Jupiter, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and the Return of the Mongols

Laura Knight-Jadczyk

April 26, 2004: Now that we have a theory about the actual location of some of the events of the ancient past, I would like to go back again what Herodotus had to say about the famous Labyrinth of Egypt.

Being set free after the reign of the priest of Hephaistos, the Egyptians, since they could not live any time without a king, set up over them twelve kings...

Moreover they resolved to join all together and leave a memorial of themselves; and having so resolved they caused to be made a labyrinth situated a little above the lake of Moeris and nearly opposite to that which is called the City of Crocodiles.  This I saw myself, and I found it greater than words can say.  [...]

The pyramids also were greater than words can say, and each one of them is equal to many works of the Hellenes, great as they may be; but the labyrinth surpasses even the pyramids. [...]

Accordingly we speak of the chambers below by what we received from hearsay, while those above we saw ourselves and found them to be works of more than human greatness. 

For the passages through the chambers, and the goings this way and that way through the courts, which were admirably adorned, afforded endless matter for marvel, as we went through from a court to the chambers beyond it, and from the chambers to colonnades, and from the colonnades to other rooms, and then from the chambers again to other courts. 

Over the whole of these is a roof made of stone like the walls; and the walls are covered with figures carved upon them, each court being surrounded with pillars of white stone fitted together most perfectly; and at the end of the labyrinth, by the corner of it, there is a pyramid of forty fathoms, upon which large figures are carved, and to this there is a way made under ground.[1]

Again we note that Herodotus declared this labyrinth to be greater than even the pyramids.

Diodorus:

[The Labyrinth] is wonderful not so much for its size as for the inimitable skill with which it was built; for once in, it is impossible to find one's way out again without difficulty, unless one lights upon a guide who is perfectly acquainted with it.  It is even said by some that Daedalus crossed over to Egypt and, in wonder at the skill shown in the building, built for Minos, King of Crete, a labyrinth like that in Egypt, in which, so the tales goes, the creature called the Minotaur was kept.  Be that as it may, the Cretan Labyrinth has completely disappeared, either through the destruction wrought by some ruler or through the ravages of time; but the Egyptian Labyrinth remains absolutely perfect in its entire construction down to my time.  […]

[W]hile in respect of carving and other works of craftsmanship they left no room for their successors to surpass them. [...] [2]

Strabo:

In addition to these things there is the edifice of the Labyrinth which is a building quite equal to the Pyramids...  [3]

Pliny:

Let us speak also of labyrinths, quite the most extraordinary works on which men have spent their money, but not, as may be thought, figments of the imagination.  There still exists even now in Egypt in the Heracleopolite Nome the one which was built first, according to tradition 3,600 years ago by king Petesuchis or Tithois, though Herodotus ascribes the whole work to Twelve Kings and Psammetichus, the latest of them.  [...]

At any rate, that Daedalus used this as the model for the Labyrinth which he built in Crete is beyond doubt, but it is equally clear that he imitated only 100th part of it [...] This was the second to be built after the Egyptian Labyrinth, the third being in Lemnos and the fourth in Italy ...

It would be impossible to describe in detail the layout of that building and its individual parts...

One person only has done any repairs there-and they were few in number.  He was Chaermon, the eunuch of king Necthebis, 500 years before Alexander the Great.  A tradition is also current that he supported the roofs with beams of acacia wood boiled in oil, until squared stones could be raised up into the vaults.[4]

As we have pointed out, Pliny assures us that Herodotus was wrong not only about who built the labyrinth, but also about when it was built.  Pliny dates it to over three thousand years before his own time. Pliny also mentions the mythical labyrinth of Crete, though it is a certainty that the temple at Knossos (the Cretan Knossos as we know it today) that was identified as the labyrinth by Arthur Evans was no longer available for view in the time of Pliny and had, in fact, been buried by the eruption of the Volcano, Thera around 1600 BC. 

At this point, I would like to bring up the fact that, as a preface to his remarks about the labyrinth, Herodotus wrote:

Thus far then the history is told by the Egyptians themselves; but I will now recount that which other nations also tell, and the Egyptians in agreement with the others, of that which happened in this land: and there will be added to this also something of that which I have myself seen.

So it is that the earliest known written account of the existence of labyrinths appears in the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus in approximately 450 BC, and he informs us that this story was also well known by other nations. 

