|
CHAPTER ELEVEN
Thousands of years ago, ancient astronomers divided the starry skies into twelve sections, using the same contrived names and symbols that we still use today.
The Greeks called this band of stars the zodiac. Today, the relative position of the Sun and the Earth at a person’ s birth-date are used to determine their astrological “star sign”, in order to determine their personality and to assist the preparation of detailed horoscopes.
Such practices are highly popular and entertaining, but have little or no scientific merit. Astrology has come a long way from its roots. If we travel back into earlier Sumerian and Egyptian times, we find the existence of the zodiac in a different field altogether. For there is no doubt that these ancient civilizations used the signs of the zodiac on a scientific level.
Incredible as it may seem, it is now widely accepted that the ancients knew of the 25,920-year cycle of the precession of the equinoxes and divided that cycle into 12 periods of 2,160 years. How can we be so certain of this?
In chapter 6, we noted that the Sumerian mathematical system had been carefully designed around the number 3,600, such that their highest number, 12,960,000, was equal to exactly 500 precessional cycles of 25,920 years. Whilst 25,920 years represents 360 degrees of the celestial “circle”, 2,160 years represents 30 degrees, and 72 years represents just one degree.
The number “72” is thus very significant, and its prominence in an ancient Egyptian legend has prompted one Egyptologist, Jane Sellers, to suggest that the Egyptians, too, were aware of precession. The legend in question is the Osiris myth, where 72 conspirators engage in a plot, led by Seth, to kill Osiris. Sellers is a rare individual - a multi disciplined scientist who understands astronomy as well as archaeology.
She is convinced that the 4,000-year old Pyramid Texts display unmistakable knowledge of astronomy, even though the Egyptians themselves may not have understood the significance.
Sellers states:
Sellers is not the only respectable scientist to recognize the Egyptians’ knowledge of precession.
The eminent Carl Jung (1875-1961) took a barrage of criticism when he suggested that the ancient Egyptians knew the transitions between one zodiac house and another.’
Jung was particularly struck by the chaos in Egypt at the collapse of the Old Kingdom, which coincided with the end of the age of Taurus and the beginning of Aries. He described these periods as “transitions between the aeons”, which sometimes marked calamitous change, and even saw the uncertainties of his own times as marking the passage of Pisces to Aquarius.’
Modern astronomers date the era of Taurus to c. 4360-2200 BC, the age in which the Egyptian civilization began. Initially, the Egyptian pharaohs of the Old Kingdom worshipped the bull, the sign of Taurus. Then, after the chaos of the First Intermediate Period, a new era began in Egypt c. 2000 BC.
At that time, the pharaohs began to depict sphinxes with rams’ heads (Plate 49), signifying the era of Aries, which had recently begun. The monuments of ancient Egypt are thus testimonies to what Carl Jung was saying. Amazingly, the Egyptian ram has a counterpart in Sumer.
One of the most famous finds in the Sumerian royal city of Ur is the so-called “Ram in a Thicket” (Figure 36), but a close examination of this ram shows it to be covered in feathers.
It should therefore be seen as a symbolic interpretation of a God, waiting for the age of Aries to arrive.
Such an
interpretation is highly consistent with the Sumerian texts c. 2100
BC, which describe omens of imminent invasion from the west.
Furthermore, shortly after 2000 BC, the widespread emergence of bull
sacrifice was a symbolic sign that the age of Taurus had finally
ended.
This piece of inductive reasoning can also be argued directly from the evidence. Although the zodiac first appeared in Sumer some time after 3800 BC, some studies have demonstrated its prior existence. One Sumerian tablet actually lists the zodiac constellations beginning with Leo, hinting at a much earlier origin c. 11000 BC, when man was barely a farmer. Furthermore, the number 12, which was used to divide the precessional cycle into 12 “houses” of the zodiac, was based on the 12 bodies of the Solar System.
This knowledge was not invented by man but bequeathed by his Gods. In the previous chapter, I described how Marduk was waiting for a “destiny determining” time before returning to Babylon. One text, dealing with his return, describes how Nergal persuaded him to leave Babylon, suggesting that he had returned “too early”.
Can it be a coincidence that this dispute arose just as the precessional “clock” was about to announce the beginning of a new precessional age?
In this chapter, I will
demonstrate how the zodiac, in its astronomical sense, is a
“star-clock”, which helps us to date the Flood, the Sphinx and the
Pyramids. And I will reveal how these clues have led me to develop a
new chronology which finally provides a complete reconciling link
between Science, the Biblical Book of Genesis and the Sumerian Kings
Lists.
According to modern astronomers, the zodiac era which began at that time was that of Leo. If one of our ancient ancestors had wished to preserve for us the approximate date of the Flood, what better way to do it than to associate it with the position of the stars at the time of Leo? Are there any such zodiac clues to the date of the Flood?
Two such clues have come to light. One, contained in the ancient Babylonian New Year ritual, makes reference to “the constellation Lion that measured the waters of the deep”.
The other, found in a miniature cuneiform tablet, refers to the Flood occurring when the planet Nibiru was in the constellation of Leo:
Could the great Sphinx of Egypt, built with the body of a lion, possibly signify the first age of the zodiac c, 10900-8700 BC?
Earlier, we reviewed the geological evidence which proves the Sphinx to have been built between 9,000 and 11,000 years ago, and concluded that this unique carving, totally unrelated to the rest of Egyptian culture, might be the handiwork of the Gods.
