1

First published 2009 in Great Britain by Completely Novel Ltd

© 2009 Harry Sivertsen and Stephen Redman

The moral rights of Harry Sivertsen and Stephen Redman to be identified as the authors of this
work have been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form without the prior permission of the copyright holder.

ISBN 9781849143486

Completely Novel Ltd.

49a King Henry’s Walk
London N1 4NH
www.completelynovel.com

2
 From
Genesis to Atlantis
updated edition 2013

Harry Sivertsen and Stephen Redman

3
 For Gillie.

Without whom it would not have happened.

Thanks to Steve’s sister Ann for comments on early drafts of both works.

Thanks also for encouragement and constructive comments

to:-

Derek Skhane, Paul Martyn-Smith, Christopher John, Rick Keown

Richard Dullum, Garry Osbourne and others associated with the ‘flow gang’.

For the position of website Author of the Month for May 2010 we are very grateful to
Graham Hancock

4
 Megalith, Masonry, Myth and Measure.

Volume I.

Deluge: From Genesis to Atlantis.

Preface
'Without words, without writing and without books there
would be no history, there could be no concept of humanity.'
Oliver Goldsmith [author]
Mythology tells you and history doesn’t and that raises some very interesting questions because
the implication is that you could suppress the written word but you couldn't suppress the oral
tradition.
Mike Baillie [Professor of palaeoecology]

This book is Volume I of a two part investigation by Harry Sivertsen ably assisted by his
wife Gill who has been a constant and utterly reliable support since the investigation began and
has contributed much more than she realises. Invaluable assistance in the writing and
presentation of Megalith, Masonry, Myth and Measure has been provided by Steve Redman
who additionally added some essential historical background and technical info regarding
astronomy. The presentation style was created by Steve who contributed to Chapters 3,7 and 8
and researched and wrote Chapters 2 and 13. Of course Steve also played a large role in the
original editing process. This takes us to 2008 and all updates and improvements [see final page
for dates of these] since then have been accomplished by Harry Sivertsen.
The work delves into hidden elements of history under the generic title seen above,
Megalith, Masonry, Myth and Measure. The word ‘hidden’ is chosen here because while it is
not literally correct, it does indicate that the subjects covered are what are generally termed
‘esoteric’. In these works it becomes clear that much of that which is thought of as esoteric or
veiled, in reality is not hidden or coded as it is usually portrayed but in fact is information that
has been misunderstood due to a lack of knowledge of the methodologies of the scholars of past
ages. Again, the word ‘scholars’ is utilised where conventionally another word may be chosen
but why term learned people of the modern era ‘scholars’ and apply a different terminology to
the recorders of, for example, astronomical observations of thousands of years ago? All are
learned people and given the available knowledge of the past these ‘seers and sages’ were
equally as intelligent as the studious thinkers of today. In some respects perhaps more so as it
was the foundations of astronomy and mathematics that were laid down in the eastern areas in
ancient times, when Britain had yet to erect a standing stone, that became the pillars of later
learning.

5
 Much of the information along with various techniques that were developed in other
regions eventually found its way into Britain along with further elements of cultures from far
away. This is evident from the calendars and measures of Stonehenge, usually denied by the
‘experts’ but shown in the companion work to this book, Volume II of Megalith, Masonry,
Myth and Measure which has the title Measurements of the Gods, as provable. The builders of
this structure were knowledgeable and capable engineers, although few modern engineers
would term these artisans of past ages as such. We often fail to appreciate the learning of
ancient epochs, hard won knowledge without which the skills and developments of the modern
world simply would not exist.
The information built into the layout of Stonehenge extends to other elements of ancient
Britain only discovered via careful study of maps. Here we are not looking at the concept of
‘ley lines’ but at the setting out of sites within the landscape by other means…again, provable
but unrecorded elsewhere. Some of this knowledge was in use in mediaeval times and this is
easily shown via the study of churches, cathedrals, monasteries and royal palaces in Western
Europe with examples in Measurements of the Gods, primarily derived from personal surveys
by Gillian and Harry Sivertsen in Britain.
What is seen in these buildings, however, has its roots far from mediaeval Britain in both
time and place and the current work, Deluge, uses the myth of a global flood to demonstrate,
what is not perhaps the ultimate source, as that is revealed in Measurements of the Gods, but
the very early use, long before dynastic Egypt, of the same information in a region even further
from Britain than the land of the pyramids. On this journey of discovery we do indeed look at
pyramids and reveal elements of what has been hidden in, for example, the Great Pyramid, that
of the pharaoh Khufu but has escaped other researchers. This has direct links to the main theme
of the work, the mythical flood.
This flood is not what has been surmised in the past, but, as with Plato’s Atlantis, has its
roots both on land and in the heavens, the constellations of the night sky and its detail has been
missed due to the fact that in the past, researchers and scholars have failed to comprehend the
measurement systems in use and their relationships to time values denoted by the passing of
those lights in the sky, predominantly that of the Moon. They have also, in general, either
accepted Plato’s writings literally or dismissed them. In fact Plato was using the ages old
format of allegory in his work, a technique not in vogue in modern times and hence usually
completely missed. The Bible, among other religious works abounds with astronomy and
measures, but these also are missed by most as they simply do not understand what is meant by
the inclusions. This is a pity because most of these references are to the infamous flood.
Deluge will reveal that in fact the Book of Revelation is not the convoluted mystery it is
usually seen to be; in fact a great deal of this particular Biblical narrative becomes quite clear
once the relevant astronomical elements are explained along with the associated measures.
These ancient works need to be unravelled utilising the same means that the seers of ancient
times utilised to put them together. There is no other way to discover the truth of their meaning.
In reality much of the content of what are termed ‘religious’ works are early science
observations as astronomical knowledge was handed down word of mouth via stories that put
human personalities and situations to stars. These tales are found within the ‘religious’ works
such as Genesis and Revelations and other books of the Bible. The religious works of other

6
faiths have similar contributions to make that have been generally missed because they have
simply been misunderstood. Hence the flood tale is far from what is generally believed.
The two works mentioned here, the current book Deluge, and the companion work
Measurements of the Gods are intimately and irrevocably linked and hence under the generic
title of Megalith, Masonry, Myth and Measure they become volumes I and II. While Deluge
[vol.I] deals with the mythical elements in the form of the flood and the parallel tale of Plato’s
Atlantis, Measurements of the Gods [vol II] reveals the history of measures, from metrication
all the way back to the first developments of a coherent set of units that were in use long before
the first pyramid or even its predecessor, the mastaba tomb. This is far from the dull subject
one may suppose and is equally as intriguing as the tale of the flood as even today few have
any idea of the units in use in the past and many have utterly failed to comprehend that our
ancient forbears were capable of such endeavour. The section relating measures at Stonehenge
in Chapter 7 of Measurements of the Gods is sufficient to convince the sceptic otherwise. While
mathematics and measures are thought to have developed in Mesopotamia shortly prior to the
unification of Egypt circa 3100 BC there is no sign whatever of a mathematical learning curve.
Measurements of the Gods, and indeed, Deluge show why this is.
As is to be expected, mathematics in olden times was a simple process compared to
modern calculus etc. with the primary values being discovered via no more than multiplication
and division, so simple today with a calculator, no real thinking is necessary! Hence there is
nothing frightening about the numbers contained in these texts. In fact what we reveal are
‘families’ of numbers, all interrelated via various factors and while our memories today can
rarely be compared with those of the learned folks of way back, and a calculator is required to
facilitate easy computation, [otherwise those who wish to check the numbers will spend more
times with pencil and paper than reading!] these related ‘families’ very soon become as
readable and familiar as words. Do not be put off by the use of the word mathematics, these
numerical values are different to most and frequently have a somewhat variant function. Many
have literal meanings and in reality are substitute names for other entities, or parts thereof. In
the process of describing the history of the measures in Measurements of the Gods much is
revealed that contradicts conventional thinking [beware Greeks bearing measures…!!] but even
so, there is very little that is not is provable. Admittedly there is a little speculation regarding
the methodology utilised in the original developments of the units but given all the accumulated
evidence the conclusion seems inescapable.
The reality of the flood and by association, Atlantis, is clearly seen in Deluge with its 15
chapters and nearly 140 illustrations via the examination of works from India along with the
astronomy described in those books. In recent years it has become apparent that the history of
this nation is far from the ‘European supremacy’ concept that has prevailed since the 19th
century and has been taught in universities as recently as the end of the 20 th century [personal
experience as a mature or perhaps more fittingly, antique, student a decade ago].
Above we mentioned the superior memories of the people of ages past. This becomes
apparent when it is realized that detailed astronomical descriptions were handed down word of
mouth in stories for countless generations before the advent of writing. The stories frequently
involved the lights in the sky being given human personalities and / or godly characteristics.

7
These tales are what today are known as myths and are misunderstood simply because since
writing was invented, the methodology was utilised less and less and today has been forgotten.
These works therefore revive some ancient techniques.

The first key to wisdom is constant and frequent questioning…for by doubting we are led to
question and by questioning we arrive at the truth.

Peter Abelard [French philosopher 1079 – 1142]

Questioning is the key to unravelling what is mysterious and perplexing…

…in any discipline.

8
 DELUGE:
From Genesis to Atlantis
Contents
Cover illustration
The cover illustration is of the constellation Hercules and the circles of the canals at Atlantis
superimposed over the ‘waterspout’ of the Chaldean flood legend. In this picture is seen the
essential essence of Deluge.

Chapter 1 The Great Deluge 14

1.1 Worldmyths of a Great Flood
1.2 Real Floods: Humanity’s Enemy
1.3 The Revelations of Deluge
1.4 A New Approach
1.5 A Simple Ancient Measurement System
1.6 The Decimal Element
1.7 A Cyclical Event – In the Skies!
1.8 The Second Ark and Solomon’s Temple
1.9 The Deluge and Atlantis
1.10 A Verifiable Hypothesis

Chapter 2 The Whole World Under Water? 35

2.1 Thee 19th Century; Geology versus Genesis
2.2 Modern Creationism
2.3 Science and the Global Flood
2.4 The Animals and the Structure of Noah’s Ark

Chapter 3 Noah’s Ark and the Mountains of Ararat 54

3.1 Views of the Ark
3.2 Major Flood Mythologies
3.3 An Analysis of the Biblical Ark
3.4 The Dimensions of the Ark
3.5 The Landfall of the Ark
3.6 Ships - Real and Imagined: Berossus’s Ark and Veruna’s House of Clay
3.7 The Investigation of Durupinar
3.8 The Numbers of the Ark
3.9 Reconstructing The Ark
3.10 The Survey of Antiquity

9
Chapter 4 The Ark And The Pyramids 98
4.1 The Giza Complex
4.2 Boats in Egyptian Religion
4.3 The Boats of Khufu
4.4 The Ark and the Great Pyramid
4.5 The Development of 3rd and Early 4th Dynasty Pyramids
4.6 The Internal Metrology of the Red Pyramid
4.7 The Great Sphinx
4.8 Dating the Pyramids
4.9 The Deluge and Ancient Egypt
4.10 The Market-Place of Cultures
4.11

Chapter 5 The Second Ark, King Solomon’s Temple and the Rule of Noah 137
5.1 The Ark of the Covenant and the Deadly Power of the Lord
5.2 The Tabernacle and the Journey of the Ark
5.3 More Arkaic and Temple History
5.4 King Solomon’s Temple and Mount Moriah
5.5 The Temple Dimensions Revealed
5.6 The Mystical Diagram and the Eye
5.7 Jachin and Boaz
5.8 A Further Oddity
5.9 The Descendants of Noah
5.10 The Temple in the Ark
5.11 Jerusalem and the Oblation Of The Lord

Chapter 6 An Astronomical Flood? 183

6.1 Introduction
6.2 15 Cubits: Astronomy and the Celestial Flood
6.3 Some Time Constructs
6.4 The Chinese Noah
6.5 40 Days and Nights of Rain and The Lunar Year
6.6 Replenishing the Earth
6.7 The Epic of Gilgamesh
6.8 The Flood Story from India
6.9 Noah’s Rainbow and the Celestial Ocean
6.10 The Sky Boat from India

10
Chapter 7 Precession, Pole Stars and Floods 207
7.1 Ancient Skywatchers and the Cycles of the Heavens
7.2 Precession and the North Celestial and Ecliptic Poles
7.3 Hipparchus and the Precession of the Equinoxes
7.4 Eratosthenes and the North Ecliptic Pole
7.5 Precession and Ancient Egypt
7.6 The Zodiac of Denderah
7.7 The Pole Star and the Flood
7.8 Seven Pole Stars: Precession and the Flood

Chapter 8 The Celestial Clock: The Astronomy of Ancient India 246

8.1 Setting the Scene: An Invented History
8.2 Dating the Texts: The Loss of the Sarasvati
8.3 The Dawn of Writing
8.4 The Phoenicians: The Cultural Bridge
8.5 The Antiquity of the Zodiac
8.6 Some Key Aspects of Ancient Indic Astronomy
8.7 Dhruvaloka [The Pole Star]
8.8 The Cosmic Axis
8.9 Srimad Bhagavatam: Planetary orbits and Noah

Chapter 9 The Indian Yugas 294

9.1 Introduction
9.2 The Moon and the Yugas
9.3 Conventional lengthy Yugas
9.4 Yugas: A Preliminary Investigation
9.5 30 Days and Noah
9.6 Divisions of Manu
9.7 Dating the Kali Yuga
9.8 Aryabhatta
9.9 Dating the Yuga Sequence
9.10 Historical support for the above Kali Yuga evaluation
9.11 The Polar skies and implications
9.12 A different interpretation
9.13 Kalki Visnuyasasa
9.14 Dating the Deluge
9.15 The Source of the Measures, factorial associations with the Yugas and further
linkage to 1056 and 31680

11
Chapter 10 Climate, Comets and Correlations 344
10.1 Calendars and Climatic Change in Antiquity
10.2 Meteors and Comets
10.3 Solar Input
10.4 Prabhasa an Early City
10.5 Siva and Linga
10.6 Climatic Changes recorded in ancient India
10.7 Climatic and Sea Level Change
10.8 The Great Sarasvati
10.9 Heavenly Bodies as Gods-With Human Attributes
10.10 The War of the Mahabharata-A Battle of the Gods
10.11 Fire in the Sky and the Deluge

Chapter 11 Creation, the Beast and the Flood 385

11.1 Biblical Creation and the Deluge
11.2 666: The Number of the Beast
11.3 Astronomical Visions in the Books of Daniel and Revelation

Chapter 12 Ideas of Creation- Ancient India, Egypt and a Chinese Noah 416
12.1 A Cyclical Celestial Deluge
12.2 Indian Creation
12.3 Noah: After the Deluge
12.4 The Great Bath of Mohenjo-Daro
12.5 Sumerian Creation
12.6 Phoenician Creation
12.7 Creation and the Gods of Ancient Egypt
12.8 Nü Wa Makes Men
12.9 Nü Wa Mends the Sky
12.10 Pangu Separates the Sky from the Earth

Chapter 13 Plato’s World-The Roots of Atlantis 439

13.1 Atlantis: Still an Icon
13.2 Plato 427/428 – 347/ 8 BC: Background and Early Life
13.3 Plato’s Atlantis
13.4 Loss of Knowledge, Earthquakes and Islands
13.5 The Pillars of Hercules
13.6 The Orichalcum Mystery
13.7 Etymology of Atlantis
13.8 History of a History
13.9 The Stellar Atlantis

12
Chapter 14 The Celestial Atlantis 478
14.1 A New Interpretation
14.2 Unravelling the numbers of Atlantis
14.3 The Dimensions of Heaven
14.4 Across 9,000 years
14.5 More Islands and a Continent
14.6 Plato’s Creation of Atlantis: Why?
14.7 Atlantis: Just another view of the Deluge

Chapter 15 Conclusion: Decoding the Deluge 501

Notes, References and Bibliography 510 - 547

13
 CHAPTER 1

The Great Deluge

‘Among all the traditions, there is none so general, so widespread on
Earth… as the flood traditions. …at the basis of all myths,
particularly nature myths, is a real fact…’

Riem J: 1925: Die Sinflut in Sage und Wissenschaft:

Hamburg: Agentur des Rauhen Haues: p.7

1.1 Worldmyths of a Great Flood

The Great Deluge, a flood that enveloped all the Earth, and left few survivors, is the
most prevalent of all legends around the world. A multitude of written texts from a wide range
of standpoints have attempted to explain the Deluge, ranging from one that regards it as a literal
truth, through various interpretations of natural disasters to the contrary view that no such event
ever happened. As author Rene Noorbergen commented in 1977:
‘Over the years approximately 80,000 books pertaining to the Deluge have been
written, in no less than seventy two languages-and these are only the ones that are traceable
through the card indexes of the great libraries of the world. Many more have undoubtedly
been written but never catalogued.’ 1
This is a vast amount of written text relating to a singular subject and it has obviously
greatly increased in volume since Noorbergen made his comment. Given such a large number
of works, it might logically be thought that there is at least some common thinking among the
diverse authorship regarding the event to which the tale of the Great Deluge may have been
referring. Strangely, there is not. However, it must be said that there is a consensus amongst
many modern researchers that worldwide flood mythology does relate to some mysterious real
event.
Such an agreement would suggest that a watery calamity once happened in the so-
called Cradle of Civilisation, in ancient Mesopotamia, a region that was comprised of what is
known today as parts of modern Iran and Iraq. However, this would not account for flood
myths from, for example, South America or Australia, and so the concept of a world flood
requires elucidation. The usual explanation for this is that it was the known world that was
flooded but if we take note of the widely spaced regions that were known via trade routes, this
once more is seen to be incorrect. Numerous researchers have taken this erroneous idea and in
an attempt to discover the source of the account in Genesis, have utilised it to analyse the flood
story from Mesopotamia, that which is to be found in the narrative of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
But while there are some commonalities to the Biblical event, those that have been utilised in
the past are outweighed by the parts that decidedly have no correspondence.

