This “Cumont dogma” is a wonderful example of the risks to which scientists present themselves with authority of ‘giants’ (or perhaps supposed giants) and that they are accepted outright by others.
In any case, finally in 1971 some persons began to take these dogmas to task, and it became immediately clear that Mithraic studies had to be re-started from the very beginning and that the natural point to start with was astronomy. Actually already in 1869 the German scholar K. B. Stark had noticed strong and clear connections of the iconography with constellations. However Cumont went out to say that although astronomy could admittedly have played a role in the lower degrees of initiation, the main stream of the high degrees was the Iranic tradition on the origin and the end of the world.
Since the main personages in the scene are Mithras and the Bull, it is clear that the bull has to be identified with Taurus but it is not clear with which constellation Mithras is to be identified. All the astronomical interpretations which have been proposed since 1970 e.g. heliacal rising of Taurus, have had a serious problem with the identification of Mithras. For instance, one could think Orion, but Orion is under, and not above, the Bull.
Fig. 8 The Mithras iconography.
Finally, the solution of the puzzle has been given by David Ulansey (Ulansey 1989). Ulansey observed that over Taurus there is Perseus, a constellation identified with a Phyigian warrior already in the 5 century BC. But why the Scorpion? If we fix the sky back in time up to the end of the Taurus era, about 2000 BC, we discover that the other equinoctial constellation was Scorpio. The celestial equator crossed at that time Taurus, Canis Major, Hydra (i.e. a serpent), Vessel, Crow and Scorpion (besides a small part of Orion’s sword). There remains the Lion which, however, was the summer solstice constellation at the same epoch. The grain ears from the tail of the Bull give the association with spring equinox. This is what concerns the interpretation of the Mithras cult: a god who is so strong as to be able to change the cosmic order of the motion of the sun with respect to the stars. This is a very convincing interpretation. However, the interest for us arises from the way in which Ulansey explains the origin of the Mithras cult. According to Ulansey, what happened is (in brief) the following. In 128 BC Hipparchus discover precession. The discovery rapidly permeates and fits into the symbolic scheme of the stoic philosophy school at Tarsus. Since for stoic philosophers, natural forces were manifestations of deities, so it was natural for them to introduce a new god responsible for the new movement of the cosmos: a god so strong as to be able to move the ‘fixed’ stars. Since Perseus was already venerated at Tarsus, the identification followed naturally. Regarding the missing link with the pirates, which are the first Mithras adepts historically documented, Ulansey remarks that they had ‘contacts with intellectuals’ and were used to the stars being sailors.
I should say immediately that I do not believe in Ulansey’s ingenious interpretation of the Mithras cult and that I am unable to believe in his ingenious explanation for its origin. The reason is very simple. Although doing the best of my efforts, I cannot find even one example in history in which a scientific discovery became a religion. It could eventually have become a myth within a religious framework, as in Hamlet’s Mill viewpoint, but not the foundation of a cult of a new god. There is also a technical reason for which I cannot believe in Ulansey’s interpretation. Let us suppose that a scientific discovery of a mechanism becomes a religion. A religion is usually associated with eschatological thought: we expect an event, the future advent of a god, for instance. Therefore, I would rather think that the new religion will be based on the end of the present era (Aries to Fish) rather than on the end of the previous one occurring 2000 years (I repeat, 2000 years) before. Based on slight different motivation, this objection has already been raised, and Ulansey’s answer is based on the fact that Hipparchus estimation of the precessional velocity was too low (about one degree for one century). As a consequence, this led to an estimate of the future change of the precessional era after many centuries (about 800 years) and not at the time it really occurred, actually in the first century AD more or less.
While I consider this as a possible explanation of the decline of the Mithras cult (I am not aware of any other scholars making this observation, but it looks natural to me) I do not consider this as a good explanation for the point, because ‘time of religion is the time of gods’ so there is usually no urge for eschatological events to occur.
All in all, I think that the origin of Mithras precessional iconography can be much older than Hipparchus discovery. Once again, these are only speculative statements however. Hopefully new epigraphic or archaeological discoveries might be of help in assessing this interesting point, but at least one archaeological finding already exists.
4.2 The Gundestrup Cauldron
The so-called Gundestrup Cauldron is a huge vessel made out of silver plates. Found in Denmark in 1880, it is exposed in the Copenhagen National Museum and it is the most renowned masterpiece of Celtic art, dated to the first century BC (dating is however only approximate since no physical method is known to date such kind of objects).
