mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Quantavolution.Org  	 E-MAIL: contact at quantavolution.org
<mailto:contact at quantavolution.org> 

TABLE OF CONTENTS <tabcon.htm>

previous.gif <velikovsky_affair_03.htm>     next.gif
<velikovsky_affair_05.htm>    

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*THE VELIKOVSKY AFFAIR**
SCIENTISM /VERSUS/ SCIENCE*
------------------------------------------------------------------------

/PART FOUR

by Livio C. Stecchini/

CUNEIFORM ASTRONOMICAL RECORDS AND CELESTIAL INSTABILITY

To prove that there are ancient records which document that in recent
times the earth underwent a cataclysm of extraterrestrial origin which
is precisely described and should be taken into account as an empirical
datum by those whose task is to construct astronomical and cosmological
theories, I shall quote the opinion of a recognized major authority on
Babylonian and biblical astronomy, chronology, and mythology, Father
Franz Xavier Kugler (1862-1929).

Kugler had a strictly scientific bent of mind. He started his academic
career as a university lecturer of chemistry, but, after the death of
Joseph Epping (1835-94), a fellow member of the Jesuit order and the
founder of the study of cuneiform astronomical texts, Kugler decided to
take over and continue his work and to this end became an outstanding
expert on ancient astronomy and cuneiform philology. Most of his life
was dedicated to the interpretation of cuneiform texts dealing with
astronomy and with the related topics of chronology and mythology; the
main characteristic of his method was a mathematical rigour for which he
is considered still unsurpassed today.

In the latter part of his life he applied the knowledge developed in the
field of cuneiform documents to the solution of related problems of
biblical interpretation. His greatest contribution to the study of
ancient astronomy was his approach, by which he built only from the most
painstaking interpretation of specific texts and thereby cleared the
field of /a priori /presuppositions and hasty generalizations.

The decipherment of cuneiform materials had produced from the very
beginning an overwhelming mass of novel data which compelled thoughtful
scholars to question most of the accepted notions about the development
of civilization in ancient times. However, this wealth of revolutionary
evidence drove a number of highly competent specialists of cuneiform
philology to raise too many general questions at the same time and, in
their enthusiasm for the new data before their eyes, to commit
themselves to general theories without adequate empirical backing. It is
true that many of these general theories were presented as merely
tentative, with the purpose of stressing that most of our assumptions
need to be totally revised; but the concrete result was that the debate
shifted to controversies about generalities, obscuring thereby the more
meaningful aspect that cuneiform texts provide a new exact historical
documentation, more reliable than most of those that had been hitherto
available.

Kugler insisted that one should suspend judgment and concentrate on the
careful study of specific groups of documents. For this reason, only at
the end of his life did he feel ready to come forth with a general
theory, and less than two years before his death, he published a rather
slim book entitled /Sybillinischer Sternkampf und Phaëthon in
naturgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung, /'The Sybilline Battle of the Stars
and Phaethon Seen as Natural History, '( Munster, 1927).

He who rested his fame on tomes which, in spite of their intrinsic
clarity, are comprehensible only to the few who can understand both
mathematical astronomy and cuneiform philology, issued this book as part
of a series called /Zeitgemässige Beiträge, /(' Essays of Current
Interest'), because, as he explains, he felt that he had a message that
should affect contemporary society, since it had a great meaning for the
history of culture. Kugler well understood that great innovating ideas
can be made to prevail by presenting them to a public wider than the
narrow specialists, who have a tendency to become prisoners of the
general conceptions they have learned together with the technical
routines that they have spent their lives to master. But even though
Kugler intended to address himself to the general public, he could not
help following his usual method, which consisted in proving a general
point by concentrating on the exact technical interpretations of a few
texts.

Werner Jaeger was fond of repeating to us students that the most
important rule he had learned from the great Wilamowitz, was that in
philology a few univocal texts have more compelling force than one
hundred ambiguous ones. The trouble with this method is that it leads to
the formulation of conclusions meaningful only for the wise who can
understand that the revision of the interpretation of a single text may
automatically imply the revision of a host of similar ones. What Kugler
submitted was intended to be dynamite that should have shaken the entire
field of ancient chronology and historical astronomy, but the fuse was
not lit because the general public did not understand what was implied,
and those who were competent to understand the implications were not
psychologically ready to draw the inevitable conclusions.

The 'pressing warning' that Kugler wanted to communicate to the public
was summed up by him as:

the momentous doctrine that ancient traditions, even when they are
dressed as myth and saga, cannot be dismissed lightly as fantastic,
or worse, meaningless fabrications. It is particularly proper to
avoid this pitfall when dealing with serious reports, especially
those of religious nature such as those that occur in large number
in the Old Testament. 

He applied this general theory to the interpretations of the ancient
texts that deal with the Battle of the Stars. He observed that these
texts have been dismissed by scholars as:

completely nonsensical and that nobody has succeeded in explaining
them as a meaningful allegory, if it is not possible to interpret
them as references to true cosmic occurrences... I have to confess
that in my first occasional attempts I did not succeed any better.
But many years of experience with the decipherment of cuneiform
documents that concern the astronomical and astromythological
conceptions of the Babylonians have taught me that, in the system of
ideas of the Easterners and of the ancient Orientals in particular,
there is much that seems nonsensical to us Occidentals, but is in
reality within the realm of factual foundations and sound logic. 

When in 1966 I published a first version of the present essay, I
stressed that pronunciamentos such as the two just quoted, were intended
to sum up an entire life of research on ancient astronomical documents.
It was the intention of Kugler that they should be taken as statements
of fundamental importance for the understanding and the gathering of
actual empirical data of astronomy (which is relevant to natural science).

After this brief, but final and comprehensive publication of Kugler was
rescued from oblivion, it was quoted by several supporters of
Velikovsky. Yet it has been ignored by his opponents, which is
regrettable since I heartily desire to hear their interpretation of the
astronomical records submitted by Kugler.

My essay of 1966 stimulated a writer friendly to Velikovsky's theories,
Malcolm Lowery, to dedicate a learned article to the contents of
Kugler's book. This article is a valuable contribution. First published
in England, it was then published again in the United States in a
revised form [1] <#velikovsky_affair_04_1>. It is remarkable that the
latter version of Lowery's article (which is the one I shall quote), in
spite of its effort to summarize what Kugler intended to convey, had to
dedicate 25 compact pages to Kugler's 52 pages. In spite of this, Lowery
missed several points made by Kugler. This is not to be taken as a
reflection upon Lowery's learning, which is of the highest level: for
instance, he has translated well some Greek texts of astromythology
which have challenged even the professional classicists. The root of the
problem is that, although Kugler meant to address himself to the general
public, he knew that he was uttering momentous statements and therefore
tried to document every single step: for this reason, in many cases,
instead of presenting an argument in his own words, he limited himself
to citing the text of ancient documents. The result is a booklet that is
comprehensible only to those who are familiar with his previous
publications of an extremely specialized nature.

Kugler published his booklet when he was sixty-five years old, because
what he intended to issue was actually a manifesto announcing a new line
of solutions for problems which had been debated since scholars first
began to read the astronomical clay tablets found in Mesopotamia. Kugler
had wrestled with these problems all through his scholarly life. A
manifesto is a declaration of opinions and of related objectives to be
pursued. In his manifesto Kugler was considering what had developed in
the study of ancient astronomy in the preceding half century, and was
setting aims for future research to be pursued by the next generation.