14
 In any case, this does not allow for the knowledge of far regions that undoubtedly did
exist among the traders of Mesopotamia. Hence, while most have turned to Mesopotamia,
specifically the Chaldean legend for enlightenment in this matter, in reality a far wider area
requires examination to arrive at the root of the mystery.
In reality there many more flood legends than countries [probably the best available
source is Mark Isaak’s website Flood Stories from Around the World] and while many portray
tsunamis or flooding rivers, some even liquefaction of the ground these scenarios do not apply
to the tales from the Middle East or India, the regions from where the primary legends emanate.
What we mean by primary legends are those that are best known, such as the story of
Noah in the Book of Genesis or the Epic of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia. There are
commonalities among the [mainly familiar] stories seen in Deluge but here we concentrate on
correspondences that have rarely been seen in any other book. The analysis of the Deluge
legends takes us from the descriptions in the Bible [and not merely of Noah and his Ark] to
Egypt [where a surprise awaits]. Mesopotamia and China have their legends which are
connected but India emerges as the major player. Ultimately we discover that Plato, in his tale
of Atlantis was telling exactly the same tale and following a description found in the annals of
India. The investigation looks to the meltdown at the end of the last ice age and to astronomy.
However, while the concept of thawing ice has appealed to other authors, the tale simply
doesn’t stop there because the old texts relate much more. In Deluge we reveal the cyclic
nature of floods as described in the Bible and the Indian texts, and while traditionally,
Egyptologists have stated there is no legend of a flood in that country, we prove that indeed,
there is, and that flood is not related to the annual Nile inundation.
The remainder of this initial chapter to Deluge forms a general introduction to a work
that utilises a completely new kind of methodology in the decipherment of religious myth.
Some idea of the highly varied content of its individual chapters is also interspersed within this
introductory text.
Regarding the story of a worldwide flood, religious and scientific interest in the
Biblical Deluge really began in the modern age in the 17th and 18th centuries. Later it was the
cause of much religious and secular debate by scholars in the scientific revolution that began in
the early years of the 19th century. This debate, which is examined in Chapter 2, was echoed
by some of the great artists of the time. It forms part of a wider argument regarding the literal
truth of the Biblical Deluge that is still believed by religious fundamentalists.
In Chapter 2 we assure the reader that there was no worldwide flood, with the
arguments being based upon sound science and not faith, and hence here the story really
commences. While evidence for the refutation of the flood scenario is quite easily obtainable,
this ease of discovery did not apply to the remainder of Deluge. However, the discoveries are
told as near as is feasible to the order in which they were made.
The revelations begin during a visit to the site of a geological anomaly in the shape of a
boat, at a location now known as Durupinar, high in the hills of modern Turkey [Figure 1.1],
where we start to delve into what will be unfamiliar territory.
In ancient times, this boat shaped object was widely known and revered as the vessel in
which the gods escaped what was described as a worldwide flood. The chronicler Berossus in
the third century BC wrote of people travelling to the site. So here is the source of the Ark on

15
the Mountains [plural] of Ararat. To confirm the location, in the Chaldean legend, the Ark set
down on a mountain called Nisir, a word that means ‘to present a sacrifice’ and the adjacent
village to this site carried the name of Nisir for thousands of years.

Fig.1.1 The boat-shaped anomaly at Durupinar

The name Nisir was changed to Uzengili in the 20 th century when an earthquake
revealed the ‘vessel’ and has since taken on the title of Durupinar after the Turkish flyer who
spotted the boat shaped formation from the air shortly afterwards. This boat shaped piece of
rock has major implications in flood mythology and its influence extends far beyond the
Chaldean or Biblical stories to appear in places where it has been gazed upon for hundreds of
years. However, researchers looking at representations of this ‘Ark’ had not made any
connections to the flood epic, that is, until the research for this specific work revealed what in
reality was quickly becoming obvious. One major question arising at this point was why did
the ancient builders replicate this odd shaped geological feature high in the Ararat hills in
various ways at the Giza Plateau, in Egypt [as is explained in Chapter 4]? Perhaps the
following gives some idea of how this may have occurred.
Considering archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence, it is accepted today that
many groups in ancient societies were highly mobile [albeit not at the speeds we accept as
normal today] and communicated with one another after travelling vast distances. Given that
this contact occurred, it can be seen that elements of local flood legends may have become
conjoined with a common story that has a singular root. In the case being examined here, it is
notable that the gods of Egypt sailed across the sky in a boat, immediately raising logical

16
questions regarding a possible connection between what was taken to be the Ark of Noah in the
Hills of Ararat and the gods of Egypt.
There is a second way of looking at this possibility. As is explained later in Deluge,
the Biblical story of the Flood in Genesis is an amalgam of the works of different people - an
original story was given an addition and then further altered by a later editor. This occurred
over a few hundred years however, and not by an immediate blending of different concepts. In
effect, in the Genesis version of events, we are seeing what is termed cultural diffusion, where
a basic idea or story is amended over time by other storytellers. To give a good example of
how this happens, an experience related in one of the many books by the famous astronomer
and populariser of science, the late Professor Carl Sagan, is reprised below.
Sagan related a tale about a Russian doctor who was studying the disease kuru, which
is spread by cannibalism. Dr. Gajdusek was confined in a communal longhouse with members
of the Fore people of New Guinea in 1957 for over two days of continual torrential rain.
The locals were passing the time by singing traditional songs. In between the Fore
people’s renditions, and in keeping with the communal mood, Dr. Gajdusek and his
companions took to singing traditional Russian songs. One of the songs was ‘Otchi chornye.’
This singing was apparently well appreciated as a few years later the doctor was again in the
South Fore region, but this time engaged in the collection of traditional indigenous music.
When asked to give a rendition of some of their local songs, a group of young men of the
district produced, to the amazement and amusement of Dr. Gajdusek, a recognisable, albeit
slightly altered version of ‘Otchi chornye.’ Many of the singers thought that it was a traditional
song of their own land and later he heard it sung much further afield where none of the singers
had any idea of its source.2 This typical example of the copying of a song could just as easily
have been a flood story. So indeed, there is evidence of the ability of ‘myths’ to be carried
across both time and culture. The question still remains, however, of the source of the ‘myth’.
It was clear in the above example that the later singers of the song, while they knew it quite
well, had no idea of its source.
Here a parallel can be made to the Bible in that those who read of the story of the flood
have no idea of its source other than it is in the Bible. Yet as already noted, this specific story
was not initially recorded in its familiar format in what became the book of Genesis. As these
examples clearly demonstrate compositions and hence texts become altered and adulterated
over time, sometimes quite innocently. Yet in our investigation into this ‘Ark’ of stone, we
discovered an accurate copying in Egypt that had not been distorted by erroneous information,
by additions or subtractions. Here we had a major puzzle that took a considerable time to
evaluate and it was not until we looked further afield that the answer became apparent.
So given that the flood story of Genesis is beginning to appear to have connections far
from its commonly perceived source, does it, in reality, have something to say, and if so, just
what may that be? Could it feasibly be that there was some great disaster in the form of a
Deluge? Or is this an exaggeration of a localised event or perhaps events or does the tale in
reality mean something entirely different?
Firstly, as is demonstrated in Chapter 2, there was no ‘World Deluge’ where the world
was covered by water [unless in the form of ice]. So how could this strange idea arise? This

17
contradiction in terms coupled with a search for its origins inevitably became the driver behind
the research for Deluge.

1.2 Real Floods: Humanity’s Enemy

Whilst flood legends appear in every continent, the virtual worldwide spread of the
generic story of the Deluge is not easily explained by cultural diffusion. These legends exist
amongst people who live by both the sea and inland by rivers and curiously also away from
likely flood locations, but it is notable that the sub-Saharan region has few flood legends,
perhaps due to the sparse population there. In addition, according to convention [later shown
to be incorrect] flood legends were not found in ancient Egypt. Possibly this idea is due to the
fact that there is a flood there every year, the so-called inundation of the Nile which deposits a
layer of nutrient-rich silt over the fields thereby keeping the valley fertile; conceivably a
beneficial flood. The annual Nile flood must be one of the very few inundations [other than the
regular Monsoon rains that assist in paddy field maintenance in the Far East] that is seen as
being of benefit to humankind. It is in stark contrast to most of the multitude of flood myths
from around the world, which some researchers claim has over 500 variations from different
regions.3
While many of these flood myths relate real disasters, others are as the Genesis
account, something of a mysterious sort of story. So we have to find a way to differentiate
between what is self evidently a terrestrial devastation and what may be a story relating to
something else entirely. Most of these flood tales, of whatever type, are usually of a sinister
nature, frequently leaving only a single couple to repopulate the Earth. So how does one
escape a flood? Essentially, there are but three methods, which in varying formats appear
among most of the flood myths of the world:

i) Using a boat to ride above the waters.

ii) Hanging on to a floating piece of debris.
iii) By climbing up a hill or mountain. [This is obviously not applicable to the
‘world flood’ scenario where ‘all the mountains’ were covered.]

In the case of Noah and his entourage, as with the Indian and Mesopotamian legends, a
large vessel was essential, as he not only had to keep everyone alive for a year; he also had to
take untold numbers of animals with him. [Note: the Bible is unclear about precise numbers
here and at one point contradicts itself regarding clean and unclean beasts.]
Numerous legends relate to the third option above which has no commonality with the
Deluge of Genesis. Hence, it is apparent that other factors come into play in these myths. One
of these issues is that many early cultures lived by the sea, or near large rivers.
Coastal regions can be affected by storm surges, as seen in the widespread flooding of
the East Coast of the United Kingdom after the storm surge of January 31 st and February 1st
1953 and more recently in the devastation of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in August
2005. It is to be noted that such surges cause more severe flooding when forced into localised
channelled regions such as gulfs, and indeed areas such as these were the last to see the

18
cessation of sea level increase at the end of the last Ice Age. Sea-level rise since the last Ice
Age undoubtedly affected coastal communities worldwide to a great degree, and some
commentators have correctly suggested that this raising of the oceanic water level is at the root
of Deluge mythology. However, there is far more to the myth of the Deluge than this, as we
shall endeavour to explain in the following chapters.
It was noted at a late stage in the development of Deluge that many of the dates
allotted by others to the flood were also close to the reported dates of real climatic disturbances.
This instigated further investigation and analysis of ancient textual material with surprising
results that correlate with modern research into past climate. In addition, given that there are so
many variations of the flood legend around the world, it was also thought prudent to examine
the major causes of such events. Firstly, undersea earthquakes, which do feature in many of the
legends, and volcanic eruptions in oceanic regions, can create tsunamis. Tsunamis in major
events typically appear as surges of water 10-40 feet in height, and can affect vast areas [in
constrained locations very much larger waves have been seen].
The world was recently reminded of the devastating power of the tsunami. On the
26th December 2004, after a major undersea earthquake off Sumatra, devastating tsunamis
affected many countries around the rim of the Eastern Indian Ocean and beyond, killing over
200,000 people and making millions homeless.
It is a fact that tsunamis of an order greater at least than those above could be caused
by other factors such as coastal rockslides. In particular, today, there is considerable concern
amongst scientists about one specific location that may be the cause of such a rockslide at some
time in the future.
Dr Simon Day, of the Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre at University College
London, UK, believes one flank of the Cumbre Vieja volcano on the island of La Palma, in the
Canaries archipelago, is unstable, and could plunge into the ocean. Swiss researchers who have
modelled the landslide say half a trillion tonnes of rock falling into the water all at once would
create a wave 650 metres high [2,130 feet] that would spread out and travel across the Atlantic
at high speed. The wall of water would weaken as it crossed the Atlantic Ocean, but would still
be 40-50 metres [130-160 feet] high by the time it hit land. The surge would create havoc in
North America as much as 20 kilometres [12 miles] inland. 4
While there are serious worries about Cumbre Vieja, the prime current suspect for
mega-tsunami events is thought by specialists in the field of astronomy, such as Victor Clube
and Bill Napier, to be meteorite strikes, a planetary danger that is now being increasingly
recognised by scientists. A major program - the Near-Earth Object Program has been set up
by NASA to track all those objects whose trajectories cross the Earth’s orbit and which are
large enough to cause serious damage at ground level if there was a collision. This is a real
threat – there have been at least four major impacts or near misses of the Earth in the last
century, the most notable of which was the meteorite that exploded over Tunguska in Siberia in
1908 [the effects of which are examined in Chapter 10]. Figure 1.2 reminds us that there have
been larger strikes than those impacts of the last century – an asteroid only 80 feet in diameter
created the Meteor Crater in Arizona, which is nearly a mile in diameter.5
Because 75% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water, it is three times more likely
that any large meteorite surviving its fiery journey through the atmosphere will hit the sea

19
rather than the land. This sort of event would obviously cause massive tsunamis on adjacent
coasts, and there is geological evidence for this in Earth’s distant past, for example in the USA
again, at Chesapeake Bay in Virginia. 6

Fig. 1.2 A reminder of the dangers coming from space – Meteor Crater in Arizona, USA. It
dates from 20,000 – 50,000 years ago.

The University of Santa Cruz in California has recently simulated what would happen
if the most dangerous (0.3% chance of impact) large asteroid that we know of, the
incongruously named 1950 DA, became the Lucifer’s Hammer7 of fiction. ‘Large’ in this
context is usually defined as greater than 500m in width, as scientific modelling suggests that
smaller impacts would be absorbed by the world’s oceans, without a tsunami forming. 1950
DA certainly meets this description, as it is a piece of rock two thirds of a mile [over 1 km and
hence twice the 500m classification] in diameter.
On the 16th of March 2880, 1950 DA will cross the path of Earth’s orbit at a relative
velocity of 38,000 miles an hour. The result of the simulation, which was set at 360 miles off
the USA Eastern seaboard, is related by Steven Ward, a researcher at the Institute of
Geophysics and Planetary Physics at UCSC. He claims that the explosion would be equivalent
to 60,000 megatons of TNT and would create an 11-mile diameter hole in the ocean all the way
to the bottom of its 3 mile depth, even blasting out some of the seabed. As water rushes back
into the cavity, waves form and spread out in all directions:

Two hours after impact, 400-foot waves reach beaches from Cape Cod to Cape
Hatteras, and by four hours after impact the entire East Coast has experienced waves at least

20
200 feet high. It takes 8 hours for the waves to reach Europe, where they come ashore at
heights of about 30 to 50 feet.’ 8

The prospect of enormous impact events such as this, and their associated tsunamis,
would obviously necessitate Meteorological Office flood warnings on the news channels of the
29th century. However, if a meteorite sufficiently large to create flooding on the scale described
in the Biblical flood legend actually did hit the Earth, it is unlikely that the story would have
survived in the fashion that it has. The waves would have been enormous, and as strange as it
may seem, tsunamis are not described in flood-myth texts. In addition, the impact of a meteor
sufficient to cause massive flooding would also create a phenomenal blast or shockwave, and
again there is no description of such an event in the ancient texts, lesser events yes, but not
something on the scale that would ensue from a large impact.
There is evidence of close encounters that did produce lesser blasts in Indian texts such
as the Mahabharata, in the description of the famous war between two tribes for example.
Other textual evidence from India clearly shows that meteor showers were commonplace long
before the time of dynastic Egypt. Indeed, there was a break-up of a specific comet a few
thousand years earlier, half of which, it is thought by astronomers, then formed the Taurid
meteor belt, still seen every year, but there is nothing to suggest that a meteor impact was the
cause of the Great Deluge or any other recorded flood event.
It should be remembered that in addition to the scenarios mentioned above there are
many others that need consideration when seeking the root source of flood legends around the
world. One example is the flooding of the Black Sea around 5600BC, an event which has been
suggested by some authors as the root source of Great Flood mythology, an idea that is rejected
in this work for reasons that will become apparent. Another scenario is excessive rainfall,
which obviously can create floods, in both the hinterlands of rivers and lakes, and this appears
to be happening more frequently in association with the so-called Global Warming in the
current era. If this is happening now, it also occurred in the past, as the present rapid climatic
change is far from an isolated incident, it has happened in the recent past as climatic graphs
reveal later in Deluge.
Rapidly changing climate, whether to a warmer or cooler regime alters weather patterns
and can cause excessive rainfall or drought depending upon one’s location. This has been
noted in the past. It occurred for example, during the cold period that resulted in the era
commonly known as the Little Ice Age of the 13th and 14th centuries AD. Stable climate
produces stable weather patterns but variable or changing climatic patterns have varying affects
upon the weather. One victim of this Little Ice Age cooling was the Viking colony in
Greenland, as because grain could no longer be grown there and the northern seaways became
clogged with ice, it had to be abandoned.
Consequently, from the above observations it is clear that in antiquity flooding must
have occurred for many different reasons in many different places and at many different times.
However, while inundation from the sea and earthquakes do feature in flood texts, giant waves
are not found in these stories. In fact, the most graphic ancient depiction of a flood is one that
many researchers incorrectly assume is the root of the Middle Eastern Great Flood stories, that
of the devastation of the ancient city of Ur in Chaldea. Here it appears that an unusual storm

21
surge backed up river floodwaters from mountains upstream, which then submerged the city.
In fact, the overall language of the Chaldean flood legend involving Khasisatra, where even
the ‘gods’ were terrified of a ‘waterspout’, [see the cover illustration of this book] is found to
be eerily similar to modern reports of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and its
associated outer tornadoes in 2005.
Regarding dating of flood events in antiquity, effectively very little comment can be
made in this direction because there is generally a lack of hard datable evidence with which to
work. If a legend of the ‘global flood’ variety clearly states that a specific region was
inundated, then it would be worth core drilling the vicinity and obtaining datable evidence.
Otherwise floods are such a common occurrence over the millennia that while disastrous as
they may be, they do not warrant, except in specific circumstances, any special archaeological
investigation. For example, one Canadian Native legend claims that the flood occurred ‘before
the cold came down from the North’ which could apply to the aforesaid Little Ice Age of the
Middle Ages or to a down turn in climate seen thousands of years before, around 2500 –
3000BC. Without a precise location to investigate, one merely has the legend and that may
have been adulterated by including a climatic element imported from another tribe in a different
region.
The impact of cultural diffusion can therefore make the study of flood mythology a
very precarious exercise, as was implied earlier. Nonetheless, while there may well be
problems with dating legends such as the North American myth mentioned here, some of the
Indic stories are in a different category. We shall reveal that there are direct correspondences
between climatic change seen in ice cores from Greenland and changes recorded in Indian
legends dating to between 5000-7000 years ago. These dates, which are again verified by
astronomical analysis, confirm not only the aptitude of the seers of India in those far off days,
but also, via the notation in the associated texts, that the unique analysis seen in this work of the
long-term flood myth-related calendar count of the Indian Yugas, which stretch, supposedly,
into millions of years, is in fact correct.
Flood myths and legends around the world are thought by numerous secular
researchers to relate to a major flood that occurred just before the start of recorded history.
This period is commonly termed the dawn of civilisation and is normally dated to about
3000BC. In addition, many Biblical scholars, from a variety of viewpoints ranging from the
scholarly to the fundamentalist, have placed the date of Noah’s flood to about 3400BC.
It is fair to say however, in summarising the views from many disciplines, that the
period 3400–3200BC is generally seen to be the consensus target dating range although there is
another school of fundamentalist thought that places the flood at 2439BC. In reality, a host of
varying dates have been put forward for the flood event. Some of these dates were collected by
Astronomer Royal for Scotland Piazzi Smyth towards the end of the 19 th century, when he was
writing his pyramid works, which as will become evident later in Deluge is an intriguing
connection. To Smyth’s list, one can add the date used by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation
to which they adhere very strictly [2370BC] and the date used by the Jewish faith of 2104BC.
These are only a few of the many dates applied to this event. There are, however, only
two dates that are of importance to this work. As will be explained in Chapter 10, both of these
dates are to be found in Genesis, where it is found that the Deluge occurred during in the 600th

22
year of Noah’s life and he was born in the year 1056 after Creation. Therefore, the Deluge
occurred 1656 years after Creation, a key element of the analysis that is revealed later in
Deluge. These year counts, from Creation to Noah to the Flood, will be seen to be of key
importance in deciphering the myth of the Great Flood and it will be seen later that the concept
emanating from these recorded values is far from confined to the Bible, but occurs in other
ancient cultures.

