Introduction
In the not-so-distant past, not one soul with some religious faith doubted that people live on the ground and the extraterrestrial God, or in polytheistic religions, the gods, resided in heaven. In old religions and myths, gods and men stayed in personal contact. That there was once a mechanical connection between earth and heaven, which facilitated this holy intercourse, is one of the archetypes of worldwide myths. In fact, although an elevator into space probably sounds like an absurd idea for many, it is quite a technical option. It is true that even with today’s technology we are not able to build such an elevator. However, perhaps an earlier forgotten culture invented such high technology. And, if so, these myths inform us of a lost technology.
We will briefly discuss the technical aspect of this idea and examine the myths to investigate whether they may be more than fairy tales and whether a fantastic technology actually once existed on Earth.
Technical basics
If the wonders of the gods were merely technology, their masterpiece would have been the elevator into space. A gigantic machine, the basics of which we understand, but the construction and operation of which present us with unsolvable problems. In comparison, rockets are the purest Stone Age.
The technical principle of a space elevator sounds simple. At a certain distance of
to the center of the Earth, the angular velocities ω of the Earth’s rotation and of an orbiting satellite are equal. Subtracting the Earth’s radius, the geostationary position is 3.5790.107 m (~36 Tkm) above the Earth’s surface and thus a hundred times higher than the orbit of the ISS space station. If an orbiter were to orbit at this altitude above the equator, it could be connected to the ground by a rope. Climbers could shimmy up and down this rope. At a climbing speed of 600 km/h, they would be on the move for 2.5 days.
However, a rope connecting Earth’s surface with the geostationary orbiter would not only be very long but also very heavy. The force tugging on the rope would be huge, and therefore the required tensile strength of the rope material needs to be tremendous. In the case of a steel rope (maximum tensile strength 2 GPa), the maximum height reachable, before it rips under its own weight, is 12 km. Using carbon as the rope material, things look more favorable. The best available carbon fibers (material density 2.2 g/cm3) have tensile strength values of 3.0 to 4.6 GPa. The difference to the required 100 GPa remains shockingly large. Using today’s material, the required tensile strength is only achieved by the carbon modification ‘graphene’, which exhibits a value of 130 GPa. However, graphene is a monolayer of carbon atoms. At present, a bulky and long rope made of this material doesn’t exist and isn’t even manufacturable. One way to get around the tensile strength problem would be to increase the thickness of the rope toward the orbiter. By doing this, the tension would be distributed over an increasingly larger cross-section, and ripping could be prevented.
In order to prevent the rope and its tethered station from falling to the ground, it must be “tied up” in the sky. With classical physics, the force balance can only be achieved by a rope extension, potentially boosted by an additional weight. A centrifugal force rope, which extends into space beyond the geosynchronous distance, could compensate for the pull of the rope to the ground. (Note, the station itself is weightless.) What sounds simple, is not. Both the manufacturing of the rope (in space) and the stabilization of the system against disturbances by the Moon’s and Sun’s gravity are far beyond our present technical capabilities.
Pre-antiquity: religions and myths
Although to us it looks technically impossible, according to myths in prehistory there seem to have existed ‘celestial ladders’. Let us put some quotations at the beginning of the following discussion. Of course, it would be inadmissible to take every myth and story at face value. The question is, what remains worthy of consideration after a critical examination? A relevant passage is found in a book by Gerald Massey. His interpretation relates the legend to the Ark and that of the biblical flood. Written more than 100 years ago, he could not even imagine a space station or a space elevator.1
The Egyptian ark or ship of Nnu 2 is the ark of heaven, or, conversely stated, the ark of heaven is the ship of Nnu; and the ark of heaven was the revolving sphere configured as a sailing vessel with two masts as we have found it figured by the mystery teachers in their uranographic imagery of the celestial deluge. The ark is portrayed in the act of sailing over a vast, unfathomable, hollow void of formless space; as it is said, “the place is empty.”
Thus, without prior knowledge, wishful thinking cannot have led him astray. In our approach, we immediately find the sought association, since the figurative description is absolutely apt. The masts stand for the ropes, one of which hangs down to the earth the other one extends further into space, respectively. To describe the space station the term ‘ark’ is used, and this ark resides in space.
