Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


     Mikamar
           Publishing
 

Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
Articles
The Third Story
Features

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Horus Journals TOC
Kronos Journals TOC
Pensee Journals TOC
Velikovskian Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors

 

KRONOS Vol III, No. 3

Quartered At Yale
Copyright © 1977 by Immanuel Velikovsky

"Quartered at Yale" is a section from the Memoirs to Worlds in Collision. The Memoirs, a documented history of the origin of Worlds in Collision and its reception from 1946 to 1953, was put together by Velikovsky in the fall of 1954, and is not published.

* * *

Four Yale professors united their forces to disprove Worlds in Collision. Together they prepared an article for the American Journal of Science published at Yale. The editor, Professor Chester R. Longwell, himself a geologist and one of the four authors, arranged to have this article printed in the daily press, too, in advance of its appearance in the Journal. In the New Haven Register for June 25, 1950, the large blue letters of a six-column headline announced: "4 Yale Scholars 'Expose' Non-Fiction Best-Seller."

The three other authors were K. S. Latourette, Sinologist, George Kubler, Mexicologist, and Rupert Wildt, astronomer.

Professor Latourette, who, as a missionary, spent many years in China, put forth this argument against my book: Velikovsky has generally preferred older sources, and according to modern views Emperor Yao (Yahou) belongs to the legendary period of Chinese history (which is usually divided into three periods: mythical or fabulous, legendary, and historical).

It can hardly be called an argument, still less an "exposure," since in my treatment I deliberately use legendary material of ancient origin. King Yao is not my invention. "Every Chinese schoolboy is familiar with the names of Yao, Shun, and Yu," says the same Latourette in his The Development of China (1917, p. 16). There he says also that "native historians" regard this period in the Chinese past as completely historical. And the modern view of Western scholars is this: "Even the historicity of the three [kings] is to be viewed with some doubt, but they are usually regarded as authentic." This sentence is from the article, "China" in Encyclopedia Britannica (14th ed.), and the author of the article is Latourette. An earlier authority, P. du Halde, in the second volume of his History of China, says that "should anybody question the historicity of Yao, he would not only be ridiculed, but severely chastised." (He would probably be handled like a traditional Jew who questioned the existence of Moses.)

"The history of China preceding his [Yao's] reign is ascribed to the mythical period of the Chinese past," I wrote in Worlds in Collision (pp. 100-101). "In the days of Yahou [Yao] the event occurred which separates the almost obliterated and very dim past of China from the period that is considered historical: China was overwhelmed by an immense catastrophe." Then I quoted the numerous sources ("an amazing range of historical records," in Latourette's estimate). In the reign of Yao for ten days the sun remained above the horizon; all the forests burned; a multitude of "abominable vermin" was brought forth; an immense wave that "reached the sky" fell on China and swept over high mountains; thereafter the lower regions of the country remained inundated for more than two generations; the calendar was disordered, and it was also necessary to find anew the cardinal points - east, west, north, and south - which was difficult because the land was covered with gloom for many years. It is said also that a new bright star was born in the days of Yao.

All this, I demonstrated in my book, has exact counterparts in Jewish legends and traditions, as narrated in the Scriptures, Midrash, and Talmud, relative to the time of the Exodus, and in Egyptian traditions (and in Mayan) as well. The sole difference is that according to the Egyptian source the sun remained below the horizon for nine days, causing the "Egyptian darkness" - or for seven days according to Midrashic tradition. This shows there was no borrowing by the Chinese from Egypt or Judea, nor the other way round, by Egypt or Judea from China, where tradition has the sun remaining above the horizon.

Nothing of this was questioned by Latourette. So what did he disprove or expose?

George Kubler, Professor of the History of Art at Yale and a student of Mesoamerican civilization, brought two issues to the discussion. He wondered that I interpreted the 52-year cycle of the Mayas and Mexican Indians "as an historical survival of the terrors experienced between the two 'contacts' of the Venus-comet with earth."

I have not concealed my sources. Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl, the early Mexican scholar (ca. 1568-1648) who was able to read old Mexican texts, preserved the ancient tradition according to which multiples of the fifty-two-year period played a prominent role in the recurrence of world catastrophes. Also the Codex Vaticanus, one of the few manuscripts surviving from pre-Columbian times, reckons world ages in multiples of fifty-two years. At the expiration of every fifty-two-year period the natives of Mexico congregated to await a new catastrophe. "When the night of this ceremony arrived, all the people were seized with fear and waited in anxiety for what might take place," wrote Bernardino de Sahagun, the sixteenth century Spanish authority, regarded as the best of all sources pertaining to Latin America. The Mexicans were afraid that "it will be the end of the human race and that the darkness of the night may become permanent: the sun may not rise anymore." They watched for the appearance of the planet Venus, and when on the dreaded night no catastrophe befell them, the people of the Maya rejoiced. Great bonfires announced that a new period of grace was granted and a new Venus cycle of 52 years started. The period is called the Venus cycle, as is known to every student of Mexican lore [Seler, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1, 618ff.]. Sahagun also narrated that the Mexicans called a comet "a star that smoked"; the Mexicans likewise referred to Venus as "a star that smoked". And G. A. Dorsey, of the Field Museum of Natural History, described the ceremony of sacrifice to the Morning Star (Venus) as a "dramatization of the acts performed by the Morning Star." A human offering was made by the Pawnee Indians as recently as the last century, whenever Venus "appeared especially bright or in years when there was a comet in the sky" [quoted from Worlds in Collision, pp. 153-4, 163-4, 192-3 ff.].