Unfortunately Kugler's manifesto was ignored by the generation that
immediately followed it. This is not a unique case. Thomas S. Kuhn (The
/Copernican Revolution, /Cambridge, Mass., 1957, pp. 185-6) relates that
Copernicus had been 'widely recognized as one of Europe's leading
astronomers' for twenty years, before he published his revolutionary
book on point of death (A. D. 1543):

Many advanced astronomical tests written during the fifty years after
Copernicus' death referred to him as a 'second Ptolemy' or 'the
outstanding artificer of our age; ' increasingly these books borrowed
data, computations, and diagrams. Authors who applauded his erudition,
borrowed his diagrams, or quoted his determination of the distance from
the earth to the moon, usually either ignored the earth's motion or
dismissed it as absurd.

Today, if what Kugler stated in his booklet was put into the hands of a
writer with some journalistic talent, it would be the source of a
runaway bestseller. It would be expedient that this writer reserve to
himself the copyright to the film version, because Hollywood would be
most likely to make a bid for it. But Kugler belonged to a different
generation and a different world: he spent most of his life within the
walls of Jesuit training institutions, carrying on, as a practical
sideline to his reading of Sumerian and Assyrian tablets, the teaching
of mathematics to his brothers of the Order.

The pivotal idea in Kugler's book is that the myth of Phaeton, one of
the best known but also oddest Greek myths, was based on an actual
physical occurrence which can be dated historically around 1500 B. C.
According to Kugler it was at this time that there appeared in the sky a
body which was more brilliant than the light of the sun and finally made
an impact on the earth: 'There really were at one time simultaneous
catastrophes of fire and flood. '

The myth narrates that Phaeton (The Shining One) borrowed and drove the
chariot of the Sun, but was forced by the steeds that were pulling it to
drive it off course through the sky and finally to drive it disastrously
close to the surface of the earth. The gods had to put an end to the
calamity. Phaeton was struck by a bolt of lightning and fell to earth
dead. Kugler concentrates upon this myth in order to establish the
principle that, if such a 'highly fantastic' story must be taken as
scientific truth wrapped 'in the veil of poetry, ' there are other
ancient myths which must be understood as having a similar basis.

Before Kugler many scholars had recognized that the myth of Phaeton
refers to an event of physical nature, but they had tried to explain it
as an ordinary recurring phenomenon. Some had maintained that it
describes the fiery glow of particularly brilliant sunsets, and some, as
the coming out of Venus as the morning star. Lowery has translated in
full from the original German the pages in which Kugler lists these
interpretations, in order to show how forceful Kugler was in scorning
them as preposterous. This is a quotation from Lowery's translation:

So simple, ordinary and peaceful a phenomenon as the evening sky
could not provide the basis for a legend which patently describes
complicated extraordinary and violent natural events. And yet
neither, on the hand, could the appearance of Venus as the morning
star awaken the idea of a universal catastrophe - even in the
wildest imagination. 

According to Kugler, the reality behind the myth, is that the earth was
enveloped by a stream of meteorites, a stream of 'enormous width' and
containing meteorites of such 'giant' size that they could cause 'great
fires and violent flood waves. ' He also indicated that the impact must
have been preceded by the appearance in the sky of a body larger and
more brilliant than the sun. He left the definition of this body open
for reasons that I shall explain later.

According to Kugler, the fire of Phaeton which according to the Greeks
had its main impact on Africa (some poets claimed that it caused the
Africans to turn black), refers to the same event which in Greek
mythology is called the Flood of Deucalion (the name by which the Greeks
called the man who supposedly survived it and repopulated the land).
Having identified the Fire of Phaeton and the Flood of Deucalion, Kugler
proceeded to document that ancient chronologists had assigned specific
dates to these two events, such as 610 years before the founding of Rome
or the 67th year of Moses. Actually, Greek chronologists state that the
period for which we have certain dates begins with this event. They date
as contemporary the Flood of Deucalion or Ogyges in Greece, the Fire of
Phaeton in Africa, and the Plagues of Egypt. Kugler left out of his
account of the ancient information the detail that the foundation of
Athens, that is, the city of Athena (who was the planet Venus), was made
contemporary with these events. In the chronology set up by the Greek
historian Ephorus (fourth century B. C.) the cataclysm took place in the
year 1528/ 7 B. C. [2] <#velikovsky_affair_04_2>. This chronology was
accepted in the chronological studies of Eratosthenes (third century B.
C.) which in turn were incorporated into those of Castor of Rhodes
(first century B. C.). Varro quotes Castor as his source for the
information that at the time of the Flood of Ogyges 'so great a miracle
happened in the star of Venus, as never was seen before nor in
aftertimes: for the colour, the size, the figure and the course of it
were changed. Adrastus of Cyzicus and Dion of Naples, famous
mathematicians, said that this occurred in the reign of Ogyges' [3]
<#velikovsky_affair_04_3>.

Kugler concluded his quotations of the chronological texts with these
words: 'Even though we do not get the notion of ascribing certain
chronological value to these dates and of accepting the old
chronological tables based on them (e. g. Petavius, /de doctrina
temporum), /we do not have any right to deny that these traditions have
a core of historical truth. ' Like Velikovsky, Kugler studies both the
ancient writers of chronology and the chronological investigations of
Renaissance scholars. Velikovsky quotes a number of Renaissance writers
who stress that ancient sources make the cataclysm contemporary with the
appearance of the comet Typhon, and observe that, although this was
called a comet, it had a circular shape. These Renaissance writers
quote, among others, a passage of Pliny (II, XXIII, 91-92) from which
one can gather that it had been disputed whether Typhon was a comet or a
planet. The passage reads:

Some comets move like planets, but others remain stationary ... A
terrible comet was seen by the people of Ethiopia and Egypt, to which
Typhon the king of that period gave his name. It had the nature of a
fire, twisted like a spiral, but it was dismal in appearance. Rather
than a comet it was some sort of conglomeration of fire. Occasionally
both planets and comets spread out a coma.

Wilhelm Gundel, a specialist in Hellenistic astromythology, in his
review of Kugler's book sharply rebuked Kugler for not mentioning that
all the texts similar to those examined by Kugler ascribed the
catastrophe to a comet, and specifically to the comet Typhon [4]
<#velikovsky_affair_04_4>. Gundel denied to Kugler the merit of
originality by remarking:

Kugler arrives at the conclusion that the saga of Phaethon has as
its historical core the appearance of a comet that was followed by a
partial world fire and a flood. In support of this Kugler provides a
complete detailed analysis of the saga. I can observe that this
interpretation has been already offered several times in antiquity.
Probably it is based on an old Pythagorean theory of comets. The
first references to it are in Plato and Aristotle, but it is
presented in detail by later commentators. 

It would seem that Kugler refrained from using the term /comet /because
he was puzzled by the role of Venus and because the texts mention a
globular body similar in apparent size and brightness to the sun. He
used the term 'sun-like meteor' which sounds strange except to those who
are familiar with ancient terminology. Aristotle, in order to defend the
immutability of the heavens, distinguishes astronomy from meteorology
and defines the latter as the study of 'the appearance in the sky of
burning flames and of shooting stars and of what some call torches and
horns' (Meteor. I 341 B). It is significant that, after having described
the general topic of meteorology, Aristotle begins the treatment of it
by refuting those who say that 'the comet is one of the planets' (342 B).

