mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Intimations of an Alien Sky

Copyright Dwardu Cardona

(1) The Mother of Astrology

Not so long ago, in an attempt to delineate certain basic rules that
should be followed in the reconstruction of cosmic history, I had reason
to claim that, in its cosmic interpretation, the mythological record "is
backed by the astronomical lore that was current at the time." While not
meant to be exhaustive, a compendium of this ancient astronomical lore
will now be discussed. But first, a few clarifications are in order.

As I had previously stated in an even earlier paper, our primitive
forefathers had no science capable of explaining the mysterious portents
they saw suspended in the sky above them, much less the transfigurations
these bodies were seen to undergo. All they had at their disposal was
fear, reverence, and awe.

Understanding best through analogy, our progenitors, much like
still-existing primitive cultures, compared what they did not know to what
they knew. Seen at close quarters, the heavenly bodies looked like nothing
on Earth. But because they moved and seemed to propagate, because they
moved and interacted with one another, because they seemed to change, to
age, and even to die, primitive man endowed them with life and could best
compare them to the living things he saw around him, and this included
himself.

As I have indicated in earlier works, the anthropomorphism of the heavenly
bodies was nurtured despite the realization that these spheres could have
been anything but human. To our ancient progenitors, these celestial
lights were mysterious beings who followed a law unto themselves. Totally
impervious to man's needs or desires, they were, in more than one respect,
absolutely supreme.

Requiring a generic, these mysterious celestial beings eventually became
known as gods which, in whatever language or dialect thereof, was at first
an indistinctive term employed to describe the undescribable. It is as
such that we must understand primitive man's first concept of the planets.

Because, in that far gone time, the planets did not always appear serene,
our ancestors must have soon fell prone to fearing them. And because there
were times when planetary malignity resulted in havoc, these primitive
societies did not take long to realize that they lived their life
completely at their mercy. Since they could not hinder, let alone harm,
the planets, these early peoples could not understand why they were being
chastised. But the idea soon took root that planetary displeasure might be
directed toward the wrongs they inflicted upon each other, upon nature,
or, perhaps, even against some unuttered taboo they could not quite
comprehend. The concept of sin must have had its first stirrings in those
days.

The human being is an egocentric animal. As such he must have found it
difficult to accept that he had absolutely no control over the despotic
nature of the planets. Thinking that, perhaps, the gods might be
responsive to flattery, entire societies sought to appease them by mimicry
and sycophancy through which ritual was eventually born. And, as they
doubtless did when faced with human belligerency, they learned to subject
themselves to prostration and entreaty, which actions were to lead to the
inauguration of prayer and sacrifice.

Never knowing what the gods would do next, these primitive societies must
have also sought to outguess them. In time, they would have learned to
foretell at least some of the gods' attitudes and intentions by noting the
changes in their appearances and positions. It is this attempted
divination that was the mother of astrology.

(2) Daughters of Etiology

Nothing I have stated above is to be considered sacrosanct. At best, what
I have presented is an oversimplified version of what might possibly, even
probably, have occurred over a long period of time during which man would
have learned to cope with his cosmically influenced environment as best he
could. To be sure, the primitive societies of whom we spoke had not yet
learned to commit their thoughts in writing so that a certain amount of
conjecture must necessarily infuse any attempt to understand the impact
which the planets at close quarters must have had on ancient man. Even so,
the above scenario is considered a reasonably logical one and is partly
based on what is known of the nature of those societies who continued to
exist in their primitiveness down into modern times.

The scenario is also based on what we have been able to learn from those
times which came later when man did finally learn to record his thoughts
in writing. And, in fact, it is from the writings of these later periods
that we have been able to ascertain that primitive man must have been
cognizant of the planets at close quarters. as well as how these planets
had interacted with each other and the Earth. Of eye-witness reports from
those primeval ages we have none, let this be stated and understood.

What we do have at our disposal is a universal fossilized memory of cosmic
events which, other than in mild echoes of things past, had already
terminated with the advent of extant written records. Of this there is no
doubt because, at this time, man was already describing how the old
celestial order had come to a catastrophic end. And this, also, must be
understood.

This fossilized memory is what constitutes the mytho-historical record,
the end result of rituals, litanies, prayers, tales, and moralities,
memorized by rote and formula, which had been handed down by word of mouth
through the ages by priests and shamans, poets and bards.

Man is truly an adaptive creature but, like most other animals, he feels
most secure in the rut to which he becomes accustomed. While he is capable
of rising to the occasion when challenged with environmental change, such
occasions have never kept him from looking back with nostalgia. Bereft of
his gods, which by this time had removed themselves to the blackness of
space to become mere pin-points of light in the night sky, man found
himself at a spiritual loss. The divine bounty of what had been the Golden
Age was now also lost and his new environment, bewildering in its stark
novelty, was seen as more cruel than the preceding one. Rather than
feeling relieved for having been removed out of harm's way, man found
himself longing for the gods to return.

The rituals, the prayers, festivals, and sacrifices, of course, continued,
as they continue to this day, and the glorious, it at times calamitous,
events of ages past were retold and embellished as the years rolled by.
Man lauded his gods not as they were but as they once had been.

The end of the old celestial order was not, therefore, the end of
planetary divination. The gods were still there, visible, acting out their
now subdued drama in the sky. Man kept his vigil of them, observing their
new motions, ever hoping to detect some intimation of their eventual
return. Even planetary retribution was not yet thought to have dissipated
for calamities continued to take place and, having long blamed his gods
for their occurrence, man still believed them responsible for his
tribulations and discomfort.

The studious observation of the planets was thus perpetuated in a
continuous and contemplative effort to foretell, and thus forestall,
approaching disasters. As time went by the catalogue of these disasters
expanded, progressing from such major crises as earthquakes, famines,
wars, and the death of kings to such minor afflictions as personal
illness, bad fortune, and unrequited love, not to mention such mundane
trials as family squabbles and lost sheep.

Now it has often been stated that astronomy is the daughter of astrology
but the truth is that both these disciplines were born as Siamese twins of
etiology. This is a natural outcome because astrological predictions could
not have been formulated in the absence of astronomical observations. Nor
must it be assumed, as it has often been, that these ancient predictions
were always entirely spurious. In fact, astral prognostication was based
on what had actually transpired in more ancient times by utilizing what
was remembered of past events as projections for future ones. This can be
ascertained from a study of Assyro-Babylonian astrology which, as we shall
soon see, relied on astronomical terms, ideas, and images that can only be
traced to the previous celestial order.

(3) The Planetary Deities

One often encounters the statement that the ancients deified the planets,
a statement that, because of its handiness, I have even employed myself.
Strictly speaking this is incorrect. The ancients had no need to deify the
planets because, to them, the planets had always been deities. They were,
to be sure, the only deities they knew, and this despite the fact that
thousands of deities are known from some of the earliest cultures. As
Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend realized:

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 others. 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.

The above should make it evident that, originally, there was no
differentiation between the names of planets and the names of gods since
both were one and the same. For that reason it becomes somewhat difficult
to discuss ancient astronomical lore without also discussing the ancient
deities. But while, in Egypt, astronomy was not divorced from religion
until the advent of the Greeks under the Ptolemies, other centers of
civilization began to diversify much earlier when a new breed of
intellectuals sought to devote their time to the study of the planets
without recourse to theology.

To be sure, the planets were not stripped of their divine character but,
with the sophistication of mathematics, astronomical observation became
more of a science in the modern sense. And, perhaps in order to keep their
astral studies isolated from the higher realm of theology, these novel
astronomers bestowed a set of new names on the planets, often chosen to
reflect the same ancient characteristics without succumbing to divine
nomenclature.

The identity of the gods with whatever planet was never lost but, as time
went by, the independence acquired by astronomy came close to alienating
it completely from religion. That this alienation was never quite realized
was mainly due to the theologians (priests and shamans) whose invested
interests assured the preservation of the ancient links.

It is only among the later Greeks, or their immediate ancestors, that the
planet's identity came near to being forgotten, a situation that was much
worsened by the new style of poetry that came into vogue with the likes of
Hesiod and Homer who were, perhaps, more guilty of humanizing the ancient
deities than anyone else who had gone before them. It was this state of
affairs that occasioned Aristotle to re-affirm the belief that the planets
had once been gods. As he wrote:

A tradition has been handed down by the ancient thinkers of very early
times to the effect that these heavenly bodies are gods. The rest of their
tradition has been added later in a mythological form to influence the
vulgarI

Translators and other commentators of Aristotle have since attempted to
fault him on this issue since, as they have pointed out, the gods are not
identified as planets in the earliest extant Greek sources. Thus, M.
Tredennick, who translated Aristotle for the Loeb Classical Library,
appended a footnote to the above passage which, in part, reads:

This statement [of Aristotle] is not literally true. The planets do not
seem to have been associated with the gods of popular mythology until the
4th century B.C.

Tredennick then referred his readers to John Burnet, an earlier authority
on the subject, who had written:

In classical Greek literature no planets but Hesperos [Venus as Evening
Star] & Eosphoros [Venus as Morning Star] are mentioned by name at
allIMercury appears for the first time by name [as Hermes] in [Plato's]
Timaeus 38e, and other divine names are given [also by Plato] in Epinomis
987b sq., where they are said to be 'Syrian.' The Greek names Phaenon
[Saturn], Phaethon [Jupiter], Pyroeis [Mars], Phosphorus [another
designation for Venus as Morning Star] & Stilbon [Mercury] are no doubt
older, though they do not happen to occur earlier.

So, also, W.D. Ross, another modern translator of Aristotle who appended a
similar disclaimer to the original passage quoted earlier.

What these authorities, and other since then, have failed to take into
consideration is that there was no reason in very ancient and pre-Greek
times to spell out the identity of gods and planets since this had been
common knowledge and taken for granted.

That this knowledge, as per Aristotle, has later to be re-affirmed was due
to a multitude of factors, not the least of which was the "forgetting" of
cosmic history by the Greek nation. When Solon visited Egypt, he was
unreservedly informed that "neither he nor any other Hellene knew anything
worth mentioning about times of old." He was told that "there is no old
opinion handed down among [the Greeks] by ancient tradition, nor any
science which is hoary with age." The Greeks, according to the Egyptian
sages, knew "nothing of what happened in ancient times."

