute prism? Who has not opened a children's book of knowledge to be fascinated by pictures depicting the Specter of the Brocken in which the observer's own magnified image, often encircled by chromatic coronas, is cast against the sky, a phenomenon that is frequently observed on high mountain peaks? Or, who has not seen pictures of a ship appearing upside down in the sky above the horizon, the inverted reflection of an actual ship that is still below the viewer's line of sight? What, after all, is a mirage -- and some, like the Fata Morgana, can be quite bizarre^(27) -- if not a reflection manipulated by stratified air layers of different temperatures? It can thus be seen that Zysman's proposal of a reflective canopy composed of ice crystals at some distance from the Earth's surface is not, in itself, farfetched. But, in order for this mirrored dome to reflect with the precision that Zysman's theory calls for, it would have to be so perfectly spherical that, in a solar system where nothing else is, or can be, it comes close to calling for divine intervention. Even if we were to set aside the objections I have already enumerated, we would still be left with solar wind pressure, tidal drag, centrifugal force (if the canopy itself rotated), and, possibly, gravitational anomalies, all of which would tend to pull and push at the envelope of suspended ice crystals, destroying the symmetrical unity the model seems to call for. Actually, even had perfect sphericity to be granted to Zysman's canopy, distortion would still arise due to the mirror's curvature. The reflection of the Earth in such a canopy would more than probably have been marred by the well-known laws of spherical aberration or coma. Is that not why, on a much smaller scale, the famous Schmidt system employs a transparent corrector plate with an aspherical surface facing the concavity of the mirror?^(28) (While the concavity of astronomical mirrors is only between one and four inches deep, the curve they are made to follow is precisely calculated to conform with that of a true spherical curvature. In other words, the concave mirror is the geometrical segment of a sphere.) On the colossal scale that Zysman proposes, would not this distortion be even more pronounced? What is worse is that, even if we were to allow that this mirrored canopy could have been formed, that it maintained itself in perfect sphericity, and that its reflective inner surface mirrored the images it received without distortion, it would still run afoul of the celestial imagery the ancients described and/or alluded to. Zysman's model cannot be said to be in harmony with the mytho-historical record. In fact, unless I misunderstand some of his concepts, his model cannot even be said to be in harmony with itself. 5. The Zenithal Station While the reflective canopy that Zysman postulates would have been spherical in shape, it would have appeared as a hemispherical firmament to an observer on Earth and, for that reason, Zysman alludes to it as the mirror dome. Now it should be quite obvious that, in such a hemispherical mirror, the Earth would have been reflected directly overhead, that is at the zenith, no matter where the observer stood. And, in fact, Zysman himself has been stressing this point at least since 1987.^(29) As already stated, it was, according to Zysman, this reflected Earth that the ancients worshipped as the primeval sun, or sun god. The mytho-historical record, however, strongly intimates that the primeval sun occupied a stationary position at the Earth's north celestial pole. But, as Zysman cautioned his readers, "even the most sophisticated observer will occasionally confuse 'north' with 'up'."^(30) It is therefore his belief that those mythologists who have stressed the sun god's north polar station have misread the mytho-historical record which actually vouches for a zenithal position. "It is difficult," wrote Zysman, "to overemphasize the importance placed [by 'ancient man'] on the zenith."^(31) An in-depth study of the mytho-historical record, however, discloses that ancient man placed absolutely no importance on the zenith. It is mythologists, in paraphrasing what the ancients recorded, that have fallen into the trap of representing, or misrepresenting, the north celestial center as the zenith. A prime example of the above comes from the Pyramid Texts which are made to state: "May your face be in the north of the sky, may Re summon you from the zenith of the sky."^(32) But the Egyptian word that has been translated as "zenith" is "up-t pet," which literally means "the top, or crown, of the sky."^(33) Now this term does lend itself easily to a translation as "zenith" but the fact that this position is equated with "the north of the sky" leaves no doubt as to what is meant. And actually, as David Talbott has demonstrated, "the crown of the sky" is itself an allusion to the ring that once surrounded the sun god.^(34) That "the north of the sky" continued to be remembered as "the crown of the sky" simply reflects the sun god's former position in that section of the sky. Space does not here permit further examples but an extensive investigation of the sources would indicate that mythological mentions of the zenith -- and they are few indeed -- are merely misunderstandings of similar nature. Rather than stressing the zenith as the celestial station of the immobile sun god, the mytho-historical record consistently bombards one with allusions from every mythological quarter that persistently associate the ancient sun god with the north and the north celestial sphere. Once again, space does not permit a full survey of this material but, easily coming to mind are allusions to the circumpolar stars as Kokkabe 'El (the "stars of El"),^(35) a belief that we see reflected in the northern stars that were held sacred to Anu.