Table 1.1 A Summary of Sources and Flood dates from Piazzi Smyth 9

Septuagint, Alexandrine (Kitto's Palestine) 3246 (All BC)

Jackson 3170
Hales 3155
R.Stuart Poole (Smiths Bible Dictionary) 3129
Samaritan (Kitto’s Palestine) 2998
W. Osbourne (Monumental History of Egypt) 2500
Elliot’s Horae Apocalyticae 2482
Browne's Ordo Saeclorum 2446
Playfair 2351
Ussher 2348
Petavius (Smiths Bible Dictionary) 2372

Is there any climatic evidence that alludes to a major, or to worldwide climatic

disturbance during this period of some 1000 years that may have instigated the concept of the
Deluge, or reminded the peoples of the time of some other, more ancient event? Researcher
Richard L. Meehan of Stanford University in the United States has collected a considerable
amount of evidence for a major worldwide climatic disturbance around 3200BC and another
that is evidenced most strongly in the Mediterranean region around 2400-2200BC at the start of
the European Bronze Age.10
The name given to the former climatic event is the Piora Oscillation after the Piora
Valley in Europe where the first evidence was discovered via pollen analysis. The evidence
indicates a fluctuating cold episode. This colder episode lasted only about four centuries, but it
left traces from the mountains of Kenya to Alaska and the Columbian Andes. Effectively, it
was a global change that marked the end of the stable, warm, postglacial epoch that is known
today as the Atlantic period.11
Some researchers, such as Professor Fekri Hassan of The University College of London
suggest that it was this climatic downturn that spurred the so-called Dawn of Civilisation,
around 3000BC:
‘A major event of abrupt global climatic cooling associated with a significant shift in the
Intertropical Convergence Zone at 4500-4400 radiocarbon years before present (3300-2900
cal BC) played a major role in the origins of the world earliest state civilisations. The shift in
the ITCZ triggered droughts in river valleys where agriculture had been previously adopted… 12

23
 It is suggested by Hassan that this disastrous situation forced communities to work together
to conserve their meagre food supplies and thereby, to maintain stocks and fair distribution,
created the concept of central control or government.
Within a very short period, there emerged the commencement of the Maya calendar in
America, the onset of the first dynasty of Egypt, the rise of the Mesopotamian societies plus the
building of stone monuments such as Stonehenge in Britain and the Carnac Rows in France.
These all commenced approximately 100 years before 3000BC, a time associated with the
Piora Oscillation and its climatic change, a change that would have commenced with
unpredictable conditions with severe flash floods [such as the flood at Ur mentioned earlier]
interspersed with droughts before settling down to a general drought era.
Another element here is what is known as the Indus Valley civilisation in India, which
begun its growth at the end of the 4th millennium BC. However, it should be noted that this is
misleading because what is of far greater importance is that this period marked the downturn of
a greater civilisation in India, that which formed far earlier on the banks of the now lost
Sarasvati river. Modern research clearly shows that it was from here that much in the way of
learning spread. Effectively the source streams of the Sarasvatio were lost due to geological
upheaval in the Himalayan foothills and these now contributed to the Ganges. The Sarasvati
ceasing to be a navigable river by 3000-3100BC, not due to climatic change, but due to the
geological upheaval that coincidentally occurred at the onset of the Piora Oscillation epoch. By
3000BC, the lower reaches of this former large river were little more than a small stream and a
thousand years later the Sarasvati, once known as the ‘Goddess of Rivers’ petered out into the
desert ‘40 days horse ride’ from the sea. Events associated with this river are critically related
to the dating of Indian texts. Prior to the geological effects however, the river was lessened by
a change in monsoon patterns that persisted for circa 500 years from about 4000BC. [ See
Jayant K. Tripathi1 et al, 2004,Is River Ghaggar, Saraswati? Geochemical constraints.
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 87, NO. 8, 25 OCTOBER 2004] This is thought by many to be
the primary cause but when monsoons returned the river should have reappeared…it did not.
So earlier geological research that implied upheaval is re visited and a combination of a lesser
upheaval that diverted springs and streams but not the whole river is combined with the
monsoon effect and we have the solution to the question of the loss of the Sarasvati. Its feeding
waters are now flowing into the Yamuna [a large Ganges tributory]and the Ganges. In fact it
has now been ascertained that the Sarasvati [almost certainly also known as the Ghaggar] was
not fed by glacial water from high in theHimalayan Mountains but by streams and springs,
among the lower hills. It was these that were lost to the river. This was the most sacred
watercourse in India but since the loss to the Ganges, this river has taken over that role with the
juction of Yamuna and Ganges being the most sacred watery location of all.
So at this point, it can be said that there is at least a possibility that real events
associated with water have a relationship with the myth of the Great Deluge. Nonetheless, the
climatic event that has created such debate among historians and archaeologists was seemingly
repeated around 2300BC when the stone structures constructed at that time in Europe were
changed in style. Once more, there was a down turn in climate, thought by many to have been
caused by a comet.

24
 Yet in Deluge, we very clearly show that such events were experienced and recorded in
India, millennia before Egypt became a viable nation. These events are so accurately recorded
that they comply virtually to the year with the unique Yuga evaluation seen later in Deluge.
This argument, as noted earlier, is further reinforced by the results of ice core research into
ancient climate. As climatic variation forms a key part of the evidence of the evaluation, we
also demonstrate that contrary to much modern opinion, such deviation is not created by
comets, except as with volcanoes, in the very short term, but is a natural phenomenon with a
totally different cause.

1.3 The Revelations of Deluge

In recent years there have been a number of best-selling fictional and non-fictional
books that claim to have discovered hidden ‘codes’ in the Bible. These have been
supplemented by suggestions that the true meaning of such codes along with much other ‘secret
knowledge’ is known by senior elements of modern Freemasonry, information that has been
handed down by their forebears. Millions of readers have mainly enjoyed such works, but have
been left a little ‘let-down’ at the end with the knowledge that the ‘revelations’ therein are
either fictional or highly disputed by academics.
Deluge treads a similar path, one that attempts to decipher the hidden messages in
religious texts, but is different in that it succeeds in a fully verifiable way that can be checked
by any reader. Deluge clearly shows why the subjects of the work, the perennially fascinating
tales of the Biblical Flood and the loss of Plato’s Atlantis, both stories having worldwide
interest, have not been understood in recent centuries, although countless numbers of people
have been attempting to comprehend both legends. The answers to many questions
surrounding both subjects are to be found in Deluge, including the common origin of both
mythologies. Here it is the unusual method of approach that has proved to be successful.
Let us state quite clearly here that the flood stories of the books of the primary religions
are not making reference to the climatic changes that occurred circa 2200BC, 2800 BC or 3300
BC. All of these events have been suggested at various times to be the root of the flood tales
but Deluge shows very clearly that this is not the case. The base for the flood of the religious
texts predates any of these events.

1.4 A New Approach

Along with conventional historical and archaeological studies, this work has employed
a numeric study of mythology. Here is meant that in addition to astronomy, which in many
mythological tales plays a large part, one of the prime methodologies has been the use of
ancient metrology or measurement systems. It is by such numerical means that much had been
hidden in the myths of long ago and by the same method, these stories have been unravelled.
Some of the ancient measurement units [and not so ancient as shall be seen] while mainly
utilised for practical purposes, were also seen as symbolic and frequently utilised in a
metaphorical or allegorical manner in what today are termed religious texts. There is a very
good reason for this, the involved numerical counts were also of great astronomical value.

25
 An axiom utilised in the overarching two volume project behind Deluge, which has
been given the working title Megalith, Masonry, Myth and Measure, is that one cannot ‘read
between the lines’ of numbers. A measurement or numerical value is a fixed entity, it is
deliberately created and utilised for a purpose and, unlike text, such a value cannot be spelt
incorrectly and hence allude to something different to the original intention, nor can it have two
meanings. The importance of that axiom is seen throughout Deluge.
Regarding this use of measurements, the initial investigation, commenced many years
ago by Harry Sivertsen ably assisted by his wife Gillian, was into the early use of measurement
units. This successfully extended the work of John Michell whose book The New View Over
Atlantis,13 the catalyst of the exploration, revealed perfect correlations between various ancient
measures and Earth dimensions.

1. 5 A Simple Ancient Measurement System

The British foot, as we all know, has only recently faded from general use, although the
imperial system is still used in the USA and sheets of plywood in imperial sizes were recently
still being manufactured in Britain. However, for our purposes the British foot is merely a
convenient title, as it is but one of the roots of a dimensional system that stems from far back
into prehistory. Similarly, for convenience, Michell devised the names Egyptian, Greek and
Roman for a variety of units [each with ‘long’ and ‘short’ values], which are also very ancient
units of measure. However, the names have no specific relationship to these locations the titles
are merely for identification purposes and have no geographical implications.
The measures were, effectively, universal and they all relate, as does the British
Imperial System, to the sexagesymal system of counting. They were used in the construction
of buildings both ancient and mediaeval [hence some of the evaluations can be physically
checked] and, as noted above, elements are to be found within mythical tales. Given that these
units relate in sets, e.g. cubits, reeds etc [details below] to other sets, we have termed each of
these families of units a dimension set. In his book All Done With Mirrors John Neal14 expands
the number of sets to around 20 or more and demonstrates their connections in tabular form.
He claims that the British foot is the root unit with all others connected by a factorial value. In
some cases, the relationship is more complex but we have no need to delve into the
complexities of this in Deluge, we shall show that the basic measurement system, that which
has been uncovered in religious myth and other places, is very simple. To elucidate the basic
conclusions of John Michell we need only explain the following. Note that that the names of
the units, such as Roman or Greek, do not indicate a source but are merely titles for
identification purposes.
The two values [Long and Short] for each measurement unit were connected via the
factors 175 / 176. The units of Roman and Greek connect via the factor 24 / 25 or 0.96.
Increasing from the Greek value with its mile length of 5068.8 British feet by the same factor,
one finds the British mile of 5280 feet and from here, an increase of 1.090909 reveals the 5760
British feet of the Egyptian mile.
Generically, there were normally 5000 feet to the mile with a cubit being one and half
feet, a step two and half feet [a double step is a pace] and a reed six cubits. A cubit has 6

26
handbreadths or 24 digits [or fingers]. Occasionally a ‘cubit and a handbreadth’ is seen where
seven standard cubits make up the reed instead of the usual six and the cubit has the stated 7
handbreadths and therefore 28 digits. An 18inch British cubit as a base measure with the
addition of a handbreadth would therefore be increased to 21 inches or 1.75 feet.
Here we enlarge a little upon Michell’s work. Stadia, a Greek measure, were 500 or
600 feet. 600 Sumerian feet of 1.1 British feet make up the English furlong of 660 British feet
as does 625 times 1.056 British feet. [We should note here that the value of 1056 does not
appear in Michell’s work, it was initially revealed in Genesis.] 1.056 / 1.1 = 0.96, [a
relationship of 24/25 noted by Michell] which is a factor much seen in ancient measurement.
[This is due to being a factor between varying time counts and not as contended by both
Michell and Neal related to divisions of the meridian circumference of Earth.]
With a foot at 1.1, the cubit becomes 1.65 feet and therefore ten cubits equate as 16.5
feet. Hence, there is a relationship between the Sumerian units and the old English measure of
rod, pole or perch, which was 16.5 feet. A step in this Sumerian sequence was 2.75 feet and
was known as a shusi15. The associated dimension set was utilised greatly in and around
Sumeria and India along with, of course, other related units. [Note: This Sumerian measure of
1.1 British feet is claimed logically by Neal to be Saxon, although the measures were not tied to
any region; the Short Egyptian unit is to be found in Bronze Age Denmark for example and the
units we have termed Sumerian have been identified there and in India.]
Our British furlong and the value 1056 are also found at a number of places within the
Bible, not to mention locations in Egypt and elsewhere. The number 1056 whether as a
measure or a factor will itself be seen later to be of crucial importance in the ancient world and
specifically in the story of the Deluge.
There is sufficient information here to enable the reader to understand the machinations
of the ancient systems and to cross check, if so desired, the results of the investigation seen on
the following pages. The only tool required is a pocket calculator preferably that extends to 10
digits and uses floating-point notation. [Authors Note: In this work, some of the measurement
units denoted by Michell will emerge, but primarily values derived from the Bible will be seen.
These measures predate the writing of the Bible by millennia and it will be observed that they
came from an entirely unexpected region. The history of measures however, along with
numerous examples and suggestions for further investigation is seen in Measurements of the
Gods, volume 2 of the series.]

1.6 The Decimal Element

It will be noted from the above explanations and seen throughout Deluge, that all
recorded measurements are in decimal format. Conventionally, the decimal system was not
developed until relatively late, shortly before the time of Christ, and was exported from India.
However, evidence indicates that a decimal numerical system existed much earlier in India, at
around 3000BC within the Harrapan culture of the Indus Valley. Here a series of weights has
been discovered with ratios of 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 and 500. Scales
utilising similar concepts have also been found. Hence, the concept of decimalisation appears
to be far older than convention would allow.

27
 Most of the measurements seen in this book reflect a symbolic value and here it will be
seen that decimal points can be moved to suit the occasion, with the prime entity being the
numeric value. As an example, the diameter of Earth is seen as 7920 British miles. This can be
represented as 7.92 feet, 792 feet or 792 million feet, or, most appropriately, with the land
surveyors measuring chain of 792 inches or the 22 yards of the cricket pitch; the representation
is identical.
The numerical picture in these figures is of prime importance with the position of the
decimal point acting as a numerator. Given that counting in tens can be seen to date to at least
3000BC, there should therefore be no argument with the use of decimals for representative
values. It will additionally be seen that even though it is well known that the primary Egyptian
system was of a fractional nature, the same units and measurement systems that were in use in
antiquity in India also applied to Egypt, demonstrating that decimals were a widespread
methodology.

1.7 A Cyclical Event - In The Skies

The ensuing chapters explain in irrefutable detail that the events to which the flood
myths refer are not terrestrial but celestial. Deluge achieves the revelations contained within its
15 chapters using many scientific arguments; however, some of the key discoveries came not
from astronomy but from Biblical mythology and an application of metrology. This very
unusual methodology proved to be highly revealing and instructive regarding much that has
remained hidden until now. Effectively, these allegorical stories or myths were relaying what
in those far off days we would today term ‘science’ and valuable information was handed down
in story format to ensure it would not be lost. In Deluge, we view a ‘myth’ as a means of
relaying fact, a method of communication that is not understood in the modern era and this
viewpoint has enabled us to reveal that elements of the myth of the Great Flood, the primary
subject of Deluge, reverberate throughout the Bible. This is especially true in the Book of the
Revelation of St John where we find that even the infamous ‘Number of the Beast’ is a further
part of the same story. The arguments related to this are reinforced and verified by verses from
other locations in the Bible.
This, as may be guessed, is only a small part of the overall story of the Deluge and we
have to travel back through ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt and on to India to obtain the full
picture.
The investigation not only looks at Flood mythology, but because they are an
intimately related subject, additionally involves an examination of creation myths, specifically
those of Egypt, where there are also to be found direct and very specific numerical correlations
with the Biblical flood story.
We noted earlier that there is a representation at the Giza Plateau of the Durupinar
anomaly, the ‘stone boat’. It is revealed for the first time in this work that there is an irrefutable
mathematical representation of the Durupinar geological anomaly, the model for the Genesis
version within the Great Pyramid. This pyramid’s predecessor, the lesser known but equally
impressive Red Pyramid at Dashur has additional highly accurate internal numerical
correlations with the Ark of Noah, as in a less significant fashion do other pyramids. Further

28
important numerical connections with the Genesis model of the Ark can also be seen at the
funerary boat of Khufu [Figure 1.3] and to some extent at the Great Sphinx.

Fig. 1.3 Khufu’s Solar or Funerary Boat

Such discoveries can only be made with knowledge of ancient metrology, which
explains why others have failed to grasp the meanings of many of the Biblical writings and why
archaeologists have only rarely comprehended important astronomical symbolism in the
structures that they unearth.
The numerical values relate to measures both linear and calendrical with the latter
being as implied, of a cyclical nature. This, as noted, is where we find the real story of
Creation and the Flood, in cyclical events in the skies and it will become evident that
knowledge of the observed heavens was far greater in the distant past than historians would
have us believe.
The same metrological and calendrical picture was utilised by Plato for his Atlantis tale
and he gives a date for its ‘demise’ that further reinforces the hypothesis in Deluge. Regarding
Atlantis, in common with a number of other authors we follow the work of Professor Stephen
Oppenheimer. Here we are looking to a time when the Sunda shelf of South Asia succumbed
to rising sea levels at the end of the last Ice Age, but more than that, there is an essential
astronomical point that appears to have escaped the attention of other researchers. This is an

29
era that corresponded to the time when both Vega and Canopus left their proximity to the North
and South Celestial Pole positions. Simultaneous with the inexorable rise of water, these
highly visible direction-giving stars moved away from their allotted positions in the heavens.
The further that these stars moved from the celestial poles the higher crept the waters of the
coastal regions and of course the oceans of the world.
Given that Sundaland and by Sundaland we mean in general the region between Hong
Kong and Borneo and the waters to north and south, was essentially a very flat region, the
flooding here meant that the tide line was continually encroaching what was previously dry
land, that people were forced from their places of habitation. In folk memory, this was a
disaster.
But as noted, it was a cyclical disaster, an event that coincided by pure chance with the
movements of the Pole Stars. This is the cycle, the ‘flood calendar’ of a canonical 3600 years
that is related in a number of ancient texts, including Genesis, the discovery of which is
detailed in Deluge.
While the descriptions found in the religious texts relate a cyclical event in the heavens,
it is Plato who reveals the story of a terrestrial flood [and according to his dating, this was
Sundaland] while simultaneously describing what was happening in the skies. The date he
gives of 9000 years before his time was after the demise of Vega but when Pole Star Tau
Hercules had yet to gain proximity to the polar regions, or as most translations from the archaic
Greek state, before the pillars of Hercules. This is not a direction in relation to the Straits of
Gibraltar as most have assumed. It was in reality relating to a time before the constellation
Hercules with the Pole Star Tau Hercules took its place in the Northern skies, a time when that
constellation was still beneath the waves of the Celestial Ocean, which, according to Genesis
1:6-7, is above the heavens. Plato even designed his city layout of Atlantis to comply, as close
as canonical measurements would allow, with the circles formed by the revolving stars of the
constellation when Tau Hercules was at the Pole. The dimensions utilised once more are
related to those given in the book of Genesis.
Reflecting the cyclical nature of the Deluge, there are two dates given in the Bible for
the flood event. One complies with the arrival of Tau Hercules at 8100BC, which would
signify creation with the ensuing flood being 1000 years later at 7100BC and the other at a later
date of 2300BC.
The earlier date complies with the Biblical story of Noah’s offspring building up the
Middle East as that celestial flood did not end until 3300BC with the arrival of Thuban in the
northern skies. The latter date, which is the calculated year of the onset of the next flood
epoch, 500 years after Thuban reached its culmination at 2800BC, is when there is a perfect
correlation of specific astronomical events. These events will be seen to give the time of year
of the flood as described in Genesis to the day.
Part of this exploration, of necessity, has been into the realms of ancient Indian and
Egyptian astronomy and this links to the extensive Indic time periods known as the Yugas.
Once more, we discover elusive, albeit direct connections to the Great Flood story that
ultimately reveal links between a monthly calendar and a long-term count of two precessional
cycles of Seven Pole Stars each.