Aristotle has no reason to invent the equation of planets with gods.
Having once been forgotten by his immediate, but not earlier, ancestors,
he simply rediscovered this verity and sought to reaffirm it. Besides, he
was not the only Greek to offer the assertion. Lucian of Samosata also
knew this truth. And Plato, who recognized it on his own, had it verified
by the Egyptians.

The Romans, who borrowed many of their deities from the Greeks, were no
different. Is it not, in fact, to them that we owe the present names of
the planets in the western world so that to this day they continue to bear
the names of the gods?

The synonymity of planets with gods was so entrenched among the Romans
that Cicero denied the possibility of planetary orbital changes simply
because he believed such changes to be contrary to the planets' divine
nature. The irony is that these very orbital changes were among the major
characteristics that made ancient man think of the planets as gods.

(4) The Most Prominent of the Planets

Among the Babylonians, texts that deal strictly with astronomical, as
opposed to astrological, observations do not seem to have made their
appearance until about the middle of the seventh century B.C. during the
reign of Nabonassar. It is from about this time, down to the turn of the
millennium, that we have in our possession a collection of cuneiform
tablets to which A. Sachs has applied the term "astronomical diaries."

These diaries record such phenomena as the length of the lunar months,
based on the phases of the Moon; lunar and solar eclipses; the dates of
first visibility for Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn; the first and last
visibilities of the inner planets, Venus and Mercury; the dates of the
occurrences of the equinoxes and solstices; the dates of the significant
appearances of Sirius; and the "conjunction" of the Moon and each of the
visible planets with various stars. Meteorological phenomena during the
rainy seasons are also recorded, with diverse cloud and storm conditions.
To all of this one finds appended the changes in the level (rise or fall)
of the river at Babylon often followed "by a report of secular events or
rumours of such events." Finally, the amount of produce (barley, dates,
etc.) that could be purchased for one shekel of silver during any one
month is also listed. The technical data, measurements, calculations,
given in cubits and degrees, are evidence of a sophisticated attempt at
reconciling once mysterious motions with numerical allocation, while the
glosses concerning obstruction of visibility by bad weather are indicative
of diligent observation.

There is nothing spurious about these astronomical diaries, nothing
magical, mythological, or even faintly oracular. They are a mere record of
the night by nigh occurrences concerning the heavenly bodies, hence the
term "diaries", month by month, throughout the year. Were it not for the
historical events that they also report, they would probably have incited
less interest among scholars. Astronomically, they are nothing but a
catalogue of the same boring celestial events that we see enacted in the
sky above us to this day. But they are accurate, so that modern student of
astronomy would not have been embarrassed had he or she been the author of
the diaries. As Sachs observed: "Some of [the astronomical phenomena
recorded in them] are precisely those that are predicted by the
mathematical astronomical cuneiform texts of the Hellenistic period."

During Seleucid times, when Babylonia was ruled by the Hellenistic dynasty
founded by Seleucus I after the death of Alexander, a period which is
calculated to have lasted from 312 to 64 B.C., lunar and planetary theory
had developed along Greek classical lines. Abstract numerical tables, or
ephemerides, representing the motions of the heavenly bodies, were much in
vogue at the time. These continued to record the recurrence of
astronomical phenomena, year by year, "with an accuracy comparable with
that of contemporary observations."

There is no great wonder in all of this, but it does prove one point,
banal as it may seem, that shall be stressed time and again in the pages
that follow, and that is this: Beginning from at least the middle of the
seventh century B.C., Babylonian astronomers knew very well what these pin
points of light called planets looked like and could easily distinguish
one from the other; they knew where every planet belonged in the sky and
what track each one of them invariably followed, an easy matter for anyone
with a keen eye-sight plus the patience and the motivation to learn. Yes,
I know, it is hardly even worth mentioning.

And yet, Diodorus Siculus, who lived in the first century B.C., had reason
to report that the Chaldeans regarded Saturn as the most prominent of the
planets:

But above all in importance, they [the Chaldeans] say, is the study of the
influence of the five stars known as planets "the one named Cronus by the
Greeks [i.e., Saturn] is the most conspicuous."

As viewed from Earth, this is simply not so. Venus is much more prominent.
It is easily the brightest of the planets, bright enough at night to cast
shadows and, when meteorological conditions permit, bright enough to be
seen during the day. In contradistinction, Saturn is a very difficult
object to observe. Even Bob Forrest, one of the strongest opponents of
cosmic catastrophism, was moved to display his bewilderment when he
stated:

The only puzzling thing about this passage [of Diodorus] is the way Saturn
is said to be the most conspicuous of the planets. All else is fairly
routine.

As we shall see, this statement is not the "only puzzling thing" in this
passage of Diodorus; nor is all else in it "fairly routine." But one thing
at a time.

The term "Chaldean," meanwhile, has long been misunderstood and misapplied
by ancient historians and moderns alike. As used by Diodorus and other
classical authors, the term simply mean "astrologers" and/or
"astronomers," but always in relation to the Babylonians. These, then,
were the same Babylonians whose astronomical achievements we have
enumerated above. But how, then, with all of their sophisticated knowledge
of the heavens, could they have committed such an error? Or, if an error
it was not, why would they have perpetuated such a falsity?

Of course, one could also ask: Why take the word of Diodorus, a Greek
historian, who could easily have been mistaken on matters Babylonian? But
was Diodorus the only writer of antiquity who ever reported this strange
belief concerning the planet Saturn? And, in fact, were the Babylonians
the only ones who asserted this oddity?

To give but one other example, and later we shall give others, we note
here one of the Sanskrit names of the planet Saturn, that is Grahanayakah.
This name is composed of the words "graha(h)", "planet", and "nayakah",
"chief or leader." Thus, according to this name, Saturn is, or at least
was, considered the leader of the planets, in fact, the chief planet.

As we shall soon see, this belief was widespread among the ancient nations
and, regardless of what modern astronomers may care to think, it is
difficult to believe that such a persistent assertion could have been the
result of mere fancy. But if the astronomers of the time could see, as
they must have, that Saturn was not the most prominent, or conspicuous, of
the planets, on what was the belief based?

(5) The Star of the Sun

What follows is not, of itself, new. The data has been presented before,
both by myself and those few others who have been captivated by the
fascination of the Saturnian phenomenon. But here, if nothing else, the
data, while not all of it, will be collected in one place, thus
emphasizing the evidential strength in its collective abundance. The dat
will also be presented, perhaps for the first time, in more detail than
the cursory mentions hitherto allotted to it.

As promised at the beginning of this essay, the emphasis will be on the
astronomical, as opposed to the mythological, lore of the ancient nations.
In view of the ancient synonymity of planets and gods, however, a certain
amount of overlapping between these two disciplines is virtually
unavoidable. Even so, in dealing with the gods, it will be their celestial
characteristics that will be singled out and not the thematic epics in
which they were involved. This, of course, is not to say that the epics
are not themselves symbolic of astronomical events, but these events very
often need deciphering before their cosmological nature can be understood.

This brings me to the second reason behind the following collection of
data, and that is to stem the criticism of those detractors who have been
accusing us of interpreting the myths to suit our needs, if not our
preconceived notions, or of having been assessing these myths through
modern perspective when we should be trying to understand them in terms of
ancient perception. As will be readily seen, the data about to be
presented do not require interpretation. The sources that will be cited
are, for the most part, void of ambiguity. They can be taken at face value
without the need to read between the lines.

Personally, I can honestly say that these ancient astronomical oddities,
the likes of which follow, are what, after years of resistance, finally
convinced me of the validity of the model that me research inexorably
forced upon me. This evidence was driven home when I finally came to
realize that the message of the mytho-historical record is complimented by
ancient astronomical lore. These two disciplines are firmly welded and,
while each can be pursued independently of the other, in the end they both
reflect the same beliefs, the same events, and, yes, even the same truths.

The above can in fact be illustrated by the simple data already presented,
for while we have seen that the Saturnian orb was believed to have been
the most prominent of the planets, so also can it be shown, as elsewhere
it already has, that the Saturnian deity was once the most prominent of
the gods. It is for this reason that we find him heading the pantheons of
every ancient nation as, unknown by his very adherents, we continue to
find him heading that of the great religions of the modern world.

What was it, however, that made the Babylonians allude to Saturn as the
most prominent of the planets, prominent enough for them to refer to it,
inter alia, as En-Me Sarra, that is "Lord of the law of the Universe"? One
must admit, that is quite a lofty title to bestow on what appears to be a
mere pin-point of light in the present night sky.

The clue to Saturn's prominence, even loftiness, was supplied by Diodorus
i the very same passage we have already partly quoted. There this writer
continues to report that "the [planet] named Cronus [i.e. Saturn] by the
GreeksIthey [the Chaldeans] call the star of Helios."

It is somewhat odd that Forrest did not find this statement as "puzzling"
as the one which proclaims Saturn to be the most prominent of the planets.
Odder still is that he relegated it to the unimportance of "fairly
routine" reporting because, to the Greeks of Diodorus' time, Helios was
the sun. From it are derived such sun-oriented English words as
"heliacal," "heliocentric," and "heliograph." Why would the Babylonians
have referred to the planet Saturn as the star of the Sun?

But what of the Babylonians themselves? Do we not hear from them directly?
With so many cuneiform tablets having been lost through the vagaries of
nature and the hand of man, and with so many undeciphered others falling
apart in museum basements, it would not have been remarkable had this
datum not survived in the original. But it has, and in more than one text.

R.C. Thompson might have been the first to discover, even if not entirely
understand, this Babylonian verity. Thus, another Babylonian name for the
planet Saturn was (Mul) Lu-Bat Sag-Us and we find it stated in an
astrological report from that nation that "(Mul) Lu-Bat Sag-Us (il) Samas
Su-u," which Thompson translated as "[the planet] Saturn is the star of
the sun."

Actually, Diodorus should have known that this belief was already common
among the scholars of his own nation. Eratosthenes of Alexandria, who
thrived somewhere between 276 and 194 B.C., and whose astronomical,
mathematical, and geographical knowledge enabled him to measure the
circumference of the Earth, identified the planet Saturn as the star of
the Sun, as so did several other Greek writers. Among the Greeks, this
belief continued down to the 6th century A.D. as is known through the
neo-platonic philosopher Simplicus who also called Saturn the star of the
Sun.