^(36) At the other end of this age-old association, we find that the Greeks referred to the North Sea as Kronios Okeanos, or the Saturnian Sea.^(37) The adjective "Cronian," derived from Kronos, has even survived in the English language as descriptive of the Arctic Ocean.^(38) And it is the collective strength of such traditions, ranging all the way from Sumerian times to the present, that impel one to believe that the primeval sun god was inextricably connected to the north and, more specifically, to the north celestial pole. It is not reasonable to assume that such a strong, and unbroken, tradition could have been based on a figment of someone's imagination. [*!* Image] The primeval Egyptian sun-god, Re (or Ra), whose "face" was placed "in the north of the sky". Even so, it would be fair to ask for more direct evidence and, in fact, this can be had. Three prime examples should suffice here. In the Bundahish, the starry constellations are likened to a war-like army destined for battle. Among these constellations, four stars are chosen as "chieftains." Predominant among these starry chieftains was Gah "which they say is the great one of the middle of the sky" -- in other words the Pole Star.^(39) In a later section of the same work, seven planets are allotted to the seven chieftains. The guardianship of "the great one of the middle of the sky" was assigned to the planet Saturn^(40) ( the sun-god of the Assyro-Babylonians)^(41) which directly connects that planetary/solar/deity to the Pole Star or its station. [*!* Image] Kronos, who gave his name to the North Sea (Kronos Okeanos). So, similarly, in the Linga Purana which contains a myth telling how Dhruva became the Pole Star.^(42) According to this myth, or parable, Dhruva was placed at his station by the Saturnian sun god Vishnu.^(43) Moreover, Vishnu impressed on Dhruva that the abode in which he placed him had formerly been his. "This abode," said Vishnu, "is mine, the greatest, the steady splendid abode."^(44) Thus it was the belief of the Hindus that the polar station had been Vishnu's before it became the Pole Star's. And elsewhere we learn that Dhruva had previously been one of the names of the Saturnian sun god himself. Thus, the word dhruva means "fixed, firm, stable, permanent, constant, unchangeable"^(45) -- which is an apt name for the Pole Star. Another Sanskrit word with similar meanings of "fixed, firm, unalterable, imperishable, indestructible, undecaying," is akshara.^(46) It is therefore noteworthy that one of Vishnu's epithets is an amalgam of these two words -- Dhruva-akshara.^(47) Dhruva was also an epithet of Shiva^(48) (who was also a Saturnian sun god).^(49) Brahma, too, was a form of the Saturnian sun god^(50) -- Brahmanyah, in fact, is one of the Sanskrit names of the planet Saturn^(51) -- and again we find this deity lauded as Dhruva.^(52) Finally, Agni's identity as another form of the Saturnian sun god has also been documented,^(53) so it should come as no surprise that one of Agni's epithets was also Dhruva.^(54) I could go on, but I shall only stress one point here. All these deities, which have independently been shown to have originated as personifications of the Saturnian sun god, have all been given the additional epithet of Dhruva, a name which, at present, rightly belongs to the Pole Star. So, also, in China. The Chinese referred to the Pole Star as T'ien-Tchou which, appropriately enough, means "Pivot of the Sky." Stars which are close to the Pole Star were also referred to as "pivots."^(55) The same name was additionally applied to two stars in the constellation Draco^(56) and, since Draco had been the polar constellation around 2300 BC., some authorities have assumed that this proves that Chinese observational astronomy dates to at least that remote time. Be that as it may, the term "pivot" for these Draconian stars fits in with their former polar, or near-polar, location. What has baffled commentators on ancient Chinese astronomy, however, is the fact that the planet Saturn is given the name Tchou-niou-tchi-chin, which translates as "Genie [or spirit] of the Pivot,"^(57) since this was tantamount to calling Saturn the "Soul of the Pole Star." Now let us, for the sake of argument, forget about the planet Saturn. Let us, instead, concentrate on the Saturnian deity as a personification of the primeval sun regardless of the sun god's real celestial identity. The mytho-historical record still insists, and repeatedly so, that this sun god either occupied, or was inextricably connected with, the north celestial pole. Nowhere, to my knowledge, is it stated that this sun god occupied the zenith -- except in the minds of mythologists. [*!* Image] Muslim representation of the Persian Saturn who, in earlier times, was as-signed as the guardian of Gah -- "the great one of the middle of the sky" -- i.e. the Pole Star. 6. The Terrestrial Crescent At this point it should be stated that Zysman did not reconstruct his model on the basis of an independent study. What he did, instead, was accept the celestial images dictated by the mytho-historical record -- or most of them -- without accepting their planetary causes. As he himself stated, his "discomfort with the tenuous associations made between planets and gods in a pre-astronomical era...led [him] to look for more prosaic solutions..."^(58) His main problem, therefore, consisted of accounting for the images decreed by myth through other than planetary means. Prime among these celestial images was a conspicuous crescent which, among other things, the ancients portrayed as a heavenly boat or ship in which the sun god was seen to sail. How does Zysman account for this crescent? [*!