Blue,

First, welcome to the BABB!

Now, if you read the specific sentence of mine you quoted I think that answers everything you are asking.

I wrote:I don't know how to explain it more simply. You can see I am clearly not dismissing other explanations out of hand, other theories have to explain things better than the currently accepted ones when accounting for all of the evidence. Any historian will tell you that there is much we don't know, this is the humility of the scientific process... we don't claim to know something for which we don't have the evidence(unlike Sitchen or Von Daniken). However, when we can so easily document the development of myths, legends, and religions in other contexts it is not asking too much to provide evidence that any other myth, legend, or religion is not more of the same.

As in any other science you will hear historians, archeologists, paleontologists, etc. pop out an awfully lot of "We think...", "We found these artifacts together or in this location so it may be...", "We have good written evidence that their neighbors did this so it is likely that these similar artifacts are for the same purpose.." etc. Even Hawass, much hated by the proponents of alternate theories, is almost always heard using qualifiers. It is telling that so many of the alternate history proponents are so certain of their views and questionable evidence. Who seems more certain and arrogant when you actually listen to what is said?

Here we are more than willing to entertain alternate theories. You simply have to provide some evidence or rationally explain why the current explanations are not as good of a fit for the evidence as any alternative. It's not enough to say, "Theory A has some holes in it, therefore theory B is better." Far better to say, "Theory A has some holes in it which theory B fills in, further theory B explains the other evidence better than Theory A in these ways: ...." We haven't really had that happen here yet. We all welcome any new information however, so please present any that you may have. I'll warn you that a lot of folks here have had a lot of practice dealing with Sitchin and VD's theories and the many evidentiary, logical, consistency, and factual holes in them... so you might find the going tough if you rely soley on those sources.

I must say that I find it interesting to speculate on an unknown ancient history of mankind which predates our written history.

On the one hand there are many mysteries and artifacts out there that are worthwhile for an examination, however most of these accounts are found on the websites involving new-age, pyramid power or ufos, which as a result tend to classify these issues as absurd a priori.

Currently, I am developing a website, which seeks to gather all such recordings, while attempting to come up with a plausible explanation for them. For example many so called mysteries are explainable, or debunked for that matter, e.g. Eltanin antenna, Abydos helicopter or Coso Artifact. Others may be hoaxes or misinterpretations like the Piri Reis map.

Even if they are answerable, or hoaxed, in any way, it remains interesting to clarify such records just like we do on this board regarding ‘Lunar Conspiracies’.

By filtering out the faulty ones, perhaps there remain some cases that have merit afterall.
Take for example the following cases below:

Dashka's stone: http://www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/ma...ia/russia.html
Ancient Nano-technology: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=34

These show up on many places on the internet, yet I cannot find any additional information about them to classify them either as bogus or valid.

There's a third option here, and that's that the non-scholars (such as Von Daniken and Sitchin) who are re-interpreting the texts are actually getting it wrong. They actually can't read the old texts in the original language and misinterpret it to fit their own meanings.

That the ancients did NOT support those ideas and would have laughed at the interpretations (or been highly offended.)

This is true of any archaeologist or anthropologist. We (I'm one) *know* how to read the writings; know the grammar, know the artifacts, know what was said by the people (in writing) and what other cultures said of them.

It's convincing if you've never studied the culture and don't bother to read the muchly translated material. If you've read, you know that these two are simply bad scholars and that they have an Idea that they feel is Ultimate Truth. It wouldn't matter if you time traveled back with them to meet the priests who would tell them the exact same thing we scientists say. Those two and their followers would ignore what the real people said (as they do now) in favor of their own ideas.

Hoax. It's a Slab O Rock. It's not an ancient map. If you take the time and look at it closely, you'll find it that the "ancient aliens with super technology" had remarkably sloppy mapping skills. This might explain why they can fly clear across the galaxy without running into anything and then can't find their collective hindquarters with a map and a GPS while here on Earth.

More of same. Notice that you see technology without references. You're "told" this piece of spring is old and therefore (by golly) it should be old. The spring and jump ring are modern in origin and the only "special" thing about them is the made-up story.

I could present a pencil lead as an ancient artifact, but that would't make it so.

