From: doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson)
Subject: Re: The Adam and Eve Thing
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 18:29:50 GMT

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

> In article <4c7yqB1w164w@uuisis.isis.org> doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson
> >I find it quite interesting that so many different cultures, widely
> >dispersed geographically, end up telling stories which have many common
> >elements.
> 
> Why is it interesting?

Well I guess when I see a pattern my interest is aroused.

> Man tends to create his gods in his own image.  Man also worries about
> mortality and about his other limitations.  Myths with gods that are like
> men but with fewer limitations are what you would expect; they're not somethi
> unusual that needs explanation.

That is conventional wisdom. What does need explaining is why man
changed at the end of the Bronze Age such that these 'stories' fell into
disrepute. At least conventional wisdom doesn't have an answer for that.
If the gods (immortals) were actually real people who hung around for a
time and then left - which is what many of the myths state - then it
makes sense that people would lose interest in these creatures when they
were no longer around and active on earth.

Later gods are really immortal - they can't be killed, don't show up in
physical incarnations, don't get sexually involved with humans. They are
conceived of as more or less pure spirit.

So there is no universal human need for gods that are just like people,
walk around and argue and fight and eat and procreate, except they are
more powerful and live longer. Since the Bronze Age, such notions
haven't attracted much adherence among humans.

Ergo the hypothesis - and it is only a hypothesis - that maybe these
myths were not inventions but actual reports of extraordinary people
(who might have come from other worlds).

> >Among the hypotheses offered by some historians today is the notion that the
> >earth was indeed visited by human-like people from other places. These
> >people possessed a higher level of technology and relative 'immortality'. In
> >this view, the Bronze Age stories can be taken at face value as a primitive
> >people's report of its dealings with a more advanced people.
> 
> I was unaware of any historians that offer those hypotheses.  Mind naming
> some?

I think it was two years ago that the Canadian Broadcasting Commission's
"Ideas" programme had a five part feature called "The Immortals". I did
tape it and the tapes are around here somewhere - I think. The series
was done by a History Professor. He didn't, and I won't claim the idea
is 'mainstream', but he is a historian and he has put forward the
hypothesis in considerably greater detail than I have.

You can get a transcript from:

CBC
P.O. Box 500
Station A
Toronto, Ontario
M5W 1E6

I find it interesting that if you change your assumption from "The
Bronze Age Bozos didn't know anything and these stories are obviously
impossible therefore we have to write them off as flights of fancy" and
take the point of view (for the sake of argument) that the stories of
the Bronze Age are at least based on real events the resulting
'explanation' actually fits all the evidence much better.

Since we don't know if there were alien visitors, and we likewise don't
know that there weren't, and since we can't even guess at the
probability of such visitors - that's a neutral factor to add. It could
have happened.

During the Bronze Age, according to the series, a number of things
happened which are referred to in some mythologies and can be verified
by archaeology.

Animals began to be domesticated. Most of today's common domestic
animals first showed up at that time. They haven't changed since. They
weren't around before.

Agriculture began to be practiced. Most of today's main food crops first
show up at that time. They weren't around before. Corn, potatoes,
carrots and a few others were traced back in time to the Bronze Age.

Now many myths of that time say that the gods (immortals) introduced
these high yield food crops along with beasts of burden and animals good
for food.

None of this *proves* a damned thing but I find it interesting when a
rather novel new hypothesis explains what we do know much better than
the old one and also explains a whole lot of other things.

The biggest problem I have with the hypothesis is that if there were
spaceships and advanced technology on earth in the Bronze Age, we could
expect to find *some* wreckage, garbage or other evidence of such a
presence. 

However when one is looking for a needle in a  haystack, not finding the
needle doesn't prove it isn't there. When one is not looking for the
needle, not finding it is expected.

Inter-stellar garbage from the Bronze Age is not something many people
are looking for. There is also the question of how many archaeologists
would recognize such garbage even if they dug it up?

But as any detective knows, eye-witness accounts, especially when there
are several that agree on major details, is the best evidence going. And
whatever else you can say, we have eye-witness reports from the Bronze
Age and those witnesses say there were a lot of very unusual people
running about on earth.

I think the onus of proof is on the skeptic, not the witness. The
skeptic's job is to find some evidence to show that what the various
witnesses report *could not be* what they say they are.

We have a lot of indirect evidence and we have a lot of eye-witness
reports from many parts of the world. All we're missing is the 'smoking
gun'. 

But say there is the wreckage of a Sirian space ship which crashed in
Greece in the Bronze Age. And say someone finds it. Who is going to
believe that person? Then say the gov't gets involved in an
investigation. Would you be surprised if you were called in to help
investigate something like that and then were sworn to secrecy and told
to keep it under your hat?

So the fact that we don't know about such evidence is not in itself
evidence that the evidence isn't there or known by someone.

Now I see the National Enquirer with photos of aliens talking to George
Bush and Bill Clinton and I get a chuckle. I don't for a moment believe
that these photos are legit or that aliens are chatting with politicians
like that. But then, if Bill Clinton *was* having afternoon strolls with
aliens do you think he'd tell *us* that??? Of course he wouldn't. He
doesn't want to get locked up in an insane asylum and that is likely
what would happen if he made such a claim.

Scorn is one of the most potent weapons against truth that exist. When a
person is scorned or mocked for asserting something, the next person
thinks twice about making the same assertion, even if he believes it.
Soon, only those who don't care, which includes the fringe loonies, are
the only ones saying it. It becomes the province of the ilk of the
National Enquirer.

At that point, even if there is something to it, if there is a real
truth there, it is hopelessly obscured and no 'respectable' academic or
scholar is liable to apply for research grants to investigate.

=Doug

----------------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: uunet.ca!uuisis.isis.org!doug                Voice: 613-722-4724
DNS:  doug@uuisis.isis.org, doug@uuisis.UUCP, doug@isishq.fidonet.org
                      SKAN Communications Inc
      POST: P.0. Box 3041, Stn C., Ottawa, K1Y 4J3, CANADA 
----------------------------------------------------------------------