* Image] Vishnu, who placed Dhruva, the Pole Star, in its station, which station was said to have formerly been his. In a way, this was an easy problem for Zysman to solve since the sunlit hemisphere of the Earth would have been conspicuously reflected in lunar-like phase off the mirrored canopy.^(59) However, only from the polar and circumpolar regions would the Earth's reflection have appeared as a constant crescent at the zenith -- which would bring Zysman's model back to the celestial pole from which he has been trying so hard to disassociate it. But if the mirrored dome maintained itself through the suspension of electro-magnetically charged ice crystals, as Zysman maintains, there would have been a large gaping hole in his canopy precisely at the poles due to the magnetic neutrality of the polar cusps -- and, in fact, Zysman seems to accept such openings as illustrated in his published diagrams.^(60) The Earth could not, therefore, have been reflected over either pole or their immediate areas. On the other hand, while the reflection of the sunlit terrestrial hemisphere would have been quite observable from the latitudes of Sumer, Babylon, and Egypt -- where some of the earliest myths originate -- what would have been seen shining at the zenith would not have been a constant crescent but one that waxed and waned. Zysman, it is true, does mention this waxing and waning, but not in its entirety. Thus he states that "the reflection of [the] sunlit portion of the Earth waxed and waned in the northern and southern hemisphere."^(61) But it would not have been as simple as that. At what today would be noon, the Earth and its reflection would have been entirely illuminated by the Sun. Only at what today would be midnight would a sliver of a crescent have appeared reflected above Egypt. Now, as we shall soon see, the mytho-historical record seems to leave no doubt that the primeval crescent was seen to revolve in place. As seen from the above mentioned latitudes, Zysman's crescent would not have been seen to revolve because, just as it tended to move around the Earth, it would have flattened itself into half phase, pass on to full phase, and then start slimming back into a crescent. Unfortunately, this waxing and waning of the crescent, no matter to what degree, is something that the mytho-historical record does not seem to uphold. The only way in which Zysman can get out of this conundrum is by restricting the Earth's reflection to the night time -- and, in fact, this was admitted to by Zysman himself during the question period at the Haliburton seminar. When asked what would have been seen reflected in his mirror dome during the daytime, he replied: "probably nothing." But a daytime disappearance of the ancient sun god would also run afoul of the mytho-historical record which has so much to say concerning the daytime appearance of the god. [*!* Image] Imprint from a Babylonian cylinder seal, discovered at Susa, showing the "sun-in-crescent" -- now at the Louvre. (Illustration by Marie-Josèphe Devaux.) To say the least, Zysman's scheme is not capable of accounting for the varying positions of the crescent around the god throughout both night and day.^(62) This is especially apparent in those myths which, as already noted, represent the crescent as the ship of the god, an aspect which Zysman has also incorporated in his model. As he informs us, "the concave geometry of the mirror dome would invert and reverse images in a most convenient manner...In the mirror dome [the crescent] would appear tips up, its boat-like shape ready to take its celestial gods [plural as given] in their nightly passage through the underworld."^(63) Zysman's inverted image, however, cannot account for the circling, or revolving, of this ship. Thus, in Egyptian, while it is said that the god sailed in his ship, the word for "sailed" is "seqet" which means "to go in a circle."^(64) In fact it is stated outright that "the barge [of the god] circles in the sky."^(65) Time and again we read of this revolving boat, or bark, along a circular path.^(66) Zysman's reflected crescent cannot be made to circle around anything. Egyptian texts also speak of the god becoming bright while sailing down in his boat, and of becoming dim while moving up (around his circle).^(67) And this, again, Zysman's model cannot account for. As explained by Zysman -- but not, as we shall soon see, in actual fact -- the reversing of his image, which turns the crescent into a recumbent one, also precludes the apparition of the true inverted crescent, that is with cusps down. The real inverted crescent is not even theoretically possible in Zysman's model because (a) by the time the crescent inverts it would be day and the Earth would be in full phase and (b) in Zysman's scheme, nothing would have been reflected in the sky during the day in any case. And yet, the true inverted crescent is one of the sun god's most prominent images, depictions of which, often meant to symbolize such deities as Ba'al, litter archaeological sites around the Mediterranean lands. What is worse -- and this revelation I owe to Zysman himself -- is that, in fact, the Earth's sunlit hemisphere would not be inverted in the reflective sky. The Egyptian "sun-god" in his celestial boat -- i.e., the "sun-in-crescent" rendered in mythological terms. Some years back, Zysman had a hemispherical mirror constructed as a visual aid in illustrating the effects he was describing. Demonstrations, of course, showed that a crescent would be inverted by the properties of the mirror's concave surface -- but only when viewed from outside the dome. In the real world, the observer would have viewed the sky from within the dome. Further tests with Zysman's model mirror showed