The Gundestrup is magnificently decorated with enigmatic images. It undoubtedly shows peculiarities of Celtic art, e.g. the god called Cermnumon, but it also shows clear ‘oriental’ influxes (also elephants are represented on it). There is still debate about the meaning of the scenes, and what is most debated is the meaning of the central plate representation. It shows, at the centre, a dying bull with, forming a circle contour to the animal, a warrior, a lizard and a dog. A bear seems also to be present, and a tree branch with leaves.
One can easily solve the exercise of foreseeing which interpretations have been proposed for this image. Of course we have ‘ritual sacrifice’, ‘ritual fighting with bulls’, ‘ritual fighting between bulls and dogs’ and so on (actually the Corrida is missing). Finally, the French scholar Paul Verdier (2000) proposed what would seem the obvious idea that the symbolism of the cauldron has an astronomical content. For instance, one of the lateral plaques contains two bands separated by a branch. The upper band shows four riders (the solstices) the lower band twelve warriors (the months of the Celtic lunar calendar) while the tree branch is the Milky Way. The central plaque is probably a representation of the death of the Taurus Era, as in the Mithras main iconography, and in fact if we take a look to the sky in 2000 BC, we can actually see in clockwise direction Lacerta, the lizard, Canis Major, the dog, Orion, the warrior, and Taurus, the bull, while the two Ursae ‘overlook’ the scene from the north celestial pole. In my opinion, the warrior in the scene might well be Perseus, and not Orion, since moving in clockwise spiralling towards Taurus one actually encounters Perseus, as exemplified in the figure. In this case the analogy with the Mithra cult would become striking. In any case the astronomical interpretation of the scene is clear.
Fig. 9 Portion of the sky at the latitude of Copenhagen, in 2000 BC.
Unfortunately, we do not know the level of astronomical knowledge of the Celtic astronomers, because most of the information we have on them comes from secondary sources, especially (curiously indeed) from the stoic Hellenistic writer Posidonio, besides the Roman sources like Caesar’s writings. However, some primary information is available, like e.g. the Coligny Calendar, a lunar calendar written in Roman characters but in the Gallic language. In addition, the lore of astronomy in Bronze Age in North Europe has still to reveal his secrets, as shows the recent discovery of the so called Nebra Disk, a 16th century BC Bronze disk showing 32 stars, a crescent and the sun and probably representing a particular sky on a particular day.
Fig. 10 The central plaque of the Gundestrup cauldron and the corresponding astronomical interpretation. The picture on the right is the same as that in Fig. 9, with only the relevant constellations shown. Reading in clockwise direction in a spiral from the pole (Ursa) we find Lacerta, Canis Major, Orion (actually Perseus if one has to proceed on the spiral) and Taurus.
In any case, it is again d
ifficult to believe (at least to me) that also the Celts did rapidly filtrate the discovery by Hipparchus, in such a way that an artist of the first century BC decided to represent a precessional event occurring 2000 years before in his masterpiece.
5 Concluding Remarks
All in all, there is no clear, absolute evidence of the discovery of precession before Hellenistic times or in pre-Columbian culture. There is, however, at least in my view, a clear evidence that simple astronomical phenomena, such as heliacal rising of bright stars or the movement of the equinoctial point through zodiacal constellations were traced for a sufficient amount of time and with a sufficient precision to lead many ancient astronomers to the discovery that ‘something was happening’ with a very slow velocity with respect to human life.
More research focussed on this issue is certainly needed, first of all in Egypt. In fact, the problem of the stellar alignment of Egyptian temples should be reconsidered taking into account that the chronology of Egypt is much more clear and accurate than it was in Lockyer times, and controlling the assertions of Lockyer from a quantitative point of view (for instance following the subsequent enlargements of the Luxor temple in terms of precessional movement of the stars). Theoretical research is also needed to relate in a secure way decanal lists coming from different centuries.
The need for further research holds true also in Malta, and in all the places which show an interest of the builders for alignments changing in time due to precession.
References
Albrecht, K. (2001), Maltas Tempel: Zwischen Religion und Astronomie, Naether-Verlag, Potsdam.
Aveni, A. F. (2001), Skywatchers: A Revised and Updated Version of Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico, University of Texas Press, Austin.
Aveni, A. F and Gibbs, S. L. (1976), ‘On the orientation of pre-Columbian buildings in central Mexico’, American Antiquity , Vol. 41, pp. 510-17.
Badawy, A. (1964), ‘The stellar destiny of pharaoh and the so called air shafts in Cheops pyramid’, M.I.O.A.W.B. Band 10, p.189.