Whether they obtained this particular information from the Greeks or not,
we find that the Romans were of a similar mind. In his enumeration of the
planets, the Latin writer Gaius Iulius Hyginus who, as the superintendent
of the Palatine Library, must have had access to much older material,
referred to the planet in question as the star of Sol. As just about any
dictionary will verify, Sol was not only the Roman Sun personified, it
was, as it still is, the very Latin word for "sun." From it are derived
such English words as "solar," "solarium," and "solstice." The scholiast
on Germanicus also lists Saturn as Stella Solis, Star of the Sun, a name
which apparently was a common designation for the planet in Roman times.

But whence the belief? Better still, what does the designation "star of
the Sun" really mean? To what does it allude?

A telling clue comes from Sanskrit. In this language, Surya is the common
name for the Sun. Suryaputrah, which means "son of the Sun," is however
one of the names for the planet Saturn. Another Sanskrit name for the Sun
is Ravi and, again, we find the planet Saturn designated as Raviputra
which also means "son of the Sun." As the son of the Sun, Saturn could be
termed the star of the Sun. But this only raises another question. Why
would Saturn, among the planets, have been thought of as the son of the
Sun?

Let us go one step further. Yet another Sanskrit name for the planet
Saturn is Saurah. But "saurah" also means "solar day" and/or "solar
month." This seems to indicated that the connection between Saturn and the
Sun was more intimate than we have so far deduced. In fact, this last
datum is enough to make one believe that, at least to the Hindus, Saturn
and the Sun were close to being synonymous.

(6) The Sun as Saturn

A common entry in a collection of astrological reports from Nineveh and
Babylon which, in variant forms, is many times repeated, uses the formula
"when Shamash stands in the halo of Sin" such and such a thing will come
to pass. Now open up just about any work on Assyro-Babylonian mythology
and you will find it stated that Shamash and Sin were the deified Sun and
Moon. The omen mentioned above should then read "when the Sun stands in
the halo of the Moon" such and such a thing will come to pass.

Now while Sun and Moon can be seen together, the Sun can never appear in
the halo of the Moon. For one thing, the Sun does not appear small enough
to fit between the Moon and its surrounding halo, when it has one; for
another, the Moon can only appear within a halo during the night when the
Sun, needless to say, is absent. What, then, could the Babylonian
astrologers have been alluding to?

There is no point in claiming that this was astrological nonsense.
Babylonian astrologers, like those of ancient China, were required to
acquaint their rulers with the mandates of heaven, to warn them of
impending disasters or to soothe their fears with reports of divine
satisfaction. The foretold events might not always have to come to pass.
Fallacious predictions, however, were one thing; impossible ones were
quite another. There would have been no point in predicting an
astronomical occurrence, and an event foretold by it, that could never
have come to pass. A prognostication based on the appearance of the Sun
within the halo of the Moon would not only have been useless, it would
have been considered utterly insane. No Babylonian astrologer would have
risked ridicule, not to mention royal displeasure, by sending such a
prediction to his king. Why, then, did they even bother writing down such
a formula?

As Morris Jastrow shrewdly deduced: "Since this phenomenon can only occur
at night, Samas [the same as Shamash] cannot of course be the sun."

This brings us back to the Babylonian statement mentioned earlier which
reads "(Mul) Lu-Bat Sag-Us (il) Samas su-u," and which, as we have seen,
Thompson translated as "Saturn is the star of the sun." Jastrow, however,
has noted that while this reading is possible, a more accurate translation
would be "Saturn is the sun-star." So also with the Latin designation we
have already noted since the term Stella Solis translates better as "Sun
Star" than "Star of the Sun." There is a difference between calling Saturn
the star of the Sun, the star belonging to the Sun, and naming it as the
Sun-star since the latter seems to connote the Sun itself. In fact,
another translation given by Jastrow is "[the] planet Saturn (as a) star
is Shamash." Stated more clearly, what this datum is really telling us is
that "the planet Saturn is Shamash" or "Shamash is the planet Saturn."

What is also of interest is that this statement appears as a gloss in one
of those omens which uses the formula "when Shamash stands in the halo of
Sin." This, then, was the astrologers' way of informing whoever read this
particular report that by Shamash the planet Saturn, and not the Sun, was
meant. The formula in question should therefore read "when Saturn [and not
the Sun] stands in the halo of the moon" such and such a thing will come
to pass.

This is further clarified by another gloss which appears in a number of
similar cases which unambiguously declares that "(Mul) Lu-Bat Sag-Us ina
tarbas Sin izzaz", i.e. "Saturn stands in the halo of the moon." This not
only makes observational sense, it compliments, nay, validates, the
formula which uses Shamash as a name for Saturn. If conditions permit, the
pin-point of light in the night sky that is Saturn can be discerned within
the halo of the Moon.

Thompson, of course, was aware before Jastrow that the Babylonians called
Saturn by the name of Shamash. Since this verity came to light at least as
early as 1900, it is a sin of omission, worse still, a scholarly
deception, not to have it so stated in current works dealing with
Assyro-Babylonian mythology.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no doubt that Shamash was also the
Babylonian name of the Sun. This is so true that a differentiation between
Shamash/Saturn and Shamash/Sun had to be introduced into these
astrological reports. Just as the above mentioned gloss was thought
necessary to indicate that Saturn, in lieu of the Sun, was meant in those
prognostications that might have appeared ambiguous to the casual reader,
so similar glosses were inserted to emphasize the role of the Sun, in lieu
of Saturn, when the opposite was true. In this case the gloss was made to
indicate "Samse u-mi", i.e. "Samas of the day."

In fact, variants of the name, or word, "shamash" still mean "sun" in many
modern Semitic languages. As is well known, one of the Hebrew names for
"sun" is "shemesh." Among the Aramaeans the word was also rendered "semes"
(Shemesh) or "simsa" (shimsha). In pre-Islamic times, the Arabic word was
Samsu (of Shamshu). Even in Maltese, the only European language with a
distinctive Semitic root-base, the Sun is called "xemx," where the "x" is
phonetically equivalent to "sh", thus "shemsh."

All of this raises some very interesting questions. Why, for instance, was
the planet Saturn called by the same name as the Sun? It is not as if the
Babylonians had no other names for Saturn, we have already encountered
two: En- Me Sar-ra and (Mul) Lu-Bat Sag-Us. But also, ancient names,
unlike some modern ones, carried their own meanings. No one in those days
would have thought of naming a person or an object by using lexical
abstraction. As we have seen, En-Me Sar-ra translates as Lord of the law
of the Universe; what (Mul) Lu-Bat Sag-Us translates as, I will leave for
a later section. Meanwhile shemesh, and therefore Shamash, means "to be
brilliant," and while this may be an apt name for the Sun, one would
hardly think of alluding to the pin-point of light that is Saturn by the
same appellation. And yet this is precisely what the Babylonians did. Thus
while we understand that Shamash was the name of the planet Saturn as well
as the Sun, is it also to be understood that Saturn was once believed to
have been as brilliant as the Sun?

(7) The Light of the Gods

The close relationship, or quasi synonymy, between the planet Saturn and
the Sun was not, in Mesopotamia, restricted to the Babylonian Shamash. The
Sumerian planetary god Ninurta also shared this dual characteristic. Thus
Stephen Langdon could speak of "the sun-god Ninurta" in one breath while
claiming in the next that, in Sumero-Babylonian religion, Ninurta was "the
war god and planet Saturn." Moreover, it was said of Ninurta that his face
was Shamash, which could be interpreted to mean that the god's face was
the planet Saturn, the Sun, or merely brilliant.

In view of the question asked at the end of the last section, I am going
to cut across the lawn by claiming that all the above interpretations are
correct. The god's face was Saturn because Ninurta, as we shall soon see,
was the planet Saturn; his face was Shamash because, as we have already
seen, Saturn was Shamash; his face was the Sun because, if we are to
believe the ancients (and see more below), Saturn did once shine as a sun;
and his face was brilliant in respect thereof.

Together with many other deities, Ninurta has often been presented by
mythologists as a storm god. This view owes its origin to the texts
themselves in which Ninurta is lauded as "u sur me-a" or, in Sumerian, as
"lugul ud melambi nergal." In the past these epithets had been translated
as "the most furious storm (or stormwind)" and "King Storm whose
brilliance surpassed (all others)." It is strange that this consensus was
reached, and maintained, in spite of Virolleaud's contention that "ud"
and, by extension Akkadian "u," actually stands for "sun" or "sun light."
More recently, this subject has again been taken up by Sjoberg and
Bergmann who have indicated that "originally u [and, by extension,
Sumerian "ud"] did not mean 'storm' but 'light." Thus even "sun" and "sun
light" are not entirely correct.

The epithets quoted above should therefore read "the most furious [?]
light" and "King Light (or King of Light) whose brilliance surpassed (all
others, i.e. all other gods)." Thus, originally, Ninurta seems to have had
nothing to do with storms and everything to do with light, which is much
in keeping with his sun-like qualities.

Nimrod, has also, and often, been identified as the planet Saturn, even if
the reason for the identification has seldom been clarified. When a reason
is given, it usually runs something like the following: Nimrod, sometimes
called Nebrod, the traditional founder of Babylon, was "the first to
become king of earth" he took as title the name of the planet Kronos
[which
was Saturn]." Nimrod, however, did not have to take the name of the planet
Saturn because his name was already that of Saturn. Thus, for instance,
Nimrod has also, and often, been claimed to be an alias of Ninurta. The
actual truth, however, is that the two names are really one and the same.
The cuneiform characters which spell "nin," "ur," and "ta" can also be
read "nim," "ru," and "ud" respectively, which can be said to be the same
syllables in reverse and which, of course, spell "nimru-ud," a name that
has been popularized as "Nimrod." (The reason behind this alternate
reading would necessitate a side excursion on cuneiform decipherment but,
as interesting as that might be, this is not the place for it).

Of course, it is not only in legendary tales, such as those dealing with
Nimrod, that Saturn was lauded as king, often the very first king the
world had ever known. As we have already seen above, in the original, that
is older, sources, Ninurta/Saturn is himself proclaimed lugal, that is
king. And this, again, is in keeping with the mytho-historical record
since all of the Saturnian deities were revered as kings, the first of
their line.