Good points Byrd. The only thing I would add is that we need to remember that several generations removed from the non-supernatural origin of supernatural myths, legends, religions, and other stories the descendants of the originators might actually treat such stories as fact. How else would we get all of the ancient religions? Certainly, a great number of folks thought or knew better (especially those in positions of power vis-a-vis the local dieties), but the masses probably treated these supposed events and personages as very real... or else the myths and religions would have little power over them. Kind of important if you are a religious or secular leader (not that there was much a difference in most ancient civilizations and cultures), as a leader you need these devices of authority to have power over the masses... control, control, control. (What a great tool of authority is must have been to convince followers that you became a god upon death. "Obey me, because I'll go off to the afterlife and bless your crops or give you a nasty case of heat rash all depending on how faithfully you serve me...")

So Byrd is right that these folks may have written or depicted these personages and events as real: to them they were real. Just because they believed such doesn't make it so, however. We all know that opinion and belief do not equate to veracity. Right??? Some people believe that the supposed football god Joe Gibbs can save the Washington Redskins. In this age of the Mighty Philadelphia Eagles they are pathetically wrong, but they are entitled to their opinions. We just need to remember that belief and fact are in no way related. No matter how many of our ancestors believed in anything that doesn't mean they were right. How many folks in Asia believe the dried and powdered... errrrm "maleness"... of certain big-game cats can cure impotence? A couple of billion people spread across a few thousand years can't all be wrong... or can they?

So, where does that leave us? Examining the evidence. Digging to look for more evidence. Looking for cross-references between cultures. Making inferences from other known and documented instances of different, yet similar, data sets. Not relying on the fantastical until all mundane explanations are exhausted or disproven. And that leads us right back to my point as quoted by Blue. Something more than preference for the fantastical has to be provided before the fantastical will be seriously considered.

The True Story of The Dashka Stone may be found in between the lines of the official story:

The Official Story goes something like this:

"A math professor with Bashkir State University (formerly the Ufa Teachers' Training Institute) in the infant Russian republic of Bashkortostan (a.k.a. Bashkiria, located just about due south of the Urals) and his Chinese grad student are looking for evidence that an ancient Chinese people migrated to the Urals, and by implication, to Bashkortostan. Actually, not an insupportably strange proposition, given the tendency of ancient peoples to migrate back and forth across the steppes.

They need look no further than their very own back yard (so to speak): they find some rock carvings in "Old" Chinese right there in Bashkiria that, in their opinion, support their theory. And, while searching through the archives of the Ufa governor general, they discover references to mysterious stone slabs being found centuries ago near a village called Chandar.

Off they go to Chandar, where they immediately charter a helicopter and start flying around looking for the stone slabs. Disappointingly, they are nowhere to be found.

Professor goes back to drawing board. Later, during another visit to the village, a local bigwig comes up to him and says, "I understand you're looking for strange stone slabs with carvings on them. Why, I have a strange stone slab with carvings on it, under my porch!"

Off they all go to his house, where lo and behold, there is indeed a strange stone slab with carvings on it, under his porch. The slab is excavated, and success is triumphantly announced: not only is there a map on it, but also it must be at least 120 million years old!

Professor drops his campaign to prove the Chinese settled in Bashkiria in the face of this new excitement."

What almost certainly happened:

Professor and grad student, in good faith, get as far as looking through the official Ufa archives for references to rock carvings. Somebody, somewhere, down the line, some obliging minor official, some flunky, somebody working for the governor's office, who knows?--somebody fakes some references to mysterious stone slabs and inserts them where the professor will find them.

Off they go to Chandar. However, of course, the slabs are nowhere to be found. Much disappointment on the part of the professor.

Others, perceiving correctly that there's money in this somewhere (helicopters do not come cheap), go to work, and the next thing you know, a local bigwig has amazingly enough found a stone slab under his porch.

Then enlightened self-interest kicks in, either that or the Professor isn't very bright, because nobody could truly believe this thing was carved 120 million years ago, or that it was "impossible to date".

I'm guessing that by this time the Prof has realized he can't prove his theory that the Chinese settled in the Urals. It will have to remain a theory. But this new theory is so much more exciting, and has such a tremendous potential (what's mere "history", pah, when you can have extraterrestrials?), that he discards the Chinese thing and runs with this ball.