We also saw, in chapter 8, that the Sphinx was aligned to a space centre in Sinai, which was geometrically related to a mission control centre at Jerusalem. Jerusalem, in turn, was geographically protected by Jericho which, according to the archaeologists, was founded c. 8000 BC. The chronological evidence of Jericho and the Sphinx therefore support each other, with a date of around 9,000-8,000 BC. Could the Pyramids at Giza date to the same era?
The lack of any Flood damage to the Pyramids suggests that they were built after the cataclysm of 11000 BC. However, the first flight path, in which the Pyramids were a key component, clearly preceded the later space centre to which the Sphinx was aligned along the thirtieth parallel. Thus the Pyramids must have predated the era 9000-8000 BC, but not any earlier than 11000 BC. This narrows things down considerably.
The experts have always been obsessed with trying to date the Pyramids to the time of Khufu. Any attempt to suggest an earlier date meets with a sarcastic smile and a confident assertion that there was no-one in Egypt to build it at that earlier time. No marks are awarded to the archaeologist who tries to buck this consensus.
This means that
vital evidence dating the Pyramids has been continually overlooked,
as mentioned in chapter 9, this evidence includes an inscription
attributing the Pyramid to Isis, a Goddess whose reign is listed by
Manetho at 10000 BC, and the surprise finding by Robert Bauval and
Adrian Gilbert that the three Giza pyramids were exactly aligned
with the three stars of Orion’s Belt in 10450 BC.
All of the evidence thus hangs together. It is my conclusion that the Flood occurred c. 1 1000 BC, at the very beginning of the Age of Leo, just as the Sumerian texts suggested; that the Pyramids were constructed shortly afterwards, in 10450 BC; and that the Sphinx was also built to signify the Age of Leo.
It would appear that the lion-bodied Sphinx
is the most obvious clue to the star-clock which was adopted by the
Gods, based on the Earth’s precessional cycle - a wobble that may
well have begun with the Flood cataclysm itself.
Here is my theory.
After the Flood, the chief scientist of the Gods, Enki, took up dominion over Egypt and the lands of Africa. The time was 11,000 BC. Nibiru had just passed the Earth, and its gravitational forces had caused a huge dislocation of the oceans, which had bulged out and then crashed back to Earth in a massive tidal wave.
The effect was to create, or at least change, the Earth’s wobble, leading to the precessional effect as we know it today. Fascinated by astronomy, and being a master of the sciences, Enki quickly set about measuring the effect of Nibiru on the Earth’s movement. As we now know, the retardation of the stars amounts to approximately one degree every 72 years.
Thus, within 108 years, Enki could have measured exactly one and a half degrees and felt sufficiently confident to make an announcement in the council of the Gods. The announcement he made was scientifically rather exciting, because the 25,920 year cycle which he had discovered miraculously matched the long-term cycles of Nibiru.
What happened next?
As described in chapter 6, the succession dispute between Osiris and Seth, and the latter’s occupation of Canaan, led to an all-out war in which Ninurta was victorious over the Enkiite Gods.
We know from the ancient texts that this war of the Gods ended with a surrender and peace conference. One of the conditions imposed by the Enlilites was that Thoth (a pacifist) should be appointed in charge of Egypt.
This vital detail enables us to date the war of the Gods, based on Manetho’s history of Egypt. By adding the reigns of Thoth and his successors (5,570 years) to the approximate date of the first pharaoh Menes (c. 3100 BC), the war of the Gods can be dated to around 8700 BC. Amazingly, the war of the Gods occurred precisely 2,160 years after Enki’s announcement of the 25,920-year cycle.
Could it be that Enlil’s son, Ninurta, using the sacred number 12, had deliberately timed the war to coincide with a one twelfth division of the celestial cycle? As we have seen with Seth and Osiris, the Flood had symbolically marked a new era on Earth, in which the younger Gods such as Enlil’s son, Ninurta, were ambitious for power. The olden Gods had perhaps finally realized the need to take a back seat.
Thus it was, in my view, that the great cycle of 25,920 years was divided into twelve - to give each of the younger Gods, the first two generations below Enlil and Enki - a fair and democratic opportunity for “Lordship”. Of the two olden Gods, Enlil and Enki, the former would have remained in overall command of Earth, but delegated the Lordship. The latter, as the discoverer of the precessional cycle, would naturally have sought an association with the first zodiac house.
Thus Enki retrospectively adopted the
sign of the Lion, the king of the animals in his African
territories. The implication is that the Sphinx was carved for Enki,
in commemoration of the war (which ended at Giza) shortly after 8,700
BC.
One text records that Enki negotiated the right to rebuild his city Eridu in the Enlilite territories, and the right for his descendants to be able to come and go as they pleased. But was there another part of the deal that went unrecorded by the ancient scribes? A reference in the Lugal-e text suggests that the surrender of the Enkiites was subject to a future “destiny determining time “.
It
was, I suggest, a concessionary deal under which Enki granted three
successive zodiac periods (6,480 years) of “Lordship” to the Enlilites. The
“destiny-determining” time, when “Lordship” would return to Enki via
his first-born son Marduk, would thus be c. 2200 BC.
It is my belief that they do. Many of the clues can be decoded using the signs themselves (see the Egyptian versions in Figure 37), the known history of the Gods, and the Sumerian meanings assigned to each age.
What of the remaining seven signs of the zodiac?
The five dealt with so far can be identified with great certainty. After 2000 BC we must be more careful, for it is highly possible that Marduk or his rivals politically interfered with the sequence of ages which had not yet come to pass.
Nevertheless, there does seem to be evidence of an alternating sequence between Enlilite and Enkiite Gods, which is what we would expect to find.
What is Time?
It was also the first such change since the beginning of civilization, and for that reason we have so much documentary evidence of the event.