30
 Here is revealed an astronomical date during, using our modern western calendar, the
month of May in the year 6681BC that was discovered in the Indian epic, The Mahabharata.
This specific date, when utilised with other calendrical concepts discovered during the course
of the investigation, complies to the day with the traditional date for the Kali Yuga of 3102BC
as announced by Indian astronomer and mathematician Aryabhatta, in 499AD.
The calculations here give a Yuga period of 3976 years that via further calendrical
values connect directly not only to the flood story but also to the traditional canonical Yuga
count of 12000 years or 432 million years, dependent upon which evaluation one prefers.
Links are then seen to flood associated dates given in the book of Revelation. Hence, there is a
correlation of dating given by Indian and Biblical texts not seen in any other work. This is a
correlation that it is difficult to refute because the events described are not merely mythical
stories as so many have stated in the past, but are, in fact, datable astronomical events. In part,
the reason for this misunderstanding is because the Yugas have not been fully explained
previously, even in modern Indian works. In this book that omission is rectified.

1.8 The Second Ark and Solomon’s Temple

There are two Arks mentioned in the Bible and an evaluation of the second of these, the
Ark of the Covenant, reveals a further untold but important part of the story, an element that
would not emerge without the use of the simple metrological methodology applied.
The central character of the Biblical flood story, Noah, has Manu as his Indian
counterpart. Manu is an inherent part of the Yuga construct who plays a far more important
role in Indian lore than Noah apparently does in the Bible. However, Deluge reveals that the
description of the rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple in the book of Ezekiel tells of a direct
connection to the role that Manu plays in Indian myth. This facet of mythology is only seen
when the metrological values utilised by Ezekiel are understood. The evaluation also explains
a number of mysterious mediaeval depictions of Noah’s Ark, where there appears to be a stone
temple inside the vessel [for example in Figure 1.4] although in this depiction we see, in
addition to a structure that emphatically does not belong on a sea going vessel, a reference to a
menagerie of animals plus some oversized human faces.
Also relating to Solomon’s Temple we unearthed some intriguing information derived
from a ‘secretive’ source and look briefly to the concept of esoteric information and the
‘society with secrets’, the Freemasons. It is well known that this organisation claims to have its
roots at the building of Solomon’s Temple. A clue to the idea that much may be allegorically
hidden in the ceremonies associated with their various degrees is seen in the fact that the Royal
Masonic Cyclopaedia terms the brethren ‘The Descendents of Noah’. There is undoubtedly
more to this than meets the eye, specifically as a further claim is that the Freemasons have the
‘the oldest of all religious systems, dating from time immemorial’. This is a description that we
apply to the religion of the Indian peoples of old, the belief systems that developed into what is
today termed Hinduism, the compilation of stories that relayed science in a ‘mythical’ format
as the knowledge stems from a period long before the invention of writing. Hence this
description from the Masonic Brethren would certainly comply with the concept of their

31
religion ultimately stemming from very early Indian concepts as this is ‘the oldest of all
religious systems, dating from time immemorial’.

Fig. 1.4 Mediaeval Dutch depiction of Noah’s Ark (c1350AD)

Leaving the numerous facets of Shamanism out of the picture in this work, we are on
safe ground when we state that Hinduism is by far the oldest religion on Earth, if indeed
religion is the correct word for the early learning, with no conception of its origination except
that it predates any recorded events.

1.9 The Deluge and Atlantis

To expand on the comments above, the novel metrological and astronomical analysis
used to ‘prise apart’ the mythology of the Deluge does not end with the tale of Noah and his
Indian counterpart Manu.
In a somewhat unusual extension to the subject area normally covered in Great Flood-
related works, Plato’s lost Atlantis is examined in a similar vein. This is another legend that
involves an inundation that again is featured in a massive number of modern texts, well over
70,000 by the 1970’s alone, according to the number of United States library of Congress
entries at the time. However, the tale from Plato only has a singular source, and that dates to
about 2,400 years ago. The story of Atlantis as described in the works - The Timaeus and The
Critias, relates a great island civilisation that was destroyed in a single day and a night
supposedly some 9,000 years before the time of Plato.

32
 It might logically be thought that the two legends – the world myth of the Deluge and
Plato’s Atlantis - have been related to each other, but in general, they have not and this is
presumed to be because the two stories relate to different epochs in the pre-history of mankind.
The Great Deluge, as is most famously depicted in the Biblical story in the Book of Genesis,
the story of Noah and his great Ark, is usually thought by religious, and some secular scholars
to relate to an event that happened in the late 4 th or 3rd millenniums BC. If the story that Plato
describes is to be taken literally, then it would have happened over 11,000 years ago, near the
end of the last Ice Age, and so there is a generally accepted time difference between the two
mythical events of some 6,000 years.
As with the story of the Deluge, the legend of Atlantis started to attract scholar’s
attention in the 17th and 18th centuries. Notable examples of this interest are the writer Francis
Bacon with his book The New Atlantis in 1626AD, and Jesuit priest Athanasius Kircher’s
‘map’ of Atlantis in 1665AD. A correspondingly apocalyptic view of Atlantis, in a similar vein
to the Deluge, was provided by artists like Desiderio, at around the same time.
However, was not until the publication in 1882 of Ignatius Donnelly’s Atlantis: the
Antediluvian World, that the public’s interest was captured. The allure of the story has
remained ever since.
In recent times, there have been numerous ideas regarding the location of the sunken
Atlantis, an island, the population of which, as with other paradisiacal locations in myth,
suffered a breakdown of morals and eventually succumbed to a similar fate to that of Eden in
Genesis. This focus on moral order reminds us of Plato’s Laws where he describes what he
imagined as an ideal society and city-state. Interestingly, the numerical ideals utilised by Plato
in Laws appear to have values of a cosmological nature.
This raises the possibility that the Atlantis story too has a more allegorical basis than is
usually suggested and perhaps there may be astronomical information hidden within this
complex tale. Interpretation is the key to Plato’s text as all of the theories regarding the
whereabouts of Atlantis involve some re-interpretation of the story in order to fit the respective
author’s ideas. However, none of these interpretations satisfyingly explains all the aspects of
Plato’s story.
One key aspect of the debates about Atlantis concerns the etymology, or source of its
name. This element of the puzzle was satisfactorily explained some 100 years ago by a famous
Egyptologist of the day, Gerald Massey and was demonstrated to be an invention of Plato. In
fact, the source of the name can be seen in modern Greece today, just as it was seen in ancient
Egypt, although from an etymological point of view it has an Old Kingdom Egyptian root.
Also demonstrated in the latter chapters of Deluge is an overlooked correlation to ancient
Egyptian mythology that again reinforces Massey’s ideas. In some ways, we here see a mirror
of the Deluge construct, but from other viewpoints this is not the case, as Massey was unaware
of modern archaeological knowledge and did not appreciate ancient metrology.
It is necessary to understand the numerology and astronomical connotations of the
Biblical Flood and its counterparts in other regions as a precursor to the singular analysis of
Plato’s Atlantis in Deluge, therefore, its investigation is left to the penultimate chapters. The
evaluation of the Atlantis myth seen here is completely in harmony with the flood legends of

33
the Middle East and India and additionally shows why Plato chose to write the story,
illustrating the reasons for its inclusion in what primarily is a book of science, The Timaeus.

1.10 A Verifiable Hypothesis

To conclude this introductory chapter it is safe to say that to the best of the author’s
knowledge there is much in Deluge that has not been seen in any other work to date. Yet there
is very little content throughout the work that cannot be verified by the reader. All is fully
referenced; the mathematics, which has been kept to a minimum is all very basic involving
nothing more complicated than multiplying and dividing while the astronomical element is
again simple with line maps accompanying the text.
Those with one or more of the numerous astronomy programmes available today, such
as Skymap, [written by Chris Marriott and extensively utilised in Deluge.] can easily verify all
the claims made in Deluge.
We begin this new analysis of Great Flood mythology down here on Earth however. In
the next chapter, is seen an examination of the fundamentalist view of the ‘Whole Earth’ being
once covered by the waters of the Deluge. This is actually possible – but no-one would survive
to tell the tale.

34
 CHAPTER 2

The Whole World under Water?

…the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.
Genesis:7:20 Revised Standard version
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Genesis:7:20 King James Version
The uncertain multitude is divided by contrary opinions.
Virgil

Fig.2.1 Detail of the Universal Flood by Michaelangelo 1508-1512 AD

2.1 The 19th Century; Geology v Genesis

As stated earlier, the myth of a Great Deluge, a flood that enveloped all the Earth, and
left few survivors, is the most prevalent of all legends around the world. If we leave aside the
many stories which are obviously relating only a local event, devastating as it may have been,
there can only be one of two reasons for this phenomenon. Either there really was a worldwide

35
global flood, or the legends relate to a single common source from somewhere around the
globe.
It might be thought that due to modern scientific knowledge, the former idea could be
easily discounted. However, today there are still many people of the Jewish, Christian and
Islamic faiths who fervently believe the concept of the Universal Flood to be absolutely true
and go to great lengths to further that idea. There are those who take a third view, the so-called
atheist view, that questions the idea that any sort of flood happened at all, and which says the
whole story or stories are a complete invention. This may be true, but that invention is a
singular one and the question to be answered is where, or rather what, was the common source.
Answering this conundrum is the focus of Deluge. In addition, the concept of a Universal
Flood exists in other faiths outside the three mentioned above and hence there has to be some
sort of common denominator, a root source that was utilised by the instigators of the myth.
[Authors note: In this work, a myth is seen a record of real events written in a fashion not
understood as such in the modern world.]
As there are countless people around the world who claim that the Deluge was a global
event as the description in the Genesis account is thought to describe, then some explanation of
why this was not so is required before we go further in assessing other interpretations of the
legend. The history of the so-called ‘creationist debate’ and some of the key scientific
arguments against the concept are examined later in this chapter. However, it will be found in
the following chapter that in part, this analysis, and all the heated debate about the literal truth
of the Deluge, is not really necessary, as the Genesis account regarding the depth of floodwater
in every translation since the King James Version has been misunderstood.
We begin Deluge proper, therefore, by conducting in the remainder of this chapter an
examination of the basic tenet of those who believe in the literal truth of the Biblical Flood, the
idea that the whole Earth was once covered by its waters.
The dating of the Deluge became part of Christian scholar’s attempts to date the
Creation from Biblical texts in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Up until this time,
Christians had generally believed that the Earth and all species had been created by God in six
days, as recorded in the Biblical Book of Genesis. Specifically, in 1658, Archbishop Ussher of
Armagh had calculated that this took place in 4004 BC, making the Earth about 6000 years old.
The creationist Henry Morris explains the historical background in terms of geology at the
time:

‘In the early days of geology, especially during the 17th and 18th centuries, the
dominant explanation for the sedimentary rocks and their fossilized contents was that they had
been laid down in the great Flood of the days of Noah. This was the view of Steno, the "father
of stratigraphy", whose principles of stratigraphic interpretation are still followed today, and
of John Woodward, Sir Isaac Newton’s hand-picked successor at Cambridge, whose studies on
sedimentary processes laid the foundation for modern sedimentology and geomorphology.
These men and the other flood geologists of their day were careful scientists, thoroughly
acquainted with the sedimentary rocks and the geophysical processes that formed them. In
common with most other scientists of their day, they believed in God and the divine authority of

36
the Bible. Evolution and related naturalistic speculations had been confined largely to the
writings of social philosophers and rationalistic theologians.’ 1

This religious debate actually provided the spur to the development of modern geology,
as a major word-wide flood event would leave a ‘scar’, and one that should be traceable
worldwide. Consequently, the study of rocks and fossils became increasingly popular during
the latter part of the 18th century and first half of the 19th century and the existence of
thousands of extinct species became apparent. William Smith, the so-called 'father of English
geology', began to work out the relative ages of rock strata from the characteristic fossils they
contained. The evidence could not be explained by a ‘Great Flood’, nor by the series of similar
catastrophes proposed later by Cuvier and Buckland. In addition, theories challenging the
traditional view of the age of the Earth were put forward in the late 18th century by French
naturalist Buffon, German geologist Werner and the Scottish 'founder of modern geology'
James Hutton whose theory was the most significant. It proved that the immense changes that
had occurred on the Earth’s surface would have required a much longer period of time than a
literal interpretation of Genesis would allow. These discoveries required scientists and
theologians to reconcile science with the writings of the Old Testament. Some of them, such as
the theologian Thomas Chalmers, found this easier than others and he said at a lecture in 1804:

‘There is a prejudice against the speculations of the geologist, which I am anxious to

remove. It has been said that they nurture infidel propensities…
…It has been alleged that geology, by referring the origin of the globe to a higher
antiquity than is assigned to it by the writings of Moses, undermines our faith in the inspiration
of the Bible, and in all the animating prospects of the immortality which it unfolds…his is a
false alarm. The writings of Moses do not fix the antiquity of the globe [Emphasis added by
Lynch, quoted later]’ 2

Chalmers argued that the language of scripture allowed for an indefinite gap between
the first and second verses of Chapter I of Genesis. This in turn allowed for a time in which
geological formation could occur before the traditional six-day creation that, in this view,
represented a restoration of the whole Earth after aeons of activity and eventual devastation.
Chalmers’ Gap theory, as it became known, aimed to show that Genesis and geology could live
side-by-side, mainly because the Biblical text did not explicitly set out the time of creation,
unlike specific chronologies from such individuals as Archbishop Ussher. Nevertheless, this is
arguable as Ussher, as have others since his time, arrived at his conclusion by counting
backwards from the time of Jesus. The Genesis chronology gives a time period from creation
to the flood and further chronologies lead onward from that point. The problems lay in the fact
that not all generations need be included in the listings; it is possible that only those of
importance were included. In fact, this notion had been aired in the past and Christians prior to
the early 19th century were not doctrinally bound to the idea of a young Earth, in accordance
with the calculations of Ussher, hence Chalmers was on quite safe theological ground at the
time.3

37
 Scottish geologist Charles Lyell [pictured in Figure 2.2] made the next important step
forward in this debate in his multi-volume Principles of Geology, which was published in
1830-33. Lyall’s most important work was in the field of stratigraphy, or the study of different
strata of the Earth’s surface, that are deposited over time. In 1828, he travelled to the South of
France and to Italy, where he realised that the recent strata could be categorized according to
the number and proportion of marine shells encased within them. Based on this hypothesis, he
divided the geological Tertiary period into three parts, which he named the Pliocene, Miocene,
and Eocene, terms that are still used today [although slightly differently]. The Tertiary period
dates from 65 million years ago to 1.8 million years ago, and can be thought of as the time of
the mammals before the arrival of man, or at least man as is recognisable to us today.
[Authors Note: Although not known then, this date of 65 million years ago is of course
familiar today as the epoch when there was probably a real Deluge on the Earth. This is
generally accepted today as the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs, when a ‘large’ asteroid
is generally thought today to have smashed into the tip of the Yucatan peninsula in the region
of the Gulf of Mexico.]

Fig.2.2 Charles Lyell

The subtitle of Lyell’s work was ‘An Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the
Earth's Surface by Reference to Causes now in Operation’, and this explains his impact on
science. He was, along with the earlier John Playfair, the major advocate of the idea of
uniformitarianism, whose basic premise was that the Earth was shaped entirely by slow-
moving forces acting over a very long period of time, a very different idea to that espoused in

38
Genesis. Principles of Geology was the most influential geological work in the middle of the
19th century, and did much to put geology on a modern footing. For his efforts, Lyell was
knighted in 1848, made a Baronet in 1864, and upon his death in 1875, he was buried in
Westminster Abbey.4 More than anyone else, Lyell was responsible for creating the geological
controversy in the 1830’s, which radically challenged the religious thinking about Creation and
the Flood of the time.
Over the next 20 years or so, these often heated discussions, due to the strong
personalities involved, extended into an even wider debate about Evolution, which became
closely interlinked with the debate about Creation and the Deluge.
The debates were punctuated with yet more discoveries that fuelled the fires of the
argument. One of these discoveries was made in 1836, with further finds over the next twenty
years, when the subjects of palaeontology and geology were in their infancy. In that year the
Scottish clergyman and enthusiastic amateur archaeologist and geologist, John Anderson was
rewarded with his most important discovery, the fossil fish of Dura Den in Fife. A sense of the
excitement he must have felt at the time is communicated in his description of the discovery:

‘...he is looking actually upon the creations of yesterday, the relics of things that had
just ceased to breathe. "Here is a living one!" exclaimed a workman, as he raised from the bed
of the river a large flagstone on which were counted upwards of fifty fishes, one eminently
beautiful, full, and rounded in its form…Indeed, the most splendid representations of an
Audubon, a Gould, or a Landseer, on their glossy canvas, will shrink in comparison beside
these pictures of nature-painting, brighter than the dyes of the artist as set in their stony
tablets, and contrasting finely with the rich saffron-coloured rock in which, uninjured and
unstained, they have hung for ages.’ 5

The first Old Red Sandstone fossil fish scale from nearby Drumdryan quarry had been
brought to light in 1827 by a Mister Spence, a student at St. Andrews University. This find
aroused Anderson’s curiosity and after similar finds from Clashbennie, Perthshire, he began his
explorations. Anderson found fossilised fish scales, teeth and bones in the sandstone of
Parkhill, Birkhill, Dairsie and Strathmiglo. He then alerted the stonemasons working on a
Mister Yool’s new mill at Dura to look out for similar remains. Called out of his presbytery
meeting, Anderson could hardly believe his eyes when he saw one of the masons holding an
entire stone fish, which had 'leapt into his hands'.
This first discovery was reported in the Fifeshire Journal in 1837, and was the first of
many, such as the 'shoal of frog-like creatures' blackening a layer of rock fifty feet above the
valley floor, which were discovered next. This site attracted many famous visitors over the
next twenty years and Lyell himself visited the site in 1842. 6 1858 was a particularly good year
for fossil hunters at Dura Den. The 16th of September 1858 was especially memorable:

'… in the presence of Sir Roderick J. Murchison, Lord and Lady Kinnaird, and a
distinguished party from Rossie Priory, the largest fossil Holoptychius ever discovered was
exhumed from the rock, in full and perfect outline and entireness, and measuring upwards of
three feet in length'. A couple of months later, '. . . nearly a thousand fossil fishes were lifted

39
from their stony bed of ages' by the proprietors of Dura, Mr and Mrs Dalgleish. These included
the new types Phaneropleuron and Glyptoloemus.7

It is generally thought that the fishes found at Dura Den were fresh water lake dwellers,
and they date from the so-called Devonian period of the Paleozoic Era of geological time,
some 360-408 million years ago. The large numbers found in so small an area, and their very
close groupings suggest that they died as a result of a shallow lake drying up during a period of
drought. Holoptychius [see Figure 2.3] is the commonest fish found at Dura Den. It grew to
just under one metre [3 feet] in length. Isolated scales from around the world show that it was
widely dispersed, and perhaps capable of crossing the seas to invade new freshwater rivers and
lakes.