Also, by this point he can't risk offending a bunch of local bigwigs in his hometown by telling them their "slab" is a fake, like the Governor General whose archives so obligingly provided the clues.

Nope, everybody benefits from having a mysterious alien artifact being found in Bashkiria.

I see a bunch of people all rushing around desperately trying to accomodate the need of this university professor to prove that something exciting and strange once happened in their tiny little back-of-beyond republic.

Sad, but understandable. Like the people selling "Jersey Devil" t-shirts and bumper stickers... *snerk*

As for the ancient nanotechnology:

The artifacts are supposedly made of tungsten, molybdenum, and copper.

Which, while they may sound exotic to the layman, are easily found in any catalog of supplies for spot welding.

http://www.nsrw.com/groupb.htm

Any high school kid who had welding in Shop Class could have crafted those widgets. Cut off some chunks, bend it into shape, and bob's yer uncle.

And even "microscopically small" widgets can be made in Shop Class--you just use tiny tools to do tiny jobs.

Miniature welding and micro tools. Very handy for folks wishing to handcraft some tiny alien artifacts.

http://www.fpe.co.uk/miniature.htm
http://www.jaderockshop.com/Torch.htm
http://www.micro-tools.com/

I'm curious, why'd you leave out the "Don't bother, ..." part of my remark?

Curiouser... :-?

How so? I've not brought Sitchin into this discussion at all.
What, are you reading my mind again?

...clearly subjective opinion, nonetheless.

And yet you found it important enough to remark above on someone else's "quoting" even though it had nothing to do with this discussion?
You're right, though - SO WHAT.
But now you go "literal" on me? What happened to applying metaphorical meaning, allegory or simile? :wink:

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Thanks Rich, but as I remarked, none of those explanations really works when dealing with the "Divine Myths" - those pertaining to oft depicted anthropomorphic "gods" and their unusual craft, weapons and quarellsome ways.

None of those options effectively explains any of the myths dealing with the Sumerian pantheon, the Egyptian pantheon, the Hindu pantheon and countless others dealing with "the gods."

What Campbell did was recognize that there is in fact a recurring theme within Myth that, in his words, "started in a mud puddle in Sumer."
And again, when considering the Sumerian pantheon, which of those "options" effectively explains who the Anunnaki were?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

OK, but reading more closely one should recognize that the recurring themes and motifs that "must be inherent in the human psyche," all seem to say the same thing: "gods" from heaven, divine beings, came to earth, created mankind, bestowed on us Civilization, Wisdom & Understanding and then apparently left us babel-factored with the promise to one day "return."
Can you explain to me then, what possible basis there is for this to be rooted so deeply in the human psyche?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

That's way over generalized. The story of Quetzelcoatl's return, for instance, was promulgated only after the Spanish arrived, implying that Cortez and his men were using it to justify their subjugation of the Azteks. Either way, it wasn't a fundamental part of the local religion. In Egyptian mythology, there is no story of the gods leaving for heaven and promising to return. In fact, their mythology tells the opposite: the gods live on Earth and, although Osiris went to the heavens after his death, he didn't come back. In Greco-Roman mythology, not only did the gods not live in the skies (they lived underground, on mountain tops, in trees, or underwater) the only myth in their canon that's even close to your model is the story of Persephone (Proserpina for the Romans) but she explicitly went underground. The Norse gods, essentially, lived on another planet, if you want to think of Asgard that way, but there were never stories of them leaving and promising to return and, like in Egyptian mythology, their deaths were permanent. Granted I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of ancient religions, but those are some major exceptions.

If you're looking for an answer to why humans have religions, I'm not sure anyone can answer that. I certainly can't. On the other hand, there's overwhelming evidence that human cultures develop religions. I would argue that there's plenty of evidence that they weren't inspired by aliens. First, almost all of the gods are anthropomorphic. If they're based on aliens, why are all their designs based on humans? With a few exceptions (e.g. Quetzelcoatl, Bastet) they either look exactly like humans (the Greco-Roman and Norse gods, most of the Hindu and Egyptian gods), look like humans with extra appendages (Shiva) or humans with animal heads (Horus, Thoth). The root of the design is always human. You wouldn't expect that to be the case if they were inspired by aliens.