Gundel's criticism is not justified, because even though it is clear
from Kugler's explanation of the ancient accounts that he was suggesting
answers in terms of the appearance of a comet and of the impact of the
comet's tail, he refrained from committing himself because he was
puzzled by the role assigned to Venus in the entire event.

Having dealt with the myth of Phaeton, Kugler, in order to prove further
that ancient texts that touch upon heavenly occurrences and are
dismissed as fantasy or gibberish contain precise scientific
information, picks as a test case the last lines of the Fifth Book of
the /Sybilline Oracles. /He chose these lines (512-31) because F. W.
Blass, the editor of the text of the /Sibylline Oracles, /had referred
to them as 'the insane finale' of the Fifth Book, and the historian of
ancient science, Edmund Hoppe, had declared that, no matter from which
angle they are examined, they prove 'entirely nonsensical. '

Kugler concluded that to him, as an expert on ancient astronomy, these
lines have a clear meaning, since they contain 'an elegant dressing of
real natural events according to a fully unified plan' [5]
<#velikovsky_affair_04_5>.

The lines purport to describe the circumstances of the coming end of the
world; they were written in the century before the birth of Christ by
Greek-speaking inhabitants of Egypt, when the ancient world was agitated
by the Messianic expectation of a cosmic upheaval. But the lines give an
account that is so exact and technical that it must be something more
than a mere mystical vision of coming destruction. Such precise
astronomical details are given that, calculating by the position of the
constellations around 100 B. C., the crisis began in September and
reached a climax in seven months and 2.7 days, after the 7th or the 8th
of April. Velikovsky has concluded on the basis of the agreement of
Egyptian, Hebrew, Athenian, and Aztec traditions that the earth was hit
by the tail of a comet on April 13. According to Kugler, the crisis
described as the Battle of the Stars began with the appearance in the
eastern sky of a body as bright as the sun and similar in apparent
diameter to the sun and the moon. The light of the sun was replaced by
long streams of flame crossing each other.

After the mention of these streams of flame that replaced the sun as a
source of light, there follows the line, 'the Morning Star fought the
battle riding on the back of Leo. ' Kugler observed that this
association of Venus with Leo must have had a momentous meaning for the
ancients, since the several goddesses that represent Venus, such as the
Phrygian Cybele, the Greek Great Mother, the Carthaginian Coelestis was
portrayed as riding a lion while holding a spear in her hands. In
Babylonian mythology Venus as Evening Star was a goddess of love and
motherhood; but as Morning Star she was a divinity of war, leader of the
army of the stars, associated with the lion 'as a symbol of a power that
overthrows everything. '

The Battle of the Stars ends when the attacker is defeated, falling into
the ocean and setting the entire earth on fire. Kugler explained these
events by bringing to bear another prophecy of the same book of the
/Sibylline Oracles /(line 206-13) where, after mentioning the same
positions of the stars, warning is given to the Indians and the
Ethiopians to beware of a coming 'great heavenly fire on earth and a new
nature from the fighting stars, when the entire land of the Ethiopians
will be destroyed in fire and wailing. ' The emphasis on Ethiopia is
comprehensible when one considers that these texts were written in Lower
Egypt.

Kugler concluded that the details of the world disaster prophesied in
the /Sibylline Oracles /are materials taken over from the reports of
past events, which among the Greeks were presented as the story of Phaeton.

Lowery has stated that in dealing with the Sybilline oracle Kugler
retreated from his former position that some major catastrophe of
extraterrestrial origin took place at the middle of the second
millennium B. C., because Kugler analyzes the oracle according to the
normal movement of the heavenly bodies in the year 100 B. C. In spite of
his diligence and familiarity with the Greek originals, Lowery has
missed the drift of Kugler's argument. First of all, it is a good guess
to assume that this oracle was written in the first century B. C., the
age in which the Mediterranean countries were most agitated by
expectations of a messianic end of this world [6]
<#velikovsky_affair_04_6>. In the second place, Kugler wanted to
indicate that the writers of the oracle were so preoccupied with solid
astronomical facts that they described the successive phases of the
episode of Phaeton according to what they knew about the position of the
heavenly bodies in the several months of the year. It is his contention
that the writers of this oracle, far from being maniacs breathing
gibberish, were trying to make their prediction (based on a past
historical occurrence) credible by framing it in an accurate
astronomical timetable. Kugler left no doubt that he was not thinking of
an ordinary movement of the heavens according to the yearly unfolding of
the seasons, when he put emphasis on the line of the oracle that reads,
'the Morning Star fought the battle, riding on the back of Leo, ' and
linked this line with the fact that, in several ancient cults of the
planet Venus, the goddess was portrayed as riding on a lion.

Followers of Velikovsky may find fault with Kugler for having left the
role of Venus hang loosely as an unexplained item. They do not
understand that Kugler did not intend to compile a treatise of cosmology
: he was broadcasting a manifesto on how texts of astromythology should
be interpreted. Perhaps one can explain his approach by referring to his
first academic position as a teacher of chemistry : by testing two
pieces chipped out of a mountain, he proved that there was an entire
gold mine to be dug out.

Lowery criticizes Kugler for not having raised the issue of
catastrophism versus uniformitarianism; but Kugler was not trying to
construct an astronomical theory : he was stating less and stating more,
in that he was arguing that there was an entire world of astronomical
knowledge to be explored. In any case, Kugler was more clearminded on
the theoretical aspects of the problem than Lowery has proved to be. The
latter regrets that at the end of his presentation Kugler took a stand
against 'catastrophism; ' that is, he dismissed as without historical
significance all those passages of Greek philosophers, from Plato in his
late writings to the Roman Stoics, in which mention is made of universal
destructions by fire and flood, despite the fact that these passages
take some elements from the myth of Phaeton.

Kugler was scientifically correct, but in a peculiar sense : these
ancient writers failed to see the episode of Phaeton as a unique event.
This group of philosophers was fathering modern uniformitarianism,
because they were fitting the historical tradition of 'catastrophes'
into a cyclical pattern of phenomena recurring at fixed intervals of
time, past and future, according to an absolutely unchangeable and
predictable order of the heavenly cosmos. It was /their /way of moving
from a disorderly universe, now often admitted, to /an orderly
progression of disorders, /which was a first step towards dropping
disorders entirely and leaving the history of science with simple
orderly progression of the ages.

*PANBABYLONIANISM *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since Kugler's booklet on the myth of Phaeton has been ignored, his
reputation rests on his monumental work /Sternkunde und Sterndienst in
Babel, / 'Astronomical Science and Astronomical Observations at Babylon.
' The first volume was published in 1907 and the second volume in 1909 ;
supplements were issued up to 1914. The contents consist essentially in
the edition, interpretation, and numerical analysis of cuneiform
astronomical records. Even today it is quoted as an invaluable source of
data; but those who draw from it do not mention that it was written in
order to solve problems of astromythology. The two published volumes
were intended to be followed by a third volume dealing with mythology;
but this volume was not issued for reasons that I shall explain.

