Velikovsky's Martian Catastrophes
                                       
Dwardu Cardona

   1. The Martian Prominence

   Immanuel Velikovsky's reconstruction of the Martian catastrophes has
   not withstood examination. This can be stated despite the fact that
   some of the chronicles be cited as evidence do seem to hint at a
   series of cosmic disturbances during the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.
   In-depth investigation, however, has not revealed the celestial
   culprit as having been the planet Mars. As Velikovsky himself
   admitted:

     [This] was the time of the Hebrew prophets whose books are
     preserved in writing, of Assyrian kings whose annals are excavated
     and deciphered, and of Egyptian pharaohs of the Libyan and
     Ethiopian dynasties; in short, the catastrophes ... did not take
     place in a mist-shrouded past: the period is part of the well
     authenticated history of the lands of the eastern Mediterranean.
     The eighth century also saw the beginning of the nations of Greece
     and Rome.^(1)

   That being the case, somewhere in these books and annals one should be
   able to find some mention of the planet Mars looming large in the sky
   above the countries of these ancient nations. While mysterious
   portents -- in some cases even celestial portents -- are met with in
   some of these chronicles, one looks in vain for a bona fide report
   that one of the planets, let alone Mars, was by anyone blamed for
   these phenomena. This is not what is to be expected if, as Velikovsky
   claimed, Mars came close enough to Earth for its distended atmosphere
   to be seen with the naked eye. Where, I ask, is there one unequivocal
   mention of a Mars looming large in the sky anywhere in the literature
   of this period?

   What, then, of the evidence Velikovsky presented in the second half of
   Worlds in Collision? Circumstantial as it may be, is not this evidence
   valid? Is not the mytho-historical record, for one thing, as valid as
   the historical annals in this respect? To be sure, it is; but let it
   be stated, right at the start, that Velikovsky's knowledge of Martian
   mythology proves somewhat suspect. This is evident when he states
   that: "There does not exist, at least in the extant material, any
   mention of the first appearance of Mars, whereas expressions referring
   to the birth of the planet Venus have been found in literary sources
   of the peoples of both hemispheres."^(2) By this, Velikovsky intended
   to show that, unlike Venus, Mars was not a newcomer to the Solar
   System but that its erratic behavior has to be accounted for through
   its displacement by another body -- i.e., Venus.^(3) The
   mytho-historical record, however, proves him in error since the first
   appearance of Mars is recorded in the literature of the ancient
   nations. The birth of Nergal is alluded to in a litany;^(4) that of
   Ares is lauded by Hesiod;^(5) that of Karttikeya, also known as
   Skanda,^(6) is told in the Maahabharata;^(7) while that of Kumara is
   recounted by Kalidasa and quoted by Velikovsky himself.^(8)

   In this respect, Velikovsky appealed to the veneration of Martian
   deities which, he informed us, only gained prominence during the 8th
   and 7th centuries B.C. He thus stressed the Martian legends associated
   with Romulus and the founding of Rome,^(9) concerning which he stated:

     Only one god of Roman mythology plays a role not comparable to that
     attributed to him on the Greek Olympus. It is the god Mars, whose
     counterpart is Ares of the Greeks.^(10)

   This, however, is a matter of opinion. To most mythologists, the Greek
   Ares is just as prominent in mythology as is the Roman Mars. In fact,
   if one had to judge by the number of myths attributed to each of these
   two deities, one will have to conclude that the Greek Ares was much
   more prominent.

   Velikovsky makes much of the Roman festivals held in honor of
   Mars,^(11) but the truth is that the Romans, like other nations of
   antiquity, revered more than just Mars with their various religious
   festivals. Among the most celebrated of these was the Saturnalia
   which, as the name itself implies, was held in honor of Saturn.

   Among these Roman Martian festivals, Velikovsky stressed that of
   tubilustrium which took place on March 23rd.^(12) This was of great
   significance to him because certain other events were also said to
   have transpired on that date. The conclusion he reached was that one
   of the most devastating Martian catastrophes had occurred on that date
   and that the festival of tubilustrium was held in honor of the event.
   As will be indicated below, however, the date of March 23rd for these
   other events has since been questioned.

   When it comes to Nergal/Mars, Velikovsky informed his readers that
   while this god "is referred to in early times," it was in the 8th
   century B.C. "that this planet became a most important deity."^(13)
   But, again, this is merely a matter of opinion. The prominence of this
   god in the 8th century is mainly due to the fact that most of the
   Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions at our disposal date from that period
   or later. The antiquity of this god, however, can hardly be brushed
   aside by casually declaring that his name "is referred to in early
   times." The monarches of Assyria traced their descent through Nergal;
   and Sargon claimed that this line was traceable through 350
   generations.^(14) As ruler of the netherworld, the worship of Nergal
   goes back to Sumerian times.^(15)

   But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the worship of
   Nergal did undergo a resurgence in the 8th century B.C. Would this
   necessarily mean that the planet Mars was prominent in the sky during
   that time? Worship of the god Amon, whom Velikovsky accepted as a
   personification of Jupiter,^(16) underwent a resurgence during Egypt's
   18th dynasty. Would this also mean that the planet Jupiter was a
   prominent celestial protagonist during that period? Besides, as
   Frederic Jueneman has indicated, the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. also
   witnessed what could be called a resurgence of motifs associated with
   the Saturnian polar axis in addition to a new emphasis on Hermetic
   (i.e., Mercurian) legends that resurfaced between the 9th and 6th
   centuries B.C.^(17) Should we then, a la Velikovsky, propose that
   Saturn and Mercury were also prancing in the sky together with Mars?

   Thus when Michael Reade states that it "remains an open question ...
   just why the ancients of the 850-700 B.C. era attached so much
   importance to the activities of Mars,"^(18) he is concerning himself
   with a situation that never existed. The prominence of the Martian
   deity during this stretch of time is based on a catch of red herring.
   Velikovsky was guilty of singling out Mars to the exclusion of other
   deities in this particular period of history. An in-depth study of the
   religious beliefs of the time amply demonstrates that the other
   planetary deities were just as prominent as the Martian ones.