Stories of the labyrinth were obviously famous long before Herodotus, and we are certain, because of his references to the pyramids, that he was talking about the Egypt we now know as Egypt even if he did not call it by that name; that was done by the translators. Clearly, Herodotus was referring to a real building because he claims to have seen it himself! It seems clear that, at Herodotus' time, the story of the Labyrinth was associated with Egypt. The question is: was this because of some particular association between the more ancient Egypt and the one Herodotus knew?

The various propositions for what must be the “remains” of the labvrinth simply do not fit the descriptions.  And, while we can have some doubts about the accuracy of the history ascribed to the monument by the various ancient authors, depending on who gave them their information, it's difficult to doubt that they either saw it themselves, or had direct information.

When Herodotus said he had seen the labyrinth himself, what was he referring to? Was he lying about having seen this great marvel that no one seems to be able to find a trace of in the present day?

I don't think so. I think Herodotus was certainly talking about something that was awesome and marvelous and he may have assumed that this MUST be the Labyrinth of Egypt because there was a certain and definite association between another, older, Egypt and a labyrinth and the Egypt Herodotus knew.

So here are our points: 1) We know that Herodotus was in the Egypt that we now know as Egypt. 2) We have some idea that he viewed a marvelous building that he considered to be a greater marvel than the pyramids themselves. 3) He mentions a lake adjacent to this structure, and 4) it seems that the most awe-inspiring features of the building were colonnades - enormous columned passageways.

Is there such a building in the Egypt we now know?

Yes, there is: the Temple at Karnak.

A description of this complex is given as follows:

The temple of Karnak was known as Ipet-isut (Most select of places) by the ancient Egyptians. It is a city of temples built over 2000 years and dedicated to the Theben triad of Amon, Mut and Khonsu.

This derelict place is still capable of overshadowing many of the wonders of the modern world and in its day must have been awe inspiring.

For the largely uneducated ancient Egyptian population this could only have been the place of the gods. It is the mother of all religious buildings, the largest ever made and a place of pilgrimage for nearly 4,000 years. Although today's pilgrims are mainly tourists.

[The Temple at Karnak] covers about 200 acres 1.5km by 0.8km The area of the sacred enclosure of Amon alone is 61 acres and would hold ten average European cathedrals.

The great temple at the heart of Karnak is so big, St Peter's, Milan and Notre Dame Cathedrals could be lost within its walls. The Hypostyle hall at 54,000 square feet with its 134 columns is still the largest room of any religious building in the world. In addition to the main sanctuary there are several smaller temples and a vast sacred lake.

The Temple of Karnak is actually three main temples, smaller enclosed temples, and several outer temples. This vast complex was built and enlarged over a thirteen hundred year period.

The effects that are produced inside the hall are much different than they were originally. The huge architraves are not above the capitals that tower above. Towards to center of the hall several architraves and windows that have stone latticework still remain. This small area can give you an idea of the builders' intent for the lighting effects. Some imagination is required here to appreciate what it must have looked like. The walls, ceilings and columns are painted with the natural earth tones. The light that was allowed in originally kept most of the hall in shadows. The hall ceiling was 82 feet high and was supported by 12 papyrus columns. The columns are made of sandstone and set in two rows of six. Each row is flanked on either side by 7 rows of columns that are 42 feet (12.8m) high. Each row has 9 columns, however the inner rows have 7 columns. The reliefs throughout the hall contain symbolism of Creation. [...] The outer walls of the Hypostyle Hall are covered with scenes of battle. [...]

Leaving the hypostyle hall through the third pylon you come to a narrow court where there once stood several obelisks. One of the obelisks was erected by Tuthmosis I (1504 - 1492 BC) who was the father of Hatshepsut. This obelisk stands 70 feet (21.3m) tall and weighs about 143 tons. During the centuries between Tuthmosis I and Ramesses VI, the kings of the time did more than their share of destroying and dismantling. This obelisk was never touched. The original inscription was left in its place. However, two kings did add their inscription on either side of the original. Beyond this obelisk is the only remaining Obelisk of Hatshepsut (1473-1458 BC). It is 97 feet (29.6m) high and weighs approximately 320 tons. Besides the Lateran obelisk in Rome, this is the tallest standing obelisk. [...]