In the period that goes from the beginning of our century to the First
World War, the field of ancient studies was agitated by debates about
the value of a theory to which there was given the misleading name of
Panbabylonianism. In order to explain how their theory came to be
formulated, one would have to review the entire history of the
decipherment of cuneiform languages, but here I shall limit myself to a
few points. The reading of the clay tablets that were excavated in
Mesopotamia after 1842 provoked a revolution in biblical studies, since
it was found that many of the accounts of the Old Testament had close
parallels in cuneiform narratives. A typical example is the story of the
Deluge and of the Ark. To explain these parallels was a complex task
which was rendered even more arduous by the circumstance that the Old
Testament is sacred literature to Jews and Christians (divine revelation
to the more conservative ones). The problem became extremely difficult
and at the same time of utmost importance when it was realized that
episodes which are common to the Old Testament and to cuneiform
literature occur in the mythologies of the most diverse areas of the
globe. The case of the Deluge story is the best known one. To this day
Scholars have not yet agreed on an explanation for these astounding
parallels. Velikovsky's hypotheses constitute an effort to arrive at the
solution of the problem, which obviously is central to the understanding
of the development of any civilization and of civilization in general.

The decipherment of the cuneiform signs (particularly of the original
Sumerian ones) had relied in part on the study of mathematics; documents
dealing with measurements had been particularly useful. In the process
it was found that, at the time the Sumerians were developing the art of
writing, they had already established a scientific system of measures
linking length, volume, and weight; the very fact that these units were
sexagesimal indicates their connection with time units. Even before one
began to read cuneiform tablets, it had been surmised that the measures
of the ancient world derived from Mesopotamia. A highlight in the growth
of cuneiform studies was a paper submitted by C. F. Lehmann-Haupt to the
International Congress of Orientalist held at Stockholm in 1889; 'The
Old Babylonian System of Volume and Weight as the Foundation of the
Ancient System of Weight, Coinage, and Volume. ' Since the notion that a
single system of measures spread through the world by /diffusion /from
Mesopotamia was then generally accepted, it was reasonable to infer that
scientific thinking spread from the same area by /diffusion. /

Friedrich Delitzsch (1850-1922) thought of applying these notions of
/diffusion /in the mathematical field to the solution of the problems of
the similarities between the mythologies of the world. This scholar who
was one of the most powerful minds in the field of cuneiform studies,
developed a comprehensive theory which centres on two main contentions.
The first is the common elements of mythologies. The second is that very
early in Mesopotamia there was developed an advanced astronomical
science which was carried by /diffusion /to the rest of the world in the
form of mythological stories. In substance mythology would have been
used as a medium for /coding /astronomical information. According to
this interpretation the mythological dress would have helped in
/remembering. /(According to Velikovsky's interpretation the memory of
some astronomical occurrences would have been clothed in a mythical
dress because a direct recollection was too traumatic.)

The reason why the Panbabylonists were hurrying to formulate a
comprehensive theory, even before all the available evidence was
gathered, was that cuneiform scholars were under pressure to answer to
statements made by students of the Old Testament; this category included
a broad range of writers, from biblical scholars to religious zealots.
The discovery of the similarities between Old Testament narratives and
cuneiform accounts had caused a commotion among interpreters of the
Bible, whether scholarly or not; much of what was published was
irrational or irresponsible, and there was some outright exploitation of
the interest of the general public. The excavation of the Tower of Babel
which was then being planned by German archaeologists, seemed to be
symbolic of the situation; in Germany one spoke jokingly of /Babel und
Bibel, /a phrase which in English was expanded into 'Babel, Bible, and
babble. ' The German scholars, who were the world leaders in developing
the new field of cuneiform studies, felt they had the responsibility to
come out with some clear-cut formulation that could put an end to this
confusion of tongues.

Delitzsch and his many supporters among the experts on cuneiform
philology would have been on solid ground if they had stuck to their own
area and investigated the assumed high level of early Mesopotamian
astronomy. Instead they over-extended themselves in a sort of
imperialist enthusiasm for their own discipline. For instance, they
engaged in an unnecessary, and in my opinion misguided, campaign to
belittle the achievements of Egyptian mathematics and astronomy. They
rushed to explain the great riddle of the similarities among the
mythologies of the world.

Panbabylonianism became so well established among German scholars that
in 1902 Delitzsch was asked by them to present his ideas in two solemn
public lectures in the presence of the Emperor. The latter was so
impressed that he asked Delitzsch to repeat them for the Emperor and his
court. The text of these lectures was immediately translated into
English: /Babel and Bible, Two lectures Delivered before the Members of
the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft in the Presence of the Emperor, / (New
York and London, 1903). In England too the Panbabylonist theory received
so much public attention that the London Times of February 25,1903,
printed a letter in which Wilhelm II answered those who wondered whether
he had performed his imperial duty of upholding the Christian faith.

*THE ERA OF NABONASSAR *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kugler at first was sympathetic to Panbabyloniaism, but later rejected
it, because he became convinced that any serious astronomy could not
have existed in Mesopotamia before the era of Nabonassar.

Late Mesopotamian and Hellenistic astronomers reckon the years by a
chronological system called 'era of Nabonassar, ' which begins on
February 26, 747 B. C. This era gets it name by the circumstance that,
in the initial centuries, the years are counted according to a list of
the years of reign of the Kings of Babylon; the first of the kings
included in the list, is Nabonassar. At the time of Nabonassar, Babylon
was under foreign rule and the power of its king was only nominal; in
any case, as Kugler observed, no significant political event occurred
during the reign of Nabonassar. Nevertheless, starting with the reign of
Nabonassar there began to be kept a yearly record of outstanding
political events, known as the /Babylonian Chronicle. /Since Ptolemy
calculated the years by the era of Nabonassar, it continued to be used
by astronomers until the Julian era was adopted as the scientific era
during the Renaissance.

The common explanation for the adoption of the era of Nabonassar, which
is still repeated today in standard textbooks, is that at that time in
Mesopotamia there was introduced a new luni-solar calendar, which
gradually was adopted in the neighbouring countries, including Greece.
But Kugler realized that the introduction of this calendar was not the
cause, but the result of whatever caused the adoption of the new era.

In the very first pages of the introduction to his /Sternkunde, /Kugler
states that only with the beginning of the era of Nabonassar did
Babylonian and Assyrian astronomers feel the urge 'to ascertain and
record the heavenly motions according to space and time by measurement
and number. ' Before this era the astronomers of Mesopotamia would have
been only 'stargazers' (the German word /Sterngucker /has a humorous
connotation which may be rendered by 'starpeeper') who were
'exceptionally inclined to fantasy' (ausserördentlich /phantasiereich).
/This is indeed a strange claim, but Kugler dedicated the entire body of
his /Sternkunde /to justifying it by facts and figures. In the
supplements to it there is a chapter entitled triumphantly, 'Positive
Proofs for the Absence of a Scientific Astronomy before the Eighth
Century B. C. '

The proofs are basically of two types. First, after the beginning of the
era of Nabonassar, the astronomers of Mesopotamia, for a period that
lasted about two centuries, worked laboriously to ascertain some basic
pieces of numerical information without which any rational study of the
heavens is impossible, as, for instance, the exact day of the spring
equinox. Second, the earlier astronomers of this group developed
elaborate calculations which begin with basic figures set through a
rough approximation. For instance, computations of the appositions and
conjunctions of the sun and the moon, made for the purpose of
calculating the beginning of the new moon, would have been based on a
value of the longest day which is in excess by more than ten minutes.
Since some of these data could have been obtained by a minimum of
diligent observation, he concluded that these astronomers liked to play
with numbers and enjoyed calculations that had little to do with
reality. Still he had to admit that at times one comes across figures of
breathtaking accuracy.