Fig. 2.3 One of the fishes of Dura Den

The presence of so many fossilised fish in the Old Red Sandstone of Scotland and in
such large groups along with an obvious modus operandi as to their demise gave an important
boost to the ‘Old Earth’ argument.
This was because the Sandstone was obviously very old, based upon available
knowledge of rock formation, and because of an analysis of the fish themselves, which some
cases have no relatives alive today. The hand of Evolution can also be seen here, an issue that
was also coming to the fore during the 1830-1850’s.
These strangely beautiful fish of Dura Den were not the only evidence of a deep past
for the Earth – a much more dramatic example of this history began to be presented during the
1840’s. Some exponents of this deep past were the stars of the Great Exhibition in London in
1851. These were of course the Dinosaurs, which the British zoologist and anatomist Richard
Owen [1804-92], one of the first great palaeontologists, created by combining the Greek word
deinos [terrible] with sauros [lizard] at the 1841 conference of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, where he presented a paper that described fossils that had been
unearthed in Europe. The Dinosaur had been known in earlier times, for example in ancient
China, but there was an explosion of interest throughout the 19 th century into what was
obviously something very different to the world of the day. These creatures were, according to

40
geologists, of Great Age and this added another strong input to the religious debate about the
Deluge and also created the worrying aspect to religious fundamentalists of an extinction,
something that did not sit easily with the ongoing theology of the times.
The above new discoveries led to the generation of further theories such as that of John
Pye Smith in 1839. He proposed the idea of a so-called Tranquil Flood, the basic premise of
which was that God had destroyed and flooded a region of the Earth [what we know today as
Mesopotamia] and subsequently restored and repopulated it as the Biblical Eden. This was an
idea that appeared attractive to many, including Lyell, as it adhered to the main elements to the
Biblical story while avoiding the issues relating to fossils in rock strata and the age of the Earth.
Another theory was that of Hugh Miller, now known as the Day – Age, where the ‘days’ in
Genesis were equated with geologic ages. For example, Day 3 was the Paleozoic, Day 5 the
Secondary and so on. Miller termed this proposal the Mosiac Vision of Creation, and explained
this term by saying that Moses did not witness the events in question but had them revealed to
him in a vision.

Fig.2.4 19th century view of Dinosaurs

In keeping with the times, all of these theories were framed in terms of the Biblical
Genesis story, as all the proponents were religious men; it is the literal element of events that
was being questioned.

41
 Nowhere is the Biblical context demonstrated more strongly than in the 19th century
study of what are known today as glacial erratics. Large boulders, often weighing several tons
and not mineralogically similar to the underlying bedrock or nearby strata, were recognised by
early 19th geologists as being far removed from their original provenance. Scratch marks and
deep grooves in the underlying bedrock were initially seen to be evidence of scouring by such
rocks during catastrophic movements of water, such as would occur during a universal flood.
However, while such ideas were originally apparently in concert with the Noachian Deluge
hypothesis, geologists studying glacial erratics and their related phenomena [i.e. moraines, U-
shaped valleys etc.], ultimately developed an alternative idea about their cause. This related to
a time when indeed much of the Northern hemisphere was covered in water – in the form of
ice. By studying the actions of glaciers today, geologists could explain the movement of the
large boulders in the past.
Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) championed the glacier phenomena theory and attributed
boulders scattered about the German plains to be from Scandinavia. He also noted that
polished, scratched rocks could be found in Scotland where no glaciers now existed. Without
perhaps realising it, geologists had discovered the cycle of the Ice Ages, something that did not
fit at all with stories about the Deluge.
The scientific advances of the 18th century provided much of the impetus for the
technical advances of the 19th century. The wealth produced by this second phase of the
Industrial Revolution produced an educated middle class in the industrialised world,
particularly the Victorian Britain and the United States. There was an immense appetite for the
reporting of such scientific discoveries above, and the great interest in the geological ideas of
Lyell and others was mirrored elsewhere, particularly in the Dinosaur finds, and another aspect
of their discoveries - their footprints. Many millions of years ago, in the mud of estuarial river
beds, dinosaurs left their mark in the form of tracks in the mud which then fossilised leaving a
trace fossil known as an ichnite or ichnofossil. Today, there a thousand or so similar sites that
are known of worldwide, but the first ones to be discovered in modern times were found in
1802. Glen Kuban notes in his An Overview of Dinosaur Tracking:

‘Native Americans probably knew of dinosaur tracks before the first European settlers.
Ancient petroglyphs occur alongside several western tracksites. In fact, one site is known by
an Indian name that translates, "location with bird tracks.” The first authenticated dinosaur
track discovery occurred in 1802 when a farm boy in South Hadley, Massachusetts, ploughed
up a slab of reddish rock bearing several small three-toed footprints. The find was proudly
displayed above a door in the Moody farmhouse, and a local doctor declared the prints to be
those of Noah's raven. [Authors Note: A connection to the Deluge that we did not expect to
discover!] The confusion of dinosaur tracks with bird tracks was understandable. Dinosaurs
were not yet known, and bipedal dinosaur tracks (especially small ones) bear a very close
resemblance to bird tracks. The similarity is more than coincidental, since birds and dinosaurs
are now considered close relatives. By the late 1830's an intensive study of the fossil tracks of
the Connecticut Valley was undertaken by Professor Edward Hitchcock, president of Amherst
College…Hitchcock systematically excavated, described, and classified thousands of tracks in
remarkable detail, culminating in a monumental volume (Hitchcock, 1858), which is still a

42
classic reference work in the field. Although Hitchcock believed many of the trackways were
made by ancient birds, other trails puzzled him. Noting the occasional appearance of narrow,
lizard-like tail marks, Hitchcock speculated that some of the trackways might have been made
by large bird-like creatures with long, reptile-like tails. Without realizing it, he had just
described dinosaurs.’ 8

The religious establishment could not ignore this very public debate as doubting the
Bible was a serious matter. The religious right had strong allies in the press - one newspaper
announced, 'Geology has the devil for its author’ and those making the scientific progress at
first found themselves to be 'fish out of water'. This religio-scientific controversy of the 1830s-
1850s, argued in newspapers, in sermons and at dinner tables, was extremely important in
'preparing minds' for the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace.
The debate had undermined the literal acceptance of the Bible, which in some cases had itself
hampered scientific research into the origins of the Earth and its many species.

Fig. 2.5 Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin [pictured in Figure 2.5] was a close personal friend of Lyell, who was
one of the first prominent scientists to support The Origin of Species. However, Lyell never
fully accepted natural selection as the driving engine behind evolution. Lyell was instrumental
in arranging the peaceful co-publication of the theory of natural selection by Darwin and Alfred
Russell Wallace in 1858, after each discovered it independently. Lyell's own The Geological
Evidence of the Antiquity of Man followed a few years later in 1863. With all these discoveries

43
and publications coming fast after each other, as the 19 th century began to draw to a close, most
people had rationalised the Genesis Creation and Flood accounts to some non-literal
explanation and accepted the Earth was of ‘Great Age’. However, this did not include
everyone. Right from the outset in the early 1800’s a minority of individuals consistently
opposed any attempts to reconcile the geological discoveries of the time with the Biblical
Genesis text. They argued instead that the evidence pointed to an Earth that was formed less
than 10,000 years ago, and the majority of whose geological formations (and the fossils therein)
were a product of a massive, divinely caused, global flood.
Today, such individuals, for they still exist, are termed ‘Young Earth Creationists’,
‘Creation Scientists’ or ‘Flood Geologists’, but in the past they were known as scriptural
geologists. John M. Lynch of the Arizona State University in his book Creationism and
Scriptural Geology, 1817–1857 analyses in depth the debate between the ‘liberal’ Christian
scientists and the scriptural geologists during the period and in this extract he explains what
sort of people they were:

‘The scriptural geologists represented a backlash against geological developments in

the early 1800s. As has been pointed out elsewhere, few of these critics had any first-hand
experience in field geology, most showed little presence in the emerging professional societies,
had comparatively few scientific publications, and would not have considered themselves to be
‘geologists’ (though the term ‘scriptural geology’ appears to have originated with the 1826
publication of George Bugg’s two-volume work, Scriptural Geology). James Moore notes that
these individuals were ‘largely preprofessionals or members of the older professions –
classically educated and genteel laymen, versed in polite literature; clergymen, linguists, and
antiquaries, those, in general, with vested interests in mediating the meaning of books rather
than rocks, in churches and classrooms…
… At a time when the emerging scientific profession was beginning its attempt to
become the sole authority on interpretation of the natural world, the scriptural geologists
harkened back to a day when the educated layman was seen as an equal partner in such
discourse.’ 9

While the above quotation makes the scriptural geologists seem like well meaning, but
misguided, gentlemen this was not actually the case. In reality they were ‘fighting a rearguard
action against those mainstream theologians who sought, in the mind of the scriptural
geologists at least, to compromise the divine word,’ as Lynch puts it. To this end, they were
not above modifying the scriptures to their own ends:

‘For example, Andrew Ure allowed for an extra day of creation that occurred after the
Deluge, and Miller noted that Granville Penn interpreted verses of Genesis that conflicted with
his view as (in Miller’s words) ‘mere idle glosses, ignorantly or surreptitiously introduced into
the text by the ancient copyists’. This ability to pick and choose which parts of the text to treat
literally lead Miller to exclaim: It need not surprise us that a writer who takes such strange
liberties with a book which he professes to respect, and which he must have had many

44
opportunities of knowing, should take still greater liberties with a science for which he
entertains no respect whatever, and of whose first principles he is palpably ignorant’ 10

What was the impetus behind these extraordinary efforts to assert the literal truth of the
Bible, over the scientific evidence? It is instructive to note the modern creationist view of the
above history and the apparently malign influence of ‘Greek and Oriental’ philosophers who
Morris considers ‘pagan’:

‘Therefore, it was necessary, first of all, that the Flood be displaced as the framework
of geologic interpretation, so that earth history could once again, as in the days of the ancient
Greek and Oriental philosophers, be expanded into great reaches and cycles of time over
endless ages…[Authors Note: As is usual in discussions relating to the Deluge, no reference is
made to ancient Indian texts, where it can be found that Great Ages are related in the periods or
cycles known as the Yugas. Here this is excusable however, as very few of the texts had been
translated into English at the time and they were therefore generally unavailable to scholars.]...
…Geologic catastrophism must be, at all costs replaced by uniformitarianism, which
would emphasize the slow, uniform processes or the present as a sufficient explanation for all
earth structures and past history. This was accomplished in two stages: first the single
cataclysm of the Flood was replaced by the multiple catastrophes and new creations of Cuvier
and Buckland, each separated from the next by a long period of uniform processes; second,
these periodic catastrophes were gradually de-emphasized and the uniformitarian intervals
enlarged until the latter finally incorporated the entire history.’ 11

The reference to paganism gives us a clue to the fears of the scriptural geologists.
These were the times of the Christian missionary spreading the gospel to the pagans around the
world – imagine if those pagans were more knowledgeable about the history of the Earth than
was the Christian Church! This would never do. Apart from any religious implications, there
were also political overtones – this was the era of the British Empire and the European
colonisation of North America, a time when the white Christian way of life reigned supreme
around the world. Scientifically – based alternatives to this edifice were not therefore
welcome. What arguments did scriptural geologists use against the geological science of the
time? Lynch quotes Terry Mortenson who lists five major objections that the scriptural
geologists had against the idea of an old Earth:

i) Observations of gradual transitions between different mineralogical formations,

ii) The presence of polystrate fossils,
iii) The inability of shells to be used to date strata accurately.
iv) The presence of human remains in ‘old’ strata,
v) The observation that geology was in its infancy and was thus prone to ‘over-
theorizing’.12

45
 Whatever the value of these arguments in the 1820s, they are worthless today, having
been thoroughly refuted over the years. This prompts Lynch to comment that it makes it all the
more surprising that a perusal of modern creationist literature reveals their perennial use.
The reaction of the geological community at the time to the above objections by
scriptural geologists can probably best be summarized by a statement made by Lyell in 1827:

‘We cannot sufficiently depreciate the interference of a certain class of writers on this
question. While they denounce as heterodox the current opinions of geologists, with respect to
the high antiquity of the earth and of certain class of organic beings, they do no scruple to
promulgate theories concerning the creation and the deluge, derived from their own expositions
of the sacred text, in which they endeavour to point out the accordance of the Mosaic history
with phenomena which they have never studied and to judge of which every page of their
writings proves their consummate incompetence’ 13
The concept of the Deluge being a global event that was literally true is not a view
confined in modern times to the early part of the 18 th century. It is a belief also held by many
groups today, particularly in the United States where the focus of thinking is not necessarily on
the Deluge itself, but on its relationship with the Creation as both Creation and Flood are
closely inter-related in the Bible. [This relationship is specifically examined in Chapters 11
and 12]. The continuity of such a literal interpretation of Genesis is somewhat surprising
considering what was said regarding Charles Darwin’s funeral on 25 th April 1882.

‘Darwin’s doctrine is in no wise inconsistent with strong religious faith and hope’, was
the line of the Daily News, while the Standard claimed that, ‘True Christians can accept the
main scientific facts of Evolution just as they do of Astronomy and Geology, without any
prejudice to more ancient and cherished beliefs’. These and other similar quotations are seen
in Charles Darwin Lies in Westminster Abbey, an article by James R. Moore in Biological
Journal of the Linnean Society [1982]:102, indicating that at least the press were on the side of
science and were educating their readers in this vein.

2.2 Modern Creationism

Many would think that the theory of evolution as first espoused by Charles Darwin in
the 19th century, albeit with more modern interpretations, is universally accepted today.
However, this is not the case – there is a well-organised and well-funded opposition to the idea
of evolution, particularly in the United States. This opposition comes from the so-called
Creationist school of fundamentalist Christian thinking who believe in the literal truth of
Genesis in the Bible, where the world was created in six days. Where this involves us here is
that the story of the Flood appears a specific time after the Creation in Genesis. This period is
denoted by the life spans of the descendents of Adam and so the two ideas are therefore
intimately related in the eyes of the Creationists – if the Deluge did not happen then the
Creation that is espoused by Genesis is also wrong. A massive amount of time and money has
been spent by the creationists in the 20th century in order to get their ideas accepted, particularly

46
in schools in the more religious states of the USA. This has provoked an equally vociferous
response from liberal Christians and non-religious groups who see what they feel are dangerous
pseudo-scientific ideas being forced upon the public. It can be seen how seriously some see the
rebuttal of creationist ideas when the statement by Lenny Flank, a leading exponent of the
alternative view is examined:

‘This website has one very clear objective in mind--to present a critique of creation
"science", and to serve as a guide to fighting the creationists and their attempts to impose their
peculiar interpretations of religion onto our society. It is my opinion that the creation
"scientists" (along with the rest of their Religious Right companions) represent, in their
attempts to re-mold American society in accordance with their own narrow beliefs, the single
greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the United States today.’ 14

The question of the Flood forms only part of the overall creationist debate, which can [for
example] be followed in depth by viewing Flank’s website and its extensive collection of links
and references, which is by no means the only one devoted to debating creationism and the
Noahic story in general. There are many others; notably Mark Isaak’s excellent collection of
resources and flood myths from all regions of the world. 15
Possibly the debate is most famously viewed on two American sites known
respectively as True Origins 16 and Talk Origins, 17 which put the creationists and their
opponents views on display respectively. However, one wonders why there is today such a
fundamentalist Christian view of the literal interpretation of the Bible when even the Catholic
New Advent website says that eminent theologians through the years have not considered it to
be essential to avoid ‘offending against tradition’ and point out that:

i) The earthly paradise, e.g., was exempted by many, irrespective of its location on the
top of a high mountain or elsewhere;
ii) the same must be said of the place in which Methuselah must have lived during the
Flood according to the Septuagint reading;
iii) St. Augustine knows of writers who exempted the mountain Olympus from the Flood,
though he himself does not agree with them;
iv) Pseudo-Justin hesitatingly rejects the opinion of those who restrict the Flood to the
parts of the earth actually inhabited by men;
v) Cajetan revived the opinion that the Flood did not cover Olympus and other high
mountains, believing that Genesis spoke only of the mountains under the aerial heaven;
vi) Tostatus sees a figure of speech in the expression of the Bible which implies the
universality of the Flood; at any rate, he exempts the earthly Paradise from the Deluge, since
Henoch had to be saved.
In addition, they also state that, ‘If the Fathers had considered the universality of the
Flood as part of the body of ecclesiastical tradition, or of the deposit of faith, they would have
defended it more vigorously. It is true that the Congregation of the Index condemned Vossius's
treatise "De Septuaginta Interpretibus" in which he defended, among other doctrines, the view

47
that the Flood covered only the inhabited part of the earth; but theologians of great weight
maintained that the work was condemned on account of its Protestant author, and not on
account of its doctrine.’ 18

We shall look next at the Flood aspect of the creationist’s assertion that the Genesis
account of the Deluge is literally true – that the whole Earth was once covered by water. This
is actually possible, as we said earlier – but nobody would survive to ‘tell the tale’.

2.3 Science and the Global Flood

Until very recently it was thought that several times in the Earth’s long past the planet
was completely covered in water – but not water as we conventionally think of it, rather water
in the form of ice. This Snowball Earth effect, as it had become known was thought to have
occurred several times between 600 and 700 hundred million years ago.19 However, a team of
scientists from the University of St Andrews in Scotland has, after studying rocks in the west of
Scotland, Ireland, Namibia and California have seemingly disproved this notion. Drs. Dan
Condon, Tony Prave and Doug Benn say they have found evidence of sedimentary material
that was formed during the above period, which could only have been derived from floating ice
on open oceanic waters. This, they believe, indicates that the Earth's oceans could not have
been frozen during the ‘snowball’ years. 20

‘Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science
from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world; a world in
which both can flourish... Such bridging ministries must be nurtured and encouraged.’
Pope John Paul II.