The other issue raised by Kubler concerns the date of the New Year of the Mexicans. He says of me:

"The author lays great value upon the Mexican New Year date as February 26, Old Style. His source here is a Jesuit, Father Acosta, who wrote ca. 1589. Acosta's source in turn was Juan de Tovar, writing ca. 1585. These two writers stand alone in saying that the Mexican year began on February 26. Nine other New Year days for the Mexican calendar can be listed from equally reputable sources."

The printing of this passage in fat letters could convey the idea that here I was caught in a grave blunder.

Kubler does not deny that February 26 was, according to Acosta, the old Mexican New Year; so I quoted a reputable source correctly. The fact that there were various New Year days only supports my theory that following disturbances in the terrestrial rotation, the beginning of the year in Mexico, as in other lands, was repeatedly shifted to new dates, and in another chapter of my book I told of calendar reforms in ancient Mexico.

But why did Kubler say that I lay great value upon the Mexican New Year date of February 26? After referring to the Assyrian era of Nabonassar, used as an astronomical date even many centuries later (by Claudius Ptolemy and others) and calculated by Assyriologists to have started on February 26, -747, 1 injected the remark that the date "must be re-examined in the light of the fact that further cosmic disturbances occurred during the decades that followed -747." I added: "It is worth noting, however, that the ancient inhabitants of Mexico celebrated their New Year on the day which corresponds, in the Julian calendar, to the same date: 'The first day of their year was the six and twentie day of February.' " (J. Acosta, tr. 1604). This is the entire passage found in my book concerning February 26 in the Mexican calendar; though I did not put "great value" on the date, everything I said was precise, correct, careful, and cautious.

[An additional issue for which Professor Kubler took me to task concerned my dating of certain events in Mesoamerican history (Worlds in Collision, p. 254): "The Mesoamerican cosmology to which Velikovsky repeatedly appeals for proof did not originate and could not originate until about the beginning of our era. Velikovsky alludes to Toltec-Aztec wars as possibly originating 'before the present era'. . Toltec remains in Mexico and the Maya area are now dated before 1260 A.D. and Aztec civilization is dated after 1360 A.D."

Only a few years later, measurements using the radiocarbon method of dating decided the issue. I quote from a release of the National Geographic Society, made on Dec. 30, 1956: "Atomic science has proved the ancient civilizations of Mexico to be some 1,000 years older than had been believed, the National Geographic Society says.

"In findings basic to Middle American archaeology, artifacts dug up in La Venta, Mexico have been proved to come from a period 800 to 400 years before the Christian era. Previously, they had been assigned to 400 or 500 A.D., more than 1,000 years later.

"Cultural parallels between La Venta and other Mexican archaeological excavations enable scientists to date one in terms of the others. Thus the new knowledge affects the dating of many finds." (Also see Science, July 12, 1957.)]

Professor Rupert Wildt of the Yale Observatory directed his attack against what he considered my convictions or my case of amnesia.

"No useful purpose would be served by summarizing here Velikovsky's 'evidence' for the series of cosmic catastrophes that he supposes to have occurred between 1500 and 700 B.C. The crucial point is that Velikovsky, in effect, repudiates his earlier rejection of Newton: 'The theory of cosmic catastrophe can, if required to do so, conform with the celestial mechanics of Newton' (Worlds in Collision, p. 384). But the readers of the book are spared the realization that its author ever professed belief in what he called 'the empiric evidences of the fallacy of the law of gravitation' (Cosmos Without Gravitation, p. 11).(1) "We look in vain for an explanation of what possessed the man between 1946 and 1950 and cannot help wondering -- is this a case of individual amnesia overtaking the author, or does he have so little respect for scientific critics as to rely on their collective amnesia?"

Wildt looked in vain, yet it was easy to find. Three pages after the sentence he quoted from Worlds in Collision, and still in the same context, it is said (p. 387):

"Thus celestial mechanics does not conflict with cosmic catastrophism. I must admit, however, that in searching for the causes of the great upheavals of the past and in considering their effects, I became skeptical of the great theories concerning the celestial motions that were formulated when the historical facts described here were not known to science. . . . Fundamental principles in celestial mechanics, including the law of gravitation, must come into question if the sun possesses a charge sufficient to influence the planets in their orbits or the comets in theirs. In the Newtonian celestial mechanics, based on the theory of gravitation, electricity and magnetism play no role."