Now if, as surmised above, and as will be indicated further below, the
planet Saturn, very much like the Sun, once radiated its own light, we can
begin to understand not only its reverence as king among the planets, but
the very prominence which the ancients claimed for it.

Today, Saturn's brilliance does not surpass all others; among the planets
it is anything but the brightest. In fact, while it does shine, one is
hardly justified in speaking of its brilliance. And yet, the various
people who, throughout history, have occupied the land that was once
Mesopotamia, were persistent in their allusion to the planet's radiating
brilliance.

Formerly, when the decipherment of cuneiform was still in its infancy and
the transliteration of the Mesopotamian deities had not yet been
formalized, the name Ninurta was variously read as Ninib, Ninip, or simply
Nin (a title which, like "Baal," meant "Lord.") Thus, scholars of the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century were wont to refer to this astral
deity by one, or more, of the above names. Writing in 1885, George
Rawlinson opted for Nin and Ninip (and even Bar in lieu of Baal). Among
the epithets of Nin/Ninip that he discussed, we again encounter such
familiar ones as "the powerful chief" and "the supreme." Not only do we
find this deity lauded as the first among kings but also as "the first of
the gods," thus giving the impression that Saturn was the very first god
ancient man had recognized as such.

We note in this respect that the very cuneiform sign for "king" and "god"
was one and the same, the character being developed from an earlier
pictograph depicting a sun-like star. The same ideogram was also used to
"spell" the name of the great Sumerian god An (or Anu) whom both Alfred
Jeremias and Stephen Langdon have recognized as being the same as Ninurta
and the planet Saturn.

More in keeping with our subject, we also find Ninib lauded as "the light
of heaven and earth" and, quite explicitly, as "he who, like the sun, the
light of the gods, irradiates the nations."

There is, again, no point in claiming that these were metaphorical
epithets meant to be applied to the god and not the planet he represented
because, to the ancients who venerated him, the god and the planet was one
and the same. And this, incidentally, is not merely my contention, or that
of those colleagues who have recently become involved in studying the
Saturnian phenomenon. Conventional mythologists had recognized this fact
for themselves even though they found it very difficult to accept. Thus
Peter Jensen was forced to see in Saturn an ancient symbol of the "eastern
sun" or "the sun on the horizon," without however offering a single piece
of evidence for this interpretation. Rawlinson himself found these
epithets "very difficult to reconcile with the notion that, as a celestial
luminary, [Ninip] was Saturn." Somewhat like Jensen, he, also, sought to
explain the situation by appealing to astral bodies other than the one
indicated by the texts themselves. As he wrote:

These phrase appear to point to the Moon, or to some very brilliant star,
and are scarcely reconcilable with the notion that [Ninip] was the dark
and distant Saturn.

Elsewhere, and earlier, Rawlinson had indicated the same bewilderment when
he asked: "How is it possible that the dark and distant planet Saturn can
answer to the luminary who [or which] 'irradiates the nations like the
sun, the light of the gods'?"

One bona fide alias of Ninurta (and he had more than one) was Ningirsu,
the Lord of Girsu (in Lagash). This is ascertained by the Gula Hymn of
Bullut-sa-rabi in which the consort of the goddess (also known as Bay
and/or Nin-Karrak) is called by various names among which is Ninurta as
well as Ningirsu. As with the former, so also with the latter: the
luminary identified with the god is spoken of as radiating a great light.
Thus we find it recorded in Gudea's Cylinder B:

NingirsuIrose in overwhelming splendor. In the land it became day; the
Eninnu [another epithet of the god] rivaled in brilliance the child of
Enzu.

This Enzu, also read Zu-en, was the more familiar Sin. His "child" was
Shamash, often referred to as Shamash mar Sin, i.e., Shamash son of Sin.
What the above therefore records is that Ningirsu rivaled Shamash in
brilliance.

This led William Albright to state that "Ningirsu is here the sunIwho
ascends each morning from the underworld." But it would have been
tautological to have it recorded that the Sun rivaled the Sun in
brilliance and one is led to assume that had Albright been aware of the
implications of Jastrow's work of nine years earlier, he might have
thought better before proposing this identification.

That Albright was not well acquainted with the characteristics of this
deity is further illustrated when he also opined that "Ningirsu, like
Ninurta, seems to have been primarily a god of fertility with intimate
solar association." In this, he was not as wide off the mark as Fred
Bratton who, writing as late as 1970, listed Ninurta as a fertility
goddess. At least Albright did recognize that Ningirsu has "solar
associations," but that Ningirsu was Saturn and not the Sun had already
been demonstrated by Jastrow.

This identification is based on a series of deductions which not only
proves the ancient identity of Ningirsu but also, once and for all, that
of Ninurta. These deductions lead us back to those omens incorporating the
formula "when Shamash stands in the halo of Sin." Apart from the gloss,
already discussed, which explains that Shamash is the name of the planet
Saturn (Lu-Bat Sag-Us), we also come across a clarification which names
Ninib/Ninurta as "standing therein." This indicates beyond any doubt that
Ninib/Ninurta was the same as Lu-Bat Sag Us/Shamash/Saturn. Thus, as
Jastrow admitted, Franz Kugler was correct in identifying "the planet
(Lu-Bat) whose name is Ninib [i.e. Ninurta]" as referring to Saturn.

Now it should be understood that the term "Lu-Bat" was also used to
designate Mars and Mercury besides Saturn. It is the descriptive epithets
added to "Lu- -Bat" that signifies which of these three planets is meant.
Thus Lu-Bat Dir was Mars, Lu-Bat Bu-Ud was Mercury, and Lu-Bat Sag-Us, as
we have seen, was Saturn. Neither Jupiter nor Venus, on the other hand,
was ever designated as Lu-Bat.

Meanwhile, an astrological text distinguishes Ningirsu as (An) Lu-Bat
which identifies the deity as a planet even if we are left with a choice
between Saturn, Mars, and Mercury. As Jastrow however pointed out, the
listing of Ningirsu as an alias of Ninurta leaves no doubt as to which
Lu-Bat, i.e. which planet, is intended. If Ninurta, as we have seen, was
Lu-Bat Sag-Us/Saturn, then so must have been Ningirsu.

We can now return to Gudea's Cylinder B and re-evaluate that line which
states that Ningirsu "rivaled in brilliance the child of Enzu [i.e.
Shamash]." But since Shamash can stand for either the Sun or Saturn, a
distinction must here be made. The choice, of course, is forced upon us
for if we assume that by Shamash the planet Saturn was meant, the
announcement, that Saturn (Ningirsu) rivaled Saturn (Shamash) in
brilliance, would be just as tautological as the interpretation proposed
by Albright. It is therefore more than obvious that the text should be
understood as stating that Saturn (Ningirsu) rivaled the Sun in
brilliance.

This statement requires no further interpretation. That it is correct is
indicated by what else Gudea's Cylinder B has to say concerning Ningirsu,
that he "rose in overwhelming splendor" and that "in the land it became
day." Additionally, it is also said of him that "he changes darkness into
light." That all this refers to the sun-like brilliance of the planet
Saturn there is no doubt.

Now while no conventional mythologist has, to my knowledge, ever
sanctioned this verity, the veneration of Saturn by the ancient as some
sort of sun god has been accepted as fact by more than one of them.
Discretion, it seems, has impeded them from going further. But, as
astronomically impossible as it may seem, there is no doubt that the
ancients believed Saturn to have radiated a light that rivalled the Sun's.
While there is more that is yet to come, we have now reached a point where
it can safely be said there is no other way in which these ancient
statements can be understood.

(8) The True Sun

Like that of other ancient nations, Hindu astronomy is inseparable from
mythology. This mythology, however, continues to thrive as the basis of
Hindu religion. In a way, it can therefore be said that, among the Hindus,
planetary worship is practiced to this day, and not only in an indirect
way. Thus the Linga Purana admonishes that "the worship of the planets
should be pursued by good men." Moreover, the reason behind this
admonition is precisely that which we have outlined at the beginning of
this essay, that is to ward off evil at times of planetary "harassment."
It is as if planetary "harassment" also continues to this day.

Hindu mythology, of course, is largely based on Vedic belief. And yet, as
one critic pointed out some thirty years ago, it has never been proved to
the general satisfaction of Indologists that any planets are mentioned in
the Vedas. As I had earlier written in reference to this criticism,
however, this lack can be compensated for "if it can be shown that certain
deities mentioned in the [Vedic} hymns possess planetary traits and/or
characteristics comparable to the [known] planetary deities of other
nations. Today I would go even further for if it can be shown that the
names and/or epithets applied to the Vedic deities are identical to those
applied to the planets by the same people and in the same language, the
equivalence of deities and planets is proven on home ground without any
recourse or appeal to comparative studies. Such, for instance, is the case
with Agni.

Any work on Indian mythology will have it stated that Agni is the god of
fire or, in other words, fire personified. This belief is not monopolized
by mythologists, which is often the case, but is adhered to by the Hindus
themselves. And so, in truth, has Agni become, a veritable god of flames.
But in seeking the origin of the god, one should ask whose fire it was
that Agni first wielded. After all, Hindu mythology also presents the Sun
as wielding its fire, and this, needless to say, is as it should be. But
the fire called Agni, from which the verb "to ignite" and the noun
"ignition" are ultimately derived, was created "at the beginning of the
world" before the fire of the Sun had been itself ignited. Some fire this
must have been!

Agni's fire was definitely of a celestial nature. Of this there is
absolutely no doubt as many of the Vedic hymns dedicated to this god well
illustrate. And since the fire of the Sun obviously belongs to a celestial
body, (what a statement to utter), one is naturally inclined to think
likewise of Agni's celestial fire. But what celestial body, other than the
Sun, can be said to possess fire?

If Sumero- and Assyro-Babylonian belief held that the planet Saturn once
radiated like the Sun, may we not assume that so, also, did the Hindus and
their ancestors? Actually, the origin of Agni as a personification of the
planet Saturn can be demonstrated by analyzing various sets of
mythological evidence but, without wading through the thick morass of
Vedic lore, the following should be sufficient.