   2. The Hebrew Prophets

   What, then, of "the host of the Lord" so often invoked by the Hebrew
   prophets as a coming retribution against their nation' enemies not to
   mention their very own people and their faithless kings? It is here
   that we meet with prophecies of doom entailing coming days of darkness
   and fire from heaven sent by the "terrible ones" of the Lord. This
   "host," these "terrible ones," are identified by Velikovsky as a brood
   of comets that were seen trailing in the wake of the planet Mars as it
   repeatedly brushed past the Earth.^(19) But do we anywhere in the
   books of the prophets catch a glimpse of Mars itself? Do we anywhere
   find this planet named? To be quite honest, we do. Thus it is written:

     Seek him that maketh Khima and Kesil, and turneth the shadow of
     death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night: that
     calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the
     face of the earth: Yahweh is his name.^(20)

   If this verse, however, is taken as evidence that Mars (Kesil)^(21)
   must have had something to do with the calamities that supposedly took
   place during the time of the prophets, then the planet Saturn
   (Khima)^(22) must also be included in the celestial fray which goes
   contrary to what Velikovsky had in mind. Besides which, all that is
   said concerning Kesil/Mars, as also Khima/Saturn, is that Yahweh was
   believed to have fashioned (or maketh), that is created, them: in
   Hebrew, "'asah." This is not a description of a calamity that took
   place during the time of our discussion but a formula used by the
   prophet Amos as a reminder of things past.

   Another mention in Isaiah is more in keeping with Velikovsky's
   thinking. There the prophet for whom this book is named prophesies the
   coming of "the day of Yahweh"^(23) with these foreboding words:

     For the stars of heaven and the Kesilim thereof shall not give
     their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the
     moon shall not cause her light to shine.^(24)

   As Sean Mewhinney shrewdly deduced,^(25) "Kesilim," the plural of
   "Kesil," can be compared with "Maruts," the plural of "Martu," which
   was a name for Mars.^(26) If one wishes to go further, it can also be
   compared with the Hindu "Krittika," which can be considered the plural
   of "Karttikeya," who was also venerated as the god of Mars.^(27) Here,
   then, in this verse from Isaiah, Velikovsky seems to have missed what
   might appear to be the best evidence yet for the Martian nature of the
   catastrophes supposedly associated with the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.

   In keeping with Kesilim as the plural of Kesil/Mars, have we
   inadvertently come face to face with the planet we have been seeking?
   To be sure, we have -- but not as the culprit behind Velikovsky's
   series of upheavals. The Isaiah reference is a valid one but, we
   should not fail to notice, the occurrence connected with Kesilim is
   merely prophesied. Nowhere is it stated that the prophecy came to
   pass. And this is precisely the trouble with most of the Biblical
   prophecies utilized by Velikovsky for his stated purpose. Few of the
   calamities he mentions in this respect, if any, are actually stated to
   have taken place; they are merely presented as a threat which was
   seldom, if ever, made good.

   Why, then, did Isaiah refer to the Kesilim? The answer is that he did
   so for the same reason that Amos referred to Khima and Kesil. When one
   threatens with impending disasters, one must be familiar with similar
   past events. Isaiah and Amos were simply drawing on the traditions
   pertaining to an earlier time.

   3. The Iliad and the Voluspa

   The use of Homer's main epic as an eye-witness account of planetary
   encounters involving Mars during the period under discussion must also
   be discounted. It simply will not do to interpret the battles between
   Athene and Ares, described in the Iliad, as interactions between the
   planets Venus and Mars as seen above the walls of Troy during its
   protracted siege.^(28) As I have already indicated elsewhere,^(29) an
   acceptance of such interpretation would necessitate the acceptance of
   other planets being also involved in the fray. Thus Jupiter, and even
   Saturn, would have to be added as protagonists in the celestial
   encounters since the deities associated with these planets, namely
   Zeus and Poseidon,^(30) were just as involved in the Homeric war. To
   have all these planets buzzing each other and the Earth at so late a
   date in history goes beyond what Velikovsky himself was willing to
   concede.

   So, similarly, with the Voluspa. According to Velikovsky, the "battle
   of Mars and Venus is presented, in the Icelandic epos, as a fight
   between the wolf Fenris and the serpent [of] Midgard."^(31) But, as
   Bob Forrest has pointed out,^(32) the Fenris wolf and the serpent [of]
   Midgard did not battle one another -- they both fought on the same
   side against the gods.

   It is, moreover, rather selective to single out these two protagonists
   from a cast that leaves the casual reader more than a little confused
   by its multitude. To be sure, all of the Icelandic deities took part
   in the prolonged drama recounted in the Voluspa. According to
   Velikovsky's methodology, all these deities have to be interpreted as
   having had a planetary origin. We are therefore left with a situation,
   very much like that of Homer's Iliad, in which all of the planets
   visible to the naked eye must have been involved. Needless to say,
   this is not what Velikovsky himself portrayed as having transpired
   during the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.^(33)

   4. The Osorkon Flood Inscription

   Velikovsky also saw the Osorkon flood inscription as an account of the
   supposed Martian calamity in the year 776 B.C.^(34) This evidence was
   later contested by Sean Mewhinney^(35) whose investigation revealed
   that no planetary connection can be deduced from the inscription
   itself. Nor, despite its severity, could the inundation described in
   the inscription have been caused by a tidal wave arriving from the
   Mediterranean or the Red Sea.^(36) As Mewhinney cogently argued, an
   unusual increase "of the monsoon rainfall in East Africa" would be
   adequate in explaining this aberrant swelling of the annual rise of
   the Nile.^(37)

   Velikovsky's own argument, that this could not have been the case
   since the date in the inscription does not conform to the proper Nile
   season, was counteracted by Mewhinney on the basis of a faulty
   translation.^(38)