Another reference to a ladder leading up to the gods is also found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead:3
(579) “He who setteth up the ladder for Osiris is “Ra, and he who setteth up the ladder is Horus for “his father Osiris when he goeth forth to his soul.
To our perception similarly, a passage in an ancient Indian book argues for geostationary orbiters as the home of the gods:4
Above the surface of the earth the different celestial lights [jyotis, jyotimsi, mostly imagined as gods driving in their chariots] move in circular orbits parallel to the earth around the Meru Mountain. They never really rise and set, but always keep the same height above the surface of the earth.5
The description perfectly meets a geosynchronous orbiter, which neither changes its position in the sky nor its height above ground. Writing at the end of the 19th century, the translator of the original Indian text understandably classified the ancient report as a fairy tale.
Not only in Egypt and the Near East, but all over the world we come across the archetypal tradition of a connection between heaven and earth in the image of a ladder, 6 a rope 7 or in the symbol of the world tree.8 The predominant symbol is the tree, in which the classical interpretation (nonsensically) wants to recognize the representation of the world axis. We don’t think so. The idea of a tree as a symbol of the world axis may be reasonable for people who lived near the pole. When they looked up to the stars, these rotate around a point that stood to some extent vertically above them. For peoples of equatorial latitudes, the pole lies on the horizon and consequently, the tree leans into the horizontal. Here, the concept of the tree becomes crooked and unusable. While it seems questionable that images of vertically standing and towering structures, e.g. trees, represent the Earth’s axis, to interpret them as space elevator fits. Given that a space elevator must always be erected at the equator, our interpretation that the tree symbolism represents a space elevator in front of us is further supported by the fact that other elements, shown together with the towering structure, now fit into the picture.
In the mythological ‘celestial tree’ description, animals are always found as tree inhabitants with slight variations. As a consistent, common motif we always find the ‘world’ bird on the ‘world’ tree. This bird sitting in the treetop or on a pole is the most common convergence motif in the regional variations. In the Edda, engraved on scroll seals of Mesopotamia or on the tomb slab of Palenque, tree and eagle form a related primordial motif. In the apocrypha around the biblical forefathers there are concrete news of heavenly hosts, in the Book of Enoch there was even the report of a personal journey to the space station inhabited by God and angels.9 A central theme of the book’s passage is the admittedly confused description of a space station, which Enoch describes as the dwelling place of God and of His angels.10, 11
That the thesis of the existence of a space station is well-founded is also evident from the drawing on the sarcophagus of Seti in the Soane Museum.12
… The entire scenes are surrounded by the waves of Nnu, which shows that the Egyptians looked upon the earth as a spherical body floating through the air. The boat is directed, as a passage made through the waves indicates, towards a spot where a disk is represented on a band. This band, studded with points, represents the earth as a landing-place for which the ark is bound” (Book of Hades, Records of the Past, vol. xii. p. 16).
News from the land of the Maya
After having widely speculated and written about ‘ladders to heaven’ in myths related to the occidental cultural sphere, I will classify two sources from Mexico in the following. With the hypothesis of the ladder of heaven, the relief of the Palenque tomb slab and a page of the Code Dresdensis (page 74) 13 turn from isolated artifacts into classifiable representations.
This final page in the Codex Dresdensis (Picture A) shows as main elements three columns, a bird, an alligator and two gods. The classical interpretation of the image, in my opinion, thrives on precedent, selecting appropriate pictorial elements and completely omitting others without justification. A common interpretation of the picture says that it allegorically represents the Flood.
Picture A
Page 74 of the Codex Dresdensis 14
Classically the glyphs are translated as indicated. (CC0)
Concerning the two gods and the screaming eagle, we agree with the Flood thesis but think that the picture also tells a technical story beyond that. In accordance with the classical explanation, we consider the three pillars to symbolize a mechanic connection between heaven and earth. If we identify the eagle as the orbiter, then, it would appear that three space elevators stand respectively on the planets Venus, Earth and Mars. And, the alligator allegorically represents the way between the worlds. A more in-depth discussion on this can be found in: ‘Die wahre(re) Vorgeschichte’.15
While the main column rises to the mouth of an alligator, the Mayan glyph for darkness stands above the two smaller columns, which is completely accurate, as space elevators do indeed end up in the blackness of space. Given the depiction of three pillars, consider that a single space elevator at the end of a planetary rope represents only half the solution to interplanetary shuttling. For a real solution to interplanetary commuting, one needs a spaceport on the start and destination planet.