Tuthmosis III (1479-1425 BC) was Hatshepsut's successor. When he came to power, he built a high wall around her obelisk. This wall hid the lower two-thirds but left the upper towering above. It has been thought that this was an easier and cheaper way of destroying her memory than actually tearing it down and removing it. If Tuthmosis had really wanted to destroy the obelisk, he would have certainly torn it down and removed it. Perhaps that was another reason for his building the wall. The top of the obelisk was visible for 50 miles (80 km). The pink granite for the obelisk was quarried at Aswan, which is several hundred miles south of Karnak. The stone was moved several miles over to the river and shipped down to Thebes. The setting of the stone is shown on reliefs as the pharaoh raising it with a single rope tied to its upper extremity. This is most probably symbolic, but may have been done this way with several hundreds of people pulling together. [...]

The Sixth Pylon, which was built by Tuthmosis III, leads into a Hall of Records in which the king recorded his tributes. Very little remains of this archive beyond two granite pillars. Just beyond these pillars lies the Holy of Holies or sanctuary. Originally it was the oldest part of the temple. The present sanctuary was built by the brother of Alexander the Great, Philip Arrhidaeus (323-316 BC) who was the King of Macedonia. The present sanctuary was built on the site of the earlier sanctuary built by Tuthmosis III. The present sanctuary contains blocks from the Tuthmosis sanctuary and still contain Tuthmosis' inscriptions. The sanctuary is built in two sections. Why this was done is not known.

From the descriptions of the Temple at Karnak, we can easily understand the awe and amazement of Herodotus and why he thought it was greater than the pyramids. After all, to the eye of the ancient traveler, the pyramids were only plain geometric structures with nothing in the way of special features. He certainly had no idea of the great mystery they would present to modern engineers. He was far more impressed by rows of columns, paintings, and cunning use of light to create a dramatic effect.

But still, we are curious about the fact that the story of the labyrinth was so famous. Herodotus traveled to Egypt and collected local myths and stories and histories of the various marvels he viewed and we have some idea at this point that many of these stories were based on more ancient exemplars from another place and time. What was the exemplar of the Egyptian Labyrinth? Is there anything that connects these various elements together? To find our clue, let's go in a slightly different direction.

It is a fact that the Earth is literally blanketed with megaliths from some ancient civilization. Tens of thousands of them! There are variations in placement and style, but the thing they all have in common is their incredible size and their undeniable antiquity.

No one has ever made a systematic count of the megaliths, but the estimate goes beyond 50,000. It is also admitted that this figure represents only a fraction, since many have been destroyed not only by the forces of nature, but also by the wanton destruction of man.

Even though there are megalithic monuments in locations around the world, there is nothing anywhere else like there is in Europe. The megaliths of Europe form an "enormous blanket of stone." The megalithic mania of ancient Europe is unparalleled indeed in human history.

The megaliths, then, were raised by some of the earliest Europeans. The reason that this simple fact took so long to be accepted was the peculiar inferiority complex which western Europeans had about their past. Their religion, their laws, their cultural heritage, their very numerals, all come from the East. It was long assumed that the inhabitants, before civilisation came flooding in from the Mediterranean, were illiterate; they kept no records, they built no cities. It was easy to assume that they were simply bands of howling half-naked savages who painted their bodies, put bear-grease on their hair and ate their cousins.

The interesting thing about the megalith builders is that the peoples who were able to perform these utterly amazing feats of engineering are still, in most circles, considered to be barbarians because they did not build cities, engage in agriculture, develop the wheel, or writing. Yet, they did something that clearly cannot be, and was not, done by "civilized" peoples who did all of those "civilized" things. They had some sort of "power" that we cannot replicate and do not understand.

I would like to speculate here for a moment. The first thing that comes to my mind when I consider the problem of the megaliths is that of what I call "payoff." That is to say, nobody who is human ever does anything without a "payoff," or to put it more generally, for a reason. What could be the reason for the stones? There were clearly a great deal more of them than would be necessary for simple "monumental" or "worship" purposes, or even time keeping, as recent researchers have suggested. They appear to be arranged like the inner workings of some vast global machine whose purpose is an enigma to us. For example, at Carnac in Brittany, 3,000 menhirs formed thirteen parallel lines, sprawled across four miles of the French countryside.

At the same time, could the overabundant presence of these megaliths, their "machine-like" arrangement, have anything to do with the things that are observed to be "lacking" in these peoples, i.e. the signs of civilization: the wheel, agriculture, writing and cities? Might we suppose the reason for the stones and the reason for the absence of evidence of what we, today, call civilization, are identical?