According to Kugler there are two specific pieces of proof that
astronomy began to be based on exact calculations in the era of
Nabonassar. The first is that, because the list of eclipses available to
Hellenistic scholars begins with the year 721 B. C., one can infer that
Mesopotamian astronomers had not kept a record of eclipses before this
date; any serious study of the heavens would start with such a record.
Kugler was not aware of the fact, called to our attention by Velikovsky,
that the Chinese list of eclipses begins at the same point of time. The
second is that before the age of Nabonassar the Mesopotamian calendar
appears to have been based on irregular lengths of the year and month;
obviously the establishment of a reliable calendar is a prerequisite
even of elementary astronomy.

Kugler fails to provide a consistent evaluation of the method of
pre-Nabonassar astronomers: at times he describes them as totally
oblivious of numerical data and at other times as occasionally careless.
At the beginning (p. 25) of the second volume of the /Sternkunde /he
hedged the statement he had made at the beginning of the first volume,
by declaring that the collecting of observational data 'at least was not
administered systematically. '

Kugler tried to establish why at the time of Nabonassar there would have
been a striking change in the attitude towards astronomical records. At
first he suggested that 'perhaps Nabonassar promoted it; ' but later he
recognized that Nabonassar contributed only a name to the dating system.
He concluded that observers must have been influenced by some momentous
astronomical occurrence. Kugler could not trace anything more
significant than that, at the time, Jupiter, Venus, and Mars were in
conjunction. On December 12, 747 B. C. Venus and Jupiter were at a
distance of 1'30" and on February 26, 746 B. C. Mars and Jupiter were at
a distance of 23". In reality these conjunctions do not provide an
explanation for a total reform in the art of astronomy. If they prove
anything, they give some support to Velikovsky's hypothesis that Venus,
having been originally ejected from Jupiter, came to interfere with the
orbit of Mars on February 26, 747 B. C. According to astrophysics, if
there was a near collision, the present orbits, retrojected to the
assumed time of the near collision, should indicate proximity.

Kugler had his doubts about the meaning of the era of Nabonassar, but
these were assuaged by the statement of the Byzantine chronologist
Syncellus that, 'Beginning with Nabonassar the Chaldeans made precise
the times of the movements of the heavenly bodies. ' What Kugler did not
consider is that Syncellus drew on the Greek chronologists that I
mentioned in the first chapter of this essay. These chronologists
indicate that whatever change took place in the methods of measurement
was not limited to Mesopotamia.

In my doctoral dissertation I studied the role of Pheidon, King of
Argos, in Greek chronology [7] <#velikovsky_affair_04_7>. Greek
chronologists divide their system of dates, which begins with the Flood
of Deucalion, into a first period called /mythikon /(period of the
myths) and a second period called /historikon. /The dividing line is the
date of Pheidon of Argos which was originally set in 748/ 7 B. C. [8]
<#velikovsky_affair_04_8>. Other dates of early Greek history, such as
the supposed date of the First Olympiad (776 B. C.), were calculated
from this assumed date of Pheidon, who would have interfered with the
Olympic Games (Cf. Herodotus VI, 127). According to Greek tradition
Pheidon of Argos would have invented measures of lengths, volume, and
weight; but this tradition puzzled the same Greeks who reported it,
since, as they say, 'measures existed even earlier. '

However, I proved to the satisfaction of my academic readers that
Pheidon was an imaginary character whose name is derived from the verb
/pheidomai /'to reduce. ' The earliest texts do not speak of Pheidon,
which in Greek is a nickname for one who gives scanty measures, but of
/pheidonia metra, /'reduced measures. ' Since in successive
investigations I established that the basic units of length, volume, and
weight were not changed from the Mycenean age, the only units that could
have been changed would be time units.

Greek historians report that the first basis for a yearly record of
events was the list of the priestesses of the Temple of Hera outside
Argos. Excavations show that this temple may well have been founded in
the eighth century B. C. One point can be accepted as proven, namely,
that Greek chronologists set a break in the calculation of time at the
middle of the eighth century B. C., independently of anything that may
have happened in Mesopotamia, and that this break was connected with the
units of measurement.

Possibly similar developments had occurred independently in Rome. The
foundation of Rome is dated by the earliest annalist, Fabius Pictor, in
748 B. C. The foundation of Rome was ascribed to an imaginary character
called Romulus after the name of the city, Rome. Romulus was followed by
another imaginary character called Numa; this name is derived from an
Italian modification of the Greek word /nomos, /'norm, standard. ' We
are told that Numa was the second founder of Rome; his birthday was
April 21, which was the supposed date of the foundation of Rome by
Romulus. Numa was the first to establish a calendar 'according to
exactness' [9] <#velikovsky_affair_04_9>: he would have calculated a
luni-solar calendar according to the correct length of the solar year
and the lunar month. Before him the Romans would have used erroneous
figures for the length of the year and month. Finally, it must be
observed that, up to the second century B. C., the Roman year began on
March 1, and hence we say September, October, November, December. The
beginning of the era of Nabonassar has been calculated as beginning on
February 26, 747 B. C., at a point which, as Kugler related, had no
particular significance in the Babylonian calendar and which does not
mark any turning point in the unfolding of the seasons.

Kugler probably did not know that Newton too had argued, on the basis of
the Greek and Latin authors available to him, that the science of
astronomy began with the era of Nabonassar. The purpose of Newton was to
silence those who disputed the stability of the solar system since
creation. Newton's contention that astronomical science was a late
historical development, was challenged by a scholar who anticipated some
of the views of the Panbabylonists, Nicolas Fréret (1688-1749), the
first permanent secretary of the Academie des Inscriptions. Fréret, who
is properly described as /l'un des savants les plus illustres que la
France ait produit / [10] <#velikovsky_affair_04_10>, in a series of
monumental studies published in the acts of this academy, foresaw the
immense advances that could be made in the study of ancient history by
combining linguistics, mythology, chronology, geography, astronomy, and
history of science in general, taking into account the information that
was beginning to be available concerning the civilization of
Mesopotamia, Persia, India and China. He realized that with this
material there could be obtained conclusions that not only are
revolutionary, but also particularly reliable. This point is summed up
in his essay, /Réflexions sur l'etude des anciennes histoires et sur le
degré de certitude de leurs preuves. /He saw that the data of ancient
history were in conflict with the theory of Newton. He challenged
Newton's views about mythology and ancient science by which the latter
tried to dismiss the evidence for changes in the solar system before the
era of Nabonassar. A number of scholars of the time wrote heatedly for
and against his /Défense de la chronologie fondée sur les monuments,
contre le système chronologique de Newton /(Paris, 1758). The strongest
argument, however, against Newton's contention that the ancient evidence
on astronomical events is unreliable, is contained in Fréret's essay on
ancient geodesy, in which he maintained not only that the length of
circumference of the earth was well known in early times but also that
the Egyptians knew the length of their country almost to the cubit [11]
<#velikovsky_affair_04_11>. In 1816, Jean-Antoine Letronne (1787-1848),
after reviewing the entire Academie des Inscriptions concluded that,
given the precision of the Egyptian methods of geodetic surveying the
declaration of Fréret 'is verified or at least ceases to be too
exaggerated' [12] <#velikovsky_affair_04_12>.