Like the gods of other nations, Vedic deities are known by more than one
name or epithet as so, also, are the planets. Thus, two other designations
for Saturn are Arki and Arka-putra, both of which, again, translate as
"son of the Sun" since "arka" means "belonging or relating to the Sun,"
while "putra" is the well known Sanskrit word for "son," "child," or
"offspring." And, in fact, as a proper name, Arka is the Sun. But Agni is
also lauded by the name Arka and while this seems to identify Agni as the
Sun, we note that in the literature, Agni is said to be "of Sun-like
aspect" and as "brilliant as the Sun." In order to avoid the same
tautological objection we encountered in the case of Ningirsu, we will
therefore have to assume that Agni was a celestial object other than the
Sun. And since, as we have already seen, Shamash was a name for Saturn as
well as the Sun, may we not assume that so was Arka? And if this is the
case, would not Agni then be a representation of Saturn rather than the
Sun?

But let us leave assumptions and ambiguities aside. Another designation
for Agni is Saptan-Amshu, which means "seven rays or beams of light." The
planet Saturn is also known by a virtually identical name, Saptan-Archis,
which translates as "seven rays of light of flames." What is of additional
interest, and of great import, is that only Agni and the planet Saturn are
anywhere in Sanskrit literature endorsed with such an epithet.

The above is further supplemented by the fact that Brahmanah, which means
"priest," is also an epithet of Agni since, among other things, Agni is
considered the priest of the gods. Brahmanyah, on the other hand, is yet
another epithet of the planet Saturn.

As Roger Ashton shrewdly deduced, "the virtual equivalence of [these]
names rather firmly links Agni with Saturn." More than that, one may
consider Saturn to be Agni's planet or, better still, the two may be
thought of as being mutually interchangeable or even identical.

In view of all this, while highly revealing, it is almost redundant to
find Agni described as having stood "at the world's head with refulgent
splendor." This reminds us very much of Ningirsu who "rose in overwhelming
splendor" as so, also, does Agni's mentioned Sun-like aspect and his being
as brilliant as the Sun. Elsewhere, repeatedly, consistently, one can
almost say tediously, Agni is again said to shine "refulgent like the Sun,
with brilliance and with fiery flame, decked with imperishable sheen." But
Sun-like as these laudatory descriptions make Agni to be, they clearly
pertain to Saturn and not the Sun.

Saturn's epithet of Brahmanyah, meanwhile, induces us to examine the
supreme Vedic and Hindu deity Brahma. More than any other deity in Vedic
and Hindu mythology, Brahma was venerated as the creator of gods and men.
As such Brahma is akin to the Sumerian An, or Anu, who was the same as
Ninurta, but also Ningirsu, the personification, as we have seen, of the
planet Saturn. In this respect it should be noted that the Sanskrit
adjective "Brahmanya" means "relating [or belonging] to Brahma." As
Brahmanyah, Saturn can therefore be said to be Brahma's planet. In fact,
while Indologists may find it difficult to accept, Brahma has long been
identified as Saturn by certain sages of Hindu religion itself. What is of
greater import to this study is that these sages consider Brahma to be the
"true sun", which is the same as saying that, to them, it is Saturn, and
not the Sun, that is the real solar orb. Since this is absurdly not so, we
can only assume, on the strength of what we have learned, that this dictum
stems from ancient belief. Was then Saturn to ancient man what the Sun is
to us today?

(9) Saturn's Night

Shiva, another Vedic deity, bears the epithet Surya which, as any work on
Indian mythology will assert, is not only the name of the god of the Sun
but is the most common Sanskrit name of the Sun itself. While this seems
to indicate that Shiva must be equated with the Sun, we note the following
curious fact, first brought to my attention by Roger Ashton:

An evening ceremony during which Shiva is worshipped takes place when the
thirteenth day of a lunar fortnight happens to fall on a Saturday. In
Sanskrit, the day of Saturday is called Shanivar which, Shani being
Saturn, translates as Saturn's day. Actually, Saturday was the day sacred
to Saturn among more than once ancient nation and, to this day, it
continues to bear the planet's name not only in Sanskrit. To the Jews,
Saturday is Shabbath (the Sabbath), named in honor of Saturn which, in
Hebrew, is called Shabtai. In Italian it is Sabato, derived from Hebrew
through the Greek Sabbaton. In Maltese, Saturday is called Sibt, derived
from the same Semitic root. The English name Saturday is itself a
contraction of the Saxon Saterne's Day (or Daeg) from the Latin Saturni
Dies. Even in Indo-China, and more specifically Cambodia, Saturday is
named in honor of Prah Sau, which is the planet Saturn.

Now while it is true that not every ceremony that is celebrated on a
Saturday has to be Saturnian in character and/or origin, the Shivaite
ceremony mentioned above is itself called Shani Pradosh. Since "pradosh"
means "night," the festival in question is translateable as "Saturn's
Night." A ceremony called Saturn's Night held in the evening of Saturn's
Day is not just any ceremony conducted on a Saturday; it is obviously one
conducted in honor of Saturn. And since the deity venerated during this
ceremony is Shiva, one is inclined to equate Shiva with Saturn rather than
the Sun.

Actually, there are many lines of evidence which indicate that Shiva
originated as a personification of Saturn but, if any doubt remains, we
note that, apart from being the usual Sanskrit name of the planet Saturn,
Shani is also yet another name for Shiva.

Why, then, is Shiva also called Surya, that is Sun?

After all we have perused, should this surprise us? Have we not already
noted that Saturn was called by the very name of the Sun?

There are other lines of evidence which indicate that Surya was originally
Saturn and not the Sun, the least of which not being the reference to
Surya as graha Surya, that is the planet Sun. But let me forestall an
objection.

It will be pointed out by the knowledgeable that in India, as in certain
other nations, the Sun was counted, with the Moon, as one of the seven
"planets." But one hardly finds, among these other nations, the Sun itself
alluded to singly by a term reserved for planets. Even so, one might argue
that the Hindus allowed this exception. To which I can reply that this
cannot be the case because the "motions" attributed to Surya do not fit
the role of the Sun. Thus, to give but one example (and, in a future
continuation of this essay, I shall give others), Surya is said to occupy
samanam dhama, which means "the same place of rising and setting." (How
this, in turn, applies to the primeval Saturn, I shall also explain in a
later continuation).

Let us, however, be a little more specific. Surya, the Sun, is also termed
Suraj. But Suraj is also another name for the planet Saturn. So that, yet
one more time, we can see that Saturn and the Sun once shared the same
name as, among the Hindus, at least in Sanskrit, they still do.

Nor is this peculiarity, in India, limited to Surya/Suraj. As earlier
noted, another Sanskrit name for the planet Saturn is Grahanayakah, which
means chief, or leader, of the planets. But again, Grahanayakah is also
one of the names bestowed on the Sun.

The question, therefore, is: even if we were to grant that, somehow,
Saturn once radiated with a light as bright as the Sun's, why should it
have been given the same name as the Sun?

We shall return to this question anon but, meanwhile, there is more.

(10) The Saturnian Sun of Yore

The point we have now reached is one where we face the risk of monotonous
repetition. But ours is a precarious position since, while listening to
the voice of antiquity, we seem to be lending a deaf ear to astronomical
principles. For the moment, however, our main interest must focus on what
the ancients had to say concerning the cosmos around them. Thus if our
inquiry is to have any meaning, our position will have to be fortified
and, hopefully, sustained by invoking first the strength of numbers.
Unless enough evidence is presented, we will always face the greater risk
of being accused of selectivity. For that reason, and in order to show
that the theme being discused was well nigh universal, we must continue to
press home with further examples until we have covered a fair share of the
ancient world and the civilizations it engendered.

When it comes to astronomical lore, ancient Egypt presents something of a
problem since the Egyptians were not possessed of a formal astronomy until
Ptolemaic times. It seems as if, and in my mind there is no doubt that,
the Egyptians were content to view the heavenly bodies as deities whose
motions were too sacred to be reduced to mundane numbers. Not that the
Egyptians did not show interest in the denizens of the sky as such and, in
fact, star charts were drawn, stellar treatises were written, and
astronomical themes were monumentally etched on architectural ceilings of
worth. When it comes to the planets and their motions, however, nothing
has survived from pre-Alexandrian Egypt that would allow us to claim an
astronomical achievement on their part.

On the other hand, if conventional mythologists can treat of deities like
Horus and Ra as solar representations, with the likes of Isis and Hathor
as lunar or Venerian ones, then so are we allowed to treat them as
celestial bodies. In fact, ask any mythologist to name the solar god par
excellance and the name of Ra (or Re) is bound to come up. Not only was Ra
the Egyptian Sun god, he was the Sun itself. As James Frazer echoed this
Egyptological dictum: "That Ra was both the physical sun and the sun-god
is of course undisputedI" And yet, an Egyptian ostrakon form Ptolemaic
times identifies Ra as the Greek Kronos, which is the planet Saturn.

Egyptologists, of course, will object, pointing out that this is a late,
and isolated, case, stemming, no less, from Greek interpretation, that
that datum should not be given any credence. But, granting the uniqueness
of the ostrakon in question, we at least have one direct identification of
Ra as Saturn. Where do we find a single instance in original Egyptian
texts explicitly proclaiming Ra to be the Sun? Besides, is it conceivable
that, with the progress of astronomical science, it would have been
forgotten by Ptolemaic times that Ra was the Sun? Or had the Greeks no
word for the Sun for them to refer to it as Kronos? (In view of what
follows, of course, this last is something of a loaded question).

Even so, on the basis of this one datum, I would not be bold enough to
build an edifice. But, again, as in the case of Surya, the "motions" and
characteristics attributed to Ra do not fit the role of the Sun while, as
will be made clear in a future installment of this serialized essay, they
fit what the ancients stated of Saturn to the proverbial "T."

As a qualification I will add that this does not mean that Ra never stood
for the Sun. It is obvious from texts of a historical, or narrative, but
not mythological, nature that the Sun was also referred to as Ra. But is
this not the same situation we have found among other ancient nations
where the planet Saturn and the Sun are made to share the same name?