The result, as we saw in the last chapter, was a nuclear cataclysm, but the years leading up to that tragic climax can tell us much about the culture of the Gods and the process behind the star-clock. In the matter of Marduk’s return to Babylon and “Lordship” over the Gods, a close reading of the ancient texts suggests that the star-clock was of critical importance.
The various texts, dealing with Marduk’s return, imply that both his right to rule, and the timing of his rule, were in dispute. The question of his right to rule probably hinged on his illicit escape from imprisonment. Arguably, he was still an escaped convict in the eyes of some. The question of the timing, however, is the area I wish to concentrate upon.
When Marduk first returned to Babylon, the date (based on the era of Sargon I) was c. 2320 BC.
The ancient texts state that Marduk’s brother Nergal travelled to Babylon to persuade Marduk that his time had not yet come. It would seem that Marduk was persuaded without too much difficulty, but in the course of discussion he complained “where is the oracle stone of the Gods that gives the sign for Lordship?”.
What was this “oracle stone” and why should a simple count of 2,160 years have proved so problematical? Let us consider how the precessional ages would have been measured. First, one would need to adopt a fixed observation point, the usual convention being the spring equinox, when night and day are equal.
Then the position of the stars which rise above a fixed point on the horizon on that day each year would need to be recorded. The completion of a zodiac house would then be measured by the retardation of the stars through 30 degrees (one twelfth of the 360-degree circle of the zodiac). In order to calculate accurately the movement from one house to another, two things would therefore be essential - first, a starting point, and secondly, a map of the heavens.
Was the starting point measured by the Flood, or a later date (I have suggested a 108 year delay)? That may well have been one source of misunderstanding. As for the map of the heavens, that could well have been the “oracle stone” which had gone missing. Nevertheless, readers may well ask why the Gods did not simply invent a quartz clock and count 2,160 years electronically. A good question, that goes right to the heart of the issue!
The answer
which I will shortly set out provides a final solution to the
mysteries of Stonehenge and
Machu Picchu. Did the Gods use the
star-clock for a practical purpose?
Sitchin proposed that, in order to keep track of time on their home planet, the Gods sought a long cycle on Earth which produced a manageable relationship to 3,600 years. He suggested that 2,160 years represented that convenient measure, and the precessional cycle was therefore divided by 12 to produce 2,160.
Unfortunately, this argument fails the “quartz clock question”! On the contrary, all of the evidence suggests that the star-clock performed a strictly symbolic rather than practical function. The Gods’ almost religious obsession with the Solar System, evident from the use of 12 celestial bodies as a sacred number, demonstrates that they were obsessed with cosmic equilibrium.
The perpetual beat or pulse of a quartz clock would have been a meaningless measure of time to them. Instead, they saw time in terms of great cosmic cycles, in which the Earth’s precessional cycle of 25,920 years was only a representation of even greater cosmic cycles. Time in this symbolic sense was not a constant rate of change; it was measured by the movement of the Earth relative to the stars, and in theory its cycles could vary.
The Gods’ concept of time could not be magically distilled into simple numbers and tables - it was manifest only in the heavens and determinable only from the floating observatory of Earth itself. Time was a concept of aesthetic beauty, a reflection of nature, indeed almost of the divine nature of the universe.
To construct a quartz watch would be
akin to putting the cart before the horse, for time did not
determine the heavens - rather, the movement of the heavens
determined time.
The first move occurred toward the end of Sargon’s reign, and is therefore datable to the latter end of the 24th century BC. But, as I suggested in the last chapter, the timing of Inanna’ s conquests under Sargon, strongly hint at a deliberate manoeuvre to thwart Marduk’s return.
It is thus possible that his return may have been planned for the beginning of the 24th century BC. At this point, it will prove useful to construct some tentative dates, which we will later compare to developments at Stonehenge. Whilst 2,160 is a mathematically convenient approximation of a precessional age, the latest scientific estimates suggest 2,148 years.
I will use the latter date in the illustrations which follow, but with the caveat that these ages were not necessarily constant, but were in practice determined by the Earth’s wobble which was theoretically subject to variation. According to my analysis, Marduk counted four precessional ages from the date of the Flood, producing an initial return date of c. 2400 BC.
At that time, political and military developments in the Near East dissuaded him from returning. When he did eventually return, c. 2320 BC, the Enlilite Gods, assisted by Nergal, did everything they could to persuade him to leave. They argued that the zodiac had commenced 108 years later than the Flood date which Marduk had used. I also believe that they contrived an argument in order to penalize him by a further 3 degrees of celestial time.
This penalty of 3 degrees, added to the standard
division of the skies into 12 segments of 30 degrees, may have led
to the origin of 33 degrees as a mystic number, which is nowadays
reflected in the ranks of freemasonry. A compromise was then reached
which did allow the Flood as the zodiac starting point, but
postponed his return from c. 2400 BC by the 3 degrees (215 years) to
c. 2185 BC.
His delay almost certainly lies in military preparations and diplomacy, such as the move which successfully kept Inanna out of the final conflict. The oracle which Marduk sought in Hatti-land was surely of a practical nature, recommending the timing of his invasion. During this delay, his son Nabu was busy building political and military support in Canaan.
We
can now understand why the Third Dynasty of Ur was so unsure of
itself, why it suffered one tragedy after another, why it was
obsessed with omens of invasion, why it needed to use Elamite troops
to quell rebellion in the outer provinces, and why it was necessary
to send Abraham to opposite ends of the empire to spy on Marduk’s
military strength and intentions.