Taking the Bible literally, creationists believe that the whole Earth was covered by
water to a depth of 15 cubits.and just a few thousand years ago.
This contrasts with the millions of years above, and so the ‘scar’ of such an event
should be clearly visible around the world. After 200 years of intense geological research, no
such scar of a Global Flood has been found, 21 but leaving aside the issue of the geological scar,
would it be possible to cover the Earth to a depth of 15 cubits in 40 days and nights? The New
Advent website again has some comments about this:

‘…the amount of water required by a universal Deluge, as described in the Bible,

cannot be accounted for by the data furnished in the Biblical account. If the surface of the
earth, in round numbers, amounts to 510,000,000 square kilometres, and if the elevation of the
highest mountains reaches about 9000 metres, the water required by the Biblical Flood, if it be
universal, amounts to about 4,600,000,000 cubic kilometres. Now, a forty days' rain, ten times
more copious than the most violent rainfall known to us, will raise the level of the sea only
about 800 metres; since the height to be attained is about 9000 metres, there is still a gap to be
filled by unknown sources amounting to a height of more than 8000 metres, in order to raise
the water to the level of the greatest mountains.’ 22

48
 So now, it appears that if even if rain ten times heavier than the heaviest known to us
fell during the Deluge and this on a worldwide basis, the waters would rise less than 10 per cent
of the amount required. Inevitably this amount of rainfall raises another question – from where
did all this water derive? The recent BBC documentary Noahs Ark addressed this question and
found that even if all the ice in the icecaps of the world melted, and all the water vapour in the
air turned to rain, this would only provide about a third of the water required to fulfil the
Biblical requirement. The creationist response to this problem is to suggest that a comet hitting
the Earth provided this water. The problem with this scenario is that the size of the comet
impact necessary to produce the amount of water required to fulfil the literal Biblical Deluge
requirement is immense. It has been calculated that the size of the comet would have had to be
1,000 miles wide, which on impact would have resulted in an explosion equivalent to 10 9
Megatons of TNT. The resultant heat generated by this massive blast would generate an air
temperature of 8000C, hotter than the surface of the Sun. In other words, no one would survive
such an event.
To overcome this problem, creationists suggest another scenario, which utilises the
words of Genesis:

‘In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of
the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of
heaven were opened” (Genesis 7:11).

Creationists point to the dual source of water involved in the Deluge - the source of the
water according to Genesis was both from the atmosphere [windows of heaven] and from
subterranean water [fountains of the great deep]. If we then assume that all the missing water
comes from unknown aquifers under the surface of the Earth, then this raises another problem –
this release of water would release a deadly concentration of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere. In other words, again, no one would survive such an event. 23
It would seem to be impossible for the events described in Genesis to be the literal
events that the creationists assert, and it therefore appears that they have landed themselves in
an unwinnable debate here. By linking the Creation to the Flood, they are losing the argument
about the ‘six days of creation’ straight away. However, even if they were to be de-linked, it is
to be found that the ‘Young Earth’ argument is untenable. The ‘Young Earth’ is a key part of
the beliefs of many creationists, although there are other ideas, the differences coming from the
fact that the Hebrew word for day can be translated literally three different ways. These are 24
hours and 12 hour periods or Long Ages respectively and as will be explained in Chapter 6, it
can also be counted as a year. Logically it could also be counted as an ‘era’ as in the term ‘in
his day’, where ‘his’ is a reference to an indicated person. It may therefore mean a lifetime.
The creationist view has been said by Coffee and Dean 24 to be ‘an attempt to rationalise
science to concur with the interpretation of the Bible that states the ‘creation week’ in Genesis
is made up of 24-hour days.’ A ‘Young Earth’ is then tied to the Deluge by Biblical
genealogies, and from this idea, they reason, the Earth must only be a few thousand years old.

49
 Contrary to popular Young Earth claims, Young Earthism is not an idea that formed as
a response to the theories of Lyell and Darwin, as the dominant view at the time, and a long
time before, was that the Genesis week consisted of Ages rather than days. These views were
generally held until the middle of the 20th century and are held by most theologians today.
Young Earthism seems to have arisen as a response to an extreme form of evolution
theory called naturalistic evolution, which began to be proposed in the 20th century and whose
premise is that the creation of the Earth is the result of purely random events that have occurred
due to the great antiquity of the universe. This erroneous idea, which as far as the authors are
aware is not prevalent today, is explained in the references to this chapter. 25 It is an odd
situation then – the majority of debate about Creation and the Deluge has resulted from an
incorrect response to an out of date theory.
It is worth noting here that not all creationists have tied themselves to the Young Earth
banner, seeing it as untenable and there is a minority [and increasingly popular] view that
accepts the great age of the universe, but adds to it a theory called Intelligent Design.
Supporters of this theory hold that some features of the universe and living things are so
complex they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Critics [including the Vatican]
say intelligent design is merely creationism camouflaged in scientific language, rather than
science. Again there have been calls to teach the subject in schools in the United States, which
has resulted in another fierce debate. 26
The majority of creationists however, still doggedly defend the Young Earth idea, that
the Earth is about 10,000 years old or less, even though as Coffee and Dean say, hundreds of
instances of scientific evidence mitigate against it, and one key ‘killer’ example is described
below. However, before discussing that example, it is important to comment on something else
that Coffee and Dean say that is very important to Deluge:

‘The counting of genealogies in the Bible is often used as a support of young-earthism.

What is often forgotten is that in Hebrew tradition many generations are unreported. Often
only the famous or infamous are counted. A comparison of the biblical genealogies confirms
this technique (compare 1 Chronicles 3:10-12 with Mathew 1:8 and Genesis 5 with Genesis 11
and Luke 3).2 Also, the Hebrew words for “father” and “son” are less specific than modern
usage. For example, the Hebrew for “father” could mean “grandfather” or “great-
grandfather”, (in other words “father” can mean ancestor). Young-earth scholars do not deny
these gaps, especially before the time of Abraham, out of necessity to make sense of the
chronology of events in the Bible… Some accounts, such as those describing Adam, his life and
children, only make sense if the verses are compressing time… Yet the hope of young-earth
creationists is still that these gaps would not cause a creation date in excess of 10,000 years, if
that old. Sceptics also ignore these issues in claiming dates derived from the Bible are not
accurate.27

As seen in Chapter 10, Biblical dating from the date of Creation to Noah and his Flood
is in reality crucially important to understanding the numerology of the Deluge story, its
relationship to metrology and ultimately its true meaning. There are a number of
interpretations of the said period but the accurate original version, that which concurs with

50
other ancient texts regarding time periods is to be found in the Masoretic Text, upon which our
modern Bible translations are based.
Probably the most intractable scientific refutation to a Young Earth [and universe] is an
astronomical one. This involves a class of star called a Cepheid variable. Using parallax
techniques, 28 by 1900 the distances to the nearest 60 stars were known, but even with very
accurate measurement, there is a limit to the distance that can be accurately estimated to a
stellar object. The unusual properties of the Cepheid variable allow us to estimate the distances
of stellar objects far beyond the limits defined by parallax.
The Cepheid class of variable star takes its name from Delta Cephei, the first such star
that was discovered in 1784. They brighten and dim in an extremely regular fashion, with the
periods of the fluctuations [the time to complete one cycle from bright to dim and back to
bright again] lasting several days, with a maximum range from 1 to 50 days. These stars are
important because the period of a Cepheid depends on its intrinsic brightness, in a known way:
the brighter the star, the longer its period. All Cepheid variables with the same period have
nearly the same intrinsic brightness, but their apparent luminosities differ because they are at
different distances. If a Cepheid's period is observed and recorded, one can determine how
bright it actually is. By then comparing this intrinsic intensity of light to how bright it appears
to be, one can determine the star's distance via the famous inverse square law.
Thus, Cepheids are important indicators of interstellar and intergalactic distances, and
they have been termed the yardsticks of the universe by astronomers.
This period - luminosity relationship was first discovered by Henrietta Leavitt, after
studying hundreds of photographic plates obtained between 1893 and 1906 at Harvard
College’s observatory in Peru. In her catalogue of 1777 variable stars in the Magellanic
Clouds, where the stars are all almost equally distant, she noted that the brighter variables had
the longer periods.
The absolute magnitude of a few Cepheids is required to infer absolute, rather than
merely relative, distances. These absolute magnitudes were measured by a statistical study of
the ‘proper motions’ of Cepheids within our own galaxy. What Cepheid variables allow us to
do is estimate the distances of stellar objects and the time taken for the light to reach us. In the
case of the Small Magellanic cloud alone, this is 170,000 years. Creationists often then
postulate that perhaps the speed of light was faster in the past, but the Cepheids mitigate against
that. If the speed of light were faster in the past, then the wavelength would then be longer, as
the frequency has to be constant for us to view that light. Viewed today, the pulsation rate
would be quite different for remote Cepheid objects, whose remoteness in many cases can now
be evaluated in other ways. This does not happen. The universe is therefore an old universe,
and the Earth, is an old Earth.

2.4 The Animals and Noah’s Ark

The aspect of the story of Noah’s Ark that causes the most amount of [actually
unnecessary] debate is the issue of the loading of all the pairs of animals that the vessel is
supposed to have carried. These animals loading ‘two by two’ were supposed to represent all
the ‘kinds’ or ‘species’ of the Earth. There are currently some 30 million species in the world,

51
and it has been calculated that if they were all present in the queue to board the vessel, it would
take 35 years to load the Ark 29, rather than the 7 days as described in Genesis. There are other
practical problems with a global flood as the Catholic New Advent website again discusses, in
this slightly edited extract from their discussion about the Biblical Deluge:

‘... if the Biblical Deluge was geographically universal, the sea water and the fresh
water would mix to such an extent that neither the marine animals nor the fresh-water animals
could have lived in the mixture without a miracle...
…there are serious difficulties connected with the animals in the ark, if the Flood was
geographically universal: How were they brought to Noah from the remote regions of the Earth
in which they lived? How could eight persons take care of such an array of beasts? Where did
they obtain the food necessary for all the animals? How could the arctic animals live with
those of the torrid zone for a whole year and under the same roof?’ 30

There are a number of ways that these problems have been explained away. Given a
full-size Ark [usually quoted as being about 450feet in length], creationist writers discuss a
number of scenarios that revolve around the definition of a ‘kind’ as described in Genesis, as
against a ‘species’. In addition, there is a lot of discussion about what creatures were allowed
inside the Ark, as some were excluded according to Biblical texts. These interpretations of the
story result in an animal count of anywhere between around 3,000 and 40,000 depending on the
author. Meanwhile, proponents of a Tranquil Flood suggest the animals were only collected
from the region of the Middle East, giving a similar number of beasts aboard a ‘full-size’ Ark.
Even with this sort of number range, there are still a large number of logistical
problems outstanding regarding looking after the number and range of animals on board.
These problems produce much lively debate that we will not reprise here. Suffice it to say
practical difficulties regarding the large number of animals of a full-sized Ark can be overcome
by further re-interpretation.
Other ideas regarding the number of the animals of board the Ark are derived from
other books of the Bible, which tell of pairs of ‘clean’ animals being taken aboard the vessel.
Leviticus describes ‘7 pairs of 10 species’ whilst Deuteronomy talks of 30 pairs of animals and
7 pairs of ‘clean’ birds. Obviously, this involves a lot less animals than the Genesis scenario
‘of all the living species of the Earth.’ This prompts some writers to suggest that perhaps the
‘Ark’ was not as large as described in Genesis, perhaps as the result of a mistranslation. The
‘Ark’ might then have been a large barge, or rather a group of connected barges, an
arrangement which was known to exist in the Mesopotamian region around the time the Deluge
is supposed to have happened, around 5,000 years ago. 31
It will be seen later in Deluge that the inclusion of large numbers of animals on the
‘flood vessel’ is not really part of the roots of this mythology.
So, this leads us to wonder if some more ancient traditional folklore has been conjoined
into the overall story. One feasible scenario was reported by National Geographic News in
April 2004. This website described the archaeological discovery by a French archaeologist
Jean-Denis Vigne and his team of a burial of a cat at a Neolithic village in the Mediterranean
island of Cyprus that is dated to about 7500BC. The nature of the burial appears to indicate that

52
the animal was domesticated at that early date, some 4,000 years or more before ancient
Egyptian depictions. Cats are not native to Cyprus, which is some 43.5 miles [70km] south of
mainland Turkey, so quite some way from land. Melinder Zeder a curator at the Smithsonian
Institution in Washington, D.C. and president of the International Council for Archaezoology
comments on this find:

‘Cats may have been one of many animals "intentionally transported to Cyprus as some kind of
gamestocking plan," Zeder said, noting that the research by Vigne and his colleagues reveals
that many non-native wild animals—including pigs, goats, deer, and cattle—were transported
to Cyprus "on a kind of Noah's ark.’ 32

So, possibly we have here a story that was widely known in the folklore of the Eastern
Mediterranean, an ancient story about a special boat; an ancient story that would later become
entwined with that of another very special boat – the Ark of Noah and a Great Flood.
Having examined many of the practicalities surrounding the Deluge story which are
commonly portrayed, and seen that they are all answerable via science, it appears that the myth
of the flood is merely a mix of folk legends which have no real meaning. Yet such tales were
not dreamt up just for entertainment. Effectively, it shall be found in later chapters that both
the Flood and Creation myths33 were actually methods of portraying interrelated scientific fact.
These myths retain evidence of events that were most important to the people of the far days in
which they were recorded. It is also revealed later what those events were.
Regarding all the current ideas about the Biblical Ark of the flood story, they all
involve interpretations, but they are interpretations without any proof, which possibly explains
why there are so many flavours of them. In the next chapter, some aspects of the
interpretations of the Biblical Noah’s Ark are examined, and in particular, its supposed and
actual locations.
Following that examination, an explanation of how large the Ark really was is given.
Readers familiar with the Noahic story and the modern search for the ‘Ark’ may suspect that
we are referring to a specific region in Eastern Turkey where its physical representation is
supposed to have landed, one that fits with the Biblical story. They will be correct, for that is
where we now go in our search for the meaning behind the mythology of the Great Deluge – to
the Mountains of Ararat.

53
 CHAPTER 3

Noah’s Ark and the Mountains of Ararat

‘There is a very tall mountain on which, it is said, rests Noah’s Ark. This mountain is so high
and wide that, it takes more than two days to walk around it...’

Marco Polo on Mount Ararat, 1295AD

3.1 Views of the Ark

Fig. 3.1 With Storm Clouds Threatening, the Animals Board the Ark (Edward Hicks)

In modern times, the Ark in the Biblical story of Noah is generally depicted by artists
in a similar manner to that seen in Figure 3.1, although the loading of Noah’s Ark is often
shown as a more chaotic affair than that seen in Hicks’ painting. Hicks’ fine artistic creation
implying orderliness, with the animals obeying the will of God, is often termed the most
beautiful rendition of the tale. However, in mediaeval times there seems to be a variation of

54
ideas regarding the construction of the vessel, as there are seen two different classes of
representation of the Ark of Genesis.

Fig. 3.2 An 11th century depiction of Noah’s Ark in Saint Savin Church, France

In Figure 3.2 is seen a depiction of an Ark that may be either of a ‘reed-boat’ type of
construction common in the ancient Middle East, or a planked vessel from a later period. In
either case, the icon is symbolic, as seen contained within the vessel is what appears to be a
three-storied building, a structure that has a curious affinity to a stone built temple.
This intriguing depiction at Saint Savin Church in France is repeated elsewhere in other
mediaeval churches such as in Salisbury Cathedral in England and has never been satisfactorily
explained by Biblical scholars. The concept of the three stories in these artistic depictions is
derived from Genesis 6.16 where it is written,
A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of
the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make
it.
In Chapter 5, it will be clearly seen that this representation of a stone temple within
Noah’s Ark [not always with three storeys as at Saint Savin Church but occasionally, as seen at
the Noah Frieze at Salisbury Cathedral, with two storeys] is related to one of the most
important icons of the Jewish faith, Solomon’s Temple. It is specifically related to an aspect of
the Biblical descriptions of the Temple that until now has never been fully explained – the
mysterious Oblation to the Lord.

55
 The second type of depiction of the Ark is of a singular large barge type structure [as
seen in Figure 3.3 later] and is derived from a straightforward, albeit proportionally erroneous,
literal translation of the Genesis account.
Most interpretations of the Biblical myth, irrespective of Ark configurations, indicate
that it is based upon a flood event somewhere in the region of Mesopotamia. This chapter
therefore focuses mainly on these two versions of the flood story - the Biblical account as it is
conventionally taught and the idea that it has its root in a flood event in Mesopotamia about
5,000 years ago. It then examines what has been thought for millennia to be the real location of
the Ark before analysing the artefact discovered at that location and comparing it to the Biblical
description and the later depictions mentioned above.

3.2 Major Flood Mythologies

The Deluge, in the Western world, is most famously expressed in the Biblical account
of the myth. Here humanity and animal life was wiped out by a Great Flood with the
exception of Noah, his wife and their three sons [and their wives], and a pair of each living
species on Earth, all of whom survived in a great Ark. As has been discussed in Chapter 2, this
did not happen, so the story is generally seen by most Christian theologians as a reference to a
more localised event that happened in the Middle East because the main documented flood
legends are from this region and adjoining areas.
A major source of the legend, and one that was seen by many until recently as the
primary source, is the Epic of Gilgamesh from ancient Mesopotamia, which Encyclopaedia
Britannica describes thus:

‘The great literary work of ancient Mesopotamia, the epic is known from 12 incomplete tablets
discovered at Nineveh in the library of Ashurbanipal…
… Gaps in the narrative have been filled in with fragments found elsewhere. The character
Gilgamesh is probably based on the Gilgamesh who ruled Uruk in the 3rd millennium BC. The
epic presents Gilgamesh as a great warrior and builder, who rejects the marriage proposal of
the goddess Ishtar. With the aid of his friend and companion Enkidu, he kills the divine bull
that Ishtar sends to destroy him. Enkidu's death prompts Gilgamesh to seek Utnapishtim,
survivor of the legendary flood, to learn how to escape death. He obtains a youth-renewing
plant only to have it stolen. The epic ends with the return of the spirit of Enkidu, who gives a
dismal report on the underworld’. 1

There are some similarities between the Gilgamesh and Noahic stories, which were
first noted in the 19th century at the British Museum. In 1872, while examining fragments of
the clay tablets excavated by A.H. Layard at Nineveh in the 1850’s, George Smith realised that
he was reading the story of a flood that had striking resemblances to the Biblical account.
David Jebson, a former Director of the Noah’s Ark exhibition at Chester in England in 1994,
selects some examples of these similarities below 2:

56
 GILGAMESH TEXT BIBLE (GENESIS)

Take the seed of all creatures aboard Gen. 6:19 And of every living thing of
the ship all flesh you shall bring
I boarded the ship and Gen. 7:1 Come into the Ark
closed the door Gen. 7:16 The Lord shut him in
I sent out a dove . . . The... dove Gen. 8:8 He sent out a dove... But the
went, then came back, - no resting- dove found no resting place... and she
place appeared for it, so it returned. returned
.. Then I sent out a raven . . it saw Gen. 8:7 He sent out a raven which
the waters receding, it ate, it flew kept going to and fro until the waters
about to and fro, it did not return had dried up from the Earth
I made a libation on the peak of the Gen. 8:20 Then Noah built an. altar to
mountain. the Lord (on the mountain) and offered
burnt offerings.