Only then, the space elevator becomes a pillar of a planetary bridge with the counter pillar on another planet. With this approach, the three pillars make sense – even in the detail of their representation. The number of cones on the columns describes the height of the spaceport above the ground and correlates with the size and rotational speed of the planet. On the main column, which we classify as the pillar of a terrestrial spaceport, we count 11 cones; the next smaller column, the hypothetical Venus elevator, has 10 cones. (When and why Venus’ rotation came to a halt is broadly discussed in my previous article on this website). The third and smallest pillar stands on Mars. A rotationally synchronous orbiter would be 17,020 km above the surface of Mars, hovering less than half as high as the Earth orbiter does. Fittingly, we count 5 cones. Taking all of this into consideration we propose that the alligator is a symbol of a virtual planetary bridge.
Our interpretation also results from the glyphs for the eclipse, which close the gap to the alligator body lying above the columns. In addition, the glyphs in the alligator’s body (see the translation of the glyphs in Picture A), confirm our thesis since they represent the path in the sky. In fact, for interplanetary spaceships departing from the orbiters, space itself becomes the roadway.
The glyph between the signs for ‘Venus’ and ‘Sun’ means ‘sky ribbon’. We understand by the designation ‘sky ribbon’ the trajectory between the planets, here quite concretely specified by a glyph starting with Venus.16 The glyph for the planet Venus (Picture A) is well preserved and its meaning is secured. The glyph rightmost in the alligator body next to the sun glyph means ‘star wanderer’ (Chuan = star wanderer).17 This glyph is a clear description of planet Mars since the word ‘star walker’ describes the movement of Mars in the firmament when the earth overtakes Mars during its faster orbit around the sun. Here, Mars is seen to move back and forth in front of the starry background.
The glyph ‘sky ribbon’ with the two diagonal stripes is also found on the La Venta relief of the ‘Feathered Serpent’. The identic depiction there reinforces our interpretation since the pillars of the stylized bridge end directly in the glyph ‘sky ribbon’.18
The tomb slab of Palenque
Let us stay in Central America and interpret a well-known relief according to our superordinate space-elevator approach. With the tomb slab of Palenque (Picture B), an extremely filigree representation is preserved. Much has been made of it, but it has remained mysterious. The relief shows a delicately detailed picture dominated by a man lying across an altar or table, framed by astronomical signs.
If we assume that the underlying representation of this filigree motif is a space elevator then the relief on the plate loses its mystery and our celestial ladder comes into view.
We are standing in front of the tomb of a ruler of the Mayan city of Palenque. The relief on the tomb slab is unlikely to show the actual ascent of the dead K’inich Janaab Pakal I (ruler of the Maya city of Palenque; *603, †683), but rather served to implement a preserved memory as a model. This restriction does not harm our interpretation if we assume it represents a reproduction of a myth that has been handed down sufficiently and exactly. Instead of using a rocket, the dead man ascends to the gods by means of a ladder to heaven. In this interpretation, the arabesque cross with the extending arms does not require a tortured explanation as a world axis, but we recognize in it the space elevator. We identify the arms as a climbing cabin with protruding photovoltaic panels for the energy supply of the drive.
With our assumption that the relief represents a space elevator, it does not stand isolated in the mythical scenery of Central America. A testifying support of our thesis of the existence of a space elevator and Venusian space travelers was left by the Mixtecs.20 Their myths tell us about sky lords who came down to earth from a dwelling in the sky on a rope or climbed out of flaming trees.21 Various codices 22 devote several pages to the presence of these celestial sky-lords who appeared as gods.