In 1972, I published the figures used by the Egyptians in calculating
the length of their country at the beginning of the dynastic period and
showed that they calculated the size of the earth according to a polar
flattening of 1/ 297.75 [13] <#velikovsky_affair_04_13>. At present, I
have ready for publication the Mesopotamian figures for the size of the
earth, which are based on a polar flattening of 1/ 298.666. There are
accounts that concern the discrepancy between the two sets of figures.
In our own age, before the launching of satellites, it was believed that
the flattening is 1/ 297.1. With the help of satellites it has been
established that the earth flattening is 1/ 298.25. Using this figure
and an equatorial radius of 6,378,140 metres, it has been calculated how
each area of the globe is above or below the level indicated by a
geometrically perfect spheroid. It happens that Egypt and Mesopotamia
are among the few areas in which the actual sea level agrees with the
spheroid of reference. Even before the figures of our space age were
published, on purely empirical grounds I had reached the conclusion that
the ancient calculations of distances within Egypt agree best of all
with a flattening of 1/ 298.3.

In conclusion, Kugler was right in documenting that a new age in the
reporting of astronomical data began with the era of Nabonassar, but the
aberrant astronomical data reported for the earlier period cannot be
explained by a lack of interest in precise measurements.

*VENUS IN CUNEIFORM ASTRONOMY *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kugler's criticism, which concentrated on the specific issue of the era
of Nabonassar, had a sobering effect on some leading members of the
Panbabylonist school. Hugo Winckler (1863- 1913) and Alfred Jeremias
(1864-1935) withdrew from the emotion laden debates about the value of
the biblical testimony. In 1907 they began to publish a series of
monographs aimed at refuting Kugler. This Series was entitled /Im Kampfe
um den Alten Orient; Wehr- und Streitschriften, /'On the Field of Battle
about the Ancient Orient; Writings of Defence and Attack; ' but in spite
of their flamboyant heading, these monographs concentrated on what their
authors knew well, cuneiform philology. General questions of comparative
mythology were introduced only as far as it was necessary to interpret
cuneiform texts.

In their counteroffensive Winckler and Jeremias tried to prove their
case by focusing the attention on one specific item : 'the entire manner
in which Venus is handled by mythology. ' They observed that all the
astromythologies they considered reveal consistently three features:
there is a paramount concern with Venus which is described as the Queen
of Heaven; the planets are listed as four, whereas Venus is grouped
together with the sun and the moon; mention is made of the phases of
Venus. In their opinion the last feature must have been the determining
one: Venus was grouped with the sun and the moon because it has phases
like the moon and was the object of particular attention because of
these phases. Only advanced astronomers would have been able to observe
the phases of Venus. Hence, it should be inferred that an advanced level
of astronomy was reached so early in Mesopotamia as to have an echo in
the mythology of distant countries.

The phases of Venus became the kingpin of Panbabylonist theory. Winckler
stated that one should not be surprised at discovering that the
astronomers of Mesopotamia were acquainted with them since
unquestionably these astronomers had seen four satellites of Jupiter,
'which are much more difficult to observe than the phases of Venus. '

At this point Kugler felt that he could score a crushing victory over
his opponents. In March of 1909 he published in /Anthropos, /an
international magazine of anthropological and ethnographic studies, an
article entitled /'Auf den Trümmern des Panbabylonysmus, ' / (' On the
Wreckage of Panbabylonism'). The following year he expanded it into a
book [14] <#velikovsky_affair_04_14>. His main contention was that to
assume a knowledge of the phases of Venus was a patent absurdity. He
remarked sarcastically (p. 58 of the book) :'The phases of Venus! If
this discovery is authentic, then, oh Galileo Galilei, your fame is
turning pale. ' According to Kugler the Panbabylonist should have
refrained from any further publication until they were ready to submit a
special excursus on the physiology of the eyes of the Babylonians.

In reality Kugler was treading on slippery ground, because when in 1611
Galileo announced the discovery of the phases of Venus, some of his
contemporaries immediately remarked that they seem to have been known to
the ancient Greeks (I have mentioned what Sir Walter Raleigh wrote in
1616). The contemporaries of Galileo who were familiar with classical
literature wondered whether Greek mythology hinted at the four
satellites of Jupiter, which Galileo saw in 1610 with a telescope that
enlarged thirty times. For this reason the four satellites were given
the name of four mythological figures closely associated with Zeus: Io,
Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto.

For that matter, the contemporaries of Galileo did not know that in
Babylonian mythology the god Marduk is accompanied by four dogs. They
did not know that the planet Jupiter is portrayed with satellites in the
art of the Near East. Kugler did not deny that the Babylonians were
acquainted with the satellites of Jupiter, but he dismissed this point
as unimportant (p. 61): 'Only this is true: in most rare cases and under
most favourable conditions one could have observed the satellites of
Jupiter - in any case they could have been seen only for a few minutes.
' They would not have been seen well enough to permit listing their
appearances in astronomical tables, and only such a listing could be a
proof of scientific astronomy.

On the central issue of the special treatment of Venus, Kugler granted
readily that this planet forms a 'triad' with the sun and the moon. He
even submitted pictures from Babylonian monuments in which Venus is
grouped with the sun and the moon. But, according to Kugler, all of this
can be explained by the elementary fact that occasionally Venus is
bright enough to cause a pointer to cast a shadow, as the sun and the
moon do, and often is bright enough to be seen during daylight. In
reality, neither the Panbabylonists nor Kugler could account for the
cuneiform texts in which Venus is referred to by phrases such as the
'diamond that shines like the sun' or 'lordly miraculous apparition in
the middle of the sky. '

The very title of the book that Kugler published in 1910 indicates how
confident he was that he had succeeded in laughing his opponents out of
the scene of cuneiform studies. But their ranks received reinforcement
in the person of a young recruit, Ernst Friedrich Weidner (born 1891),
who was not only like them a master of cuneiform languages (he was
respected as an authority throughout the following half century of his
life), but was also well versed in astronomy and mathematics. Winckler
and Jeremias, like other distinguished Panbabylonists such as F. E.
Peiser, had declared that they were philologists whose task was merely
the deciphering of the texts and that they intended to leave the task of
solving the problems of astronomy to experts of that discipline.

The arguments lined up by Weidner hit Kugler so hard that in reacting he
lost his balance. He stated that the texts that mention that a star was
seen as being near the 'right' or 'left' crescent of Venus, really
referred to the crescent of the moon (waxing or waning moon) behind
which Venus was concealed at the moment; then, a short time later, he
printed a special sheet in order to withdraw this interpretation. The
debate between Kugler and Weidner had become so heated that their
publications were dated not only by the year, but also by the month and
the day.

In March 1914 Weidner published a monograph entitled /Alter und
Bedeutung der babylonischen Astronomie und Astrallehre / (' Antiquity
and Import of Babylonian Astronomy and Astrological Conceptions'), which
was intended to be a refutation of Kugler's main contention, as stated
in the Preface. Weidner felt so sure of himself that, in spite of his
young age, soon after, in 1915, he issued the first instalment of a
comprehensive manual of Babylonian astronomy [15]
<#velikovsky_affair_04_15>.