Smith’s accounts of his discoveries evoked much public interest and the London Daily
Telegraph sponsored him to the tune of 1,000 guineas to search in the Mesopotamian region for
missing fragments of tablets that would fill up the gaps in his texts.
Between 1873 and his untimely death from hunger and sickness at Aleppo, Smith
discovered many further fragments of tablets at Kuyûnjik. These excavations continued by the
Trustees of the British Museum after Smith’s death resulting in several hundreds of tablets and
fragments being recovered, and many of these have now been rejoined to the tablets of the
older collection.
By the careful study and investigation of the old and new material, during the last forty
years, Assyriologists have been enabled to restore and complete many passages in the legends
of Gilgamesh and the Flood. From these investigations, it is now clear that the legend of the
Flood did not originally have any connection with the legend of Gilgamesh, rather the former
was introduced into it by a later redactor [or rewriter/editor]. This was done possibly in order
to complete the number of the Twelve Tablets containing 12 cantos or songs of about 300 lines
each3 on which it was written in the time of Ashurbanipal, the King of Assyria who reigned at
Nineveh between 668-633BC [see Chapter 6]. In fact, Mesopotamian tradition places the
authorship of a seventh century BC version of the Gilgamesh story to a scribe by the name of
Sin-leqe-unnini who was an incantation priest of the Kassite period. However, as Britannica
says, the story is undoubtedly vastly older than this, dating conservatively to the middle of the
second millennium BC.
Since that era, Kassite kings and others were collecting works for their own libraries
and making copies of materials from locations such as Ur, Urak and Sippar. Some of this
material undoubtedly stems from an earlier epoch although the written form may be
comparatively late and date only to the second millennium. Later, parts of the Gilgamesh story
spread and have emerged in a recognisable form in, for example, Homer’s Odyssey where there
is a related story about a man’s contact with the underworld. The separate Mesopotamian flood

57
legend is then thought to relate to story of the Sumerian King Uptanishtim, which is examined
a little later.
A less well-known flood legend that has some parallels with the above stories is that of
Manu from ancient India, a region that has not often been considered in works that attempt to
shed light on some of the mysteries of the ancient world. In fact, there are important historical
links between India and other regions such as ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, connections that
have been overlooked until very recently. As a relevant example, included here are two flood
stories to which this investigation will later return, one from India relating to the said Manu,
and one from a region that is not supposed to have such stories, ancient Egypt,.
The first quotation is from India and will later be seen to of prime importance:

‘The great sage Manu, son of Vivasvat, practiced austere fervor. He stood on one leg with
upraised arm, looking down unblinkingly, for 10,000 years. While so engaged on the banks of
the Chirini, a fish came to him and asked to be saved from larger fish. Manu took the fish to a
jar and, as the fish grew, from thence to a large pond, then to the river Ganga, then to the
ocean. Though large, the fish was pleasant and easy to carry. Upon being released into the
ocean, the fish told Manu that soon all terrestrial objects would be dissolved in the time of the
purification. It told him to build a strong ship with a cable attached and to embark with the
seven sages (rishis) and certain seeds, and to then watch for the fish, since the waters could not
be crossed without it. Manu embarked as enjoined and thought on the fish. The fish, knowing
his desire, came, and Manu fastened the ship's cable to its horn. The fish dragged the ship
through roiling waters for many years, at last bringing it to the highest peak of Himavat, which
is still known as Naubandhana ("the Binding of the Ship"). The fish then revealed itself as
Parjapati Brahma and said Manu shall create all living things and all things moving and fixed.
Manu performed a great act of austere fervor to clear his uncertainty and then began calling
things into existence’.4

And from Egypt where the words of Thoth, the God of Knowledge are quoted:

‘I am going to blot out everything that I have made. This Earth shall enter into (i.e. be
absorbed in) the watery abyss of Nu (Nun). By means of a raging flood, it will become even as
it was in primeval time. I myself shall remain together with Osiris, but I shall transform myself
into a small serpent, which can be neither comprehended nor seen’.5

It is apparent from the above quotations that the search for a source of the root of the
myth of the Great Deluge needs to extend further than just Genesis, Gilgamesh and the other
ancient Mesopotamian stories.

3.3 An Analysis of the Biblical Ark

The Great Pyramid and the Giza complex attract the attention of many writers outside
the archaeological community, some with very unorthodox views. These views often attract a

58
lot of support, with the consequence that well-funded organisations emerge with a vested
interest to perform research at the site. 6
In the case of Noah’s Ark there has been a similar scenario, but the debate is mainly
within the Christian faith because of a difference of views within Western based Christian
countries where ample finance is available for such projects. As discussed in Chapter 2, these
views range from the so-called Creationist school of thought to the so-called Liberal view,
which is based on theological study of the texts involved. The Canadian organisation, the
Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance concisely summarises these points of view on
their website, which considers the source of the Noahic texts, in the context of a Babylonian [or
rather a Mesopotamian] origin:

1) ‘To conservative Christians, Genesis is inerrant: it is completely truthful and

contained no error in its original form. God inspired Moses to write the book and
preserved him from including any errors. Thus the Noahic flood really happened
exactly as stated in Genesis. The similarities between the Babylonian and Hebrew
texts were probably caused by two factors:
- both were accounts of the same worldwide flood.

- The Genesis account is absolutely true and was written during the Exodus of the
Jewish people from Egypt. The Babylonian account was written later; its author may
have copied elements from the Hebrew story.

“The Epic of Gilgamesh, then, contains the corrupted account as preserved and embellished by
peoples who did not follow the God of the Hebrews” (Lorey)

2) To liberal Christians, the flood story in Genesis were mainly written by three
unknown authors:
- "J" used Yahweh as the name of God, and wrote circa 848 BCE to 722 BCE in the
southern kingdom of Judah.
- "P" a priest who lived much later, sometime before 587 BCE
- "R", an unknown redactor, who joined the writings of J and P and two other writers
together. He added only one sentence to the flood story.

The story is a legend with spiritual significance. However, there was no actual worldwide
flood. The story is a myth, derived largely from the earlier Babylonian account. It was picked
up by the ancient Israelites as an oral tradition and later written down by J and P…

3) To some Agnostics, Atheists, etc, the flood story is pure myth. The viciousness of the
God or Gods who are said to be responsible for the flood is shown by the lack of
concern for the men, women, children, youths, infants and newborns who died a
terrible death by drowning. The myth shows how Gods are created by the minds of

59
 humans, rather than vice versa. The flood account gradually evolved from the original
Babylonian version to the Hebrew version’ 7

[Author’s notes: (1) A link to a website that demonstrates this interleaving in Genesis is in the
notes to this chapter.8 (2) BCE refers to Before Common Era a modern term that is equivalent
to the Christian term BC (Before Christ). We shall use the familiar BC throughout Deluge]

While the root source of the main flood legends is far from that imagined by most
researchers and will ultimately be revealed in later chapters, some useful information can be
extracted from the above. Modern research indicates that the Biblical version of the Flood
story was probably committed to writing in approximately 850BC, whilst it is well known that
the Epic of Gilgamesh dates back to the second millennium BC. So where does that place the
varying points of view regarding the dating of the writing of the Biblical version of the Flood
story? To quote the Ontario consultants again:

‘Many conservative Christians believe that the flood occurred in 2349 BCE, and that the
account in Genesis was written by Moses in the 1450's BCE, shortly before his death… Thus,
the Babylonian text must be a corrupted version based on a Paganized adaptation of the true
story in Genesis. Alternately, it might be an independent attempt at describing the world-wide
flood… Liberal theologians, noting the different names used to refer to God, and the different
writing styles throughout the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Hebrew Scriptures), believe that
Genesis was assembled over a 4 century interval, circa 950 to 540 BCE by authors from a
variety of traditions’ 9

It should also be noted that the Catholic Encyclopaedia, as expressed on their New
Advent website, note that elements of the J and P stories appear together in recovered written
fragments of Deluge stories that date before 2000BC and indeed question, after detailed
analysis, whether there were two authors and a redactor at all! 10
What is noteworthy from any of these viewpoints is that there is a very long time lag
between any supposed flood event and it being recorded in a written form in the Bible – at least
1300 years. This is because if indeed, the source of the legend of Noah is located in the Middle
East [and is also the source of the account of a flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh], then it almost
certainly predates 2500BC. Given the consistency of the relative texts across possibly 1700
years, it is probable that the story was originally recorded very early in the development of
writing. It would then have been further transcribed throughout the intervening years in a
verbatim or parrot – fashion manner until the original versions of Genesis were written, in
different languages than those of the original story. It is during this later time that any
mistranslation probably occurred.
If for arguments sake, it is said that the immediate source for the Biblical legend of the
Flood and Noah’s great Ark is the Middle East, is it based on a real event or on a fiction as
some of the agnostic view think? The Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance, in
common with many others have the following view:

60
‘J and P seem to have based their stories on two original stories from Mesopotamian sources,
perhaps based on a massive series of floods in Ur and surrounding areas circa 2800 BCE
which would be perceived by the local population… as being very extensive; perhaps world
wide. Alternately, it may have been based on the catastrophic flooding of the Black Sea’ 11

The latter idea is disputed [see below], but the former idea has several supporters. In a
recent book about the legend, Noah’s Ark and the Ziusudra Epic, which later formed the basis
of the 2004 BBC documentary Noah’s Ark, Robert Best argues that the source of the legend is
in ancient Sumeria. He also asserts that Noah was actually the king known as Ziusudra, and
the flood legend relates to a major inundation caused by the rising of the river Euphrates
around 2900BC,

‘The result of this synthesis is a reconstruction of a lost legend about a Sumerian king named
Ziusudra who was chief executive of the city-state Shuruppak at the end of the Jemdet Nasr
period about 2900 BC. A six-day thunderstorm caused the Euphrates River to rise 15 cubits,
overflow the levees, and flood Shuruppak and a few other cities in Sumer. A few feet of yellow
sediment deposited by this river flood is archaeologically attested and artifacts at about this
sediment level have been radiocarbon dated. When the levees overflowed, Ziusudra (Noah)
boarded a commercial river barge that had been hauling grain, beer, and other cargo on the
Euphrates River. The barge floated down the river into the Persian (Arabian) Gulf where it
grounded in an estuary at the mouth of the river. Ziusudra (Noah) then offered a sacrifice on
an altar at the top of a nearby hill, which storytellers mistranslated as mountain. This led them
to falsely assume that the nearby barge had grounded on top of a mountain. Actually it never
came close to a mountain’. 12

The key point here is that Best argues that his interpretation is consistent with the
geological and archaeological evidence [as dated by archaeologist Max Mallowan], that points
to artefacts from the so-called Jemdet Nasr period being underneath the flood deposits that
have been dated to 2900BC. There were several floods in this region in the period 2900-2700
BC. Best argues, however, that the better known flood layer discovered in Ur by Leonard
Wooley, which occurred at about the same time as a flood in Ninevah, dates to the earlier late
Ubaid period. Accordingly, it is the view of Best that this specific flood does not relate to the
Deluge myth, but that the flood myth does concern King Ziusudra, who, according to the
Sumerian King List, was supposed to have reigned at the time of the Deluge.
To expand on the earlier event, in 1929, archaeologist Leonard Wooley and his team,
which included his wife, were excavating at what is thought to be the city known in the Bible
as Ur of the Chaldees. After digging through many layers, revealing the remains of various
buildings, rubbish dumps with a multifarious array of artefacts and a royal cemetery, a stratum
of alluvial clay an average of eight feet thick was revealed. Beneath this muddy mantle further
remains were to be found. The date ascribed to these earlier remnants of civilisation was no
later than 3200BC.13
Best attests that the flood event in 2900BC must have been very widespread as it left a
layer of yellow mud a number of feet thick at Shuruppak where Ziusudra lived, is also seen at

61
Uruk, in the oldest flood layer at Kish and at other locations in the Mesopotamian region. Yet
it is apparent that this is a repetition of what had happened earlier at Ur. In fact given the depth
of silt deposit, the earlier flood was a greater event and so the question must be raised about
Best’s interpretation of the flood story - why do the flood myths seemingly only indicate a
singular event when here is seen evidence for at least two similar occurrences? These
occasions were additionally merely a couple of hundreds of years apart and in close
geographical proximity to each other.
The sheer size of the Ark has caused many commentators to view the story as a myth.
But in Best’s case, he states that the Biblical dimensions of the Ark are wrong due to a
mistranslation in the ancient past [for which he supplies no evidence] and he believes that the
vessel was actually less than half the size quoted in Genesis being constructed in a multiple-
hull configuration.14
Another Christian researcher, consultant geologist Carol Hill, in her essay A Time and
a Place for Noah, examines the so-called ‘Noah’s world’ with respect to:

…‘the geography, climate, irrigation, natural resources, agriculture, animal husbandry, cities,
architecture, religion, pottery, textiles, luxuries, language, numbers, and writing of that time’

Carol Hill concludes from her analysis of contextual, Biblical and archaeological
evidence that Noah, if not a King, was certainly part of a kingly elite, and: ‘probably lived in
Mesopotamia in 2,900BC’. We will leave it for the reader to judge her analysis of the Biblical
evidence, as this is open to interpretation.
It is her summary of the historical and archaeological evidence is interesting here, as it
ties in the legend of Gilgamesh and some gives some useful dates in this short extract from her
work:

‘Additional archaeological evidence exists for the time of Noah and the Flood in the form of
Sumerian cuneiform texts known as the "Gilgamesh Epic" and "King List.” Both documents
attest to a great flood survived by Ziusudra (or Utnapištim or Atra-hasis, alternate Babylonian
names for Noah), who was the "king" of the ancient city of Shuruppak in Mesopotamia.
Gilgamesh was the fifth king of the first dynasty of Uruk following the great flood, and is known
to have been a real person who reigned in Mesopotamia around 2,650 B.C. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that the Flood happened sometime before 2,650 B.C.-- and perhaps at
least two hundred years before, since Gilgamesh was supposedly the fifth king after the
Flood’…
The Sumerian King List mentions ten antediluvian kings, with Ziusudra being the "king" who
lived in Shuruppak just before the flood. The mention of Shuruppak is important because the
ancient ruins of this city still exist today as the archaeological mound of Fara (also sometimes
spelled Farah), which has been partially excavated in modern times.

Hill then examines the evidence of floods in Sumeria and concludes,

62
From the above archaeological evidence, it can be deduced that the Old Testament Genesis
Flood most likely happened ca. 2,900 B.C. ± 100 years -- or almost exactly when the Bible
places it in time according to its genealogically-based chronology’ 15

[Author’s Note: the root sources for this evidence, such as Mallowan, are to be found in her
essay]. As to the Ark itself, Carol Hill also has problems with its size and does not discuss its
landfall, or supposed location. However, it is clear that the purpose of her essay was to trace
the source of the Noahic flood legend to the Mesopotamian region of the Jemdet Nasr period,
rather than:

i) To a time of over six million years ago when the Mediterranean basin flooded, as rather
bizarrely suggested by Morton.16,17
ii) To a time around 5600BC when the Black Sea flooded drowning formerly habitable
areas with waters from the Mediterranean, as suggested by Ryan and Pitman in their now well-
known book Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event That Changed
History. 18

The former idea is a bold one, for it is not clear at all if early hominids such as
Neanderthals could speak well enough to have developed language and were able to pass on
oral history from generation to generation. The latter idea was recently investigated in 2003 by
underwater explorer Dr. Robert Ballard, discoverer of the wreck of the RMS Titanic, in a $6
million expedition, which ended with inconclusive results. Scientists in this field now
generally think that the Black Sea flooding event was a gradual process rather than an
inundation, but in any event, to use it as a root source for world flood legends is an unlikely
suggestion, as it, like the Mesopotamian legends, is too localised. In addition, it does not take
into account a number of elements of flood mythology, as will be seen in later chapters.
Summarising at this point, based on a review of scholarly research, there is basic
agreement with Carol Hill, in that Gilgamesh was a real King, or equivalent, who reigned
around the period 2680–2570BC in Mesopotamia [the date varies according to the source]. We
shall, however, add a little here for purposes of clarification. The city where Gilgamesh and his
predecessors ruled has been identified as modern Warka, which was of great importance in the
region in the late Fourth millennium. However, it is not until two thousand years later that we
find the earliest of the texts [or rather clay tablets and cuniform writing] relaying stories of
Gilgamesh. The earliest date ascribed to these ‘texts’ is around 2150 BC and. they seem to date
the Gilgamesh story, allowing for an oral tradition being ongoing for quite a while before the
epic being recorded, to about the time of the Third and Fourth Dynasties of the Egyptian Old
Kingdom – the start of the pyramid building age.
The tale of Gilgamesh was originally, as with that of his grandfather Enmerkar and
Lugalbanda, his father, not necessarily a single tale but there were a number of very short
related stories. They were originally written in Sumerian, as was the tale of the flood of the
Mesopotamian region. The king lists for the region interestingly indicate that Lugalbanda ruled
Uruk two kings before Gilgamesh. Hence while there may be some confusion regarding
descent, the names certainly appear in approximately the right places. It would therefore