We also find a reference to the existence of a celestial elevator in the post-colonial written-down texts of the Chilam Balam.23 There we read
Under the power of Ah Uuc Kin, El-siete-sol, comet in the katun, it will be that ropes come and the black ceiba bread…
Summary
The selected quotations and pictures represent only the tip of the iceberg of circumstantial evidence. The number and quality of the sources, however, leave little doubt. The celestial ladder existed, albeit later on alienated in the tradition and transplanted from the equator to other regions. In our opinion, overlooking this ancient news or discrediting them as fairy tales is a sin against objective science.
On the other hand, the disregard is understandable, because the existence of a spaceport inhabited by extraterrestrials, rewrites not only the history of mankind but that of the planetary system. Such a paradigm shift is met with fierce rejection by established historians – and astronomers. The visitors, creators and bringers of culture did not come from the depths of space, but from the neighboring planets. Cosmic catastrophes turned Venus and Mars into worlds hostile to life. Earth and its people ‘only’ experienced the Flood.
References
1 G. Massey, ‘Ancient Egypt, The Light of the World ‘, Celephais Press (Leeds) 2008, first published at: T. Fisher Unwin (London) 1907,
https://www.academia.edu/38580558/Ancient_Egypt_The_Light_Of_The_World_Vol_2_G_Massey_pdf?email_work_card=view-pape
2 Egyptian god of the heavenly waters
3 E. A. Wallis Budge, ‘The Book of the Dead’ (1895), first edition by GlobalGrey 2018
4 G. F. W. Thibaut, Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, III. Band, 9. Heft, Astronomie, Astrologie und Mathematik, page 21
Internet: https://archive.org/details/astronomieastrol00thibuoft
5 German text: Über der Oberfläche der Erde bewegen sich die verschiedenen himmlischen Lichter [jyotis, jyotīṃṣi, meist vorgestellt als in ihren Wagen fahrende Götter] in parallel zur Erde liegenden Kreisbahnen um den Meruberg. Sie gehen nie wirklich auf und unter, sondern halten sich stets in der gleichen Höhe über der Oberfläche der Erde.
6 https://www.maverickscience.com/wp-content/uploads/ladder-to-heaven.pdf
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/42stargate/03files/Ladder_Heaven.html
7 Hiltrud Linnenborn, ’Die frühen Könige von Tibet und ihre Konstruktion in den religiösen Überlieferungen‘; Harrassowitz Verlag (2004)
8 https://anthrowiki.at/Weltenbaum
9 https://apokryphen.diebibel4you.de/henoch.html
10 http://j-e-kraemer.de/doc/Henoch.pdf (Äthiopischer Henoch)
11 http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Michael.Luetge/Himmelsr.html#_Toc256247443 (Slavischer Henoch)
12 E. g., G. Massey, ‘Ancient Egypt, The Light of the World’, page 574, Celephais Press (Leeds) 2008, first published T. Fisher Unwin (London) 1907, https://www.academia.edu/38580558/Ancient_Egypt_The_Light_Of_The_World_Vol_2_G_Massey_pdf?email_work_card=view-paper
13 http://www.famsi.org/research/graz/dresdensis/img_page74.html
14 Section from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dresden_Codex_pp.58-62_78.jpg
15 Aloys Eiling, ‘Die Wahre(re) Vorgeschichte’ (2022)
16 http://www.user.tu-berlin.de/fuls/Homepage/literat/Mayaastronomie_Schrift.pdf
17 http://www.alternativnahistorija.com/WM.htm
18 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:La_Venta_Stele_19_(Delange).jpg
19 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Pacal_the_Great_tomb_lid.svg
20 http://ermel-mittelamerika.blogspot.de/2009/01/flammenbaum-und-sky-lords.html
21 https://www.matrix3000.de/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Pages_from_matrix_band72_Quetzalcoatl.pdf
22 E.g.: http://www.famsi.org/research/graz/vindobonensis/img_page37.html
23 https://www.academia.edu/20297231/EL_LIBRO_DE_LOS_LIBROS_DE_CHILAM_BALAM
Spanish text: Bajo el poder de Ah Uuc Kin, El-siete-sol, cometa en el katun, será que vengan las cuerdas y el pan de ceiba negra ….
hi Aloys,
Wow! The things you come up with! I was reminded of Jacob’s ladder (Genesis 28). Jacob dreams about a ladder between heaven and earth on which angels were ascending and descending.
