Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

[Lloyd]

Norman, since you don't believe in ancient global cataclysms in the past 20 thousand years or so, you need to take your theory to a new thread of your own.

[Norman]

@Lloyd,
You don´t seem to read what I´m writing.

# 1. Again: IT IS NOT "MY THEORY" . . .
# 2. Natural disasters of different kinds have of course always occurred on Earth, even via some few larger and minor meteors. But other "cataclysmic events" as the assumed havocs of the "Polar Configuration" are human inventions and speculations caused by misinterpreted myths and lack of astronomical observations.

So, you don´t think it is relevant to discuss the hypothesis of the planetary implications in "Evidence of Ancient Cataclysm"? What then about other participants in this topic who are mentioning this issue?

Or what about yourself in this reply?

Postby Lloyd » Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:51 am
Jesus, Born of a Virgin (Virgo?) - http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 25#p109105

Do you consider this being relevant for the "Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm"?

[Lloyd]

Understanding Myth Requires Holistic Perspective Via Comparative Mythology

From Myth to a Physical Model, by David Talbott
From: Aeon III:3 (Oct 1993)

... A Need for Clarity
... Logic does not permit one to pick and choose which unusual mythical themes one will take seriously. If myth has a reference in spectacular natural events, then no well-established mythical theme can be ignored. Sidestepping various themes in order to bolster a more easily defended interpretation becomes an invitation to a misunderstanding of the past. I emphasize this point because one of the biggest potential distractions to catastrophists is the discussion of elaborate physical models based on a few mythical fragments. This kind of discussion is not only generally useless but easily leads to self-deception: it implies that complex historical questions can be answered by abstract logic, or by mathematical or physical demonstration. But there are a thousand abstract possibilities, and that doesn't make any of them true. Moreover, the first effect of arm-chair theorizing on fragmentary evidence is to discredit the idea that myth is useful. The goal is not to expound upon purely theoretical models, but to reconstruct an unknown past on the basis of pervasive images and pictures -- historical evidence that finds no reference in the natural order today. The logical focus is the human experience as recorded on papyrus, on clay, and on stone. Through comparative analysis and cross-referencing, one must seek out the observed patterns, for it is these patterns that provide the foundation of a systematic inquiry.

... Confronting Our Belief Systems
... Now one of the reasons to ask whether myth might refer to an alien sky is very simple: All attempts to explain myth -- even the most explicitly astral myths -- by present behavior of presently-observed celestial bodies have failed. ... You begin to wonder if Venus' recurring identity as soul-star, hair star, bearded star, serpent-dragon, torch of heaven, feathered serpent, bearded serpent, hairy serpent, fiery serpent, etc. -- all acknowledged pre-astronomical glyphs of the comet -- might actually be explained by the most straightforward interpretation possible [that Venus once looked like a comet], even though that interpretation obviously conflicts with modern theory. ... If you choose to disregard the cometary interpretation because it isn't scientifically supported, then you are closing the door. ... You can't justify this kind of exercise on the basis of one anomaly and then resist the exercise as you begin to encounter other equally compelling patterns, all suggesting something entirely different from what we see in the sky today.

... The Surprising Coherence of Myth
... And gradually [despite initial confusion] I could see distinctive patterns [in myths] that simply couldn't be explained away. The more you become aware of these patterns, the more confident you become that something incredible happened, and it is simply not useful to interpret the patterns through conventional references. ... I offer here some general observations on the character of world mythology, noting a few of the "anomalous" facts one must confront in seeking an explanation of myth as a whole.

1. No recurring mythical theme is explained by the present celestial order. ...
2. There is no evidence that early man was a fabricator
... No living dragon ever flew about in the sky. But it is preposterous to assume that the global myth of the dragon was unrelated to anything actually experienced by man. ... [A]mong all early civilizations, as noted by Mircea Eliade and others, the age of myth provided the models for all sacred activity.
3. Recurring mythical themes are almost certainly prehistoric. ...
4. All myths are associated with "the age of the gods." ...
5. The gods are no longer present. ...
6. Through storytelling over time, the gods are brought down to earth. ...
7. The first civilizations arose from attempts to celebrate or recapture the age of the gods.