   5. The Chinese Sources

   No one has been more diligent than Sean Mewhinney when it comes to
   exposing Velikovsky's misuse of the Chinese sources as evidence for
   the world-wide observation of these supposed Martian calamities. Thus,
   much that has been invoked concerning the postulated commotion of -687
   and, more specifically, of March 23rd of that year,^(39) has been
   shown by Mewhinney to have been entirely misunderstood by the author
   of Worlds in Collision.^(40) As Mewhinney noted after an extensive
   survey of the Chinese sources in question, all that really surfaces is
   "a very approximate coincidence in date" between a meteor shower seen
   in China and the "heavenly blast" -- "the precise nature of which is
   not specified" -- that was said to have destroyed Sennacherib's
   invading army.^(41) So, also, John Bimson who could find "no good
   evidence to postulate a global disaster in that year, the Chinese
   evidence suggesting no more than a meteor shower."^(42)

   Further discussion of the subject then indicated that the meteor
   shower of March 23rd, -687, can be identified as the April Lyrids. The
   apparent difference in date can be accounted for by the
   synchronization of the Gregorian with the Julian calendar in addition
   to precession over the past 27 centuries.^(43)

   Bimson, it is true, did find "Near Eastern evidence" suggesting that
   "the years 763 and 701 B.C. may have seen fairly widespread
   upheavals,"^(44)but nothing to indicate that these upheavals were
   heaven-caused.

   Other Chinese traditions concerning solar reversals were also shown by
   Mewhinney to have been nothing but political fabrications and that, in
   any case, they are too late historically to fit Velikovsky's
   scheme.^(45)

   6. The Destruction of Sennacherib's Army

   Although the destruction of Sennacherib's army is usually explained by
   historians as the result of bubonic plague,^(46) it is quite obvious
   from the pertinent literature that this is a forced inference based
   upon the account as told by Herodotus. In that much, Velikovsky was
   correct.^(47)

   This version of the incident, which claims that mice gnawed at the
   Assyrians' bowstrings, thus forcing them to retreat, is simply not
   believable. To change the mice of this account into rats and thus
   invoke a bubonic plague is simply an attempt to make sense out of what
   appears to be a fairy-tale.

   The version told in the Old Testament, which is corroborated by
   extra-Biblical sources, claiming that Sennacherib's army was destroyed
   by an angel or a "blast" which fell from heaven, does not, in itself,
   shed any light on this historical puzzle. While Velikovsky intimated
   that this "blast" could have been an interplanetary discharge
   emanating from the planet Mars, he never quite stated it.^(48) The
   connection with Mars rests on the association of the Archangel
   Gabriel, who was said to have been responsible for the destruction,
   with the planet in question. This association, itself based on Gaonic
   lore, is not, unfortunately, as reliable as it first appears. As I
   indicated in 1983, it is, on the contrary, beset by inconsistencies
   and utilized in Worlds in Collision with more than a smattering of
   selectivity. As I showed, the association of Gabriel with Mars is not
   only very late, dating from between the 6th and 11th century A.D., but
   was never intended as an outright identification in the first
   place.^(49)

   As the date of Sennacherib's downfall, March 23rd, -687, has since
   also been questioned.^(50) Thus even the "very approximate coincidence
   in date" between this event and the Chinese meteor shower disappears.

   7. Apollo Smintheus

   Mice and interplanetary discharges do not mix well. Velikovsky himself
   tried to bridge this gap by postulating that the stretched atmosphere
   of the planet Mars was seen at close quarters to take on the shape of
   a mouse.^(51) Nowhere is this stated, or even hinted at, in ancient
   literature.

   Michael Theodorakis, on the other hand, tried to bridge the same gap
   through the introduction of Apollo, whom he ably demonstrated to have
   originated as a personification of the planet Mars before the god was
   demoted (or promoted, as some would say) to solar rank.^(52) To my
   knowledge it was Donald Patten, among neo-catastrophists, who first
   identified Apollo as Mars^(53) although, unlike Theodorakis, and as is
   habitual with him, he did so without supplying a single shred of
   corroborative evidence. Since then, Ev Cochrane has further cemented
   the Apollo/Mars identification.^(54)

   As Theodorakis pointed out, a similar incident of mice gnawing at the
   weapons of an army at rest is also told in a tale recounting the
   foundation of Troy. This event was connected with Apollo, also called
   Smintheus, which means "the Mouse."^(55) White mice, in fact, were
   sacred to Apollo^(56) who is even shown in the company of a mouse on
   coins found at Alexandria Troas.^(57) Cochrane went one step further
   in reminding his readers that the Latin Mars was also called
   Isminthians, a name derived from Smintheus, and that Mars was believed
   to have been the dispatcher, but also the averter, of plagues of
   mice.^(58) Could Apollo, and therefore Mars, have been somehow
   responsible for the mice which supposedly gnawed the bowstrings of
   Sennacherib's army?

   Actually, the connection of Apollo Smintheus with the retreat of
   Sennacherib's army predates Theodorakis. As early as 1921, A.D.
   Godley, who translated Herodotus for the Loeb Classical Library,
   inserted the following as a footnote to the pertinent account:

     This is [Herodotus'] version of the Jewish story of the pestilence
     which destroyed the Assyrian army before Jerusalem. Mice are a
     Greek symbol of pestilence; it is Apollo Smintheus (the mouse god)
     who sends and then stays the plague in Homer['s Iliad] II:1.^(59)

   Of course, as we have already seen, the "Jewish story" does not
   ascribe the destruction of Sennacherib's army to a pestilence.
   Depending on which version one favors, the destruction was proclaimed
   to have been caused by the angel of the Lord, a "blast" from heaven,
   or both. The angel can be discounted in as much as angels, or the
   Lord, or both are made to be responsible for every destruction
   recounted in the Old Testament. Of the heavenly "blast" I will have
   something to add in a while. The connection with Apollo Smintheus,
   meanwhile, is very tenuous especially since Herodotus himself did not
   invoke it. This connection might have served as additional
   confirmation had a direct reference to the planet Mars been
   encountered in any of the accounts dealing with the destruction of
   Sennacherib's army but, in this instance, as in others, Mars is only
   conspicuous by its absence.