What strikes me as particularly intriguing is the fact that there is a place called Carnac in Brittany and a building that we suspect was identified by Herodotus as the ancient Egyptian labyrinth is now referred to as the Temple of Karnak.

Carnac is the most famous and the largest megalithic site in France. This site dates back some seven thousand years and includes stones of up to 180 tons in weight. The common archaeological opinion says that the dolmens - artificial caves built of stones and stone plates - were made for burial purposes. For the standing stones - the menhirs - they don't have any reasonable explanation. A close examination of certain of the stones that exist in the Brittany region reveals characteristic markings that certainly suggest the labyrinth. What makes this all the more interesting is what Wilkens has to say about the region that we now know as Brittany. Wilkens writes:

There seem to have been four different regions called Thrace in the Bronze Age, Homer's public understanding from the context which one was meant. The multiplicity of the name was probably not only due to migration, but also to the meaning of the adjective thracus, "courageous," which must have been a popular epithet with many warrior peoples, who gave the name also to their respective regions. [One of these regions was] the west of Brittany, homeland of the Trojan allies who came from overseas. [Wilkens]

When we consider Thrace as Brittany, and that Brittany is home to Carnac, a place where there are thousands of megaliths arranged in rows, along with many burial chambers, aritificial caves, and so forth, there are a couple more clues that come into play, which I have recounted in The Secret History of The World:

It is said that when Dionysus invaded Thrace, Orpheus did not see fit to honor him but instead preached the evils of sacrificial murder to the men of Thrace. He taught "other sacred mysteries" having to do with Apollo, whom he believed to be the greatest of all gods. Dionysus became so enraged; he set the Maenads on Orpheus at Apollo's temple where Orpheus was a priest. They burst in, murdered their husbands who were assembled to hear Orpheus speak, tore Orpheus limb from limb, and threw his head into the river Hebrus where it floated downstream still singing. It was carried on the sea to the island of Lesbos. Another version of the story is that Zeus killed Orpheus with a thunderbolt for divulging divine secrets. He was responsible for instituting the Mysteries of Apollo in Thrace, Hecate in Aegina, and Subterrene Demeter at Sparta.

In the previous section, we discussed the similarity of the story of the sacrifice of Iphigenia by Agamemnon to the story of Jephthah's daughter and even the story of the almost sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. The story of Jephthah's daughter led us to a consideration of the Eleusinian Mysteries and the Cult of Demeter and among the comments was noted the following:

Many scholars today favor the view that the cult of Demeter probably derived from Thessaly or Thrace. They base this conclusion partly on references in Homer and other ancient authors to some evidently pre-Dorian temples to Demeter in the Thessalian towns of Thermopylae, Pyrasos, and Pherai; partly on certain etymological links connecting key words in the rites of Demeter to pre-Hellenic dialects from the north.

The obvious conclusion - if we go a bit further with our hypothesis - is that the Eleusinian rites and cult of Demeter were transported to the Thrace we now know as Thrace, along with the name. If we then consider the clue of the two "Carnacs," we find a link between the Eleusinian Mysteries and the labyrinth.

Again and again we are reminded that Europe seems to have forgotten her true heritage, but it's not too difficult to understand why or even how:

The Roman military leaders and politicians were not normally interested in maintaining in their Western provinces a cultural memory which gave too much emphasis to the times before the Roman conquest. Instead, they encouraged the 'cultural forgetting' of such a past. As a result, any independent memory of the pre-Roman periods seems in fact to have been missing completely in areas such as Gaul, even though numerous pre-Roman monuments and other remains must have remained visible. [Woolf, Greg (1996) The Uses of Forgetfulness in Roman Gaul. In: H.-J.Gehrke and A.Möller (eds) Vergangenheit und Lebenswelt. Soziale Kommunikation, Traditionsbildung und historisches Bewußtsein, pp. 361-381. Tübingen: Narr. 1996]

Thus we come to another hypothesis: that parts of the "stories" of the labyrinth that Herodotus and others associate with Egypt were stories about a very different labyrinth in a very different location and that even the name "Karnak" was taken from Carnac in Brittany.