... Elaboration of the Prototype
... In the upward movement of early civilizations, one does not discover the introduction of new prototypes or a new vision, only more ambitious, larger-scale, and more fully elaborated expressions of the original prototype. The emergence of early technology was what made this increase in scale and in progressive elaboration possible. And the varied technologies themselves were, to an astonishing degree, the outflow of ritual celebrating the age of the gods. ... First there is a wheel in the sky. Then come the ritual wheels fashioned as duplicates of the cosmic wheel. Then come the elaborations from which the useful wheel emerges. First there are the forms in the sky. Then come the abstract and natural hieroglyphs representing and interpreting these forms. Then comes the further abstraction into systems of writing. Writing emerges as a tool of ritual, enabling worshippers to extend their celebration of the gods. ... If you think the myth of the celestial prototype was an invention, you are required to conjure an undocumented period of rampant fabrication followed by a documented period in which fabrication -- making things up out of nothing -- would have been unthinkable.

Norman, Gordon & others seem to fail to heed the first paragraph of the above quote from Talbott. Gordon looks only at Bible mythology without comparing it to other myths, with minor exceptions. Norman gets an impression that the ship of heaven circling the polar configuration might have been the Milky Way galaxy and refuses to look any closer at the major themes of myth, such as the Universal Monarch/Central Sun at the pole, the Radiant Star/Eye-Goddess/Comet Venus in the center of the Monarch, the Warrior Hero that originates in the center of Venus, emerges from her and grows huge and battles the Chaos Monster/Dragon/Serpent and many other mythic themes. Talbott and others are the experts who have investigated myths very thoroughly since the 70s at least. They let the myths lead them, instead of limiting themselves to supposedly known astronomical facts. And they found that astronomical facts can accommodate their mythical/historical findings, though in unexpected ways. I'll later post some of these unexpected astronomical facts.

[Norman]

@Lloyd,

You stated that:

Understanding Myth Requires Holistic Perspective Via Comparative Mythology

Of course nobody can argue against this - which also goes for those who are reading of different interpretations of the myths if having non or little routines of reading, analyzing and comparing the myths for themselves.

If ones "holistic perspective" goes no longer than to the planetary matters in the ancient Myths of Creation, where even written informations about the ancient mythical Milky Way connection is available, I wouldn´t call this holistic, but rather selective.

You wanted me to make my own topic, which I have done here:

"The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP -
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16207 -

Read this topic and it´s posts of subjects and do you own mytho-logical and astronomical/cosmological comparisons.

For your information, I´ve done my own mythical and cosmological comparisons and studies for some 35 years now.

[Lloyd]

THE SATURN THESIS
An In-Depth Interview With David Talbott
From: Aeon IV:3 (Dec 1995)
http://www.aeonjournal.com/articles/tal ... lbott.html

Talbott: Within the academic community, there's not just a growing scientific and scholarly interest in the role of comets and planetary upheavals, but the first signs of interest in myth, including the possibility that ancient myths and pictographs might contain evidence of past natural events -- global catastrophes, cometary intruders, natural spectacles in the sky.

Examples would include Victor Clube and William Napier, Fred Hoyle, and the Australian astronomer Duncan Steele, all of whom have resorted to references in myth to substantiate the ancient experience of cosmic catastrophe.

Even Carl Sagan and Nancy Druyan notice the prevalence of an ancient symbol, the swastika, and propose a celestial origin for the symbol. It was, according to them, a rotating comet spewing streams of gas into surrounding space.

[A]stronomer Tom Van Flandern ... agreed ... that there is considerable evidence to suggest that ancient civilizations may have arisen in the shadow of celestial catastrophe -- and ... that ancient myths and symbols deserve careful study and cross-cultural comparison to see if they might point to the nature of the upheavals. ...

This has, of course, thrown open the door in a way that will unnerve many scholars. The moment accredited researchers begin to entertain ancient myth as evidence for unusual natural occurrences, it becomes a new ball game.