   It would, of course, have been helpful had we an account by
   Sennacherib himself to compare with all this. It should be noted,
   however, that the event with which we are concerned was not the first
   in which Sennacherib was made to retreat. Of his second campaign, he
   himself wrote:

     The month of rain set in with extreme cold and the heavy storms
     sent down rain upon rain and snow. I was afraid of the swollen
     mountain streams; the front of my yoke I turned and took the road
     [back] to Nineveh.^(60)

   Could not something similar have transpired during his last campaign?
   The Talmud and Midrash sources may well comment on the "blast" which
   destroyed the major part of the Assyrian army as having been something
   quite miraculous.^(61) The truth of the matter, however, is that the
   Hebrew word for "blast" is "ruach," a word which means "wind,"
   "tempest," and/or "whirlwind."^(62) In my own Semitic tongue "rih,"
   derived from the same root, simply means "wind." That Velikovsky
   himself was aware of this was made apparent in his 1983 posthumous
   work in which he tried to pass off the meaning of "ruach'" as "wind"
   to "Pfeiffer's opinion."^(63) His knowledge of Hebrew should not have
   allowed a statement such as this and his dismissal of "Pfeiffer's
   opinion" must, at best, be seen as being unfair. Thus, when everything
   is told, the heavenly "blast" could have been nothing more that "a
   blast of wind" -- at worst, a hurricane.

   Does this, then, solve the mystery? Perhaps -- and perhaps not. If the
   sources are to be believed, the suddenness of the slaughter as the
   army lay resting during the night plus the "burned" nature of the
   victims, with their garments remaining intact, do not imply the
   effects of a hurricane. But with so many contradicting reports,
   including that given by Herodotus, all of which invoke "miraculous"
   phenomena, should any of these bizarre details be given credence? And
   if so, which?

   Thus the aura of mystery remains attached to Sennacherib's last
   campaign but, as matters stand at present, the issue cannot be
   resolved by attributing any of this to a close Martian flyby which was
   apparently noted by no one.^(64)

   8. The Dial of Ahaz and the Ramesside Star Tables

   The story of the dial of Ahaz is well known. Briefly, this is what is
   supposed to have transpired. On the day that King Ahaz of Judah was
   buried, the Sun set ten hours before its time.^(65) This phenomenon
   was apparently recorded in a sun dial Ahaz had constructed. These ten
   hours, or degrees, were then recovered during the time when Hezekiah,
   the son and successor of Ahaz, lay ill some time later. Again, the
   recovery was recorded on the sun dial of the dead Ahaz.^(66) The
   implication, here, is that the Earth's rotation was somehow
   accelerated on the day Ahaz was buried and slowed down again during
   Hezekiah's illness. Velikovsky, of course, blames this disturbance on
   a close flyby of the planet Mars.

   Did this event really transpire?

   Although presented merely as "distinctly tentative" speculation,
   Michael Reade did suggest that a terrestrial disturbance seems to be
   indicated for this period by the contents of the Ramesside star
   tables.^(67) If Reade's reading of these tables is correct, the
   Earth's axis seems to have been forced out of alignment with the stars
   while accelerating its spin rate -- a temporary aberration before the
   Earth self-corrected its calamitous roll.^(68) This could be
   tentatively compared with the purported events connected with the sun
   dial of Ahaz. But even if the Egyptian tables can be made to
   corroborate the Hebrew scriptures, in neither of them is a planetary
   encounter as much as hinted at. To be sure, nowhere is Mars connected
   with the events.

   On the other hand, and this must be stressed, if Reade's reading is
   correct, an explanation for the event has to be found.

   9. The 360-day Year, the Panchasiddhantika, and the Martian Orbit

   Velikovsky claimed that:

     In the astronomical work of Varaha Mihira, the recorded synodical
     revolutions of the planets, which are easy to calculate against the
     background of the fixed stars, are about five days too short for
     Saturn, over five days too short for Jupiter, eleven days too short
     for Mars, eight or nine days too short for Venus, less than two
     days too short for Mercury. In a solar system in which the Earth
     revolves around the Sun in 360 days [as he assumed to have been the
     case just prior to the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. ^(69)], the
     synodical periods of Jupiter and Saturn would be about five days
     shorter than they are at present, and that of Mercury less than two
     days shorter. But Mars and Venus of the synodical tables of Varaha
     Mihira must have had orbits different from their present ones, even
     if the terrestrial year was only 360 days.^(70)

   By this Velikovsky meant to imply that, besides a change in the
   Earth's orbit, which would have moved it from a 360-day year to the
   present 365 1/4-day year, there also must have occurred a change in
   the orbits of Venus and Mars, thus vindicating his claim that these
   two planets had once moved in Earth-crossing orbits.

   The "astronomical work of Varaha Mihira" that Velikovsky refers to is
   a compilation of astronomical knowledge which the famed Hindu
   astronomer of that name gathered together in the 6th century A.D.
   Known as the Panchasiddhantika, the compilation contains much older
   material but the celestial arrangements with which it deals do not
   essentially differ from those of the present. The "aberrant" synodic
   periods to which Velikovsky drew his readers' attention comprise no
   more than an additional 16 verses (2 out of 103 pages), at the end of
   the final chapter of the compilation. Even so, despite their apparent
   incongruity with the rest of the work, as well as with other Hindu
   astronomical works, Varaha Mihira devoted five sets of independent
   figures to these "aberrant" synodic periods, each of which he
   reproduced in two different forms, and all of which yield essentially
   similar results. If anything, this does not indicate spuriousness and
   this part of Varaha Mihira's work should not therefore be ignored.

   The question, of course, is: Was Velikovsky correct in assuming that
   this evidence proves that Mars, and with it Venus, had been moving
   along a different orbit just prior to the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.?