I’ll have to sleep on this (and dream on it?) before I comment further.
Best regards,
Mark
Hello Mark,
Jacob’s ladder to heaven might be the twitch of a reminiscence from a far more distant past. In the older Book of Enoch there are much clearer descriptions, including an experiential report of a journey to the God in heaven. In fact, I kept a long storay comparatively short. Since, as stated in the article, there is too much evidence for a space elevator not only in the Middle East but worldwide not to suspect a kernel of truth in the origin of the myths.
Best regards from Germany,
Aloys
Aloys, ropes are so common in San Bushman rock art, and in their myth, that they have an archaeology label: rope of the sky. NOT A TECHNOLOGY. A symbol of out of body experience. I have found this sky rope in the cultural media of all cultures, notably Mayan, and in Ice Age art in Chauvet cave (roped man). And ritualised in Mexican art by elbow ropes for dramatic effect. A symbol of the silver chord that keeps the soul linked to the body. Not to be taken literally. Rope artefacts in cultural media express archetypal, recurrent features. Not technology. CULTURE IS NOT DEGRADED TECH.
When you spoke of ropes, I immediately thought of this as well:
“A likeness of the Buddha should be shown, pointing at a shining circle of nirvana. Beings that spontaneously arise should be shown rising up and falling away like the buckets of a waterwheel. The twelve links of dependent arising should be depicted both forwards and backwards. Everything should be in the grasp of impermanence. The wheel was made according to his instruction, but when householders came visiting and asked, “What is it that is depicted here?” nobody could answer. So then the Buddha instructed that a monk should be appointed to explain the five-sectioned wheel to visitors. After some of the appointed monks turned out to be unsuitable (lacking in virtue, ignorant, and unable to explain the wheel), the Buddha stipulated that the guide must be a competent monk.”
Hello Edmond,
as you may have noticed, ropes are of secondary importance in my considerations. I discussed this rope topic mainly used to explain the technical hurdles in building a space port. A machine, which our technology is definitely not capable to realize. If there were only circumstantial evidence dealing with ropes and sky ladders, you would be right in you sceptism. Although in many cases I see it the other way around, symbols and concepts used in cults and cultures don’t spring up from the nothing but have had a factual background.
In the present article and decisive for my argument are other indications, of which I have listed only a few in the present article, but nevertheless so many and so independent that they suffice to come up with a plausible thesis. In a sunken past, there have been ‘gods/aliens’ who lived in a space station and who descended and even commuted to earth. Agreed: My explanation, but, I don’t know of a more conclusive one.
Aloys, regarding “symbols and concepts used in cults and cultures don’t spring up from nothing, but had a factual background”. This is a common or garden assumption, and the worst kind of fundamentalism, and the worst kind of correspondence theory, in popular anthropology. Cargo cult in reverse.
The extensive theoretical disjunction in academic anthropology is only partly to blame for your approach. Other ‘cult from tech’ authors like De Santillana and Von Deschend (Icelandic sagas as degraded and lost science) at least make a pretence of a theoretical framework.
Examples of tech becoming cult are very few. Examples of cultural features mimicked in tech are somewhat more. But culture and tech remain separate worlds.
Perhaps you will eventually study anthropology in a more scientific manner. Your thesis lacks theory, and merely extends the ‘high tech aliens’ cargo cult that this site tolerates, but does not encourage. Sitchen wrote fiction (as Graham had noted some years ago, in no uncertain terms). See the Collins and Little article on earth energy to orient yourself to a more mature approach to popular anthropology.
Edmond, it looks like we are very different in our worldview. I like our discussions in spite of this, or perhaps because of it. As far as Sitchin’s work is concerned, I agree to a large extend with your assessment. But regarding the origin of the myths, not at all. The cargo cult is virtually archetypal of how ‘cult’ originates. Simply, misunderstood technology. Why do you exclude an explanation, which recently worked so pefectly, for the past? The idea that a drug-addicted shaman would dream up a cult defies logic. By the way, how and why did the same ideas arise in geographically distant areas? Some drugs consumed? By chance?