It was a time which was written in the stars, perhaps encoded on star maps, such that Marduk knew in advance which star must rise on the day of the spring equinox. However, in order to plan for his new era he needed to know when that day would come - how long would he have to wait?
As I described earlier, the Gods’ concept of time occurred in the heavens, so the only way to measure time was to build an observatory - one that would measure the retardation of the stars with a very fine accuracy, and one that would predict the future movements of those stars.
And the key to that prediction was the rate of change in the stars. Only by measuring the speed of precession could the future be forecast. One place in the ancient world clearly stands out as meeting these requirements. It is time to revisit the unique site of Stonehenge in England.
A new and detailed study by the British authorities has determined that the first phase of the Stonehenge site was commenced c. 2965 BC (+/- 2%). In the absence of any other plausible explanation of who could have laid out such a sophisticated observatory, we must look to the needs of Marduk, who would at that time have been turning his mind to the coming new age. But something rather strange happened at Stonehenge.
No sooner had work commenced, than the 56 carefully excavated Aubrey Holes were immediately refilled, and the site was inexplicably abandoned for approximately 300 years! The secret to this mystery lies, I believe, in a poorly understood Egyptian myth concerning a dispute between Marduk and Thoth.
The 175th chapter of the Book of the Dead describes the “return” of Ra and his subsequent anger at Thoth. “O Thoth, what is it that has happened?” cries Ra.
He accuses Thoth of “destruction of hidden things”, apparently relating to the calendar, and accuses Thoth of cutting short the years and curbing the months.” The calendrical significance of the encounter has been highlighted by Zecharia Sitchin, who mistakenly thought that it marked a return of Ra/Marduk to Egypt.
On the contrary, there is little doubt that the encounter occurred at Stonehenge! The presence of Thoth at Stonehenge can be determined by its lunar functions, which act as a virtual “fingerprint” of this God, who is known as the Moon God and credited with the introduction of Egypt’s first, lunar calendar. As noted in chapter 5, Stonehenge was uniquely chosen for its ability to mark the eight key points of the Moon in its 18.6-year cycle.
And Thoth was indeed known in Egypt as Khemennu, meaning “Lord of Eight". When it came to astronomy, Thoth was the expert to whom Marduk would naturally have turned to advice. My conclusion is that Thoth was therefore the designer of the Stonehenge observatory. When Marduk arrived at Stonehenge to see how work on his observatory was progressing, he found that Thoth had designed it around lunar measurement and predictions.
What Marduk found was a ditch, 4 Station Stones positioned in a rectangle that marked the movements of the Moon, and 56 Aubrey holes that also appeared to have a lunar purpose (since 3 lunar cycles of 18.6 years equal approximately 56). The fact that Thoth had ingeniously positioned these holes to facilitate a solar counting mechanism ”was of little consolation to Marduk, who needed and had specified a solar calendar.”
As related by the Book
of the Dead, Thoth had indeed “curbed the months”, from 30 days to
the lunar month of 29.5 days, and hence “cut short the year”, from
the 360-day Egyptian calendar to the 354-day lunar calendar
(comprising 12 months of 29.5 days). Furthermore, the Book of the
Dead records that, after the argument, Thoth left for a distant
land. The physical evidence at Stonehenge shows that the Aubrey
Holes were indeed quickly filled in and the site abandoned.
What Marduk required from Thoth was a prediction of star-time, converted into an easily measurable cycle of Earth-time. Marduk wanted a portable clock that he could consult anywhere on the globe - a simple solar year countdown was therefore the most suitable.
How could he count down a prediction expressed in 18.6-year lunar cycles, unless he kept travelling back to Stonehenge? Why was Thoth so obsessed with lunar time? The answer lies in a purist’s need for an accurate prediction of precession. In order to predict future precession, one first has to measure the current rate of change against a stable yardstick.
However, if the measurement is based on the yardstick of solar observations (from one spring equinox to the next) then it contains what one is trying to measure in the first place. A systematic error is therefore introduced, amounting to one month every 2,160 years. If you have had difficulty following this argument, or consider such an error to be immaterial, then you are experiencing the same frustration that Marduk must have felt 5,000 years ago!
Now let us move forward to the next phase of Stonehenge, when the Sarsen Circle and the Avenue were constructed. The latest datings suggest that the first Sarsen stones began to arrive c. 2965 BC (+/- 2%) and that the Avenue was being worked on c. 2500 BC. The number of Sarsen uprights (30) and the alignment of the Avenue to the summer solstice suggest that this phase was not the work of Thoth, but of Marduk.
The timing of these developments is highly significant, given Marduk’s expectation of a return to Babylon c. 2400 BC. We should note that all of the work in this phase was completed prior to Marduk’s return to Babylon c. 2300 BC. The next phase of Stonehenge is marked by the erection of the huge trilithons, which has now been dated to c. 2270 BC (+/- 2% ).
Significantly, this date immediately follows Marduk’s departure from
Babylon, having accepted a later compromise return date. No-one has
ever explained the need for the immense size of these trilithons,
but it could reflect an anti-vandalism measure. perhaps prompted by
damage to the Sarsen Circle in his absence (some of these Sarsen
stones are missing).
The significance of the length of the Avenue can only be put down to the need for extreme accuracy of measurement of precessional change, just as a rifle with a long barrel facilitates a more accurate aim at a target. I have estimated that Marduk’s new compromise date may have been c. 2185 BC. Once again, this date matches a development at the monument of Stonehenge, and this time it would seem that Thoth had returned, with the supreme accuracy of his lunar calendar.
How do we know this?