   Before that question is answered, let it be made clear that the era to
   which these "aberrant" periods belonged is not stated in the
   Panchasiddhantika. If, however, the 360-day year can be validly
   applied to the time of these "aberrant" periods, comparisons with the
   calendrical reforms that were conducted during the 8th and 7th
   centuries could be used to date them to the preceding era, just as
   Velikovsky claimed.^(71)

   In 1979, without actually studying the contents of the
   Panchasiddhantika itself, John Fermor took the figures as quoted by
   Velikovsky and attempted an evaluation of these "aberrant" periods.
   His conclusion was that a "purely rotational change" in the Earth's
   axis "with a fixed orbit seems best to meet all the evidence
   presented." More specifically, the "aberrant" synodic periods would
   fit if the terrestrial year had really consisted of 360 days -- but
   not because the length of Earth's orbit had been shorter around the
   Sun. Instead, the year would have consisted of 360 days because the
   Earth had rotated a little slower. In effect, it would have been the
   length of the day, and not that of the year, that changed. Relatively
   speaking, the result would have been the same -- a year with fewer
   days. This, in itself, was very strong evidence in favor of the
   one-time existence of a year of 360 days. This is especially so
   because the Panchasiddhantika itself says nothing about a year of 360
   days so that Varaha Mihira cannot be accused of tailoring his figures
   to meet this demand. As Fermor stated: "This leaves the hypothesis of
   an unchanged year with days of 24.35 hours.^(72)

   On the other hand, if this is correct, the orbits of the planets,
   including those of Venus and Mars, would not have been different from
   those of the present. Velikovsky was wrong in assuming otherwise. This
   is made apparent when the present synodical values are adjusted for a
   360-day year. The adjusted values for all five planets coincide with
   Varaha Mihira's "aberrant" periods. Velikovsky was trapped by
   believing that,.since the year was five and a quarter days shorter
   than it is at present, Varaha Mihira's synodic periods should show a
   difference of five days for all five planets. Unfortunately, the
   calculations are not as simple as that. The adjusted values mentioned
   above, however, continue to speak well for a former year of 360
   days.^(73)

   Fermor's final verdict was that "these data better support the
   interpretation that the year lengths, and therefore the mean distances
   from the sun of these two planets [i.e., Venus and Mars], were
   virtually identical with present observations." Fermor, however, also
   advised that if it could be shown that the orbit of Mars, while still
   at a mean distance from the Sun as at present, was highly eccentric --
   say with a perihelion of 1.02 and an aphelion of 2.02 AU -- a close
   brush with Earth could still have ensued.^(74) Unfortunately, the
   Panchasiddhantika does not contain any indication of such an eccentric
   orbit.

   This message was repeated by Fermor that same year at the members'
   meeting of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies in London,
   England.^(75) Then, in 1981, obviously inspired by Fermor's work,
   Michael Reade published some preliminary studies based on the actual
   contents of the Panchasiddhantika, comparing the two available
   translations (one by Thibaut and Dvivedi, the other by Neugebauer and
   Pingree), as also the comments of the translators. As with Fermor,
   what distinctly emerged is that Varaha Mihira's set of "aberrant"
   synodic periods best fit a tropical year of 360 days (359.99
   actually), with the planets moving on orbits which were essentially
   the same as the modern ones, Moreover, since the retrograde period of
   the apparent Martian motion along its orbit can also be calculated
   from the Hindu figures, and since this varies but little from the
   modern values, Fermor's earlier suggestion that a highly eccentric
   Martian orbit might still have brought the planet close to Earth has
   to be abandoned. Reade's assessment was that it "would appear
   therefore that ancient Mars was behaving at least very similarly to
   modern Mars."^(76)

   The above holds also for the planet Venus. According to Reade: "The
   detail of the figure for ancient Venus is remarkably consistent with
   what a modern astronomer would have predicted..." Beyond that, the
   Hindu text records a point on the Venerian orbit, "about 60 days
   before superior conjunction," without stating what this stood for. As
   Reade noted, this point "does not correspond with any noteworthy event
   in the calendar of modern Venus."^(77) What this entails, therefore,
   remains something of a mystery.

   To be quite fair to all parties concerned, one should point out that
   Reade did uncover some slight discrepancies between the Hindu figures
   and their modern values. Thus Mercury seems to have been "more easily
   seen, especially at superior conjunction, than it is at the present
   day."^(78) (While the planet Mercury is outside the scope of this
   discussion, it can be reported that this observation coincides with
   data derived from the cosmic lore of other nations).^(79) Furthermore,
   the durations of the apparent retrograde motions of Mercury, Saturn,
   and Jupiter, seem to have been slightly shorter than at present. As
   Reade stated, this "can rather tentatively suggest that the whole
   solar system may have been slightly more compressed than it is at the
   present day, the Earth and all the planers being rather closed to the
   Sun than they are at present."^(80)

   Reade's general conclusion on all the above was as follows:

     The principal outcome of this study seems to be that a one-time
     360-day year is at least a possibility, even quite a strong
     probability ... but it is still not an absolutely proven one. There
     is clearly also a probability that ... [a later cosmic event was]
     severe enough to produce at least one change in the spin rate of
     the Earth, but not so severe as to cause major changes in the
     orbits of the principal planets (with the possible exception of a
     small, maybe stepwise, expansion in the dimensions of the solar
     system as a whole).^(81)

   How the Solar System could have expanded without a change in planetary
   orbits was never quite clarified by Reade. It should, however, be kept
   in mind that, judging by the figures in question, this expansion, if
   it ever took place, would have been relatively minor. In any case,
   even if it had been more pronounced, the orbits would have expanded
   concentrically so that none of them would have interacted with
   another.

   The acceleration in the spin rate of the Earth as deduced from the
   "aberrant" synodic periods of the Panchasiddhantika seems to
   collaborate the contents of the Ramesside star tables discussed above.
   In their turn, these sources seem to be in keeping with the events
   connected with the sun dial of Ahaz, except that a loss of ten hours
   would have increased the length of the year by much more than five and
   a quarter days. It should be kept in mind, however, that the Old
   Testament speaks of "ten degrees" rather than "hours," and it is quite
   possible that one degree on the dial was less than one hour.