At this point, I ought to make it clear that I am not suggesting that the megalith culture of the north went South and was responsible for the Egyptian monuments which are, in my opinion, far more ancient than current "experts" will allow. What I am suggesting is that the so-called "Greek" culture later imposed many of its stories and names on events and places in the Mediterranean. Certainly, the problem is unavoidably complex due to repeated waves of invasion and conquest and mixing of peoples throughout time. This, of course, reminds us of the problem of Orpheus. As we noted above, he seems to have been preaching against the evils of sacrifice and lost his life for it. This indicates that there was, indeed, a very definite conflict of religions that may have later been retold as wars between gods. As I commented in my book, The Secret History of The World:

When one tracks back through all of the ancient "matters" and studies the different groups, trying to follow them as they moved from place to place, studying the genetic morphology in order to keep track of who is who, and comparing linguistics and myth and archaeology, one comes to the startling realization that there were significant polarities throughout space and time. I have tentatively identified these polarities as the Circle People and the Triangle - or Pyramid - People.

In a general sense, one can see the broad brush of the triangle people in the Southern hemisphere, in the pyramids and related cultures and artifacts. For the most part, their art is primitive and stylistically rigid. In the northern hemisphere, one sees the circle makers, the spirals, the rough megaliths, the art of Lascaux and Chauvet and the many other caves.

One can note a clear difference between the perceptions and the response to the environment between the two trends and groups. Of course, there are areas where there was obvious mixture of both cultures and styles, and ideological constructions, but overall, there is a very distinct difference.

There are many books on "alternative science" being published in the present time about the purported ancient civilizations. One assumption that they all seem to hold in common is that everything was all hunky dory, sweetness and light among all the people, and the only thing that happened was that a nasty cataclysm came along and brought it all to an end. They keep forgetting the issue of the Vedas and Plato's Timaeus where an ancient war was described, and it was at that point in time, or immediately after, that the cosmic catastrophe occurred.

It would then be only reasonable to suspect that the same differences between the warring parties would be carried over into the post-cataclysmic world. And it seems to be a reasonable assumption that the "southern influence," including Egypt, was that of the "Atlanteans" of Plato, and that the "northern influence," including the builders of Stonehenge, were the "Athenians" of Plato, the "Sons of Boreas," or the North Wind, keeping in mind that these "Athenians" were obviously not from Athens as we know it today, though we are beginning to suspect that we know who they were.

We should also like to note that the so-called "civilizing influence" of the South, of the creators of agricultural civilizations, the instigation of writing and the wheel and so forth, is always connected in some way to "scaly" critters like Fish Gods or Serpents. It isn't until fairly late that the Serpent makes his appearance among the archaeological finds of Europe and central Asia. Before the serpent appeared there, there were only goddesses, birds, and wavy lines representing water and cosmic energy.

I think that it is dangerous to confuse the issues. Again and again we see currents of two completely different processes, two factions, two ways of perceiving and interacting with the cosmos: one that wishes to conceal and one that wishes to reveal, one that wishes to dominate, one that wishes to share.

We notice that many megalithic sites are located a certain points that correspond with a certain geometry. But, if we look even closer, if we discard the current so-called "Sacred Geometry" and just look at the sites themselves and let them speak - all of them - instead of leaving this one or that one out because it doesn't quite fit, or only is "very close" to fitting, we may discover another relationship that is suggested by the sites, rather than working to fit the sites into an assumption.

So many bizarre ideas are being propagated at the present time, including the preposterous one about the megaliths being set up to absorb the energy of human sacrifices, and that the stones "drink blood," that it is quite discouraging to realize how easily people are misled by nonsense. If such writers cannot figure out that the megaliths were demonized by the church because they were revered by the nature religions, which we theorize are carriers of ancient scientific knowledge, and the nature religions themselves were also demonized, then there isn't much chance that they will figure anything else out either. Such people also tend to be convinced that the Holy Grail is the cup from the Last Supper, too, and I won't even comment on that. [Knight-Jadczyk, The Secret History of The World, 2002

Now, let's consider Athens for just a moment. Homer writes in his catalogue of the ships:

And they that held Athens, the well-built citadel, the land of the great-hearted Erechtheus, whom of old, Athene, daughter of Zeus, fostered, when the earth, the giver of grain, had borne him; and she made him dwell in Athens, in her own rich sanctuary, and there the youths of the Athenians, as the years roll on in their courses, seek to win his favour with sacrifices of bulls and rams; these again had as leader Menestheus, son of Peteos. Like him was no other man on the face of the earth for the marshalling of chariots and of warriors that bear the shield. Only Nestor would vie with him, for he was the elder. And with him there followed fifty black ships. [Iliad II, 546-556

Wilkens explains:

The "well-built citadel" of Athens must have been on or near the site of the present Cherbourg. Unfortunately, Homer gives few clues to help us confirm this, but the reasoning is set out fully in the following paragraphs.