that, once the observer inserted his or her head within the dome, the crescent's reflection re-righted itself into a real inverted crescent, that is with the cusps down. Zysman was good enough to bring this deficiency to my attention^(68) but, meanwhile, he is left with a different kind of problem because, while the inverted crescent does have its place in the mytho-historical record, so does the recumbent one which we now find to be absent from his model. To say the least, the analogy of the sun god's boat is completely destroyed. Now, if you will excuse the pun, it only takes a moment's reflection to realize that the circling of the crescent as a boat around a central god, as well as his or the boat's brightening and dimming, could only have been seen if the apparition was visible throughout night and day. And this, in turn, speaks against the crescent having been the reflection of the Earth's sunlit hemisphere. As much as I hate to say it, the only item that seems to fit this particular bill is the reflection of sunlight on a toroid suspended independently somewhere above the northern hemisphere of the rotating Earth. And this would also account for the sun god's north celestial polar station as opposed to a zenithal placement. [*!* Image] The Egyptian "sun-god" sailing up and down the sky in his celestial boat. Contrary to the present Sun, this ancient god was said to dim while sailing up and to brighten while sailing down. To compliment this, in sailing up, the boat was known as the sektet, or evening boat (shown to the left) and, in sailing down, as the atet, or morning boat (shown to the right). 7. The Auroral Ring Now, according to mythological sources, a ring, or band, was seen to encircle the central sun god. This item sent Zysman searching in different directions and it was here that he finally focused his attention on the auroras since, as seen from space, auroras appear as uneven rings of fire surrounding the Earth's magnetic poles. These rings, one at the north, the other at the south, are formed when particles from the Sun enter the funnels of the Earth's magnetosphere where they become temporarily trapped, and energetically excited, by the Van Allen belts. Once excited, these particles are then bounced off the upper atmosphere around the funnels, and it is this restricted bouncing that allows them to maintain a circular form when seen from above. Photographs of the entire ring-like aurora were first taken by the Dynamics Explorer-A satellite, which was equipped with super-reflective mirrors to aid its photographing system, in 1981^(69) -- somewhat before the Russian cosmonauts that Zysman himself mentions.^(70) [*!* Image] The boat of the Egyptian "sun-god", being towed, shown at bottom, with its inverted counterpart shown at the top of the sky. Among other matters, this indicates that the crescent, which gave rise to the mythological "sun-boat", was actually seen to circle around a center, which interpretation is abetted by the Egyptian word usually translated as "sailed" -- i.e. seqet -- which actually means "to go in a circle." (Illustration from the Papyrus of Amen-Hetep, now in the Cairo Museum.) According to Zysman, the auroras would have been much more energetic during the Bronze Age, a claim that seems to be evidenced by the fact that "measurements of the earth's geomagnetic field have shown a significant reduction in strength over the last two hundred years."^(71) If, then, the super-auroral ring of the Bronze Age was also reflected in the mirrored canopy (the concave surface of which would have been above it), it would, according to Zysman, have produced the bright encircling band which litters the mytho-historical records of the ancients.^(72) (Plumb in the center of the reflection of the auroral ring, of course, would have been the reflection of the Earth -- and thus the encircled sun god.) In itself, this postulate is already contrary to the sources for these leave little doubt that the ring and the crescent were one and the same, which is obviously not the case in Zysman's model. Ancient iconography clearly depicts the crescent as the illuminated half of the encircling band.^(73) Thus, for example, the crescent of Sin was known as the Magur-boat, where the cuneiform sign for "gur" means "circular enclosure."^(74) Contrary to this ancient view, Zysman would have the reflection of the entire auroral ring as having been contained within the crescent. But, despite his diagrammatic representations,^(75) unless my own projections are at fault, only a portion of the auroral ring would have been reflected at the zenith in the mirror dome over the latitude of Egypt. What would have been seen, therefore, is a small auroral crescent nestled within the larger terrestrial one, which is not the image Zysman is trying to present. Actually, the entire auroral ring could never have been reflected in anything above for the simple reason that half of it is invisible to the naked eye. This is so because the Earth's sunlit hemisphere, across which the ring arcs, is "a million times brighter than the light from the aurora over the darkened hemisphere" which is why it proved "particularly difficult to capture on film" despite the super-reflective mirrors with which the satellite was equipped.^(76) In fact, the auroral ring shown in the pertinent photographs was only detected at ultraviolet wavelengths.^(77) Granted that Zysman has posited a stronger magnetic field and, therefore, a more energetic aurora during the Bronze Age, the ancient auroras would have had to be more than a million times brighter than they are at present in order for their entire ring structures to have been visible to the naked eye. It would probably have taken a magnetosphere as strong as Jupiter's, calculated to be "thousands of times stronger than Earth's,"^(78) with radiation bands "ten thousand to a million times more intense" than Earth's Van Allen belts.