If Sagan is permitted to draw on global symbolism of the swastika to suggest an unusual cometary phenomenon, are we not permitted to show the general associations of the swastika with the triskelion and whorl, or the mutual associations of these symbols with the long-flowing, disheveled hair of the angry goddess, the goddess who rages in the sky in the form of a serpent or dragon at the time of a world-ending disaster -- the angry goddess who just happens to be the planet Venus?

[Lloyd]

SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR THE SATURN THEORY
My previous post showed that science is or was coming around to investigating prehistorical catastrophism. This post quoting from the same paper shows that the Saturn Model does have scientific support.

THE SATURN THESIS
An In-Depth Interview With David Talbott
From: Aeon IV:3 (Dec 1995)
http://www.aeonjournal.com/articles/tal ... lbott.html

AEON: What about progress toward developing a physical model?

Talbott: There have been three key contributors -- and, interestingly, they are all Bobs: Bob Grubaugh, Bob Bass, and Bob Driscoll.

Bob Grubaugh is an engineer with many years of professional experience in orbital calculations. He looked at some interesting possibilities dynamically, and has proposed ways to support the concept of polar alignment.

Bob has suggested a collinear system of planets revolving around its own center of gravity synchronously with the system's movement around the Sun. One of the interesting possibilities being explored by Grubaugh is a planetary system revolving retrogradely as the system moves progradely around the Sun -- such that the line running through the participating planets continues to point to the same background star. In that case, no precession of the pole is necessary to maintain polar alignment. What I like about this innovative concept is that it potentially removes two objections to the "physically impossible" aspects of the configuration -- the sustained planetary conjunction and Earth's polar alignment -- in one stroke. But in its pristine, gravity-only form, the distance between planets (not to mention the implied climatic extremes) won't satisfy all of the data to be explained. So I'd like to see a consideration of certain variations in the basic scheme.

Robert Bass is a former professor of physics and astronomy and perhaps the most wide-ranging and brilliant fellow I've ever had the pleasure of meeting. Over a period of several months, he looked at aspects of Grubaugh's work and added some significant details. Particularly interesting is Bass' calculation of tidal friction on the participating bodies, showing that, though the forces are extremely small, tidal friction works to stabilize a configuration that, despite the theoretical equilibrium, might otherwise be explosively unstable. Bass also carefully examined a unique coordinate system Grubaugh developed for his simulations and was able to confirm that, in the case of a collinear arrangement, this coordinate system allows greater accuracy than the coordinates usually employed in integration routines.

Additionally, as a very pleasant surprise growing out of his work on the Grubaugh models, Bass believes he's succeeded in mathematically deriving Bode's Law, a well-known empirically-based statement of the spatial relationships between planets in the solar system. Though I could never do justice to Bass' mathematics, his work would suggest that planets might have moved in a primitive [linear] system, entered a period of chaos, and then, with surprising rapidity, settled into their current positions. His calculations show that, in a chaotic system, the planets will continually bump each other resonantly until they achieve a defined equilibrium, wherein they experience the least interaction. At those equilibrium positions, which accord with Bode's empirical "law," a computer retro-calculation would deceptively suggest that they had been in those positions for countless millions of years, even if they arrived at those positions only yesterday on the geological time scale.

I should mention that the work of physicist Bob Driscoll is also potentially very significant because it draws heavily upon electromagnetism. For a number of reasons, I'm inclined to believe that electromagnetism played a major role in the evolution of the configuration -- perhaps even a dominant role in the earliest and possibly most stable phases. Driscoll has emphasized that electromagnetism, in addition to adding a stabilizing force to the in-line arrangement, permits the planets to move in much closer proximity to each other.

[Norman]

@Lloyd,
Luckily, some modern scientists pay more and more attention to the scientific part of the EU since the 3/4 of the fundamental forces deals with EU - and the gravitational 1/4 part is rubbish.

