"Myth is veiled history". - Euhemerus
The Saturn Myth
By David Talbott
The origins of ancient mythology; the birth of the first civilizations; a violent history of the solar system: these are the primary themes of what has been called the "Saturn Thesis."
In the broadest sense, what I have proposed is an explanation of the myth-making epoch as a whole. Astronomers and astrophysicists, historians, anthropologists, archaeologists and students of ancient myth and religion are asked to reconsider the most common assumptions about ancient history, including many that have rarely if ever been doubted.
The Underlying Principle of
1. Major changes in the planetary order, some involving Earth-threatening catastrophes, have occurred within human memory.
2. Through myth, ritual and symbol around the world, our ancestors preserved a global record of these tumultuous events.
3. The first civilizations arose from ritual practices honoring, imitating and memorializing these events and the planetary powers involved.
It should go without saying that if the underlying principles are correct, there is an extraordinary evidential value to the mythical-cosmological underpinnings of the first civilizations. Hence, the communications challenge: this evidential value is virtually never acknowledged by conventional schools.
Nevertheless, the model I have offered holds one advantage that prior catastrophist notions based on ancient testimony have lacked. It is specific enough to be easily disproved on its own ground if wrong. Whatever else one may think of the thesis, it meets this test of a
The Polar Configuration
The theory holds that a unique congregation of planets preceded the planetary system familiar to us today. For earthbound witnesses, the result was a spectacular, at times highly unified apparition in the heavens, the obsessive focus of human attention around the world.
For more than 20 years, I have claimed that this fear-inspiring image once stretched across the northern sky, towering over ancient star worshippers. Planet-sized bodies, moving in extremely close proximity to the Earth, shared in an unusual planetary alignment having no similarity to the relationship of planets and their moons today.
I termed this planetary arrangement the polar configuration because it was centered on the north celestial Pole. And I have proposed that the history of this configuration is the history of the ancient gods, recorded in the fantastic stories, pictographs and ritual reenactments of the first star worshippers.
A vast field of data is therefore available to the investigator. Remarkably similar pictures of a "sun" in the sky, revealing no similarity to our sun today. A pictographic crescent placed on the orb of the "sun" and a radiant "star" placed squarely in its center. The universal chronicles of a cosmic mountain, a pillar of fire and light rising along the world axis. The myth of a central sun or motionless sun at the celestial pole. A radiant city or temple of heaven, providing the prototype for the sacred habitation on earth. Global memories of a star-goddess with long-flowing hair. An angry goddess raging across the sky with wildly disheveled hair, threatening to destroy the world. A flaming serpent or dragon disturbing the celestial motions or attacking the land. An ancestral warrior or hero, born from the womb of the star-goddess to vanquish the chaos-serpent or dragon.
Is it even possible that such diverse motifs could have a unified explanation? Well, one fact remains uncontested after many years of publishing on this subject. The hypothesized planetary configuration does predict or account for hundreds of ancient themes never before explained. Indeed, I have gone so far as to brashly claim that
not a single general motif of ancient myth, ritual or symbolism is left unexplained in the most straightforward way by the model. And that's what I mean when I say the model supports a general theory of ancient symbolism as a whole.
It needs to be emphasized, therefore, that the historical argument for the polar configuration is fully testable against a massive historical record. And I would hope that this will provide some assurance to those unnerved by the source material (ancient testimony): if the model is fundamentally incorrect, the experts on ancient myth and symbolism will have no trouble whatsoever refuting it.
To evaluate the theory, one must start at the beginning, with the model itself, and one must be willing to ask the question, WHAT IF? This is, after all, the only way a new theory can be evaluated, irrespective of the theoretical domains effected by the idea. First one must comprehend the thesis. Then one must ask two questions:
1) Does any prior theory account for the data to be explained? 2) How fully will the new thesis explain the data?
Hence, the challenge for the critic is vastly simplified. If one recurring theme can be shown to answer to our sky today, or does not find an immediate explanation in the postulated events (selective use of evidence not allowed), then the thesis is disproved, at least as a unified theory.