^(79) Could the Earth have held that big a charge? Also, as photographed by the Dynamics Explorer satellite, the auroral ring was found to be crossed by a linear structure that lends it a resemblance to the Greek letter theta.^(80) If, against all odds, the auroral ring could have been reflected in the mirror dome, so would have this linear emission. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the mytho-historical record, to my knowledge, that could be made to account for this feature. 8. The Polar Axis We come, next, to the world pillar without which no "lost universe of the ancients" would be complete. And here Zysman has given free reign to his fertile imagination. It is obvious from his diagrams alone that he went out of his way not so much to match what he himself could reconstruct from the mytho-historical record but, rather, what the so-called Saturnists had already been able to piece together from it. Thus, in his Figure 13 (see the title illustration to this article), he not only duplicates the visual image of a central light atop the world pillar, but also its seven concentric rings, its radiating spokes, and the serpentine bolus flow entwined about the axis. [*!* Image] Top: Archaic Egyptian hieroglyph of the inverted "sun-in-crescent". Bottom: Hieroglyphic character, from the Coffin Texts, showing the inverted boat. (Both enlarged.) Mythologists have come and gone and, while some of them have been able to deduce one aspect or another of the configuration under discussion, not one of them had succeeded in fitting it all together into a coherent whole, a unifying image, until the Saturnists did. Having checked the veracity, or otherwise, of our reconstructed visual image against whatever sources he could lay his hands on, Zysman must have come to the realization that its major visual aspects had to be accounted for under any explanatory scheme. The problem was how to shift it all away from the planetary arrangement that his knowledge of astronomical possibilities would not allow him to embrace. [*!* Image] Stone tablet of Nabu-apal-iadina, from Abu Habbah, 9th cent. B.C. (now in the British Museum), showing the ring, or band, around the archaic "sun." To Zysman, the conundrum of the world pillar was how to connect something-that-was to something-that-wasn't -- i.e., how to connect the Earth's horizon by a visible pillar to a reflection at the zenith. There was nothing on Earth that could have reflected itself as a column in the sky that would have appeared to connect the central sun god to the horizon. He was therefore forced to assume that the world pillar had to have been a physical reality no matter how ethereal in substance. He thus came up with surplus gases escaping from the polar regions extending upward in columnar majesty, entwined by altered earth-bound particles emanating from the Sun.^(81) In effect, then, the world pillar was merely a column of auroral light -- and that is precisely what Zysman calls it.^(82) This pillar, according to him, would have extended so high -- anything up to 8000 kilometers^(83) -- that it would have appeared to reach the zenith "where, depending on the observer's location...the axis would appear to approach or touch the base of the Earth's reflected crescent."^(84) Zysman touched upon this subject at the 1990 Autumn Meeting of the British Society for Interdisciplinary Studies and, according to Jill Abery, he there showed "a slide of a NASA infra-red photo of Earth taken from space, and there, even today, could be seen the funnel or columnar effects over the poles."^(85) This would have been interesting, to say the least, and I later queried Zysman about it.^(86) He replied by phone and, through his associate Frank Wallace, referred me to the article by Raymond Jeanloz which had appeared in the September 1983 issue of Scientific American. Unfortunately there is nothing there which mentions or shows this columnar effect and, when questioned further by phone, Zysman admitted not to know what Abery had been referring to. [*!* Image] The world pillar according to Zysman: Surplus gases escaping from the polar regions extending upward in columnar majesty, entwined by altered earth-bound particles emanating from the Sun. (Illustration by Owen Stratichuck.) I mention this because it is doubtful that such a columnar effect could even be formed. The auroral lights form a ring as seen from outer space because the solar particles bombarding the Earth impinge on the magnetosphere and follow its lines of force which, as we have already mentioned, leave the actual poles electro-magnetically neutral. These two electro-magnetic voids, north and south, known as the cusps, are avoided by energized particles so that no columnar aurora could have materialized at either pole. The column of auroral light that Zysman requires in order to save his model could only have been achieved, if at all, by having the auroral ring itself extend downward as a hollow tubular structure. But if that is what took place, the auroras could not have been able to reflect themselves off the mirror dome as rings and Zysman's model would lose its encircling band of light. What should also be kept in mind is that a column which visually connected the horizon to the zenith would have actually appeared as a bow arcing half way across the sky which, again, is not the image Zysman is trying to recreate. Besides, would not such a column have also been reflected in the mirror dome? And, with the distortion due to the mirror's curvature on what would have basically been a linear structure bent into a