Talbott: Within the academic community, there's not just a growing scientific and scholarly interest in the role of comets and planetary upheavals, but the first signs of interest in myth, including the possibility that ancient myths and pictographs might contain evidence of past natural events -- global catastrophes, cometary intruders, natural spectacles in the sky.

I guess this refers to the Peratt Rock Art "stick figures" and "the assumed alien Sky"?

Can Peratt make this Swedish Rock Art figure from the Bronze Age in his plasma laboratory? I don´t think so. And this imagery can still be observed in the night Sky, resembling the Milky Way Man (Saturnus God) and the celestial pole area.

There is nothing alien in the ancient and present Sky. It all depends on the interpretations and on connecting the right myth to the correct celestial objects and their motions.

[webolife]

Lloyd,
I actually appreciate the first paragraph [from Aeon III:3 above] largely, but disagree with Talbott's foundational dismissal of comparisons to the modern sky. Once an alternate/alien universe is conceived to accommodate a myth-based belief system, it becomes no longer possible to challenge the claims with physical evidence. Without this connection to empirical data, the subject falls outside the bounds of scientific discourse altogether. I prefer the biblical foundation for just this reason, that its claims are supportable or challengeable with evidence that is available to the present day observer, critic, opponent or whomever has eyes to see or ears to hear.

If the claim is made that one must believe a peculiar mythological system in order to understand the workings of the currently observable physical system, then one must be ready to draw clear connections between those two systems.

[comingfrom]

If the claim is made that one must believe a peculiar mythological system in order to understand the workings of the currently observable physical system, then one must be ready to draw clear connections between those two systems.

I don't believe that is the claim, or the intent, of the Saturn model.

The model arose from a comparative analysis of ancient testimony.
Now it is trying to be understood in terms of what is currently known.
What is currently known does not necessarily come from currently observable physical systems.

If it is confirmed, it will greatly effect our current understandings of many things.

But how can it be confirmed?
Successful predictions about anomalies of Venus didn't convince the mainstream. And such things as the evacuation of so much crustal material from Mars' northern hemisphere and the recent deposition of material in Saturn's rings won't be considered as evidence. Even though there is no other explanation.

Inter-planetary thunderbolts have never currently been observed, but we who are into EU theory accept the proposition. Black Holes and Dark Matter are not currently observable physical systems, but taken as absolute fact by many. The line between scientific fact and myth is very blurry.

~Paul

[Norman]

@webolife,
You replied to Lloyd:

I actually appreciate the first paragraph [from Aeon III:3 above] largely, but disagree with Talbott's foundational dismissal of comparisons to the modern sky. Once an alternate/alien universe is conceived to accommodate a myth-based belief system, it becomes no longer possible to challenge the claims with physical evidence. Without this connection to empirical data, the subject falls outside the bounds of scientific discourse altogether. I prefer the biblical foundation for just this reason, that its claims are supportable or challengeable with evidence that is available to the present day observer, critic, opponent or whomever has eyes to see or ears to hear.

I totally agree and disagree in this It all depends on connecting the mythical contexts to the correct celestial objects and its location and motion in the (night) Sky.

When taking the primeval Myths of Creation of for instants the God Saturnus and Goddess Venus (Milky Way Goddess as the Egyptian goddess Hathor) and ascribes these myths to planets, all kinds of astronomical confusions of course takes place.

But when taking these myths and connect these to the correct celestial object, (The Milky Way realms) the evidential issues are much more clear and logical. All the empirical data are still available. Then the mythical/biblical (All of the cultural tellings) interpretation of creation very well can support the scientific part of the EU.

[Lloyd]

One Rock Art

postby Norman » Thu Mar 10, 2016 7:22 am
... 3/4 of the fundamental forces deals with EU - and the gravitational 1/4 part is rubbish.
... I guess this refers to the Peratt Rock Art "stick figures" and "the assumed alien Sky"? Swedish Rock Art.02..jpg
... this imagery can still be observed in the night Sky, resembling the Milky Way Man (Saturnus God) and the celestial pole area.

