Modern Myth Articles
Ancient Myth Articles
Ancient Saturn Worship
The Star of Dawn
The Ultimate Argument for
1. EVIDENCE. I'll agree that more evidence is always useful. But never in the past 20-25 years have I believed that additional evidence is needed to assure us of the Polar Configuration in the ancient sky. For me the overriding issue has been the crucial consideration of probability when the evidence is already in hand. Once an explanatory model has been proposed—a model involving evolutionary glimpses as simple and direct as the illustration above—we need only follow its inescapable implications into the ancient evidence to find every unique and ludicrous "anomaly" one would expect.
No one is helped if we get lost in the forest of guesswork by specialists offering explanations for the outrageous themes that become so explicitly predictable in this investigation. Scholarly debates as to when, why and how ancient names for Saturn became names for the Sun can too easily deflect our attention from the overriding issue: direct observation of Saturn makes the equation preposterous however it occurred. A single preposterous idea may indeed have some remotely plausible rationalization. But a full complex of preposterous ideas predicted by an integral model of extraordinary events is another matter. This is why I invariably groan when a critic gives two unrelated explanations for the Saturn-as-sun principle and the Saturn at-the-pole principle.
How many separate rationalizations can be allowed in this circumstance? What about the tradition of the Great Conjunction, with cosmic powers (or more explicitly planets), standing on a line running through the heart of the gathered powers? That condition never exists and requires a completely different rationalization. What about the star of Venus in the center of the ancient "sun" or in the center of a great crescent? Two more rationalizations required.
What do we do, then, after we've enumerated a hundred themes, all predicted by a simple model, but requiring a hundred different rationalizations to explain the themes away?
On such issues, it seems the truth of the matter is so extraordinary that any appeal to coincidence or rationalization in a particular case is overwhelmed by the larger issue of archetypal integrity. Name an established archetype, and with a little work it can be shown to be no more than one or two degrees removed from any other archetype, confirming the coherent substructure beneath world mythology. Specialized research that fails to recognize the larger, invariably "impossible" cross-cultural points of agreement will be fated to add more confusion. That's because it will not have a referent for recognizing the archetype expressing itself within the localized fragments.
My own conviction is that the Polar Configuration is the most useful guide available to us for asking the critical questions. I say this despite the obvious and abundant room for clarifying issues. For example, the proposed Saturn identify is a reasonable best guess, based on the information coming down to us both directly and indirectly from the birthplace of astronomy. I don't believe I've ever spoken of the "polar Saturn" as an archetype. The central sun, stationary sun, and creator-king or father of kings (Sumerian An, Egyptian Atum) at the center and summit of the sky ARE archetypes, inseparably connected to dozens of other archetypes. That's what makes the outrageous astronomical links of Saturn to the complex of archetypes so interesting.
Of course, the identification of Saturn could never rise to the level of confidence that Mars and Venus bring to the table. It is too remote in human memory. As I said to Ev many years ago, I'd never want to stake everything on the proposed role of Saturn, though it does deserve the benefit of the doubt for many, many reasons, chief among them being that it works and no other identification of the larger sphere even comes close.