bow, what, exactly, would have been reflected in the sky? Of course all of this is neither here nor there because, in truth, a column emanating vertically above either pole could never pass beyond the celestial polar center no matter how far up it could be extended, and thus could never be made to connect with anything at the zenith -- except at the very poles where, as already noted, nothing could have been seen reflected overhead in any case. 9. The Antipodal Underworld Zysman tells us that, besides the reflection at the zenith, an observer on Earth would also have been able to turn "his eyes to the horizon" where "the curved mirror of ice crystals" would have allowed him "to peer into the underworld." This underworld, which was the opposite terrestrial hemisphere, would have been seen "by any citizen of the Lost Universe each clear evening, if he looked directly ahead at any point on the horizon."^(87) More than that, reflected there, this citizen would also have been able to see the southern aurora which, in Zysman's model, is made to play the part of the South Star mentioned in the mytho-historical record.^(88) This is a most confusing idea. If the southern aurora could have been seen reflected "at any point on the horizon," it would mean that if the observer were to rotate on his feet, the image would follow his eyes right around the horizon. Why, then, is the South Star not described as having circled around the sky? Why, instead, is it made to rise periodically up the sky to check on the North Star?^(89) And how can Zysman's image account for that momentous event in which the South Star replaced its northern counterpart?^(90) He cannot here invoke a terrestrial inversion because, whether the mirror dome would have inverted itself with the Earth or not, the reflected images definitely would have, so that no change of north with south would have been apparent to a terrestrial observer. Worse than that, if both the northern and southern polar regions were reflected in the mirror dome, why not regions in between? Why not a multiplicity of globular and ringed reflections? If every point on the curved surface was a reflective focus, why not an overlapping of such images? In fact, why not an encompassing and distorted disarray of lights? 10. In Conclusion Whether inadvertently or not, Zysman is often guilty of presenting what is dictated by his model as facts and then using these "facts" to undermine the models proposed by others. Thus, in one place, he states: "That the ancients worshipped a primal polar sun is not debated by scholars, but what is not so obvious is the peculiar habits of this midnight, celestial light...in not always being, as Talbott and others claim, permanently on station. It not only disappeared for months at a time, but had a temporary home in the dim nether regions."^(91) But, other than the fact that his model calls for such behavior, nowhere does he tell us on what this monthly disappearance is based. He does not supply us with an ancient source that could uphold his view. That, "at the end of world ages [this sun] disappeared altogether,"^(92) meanwhile, is not adverse to Talbott's view,^(93) as Zysman would have his readers believe. That there were times when there was "nothing in the glowing frame [or band of light]"^(94) has never been disavowed by Talbott. Again, Zysman tells us that the Egyptians frequently used the Cosmic Egg as a symbol of the aurora.^(95) But, as before, this is merely dictated by his model for nowhere is this stated, or even intimated, in ancient sources. So, also, when he tells us that "the Pawnee had resigned themselves to the disappearance of the northern aurora,"^(96) he is really putting his own words -- his own ideas -- into their collective mouth. [*!* Image] The Egyptian Ptah, fashioning the cosmic egg which, according to Zysman, symbolized the auroral oval. There is, however, nothing in Egyptian mythology which even hints at such an interpretation. Nor is it enough for Zysman to claim that, because the ancients could not have understood the nature of an aurora, they would have referred to it by a different term because (a) he has not proven this and (b) the ancients themselves identified their primordial sun god as a planetary body. True enough, as we have seen, in Zysman's scheme, this super aurora combined itself with other celestial reflections into a glorious zenithal sun. But what would have made later generations confuse this scintillating sun with a planet -- and a particular one at that -- if the planets, as per Zysman's scenario, had always appeared as mere pin-points of light in the night sky? In tangling with the mystery of the South Star, Zysman ran into a problem he could only solve by completely ignoring -- or in ignorance of -- the very mytho-historical record on which his model is supposed to be based. As he himself stated: "The problem of the South Star marked the beginnings of my work on Unraveling Genesis. I was preparing an article on Velikovsky's use of references to the Pawnee, when the editor [who, incidentally, was myself] challenged me on the identity of the South Star. After some head-scratching, I had to admit...that its identity was unknown."^(97) [*!* Image] Muslim representation of the Persian planet Jupiter which, in earlier times, was matched with the constellation Vanand, known as "the chieftain of the south." It might have been unknown to the Pawnee, perhaps, who probably lost track of the South Star once this body ceased to dominate the sky, but other nations, who were more astronomically oriented, seem to have kept track of it and could later identify it for those who had never seen it in its previous prominence. This can be stated with a certain amount of certainty because the nations of whom I speak recorded the identity of the South Star in writings that are still extant. Thus, for instance, in the Persian Bundahish it is stated how the "seven chieftains of the planets have come unto the seven chieftains of the constellations" where the planet Jupiter is matched with the constellation which the ancient Persians called Vanand.