The alien sky existed before the dawn of civilization, i.e. before about 2400BC. Talbott & others have explained that later peoples tried to identify aspects from the old sky in seemingly similar objects in the new sky. So some of the Swedish rock art etc was likely made long after 2400BC. I disagree about EU & gravity, as I'll explain below.

Changed Orbits

postby webolife » Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:36 pm
I ... disagree with Talbott's foundational dismissal of comparisons to the modern sky. Once an alternate/alien universe is conceived to accommodate a myth-based belief system, it becomes no longer possible to challenge the claims with physical evidence. Without this connection to empirical data, the subject falls outside the bounds of scientific discourse altogether.
... If the claim is made that one must believe a peculiar mythological system in order to understand the workings of the currently observable physical system
... opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from ... inevitable bias

As Paul said, the claim is not made that one must believe in the Saturn System. And I say the claim is made that the Saturn System is what the earliest peoples described. So we have to see what the earliest peoples wrote, drew, sculpted, built and passed down through oral & cultural traditions in order to get the best idea of what they saw in the sky etc. The earliest would be the Sumerians, Egyptians & others. Your main complaint seems to be that planets can't change orbits over short periods of time. But Talbott has quoted several scientists who contend that planets can change orbits quickly and who have submitted calculations etc. Charles seems to agree with you, but I think he just hasn't analyzed the problem thoroughly enough. I think electric tidal repulsions could make the Saturn System stable for a time and then go through a brief time of instability and finally achieve a stable system with new orbits.
- Those scientists prove that the Saturn System model does not fall outside of the realm of science. I'm biased toward whichever theories have the best concrete evidence that I can find. Si?

Saturn Model Physical Evidence

postby comingfrom » Thu Mar 10, 2016 7:58 pm
... I don't believe that is the claim, or the intent, of the Saturn model.
... But how can it be confirmed? Successful predictions about anomalies of Venus didn't convince the mainstream. And such things as the evacuation of so much crustal material from Mars' northern hemisphere and the recent deposition of material in Saturn's rings won't be considered as evidence. Even though there is no other explanation.
- Inter-planetary thunderbolts have never currently been observed, but we who are into EU theory accept the proposition.

Yes, there are quite a few such facts that support the Saturn model. Venus is very hot because it was a cometary body in ancient times. Ancient myths indicate that Venus probably stole the atmosphere and maybe oceans from Mars. Juergens noted that moon rocks contain argon and neon, which are known constituents of Mars' atmosphere, so the Moon seems to have been close to Mars at one time. The resurfacing of Venus and the craters on the Moon, Mars, Mercury, Earth and many moons and asteroids suggests that there was chaos in the solar system in ancient times (the late heavy bombardment). The evidence for the Great Flood on Earth suggests that Venus or another body approached close to Earth a few thousand years ago, causing tsunamis that laid down the rock strata on the continents etc. Some myths said that Venus spewed venom on the land.
- I don't agree with EU theory on quite a few issues. Like thunderbolts likely have much less effect than impacts, though impacts do seem to have electrical effects, as Juergens showed regarding rilles on the Moon. Charles showed that bolides would naturally ionize in flight. The Sun is likely a cathode with excess negative charge, not an anode with excess positive charge, though the surface is positive. Charles shows that all of the Sun's features are electrical and sometimes magnetic. Galactic filaments are not electric currents, but ionized areas. Stars don't form by magnetic z-pinches, but by supernova "shockwaves" or cloud collisions. See Charles' papers for details at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031 .

Milky Way

postby Norman » Fri Mar 11, 2016 3:13 am
@webolife,
... It all depends on connecting the mythical contexts to the correct celestial objects and its location and motion in the (night) Sky.
- When taking the primeval Myths of Creation of for instants the God Saturnus and Goddess Venus (Milky Way Goddess as the Egyptian goddess Hathor) and ascribes these myths to planets, all kinds of astronomical confusions of course takes place.
- But when taking these myths and connect these to the correct celestial object, (The Milky Way realms) the evidential issues are much more clear and logical. All the empirical data are still available. Then the mythical/biblical (All of the cultural tellings) interpretation of creation very well can support the scientific part of the EU.