The Ptolemaic identification of Ra as Saturn is even given credence,
albeit in an indirect way, by the Greek epic poet known as Nonnus. A
native of Panapolis in Ptolemaic Egypt, Nonnus likewise referred to the
Arabic Sun as Kronos which, again, was the same as calling the Sun by the
name of Saturn.

Now it is true that the Greeks, and after them the Romans, had a penchant
for calling alien deities and celestial bodies by what they understood to
be their Greek, or Roman, counterparts. It is also known that, in certain
cases, their matching was somewhat arbitrary. But neither the planet
Saturn nor the Sun could have contributed to such arbitrariness since both
luminaries were beyond confusion. So why would Nonnus have chosen to call
the Arabic Sun by the name of the planet Saturn? Is not one inclined to
assume that a similar ambiguity between the Sun and the planet Saturn must
have existed in Arabic nomenclature? And does this not indicate that the
Graeco-Egyptian who had it recorded that Ra stood for Kronos/Saturn was,
in fact, echoing the popular belief of the time?

The Greeks, of course, had their own lore to draw upon. As the readers of
this periodical have learned through the writings of David Talbott and Ev
Cochrane, the Greeks not only referred to the planet Saturn as the star of
Helios, they identified it outright as Helios. Those who have been
following the unfolding of the Saturnian scenario are probably weary of
being fed the same data over and again. But the omission of the Greek data
would not only render this essay incomplete, it would also rob it of one
particular statement of Franz Boll upon which I wish to conclude this
first installment. And for a very good reason. But first the data:

Plato wrote that pre-eminent among the planets for its slowness was the
one whom "some call Kronos," which is Saturn. But, in the earliest copies
of the text, the name used was not Kronos but, rather, Helios, that is
Sun. It was only later copyists, who could not understand why the planet
Saturn was here being alluded to by the name of the Sun, who "corrected"
the text to read "Kronos," the "accepted" Greek name of the planet Saturn.
As Franz Boll, whose illuminating study of this subject has often been
ignored, demonstrated, the practice of "correcting" such texts, changing
the name "Helios" to read "Kronos", was quite common among later copyists.

To Porphyry, originally named Malchus, the Greek historian and
Neoplatonist from Tyre, in Syria, Kronos/Saturn was also called Helios as
it was to Rhetorios and Ptolemy (i.e. Claudius Ptolemaus) himself. All of
which further indicates that the Ptolemaic identification of Ra as
Kronos/Saturn was in keeping with the belief of the time.

As it happens, the name "Helios" closely resembles the Greek
transliteration of the Canaanite/Phoenician "El," that is "Elos," a deity
who, as Philo Byblius proclaimed, was the same as Kronos/Saturn. Thus a
confusion between the names Elos and Helios has been suggested to be at
the root of this belief. This point is somewhat tacky because, in my
opinion, the Greek Helios, with similar divinities incorporating the same
philological root, does ultimately derive from El; but Plato, who already
used the name Helios for the planet Saturn, would not have known this
since he wrote some four hundred years before Philo. Besides, as Boll
pointed out, and as we have seen, the association of Saturn with the Sun
was much too widespread to be attributed to a Greek confusion based on
Philo. Boll's own conclusion was that the naming of the planet Saturn as
Helios was not due to any confusion of names, and hardly a confusion of
the luminaries involved, but owed its cause to the simple fact that,
originally, Helios and Kronos were one and the same god and, therefore,
one and the same planet, that is Saturn. (Boll offered his own explanation
for this widespread belief but since this encroaches on a slightly
different aspect of the primeval Saturn, we will postpone its discussion
and take it up in a later installment).

Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius, the Roman philosopher and grammarian who
lived between 395 and 423 A.D., has been much maligned for claiming, in
the first book of his Saturnalia, that all forms of worship derived from
that of the Sun. Among the misconceptions that are laid at his door is his
identification of Kronos as the Sun. But, having learned what we now have,
can we honestly say that Macrobius was that much in error? Was he not, in
his own way, reporting that his ancestors, and those of the Greeks before
them, had believed, that Saturn was a sun? Should we fault him for
believing that this sun was the same sun that shone daily above his head?
Have we not now seen that most modern mythologists have been trapped into
committing the same error?

This belief was so inbred in the early sciences it even turns up in
alchemy, the foster mother of chemistry. When astrology embraced, and thus
debased, what had commenced a monopolized industry in the transformation
of base metals into gold-simulating alloys by the priestly caste of
Alexandria, ancient astronomical lore entrenched itself in mystical
treatises that were to obsess alchemist well past medieval times. Among
these astro-alchemical echoes we encounter the statement that the planet
Saturn constitutes "the best sun," which reminds us of the "true sun"
believed in by Hindu sages. As David Talbott well realized, "it is
unlikely that [the alchemists] themselves knew what to do with the idea.
But that tradition was passed down from remote antiquity is both
indisputable and crucial."

(11) First Interlude

The handing down of traditions from remote antiquity of which Talbott
speaks above does not, however, explain the tenacity with which ancient
man has held to the idea that Saturn was a sun. Neither does it explain
how the belief itself originated. So that despite the fact that ideas do
travel, both over distance, across geographical boundaries, and through
time, from centuries to millennia, it is not easy to understand why a
belief in something that was obviously not so could have survived the
advertency of the ages.

It is therefore not enough to maintain that this belief owes its spread to
diffusion, cultural contact, or wholesale borrowing because, for one
thing, we are not here concerned with an idea that would readily have lent
itself to popular appeal. What we are concerned with is an astronomical
belief, something that the common man in the street would not have cared
about except as a curiosity. In this respect, it was no different then
than it is now.

Granted that religion would have augmented the belief until it fossilized
itself into a credo of faith, the question of why such an obvious falsity
would have been incorporated in ritualistic litanies in the first place
remains unanswered. More amazing is the fact that the belief survived the
scrutiny of those who were in the best position to know otherwise, the
astronomers and astrologers. How could these professional men have
attempted to utilize the datum in a more practical way when the belief on
which it was based belied reality?

We can, perhaps, understand how an error in astronomical observation, or a
miscalculated set of figures, could have been misconstrued into a truth.
Habitual acceptance of such a misconstrued fact might even, in time, have
cemented the misconception into dogmatic belief. It happens. But the
incongruity of a belief in something which was demonstrably false would
have had a difficult time in being accepted as dogma by a culture and
installed as a pillar of astrological wisdom supposedly based on
astronomical verity. It is difficult to understand why ancient
astronomers, astrologers, or priests looked up at the planet Saturn and
asserted it shone radiantly as the Sun. More difficult to believe would be
that such a preposterous idea, even if it was somehow believed in, say, by
the Babylonians, could have been foisted on people of a different culture.
Everyone could look up into the sky and see that Saturn did not shine as
brightly as the Sun did. One need not have been an astronomer in order to
expose such a deceit.

What people might have believed is that Saturn could have once shone as a
sun. This is different because although everyone could see that Saturn did
not shine as a sun, there was no way they could tell whether it once did.
And, let us face it, man has long been prone to the possibility that
things could have been different in remote antiquity, which renders this
very study beyond exemption.

On the other hand, whether imbedded in fact or fiction, every belief has
to have an origin. So what could have been the origin of this particular
one? The Babylonians and, before them, the Sumerians had absolutely no
reason to invent the postulate, to perpetrate this astronomical lie. It
could have served no purpose we can think of, religious, political, or
otherwise. It would not have answered any questions posed by theology,
sovereignty, or nature. Would it then be too much to consider what appears
to be the only other alternative, that what the ancients described was
indeed what they, or their ancestors, had actually seen?

Before we answer that question, let us consider one additional point. The
ancients did not really describe Saturn as having radiated as a sun. In
fact, had I come across a text which would have gone out of its way in
proclaiming that Saturn once blazed as a sun, I might have considered it
suspect. The texts at our disposal simply treat Saturn as if it did so
once glare. It seems as if the knowledge was taken for granted; as if
everyone knew that this was, or had been, the case. No explanations,
clarifications, or qualified rationalizations are ever encountered to
account for the phenomenon. But, whether speaking of the Saturnian god as
distinct from his luminary or of the luminary that was Saturn itself, it
was always accepted that deity and planet, which in reality were one,
coruscated, or had once coruscated, as a true sun. Personally, this was
one aspect concerning the Saturnian phenomenon which further convinced me
that not only did the ancients mean exactly what they "said," but that
they probably knew what they were "talking" about. But what, exactly, did
this amount to?

At this point we had best lay the cards we have so far accumulated plainly
on the table. We have, I believe, supplied ample evidence (and more will
be forthcoming in the next installment of this serialized paper) to
indicate that the ancients believed Saturn to have once radiated as a sun.
But a question we posed earlier remains unanswered. This concerns the
sharing of names between Saturn and the Sun. But the, what is true, that
Saturn was given the name of the Sun, or that the Sun was given the name
of Saturn?

Boll seems to have had no doubts about this. As far as he was concerned,
the Greek Helios and the Latin Sol were originally the names of the planet
Saturn. It can therefore be suspected that in each other case where Saturn
and the Sun share the same name, the name originally belonged to Saturn.
This suspicion moves closer to certainty when we realize that, while every
ancient name of the Sun was also bestowed on Saturn, not every ancient
name of the planet Saturn was bestowed on the Sun. The certainty grows
when, as already intimated, we discover that the characteristics
attributed to the ancient sun gods do not fit the role of the Sun.
Mythology, it now seems, was never concerned with the Sun, that is our
Sun. The sun it speaks of was the Saturnian one. It therefore follows that
the sun of the ancients, the "true sun", was Saturn. And if, later, some
of the names of Saturn were bestowed on the Sun, it could only have been
because the Sun supplanted Saturn, not merely mythologically, but
physically.

This postulate can be partly tested by analyzing what else the ancients
had to offer on the subject because, if their sun of ages was Saturn
rather than the present Sun, their traditions should also reflect
conditional astronomical differences. And this is precisely what we
encounter in our continuing investigation of ancient astronomical lore, as
we intend to demonstrate in following installments of this serialization.

Appendix

Having exposed the Indic god Shiva as both Surya and Shani, that is Sun
and Saturn, it might appear to those in the know that we have been
somewhat selective. This is because, in later times, Shiva was burdened
with a multitude of names, one thousand and eight, it is claimed, an
unwarranted boast since some names are duplicated while others are
identical in meaning.