Because the lunar number “19” crops up in the 38 stones of the Bluestone Circle and the 19 stones of the Bluestone Horseshoe. The latest date for the Bluestone Circle is c, 2155 BC (+/- 6%), and for the Horseshoe c. 2100 BC (+/- 8%). Perhaps Thoth had the foresight to begin the process of recording Marduk’s new era.
After these developments, Stonehenge was abandoned until the sixteenth century BC. Again, the date of abandonment, some time after 2100 BC, is significant, given that Marduk had finally returned to Babylon in 2024 BC. There is just one further note to add on the role of Stonehenge as a star-clock. In June 1996, English Heritage announced a newly-discovered phase of the Stonehenge site, dating back to 8000 BC.
A thesis published by the chief archaeologist, Dr Geoffrey Wainwright, suggests that 20-feet high wooden “totem poles” were erected and worshipped.) The evidence consists of charcoal from pine trees, which was found in numerous circular pits measuring 4 feet across and 5 feet deep. This charcoal has been radiocarbon dated to approximately 8000 BC. Allowing the usual latitude for error, the actual date of “Woodhenge” would lie in a range 8600-7400 BC.
As noted in chapter 4, Stonehenge is situated in a unique position for the eight key points of lunar observation; therefore the “totem poles” of Woodhenge must surely have been astronomical markers.
It
is not yet clear whether Woodhenge also measured stellar time, but
its chronology places it right at the time when the precessional
eras were assigned to the Gods,
c. 8700 BC.
On the contrary, as we shall now see, both sites fulfilled exactly the same functional purpose.
At Stonehenge the rate of precessional change was measured by observing the rise of stars on the distant horizon, with a 2-mile long Avenue assisting the accuracy of the observations. At Machu Picchu, an Avenue was not required, for mother nature had supplied a series of jagged mountain peaks which formed perfect, ready-made markers for stellar observation. How do we know that Machu Picchu was actually used for such a purpose?
The evidence is centered on the enigmatic Intihuatana stone (Plate 24), which is positioned on an exact north-south axis with the mountains of Huayna Picchu and Salcantay. Salcantay mountain dominates the skyline at Machu Picchu and, with a height of 20,600 feet, is one of the two largest mountains in the entire region.
This mountain has been regarded as sacred since pre-lnca times and continues to be worshipped today by the local people. It stands exactly due south of the Intihuatana. Huayna Picchu mountain stands just to the north of Machu Picchu, overlooking the site from a 700-feet higher elevation (Plate 21).
It lies within a horseshoe formed by the Urubamba river. The steep gorge around Huayna Picchu has been known since time immemorial as “the Gateway of Salcantay”, signifying its close relationship with that sacred mountain. Huayna Picchu stands exactly due north of the Intihuatana.
At the highest point of Huayna Picchu there lies an
artificial platform (now dilapidated) and a v-shaped groove cut into
the stone (Plate 26). This groove points exactly due south towards
both the Intihuatana and the distant peak of Salcantay. Slightly
below this groove lies another artificial triangular platform; its
v-shaped angle also points exactly due south.
Adjacent mountain peaks provide ideal reference points to determine when a particular number of celestial degrees has been reached.
By coordinating these observations with a solar or lunar calendar, the rate of precessional change can be expressed in terms of so many degrees in so many years (it will be approximately one degree in 72 solar years).
Since Salcantay cannot be seen from the Intihuutana, the purpose of the Intihuatana seems to be two-fold. First, it could have maintained, in a convenient location, a record of the stellar positions seen from Huayna Picchu. Secondly, it could have been used to establish an accurate alignment of the measuring equipment used on Huayna Picchu.
I am referring here to the need to ensure that the angle of precessional change is measured exactly from the original starting position. This would be achieved by using an electronic signal from the Intihuatana to confirm the exact bearing which had been used from Huayna Picchu for the earlier measurements.
In addition to these functions, it should also be noted that the Intihuatana has been carved to produce a symbolic representation of the profile of Huayna Picchu, specifically in the way the Sun and shadows contrast on the two faces of the mountain when seen from below.
What then should we conclude of the claimed solar alignments of the faces of the Intihuatana (“Hitching Post of the Sun”) as outlined in chapter 5? The validity of these alignments actually remains unaffected, since the solar and stellar functions can easily co-exist within the same stone. Indeed, measurements of the annual solar cycle would have been essential to determine the exact day when the stellar observations were taken.
I must stress, however, that the primary
purpose of the Intihuatana was stellar. We should perhaps rename it
as the “Hitching Post of the Stars”.
The first comprised star-to-star formations, named after animals in a similar manner to the zodiac. The second were based on so-called “dark clouds” - the clouds of interstellar dust between the major stars. The worship of the latter constellations is highly unusual and indicates an obsessive interest in tracking the precessional movements.
The names of the Inca constellations, which are still used to this day, are also highly revealing. One of the most prominent, known to us as Scorpius, is named “the Serpent changing into the Condor” - a reference perhaps to Marduk flying to or from Babylon. Amazingly, the Quechua name for the Serpent is Amaru, echoing the Amurru “westerners” or Amorite supporters of Marduk (see chapter 10).
Adjacent to that constellation was Alpha and Beta Centauri, which the Quechua called “the Eyes of the Llama”. Could this be a reference to Marduk watching and waiting for the ram of Aries to signify the beginning of his era? The parallels are startling.
The most impressive support for the Machu Picchu star-clock, however, comes from Johan Reinhard, an expert in Andean mythology.
Reinhard discusses the sacred traditions of Peru in a symbolic context and makes the following comment only in passing, but to me it appears a ringing endorsement of Figure 38 shown above:
Who was the mastermind behind the ingenious selection of Machu Picchu as a stellar observatory?