I doubt if you've ever considered the possibility that the Saturn theorists might know something about what they say. Ev Cochrane wrote a paper about the Milky Way myths, so I'll try to summarize that and post it soon.

[Lloyd]

More Scientific Evidence

SL9 PROVED SATURN THEORY POSSIBILE
The Electric Universe: Slide Presentation & Notes by Wallace Thornhill [Aeon Journal] aeon/vol0502
http://www.catastrophism.com/online/pub ... 9elect.htm
... On the screen I saw twenty-one comets stretched out in a celestial shish kebab, one that remained coherent (the few off-line bodies actually moved continuously into straighter alignment) for a full two-earth-year-long orbit.
... But this slide wasn't a cave artist's interpretation from the dim reaches of myth. It was a photograph taken through a telescope in 1994: Comet Shoemaker-Levi 9. An observer looking toward Jupiter from any one of the outer bodies [of the comet] would have seen the others centered on Jupiter, their cometary tails layered into a cosmic mountain or tree. ... Thornhill's presentation was the event that ... changed the polar configuration [in]to an astronomical possibility.

SATURN CONFIGURATION WITH TIDAL FRICTION
http://www.aeonjournal.com/articles/tal ... lbott.html
... Robert Bass ... looked at aspects of Grubaugh's work and added some significant details. Particularly interesting is Bass' calculation of tidal friction on the participating bodies [in the Saturn Configuration], showing that, though the forces are extremely small, tidal friction works to stabilize a configuration that, despite the theoretical equilibrium, might otherwise be explosively unstable. Bass also carefully examined a unique coordinate system Grubaugh developed for his simulations and was able to confirm that, in the case of a collinear arrangement, this coordinate system allows greater accuracy than the coordinates usually employed in integration routines.
... Bass' ... work would suggest that planets might have moved in a primitive system [Saturn Configuration], entered a period of chaos, and then, with surprising rapidity, settled into their current positions. His calculations show that, in a chaotic system, the planets will continually bump each other resonantly until they achieve a defined equilibrium, wherein they experience the least interaction. At those equilibrium positions, which accord with Bode's empirical "law," a computer retro-calculation would deceptively suggest that they had been in those positions for countless millions of years, even if they arrived at those positions only yesterday on the geological time scale.
- I should mention that the work of physicist Bob Driscoll is also potentially very significant because it draws heavily upon electromagnetism. For a number of reasons, I'm inclined to believe that electromagnetism played a major role in the evolution of the configuration -- perhaps even a dominant role in the earliest and possibly most stable phases. Driscoll has emphasized that electromagnetism, in addition to adding a stabilizing force to the in-line arrangement, permits the planets to move in much closer proximity to each other.

[Cargo]

If the claim is made that one must believe a peculiar mythological system in order to understand the workings of the currently observable physical system, then one must be ready to draw clear connections between those two systems.

I don't believe that is the claim, or the intent, of the Saturn model.

The model arose from a comparative analysis of ancient testimony.
Now it is trying to be understood in terms of what is currently known.
What is currently known does not necessarily come from currently observable physical systems.

If it is confirmed, it will greatly effect our current understandings of many things.

But how can it be confirmed?
Successful predictions about anomalies of Venus didn't convince the mainstream. And such things as the evacuation of so much crustal material from Mars' northern hemisphere and the recent deposition of material in Saturn's rings won't be considered as evidence. Even though there is no other explanation.

Inter-planetary thunderbolts have never currently been observed, but we who are into EU theory accept the proposition. Black Holes and Dark Matter are not currently observable physical systems, but taken as absolute fact by many. The line between scientific fact and myth is very blurry.

~Paul

Here Here +1

About biblical stories of just great size and scope describing plant wide events; What was the scope/range of a man's sight back then. They had 2 or 4 legged travel, no telescopes, crude sea-ships, no balloons or planes, and no way to send any message (radio) faster then a person can travel by foot/horse. Bird messages? A story that describes events that span entire continents, coast to coast and beyond, how long would it take for such long-distance pre-technology knowledge to be collected in one location to be written? If at all.