Apart from Surya (which appears as name #68 and again as #630), Shiva is
also called Bhanu (name #4) and Ravi (#444 and 644), both of which are
names of the Sun. Shiva's name of Shani/Saturn appears as #69.

Sun and Saturn, however, are not the only recognizable celestial
luminaries encountered among these Shivaite epithets. As Chandra (#67),
Nisakara (#331), and Indu (#850), Shiva is identifiable as the Moon.
Actually, Nisakara means "night walker" and, while it is an apt name for
the Moon, it also has reference to Shiva's wandering among the graveyards
during the night. His name of Mata (#73), an alias of Budha, and of Budha
itself (#727), identifies Shiva as Mercury. As Rajan (#74), he is
associated with Raja, the planet Venus, although it should be noted that
"rajan" simply means "king." Shiva's Venerian identity is more clearly
indicated by his name of SHukra (#419), even though this name was also
shared by Agni/Saturn, Soma/Saturn, and even Jupiter. Elsewhere it is
narrated how Brihaspati/Jupiter became Shukra as well as how Soma became
the Moon.

Name #71 is Graha, identifying Shiva merely as a planet. The Shivatosini,
a commentary on the Linga Purana written in the 18th century by Ganesha
Natu, however claims that Graha here stands for "Vrishityavagrahakarako
bhaumah," that is "Mars witholding rain." Now while it has been admitted
that the interpretations contained in the Shivatosini are often
"far-fetched, forced or fancied," the identification of Graha as Mars
might, in this instance, be acceptable since the name is one among eight
referring to the celestial bodies (#67 to 74) where, otherwise, Mars is
conspicuously absent. Of course, further down in the litany, Shiva is
lauded as both Visakha (#350) and Kumara (#626) which, as aliases of
Karttikeya, do equate him with Mars.

Name #72 is Grahapati, which means Lord of Planets, a title usually given
to Jupiter although it could easily be descriptive of Saturn comparable to
Grahanayakah, the Chief (of Leader) of the Planets. Shiva's link with
Jupiter is further indicated by his name of Vasava (#293), an epithet
shared by Indra.

As Dhruva (#26 and 638), which means "steady," Shiva seems to be equated
with the Pole Star but, elsewhere, it is told how Dhruva became the Pole
Star. There it is also told how this celestial location had once been
Shiva's and how Shiva later surrendered it to Dhruva. While this
particular subject will be taken up in a following installment of this
serialization, the subject has already been broached in an earlier essay.

Finally, Shiva is also called Shumaketu (#629), which means "comet."

In view of all this, it might rightly be asked why Shiva's identity as
Surya/Shani/Sun/Saturn should be given preference at the expense of the
other celestial bodies with which he also seems to be associated.

The term "purana" signifies "old" or "ancient" and the Linga Purana itself
claims that Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa abridged it at the beginning of the
mythical Dvapara Age from a no longer extant version composed by Brahma
himself. Internal historical evidence however proves that, as we now have
it, the compilation does not date from earlier than the 5th century A.D.
This requires a clarification because, in actual fact, the Puranas were
"living" compilations which were constantly being added to. The above date
can therefore only be taken as "the lowest limit by which the bulk of this
Purana had assumed its present shape." There is no need to emphasize, of
course, that the Puranas are based on much older material. Even so, other
than data which can be traced to older sources, we have no way of knowing
how old any particular item contained within them might be.

This can be dangerous for the student of comparative mythology because any
Puranic statement which contradicts the view being presented can easily be
dismissed as of late vintage. But for us to claim that Shiva's assimlation
with the celestial bodies other than Sun and Saturn are of late derivation
places upon us the burden of proving that his identification as Sun and
Saturn are not.

There is another matter to consider. The Puranas were compiled for the
specific purpose of promoting prevalent local belief and, as such, suffer
from sectarian bias. The Linga Purana is no exception since "its real
greatness lies in expounding the monistic background of Saiva [that is
Shivaite] philosophy especially in the context of the Linga cult." Thus,
again, one can argue that Shiva was assimilated with every celestial body
in order to demonstrate his divine omin-form as, in fact, Ganesha Natu
claims. Is this not borne out by the Linga Purana itself in which Shiva is
called Sarvadevamaya (name #893 and 949), which means "identical with all
Devas," and Sarvalakshana (name #866), "one who has all characteristics"?
But then, again, how can we prove that Shiva's identity as Sun and Saturn
does not stem for the same cause?

Preference for a Sun/Saturn identification originates in those Shivaite
epithets which, without calling on Sun or Saturn, compare favorably with
the universal characteristics of the mythological Saturnian sun. Among the
"thousand" names of Shiva, these epithets proliferate while few, if any,
can be found to compare with the mythological characteristics of the other
celestial bodies. This indicates that Shiva's identity as Sun and Saturn
predominates, casting doubt on his assimilation with the other planets.
This is further demonstrated by the mythology of Shiva's deeds which,
while outside the scope of this study, has already, in part, been
illustrated elsewhere.

The above is difficult to prove in a short appendix because, in order to
demonstrate the validity of our approach, we would have to draw on those
Saturnian attributes which have not been dealt with in the foregoing essay
(but some of which will be analyzed in future installments). In clarifying
this very same problem, Roger Ashton had recourse to an argument which has
a lot of merit. Thus, as he indicated, one of Shiva's epithets is
Yamantaka which is also a name of Yama. The Linga Purana, on the other
hand, identifies Yama as the planet Saturn. Kala is another name of Shiva,
in fact it is the one most duplicated in the list (#161, 252, 372, 387,
544, 705, and 907), but, again, Kala is identified as Saturn. So, also,
with Raivata which appears as both a name of Shiva and Saturn as is the
case with Sthira, yet another name bestowed on Shiva (#1 and 534) and the
planet Saturn. As Ashton has shrewdly noted:

In the other instances of Kala, Raivata, Sthira, and Yama, no planet other
than Saturn is mentioned. It could [therefore] be assumed that the
original linkage is shown by this one class of clues rather than by
several others. Given this, Shiva's real link is to Saturn, while others
are misleading.

Continuation of this serialization will amply demonstrate the correctness
of this.

_________________________________________________________________

D. Cardona, "The Reconstruction of Cosmic History," AEON II:2 (Feb. 1990),
p. 109.

Idem, "Child of Saturn," Part IV, KRONOS XI:1 (Fall 1985), pp. 36-37.

Ibid., p. 38; idem, "The Road to Saturn," AEON I:1 (Jan. 1988), p. 122.

Also spelled "aetiology", the philosophy, and later science, of causation.

See, for instance, F.G. Bratton, Myths and Legends of the Ancient Near
East (N. Y., 1970), p. 21, in which he estimates that "a list of Sumerian
deities [alone] would contain more than five thousand names."

G. de Santillana & H. von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill: An Essay on Myth and the
Frame of Time (Boston, 1969), p. 177 (emphasis added).

Aristotle, Metaphysics 12:8:19

D.R. Dicks, Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle (Ithaca, 1970), pp. 28-29,
66, 73.

H. Tredennick, translator of Aristotle's Metaphysics (Loeb Classical
Library, 1947), footnote to 12:8:19.

J. Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy (New York, 1931), p. 23.

G. de Santillana & H. von Dechend, op cit., p. 4.

Plato, Timaeus, 22

Ibid.

Ibid., 23

G. de Santillana & H. von Dechend, op cit., p. 177.

Plato, op cit., 22.

I. Velikovsky, Mankind in Amnesia (New York, 1982), pp. 59-60.

A. Sachs, "Babylonian Observation Astronomy," Philosophical Trans. of the
Royal Soc. of London, A.276 (1974), p. 44.

Ibid., pp. 44-48.

Ibid., p. 44.

A. Armitage, "History of Astronomy," Encyclopaedia Brittannica (1959 ed.)
Vol. 2, p. 582 (emphasis added).

Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, II:30-34.

B. Forrest, Velikovsky's Sources: Notes and Index Volume (Manchester,
1983), p. 532.

J.D. Prince, "Chaldea," Encyclopaedia Brittannica (1959 ed.), Vol. 5, p.
195.

V.S. Apte, The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary (Delhi, 1975), p.
417.

Ibid., p. 542.

I acknowledge my debt to Roger Ashton for this insight.

M. Jastrow, Jr., "Sun and Saturn," Revue D' Assyriologie et D' Archeologie
Orientale (Paris, Sept. 1910), p. 173.

Diodorus Siculus, loc. cit.

M. Jastrow, Jr., "The Sign and Name for Planet in Babylonian," Proceedings
of the Am. Philosophical Society, 47:89 (May-August 1908), pp. 155-156.

R.C. Thompson, The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and
Babylon, Vol. II (London, 1900), p. lxiii. (See also, W.A. Heidel, The Day
of Yahweh (N.Y., 1929), pp. 437, 470, were other references are cited).

A. Bouche-Leclercq, L' Astrologie Grecque (Paris, 1899), p. 93.

Ibid.

Hyginus, De Astronomia (also known as Poetica Astronomica), II:42:6-10

There are even some indications that the words "sol" and "sun" might be
philologically related. See N. Webster, Twentieth Century Dictionary of
the English Language (N.Y., 1939), p. 1666.

A. Bouche-Leclercq, loc. cit.

R. H. Allen, Star-Names and Their Meanings (N.Y., 1936), p. 470.

V.S. Apte, op. cit., p. 997.

Ibid., p. 796.

Ibid., p. 1002.

M. Jastrow, Jr., "Sun and Saturn," op. cit., pp. 163-164, 169.

Ibid., p. 163.

Ibid., pp. 163-164.

Ibid., p. 164.

Ibid., p. 163.

Ibid.

Ibid., p. 164.

R.C. Thompson, op. cit., p. xxv; see also, P. Gossman, Planetarium
Babylonicum (Rome, 1950), pp. 41, 57.

M. Jastrow, Jr., loc. cit. (emphasis added).

Anonymous, "Shamash," Encyclopedia Brittanica (1959 ed.), Vol. 20, p. 454.

Ibid.

Ibid.

E.D. Busuttil, Kalepin Tliet Ilsna (Valletta, 1978), p. 123.