Bauval, R. (1993), ‘Cheop’s pyramid: a new dating using the latest astronomical data’, Discussions in Egyptology. Vol. 26, p.5.
Belmonte, J.A. (2001a), ‘The Ramesside star clocks and the ancient egyptian constellations’, SEAC Conference on Symbols, calendars and orientations, Stockholm.
Belmonte, J.A. (2001b), ‘The decans and the ancient Egyptian skylore: an astronomer’s approach’, INSAP III Meeting, Palermo.
Belmonte, J.A. (2001c), ‘On the orientation of Old Kingdom Egyptian Pyramids’, Archaeoastronomy 26, 2001, S1.
De Santillana, G.,Von Dechend, E.(1983), Hamlet’s Mill, Dover Publications.
Dow, J. (1967), ‘Astronomical orientations at Teotihuacan; A case study in astroarchaeology’, American Antiquity, Vol. 32, pp. 326-34.
Feuerstein, G., Kak, S., and Frawley, D. (1995), In search of the cradle of civilization, Wheaton, Quest Books.
Eddy, J. A. (1974), ‘Astronomical alignment of the Big Horn Medicine Wheel’, Science. Vol 18, p.1035.
Eddy, J. A. (1977), ‘Medicine wheels and plains Indian astronomy’. In Aveni, A. (ed.), Native American Astronomy, University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 147-70.
Haack, S. (1984), ‘The astronomical orientation of the Egyptian pyramids’, Archeoastronomy, Vol. 7, S119.
Hoskin, M. (2001), Tombs, temples and their orientations, Ocarina books.
Kak, S. (2000), ‘Birth and Early Development of Indian Astronomy’. In Astronomy Across Cultures: The History of Non-Western Astronomy, Helaine Selin (ed), Kluwer, pp. 303-40.
Krupp, E. C. (1983), Echoes of the Ancient Skies, Harper, New York.
Krupp, E.C. (1988), ‘The light in the temples’. In Ruggles C.L.N. (ed.) Records In Stone: Papers In Memory Of Alexander Thom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lockyer, N. (1894), The Dawn of Astronomy.
Magli, G. (2003), On the astronomical orientation of the IV dynasty Egyptian pyramids and the dating of the second Giza pyramid (preprint)
Mathieu, B. (2001), ‘Travaux de l’Institut Francais d’Archeologie Orientale en 2-2001’, BIFAO, p. 101.
Neugebauer, O. (1976), A History of ancient mathematical astronomy, Springer-Verlag.
Neugebauer, O (1969), The exact sciences in antiquity Dover Publications, New York .
Neugebauer, O, Parker, R.A.(1964), Egyptian Astronomical Texts, Lund Humphries, London.
Pettinato, G. (1998), La scrittura celeste, Milano, Mondadori.
Pogo, A. (1930), The astronomical ceiling decoration of the tomb of Semnut, ISIS, Vol. 14, p. 301.
Rappenglueck, M. (1998), ‘Palaeolithic Shamanistic Cosmography: How is the Famous Rock Picture in the Shaft of the Lascaux Grotto to be Decoded?’, XVI Valcamonica Symposium Arte Preistorica e Tribale, Sciamanismo e Mito.
Robinson, J.H.(1980). ‘Fomalhaut and Cairn D at the Big Horn and Moose Mountain Medicine Wheels’, Archaeaoastronomy: Bull. Center for Archaeoastr., pp.15-9.
Spence, K. (1999), ‘Ancient Egyptian chronology and the astronomical orientation of pyramids’, Nature, Vol. 408, p.320.
Trimble,V. (1964), ‘Astronomical investigations concerning the so called air shafts of Cheops pyramid’, M.I.O.A.W.B., Band 10, p. 183.
Trump, D. H. (1991), Malta: An Archaeological Guide, Progress Press Co. Ltd.
Trump, D.H. (2002), Malta: Prehistory and Temples, Midsea Books.
Ulansey, D. (1989), The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Verdier, P. (2000) L’Astronomie celtique : l’énigme du chaudron de Gun-destrup, Archéologue 6.
Zaba, Z. (1953), L’orientation astronomique dans l’ancienne Egypte et la precession de l’axe du monde, Prague, 1953.
APPENDIX 3
An Overview of the Orion Correlation Theory (OCT): Was the angle of observation 52.2 degrees south of east?
By Chris Tedder
The following article has been published by Chris Tedder and is here reproduced with his kind permission in full and without any alteration.