It's the old adage: Man creates God in his own image. Look at images of Jesus from around the world. In North America and Europe, He's generally portrayed with fair skin, brown hair, and a beard. However, in the Book of Kells, He's portrayed with stereotypical Irish features (very light skin, red hair, etc.). In Latin America, He tends to be depicted with Hispanic features. If images of Christ tend to be look like the main ethnic group in any particular area, why is it so hard to believe that mythologies with anthropomorphic dieties are inspired by humans?

[Edited to fix a typo]

Don't be coy, A.DIM...you don't do it very well. You see, you keep using the phrase, "Those from heaven to earth came", the exact same phrase that Sitchin uses on his website. So am I suppose to ignore the fact that you're a "Sitchinite"?...simply because you haven't mentioned that fact in your most recent postings??

You literally believe these myths to be true. You have not backed up you're belief with any evidence...at least not in the last 2 years or so that we've been discussing this "stuff" on this board.

Edited to change the first sentence for clarity...

Sorry, I just don't see it. Again, we need specific examples for why conventional (and documented in other cases) explanations don't fit. Just saying repeatedly that they don't fit doesn't work. Unfortunately, what all of Sitchin's interpretations, and the sum of his evidence, boils down to is twisting the translations he uses in ways that every expert in those languages takes exception to. Those faulty translations then become his basis for all of his other claims. To him a tool or weapon is unusual because the way he interprets the language. We've covered this here several times I believe.

"Anthropomorphic" is irrelevant and "unusual" is a matter of opinion. You may see specific depictions of tools, weapons, or transportation as unusual because you expect to see something unusual. I would ask again for specific examples that we can discuss here.

You are twisting Campbell's meaning to make it appear he said something he never said. Campbell's analysis, and I know I pointed this out to you in at least one previous thread, is for the benefit of writers, literary scholars, and to a lesser exent early psychologists. He deals with themes and what he specifically terms "characters". He points out several specific types of characters, specific types of adventures and challenges they encounter, and the similar ways in which they solve them.

It is very important to note that at no time did Campbell treat any of the myths or legends he was dissecting as depicting real people or events. It is very dishonest to attempt to use Campbell to support Sitchinite arguments. I would give you the benefit of the doubt, but I know this has been talked about before.

Edit to add: We could have a whole side conversation about Campbellian myths and story telling techniques if you really wanted to. I for one deplore their over use in almost all literature (with the notable exception of a lot of science fiction ) of the last few hundred years. Frankly, I feel the over-reliance on superhuman characters and holier than though heroes who are divinely appointed and deserve to lord over us mere mortals a tad... ummm... medieval.

Taibak, thanks for responding to A.DIM. I couldn't have done it better

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

OK, perhaps the "return" part obfuscated my generalization; however, ALL the ancient myths, from the mesopotamian, to the egyptian, the greek and hindu, and even the mayan, speak of when the gods first descended from heaven to become "gods of heaven and earth." And while there were many "gods" and also demi-gods (offspring of the mix), there is often a central pantheon of "great gods," usually numbering 12 and usually descended from "heaven." Moreover, these pantheons all speak of an age when it was only the gods on earth, but also having a counterpart in "Heaven" (eg. the egyptian "planet of millions of years," or even Zeus' great hall in heaven on Olympus). The gods then created Man as a servant and eventually bestowed on him Kingship, Civ and such.

As far as Quetzlcoatl: I think you're referring to a recent work about Malainari (?), the translator for Cortez? All I know is Quetzlcoatl is an ancient god, dating to the earliest establishment Teotihuacan, where there is a pyramid depicting him as the "plumed sesrpent" - millennia before Coretez. Additionally, there are certain likenesses betwixt him and Enki / Ptah of the Sumerian & Egyptian pantheons.

Excellent points, Taibak. And most reasonable.

What then are we to make of the Sumerians? These people were ingenious, what will all their "Firsts." And yet they repreatedly claim it was the Anunnaki who bestowed on Mankind Civilization? Why? If these people were smart enough to come up with much of what defines advanced civ, and remains largely extant in today's world some 6K yrs later, why wouldn't these feats be attributed to humans themselves? Is it really something rooted in the psyche, as Campbell suggests, to proclaim "gods from heaven" created us and gave us Kingship & Civ? It appears so considering how separated various cultures were and yet they came up with such strikingly parallel stories as allegorical "truth."