As stated earlier, the only comparable construction was at Stonehenge, which I have concluded was designed by the God Thoth. A clue to Thoth’s involvement at Machu Picchu has indeed been found in the Principal Temple, where archaeologists uncovered 56 vessels along with a mysterious layer of fine white sand.
The number 56 signifies two lunar cycles, in a similar manner to the 56 Aubrey holes at Stonehenge. It is thus highly likely that the vessels and sand were used in the measurement of a lunar calendar, with which Thoth was closely associated. One ancient Egyptian text states that, following his dispute with Marduk/Ra, Thoth left Stonehenge for a distant land, referred to as Hau-nebut. Could this destination have been Machu Picchu?
The date at which Thoth left Stonehenge is likely to have coincided with the earliest ditch phase, which archaeologists have dated to c. 2965 BC.
Amazingly, we find that the pre-Incan traditions recorded by the
Spanish historian Montesinos place the beginning of the Andean
calendar at an almost identical date of 2900 BC!. I suggest that
this is not a coincidence.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead records a journey by Thoth to “the desert, the silent land” where “sexual pleasures are not enjoyed”.
Could this explain yet another mysterious calendar which began in China at the date 2698 BC? Chinese legend associates their ancient calendar with the legendary reign of Huang Ti and the arrival of “Sons of Heaven” in “fiery-tailed dragon ships”.
The most sacred spot in China is Tian Tan (the Temples of Heaven) in Beijing.
Whilst Stonehenge is aligned to the summer solstice, Tian Tan is aligned to the winter solstice. At this time of year, a spectacular procession would set out from the Forbidden City, carrying the emperor to the Altar of Heaven, a 3-tiered circular white marble terrace known as the “Huanki”.
The emperor would recite words from a 5,000-year old tradition and, in a practice no doubt dating to the change in the zodiac, sacrifice a bull calf. The comparison of Tian Tan to Stonehenge is intriguing. As at Stonehenge, the main temple of Tian Tan is circular in shape with concentric rings of pillars within - an unusual design in ancient times.
The Huanki Altar is also circular and is situated to the south at the end of a 1,000-feet long causeway - another unusual feature similar to the Avenue at Stonehenge. To the north-west of the site, we find a temple of the Moon, called the Yuetan. All of these places have been built and rebuilt countless times, with remarkable devotion and skill, to mark the spot where the Chinese calendar began. Moving forward in time, we find Thoth constructing another astronomical observatory in Mesopotamia early in the 22nd century BC.
Appearing under the guide of Ningishzidda, Thoth appeared in a “vision” to the Sumerian king Gudea and instructed him to build a fabulous structure known as the E.NINNU. In 1887, the German archaeologist Koldewey discovered the Eninnu - a mysterious structure built on a circular platform at Lagash (modern-day Al Hiba/Tello).
Although the purpose of this enigmatic structure is much disputed, the detailed descriptions which are recorded in ancient texts leave us in no doubt concerning its astronomical functions. Why was it necessary for Thoth to build so many observatories? It would seem that the answer lies in the need to satisfy both Enkiite and Enlilite Gods regarding the latest position of the star-clock.
Whilst Stonehenge was built for Marduk, the Eninnu was built for Ninurta and Machu Picchu was, in all probability, built for Ishkur. Thoth thus assumed an impartial position in the debate, simply providing advice and facilities to those Gods who were interested. For this reason, his Egyptian name was Tehuti, meaning “He who Balances". The Pyramid Texts were even more explicit, describing Thoth as “he who reckons the heavens, the counter of the stars and the measurer of the Earth”.
All of these observatories appear to have peaked at the time of Marduk’s return to Babylon c. 2200 BC.
This is the date ascribed to the solar calendar alignments at Machu Picchu; it is the date attributed to Gudea’s Eninnu in Mesopotamia; it is the time at which the Bluestone Circle and Horseshoe were erected at Stonehenge; and it is the date at which a strange rounded “temple” was constructed at Barbar in Bahrain.
This unprecedented spate of observatory building seems to have gone unnoticed by historians, for the reason that they are trained not to make connections between distant locations. Each individual site is therefore linked dismissively to primitive religious cults. One authority, for instance, suggests that the Intihuatana was “perhaps used in connection with Sun Worship”.
On the contrary, all of these sites had a stellar significance, coinciding with a precessional shift from Taurus to Aries c. 2200 BC.
It is clear that, all around the
world, the Gods were watching the skies. No other theory can explain
the physical evidence.
This statement is made by the Lord shortly before the Flood and in the context of wishing to utterly destroy mankind. It has therefore perplexed the Biblical scholars, whose best explanation is that the Lord was offering a period of grace for man to amend his ways.
And yet nothing in the Bible or other ancient texts suggests that man was given such a reprieve. If it was so, then Noah would have been entrusted to communicate this message to his fellow-man. Instead we find that Noah’s family alone were saved and immediately afterwards offered an everlasting covenant.
According to the Bible, Noah then proceeded to live for 950 years rather than the supposedly allotted 120. If, however, the original verse is translated literally, we find the past tense being used rather than the future tense. Thus: And his days were a hundred and twenty years. In 1976, Zecharia Sitchin concluded that this count of years should be applied not to mankind but to the deity.
The Bible was thus recording the periods that the Lord had been on Earth. This enormous conceptual breakthrough enabled Sitchin to attempt a chronology of the Gods. How could the deity have lived only 120 years when Adam, a mere human, had lived 930 years? The answer is that the Bible recorded not 120 “years” but 120 “periods”. How long were these periods?