J. Strong, Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary (Madison, N.J., 1890), p. 119.
(Note: The earlier opinion of George Rawlinson, The Seven Great Monarchies
of the Ancient Eastern World (N.Y., 1885), Vol. I, p. 82, who contended
that the name Shamash signified "the ministering office of the sun"
(emphasis given), is no longer held to be valid.)

S. Langdon, "Semitic Mythology," MAR, Vol. V (N.Y., 1964), pp. 55, 135.

T. Jacobsen, Before Philosophy (Harmondsworth, 1963), pp. 145ff.

J. van Dijk, Sumerische Gottlieder, Vol. II (Heidelberg, 1960), p. 140.

Lugal-e Ud Melambi Nergal, I:1.

Or, according to a slightly different translation, "King, Storm, whose
splendor is Heroic", see H. Lewy, "Origin and Significance of the Magen
Dawid," Archiv Orientali, 18:3 (1950), p. 335.

M. Jastrow, Jr., op. cit., p. 165.

A.W. Sjoberg & E. Bergmann, The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns
(N.Y., 1969), p. 100.

S. Langdon, op. cit., p. 55; H. Lewy, op. cit., p. 338.

A.B. Cook, Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, Vol. II:1 (N.Y., 1965), p.
693.

H. Lewy, op cit., pp. 337, 338; A.E. Guiness (ed.), Mysteries of the Bible
(N. Y., 1988), p. 41.

B. Aaronson, "On the Merits of the Revised Chronologies," Chronology &
Catastrophism Workshop (1988), p. 18.

D. Cardona, "Let There Be Light," KRONOS III:3 (Spring 1978), pp. 44-45;
idem, "Saturn as King," ibid., IV:3 (Spring 1979), pp. 91-93; E. Cochrane,
"Kadmos: The Primeval King," ibid., XI:3 (Summer 1986), pp. 3ff.

G. Rawlinson, op. cit., p. 86.

Ibid., p. 87.

J.E. Pfeiffer, The Emergence of Society: A Prehistory of the Establishment
(N. Y., 1977), p. 170.

S. Langdon, op. cit., p. 93.

Ibid., p. 55; A. Jeremias, Handbuch der Altorientalischen Geistekultur
(Leipzig, 1913), pp. 137, 278.

G. Rawlinson, op. cit., p. 87 (emphasis added).

P. Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (Strassburg, 1890), pp. 115-116,
136.

G. Rawlinson, loc. cit.

Ibid.

Idem, History of Herodotus (London, 1862), p. 509.

F. Guirand, "Assyro-Babylonian Mythology," New Larousse Encyclopedia of
Mythology (London, 1972), p. 60.

H. Lewy, op. cit., p. 335.

F. Guirand, loc. cit.

W.G. Lambert, "The Gula Hymn of Bullutsa-rabi," Orientalia: New Series, 36
(1967), pp. 105ff.

W.F. Albright, "The Mouth of the Rivers," The Am. Jour. of Semitic
Languages and Literatures 35:4 (July 1919), p. 165 (emphasis added).

Ibid., pp. 165-166.

Ibid.

Ibid., p. 166 (emphasis added).

F.G. Bratton, op. cit., p. 16.

M. Jastrow, Jr., op. cit., p. 173.

Ibid., p. 172.

Ibid.

Ibid.; F.X. Kugler, Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, Vol. I (Munster,
1907- 1913), pp. 221ff.

M. Jastrow, Jr., op. cit., pp. 174-175.

Ibid., p. 173.

Idem, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), p. 57.

Besides Jastrow, see U. von Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, "Phaethon," Hermes 18
(1883), pp. 421-422; F. Boll, "Kronos-Helios," Archiv fur
Religionswissenschaft 19 (1916-1919), in toto.

Linga Purana, I:57:32-39.

Ibid.

F. Edgerton, "Still Colliding," Harper's Magazine (August 1951).

D. Cardona, "Child of Saturn," Part II, KRONOS VII:2 (Winter 1982), p. 35.

Linga Purana, I:59:21ff.

Ibid., I:59:6-9.

See for instance, D. Cardona, op. cit., pp. 36-37 where only some of this
voluminous evidence is cited.

V.S. Apte, op. cit., p. 228.

R. Temple, The Sirius Mystery (N.Y., 1976), p. 181.

Ibid., p. 180.

V.S. Apte, op. cit., p. 147.

Satapatha Brahmana, X:3:4:5

Rigveda, III:2:14. (Emphasis added).

Ibid., I:89:7. (Emphasis added).

V.S. Apte, op. cit., pp. 2, 959.

Ibid., pp. 148, 959. (Note: Those who are acquainted with the seven rings
of light said to have surrounded the primeval Saturn will recognize the
allusion inherent in these epithets, additional confirmation of Agni's
identity as Saturn).

Ibid., p. 707.

Ibid., p. 708.

R. Ashton, "The Polar Planet," Part X (1982), unpublished manuscript, p.
22.

Rigveda, X:88:5.

Ibid., II:8:4.

V.S. Apte, op. cit., p. 707.

E. Moor, Hindu Pantheon (London, 1864), p. 218.

Ibid.

Rigveda, I:43:4-5.

J. Campbell in H. Zimmer, Philosophies of India (Princeton, 1951), p. 587.

V.S. Apte, op. cit., p. 804.

Ibid., p. 997.

Ibid., p. 907.

Bhargava's Standard Illustrated Dictionary of the Hindi Language
(Hindi-English Edition) (Varanasi, 1960), p. 1017.

W.A. Heidel, op. cit., p. 465.

C.H. Marchal, "The Mythology of Indo-China and Java," Asiatic Mythology
(N.Y., 1972), p. 198.

V.S. Apte, loc. cit.

See, for instance, D. Cardona, op. cit., pp. 29-33; idem, "Vishnu Born of
Shiva," KRONOS VII:3 (Spring 1982), pp. 15-18; R. Ashton, "The Genie of
the Pivot," in ibid., X:1 (Fall 1984), pp. 18-20. (Note: Here, again, in
these essays, only a fraction of the total evidence is supplied).

V.S. Apte, loc. cit. (Note: See Appendix following this paper for the
association of Shiva with the other planets).

Linga Purana, I:54:65-68.

Ibid., I:57:19-20.

H.D. Velanker, Rgveda Mandala VII (Bombay, 1963), p. 147.

Meanwhile, the curious and/or interested reader can refer to D. Talbott,
The Saturn Myth (N.Y., 1980), p. 54.

Bhargava's Standard Illustrated Dictionary of the Hindi Language
(Hindi-English Edition) (Varanasi, 1960), p. 1110.

V.S. Apte, op. cit., pp. 417, 542.

J. Frazer, The Golden Bough (N.Y., 1890/1981), Vol. I, p. 313.

F. Boll, op. cit., pp. 343ff.

For more on Ra as Saturn see D. Cardona, "The Sun of Night," KRONOS III:1
(Fall 1977), pp. 35-36.

David Talbott was incorrect in referring to Nonnus as a Roman historian,
"On Testing the Polar Configuration," AEON I:2 (Feb. 1988), p. 98.

Nonnus, Dionysiaca, XL:393.

These references are becoming too numerous to cite but see below for the
original sources.

Plato, Epinomis, 987c.

F. Boll, loc. cit.

Ibid.

Macrobius, Saturnalia, I:22:8.

F. Boll, op. cit., p. 344.

L. Delaporte, "Phoenician Mythology," New Larousse Encyclopedia of
Mythology (London, 1972), p. 83; see also W.A. Heidel, op. cit., p. 470.

A. Bouche-Leclercq, op. cit., p. 93.

F. Boll, op. cit., p. 343.

Ibid., pp. 345-346.

Ibid.

Macrobius, loc. cit.

In fact, his statement is based on the belief of Porphyry, see Ibid.

J. Schwabe, Archetyp und Tierkreis (Basle, 1951), p. 492.

D. Talbott, The Saturn Myth (N.Y., 1980), p. 40.

F. Boll, op. cit., pp. 344.

While this is something of a generalization, space does not here permit a
full survey of the data. The author of this paper is however ready to meet
any scholarly objections raised to challenge this generalization.

Linga Purana, I:65:54b-168.

V.S. Apte, The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary (Delhi, 1975), p.
922.

M. Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary (Oxford, 1899), p. 1080.
(Note: Although Soma is usually presented as one of the names of the Moon,
see W.D. Flaherty, Hindu Myths (Harmondsworth, 1976), p. 354, as a name of
Yama it is more correctly identified as Saturn. For Soma as Yama see V.S.
Apte, op. cit., p. 1000; for Yama as Saturn see Collitz below. The
identification of Soma as Saturn, moreover, can be further confirmed by
comparing its attributes with those of the mythological Saturn).

Bhargava's Standard Illustrated Dictionary of the Hindi Language
(Hindi-English Edition) (Varanasi, 1960), p. 1029.

Maitri Upanishad, VII:9.

Satapatha Brahmana, I:6:3:16-17.

Anonymous board of scholars, The Linga Purana (Varanasi, 1973), Part I, p.
264.

Ibid., p. vii.

For Karttikeya as Mars see D. Cardona, "Child of Saturn," Part II, KRONOS
VII:2 (Winter 1982), p. 34; A. Isenberg & D. Cardona, "Kartikeya: Mars or
Venus?" in ibid., VIII:2 (Winter 1983), pp. 73-76; A. Isenberg & D.
Cardona, "Kartikeya: Mars or Venus?" in ibid., IX:2 (Winter 1984), pp.
100-109.

For Indra as Jupiter see D. Cardona, "Indra," KRONOS VII:3 (Spring 1982),
pp. 19-24; R. Ashton, Brhaspati," in ibid., pp. 25-27; A. Isenberg, R.
Ashton, & D. Cardona, "Indra and Brhaspati," in ibid., VIII:4 (Summer
1983), pp. 79-85; A. Isenberg & D. Cardona, "Indra and Brhaspati, II," in
ibid., XI:2 (Winter 1986), pp. 75-82.

D. Cardona, "The Reconstruction of Cosmic History," AEON II:2 (Feb. 1990),
pp. 120-122, where the original sources are cited.

Linga Purana, I:2:3.

Ibid., I:2:1.

Anonymous board of scholars, op. cit., p. xviii.

Ibid., p. xxiii.

AEON Vol. I, No. 4 

______________________________