IDENTIFICATION OF VERTISOLS OF SEDIMENTARY ORIGIN THROUGH THEIR SPECTRAL SIGNATURE

The evolution and transforma- tion of mythic symbolism over time provides a host of clues about the original patterns of human memory. We have already noted that the “thunderbolts” of the gods were cos- mic in nature, taking forms never presented by regional lightning. The regional phenomena can only hint at the qualities of the archetype (elec- tricity, light, fire, violence, noise). Lightning familiar to us today is but a reminder, a symbol of the divine thunderbolt that altered the history of the world.

One of the most common errors in historical investigation is the tendency to confuse the symbol with the archetype, and the result is invariably a fruitless inquiry. Symbols alone do not explain them- selves. Taken in isolation, only their absurdity will be

evident, quenching the fire of discovery. Symbols were not things in themselves; they were signposts pointing backward to something else. All sacred symbols shared a common function, speaking for the forms and events that distinguished the age of gods and wonders from all of subsequent history. When the distinction between archetype and symbol is honored, the results are both clear and stunning. In each case we find that not one symbol alone but a wide range of symbols point back to the same celestial form. Of this principle, dozens of examples will be given in these monographs.

The cosmic “thunderbolt” is not a momentary flash

of lightning followed by a burst of thunder. Every recurring feature of the mythic tradition is an enigma. Each requires the researcher to see beyond familiar explanations. Each stands in defined relation- ship to complementary symbols that reflect the same improbable events.

Consider, for example, the “absurd” fact that, mythically and symbolically the divine thunderbolt cannot be separated from the doomsday comet. The fire anciently claimed to erupt from or

Aztec painting of a comet, seen as a celestial announcement of devas- tating catastrophe.

Nineteenth century vision of a world-destroying comet.

T

G

between planets in close approach was not just a cosmic “thunder- bolt.” It was also called a comet.

In nature as we experience it today, a thunderbolt and a comet have virtually nothing in common. And yet the archaic tradition does not allow us to distinguish the one from the other. In fact, when Seneca referred to the “train of fire” erupting between planets in conjunction (citation above), he was speaking of archaic astro- nomical traditions about the comet. The traditions coincide pre- cisely with those of the thunderbolt. The fact that both the thunderbolt and the comet appear as the sword of a great warrior is an additional pointer to the original unity of the traditions.

The archaic traditions say that a stream of fire was seen to erupt between planets in close approach. In terms of the evolution of mythic ideas, the “fire” erupting between planets in conjunction could be called “the mother of all thunderbolts,” but also the “mother of all comets”: that is, it inspired the entire mythic content of two distinct natural symbols. Hence, there is only one reason, not two reasons, why ancient ideas about lightning and about comets defy observation in our time. The ideas arose from extraordinary

natural events that are not occurring now. Many indications of this unity are given by the Pre-Socratic theories of the Greek philoso- phers.

The more general notion is encapsulated in the statement of Dem- ocritus that comets are a coalescence of two or more stars so that their “rays” unite.24 Authorities agree that the term “stars” in the pre-Socratic discussion of comets means planets, since proper stars were not believed to be moving with respect to each other. Aristotle

Comet Cheseaux of 1744, with beautifully displayed, collimated jets. Drawing published by Amédée Guillemin, The Heavens, in 1868. The head of the comet, of course, in beneath the horizon.

Electrical Encounters in Space

and Diogenes Laertius recorded the theories of Democritus and Anaxagoras in these terms:

Democritus, however, has defended his view vigorously, maintaining that stars have been seen to appear at the dissolution of some com- ets.25

Anaxagoras and Democritus say that comets are a conjunction of planets, when they appear to touch each other because of their near- ness

.

Anaxagoras is said to have held “comets to be a conjunction of planets which emit flames.”27 Diogenes of Apollonia, too, believed that comets are “chains of stars.”28

A similar report is given by Leucippus: comets are due to the near approach to each other of two planets.29

There is, in fact, a remarkable consistency to the archaic con- cept, which appears to trace to the foundations of ancient astron- omy.

Seneca, in his review of archaic ideas about comets, reports that “Apollonius says that the Chaldaeans place comets in the category of planets and have determined their orbits.”30 Seneca summarizes the planetary tradition with these words (which include the brief citation above):

Some of the ancient scholars favour this explanation: when one of the planets has come into conjunction with another the light of both blends into one and presents the appearance of an elongated star. This happens not only when planet touches planet, but even when they only come close. For the space between the two planets lights up and is set aflame by both planets and produces a train of fire.31

Could such traditions withstand the progressive movement of Greek philosophy toward skepticism? The earlier assertions of Chaldean and Babylonian astronomy directly contradicted plane- tary observation in Greek and Roman times. The classical natural- ists’ reliance on contemporary observation is well illustrated by Seneca’s treatment of comets, when he notes the assertion of Epho- rus (400-330 B.C.) “Ephorus said that a comet once observed by all mankind split up into two planets, a fact which no one except him reports.”32 That a “comet” became two planets is indeed an absurd claim by all modern standards. But once we have reconstructed the tradition, it will be clear that this was far from an isolated claim. It belongs, in fact, to the bedrock of cross-cultural memory.

Despite the “refutations” by the respected naturalists of classi- cal times, the planetary nature of comets was continually asserted throughout the Middle Ages, in the works of such figures as Alber- tus Magnus, Gerard de Silteo, Roger Bacon, and Aegidius of Less-