[Norman]

@Lloyd, you wrote:

The alien sky existed before the dawn of civilization, i.e. before about 2400BC. Talbott & others have explained that later peoples tried to identify aspects from the old sky in seemingly similar objects in the new sky. So some of the Swedish rock art etc was likely made long after 2400BC

May I remind you that this is a hypothesis and not scientific and proven fact? The term "existed" is just a part of the unproven hypothesis. You have an idea and you try to find all kinds of informations which are ascribed to the hypothesis - but this is still not facts until proven. (Which is impossible since the very hypothesis is mytho-cosmologically wrong. The specific mythical contexts doesn´t fit the celestial objects in the theory).

I doubt if you've ever considered the possibility that the Saturn theorists might know something about what they say. Ev Cochrane wrote a paper about the Milky Way myths, so I'll try to summarize that and post it soon.

Of course I´ve considered this. But the very mythical context speaks against the overall idea. I´m looking forward to the Milky Way text of Ev Cochrane. I´ve tryed to google it and found it too, but I have no access - http://www.catastrophism.com/cdrom/pubs ... 9milky.htm

[Lloyd]

The Milky Way
by Ev Cochrane, Aeon IV:4 (Apr 1996)

[In this paper Cochrane shows that the myths associated with the Milky Way in earliest times referred to a former polar column extending from Earth's northern horizon to the former northern "pole star". Earliest myths indicate that the pole star was a conjunction of Saturn, Venus & Mars. Later myths did too, but with more confusion due to misinterpretation of tradition.]
... Only by comparing traditions from around the world is it possible to discover archetypal patterns of historical significance and avoid being misled by local, artificial accretions. ... We begin our reconstruction with the ancient traditions surrounding the Milky Way.

[Most ancient cultures regarded the Milky Way as several of the following objects, none of which include a boat or ship of heaven; after the list is Cochrane's explanation that these objects formerly referenced the polar column in the Saturn model:]
- Wind: whirlwind in sub-lunary zone, "wind skein", "beam of sky"
- River: "Stream of Heaven", "Sky River", "Water of Life", "River", "river of sky", "Winding Waterway", great river, celestial stream, deep body of water, stream, or rapids, 'Fire-Stream', Stream of Death
- Serpent: great python, Fer-de-lance (pit viper), "River of Snake", "Path of Snake", serpentine
- Rope: "stars combining as rope", giant rope, cord uniting heaven and earth, "road suspended in sky" (as large rope, now vanished, that fed ancient rulers), vanished forever rope of heaven
- Road: "White Road", "frightful road" (to underworld), "Street of Stars", "road that crosses sky", former path of Sun, road of Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl, path of Heracles' cattle, "cattle track" (of brother of creator), path of warriors' cattle, path of spilled grain, road of Sun
- Way of Spirits: "road of souls to spirit world", path for ghosts to Valholl, "road from earth to world of spirits", "road of spirits", "lofty road to great Thunderer (god)", road of souls to otherworld, way of souls, ghost's road to Land of Dead, "Pathway of Departed Spirits", spirits' dwelling places between incarnations