   Even so, a problem remains because, according to the scriptural
   account, these degrees were later recovered and so the year should
   have returned to its former length of 360 days. One can squirm out of
   this dilemma by proposing that the scriptural narrative is not correct
   in detail. It could have been that the year was lengthened to more
   than 365 1/4 days for the short interim between the burial of Ahaz and
   the illness of Hezekiah and that it then was again shortened, but not
   by the same amount of "degrees," to its present length. It could also
   be that the events in question constituted two separate occurrences,
   but we would then be left without scriptural evidence for the later
   event in which the year lengthened to 365 1/4 days. The only thing we
   can tentatively hold on to is that the 360-day year so persistently
   alluded to in the calendric lore of the ancient nations is lent some
   astronomical credibility by the contents of the Panchasiddhantika.

   To be sure, these changes, including the possible, and relatively
   minor, expansion of the Solar System, require further verification. If
   proven valid, they would have to be accounted for through some cosmic
   event. It should however be stressed that, whatever this cosmic event
   could have been, the evidence at our disposal dies not implicate Mars.
   On the contrary, this very evidence dictates that Mars could not
   possibly have been the responsible agent. As Reade was forced to
   conclude, "there appears still to be no satisfying confirmation of any
   conspicuously abnormal activity of Mars in the ancient astronomical
   records which have so far been turned up."^(82)

   10. The Flight of the Maruts: an Exceptional Case

   If there is one item that is undoubtedly Martian by nature in all of
   the second half of Worlds in Collision, it would have to be the
   connection of the Vedic Maruts with Martu/Mars of which we have
   already spoken in section 2 above. The philological equation between
   Maruts, Martis, and Martio had already been made by Hermann Grassmann
   and F. Max Mller in the late nineteenth century.^(83) According to
   Velikovsky, these Maruts were a swarm of trailing comets that followed
   in the wale of Mars as it repeatedly brushed past the Earth in its
   close encounters during the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.^(84) In a
   recent paper, Charles Ginenthal mentioned "Mars and its 'Maruts'" --
   but only once, en passant -- as an accepted postulate without
   qualifying the term.^(85)

   As I indicated seven years ago, however, the flight of the Maruts
   cannot be dated to the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. since the seven-fold
   phenomenon of which the Maruts consisted can be better interpreted as
   the concentric rings that once surrounded the primeval Saturnian
   orb.^(86)

   Needless to say, no one is bound to accept my interpretation but if
   one insists on adhering to Velikovsky's identification of the Maruts
   as a brood of comets following in the wake of Mars, he or she should
   at least endeavor to refute it.

   As it happens, David Talbott is of a different opinion, interpreting
   the Maruts as the seven "satellites" seen circling around Saturn
   within the enclosure of its encircling band. According to him, these
   bodies were not, strictly speaking, satellites of Saturn since he
   envisions them as having circled around the Axis Mundi far "below" the
   Saturnian orb. It was only terrestrial perspective that made them
   appear to orbit the Saturnian plane.^(87)

   What, then, of the association of the Maruts with Mars? A proper
   understanding of the Saturnian configuration will show that this
   association can be upheld on either basis -- with the Maruts being the
   rings or the "satellites" -- since Mars was part and parcel of the
   same configuration.^(88) It is, however, obvious that the Saturnian
   connection would remove the Maruts from Velikovsky's posited Martian
   catastrophes of the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.

   11. In Conclusion

   Most of the foregoing criticisms and analyses, as we have actually
   seen, have been presented before. They have here been collected
   together in one place in order to demonstrate the invalidity of
   Velikovsky's thesis concerning his reconstructed series of supposed
   Martian catastrophes. No one is bound to abide by the conclusions
   derived but any continued promulgation of these supposed Martian
   events should not disregard the objections raised against them in the
   above pages and the various publications referenced therein.

   To present evidence of relatively recent catastrophism on the planet
   Mars itself, as ably tendered by Donald Patten^(89) and
   Ginenthal,^(90) is not enough if it cannot first be shown that the
   upheavals on Mars resulted from interaction with Earth during the
   postulated events. As David Talbott indicated, some of the evidence
   from the mutilated surface of Mars accords better with the much
   earlier interaction of the planet with the Earth and Saturn, to say
   nothing of Venus, at the beginning and end of the Golden Age.^(91)

   This, of course, is not to advocate the blind supplanting of
   Velikovsky's theories by those of Talbott or mine since, in this
   respect, the evidence must be submitted to just as rigorous an
   evaluation. But if cosmic history is to be reconstructed accurately,
   neither evidence nor criticism should be overlooked or, worse still,
   utterly ignored.

   Appendix

   A. Isenberg, "Dating the Great Mahabharata War: A Previously Neglected
   Clue," KRONOS II:3 (Feb. 1977), pp. 56-63; C. Marx, "Letter to the
   Editor," Catastrophism and Ancient History II:2 (June 1980), pp.
   131-132; idem., "Ankylosis in the Chronology of Reconstructed
   History?" SIS Workshop 3:2 (October 1980), pp. 6-7; D. Stove,
   "Velikovsky in Collision," KRONOS VI:3 (Spring 1981), pp.27ff; C.
   Marx, "Letters to the Editor," Catastrophism and Ancient History III:2
   (July 1981), pp. 122-123; editorial, "New Directions in Ancient
   History," SIS Review V:1 (1980/81), p. 4; M. Sieff, "Assyria and the
   End of the Late Bronze Age," SIS Workshop 4:2 (September 1981), p. 7;
   C.L. Ellenberger, "Senmut's Ceiling and the Earth as Tippe Top,"
   KRONOS VII:2 (Winter 1982), p. 91; A. de Grazia, Chaos and Creation
   (Princeton, 1981), pp. 74, 236, 245; A. Dirkzwager, "Expanding the End
   of Assyrian History," Catastrophism and Ancient History VI:1 (Jan.
   1984), pp. 45-46; G. Heinsohn, "Catastrophism, Revisionism, and
   Velikovsky," KRONOS XI:1 (Fall 1985), p. 111; L.E. Rose, "Answers to
   Further Critics," KRONOS XI:3 (Summer 1986), pp. 65, 69; P. Clapham,
   "A Time of Pestilence and a Shaking of the Earth," Catastrophism and
   Ancient History VII:2 (July 1985), pp. 111,114; M. Sieff, "The Libyans
   in Egypt: Resolving the Third Intermediate Period," in ibid., VIII:1
   (Jan. 1986), p. #@; E.J. Sweeney, "Earthquakes in the Early Irish
   Tradition," Chronology & Catastrophism Workshop, Vol. 1 (1987), pp.
   4-8.