The Sumerians counted sacred periods known as “sars”, which they depicted as a circle, representing 3,600, the central number in their mathematical system. Zecharia Sitchin logically concluded that the Sumerian sar represented the 3,600-year orbit of the Gods’ planet Nibiru.
The next major breakthrough in Sitchin’s chronology of the Gods came with the decipherment of Akkadian tablets describing the creation of mankind. Experts regard as pure myth the claim that the senior Gods created a primitive “LU.LU” worker to undertake the “toil” of the rank-and-file Gods, but the ancient scribes repeatedly made reference to events when the Gods alone were on Earth and when man had not yet been created.
If we take their claim literally, then we find that the creation of man was preceded by 40 periods of suffering by the rank-and-file Gods. The events are recorded in detail in the text entitled When the Gods like men bore the work: For 10 periods they suffered the toil; for 20 periods they suffered the toil; for 30 periods they suffered the toil; for 40 periods they suffered the toil.
It was then, after these 40 periods,
that the rank-and-file Gods staged a rebellion, which coincided with
a visit to Earth by Anu. In order to placate the rebels, Enki and
Ninharsag offered the ingenious solution of genetically engineering
a slave worker.
Zecharia Sitchin thus concluded that the ma was another manifestation of the 3,600-year cycle of Nibiru.
Working backwards from a Flood date of 11000 BC - with which I concur Zecharia Sitchin proceeded to use the 120 sar and the 40 ma to date both the arrival of the Gods and the creation of mankind. This was the first serious attempt at dating the Gods in modern times and thus deserves credit.
But did Zecharia Sitchin get it right?
He had apparently reconciled his dates to the Sumerian and Babylonian Kings Lists, which also spanned 120 sar; and he had very approximately tied his chronology in to the latest palaeoanthropological evidence regarding early Home sapiens. However, in an attempt to prove Sitchin’s theory correct, at least to my own satisfaction, I set several further objectives.
First, his chronology should reconcile to the eras of the Biblical patriarchs from Adam to Noah. Secondly, it should reconcile to the legendary reigns in the Sumerian Kings Lists. And thirdly, it should dovetail with the reigns of the pre-Flood Gods in Egypt, as recorded by Manetho. Sitchin had made only a superficial examination of these matters.
The Bible carefully preserves the ancestral line of Adam through to Noah in its records of the ages at which each father beget a son. These years, including allowance for Noah’s age at the time of the Flood, add up to 1,656, suggesting that mankind was created 1,656 years before the Flood. In addition, the Bible similarly records the ancestral line after the Flood from Noah to Abraham, amounting to a period of 292 years.
Whether we use 2123 BC
for the date of Abraham’s birth (see Appendix A) or any other
commonly accepted date, these numbers simply do not stack up, for
they suggest that the Flood took place in 2415 BC and that man was
created in 4071 BC. The scientific evidence, of advanced
civilization in 3800 BC and Home sapiens 200,000 years ago, in
addition to the lack of any Flood evidence c. 4000 BC from
archaeology suggests that the Biblical data is fundamentally
understated.
I adjusted for this, but the figures still did not reconcile. Another commentator suggested that the Biblical figures were months rather than years, but by his own admission this continued to give “contradictory results” Treating these numbers as “days” has also been considered. but without success.
Clearly I was not the first to search for a solution to one of the Bible’s greatest mysteries. Nevertheless, I began to work on a theory that the Biblical data had been drawn from earlier Sumerian sources, and that somewhere along the editorial line, someone had misunderstood the Sumerians’ unusual sexagesimal (base 60) system.
As I experimented with the Sumerian sexagesimal system,
I made the breakthrough that was to solve all of the chronological
problems. In order to understand this, and to follow my arguments in
the next chapter, it is essential that the reader pays close
attention at this point to a quick lesson in Sumerian mathematics.
So far so good.
Now for the Sumerian sexagesimal system, which rises by alternating factors of 6 and 10, thus 5,000 becomes 1-2-3-2-0:
Whilst the Sumerian system might seem a little strange at first, it is ideal for geometry and calculation with fractions.
It has also been found to match the celestial heavens, both in its use of 3,600, the orbital period of Nibiru, and in the manifestation of the precessional cycle. To quickly illustrate, as the units alternate above 3,600 we see: 36,000... 216,000... 2,160,000... 12,960,000.
The last number, which was highly symbolic to the Sumerians, represented exactly 500 great precessional cycles of 25,920 years. The preceding units represented 100 and 1,000 multiplied by the precessional period of 2,160 years. If that seems like a miracle, then here is the really magic part.
If we write the precessional number 2,160 in Sumerian numerals, this is what we get:
These two numbers, 3,600 and 2,160, represented the two important cycles of the Gods.
One was the orbital period of their planet, which in practice meant a ceremonial visit from the leader Anu, and an opportunity to transfer resources between the planets. The other determined the rotation of the Lordship over the Gods on Earth.
Amazingly, these two cycles precisely coincided every 10,800 Earth-years, at which point exactly 5 precessional ages were completed, and exactly three orbits of Nibiru. Returning to the basis of Zecharia Sitchin’s proposed chronology, we find that the key measurements of time - the 40 periods of toil and the 120 periods of the Lord - are exactly convertible between sars of 2,160 and 3,600.
For example, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 120 sars of 2,160 years
would translate exactly into 6, 12, 18, 24 and 72 sars of 3,600.
What is the relevance of this? It means that dates of Nibiru’s
return which marked key points in one calendar, could be exactly
translated into precessional periods which preserved the same key
dates in another calendar.
And could it be that, at some point thereafter, the sars of 2,160 years, written as 3-6-0-0, had become confused with sars of 3,600 years?