To give a concrete example: The German myths about the hero Siegfried are cryptic in their origin, but meanwhile understood. They refer to the struggle of the Germanic tribes against the Romans. No myths from prehistory, but only 2000 years old, but very factual in origin!
To exclude a technical background from the beginning is a too simple approach. That the official science sticks to its way of thinking and defines it as the true one is no proof at all. If you look in one direction only you blind the other options. Rather my explanations are the simpler and therefore also epistemologically the more correct ones. At least, this assessment is valid as long as there is no more conclusive explanation.
Concerning the topic “earth energy” I need tutoring. I do not know what this is supposed to be and could not find a suitable explanation in the Internet.
Aloys, where did the rope in the Indian Churn of the Milky Ocean come from? Also a device?
The Cargo cult is not “virtually archetypal”, all cults are archetypal.
And not of “how cult originates”, it is a case of recurrent incidents (strangers bearing gifts) recognised as archetypal incidents, and soon fundamentalised into sympathetic magic ritual. Most cults do not ‘originate’ in this way. Cultural media and core content is perpetually ‘original’, but all express archetypal structure. Some events are archetypal (Tower of Babel falls, World Trade Centre falls, etc). But archetype, and culture, predates events.
Lots of tech did not enter culture.
No culture ever changed archetype.
Archetypal structure dictates and maintains culture.
Tech is not archetypal, just a panarchical discourse of ecology, population density, and economy.
Drugs do not start cults.
Healers (‘shamen’) dream up healing. Prophets dream up analogies. Rainmakers dream up rituals, But always and everywhere the same dreams, as Jung found.
Culture is not logic. The study of culture (anthropology) is deceived by logic.
How and why did the same ideas [?] arise in geographically distant areas? There are 40 theories, among them a group involving archetype. Your assumed diffusion plays a minor role in culture, and remains untheorised (except by Witzel, whom I have criticised elsewhere).
Regarding “German myths about the hero Siegfried are cryptic in origin, but meanwhile understood.”: All cultures have all the types of heroes. Myth does not have an origin, it is perpetually original. All myth is understood due to what the theories label Cognitive Attractors /Biases, which is poorly theorised, and disjunctive (theoretically chaotic).
“They refer to the struggle of the Germanic tribes against the Romans.” Yes they did that since the Roman era. But v different enemies before, and after.
“Excluding tech is too simple.” Ironically, ‘cult from tech’ is wishfully simplistic.
“official science”. But there is no generally agreed theory of culture. Recurrent motifs are generally agreed (as listed in the ATU catalogue of folklore). But the cause of recurrence is debated. I do not confront you with any mainstream theory. I challenge your lack of theory.
“epistemologically more correct”. But no scientist or school in any of the humanities have ever championed the cause of culture arising from tech. There is a minor group in popular anthropology (correspondence ‘theory’) that still sees some culture as influenced by science (not tech), but that idea was abandoned in academia in the 1800s.
“valid [meanwhile]”. But why would a supposed ancient space elevator and station stand alone, and all other cultural features (milky ocean churn, Mt Olympus, etc) lack a tech origin?
For “earth energy” see the AOM article by Collins and Little. And among the comments I posted a link to one of my articles about crop circles (make no assumptions of physical devices).
Edmond, you agree that every cult is associated with an event. This makes the dispute set. Please rethink your rejection! You say, everything is possible, but in no case it was technology?
That there are cults which don’t derive from technology, is not yet a counter-evidence. In fact and definitely, not any rope represents a space elevator. But, different to mathematics we are not looking for a disproof, but look for an explanation of cryptic messages. To leave it at the fact that it is just cryptic or to follows some spongy convergence criteria is a rather weak argument. In case the message remains cryptic, more plausible to me is that either the original message was distorted to the point of being unintelligible to us, or there was some background – possibly non-technical – that we don’t understand or know about. Or it the story is simply a fairy tale. Because there are those, too. Only a fitting setting including the whole story or picture allows to argue in favor of technical skills or knowledge. There is no doubt that there was a prehistoric civilization that was more technically adept than we are. E.g., e cannot move stones weighing several hundred tons or even more than a thousand tons over rough terrain. Ancient people could do to, and no attractors help for explanation.