Ladder to Heaven
... Egyptian language ... provides a wealth of clues to the original nature of the celestial "Way." The Egyptian ladder ... enabled the deceased to ascend to heaven -- as depicted in the Papyrus of Ani.
... Egyptian civilization [had] an obsessive preoccupation with death and ... immortality.... (A)n overriding concern of the ancient Egyptian Pyramid and Coffin Texts was the king's survival of death and transmigration to the stars.
... One of the most prominent themes in these texts makes the king mount a ladder, stair, or some other contrivance in order to reach the heavenly river which leads to the kingdom of the sun. ... "Stairs to the sky are laid for him that he may ascend thereon to the sky." ... "A ladder to the sky shall be put together for you and Nut will extend her hands towards you, you shall navigate on the Winding Waterway and sail in the eight boat." ... "I ascend on this ladder which my father Re made for me." ... (T)he king was ... identified with a star, particularly in the form of Horus as Morning Star. It is as a star that the king is implored to mount the ladder in order to join Re: "The King is a star in the sky among the gods; ... bring to the king the ladder which Khnum has made that the King may ascend on it to the sky and escort Re in the sky."
... The idea of a soul-ladder stretching from earth to heaven ... is apparently universal in extent. ... The most familiar example of such a sky-ladder, perhaps, is the account in Genesis: "And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth and the top of it reached the sky, and behold the angels of god ascending and descending upon it." As Cumont has documented, "Among the ancient Egyptians the firmament was conceived as being so close to the mountains of the earth that it was possible to climb up to it with the aid of a ladder." ... Numerous peoples conceived of the Milky Way as a giant ladder, stairway, or pillar spanning the sky. To this day, many Europeans still refer to the Milky Way as "Jacob's Ladder." The ancient Laps compared the Milky Way to a stairway, [where] souls were said to take on the appearance of birds ... migrating to heaven.
[Problem]
... A clear indication that something is amiss with the conventional understanding of Egyptian concepts of the Milky Way is the statement that the Winding Waterway is to be found in the northern part of the sky -- in the circumpolar region, no less -- a region seldom frequented by the Sun. "A stairway to the sky is set up for you among the Circumpolar Stars."
... Confronted with the various attributes of the Milky Way -- River of Heaven; Dragon; Road of the Sun; Path of Lost Souls; North Wind; etc. -- scholars have typically offered their best guess at an interpretation, seldom attempting to account for more than a single theme at a time. ... (T)here is no logical explanation why peoples would view the Milky Way as a soul-ladder leading to the Sun.
... Saturn Kronos -- whom Plato called Helios.
... Kronos was intimately associated with [the] Elysian Fields to whence the souls departed upon death.... The concept of the Elysian Fields, as Cook documented, goes back to ancient traditions of a "way" from earth to heaven along which souls might pass. The word Elysian, in fact, comes from the word elysie, "way." ... Various authorities speak of a ladder or stairway associated with the kingdom of Kronos/Saturn. ... Akkadian hymns ... associate a ladder or stairway with the domain of Shamash/Saturn. ... (T)he ancient texts [also] mention a "road" associated with [Saturn](Samas). Indeed it was upon this road that Gilgamesh traveled when performing his heroic exploits. Ancient astronomical omens from Babylon ... associate this "roadway" with the planet Saturn.
... The Twin Mountain -- Akkadian Mashu -- is the sacred mountain upon which the ancient sun-god was wont to rise and set. ... When confronted with a universal tradition such as that of a mountain presiding over sunrise and sunset, or of a mountain, tree, or ladder joining heaven to earth, the simplest and most logically sound position is to consider the possibility that the ancients were not mentally deficient or predisposed to absurd flights of fancy -- that, in fact, they were describing a real phenomenon in matter of fact language. ... A decisive clue is presented by the recurring theme of the World Mountain or Milky Way as a zone of communication between heaven and earth, a theme otherwise associated with ancient conceptions of the World Axis.
... Shaman-rites from both the Old and New Worlds feature a symbolic ascent to heaven by means of a pole, ladder, tree, or cord. In more than one culture, the climbing pole is addressed as the "road to the sky." ... As Eliade and others have documented, such rites have as their express purpose an attempt to recreate the conditions which once prevailed during the Golden Age, when a pillar to the sky actually existed and communication between the two worlds was [thought] possible. Eliade's summary of these rites is as follows: "If we try to achieve a general view of all the myths and rites just briefly reviewed, we are struck by the fact that they have a dominant idea in common: communication between heaven and earth can be brought about ... by some physical means (rainbow, bridge, stairs, ladder, vine, cord, 'chain of arrows', mountain, etc., etc.). All of these symbolic images of the connection between heaven and earth are merely variants of the World Tree or the axis mundi."

Cochrane's paper has much more info, but I haven't reviewed the rest of it yet.