I decided to construct a new chronology based on a sar of 2,160 and put it to the test:
Dating Home Sapiens
According to my analysis, however, the precessional ages as we know them only began 13,000 years ago. It is therefore invalid to count back beyond that time using precessional periods of 2,160 years.
The Gods may well have arrived in an age of Pisces (the evidence is tenuous), but we cannot possibly date it. As can be seen above, my chronology gives a much more recent date for the creation of mankind, shortly after 184,000 years ago versus Sitchin’s 299,000 years ago. Which date is more likely to be correct?
As discussed in chapter 2, the question hinges on the appearance of the so-called archaic Homo sapiens, which the experts believe must represent an earlier evolutionary step toward fully-fledged, anatomically modern Home sapiens. Since the latter is dated to around 200,000 years ago, the archaics, it is assumed, must have appeared around 300,000 years ago.
The latter is a convenient figure which also matches the “accepted” date for the demise of Homo erectus. A cynic would suggest that the scientists have interpreted the data to match their preconceptions of a smooth evolutionary progression, and drawn their conclusions accordingly.
How reliable is the dating of the archaic specimens? As I pointed out in chapter 2, the accuracy of radiocarbon dating is limited to 40,000 years ago. There is not one reliable dating to suggest that the archaics preceded the moderns. Added to which, the archaic specimens represent such a small sample size that no-one is quite certain exactly what they are.
They combine features of modern man with other, more archaic features, but with considerable variability in the combination of archaic and modern features.-’
This can mean one of three things.
What reliable datings of Home sapiens do we have?
A conference held in 1992 summarized the most reliable evidence then available.-’ All of the dates I shall cite are the ranges of different specimens found at each location, and all dates are subject to an accuracy of +/- 20 per cent.
The most definitive dating is 115,000 years BP (Before Present) at Qafzeh in Israel. Other specimens at Skhul and Mount Carmel in Israel are dated at 101-81,000 BP. In Africa, specimens in the bottom layers of Border Cave are dated to 128,000 BP (confirmed to at least 100,000 BP using ostrich eggshell dating).
At Klasies River Mouth, South Africa, the dates ranged from
130-118,000 BP. And finally, at Jebel Irhoud, South Africa, the
dates went back the furthest of all, from 190-105,000 BP. The
conclusion is that Homo sapiens appeared less than 200,000 years
ago, and there is not one shred of evidence to date any modern or
part-modern fossil any earlier.
In 1987, Allan Wilson, Mark Stoneking and Rebecca Cann, from the University of California at Berkeley, declared that all women alive today must have had a common genetic ancestor who lived between 250-150,000 years ago. How did they arrive at this conclusion?
This genetic dating has been made possible by the discovery of mitochondria the tiny bodies within a cell that are responsible for production of energy through breakdown of sugars. Unlike our other DNA, which is scrambled by sexual recombination, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited virtually unchanged through the female line and is thus a perfect marker to trace ancestral relations. Moreover, it mutates at a predictable rate.
The number of differences between the mtDNA in a worldwide sample of 135 different women allowed Wilson, Stoneking and Cann to compare how far back the ancestors of these women had diverged. In order to calibrate the divergences, the researchers used a comparison of mtDNA between man and chimpanzees, based on a separation 5 million years ago.
And that led to the conclusion that a common ancestor named “Mitochondrial Eve” must have lived 250-150,000 years ago. This genetic evidence has been challenged, due to its calibration with the chimpanzees, whose separation date from man is not known with certainty.
Consequently, in 1992, the geneticists returned with an improved methodology. Working with other associates, Mark Stoneking this time used an intraspecific calibration, based on different human populations. In order to validate the results, the team utilized two different approaches, which gave remarkably similar results.
The revised date for the common mtDNA ancestor, with a 95 per cent degree of confidence, is now either 133,000 years or 137,000 years ago, using method 1 or method 2 respectively.
This new genetic evidence does not undermine the fossil evidence dating back to 190,000 years BP, but simply proves that surviving female variation dates to an ancestor who lived somewhat later.
As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, this does not mean that Eve was the only woman on Earth at that time, just that she is the only one who has an unbroken line of female descendants.
The chances are that many earlier Eves have descendants alive today, but their ancestry has passed, at some point, through the male line only. Despite the new mtDNA dates, most studies still tend to support and cite the 200,000 BP common ancestor. It is, after all, a date remarkably similar to the fossil evidence for the emergence of Home sapiens.
As for the 137-133,000 BP dating, I will return to this in chapter 13. It may have an extraordinary significance.
As a final comment, I would note that the Bible states that the Gods “ created man in their own image”. Thus it would be impossible to tell apart the skeletal remains of a God from that of a man.
The areas where Homo sapiens first emerged have been identified as Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa. In chapter 14, I will identify the “toil” of the Gods as taking place in that exact same region. Therefore, if the palaeoanthropologists did one day discover what appeared to be a Home sapiens, and dated it reliably to around 300,000 years ago, they could well be mistaking the remains of a God for the remains of a man.
The ancient texts recorded that some of the rank-and-file Gods did indeed die. During their mutiny, they complained that “the excessive toil has killed us”. According to my chronology, this back-breaking toil began 272,000 years ago. Forty sars later, the rebellion of the rank-and-file Gods led to the genetic creation of mankind.
In due course, I will use Biblical data to prove that these sars lasted 2,160 years, and that man was therefore created shortly after 184,000 years ago.
First, however, it is essential to revisit our genetic
origins and reconsider the longevity which the Bible claimed for the
early patriarchs. This is the subject of the next chapter.
|