Moreover, when we agree that cult transmits human experience, the theory is found. Obviously, the experience can have been of various kinds. To exclude technology because you do not like the idea does not create a better or not even a different explanation. Attractors may have their justification in chaotic systems, but they refer to structure and result of a process not to the cause of the process. This analogy if it exists a all looks misleading to me.
I think we are getting closer!
Here is another supposed ‘space elevator’ for you: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1920069138182632&set=pcb.1920069554849257
Aloys, we do not “agree that culture or cult transmit experience”. Culture expresses archetypal structure, which is never influenced by any experience. Supposed ‘history’ is consciously re-moulded into politics, semi-consciously into symbols, and subconsciously into archetype. Individual experience is second-hand (via senses, and via brain defence mechanisms, or cognitive Biases). Collective experience is highly predictable. You have not yet stated your theoretical framework, nor even your field of enquiry or argument (anthropology? psychology? sociology? history of science? archaeology? mythology?)
Regarding “there was a prehistoric civilization that was more technically adept than we are.” No. The civilisations you refer to, and any and all civilisations, are Bronze Age onward, BC 3500 onward. Levers, pulleys, block and tackle, boats, water elevators, food surplus, politics, and cultural competition, tend to shape and move stone.
You did not understand anything I wrote about the state of academic anthropology. You do not seem to understand what I wrote about popular anthropology either.
I do not support the trance dance hypothesis.
I wanted to discuss the problems of fundamentalist, correspondence, populist anthropology, but we are so far apart that there is no point.
You had a good thing going in pop astrophysics with your Venus geology perspective. Why spoil it with this common or garden alien tech nonsense.
Best leave culture alone until you can position a more mature proposal about recurrent iconic features in cultural media, within scientific literature.
Edmond, you seem to be really convinced of the correctness of the official view and the cobbled together theories. All “sciences” that you call essential are opinions and their protagonists do not represent a unified doctrine but the spirit of the times. They have little to do with truth. They are not even wrong but worthless.
In fact, you and your approach cannot explain a single megalithic structure, all of which definitely do not represent Bronze Age technology. Neither Puma Punta, nor the pyramids of Egypt, nor Baalbek, etc. And megaliths are not the only riddle of the past. I wait, however, for a theory of an explanation using Bronze Age technology to build large and complex buildings using mega stones. By the way, we retained the stones only, because all the rest got corroded on the course of millenia. Besides the stones, we are left with religions and myths.
Since we do not find suitable tools for stone working, nor factories for their production of these tools, the technology can only have been imported on a moderate scale from outside. Therefore, aliens have at times acted as bringers of culture and technology. To explain commuting for transportation between worlds, a space elevator comes into question.
If you consider the space elevator is a bit far fetching, truth remains, in prehistory there were too many ad hoc upheavals in culture and technology to assume no external influence. In fact, we – including the “experts” – know nothing. We can only make reasonable speculations and must use physics and our technology as guardrails. My view of the prehistory explains more than you (want to) believe. The humanities are of little help here.
Since we come from two such extreme world views, it would be interesting to exchange arguments not in short mails, but in a personal dialogue.
Best regards and no bad feelings, Aloys
Aloys, I am NOT convinced of any “official view”. And even less convinced of your correspondence hypothesis.
Lack of theoretical coherence in anthropology does not justify your untheorised view.
You are changing the subject from ropes in art, to megaliths?
Definitely Bronze Age tech.
The “rest got corroded”? Do you mean the pyramid limestone casings?
Regarding “We are left with religions and myths”, actually the full repertoire of culture, all the media and core content, was, and is, present. You present no evidence otherwise.
Regarding stone tool factories, several have been found, including knapping schools, where lithic refitting gives evidence of the skill of making full sets from cores, with zero waste.
And stone tools were traded far and wide, notably in Europe.