^(98) Elsewhere in the same work, Vanand is described as "the chieftain of the south,"^(99) which makes Jupiter the planet of the south. In Hindu astro-mythology, Brihaspati, which is the Sanskrit name for the planet Jupiter,^(100) is also linked "with the fire of the south."^(101) In Egyptian astronomy, the southern stars were held sacred to Horus^(102) who, as Heru-Up-Shetau^(103) or Heru-pe-sheta [He-ru-ap-sheta and/or Heru-ap-sheta-taui], was one of the names for the planet Jupiter.^(104) In fact, among other things, Horus was known as the "southern sun god."^(105) Better still, the planet Jupiter itself was known simply as the "Southern Star"^(106) and/or the "Star of the South."^(107) Of course, Zysman and others may claim that this does not make astronomical sense, but that is not really the point, now, is it? What is at issue here is the reconstruction of a primeval cosmology that is supposed to be based on the mytho-historical record -- and, let's face it, there is nothing else on which to base it. What, then, should one do with these seemingly absurd glimpses into ancient cosmology that refuse to fit the present astronomical scheme? It is obvious that we will have to fit them into a different one. Isn't that, after all, what the reconstruction of ancient cosmology is all about? Had what the ancients told us about their cosmos to fit the current astronomical scheme, none of us would be trying to reconstruct ancient cosmology. What must not be lost track of, however, is that it was the mytho-historical record itself which, in the first place, made us aware of an ancient cosmology that was different from ours. Now if, in the reconstruction of this cosmology, we were to ignore what the mytho-historical record itself dictates, we would have kicked the foundation from beneath the model we are trying to reconstruct. That being the case, we might as well forget about the mytho-historical record and reconstruct whatever suits our fancy. Zysman's model, of course, is far too complex to be evaluated in its entirety in such a short paper as this. I believe, however, to have touched on its major aspects and, for the time being, at least, these should suffice. At bottom, however, I can say this: all reconstructions of ancient cosmology must eventually rest on the mytho-historical record. Zysman's does not rest quite so squarely on it. In fact, he has only been able to reconstruct his model by disregarding vast portions of that record. Moreover, his model cannot be made to account for some of the most momentous events narrated by the record. It does not account for the prolonged age of darkness prior to the sun god's first appearance^(108) or the primeval waters on which the Cosmic Egg was laid. His auroral Egg does not account for its hatching, or breaking; or the fact that all of creation was said to have tumbled from it.^(109) [*!* Image] Heru-ap-sheta-taui: The Egyptian representation of the planet Jupiter as Star of the South. As we have seen, his model cannot account for the South Star's "visit" to the North Star. It does not account for the visual expulsion of the Morning Star from the body of the sun god.^(110) It does not account for the periodic bloating and/or reduction in size of the war god.^(111) And it does not account for a host of other visual effects dictated by myth which we have not here had time to get into. As naive as it may sound, a legitimate model of the "lost universe of the ancients" should be able to account for all of the major elements contained in the mytho-historical record. And that, I have to say, Zysman's model does not do. References 1. W. Whiston, New Theory of the Earth (1696), in toto. 2. V. Clube & B. Napier, The Cosmic Serpent (London, 1982), in toto; idem, The Cosmic Winter (Oxford, 1990), in toto. 3. I. Donnelly, Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel (1883), reprinted as The Destruction of Atlantis (N.Y., 1971), in toto; I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (N.Y., 1950), in toto. 4. I. N. Vail, The Waters Above the Firmament (1886), in toto. 5. Back issues & special publications can still be obtained from Stonehenge Viewpoint, 2821 De La Vina St., Santa Barbara, California 93101, U.S.A. 6. M. Zysman, "Saturn Myth -- A Challenge to the Planetary Hypothesis," KATAKLYSMOS (May 19, 1987) -- (henceforth Zysman: 87) -- p. 9. 7. Ibid., p. 8. 8. Idem, "Let There Be Lights," Catastrophism 2000 (Toronto, 1990) -- (henceforth Cat: 2000) -- p. 159. 9. W. K. Hartmann, Moons and Planets (Belmont, 1973), p. 121. 10. O. Reichenbach, On Some of the Remarkable Features in the Evolution of the Earth (London, 1884), p. 9. 11. H. S. Bellamy, Moons, Myths and Man (London, 1949), pp. 52, 64. 12. D. W. Patten, et al., The Long Day of Joshua and Six Other Catastrophes (Seattle, 1973), p. 91. 13. C. McDowell, "Velikovsky and Christian Catastrophists," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (December 1973), pp. 141-142. 14. D. Talbott, "On Testing the Polar Configuration," AEON I:2 (February 1988), p.123. 15. J. A. O'Keefe, "The Terminal Eocene Event: Formation of a Ring System Around the Earth," Nature (285), pp. 309-311. 16. V. Clube & B. Napier, The Cosmic Serpent (London, 1982), p.113. 17. L. Motz, "Earth: Final Chapters," Science Digest (August 1981), p. 84. 18. Ibid., p. 82. 19. W. K. Hartmann, "Birth of the Moon," Natural History (November, 1989), p. 75. 