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

"coy," RAF?

Long before Sitchin the Anunnaki were recognized as the Sumerian "gods." Much earlier scholars established "Anu" or "An" as "heaven" - hence the link to Annual. "Ki" was tranlsated as "earth" - hence the link to Gi which became the Greek "Geo," referring to the same thing.
Hmm... gods from Heaven who were on Earth.

So you see RAF, your lack of knowledge of even some basic terms leads you to post such drivel. Why not delve into Ancient Near East history et al and really learn something instead of making such associations with Sitchin in your usual dismissive tone?

At least Rich, Taibak and Fram have made reasonably informed posts.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Blue? You coming back for a response?

Sitchin's astronomy is very bad. He has unphysical orbits and collisions that cause catastrophic violations of conservation of angular momentum. I'm not sure how anyone could accept his as having any bearing on astronomy.

Makes a good science fiction book, but it's divorced from physical reality (at least where the orbital mechanics are concerned).

No, I say I read the myths literally and what comes through is a tale of "those from heaven to earth came" which profoundly affected the course of human evolution. I don't "believe" as you suggest, I just don't dismiss it so readily as you. I acknowledge that once over the hurdle of "intelligent life" elsewhere, why not here, in the past? I know there's no "proof" as you'd have it, but again, I remain open to the possibility, especially since it could explain many things.

Anyway, I'd hardly consider what you've done over that time as "discussing" this "stuff" since I'd think one would learn through discussion. You see, the translation of Anunnaki is a good example; I'm rather certain that anyone engaged in discussions of these sorts would've learned such a thing. Either that, or research it on their own. So, either you haven't, or your blinded by your Sitchin fetish when engaging me.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Yes, we have. Can you use any of the aforementioned "options" with the Vedas? How about with Gilgamesh? The Descent of Ishtar into the Netherworld?

Regarding Sitchin:

There exist only a "few certain terms," as stated by scholar M. Heiser, that "boils down" the difference in translations. And even then, I've previously showed how Heiser's and Sitchin's translations don't differ much at all, which in turn, is amusing considering the BA's initial use of Heiser as Sitchin's detractor. I'd say something about Ian Lawton's anti Sitchin work, but he's hardly the trained scholar, and is as much a revisionist as anyone.
What other "experts" are you referring to?

Wrong. When reading the ancient Myths and Religion, weapons of all sorts are described, powerful devastating weapons. Vehicles too, such as the vimanas, "ezekiel's wheel," "celestial barges" and "fiery chariots" in which the gods traverse the skies. These are the exact depictions given. So which of those options explains these?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Surely you aren't saying that you don't see how obsfucation, aggrandizment, story inflation, mistaking natural phenomena for supernatural phenomena, misunderstanding natural phenomena to be supernatural, not to mention just plain old getting high or making stuff up... couldn't apply to any and all of those stories? Gilgamesh always read to me like a really good buddy tale that you might see on a serial cop or political show. It was merely important to a group of people at a point in time. Those people aggrandized the orginal tale, because that's what people do, and we know about it because those people became a regional power and passed it on to others; probably even further inflating the tale (by then myth, legend, or religion) as evidence or justification for their authority. Someone else comes to the forefront and we might have gotten a whole different set of stories.

People still do the same thing today. There is nothing remarkable about any of the other stories to suggest anything else is the case.

For crying out loud aboriginal people the world over have some really neat stories about the weird atmospheric phenomena following the Tunguska comet/meteor explosion and the explosion of Krakatowa (sp?) in the South Pacific. Does that mean their supernatural explanations are more correct, just because we know the real reasons? Do you think some alien/god with a big raygun made the crater out in Arizona? Can you truly not accept that ancient people's, with very limited knowledge of how the natural world works, wouldn't explain devastating natural events as the work of gods and monsters? If you believed in such gods where would you place them? A flying chariots sounds pretty cool to me, given that we couldn't fly until the past century the sky would seem a great domain for the gods.