Anyone who reads only the first page of Worlds in Collision is informed that if Newton is "sacrosanct, this book is a heresy."

Here I feel induced to quote Freud, from the preface to the second edition of his The Interpretation of Dreams:

"The few reviews which have appeared in the scientific journals are so full of misconceptions and lack of comprehension that my only possible answer to my critics would be a request that they should read this book again -- or perhaps merely -- that they should read it!" [Translated by A. A. Brill.]

Last comes C. R. Longwell, who says that "the geologist is both amused and appalled by the ideas and the methods of Dr. Velikovsky."

"In discussing the origin of petroleum he lists two theories - the inorganic and the organic - but does not go on to inform the reader that to modern students of the subject the inorganic theory has historical interest only."

Once more I am accused of hiding something from my readers. Yet on page 369 of Worlds in Collision it is stated:

"The modem theory of the origin of petroleum, based upon its polarizing quality, regards petroleum as originating from organic, not inorganic, matter."

I could not make it clearer. So much for my appalling method.

As to the geological aspect of the theory of Worlds in Collision, Longwell says:

"Velikovsky raises anew the matter of 'erratic blocks' -- masses of rock that clearly have been displaced through distances of tens or even hundreds of miles from the localities of their origin. No problem that has confronted geologists seems to be more convincingly solved than this one. The 'erratics' occur only in areas that are known, on independent evidence, to have been covered with glacier ice in the geologic past. . . . Every essential link from effect to cause has been adequately supplied, in the judgment of informed students."

But the author of Worlds in Collision disregarded all the evidence accumulated in the course of a hundred years and "wants the 'erratics' as witnesses to a gigantic tide that swept the lands during his cosmic catastrophe," and "unhampered by any embarrassing facts, he rushes in with his own grandiose speculation."

Actually, I wrote that "the problem of the migration of the stones must be regarded as only partially connected with the progress and retreat of the ice sheet . . ." (p. 76). (In Earth in Upheaval I give a more detailed treatment of the subject.) But already in Worlds in Collision I pointed to the embarrassing fact of stones transferred from plains up the mountains, though at present no such phenomenon is observable in the mountains. Erratics were carried from India up the Himalayas. They were also carried from equatorial Africa toward the higher latitudes, "across the prairies and deserts and forests of the black continent." That not "every link" is supplied can be judged from the words of Professor Reginald Daly of Harvard, who says that the Ice Age history of North America "holds ten major mysteries for every one that has already been solved" (The Changing World of the Ice Age [Yale University Press, 19341, p. III), and that "the very cause of excessive ice-making on the lands remains a baffling mystery, a major question for the future reader of earth's riddles" (Ibid., p. 16).

The statement that scientific study in the last hundred years has proved that erratics are found only where other vestiges of ice movement are also present is embarrassingly wrong. Darwin inquired and received the answer that in the Azores -- where there was no ice cover -- erratics are found in abundance. Cummings described erratics carried high up on the Isle of Man, in the Irish Sea, and admitted that ice could not have transported them there. J. S. Lee, in his Geology of China ( 1939), described erratic blocks and at the same time the "general absence of ice-sculptured features" in northern China, or "two sets of facts pointing in opposite directions" [pp. 367, 3731.

It happened that at about the time the American Journal of Science published the article by the four scholars, I received a letter from one of my readers who referred to the problem of erratic boulders.

"What you have to say about glaciation may help to explain some of the difficulties in the glacial theory. On Macquarie Island south of New Zealand, for instance, erratic boulders from the western coast were carried to the eastern coast to a 750 feet higher elevation. By the glacial theory, it is hard to explain why the glacier should have come from one side, instead of radiating from the center, and why the erratics were lifted."

My work was torn apart at Yale. It was quartered by four famous professors. Yet, after being executed, the book left the place unharmed.

To quote Victor Hugo: "And then, while critics fall foul of the preface and the scholars of the notes, it may happen that the work itself will escape them, passing uninjured between their crossfires." [ Preface to Cromwell (1827).]


1. . Cosmos Without Gravitation: Attraction, repulsion, and electromagnetic circumduction in the solar system, Synopsis, 1946, was printed by me as a short monograph in the series Scripta Academica Hierosolymitana; it was not offered for sale and was distributed only to a number of physicists for scientific appraisal, and placed in some selected libraries. The opening sentence is: "The fundamental theory of this paper is: Gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomenon." -- a view heretical in 1946, but much considered in the 1970's. Various tests were offered in the Synopsis for performance in laboratory or in space.

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665