  References
  
   1. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (N.Y., 1950), p. 207.
   2. Ibid., p. 241.
   3. Ibid., pp. 244-245.
   4. S. Langdon, Sumerian and Babylonian Psalms (1909), p. 85.
   5. Hesiod, Theogony pp. 918-936.
   6. P. Masson-Oursel & Louise Morin, "Indian Mythology," New Larousse
   Encyclopedia of Mythology (London, 1972), p. 378.
   7. G. de Santillana & H. von Dechend, Hamlet's Mill: An Essay of Myth
   and the Frame of Time (Boston, 1969), p. 157.
   8. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., pp. 267-268.
   9. Ibid., pp. 238-240.
   10. Ibid., p. 238.
   11. Ibid., pp. 240-241.
   12. Ibid., p. 241.
   13. Ibid.; see also M. Sieff, "Assyria and the End of the Late Bronze
   Age," SIS Workshop 4:2 (Sept. 1981), p. 5.
   14. G. Rawlinson, The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern
   World, Vol.1 (N.Y., 1885), pp. 355-356.
   15. F.G. Bratton, Myths and Legends of the Ancient Near East (N.Y.,
   1970), p. 22.
   16. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 174.
   17. F.B. Jueneman, "The Hermes Connection," AEON I:5 (Sept. 1988), pp.
   81ff.
   18. M.G. Reade, "An Introduction to the Evidence of the
   Panchasiddhantika," SIS Review V:2 (1980/81), p. 54.
   19. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., pp. 281-289.
   20. Amos 5:8.
   21. For Kesil as Mars, see I. Velikovsky, "Khima and Kesil," KRONOS
   III:4 (Summer 1978), pp. 19-23; D. Cardona, "The Mystery of the
   Pleiades," in ibid., pp. 24ff.
   22. For Khima as Saturn see reference #21.
   23. Isaiah 13:9.
   24. Ibid., 13:10.
   25. S. Mewhinney, "Maruts and Kesilim," KRONOS V:4 (Summer, 1980), p.
   94.
   26. J. Krausz, Die Gotternamen in den Babylonischen
   Siegelcylinder-Legenden (Leipzig, 1911), P. 56.
   27. D. Cardona, "Child of Saturn," Part II, KRONOS VII:2 (Winter,
   1982), p. 34; idem., "Indra," KRONOS VII:3 (Spring, 1982), p. 20; but
   see also A. Isenberg & D. Cardona, "Kartikeya: Mars or Venus?" KRONOS
   VIII:2 (Winter, 1983), pp. 73-76 and "Kartikeya: Mars or Venus? --
   II," in ibid., IX:2 (Winter, 1984), pp. 100-109.
   28. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (N.Y., 1950), pp. 245-253.
   29. D. Cardona, "Velikovsky's Sources: Pro et Con," KRONOS XI:3
   (Summer, 1986), pp. 86-87; idem., "Planetary Identities: II -- The
   Mythology of Homer," Chronology and Catastrophism Workshop, Vol. I
   (1989), pp. 5-6.
   30. For Poseidon as Saturn, see ibid., pp. 4-5; idem., "Planetary
   Identities: I -- The Concept of Deity," Chronology and Catastrophism
   Workshop, Vol. 2 (1988), p. 4.
   31. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 265.
   32. B. Forrest, Velikovsky's Sources, Part 5 (Manchester, 1982), p.
   350.
   33. For more on the Midgard serpent see D. Cardona, "The River of
   Ocean," Chronology & Catastrophism Review Vol. XI (1989), pp. 35-36,
   41.
   34. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., pp. 209, 355.
   35. S. Mewhinney, "Velikovsky, Mars, and the Eighth Century B.C.,"
   Part One, KRONOS XI:3 (Summer 1986), pp. 42-55.
   36. Ibid., pp. 49-51.
   37. Ibid., pp. 48-49.
   38. Ibid., pp. 51-53.
   39. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., pp. 227ff; idem., Mankind in Amnesia
   (N.Y., 1982), pp. 43-44.
   40. S. Mewhinney, "On 'The Year -687'," KRONOS VI:4 (Summer 1981), pp.
   4-27; idem., "On 'The Year -687': A Postscript," KRONOS VII:3 (Spring
   1982), pp. 86-88.
   41. Ibid., (Summer 1981), p. 15; see also B. Forrest, Velikovsky's
   Sources, Part 6 (Manchester, 1983), pp. 425ff.
   42. J.J. Bimson, "The Years 763 and 687 B.C.," SIS Review V:4 (1980/81
   but issued in Dec. 1984), pp. 121-122.
   43. S. Mewhinney, "More on Meteor Showers," KRONOS VIII:2 (Winter
   1983), pp. 86-88. See also idem., "On Polar Shifts and the Meteor
   Shower of -687," in ibid., p. 85; J.N. Sammer (in reply to S.
   Mewhinney), "On 'The Year -687': A Postscript," KRONOS VII:3 (Spring
   1982), pp. 89-90.
   44. J.J. Bimson, op. cit., p. 121; see also idem., "The Search for
   Sethos," SIS Workshop 6:1 (May 1985), pp. 6-7.
   45. S. Mewhinney, "On 'The Year -687',"KRONOS VI:4 (Summer 1981), pp.
   17ff, 24; idem., "Velikovsky, Mars, and the Eighth Century B.C.," Part
   Two, KRONOS XII:1 (Winter 1987), pp. 69-80. See also B. Forrest, op.
   cit., Part 2 (Manchester, 1981), p. 159; C. Whelton, et al., "Double
   Dawn Explained," Chronology & Catastrophism Workshop, Vol. 1 (1987),
   pp. 23-24. For other papers of importance related to the subject, see
   Appendix following.
   46. See, for instance, the comments of A.D. Godley, Herodotus (Loeb
   Classical Library, 1921), footnote to ii:141.
   47. I. Velikovsky, Mankind in Amnesia (N.Y., 1982), pp. 43-45.