Background
In 1983, Robert Bauval noticed the similarity between the three-star asterism in Orion, and the site layout of the three pyramid complexes on the Giza plateau. This observation became the core idea of the Orion Correlation Theory (OCT). Following a recommendation by Dr Edwards, Robert Bauval’s paper, ‘A Master Plan for the Three Pyramids of Giza Based on the Configuration of the Three Stars of the Belt of Orion’, was published in the journal, Discussions in Egyptology, Vol. 13, 1989.
A wider thematic vision?
No plans or documents have survived in the archaeological record that can shed light on the rationale behind the revolutionary design of the true plane-sided pyramid - the central component of the royal funerary complex, or that can provide textual evidence for a possible thematic vision for the Giza group, or links with other pyramid fields along the western escarpment. This lack of textual evidence limits our ability to interpret the archaeological remains of this exciting period of innovative architectural developments. However, various clues found in the layout of the three complexes, in the ancient Egyptian sky and in the earliest surviving royal funerary texts inscribed within pyramids from the end of the Fifth Dynasty, might suggest a wider thematic vision for the Giza group. These texts provide the ideological background for the idea of an overall thematic vision inspired by the large striking constellation of Orion, or more specifically, the distinctive three-star asterism in Orion commonly known as Orion’s Belt.
The Temple of Satis (Satet) on Elephantine Island.
The goddess Satis (left) with the ram-headed god Kknum, Temple of Satis on Elephantine Island.
The Temple of Hathor at Dendera.
The Temple of the Birth of Isis at Dendera. View from the roof of the Hathor temple, looking south.
Author in the Osiris chapel of the Temple of Hathor at Dendera.
Dawn at the Great Temple of Rameses II at Abu Simbel during the sun festival in late October.
Great
Temple of Rameses II at Abu Simbel. The holy of holies illuminated by the sun’s ray on 19th October.
Great Temple of Rameses II at Abu Simbel. Sunrise on 19th October.
Photo-montage by Jan van der Haagen of UNESCO (1961) of the various sunrise points between 17th and 22nd October before the temple was moved to a higher location.It can be seen that the align-ment of the axis was directed to the sunrise on the 19th October when the disc appeared over the distant hill on the east side of the Nile.
Akhenaten, Cairo Museum.
Akhenaten making offerings to the Aten sun-disc.
The remains of the Small Temple of Aten, at Tell El Amarna.
Author at sunrise on 30th October at Tell El Amarna.
Heb Sed (jubilee) scene, Step Pyramid at Saqqara.
Heb Sed (jubilee) scene, Karnak temple. Note the King racing with the sacred bull.
Heb Sed (jubilee) scenes from the Abu Ghorab sun-temples.
The angle of observation
The Giza pyramids are aligned to the cardinal points, and it seems only natural that if an attempt were made to represent Orion’s distinctive three-star asterism in the site layout, a match should occur when the asterism was due south. However, no match occurred during the Old Kingdom (c. 2686-c. 2160 BC) - the era when the Giza pyramids were built. The angle from the centre of Khufu’s pyramid to the centre of Menkaura’s pyramid is 52.2 degrees south of west, but when the asterism was due south, the angle between the corresponding stars Alnitak and Mintaka was only 16.2 degrees. As a N/S meridian match with the Giza layout did not occur in the Old Kingdom, Orion was precessed nearly 8,000 years back in time, to c. 10,500 BC, when Orion was at its lowest in the precessional cycle. However, even going this far back in time is not enough for the asterism to match the Giza layout - Orion needs to be precessed a further 1,000 years for a close match. It seems highly unlikely the ancient Egyptians in the Old Kingdom were aware of precession and its effect on Orion over long periods, and could visualize how Orion appeared at its lowest point in the precessional cycle and represent this it at Giza. It also seems unlikely the layout was conceived by a civilization nine millennia further back in time from the Fourth Dynasty. However, going so far back in time to find a close match is unnecessary, as one can be found in the Fourth Dynasty, although not due south as might be expected. At some point in the south-eastern sky as Orion was rising, Alnitak and Saiph aligned vertically, a useful aid and reference line if the relative positions of the three stars within the asterism needed to be roughly determined. When Alnitak and Saiph aligned vertically (52.2 degrees south of east), the asterism in Orion closely matched the Giza layout. Interestingly, this mirrored the angle between Khufu and Menkaura’s pyramids, which is 52.2 degrees west of south. According to the Pyramid Texts, the ‘Field of Offerings’ where the ‘Imperishable Stars’ are found was founded by means of a plumb-line (Pyramid Texts, 1,196). This may be an allusion to vertical alignments of stars in the sky that may have been an aid in ‘founding’ the royal funerary complexes.
The Egypt Code Page 27