In the mentioned monograph Weidner saved his best argument for the last
pages where he refuted Kugler on the interpretation of texts which
mentioned the 'crescent' of Venus. The very last sentence of the book
reads: 'Henceforth nobody will try to shake the solid fact that the
Babylonians were acquainted with the phases of Venus. ' But this
forceful and positive statement is followed, at the bottom of the page,
by the following elusive footnote: 'One may also mention that well-known
staffers of astronomical observatories have assured me that, in the
clear sky of the Orient, it is definitely possible to follow the phases
of Venus with the naked eye. '

The quarrel between Kugler and the Panbabylonists had reached a dead
end. Kugler could not deny that the phases of Venus and the satellites
of Jupiter had been observed; but his opponents could not explain how
this feat had been accomplished. It was pointless for them to cite
alleged expert opinions, unless they could produce living individuals
who had actually seen such features of the heavens with the unaided eye.
Both sides had declared that they were interested in establishing the
textual record and that they did not intend any personal rancor, but in
fact their exchanges had deteriorated into unconstructive vituperation.
Kugler, years later, expressed regret for the asperity of his attacks on
the Panbabylonists. Both Kugler and his opponents took advantage of the
pause forced upon them by World War I to drop the matter entirely.
However, although silence about what had been aired in the controversy
may have been advantageous in terms of academic respectability, it did
not contribute to the advancement of knowledge.

*ON THE WRECKAGE OF PANBABYLONIANISM *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the 'Panbabylonists' were the innovators and Kugler proved that
some of their contentions were incorrect, their silence was interpreted
by the academic community as a confession of defeat. But Kugler too had
been forced into a corner, and kept silent after 1914. Scholars who
chose to avoid thorny problems on their way to achieving academic
prestige acted as if the 'Panbabylonists' had been totally refuted. Yet,
even assuming that Kugler had made a 'wreck' of Panbabylonism, one
should ask whether in this wreck there were pieces of valuable salvage.

A distorted view of the status of the controversy was created by the
circumstance that Delitzsch, in 1920, at the age of seventy, two years
before his death, aimed a Parthian shaft at his religious opponents, in
which he reiterated and broadened some of the original positions of
Panbabylonism. The claim that many of the most striking accounts of the
Old Testament must be interpreted as astronomical information and that
this information was derived from Mesopotamian scientific astronomy was
presented in the context of a book entitled /Die grosse Taüschung; /The
title 'The Great Fraud' refers to Old Testament religion. This book
stirred a furor in Jewish and Christian religious groups and aroused all
sorts of suspicion in less committed circles. Delitzsch even felt
compelled to write an article in the popular press, in which he reviewed
his life in order to prove that he had not been motivated by
antisemitism [16] <#velikovsky_affair_04_16>.

A standard German encyclopedia, /Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, /in the edition
of 1972, in the entry 'Panbabylonismus' states the following: 'Today
Panbabylonism survives only as a subject of historical interest, because
in a one-sided manner it reduces the history of religion to
diffusionism. ' This evaluation may be justifiable in relation to
Delitzsch, but not in relation to the other 'Panbabylonists' who tried
to avoid theological topics and concentrated on the interpretation of
cuneiform records.

In 1914 they withdrew from the battle because they did not know how to
respond to Kugler's documentation of the 'gross errors' in early
Babylonian records. Weidner tried to answer by pointing out that there
are errors of a few degrees in Ptolemy's list of the positions of fixed
stars [17] <#velikovsky_affair_04_17>; but this is a poor way of
defending the high scientific level of early Mesopotamian astronomy. He
might have made his point, if he had had the courage to infer from the
records that Mesopotamian astronomers made use of some means of optical
enlargement. But the Panbabylonists were intimidated by Kugler's
statement of 1910 that, 'At the start one must relegate to the realm of
illusions the assumption that the Babylonians were already acquainted
with the telescope. '

They appeared ridiculous when they ascribed unusually good eyesight to
the Babylonians. There is a consensus among those who deal with
measurements, that the human eye cannot perceive intervals of less than
a minute. It has been argued that this practical reason explains why the
degree was divided into 60 minutes. An object which, because of its size
and distance, subtends an arc of less than a minute of degree is
perceived as a point without any recognizable shape. The apparent
diameter of Venus varies from less than 10" to 63" when she is closest
to the earth (inferior conjunction); but at the latter point she shows
us her dark side (being between the Sun and earth like a new moon), so
that she is hard to observe even with a telescope. For an amateur
astronomer the best time to observe Venus is about a month before and
after inferior conjunction, when she appears as a thin crescent. The
four satellites of Jupiter per se would be in the range of visible
objects, since they have a brightness of stars of the fourth or fifth
magnitude, but what is decisive is their angular distance from the body
of Jupiter. We perceive as one light two stars that are less than 3
minutes apart.

Supporters of Velikovsky could argue that the phases of Venus were seen
because there was a time when Venus came closer to the earth. In this
spirit Lynn E. Rose, with the help of mathematicians and
astrophysicists, has been conducting investigations aimed at
establishing what may have been the orbits of the earth, Mars, and Venus
before the age of Nabonassar [18] <#velikovsky_affair_04_18>. He has
gone so far as to consider the possibility that there had been a period
of time in which Venus was an outer planet and Mars an inner planet.
But, even if these investigations were to arrive at a wellgrounded
conclusion, they could not solve all the problems raised by the
Panbabylonists.

There has been a general neglect of one problem which in my opinion
should be the first one to be asked in dealing with ancient
astromythologies : how could Jupiter have been conceived as ruler of the
gods, when the planet Jupiter, although by far the largest of the
planets, appears to the naked eye as a not particularly brilliant point.
However, with an enlarging tool of modest power one can see that Jupiter
surpasses all other planets in apparent diameter; this diameter varies
between 30" and 50". I do not claim that the apparent diameter of
Jupiter is the only explanation for the role assigned to Jupiter by
mythology, but I suggest that it may be a part of the explanation.

Since the great debates of the period that preceded World War I scholars
of ancient astronomy have avoided difficult problems. Father Johann
Schaumberger in 1935 published an addition to Kugler's /Sternkunde
/based upon the notes that Kugler had left unpublished at his death.
Upon noticing that Kugler did not reply to Weidner's statement of 1914
about the phases of Venus, he supposed that Weidner had been refuted by
implication [19] <#velikovsky_affair_04_19>. The argument of Weidner was
that cuneiform documents refer to the left and right 'horn' of Venus,
using a Sumerian symbol which is used to refer to the shape of the
waxing or waning moon. Schaumberger observed that there have been found
texts in which the same symbol is used in relation to Mars; since the
phases of Mars undoubtedly cannot be observed with the unaided eye, the
symbol should not be understood as referring to a moonlike shape. He
left out of consideration that Mars when in quadrature (that is, just
before and after its closest approach to the earth) shows a contour
similar to that of the moon in second and third quarter, and that this
face was first noticed in 1636 by Francesco Fontana with the help of a
poor telescope.