First, in Homer's list of regiments, the Athenians appear between their neighbours to the south and west, the Locrians (Regiment 4) and the Abantes (Regiment 5), and, to the Southeast, the people from around the town of Argos, the present Calvados (Regiment 8).

Furthermore, there is a district of Cherbourg, Octeville, the origin of whose name is "uncertain" according to the etymologists, but which could well stem from another name for Pallas Athene, Okke or Onka, frequently used in ancient times. For example, Aeschylus always calls this goddess Pallas Onka. There are also several places called Ocqueville, no doubt sites where Athene was worshipped, in Seine-Maritime. (Since the Trojans were of the same religion as the Celts of the continent, there should also be traces of Athene worship in England. There is in fact a London suburb of Ockendon, just north of the Dartford Tunnel.)

According to the Odyssey, there is a place called "holy Sunium, the cape of Athens" (Id III, 278), which could be the cape to the east of Cherbourg, before which we find today the Basses du Sen (= Sun[ion]). Between Cherbourg and this cape is Theville, which possibly owes its name to [A]the[na], which is indeed a pre-Greek name according to explanatory dictionaries.

To the south of Cherbourg there is Martinville, whose name could come from Marathon, for in the Odyssey we read that Athene "came to Marathon and broad-wayed Athens, and entered the well-built house of Erechtheus" (Od. VII, 80-81). As we see in the description of this Regiment, Athene had given the town, where there was a temple dedicated to her, to Erechtheus. Later, in Greece, the reverse happened: the Greeks dedicated a temple to Athene in the town that subsequently became their capital, Athens. Athene was worshipped throughout the Celtic countries, however, in the Troad as well as on the Continent, where we find in France, Atheville, while in central Germany we find Athenstedt, "Town of Athene.

Through the house of Athens, there was a close link between Cherbourg and Calais, the northernmost seaport of France, very appropriately named after Calais, the son of the god of the North Wind, Boreas. [Wilkens, p. 286-287]

The question we now want to ask is just what was the Trojan War REALLY fought over?

I don't think it was a woman.

The dynamic of the war that we are told in the stories is that someone from Troy stole something from King Menelaus, i.e., his wife and some treasure and the allies of Menelaus and Agamemnon laid siege to Troy and utterly destroyed it.

Troy, known also as Holy Ilium, was considered to be the Rome of the ancient world; it was the Holy City par excellence, and it is partly for this reason that its destruction was so devastating to the psyche of the civilizations of that time. It produced a cultural wound even eclipsed the exemplar of the destruction of Atlantis and is remembered as the greatest tragedy of ancient times right down to our own day.

But when we consider the almost forgotten exemplar of Atlantis, (not forgotten by Plato) we realize that Atlantis was the transgressor and the Athenians were the heroes who stood against the Evil Empire and defeated its invasion.

Things seemed to have happened the other way around in Troy. Troy was not engaged in wars of invasion and conquest, and so the total destruction of the city and its people simply because Paris/Alexander eloped with someone else's wife makes the Achaeans look rather bad. If we consider the alleged sacrifice of his daughter, Iphigenia, as a means of obtaining victory over his enemies, Agamemnon looks even worse. We begin to understand another possible reason that Plato was irritated by Homer and declared that his story did not teach respect for the "gods." Perhaps this is a clue to the real reason for the Trojan War?

Another clue can be found in the story of the sacrifice of Iphigenia when considered in the light of the story of Orpheus who preached against sacrifice and taught "other mysteries." Perhaps, if we consider this again, we may begin to see the truth.

It is said that when Dionysus invaded Thrace, Orpheus did not see fit to honor him but instead preached the evils of sacrificial murder to the men of Thrace. He taught "other sacred mysteries" having to do with Apollo, whom he believed to be the greatest of all gods. Dionysus became so enraged; he set the Maenads on Orpheus at Apollo's temple where Orpheus was a priest. They burst in, murdered their husbands who were assembled to hear Orpheus speak, tore Orpheus limb from limb, and threw his head into the river Hebrus where it floated downstream still singing. It was carried on the sea to the island of Lesbos. Another version of the story is that Zeus killed Orpheus with a thunderbolt for divulging divine secrets. He was responsible for instituting the Mysteries of Apollo in Thrace, Hecate in Aegina, and Subterrene Demeter at Sparta.