Regarding “aliens”, and “believe” I am out of here. I disengage from this conversation.
Hello Edmond,
being the author of the article I take there right of the final contribution to the discussion. You are trying to ridicule my arguments by avoiding the unwanted facts. I do not change the subject and arguments, but show that there was a prehistoric technology which perished. For whatever reason. Since I cannot indeed show the remains of a space elevator, I point to other material remains that confirm my thesis and these are stones. You agree with me that diamond tools didn’t exist in the classical Bronze Age? Here comes my point. And something like that is needed to saw, to polish and to drill tiny holes in hard rock. Thus, we are not talking about stone tool factories that existed. No question about it. They are just irrelevant.
By corrosion I mean that we don’t find these indispensable tools needed in rock processing. They can’t hav been abounded and waht existed corroded. You can believe in aliens or not. That is not the point. The point is the proof of lost technology, which today manifests itself most obviously in the megaliths. That is the reason why I point them out. Alternatively, we can disuss tiny complexly worked pieces of obsidian if you prefer.
It may be a long way from the remants of complexly worked materials to a space elevator, but my examples give a clear indication that high technology existed at all.
I find the idea of a “space elevator” to be comically myopic, which may or may not be your intention. In ancient times, designs such as this were very quickly recognized as a metaphorical representation of a “cosmic tree” aka the “axis mundi” which is also considered to be the center of the earth. The concept of the axis mundi is found in some form within nearly every culture on the planet. The actual origins of the idea are lost in time, but it is probably safe to assume that it has been with humanity long before recorded history began, considering its global occurrence in eras before alphabetical writing and languages (as we know them) were invented.
It is typically imagined as a tree or mountain (or other natural object) which reaches from earth all the way to heaven – thus connecting the two “worlds” at their center points. However there are many other concepts or representations and symbolic motifs which represent the idea of the axis mundi. When contemplating this universal archetype which is found within the collective unconscious of humanity, you may find yourself entertaining any number of related ideas and concepts, which is of course the point (or the objective) when contemplating mythic symbols – which themselves are almost always multi-dimensional. In fact, the more well-designed such a mythic symbol is, the more effectively it will place your mind into such a universally synchronistic frame of conceptualization where the origin of images and symbols themselves will arise.
However, while it is very simple for most humans to recognize a “tree” or a “mountain” – it may not be as simple for every human to recognize a “space elevator” – which seems to be a very specific and narrowly focused idea. You speak of “tortured explanations” because that is exactly what you are doing here. It is a typical instance of psychological projection. The idea of a “space elevator” may be exceedingly relevant to your lived experience, and yet it may have practically no relevance to others who do not share your lived experience. This indicates your lack of “mythic understanding” regarding this universal archetype found within the collective unconscious of humanity – which was not invented by any one person with any specific lived experience, but rather arises from another realm of conscious activity which is shared between all living beings.
I would overwhelmingly agree.
Frankly, I consider your argumentation strange. You declare a certain life experience to be an inadmissible explanation approach, however, you argue that common sense, which is a intangible opinion, and some mysterious archetypes hold for a more meaningful explanation. My explanation might be wrong, but your not explaining anything is right. Really? Since to refer back to a pre-scriptural past and cultural convergence is not an explanation but subjective and nonfactual based speculation.
By the way, I am very well aware that in numerous cultures the world tree, the world mountain and the world axis are in the center of cosmogony. But this is a completely different story and offers no clue for the more technically related myths and historic reports in question which come along with descriptions and pitcures of inhabitated space stations.
The fact that trees and mountains everybody knows and can look at is a weak argument which can hardly hold as an explanation for complex global myths with common motives, such as the eagle at the top.
Remains to be clarified who argues by use of the more myopic intention. Defending the official view as the only possible and therefore correct one is convenient but can nevertheless be wrong. You don’t like my explanation, but in turn you have nothing to offer except ‘I like my idea better’.
Hi, ego volo scire vestri pretium.
Doleo, non sum venalis.
Ciao, volevo sapere il tuo prezzo.
Ah, un italiano! Buon giorno. In Germania la schiavitù è stata abolita e inoltre sono troppo costoso.