When I we ask for specific examples you return generalities. Give us specific sets of depicted tools, weapons, and vehicles to look at to see what is so unusual about them. I have a feeling it is nothing more than what would be expected from most scientifically ignorant people. Or was Zeus a real god because lightening weapons are too stupendous to imagine? No chance that the lightening, earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanoes, tidal waves, weird weather, famine, disease, pestilence, forest fires, occasional meteor strike, ad naseum came first and the gods second? I wonder what ancient people would attribute those to and the aggrandizment that would occur from ruling classes intent on keeping power through such tales and their supposed connections to ancient superheroes and gods?

I enjoy reading fantasy. That doesn't mean I must assume the writer actually met elves or has seen magic swords. It means he has imagination. Am I to assume that ancient writers had no imagination? Wheels? Barges? Chariots? Why wouldn't I expect ancient writers to have these in their stories? A chariot that magically moves in the sky is not a great conceptual leap. You need to demonstrate why imagination isn't enough.

Too right!

I often wonder if future generations will ascribe god-like or mythic characteristics to random movie characters, mistaking fiction for historical documentary. Can you imagine a future in which "Bill S. Preston, Esquire" and "'Ted' Theodore Rogan" are viewed as historical personages?

Not as such. In both Egyptian and Greco-Roman mythology, the gods were descendents of Heaven and Earth. However, they saw Heaven and Earth as living creatures in their own right. To the Egyptians, the skies were the goddess Nut, whose body was covered in stars. To the Greeks, Ouranos (Uranus to the Romans) was an ancient god who married Mother Earth (Gaia, Terra) and sired the Titans. Either way, the Greeks and Romans were very clear that the gods lived on Earth and *never* lived in the sky.

That's still an over generalization. Part of the problem is how you define a 'great' god in these religions. Yes, the Greco-Roman Pantheon had the Twelve Olympians, but if you look at their religion Bacchus and Hades were every bit as important as, say, Artemis or Hephaestos. What do you make of Hercules, whose popularity rivaled the more important gods'.

In Hindu mythology, you're left with only eight major gods: Agni, Ganesh, Shiva, Kali, Brahma, Kama, Vishnu, and Indra and of those Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are by far the most important. Either way, that's fewer than twelve.

In Norse mythology, there were dozens of Aesir, the central pantheon. Of those, I would argue that only Odin, Thor, Loki, Balder, Frey, Freya, Tyr, and maybe Frigg and Heimdall were overly important. That's only nine.

In Egyptian mythology, with its immense pantheon, only a few gods could be considered important: Osiris, Horus, Isis, Set, Anubis, Thoth, and the various incarnations of Ra.

I can't comment on Central American mythology, since I'm not overly familiar with most of it, but looking at these cultures, there doesn't seem to be much of a pattern.

That's a key point actually: for the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, they mean 'descended' in a geneological sense. In Greco-Roman mythology, the sky was the god Ouranos (Uranus in Latin) who married Mother Earth (Gaia/Terra) and sired the Titans. In that cosmology, both Heaven and Earth were living gods in their own right. For the Egyptians, the skies were the goddess, Nut, whose body was covered with stars. Much like Ouranos, she married the Earth, Seb, and gave birth to Osiris, Isis, Set, and Nepthys. If we're talking aliens landing on Earth, why bother with personifying the sky? Why not just say that the gods flew in from the unknown?

That's a feature of ALL creation myths: the gods create man. Therefore, the gods must be older than man. Doesn't matter if we're talking about Brahma, Yahweh, or Odin.

Like you say, Zeus's great hall was on Mt. Olympos: on Earth. It is explicitly identified as a real mountain, on this planet, and NOT in the heavens.

In Greek mythology, man was created for the gods' amusement, as much as anything else. Similarly, in the Book of Genesis, God never gives a reason as to why He created Adam (Genesis 1:26 - 31). I haven't been able to find a reason for creating man in Egyptian mythology. I have, on the other hand, found two mutually exclusive stories: Khnum sculpting man out of clay and Ra bringing man into existence simply by saying 'man.' I also don't know of any stories where the gods bring civilization to man in any of these cultures. The closest I know if is Prometheus teaching man how to use fire, but other than that the myths simply state that mankind was given the gift of intelligence.