Orpheus was a priest in the Temple of Apollo? This reminds us of the comments of Diodorus regarding the Hyperboreans:

And there is also on the island both a magnificent sacred precinct of Apollo and a notable temple, which is adorned with many votive offerings and is spherical in shape.

Furthermore, a city is there which is sacred to this god, [Troy?] and the majority of its inhabitants are players on the cithara; and these continually play on this instrument in the temple and sing hymns of praise to the god, glorifying his deeds…

They say also that the moon, as viewed from this island, appears to be but a little distance from the earth and to have upon it prominences, like those of the earth, which are visible to the eye.

The account is also given that the god visits the island every nineteen years, the period in which the return of the stars to the same place in the heavens is accomplished, and for this reason the Greeks call the nineteen-year period the "year of Meton". At the time of this appearance of the god he both plays on the cithara and dances continuously the night through from the vernal equinox until the rising of the Pleiades, expressing in this manner his delight in his successes.

And the kings of this city and the supervisors of the sacred precinct are called Boreades, since they are descendants of Boreas, and the succession to these positions is always kept in their family.

[Diodorus of Sicily, English translation by C. H. Oldfather, Loeb Classical Library, Volumes II and III. London, William Heinemann, and Cambridge, Mass., USA, Harvard University Press, 1935 and 1939.]

I would like to note immediately how similar the above story of the Maenads murdering their husbands is to the story of the daughters of Danaus murdering their husbands - the sons of Egyptus - on the wedding night connected to the story of the massacre at the Cloisters of Ambrius attributed much later to Hengist and Horsa. Keeping in mind that the Danaans were the family of the hero Perseus who cut off the head of Medusa, while comparing this to the beheading of Orpheus and his "singing" head floating down the river. The two themes, wives murdering husbands and a significant beheading are startling enough to give us pause. Was an original legend then later adapted to a different usage, assimilated to a different group or tribe? More than once? In any event, we have discovered a most interesting little collection of things all in one place. First a "round temple" on an island that can only be Britain, may be describing Stonehenge and the way in which it was utilized by a group of people.

Regarding the massacre at the Cloisters of Ambrius recounted by Geoffrey of Monmouth we find that the Stonehenge story told by Geoffrey begins with a treacherous massacre of the Britons by Hengest and his Saxons, which took place at a peace conference. The Saxons hid their daggers in their shoes and, at a signal from their leader, drew them and killed all the assembled British nobles except the king. We notice immediately a certain dynamic in all of these references that reflects the ideology of "The Trojan Horse." There are wives betraying husbands and killing them, there is a "peace offering" and a "peace conference" and "weddings" - all followed by murder and destruction.

As we noted earlier, a careful consideration of this story suggests to us that there was a solid tradition behind this idea: that Stonehenge was the focal point of a people who had suffered a terrible, terminal disaster brought about by a "Trojan Horse." Considering the clue of Orpheus, we suggest that this Trojan Horse was a product of a vile religion that engaged in human sacrifice and entered the land "by way of Deception." We note that, in the story of Orpheus, the remark: When Dionysus invaded Thrace..." Here we come to the crux of the matter.

In Plutarch's Convivial Questions, one of the guests claims to be able to prove that the god of the Jews is really Dionysus Sabazius, the Barley-god of Thrace and Phrygia; and Tacitus similarly records in his History (v. 5) that "some maintain that the rites of the Jews were founded in honour of Dionysus." The historian Valerius Maximus says that in the year 139 BC, the praetor of Foreigners, C. Cornelius Hispallus, expelled from Rome certain Jews who were "trying to corrupt Roman morals by a pretended cult of Sabazian Jove." The inference is that the praetor did not expel them for a legitimate worship of this god, but because they were foisting a bizarre new rite on the Thracian religion - circumcision! It is curious that later followers of this perversion soon began to resort to full castration in adoration of their god, even after their god had transmogrified from Jehovah to Jesus! St. Augustine was one such.

And it seems that, Troy was the last stand of the Goddess. It was a rather cunning bit of propaganda to blame it on a woman, eh?

(This series will be completed at some point in the future. I still haven't gotten to the really juicy stuff, so hang on there... I'm dancing as fast as I can.)

You are visitor number .