20. Anonymous, "Nuova teoria americana sull'origine della Luna," Corriere del Ticino (October 23, 1985). 21. New Scientist (September 30, 1989), p. 30. 22. F. F. Hall, "Solar System Studies," Part 2, AEON I:4 (July 1988), p. 22. 23. M. Zysman, synopsis of Unraveling Genesis (privately circulated, 1988) -- (henceforth Zysman 1988) -- thesis 1:4:2. 24. See, for instance, the diagrammatic clarification of this mechanism in O. E. Allen, Atmosphere (Alexandria, Virginia, 1983), pp. 64-65. 25. Ibid., p. 39. 26. Rainbows actually form complete rings. It is only to the Earth-bound observer that rainbows appear as gigantic arcs since the Earth itself blocks the rest of the ring from view. 27. See, for instance, A. Constance, The Inexplicable Sky (London, 1956), pp. 155 ff., for some wonderfully weird mirages. 28. T. Smith & J. Valasek, "Optics," Encyclopaedia Britannica (1959 ed.), Vol. 16, p. 820. 29. Zysman: 87, p. 8. 30. Cat: 2000, p. 149. 31. Ibid., p. 151. 32. Pyramid Texts: 1016. 33. E. A. W. Budge, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Vol. 1 (N.Y., 1920/1978), p. 163. 34. D. N. Talbott, The Saturn Myth (N.Y., 1980), pp. 152-155. 35. W.F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (N.Y., 1968), p. 232. 36. R. H. Allen, Star Names and their Meanings (N.Y., 1936), p. 20 37. Webster's Twentieth-Century Dictionary of the English Language (N.Y., 1939), p. 401. 38. Ibid. 39. Bundahish II:5-8. 40. Ibid., V:1-2. 41. M. Jastrow Jr., "Sun and Saturn," Revue D'Assyriologie et D'Archeologie Orientale (Paris, Sept. 1910), p. 163. 42. Linga Purana I:62:1 ff. 43. For Vishnu as Saturn see, D. Cardona, "Child of Saturn, " Part II, KRONOS VII:2 (Winter 1982), pp. 29 ff.; idem, "Vishnu Born of Shiva," KRONOS VII:3 (Spring 1982), pp. 15-18. 44. Linga Purana I:62:36 (emphasis added). 45. V. S. Apte, The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary (Delhi, 1975), p. 531. 46. Ibid., p. 6. 47. Ibid. (Delhi, 1965), p. 531. 48. Ibid. 49. For Shiva as Saturn see, D. Cardona, "Child of Saturn," Part II, KRONOS VII:2 (Winter 1982), pp. 29 ff. 50. Ibid., pp. 32-36; idem, "Let There Be Light," KRONOS III:3 (Spring 1978), pp. 42-43. 51. V. S. Apte, op. cit., p. 707. 52. Ibid., p. 531; Shiva Purana IX:19:8. 53. D. Cardona, "Child of Saturn," Part II, KRONOS VII:2 (Winter 1982), pp. 36-37. 54. Rig Veda III:7:4 where, in English translation, "Dhruva" is usually rendered by its meaning of "firm." 55. G. Schlegel, Uranographie Chinoise (Leyden, 1875), p. 525. (NOTE: Because of the technical complexities of this work, the relevant sections were translated privately for the author by Birgit Leisching and Gayle Chin.) 56. Ibid., p. 507. 57. Ibid., p. 630. 58. Cat: 2000, p. 143. 59. Zysman: 87, p. 8. 60. Cat: 2000, figs. 1, 14, 15 & 17, following p. 175. (NOTE: The work contains two pages numbered 175. The reference is to the first one.) 61. Ibid. (NOTE: This reference is to the second page numbered 175.) 62. See for instance, D. Talbott, "The Ship of Heaven," AEON I:3 (May 1988), pp. 83 ff. 63. Zysman: 87, p. 8. 64. D. Talbott, op. cit., p. 69. 65. Idem, The Saturn Myth (N.Y., 1980), p. 272. 66. Ibid.; Idem, "The Ship of Heaven ," see above, pp. 57 ff. 67. Ibid., pp. 85-86. 68. Verbally, at his premises in Toronto, November 10, 1991. 69. O. E. Allen, op. cit., p. 60. 70. Zysman: 87, p. 9. 71. Ibid. 72. Ibid. 73. D. N. Talbott, The Saturn Myth (N.Y., 1980), pp. 229 ff. 74. Idem, "The Ship of Heaven," AEON I:3 (May 1988), p. 63. 75. Cat: 2000. Fig. 11, following the first page 175. 76. Anonymous, "First Photos of Entire Northern Lights Taken From Space," GEO (March 1982), p. 119. 77. R. Jeanloz, "The Earth's Core," Scientific American (September 1983), p. 56. 78. E. Ferington, The Far Planets (Alexandria, Virginia, 1990), p. 76. 79. Ibid., p. 56. 80. R. Jeanloz, op. cit., pp. 56, 57. 81. Cat: 2000, p. 178. 82. Ibid., p. 179. 83. Ibid. 84. Ibid., p. 182. 85. J. Abery, "1990 Autumn Meeting," C & C Workshop (1991:1), p. 1. 86. D. Cardona to M. B. Zysman, November 22, 1991, private communiqué. 87. Cat: 2000, pp. 156-157 (emphasis added). 88. Ibid., p. 164. 89. G. A. Dorsey, Myth of the Pawnee (unpublished but available at the Field Museum of Natural History, Department of Anthropology, Chicago, 1922), pp. 134-137. 90. Ibid. 91. Cat: 2000, p. 152. 92. Ibid. 93. See, for instance, D. N. Talbott, Saturn: Universal Monarch and Dying God, 1977 special publication of the Research Communications Network, p. 9. 94. Cat: 2000, p. 154. 95. Ibid., p. 161. 96. Ibid., p. 163. 97. Ibid., p. 165. 98. Bundahish 5:1. 99. Ibid., 2:7. 100. W. D. O'Flaherty, Hindu Myths (Harmondsworth, 1976), p. 341. 101. P. Masson-Oursel & L. Morin, "Indian Mythology," New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology (London, 1972), p. 333. 102. R. H. Allen, Star Names and their Meanings (N.Y., 1936), p. 20. 103. W. M. Müller, Egyptian Mythology (1918), pp. 54-55. 104. E. A. W. Budge, The Gods of the Egyptians, Vol. II (N.Y., 1904/69), p. 302. 105. R. H. Allen, loc. cit. 106. W. M. Müller, loc. cit. 107. E. A. W. Budge, loc. cit. 108. D. Cardona, "The Road to Saturn," Part II, AEON I:3 (May 1988), pp. 111-113, 121-124; idem, "Darkness and the Deep," AEON III:3 (October 1993), pp. 49 ff. 109. Idem, "Let There Be Light," KRONOS III:3 (Spring 1978), pp. 35-39; idem, "The Evolution of the Cosmogonic Egg," AEON III:5 (May 1994), pp. 52 ff. 110. E. Cochrane, "On Comets and Kings," AEON II:1 (June 1989), pp. 63-75; idem, "The Birth of Athena," AEON II:3 (January 1991), pp. 19-20. 111. Idem, "Indra: A Case Study in Comparative Mythology," AEON II:4 (May 1991), pp. 65-66, and elsewhere in various other papers by the same author. _________________________________________________________________ \cdrom\pubs\journals\aeon\vol0404\013canpy.htm