The total evidence suggests to me that the astronomers of Mesopotamia
made use of some sort of enlarging device [20]
<#velikovsky_affair_04_20>. But, even if one chooses to let the
investigation of this possibility hang suspended in limbo, it remains
that the astronomers of Mesopotamia were acquainted with the phases of
Venus and Mars and with four satellites of Jupiter, and must have had
some notion about the huge size of Jupiter. The question whether
Mesopotamian astronomy had an influence on the astromythology of other
countries may also be ignored for the time being. The essential point is
that the early astronomers of Mesopotamia cannot be dismissed as
fantasts who had no concern with empirical reality and lacked scientific
spirit; here the Panbabylonists were right.

But, on his side, Kugler was right in pointing out that in the early
cuneiform records there occur figures which seem to be gross errors, and
that after the beginning of the era of Nabonassar Babylonian astronomers
were conducting investigations aimed at ascertaining basic data without
which any scientific study of the heavens is impossible. It must have
occurred to Kugler that the explanation of these discrepancies may have
been some shift in the heavenly motion in the period preceding the era
of Nabonassar.

It is a fact that after 1914 Kugler suspended the publication of his
major work which had given him a world wide reputation. From the
beginning he had announced that the first two volumes, which dealt with
observational data, would be followed by a third volume dealing with
mythology and cosmological concepts. This third volume was never
published, and one must understand that the booklet of 1927 on the myth
of Phaeton, in a real, if limited, sense, replaced it. The message of
this booklet is not so much that the myth of Phaeton refers to a cosmic
catastrophe which took place at the middle of the second millennium B.
C., but that in general astromythologies are based on astronomical
occurrences. Kugler would have granted to Velikovsky that it is
perfectly legitimate to use mythological materials as a source of
information about astronomical events.

In substance Kugler accepted one of the major contentions of the
Panbabylonists. It may not be true that Mesopotamia was the center of
diffusion of astromythologies, but the Panbabylonists were right in
pointing out that in Mesopotamia one comes across data which are
superior as sources of astronomical information. The information is not
only couched in the form of mythological stories, but also in the form
of numerical records.

The cuneiform astronomical tablets dating before the era of Nabonassar
must be taken at face value. It is no longer possible to speak of
careless measurements. Since the publication of Kugler's writings these
tablets have been almost completely neglected, with the result that only
a fraction of what is available has been published. The collections of
cuneiform astronomical tablets that are stored in some museums have been
gathered from the excavation of entire astronomical libraries of
Mesopotamia. The wealth of material that is available is such that it
should occupy scores of scholars for several generations. But the effort
would be well justified, because these tablets contain more than general
accounts of the events, such as those studied by Velikovsky; they
contain exact quantitative data on the basis of which it will be
possible to establish on empirical, not metaphysical, foundations the
history of the solar system.

*Notes (References cited in "Cuneiform Astronomical Records and
Celestial Instability") *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The article first appeared under the title 'F. X. Kugler - Almost a
Catastrophist, ' in the second /Newsletter /of the Inter-disciplinary
Study Group, now /I. S. G. Review. /It appeared in revised form under
the title 'Father Kugler's Falling Star, ' in /Kronos, /II (1977), No 4.
<#velikovsky_affair_04_1_>

2. Felix Jacoby, /Das Marmor Parium /(Berlin, 1904), 136-37.
<#velikovsky_affair_04_2_>

3. Augustine, /City of God, /XXI, 8. <#velikovsky_affair_04_3_>

4. /Gnomon, /1927,449-51. <#velikovsky_affair_04_4_>

5. The Greek text of this particular oracle with an English translation
and commentary, has been now provided by Lowery in /Appendix I /to his
mentioned article. It must be noticed that, although the academic world
has generally ignored Kugler's book, when Alfred Kurfess, /Sybillinische
Weissagungen /(Berlin, 1951), published an authoritative translation
with commentary upon the entire body of /Sybilline Oracles, /in relation
to this particular oracle he followed Kugler's interpretation.
<#velikovsky_affair_04_5_>

6. Lowery objects that Kugler was arbitrary in choosing the date of 100
B. C. for the composition of this oracle. Kugler would have just chosen
a point of time in which the sky fitted the text of the oracle, although
the book called the /Sybilline Oracles /most likely was put together in
the second century A. D. but the date of the gathering of the oracles in
a collection has no relation with the date of composition of this
particular oracle. <#velikovsky_affair_04_6_>

7. /The Origin of Money in Greece /(Harvard, 1946).
<#velikovsky_affair_04_7_>

8. Jacoby, /Op. cit. /93, 158. <#velikovsky_affair_04_8_>

9. Plutarch, /Life of Numa. / <#velikovsky_affair_04_9_>

10. /Grand Dictionnaire Universel, /ed. by Pierre Larousse (Paris,
1866-90), VIII 818, s. v. 'Nicolas Fréret. ' <#velikovsky_affair_04_10_>

11. /Mémoires, Académie des Inscriptions, /XXIV (1756), 507-522.
<#velikovsky_affair_04_11_>

12. /Recherches critiques, historiques et géographiques sur les
fragments d'Héron d'Alexandrie /(Paris, 1851), 133.
<#velikovsky_affair_04_12_>

13. /Noted on the Relation of Ancient Measures to the Great Pyramid,
/published as Appendix to Peter Tompkins, /Secrets of the Great Pyramid
/(New York, 1971). <#velikovsky_affair_04_13_>

14. /In Bannkreis Babels: Panbabylonistische Konstructionen und
religionsgeschichtliche Tatsachen /(Munster, 1910).
<#velikovsky_affair_04_14_>

15. /Handbuch der babylonischen Astronomie, /Vol. I (Leipzig, 1915).
<#velikovsky_affair_04_15_>

16. 'Mein Lebenslauf, ' /Reclams Universum, /36 (1920), Heft 47, 241-46.
<#velikovsky_affair_04_16_>

17. /Alter und Bedetung, /13. <#velikovsky_affair_04_17_>

18. A good sample of these investigations is provided by Lynn E. Rose
and Raymond C. Vaughan, 'Velikovsky and the Sequence of Planetary
Orbits, ' /Pensée /IV (1974), No. 3, 27-34. /Cf. /also /Velikovsky
Reconsidered, /by the Editors of /Pensée /(Garden City, 1976), 100-133.
<#velikovsky_affair_04_18_>

19. /Ergänzungsheft /3, 302. <#velikovsky_affair_04_19_>

20. One of the few Orientalists who pays attention to this problem is H.
W. F. Saggs, /The Greatness that was Babylon /(New York, 1962), 432. But
Saggs assumes that the solution must of necessity be the discovery of
lenses in excavations. Saggs indicates that some lenses were found. Sir
Flinders Petrie too was always on the lookout for lenses in his
excavations in Egypt, and reported that once he found an object that
might have been a lens. I must observe that a simple glass container of
the right shape, filled with water, can perform the function of a lens.
Furthermore, the written and archeological evidence suggests that in the
ancient world enlargement was obtained by the use of mirrors. Mirrors
provide simple and powerful enlarging devices. <#velikovsky_affair_04_20_>

TABLE OF CONTENTS <tabcon.htm>

previous.gif <velikovsky_affair_03.htm>     next.gif
<velikovsky_affair_05.htm>    
Quantavolution.Org  	 E-MAIL: contact at quantavolution.org
<mailto:contact at quantavolution.org>