[quote="A.DIM"]As far as Quetzlcoatl: I think you're referring to a recent work about Malainari (?), the translator for Cortez? All I know is Quetzlcoatl is an ancient god, dating to the earliest establishment Teotihuacan, where there is a pyramid depicting him as the "plumed sesrpent" - millennia before Coretez.

Quetzlcoatl was generally depicted as a feathered serpent. Enki was depicted as a human. Ptah was depicted as a mummy. Those are three very different aspects.

Similarly, while both Enki and Ptah are associated with craftsmanship, Ptah is associated with rebirth while Enki is associated with water. By contrast, Quetzlcoatl is associated with the skies, reading, timekeeping, corn, and rebirth. The only thing all three have in common is that they're all gods.

Thanks.

No, I have to agree with Campbell here. First off, while the Mesopotamians were among the first to settle in cities, practice agriculture, discover mathematics, and create writing, we're talking about developments that occured gradually over thousands of years. Odds are most of these developments were gradual enough that it probably never occured to them to document the process - not to mention the fact that the Sumerians nevered developed historical writing, as we understand it. Heck, agriculture and cities were developed before writing so any records they did have of their creation would have been buried in an oral tradition, which, like any similar tradition, would have been constantly changing over generations.

Second, the Mesopotamians probably never realised how momentous their advances were. They wanted protection from their enemies, therefor they built walled cities. They wanted to eat more, they figured out how to farm. They wanted better tools, they developed crafts, particularly once they could spare the labor. They wanted better administration, they created writing and mathematics. That's just pragmatism in action. There's no way they knew they were laying the foundations for the rest of human history. To be honest, they probably never even realised they were the first people to do these things where their culture was taking its sweet time with these and where their neighbors in Egypt weren't all that far behind.

Lastly, while there are some similarities between mythologies, the simplest and most likely explanation is that they all reflect the basic needs and desires of mankind. We shouldn't be surprised that all religions talk about key aspects of human behavior (war, love, death, ethics), keys to survival (water, agriculture, craftsmanship), andthe big questions that humans ask (cosmology, origin and role of mankind). Why wouldn't a religion reflect the most important parts of life?

Where these parallels only reflect the basic aspects of being human, the differences between creation myths are profound. In Norse mythology, Odin and his brothers created the first man and woman from trees. In Mesopotamian mythology, mankind was created from Ishtar's blood. In Genesis and in some Egyptian myths, man was made from clay. In Mayan mythology, man is created from dough. In the Chinese myth of the celestial egg, man is descended from the lice that infested Pan Gu. In Hindu mythology, man was created from Brahma's body with higher castes being created from his head and lower castes from his feet. In New Guinea alone the various mythologies don't agree on whether or not man emerged fully formed out of the sky, the trees, or the earth or even on whether or not this was a natural process or an act of creation. IF all these stories reflect a shared experience of aliens creating life, you'd expect them to agree on how the aliens pulled this off.

Moreover, if, as you say, aliens were responsible for bringing civilization to the entire Earth why are there so many differences between cultures? Why didn't the Incas ever develop the wheel? Why did the natives of New Guinea ever develop cities on the same scale as the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Indians, and Chinese? Why was the caste system unique to India? If these aliens passed on their civilization, why didn't they pass on their language as well? Even if you argue that the aliens spoke whatever the local humans were speaking, why do Sanskrit, Hebrew, Egyptian, Chinese, Phonecian, Ogham, and the various Mesopotamian, Nordic, and Mesoamerican languages all use such totally different forms of writing? Heck, how come the Polynesians never developed writing on their own? Why did the Mesopotamians and Mayans understand zero when nobody else did? Basically, were the aliens being inconsistent, or are these just the results of various human cultures developing along their own paths and coming up with different explanations of how they got there?

GoogleAd for plush Minotaur.

Excellent post Taibak, thank you!

Thanks again, Taibak.
And let's not forget that the discussion of who was the first for many developments and inventions is still open. The Mesopotamians were early and probably were often the first, but it is highly debatable that they were always the first. E.g. writing may well have developed in Egypt before it appeared in Mesopotamia.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

A.DIM, If you're more comfortable being bebunked by Rich, Taibak, and Fram...well, I have no problem with that.

For the moment, I'll just sit back and watch the fun...