   48. Idem., Worlds in Collision (N.Y., 1950), p. 269; idem., Stargazers
   and Gravediggers (N.Y., 1983), pp. 270-272. See also A. de Grazia,
   God's Fire )Princeton, 1983), p. 113.
   49. D. Cardona, "The Archangels," KRONOS VIII:2 (Winter 1983), pp. 22,
   23,25, 27-31, but read the entire article for a full understanding of
   the issues involved. See also B. Forrest & D. Cardona, "The
   Hamon-Gabriel-Mars Connection," KRONOS IX:2 (Winter 1984), pp. 85-96
   and "Velikovsky's Sources: Pro et Con," KRONOS XI:3 (Summer 1896), pp.
   77, 82-83.
   50. K.A. Leflem, "Amenophis, Osarsiph and Arzu: More on the Third
   Intermediate Period of Egypt," SIS Workshop 5:1 (April 1983), p. 16;
   J.J. Bimson, "The Years 763 and 687 B.C.," SIS Review V:4 (1980/81),
   p. 122; idem., "Can the be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised
   Stratigraphy?" in ibid., VI:1-3 (April 1983), p. 24; idem., "The
   Search for Sethos," SIS Workshop 6:1 (May 1985), pp. 6-7; D. Hickman,
   "The Chronology of Israel and Judah," Part II, Catastrophism and
   Ancient History VIII:1 (Jan. 1986), pp. 21-22.
   51. 
   I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (N.Y., 1950), p. 310.
   52. M.G. Theodorakis, "Apollo of the Wolf, the Mouse, and the
   Serpent," KRONOS IX:3 (Summer 1984), pp. 13-14.
   53. D.W. Patten, et al., The Long Day of Joshua and Six Other
   Catastrophes (Seattle, 1973), pp. 10, 77, 84-86, 94, 127, 163-165,
   245.
   54. E. Cochrane, "Apollo and the Planet Mars," AEON I:1 (Jan. 1988),
   pp. 52-62 in revised edition.
   55. M.G. Theodorakis, op. cit., p. 13; R. Graves, The Greek Myths,
   Vol. 2 (Harmondsworth, 1962), p. 259.
   56. Ibid., p. 266.
   57. G.A. Wainwright, "Letopolis," Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
   XVIII (1942), p. 161.
   58. E. Cochrane, op. cit., p. 56 in revised edition.
   59. A.D. Godley, loc. cit.
   60. D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria, Vol. II (1926-27),
   Sec. 250.
   61. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Vol. VI (Philadelphia,
   1968), pp. 363-364.
   62. J. Strong, Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary (New Jersey, 1890), p.
   107.
   63. I. Velikovsky, Stargazers and Gravediggers (N.Y., 1983), p. 272.
   64. For further discussion on this subject see: B. Forrest,
   Velikovsky's Sources, Part 1 (Manchester, 1981), pp. 11, 41-43; ibid.,
   Part 2 (Manchester, 1981), p. 83; ibid., Part 4 (Manchester, 1982),
   pp. 309-311; ibid., Part 7 (Manchester, 1983), pp. 511-512; V. Clube &
   B. Napier, The Cosmic Serpent (London, 1982), p. 271; E.J. Sweeney,
   "Earthquakes in the Early Irish Tradition," Chronology & Catastrophism
   Workshop (1987) p. 7.
   65. L. Ginzberg, op. cit., p. 367.
   66. Ibid., II Kings 20:9ff; Isaiah 38:6-8.
   67. M.G. Reade, "The Ramesside Star Tables," SIS Review IV:2/3 (Winter
   1979/80), pp. 41-53.
   68. Ibid., p. 48; but see also idem., "Ninsianna and Ramesside Star
   Observations," Chronology & Catastrophism Workshop, Vol. 1 (1986), pp.
   8-15.
   69. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (N.Y., 1950), pp. 330ff.
   70. Ibid., pp. 354-355. (Emphasis added).
   71. Ibid., pp. 348ff.
   72. J.H. Fermor, "The 360 Day Year: An Ambiguity Resolved,"
   Catastrophism and Ancient History II:1 (August 1979), pp. 9-10.
   73. Ibid.
   74. Ibid.
   75. G. Gammon, "Dr. J.H. Fermor Speaks on Velikovsky's 360 Day Year,"
   SIS Review IV:2/3 (Winter 1979/80), p. 40; see also B. Newgrosh
   (writing under the name B. O'Gheoghan), "Indian Orbits," SIS Review
   IV:4 (Spring 1980), p. 85.
   76. M.G. Reade, "An Introduction to the Evidence of the
   Panchasiddhantika," SIS Review V:2 (1980/81), p. 52.
   77. Ibid., p. 53.
   78. Ibid.
   79. This is based on the present author's own research.
   80. M.G. Reade, op. cit., p. 52.
   81. Ibid., p. 54.
   82. Ibid.
   83. I. Velikovsky, op. cit., p. 288.
   84. Ibid., pp. 282-289.
   85. C. Ginenthal, "Mars in Upheaval," AEON I:4 (July 1988), p. 60.
   86. D. Cardona, "Indra," KRONOS VII:3 (Spring 1982), pp. 19-21.
   87. D.N. Talbott to D. Cardona, verbal communique, February 19, 1989.
   88. Idem., "Saturn: Universal Monarch and Dying God," Research
   Communications NETWORK (1977 special publication), p. 6; D. Cardona,
   op. cit., p. 20.
   89. D.W. Patten, "The Scars of Mars -- I," KRONOS X:3 (Summer 1985),
   pp. 25-41; idem., "The Scars of Mars -- II," KRONOS XI:1 (Fall 1985),
   pp. 58-74.
   90. C. Ginenthal, op. cit., pp. 60-76.
   91. D. Talbott, "On Models and Scenarios," AEON I:4 (July 1988), pp.
   12-13.
     _________________________________________________________________

   \cdrom\pubs\journals\aeon\vol0203\029velik.htm