63
appear that Gilgamesh was a real ‘living’ king and not merely a fiction and possibly this
reinforces the view among many that the flood story originally stems from Mesopotamia.
Yet in the Gilgamesh account, the central character, Gilgamesh, was not the flood hero.
The flood survivor, Utnapishtim, a man of Shuruppak, related the story of the flood to
Gilgamesh. Further to this, the earliest, the Old Babylonian versions of the Gilgamesh account
have no reference to any flood and yet they were unearthed at Ur. Here occurred one of the
worst floods of the region, at Sippur on the Euphrates, and as at Ishchali, East of the Tigris,
would have itself been prone to floods. The flood epic was initially a different story, although
given that the period during which these stories were devised, initially in the traditional oral
form, was one of rapidly increasing literacy, it would probably date to the same period, or
perhaps a little earlier. While many fragmentary parts of the story have emerged and have been
more or less coalesced to form the two versions of ‘Standard’ and Old Babylonian’ known to
day, there is no doubt that the flood element of the tale was not included in the earliest versions.
This was seemingly introduced into the ‘Standard Version’ during the 7 th / 8th centuries BC.
All of the various interpretations are themselves somewhat confused as they are
derived from numerous different versions, - the story is recognisable, but the writing was by a
variety of editors and others as it would appear that some of the versions were probably school
exercises by students. Scholars working on the clay tablets have therefore had to surmount
major problems in assembling the two interpretations available for study today. The prime
version from the latter period, however, that which was generally copied by others is thought to
have initially been assembled by one Sin-leqe-unnini a master scribe and priest of the Kassite
period.
It is now apparent that if the version of the flood story in the Bible was derived from
that in the Gilgamesh account, as has been suggested by some in the past, then there was little
time between the learning of one version and the adaptation and copying into another. This is
because as the Biblical version dates to around the same period. It would be far more likely
that both adaptations of the flood epic stem from a common source and one was not adapted
from the other.
Regarding metrology, from the available evidence, any information in the Bible
relating to the dimensions of the Ark was not derived from material newly available at the time
Genesis was written down in the first millennium BC, but has its root in much earlier sources.
In addition, from a dating viewpoint, if the Sumerian explanation is taken as the root of these
earlier sources of the flood story, it also seems to fit from a chronological perspective with the
so-called Golden Age of the Pyramids. This leaves us to wonder how a localised flood could
have become a global Deluge, and how the Mountains of Ararat became involved. Regarding
Ararat, the subject is explored a little later.
The former question is simply answered as explained in Chapter 1 - a localised flood
never obtained a global status. It will become abundantly clear that the origins of the global
flood story are from an entirely different source, but due to changes and simplifications of texts
relating the story of the Deluge throughout the ages, today the truth has been all but lost. These
tales can become embellished and distorted; events can be merged or separated, losing the
sense of the original narrative. This is a facet of ancient mythology seen again in a different
context later in this work, and indeed such distortions are still happening today, to the familiar

64
Bible. Below is a prime example of that which scholars should not do, but which happens
continually and which adds to the loss of knowledge. This type of situation is mentioned by
Ebenezer Burgess in his translation of the Indian astronomical work the Surya Siddhanta,
where scribes had simplified complex earlier texts that evidently had been accurate, and had
thereby lost the values contained therein.
Here a similar thing has happened to the Bible. 20th century ‘scholars’ made the
following gross errors and if not checked, the newer, erroneous versions will themselves be
further simplified, leading to a total loss of the meaning of the original work. The King James
Bible of today is not of the same English of the original translation, or most of us would fail to
comprehend its meaning, as we could not easily understand the English of the time of King
James. However, the Biblical translation, specifically in text relating to numerical values, has
been faithfully updated without losing its meaning throughout the intervening centuries, until
recently. It was seen by some during the early 20th century to be, however, ‘not easy to read’ as
it was in the English of the previous century. This is strange, as we do not alter the great works
of poetry merely a few years later simply to suit a linguistic fashion so why do this to the Bible,
the most popular book in the world? As an example, the Revised English Bible is merely one
among other modern translations, albeit recognised as the best, which are now in use in a
multitude of denominations of the Christian Church. A section of it regarding Genesis is
compared below to the King James Version of the Bible, as a demonstration of the loss of the
sense of a crucial part of the Biblical narrative:

Revised English Bible. Genesis 7:17-20

17: The flood continued on the earth for forty days, and the swelling waters lifted up the ark so
that it rose high above the ground.
18: The ark floated on the surface of the swollen waters as they increased over the earth
19: They increased more and more until they covered all the high mountains everywhere under
heaven.
20: The waters increased until the mountains were covered to a depth of fifteen cubits.

Let us now look at the same section in the King James Version, which was updated
because it was ‘difficult to understand.’ It can easily be seen which version actually makes
more sense:

King James Version: Verses 7:17-20 again

17: And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the
ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18: And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth;
and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19: And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under
the whole heaven, were covered.
20: Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

65
 There is nowhere in the King James version of the passage that even implies that ‘the
mountains’ were covered by fifteen cubits of water. The statement is that the ‘waters
prevailed’ or rose ‘fifteen cubits’ which is followed by a semi colon. The following part of the
sentence, by virtue of the use of this punctuation, is separate. While the text states that the
waters rose fifteen cubits, the following statement regarding the mountains being covered is an
addition, separated from the statement about the cubits by the semi-colon. In addition, it must
be asked how it came about that all the mountains of different heights were covered by water
15 cubits deep. This mistranslation in the later versions of the Bible has turned the story into a
nonsense, where in reality there is much to be learned from the narrative.
As hinted at earlier, it will be found later that further analysis of the ‘15 cubits’ reveals
that its explanation is seen to be simpler than one would think. But be that as it may, there are
indeed valid reasons for the updating of the Bible that emerge in the notes to Chapter 6,
although for purposes of Deluge the King James version, as seen in the above extract, remains
generally superior.

3.4 The Dimensions of the Ark

The key constructional requirements that the Lord set Noah in Chapter 7 of Genesis
[King James Version] were as follows:
14: Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it
within and without with pitch.
15: And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three
hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
16: A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the
door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt
thou make it.

Even if a cubit is taken to be the nominal value of 1.5 feet, it is obvious that the Ark
would have been a very large vessel indeed. It would have borne more resemblance to the
depiction on the cover of Martin Luther’s book shown in Figure 3.3 rather than to the more
usual historical depictions.
At 450feet long by 75feet in breadth, and 45feet high the Ark would have been a
massive ship for its day, with a tonnage that Carol Hill for example, compares with the famed
Titanic [over 45,000 tons]. Carol Hill states that the Ark’s reported size puts it ‘beyond the
ship building technology of the Jemdet Nasr time’ and indeed any other historical time.
Hill’s research indicates that basically the maximum length of wooden ships is limited
to about 300 feet due to inherent-strength instability above this size. While being a close
generalisation, this is not strictly true, as can be seen with the Great Republic, a four-masted
medium clipper barque built in Boston, USA in 1853. She [for the non-nautical, ships and
boats are always feminine] was the largest wooden ship ever built, and was some 334 feet long,
53 feet in maximum beam and weighed some 4,555 tons [Figure 3.4].

66
Fig.3.3 The depiction of the Ark on the cover of Martin Luther’s book

A lot is known about building wooden sailing ships today, as the ‘old’ sailing vessels
are much in demand as tourist attractions and as well as restorations of old vessels, completely
new replicas of historic sailing ships are being built by companies such as Tri-Coastal Marine
Inc. of California. They explain that even using the more efficient carvel or plank on frame
construction technique developed around the early 15th century AD, ship construction becomes
very complex once the length goes above 120 feet:

‘Carvel construction probably derives from the Portuguese word "caravela" or caravel, a ship
type that was current in the 15th century. It is a boat and ship building system where the planks
are flush: the edges meeting and giving the shell a smooth surface instead of overlapping as in

67
the clinker system. The planks are fastened to transverse frames, ribs, with nails or wooden
pegs called trunnels (treenails).
…The seam between two adjacent planks is caulked by driving home fibre strands made of
cotton or hemp and then covering or paying the seams with putty or hot pitch. It is more
practical to build larger vessels with carvel construction then it is with the lapstrake method,
but the upward practical limit is really about 40 m LOD and 500 tons displacement. Larger
vessels were indeed built with this method but they inevitably had huge structural problems’ 19

Fig. 3.4 The Great Republic (J.E.Buttersworth)

The main structural problem unique to larger sailing vessels, indeed to any lengthy
ship, is called hogging, where unbalanced forces physically deform the hull:

‘A ship floating quietly in still water is subjected to external forces. These are the weight of the
vessel on its cargo (downwards) and the buoyancy force (upwards). Archimedes showed us
that for a floating vessel, these two forces must be equal in magnitude. For a floating
rectangular piece of wood, they are also equal in distribution. For most normally shaped
ships, the distribution is not equal. For example, when an empty ship has more weight
(relatively heavy structure, engines and equipment) in the ends, and more buoyancy in the
middle. This "excess" of buoyancy in the middle cause the middle to rise up and the ends to
bend down -- a hog in profile. For old wooden ships, this resulted in a long term, plastic
deformation. The total curvature could be a meter or more in larger vessels. Some vessels like
the Wapama hogged so much that they nearly broke in two...’ 20

Hogging can be overcome to some extent by careful design, and in the 17th and 18th
centuries the favoured sizes for both the main classes of British ship - merchant ships and men

68
of war were tonnages of 800 and 1200 tons respectively. Each size class had various
advantages and disadvantages. Another later class of ship was also larger, but most notably
faster – the tea clippers of the 19th century, the most famous of which, the Cutty Sark, is
preserved at Greenwich in London, as shown in Figure 3.5.

Fig. 3.5 The Cutty Sark – One of the largest, and the fastest sailing ships ever built, in the latter
parts of the age of sail in the 19th century AD.

Whilst the problems with building large wooden ships are surmountable, Noah’s Ark,
as described, would still have been ten times the tonnage of the largest wooden ship ever built.
It is well known that the fourth Dynasty pharaoh Snefru [about whom we shall learn more in
the next chapter] built a boat of Lebanese cedar of maybe 170feet in length, but the technology
at the time, as Hill states, simply did not exist to construct vessels of such a size as is seen in
the Genesis depiction of the Ark.
So it is at this point that Carol Hill’s Biblical analysis of the Flood legend starts to fall
apart.
As she says herself, the apparent impossibility of building a vessel the size of the
Biblical Ark in the Mesopotamia of 2900BC is a ‘dilemma’ when considering the dimensions
given in the Biblical text. Hill is clearly clutching at straws when she states that:

‘… First, it may be that the dimensions of the ark given in Gen. 6 are of symbolic nature, the
symbolism of which is now lost in antiquity. Second, it may be that the dimensions of the ark

69
were never converted from a sexagesimal system into a decimal-based numbering system. If
one arbitrarily divides the ark dimensions by either ten or six, one comes up with a size more
compatible with boats known to have existed in Jemdet Nasr time…’ 21

However, Hill is clearly aware that the edition of King James Version of the Bible that
she has utilised specifically states in a footnote that the cubit to be used is 1.5 feet, as she
mentions it in an earlier paragraph of her essay. But here she may well be misconstruing what
the translators are noting. They may simply be stating, for those who are unaware of ancient
measurement units, that a cubit is one and half feet, which it is. But what this does not tell
anyone is the value of that foot length when considered in British feet. As will be revealed
throughout Deluge, there is a large amount of numerical information in ancient religious texts
and myths, and it was put there for a purpose. Mistranslation of numbers is much less likely
than mistranslation of text [as seen with the fifteen cubits of water] and in this case, the
recorded large size of the vessel must surely have been checked by scribes who had transcribed
the story in the past.
It consequently appears that the Bible, whichever version is examined regarding the
length of the Ark, is merely reminding us ‘yes, these numbers are correct’. We are here
reminded again of an axiom developed during this research into ancient numerology:

Numbers leave behind an indelible message that is not obscured by time.

Returning to the analysis of Hill’s work, and taking her second possibility first – by
arbitrarily dividing the Ark’s Biblical dimensions by 6 or 10 the other given dimensions would
be nonsensical. A global flood of 1.5 cubits [27 inches] could hardly be described as such, so
this idea is clearly wrong.
To say that the dimensions of the Ark purely have a symbolic value in Genesis, as Hill
says in her first suggestion, just devalues all the rest of the studies she has made of this period,
the early third millennium BC. Hill does not comment on the unsatisfactory nature of these
suggestions and prefers to show that the story of the Ark [now incomplete however] has a
Mesopotamian origin rather than alternative explanations that have been postulated by Morton
and others. It seems that Carol Hill has missed a third possibility – the dimensions of the
Biblical Ark related in the Bible are based on something that was thought to be the Ark, or its
remains, in the period 2600-2900BC. To find out what that might be, it is essential to examine
the aspect of the story of the Ark that Carol Hill among others ignored completely - its
supposed landfall, in the Mountains of Ararat.

3.5 The Landfall of the Ark

Where did the Ark land after the floodwaters supposedly receded? Many researchers
would have us believe that Noah’s Ark finally came to rest on one Mount Ararat. But it should
be noted immediately that the source text in Genesis clearly states Mountains of Ararat, as seen
below:

70
8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the
mountains of Ararat.
The location of Mount Ararat is well known but our quest relates to the precise location
amongst the mountains of Ararat where the mythical Ark supposedly landed. In reality, there
are several candidate sites for the Ark’s landfall, and three possibilities are examined a little
later, but first it is desirable to look at the mountain itself and where the name of the region in
which it resides is thought to have originated.
The modern Mount Ararat is located in Eastern Turkey, and is on the borders of Iran
and Armenia, formerly part of the old Soviet Union.
Greater Ararat, a volcanic mountain, or rather one of a pair of mountains, rises 5,165
metres or 16,945 feet above the surrounding plains meaning that it is possibly the largest
‘single-mass’ peak in the world. This is because the plains are only at an altitude of 2,000-
3,000 feet, and so there is a difference of some 14,000 feet between the peak of Greater Ararat
and the surrounding area. Such an unusual feature of geography is not frequently found with
large mountains; usually they are in a mountain range where there is a much smaller differential
between the main peak and others.
It is said that Mount Ararat’s immensity can only really be appreciated when viewed
from the plain below. It certainly impressed explorer Marco Polo on visiting the area in
1295AD - he commented on how it took ‘two days to travel around its base’ as well as noting
the mountain’s connection with a legendary Ark. Mount Ararat is located not far from the
River Araxes as we see in Figure 3.6. The name Mount Ararat is probably derived from the
name of the ancient kingdom of Urartu, as the original Hebrew account states that the Ark came
to rest on the mountains of rrt where rrt has been translated into Urartu.

Fig 3.6 The Ancient Kingdom of Urartu

71
 At the beginning of the Christian era the area now known as Ararat was only a
northerly subdivision of Armenia near the Araxes River, but during the time of the Old
Testament the Urartian region was much more extensive. Political changes over the
intervening period inevitably meant associated boundary changes and this may well explain any
misinterpretation of the mythical vessel’s location by later writers, who restricted the area of
the Ark’s landfall to the smaller Araxes region which included Mount Ararat rather than the
Urartian territory as a whole.22 This potential confusion over the size of the region to which the
legend refers is compounded by the mistranslation of mountain as singular rather than plural.
In addition, there is some doubt to which mountain the Koranic version of the legend was
referring when it speaks of the Ark coming to rest on Mount Judi. This situation has resulted in
three main candidate sites for the landing of the mythical Ark. The available evidence
nonetheless does enable this to be narrowed down to a singular location. The elimination
process begins here with a brief examination of the evidence for the Ark’s location being on
Mount Ararat singular.
Since about 1850 there have been ‘eye-witness’ reports implying that the remains of
the Ark can be seen on the mountain, which obviously has created great interest.
These reports have continued into recent times and the controversy accompanying
these sightings has been heightened by the release of several photographs that purport to show
parts of the Ark poking out from the ice at the top of the mountain.
One set of photographs purport to show what has been called the Ararat Anomaly. The
anomaly is located on the ice cap of Greater Mount Ararat, on a steep slope just below the rim
of the western plateau. The photographs, de-classified in 1995, were taken by a USAF aircraft
on June 17th, 1949.
However, when the ‘anomaly’ is viewed from different angles in other photographs of
the set it is clear that it is just a large wave of ice and snow. Critics of other such photographs
and reports say that they too are just shadows, or tricks of the light. Possibly the situation here
is best summarised in a work that reviews the many expeditions to the mountain to date The
Explorers of Ararat: And the Search for Noah's Ark, a multi-author work co-written by 21
explorers:

‘Though there have been many claims of a discovery of Noah's Ark by alleged
eyewitnesses and in recent books/films, there is no scientific proof, public photograph, or
evidence of the survival or existence of Noah's Ark’ 22

It is highly unlikely that anything resembling a boat will ever be found on the heights
of Mount Ararat, this location is very remote, and very high – over 10,000 feet. The conclusion
is that these reports refer to something, or somewhere else.

Many modern researchers take their cue from what ancient writers and historians had to
say about the larger version of the Urartian region.23 They suggest that the landing site was
Mount Cudi Dagh.24 and is located in the southern part of the ancient kingdom of Urartu, south
of what is now Lake Van. Bill Crouse examined these historical sources in depth in his essay
Noah’s Ark: It’s Final Berth and commented that ‘There are also many references to it in

72
ancient history’ 25 However it is Crouse’s particularly focus on the writings of the famous
historian Flavius Josephus, who lived in the 1st century AD that is of interest here. Born in
38AD, Flavius Josephus was a leader of the rebellion against Rome in 68AD, although he later
capitulated and eventually became a pensioner of the Roman Emperor Vespasian.
Flavius Josephus wrote a history of the Jews and of the War of Rebellion in Greek, the
scholar's language in the Roman Empire. As the official historian of the Jews for the Roman
Empire, he had access to all the archives and libraries of the day, and he mentions the remains
of Noah's Ark three times in his Antiquities of the Jews.
The first reference is where he refers to Armenia:

After this [the flood]the Ark rested on a certain mountain in Armenia…The Armenians
call this place ‘The Place of Descent’; for the Ark being saved in that place, its remains are
shown there by the inhabitants to this day. ’26

Crouse notes that this reference to Armenians is interesting, as they were pagans at the
time [the 1st century AD], although he notes that missionaries may have converted some of
them to Christianity. Whatever this latter observation, which is a little nonsensical as even
pagans had their gods, he considers it a significant account, for if pagans knew of the concept
of the ‘Ark’s resting place,’ this would possibly indicate real knowledge of some physical
object rather than of a Biblical text.
The third reference by Josephus to the Ark is a reiteration of part of the second one,
and is by far the most important:

Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood and of the ark;
among whom is Berossus the Chaldean; for when he is describing the circumstances of the
flood he goes on thus: "It is said that there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the
mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of bitumen, which they take
away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs"… Hieronymus the Egyptian,
also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas and a great many more make
mention of the same. Nay, Nicolas of Damascus in his ninety-sixth book, has a particular
relation about them, where he speaks thus:- "There is a great mountain in the country of
Armenia, over Minyas called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of
the Deluge were saved: and the one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of
it;and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This may be the man of
whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote. 27

Crouse comments on this account:

‘Again, note that Josephus is not an eyewitness. Rather he is quoting all the ancient
authorities he had access to, most of whom are no longer in existence, and indeed are known
only from his quotations of them. It is impressive to this researcher, that Josephus seems to
indicate there is a consensus among the historians of his day, not only about the remains of the
Ark still existing, but also concerning the location’. 28

73
 Crouse considers many other historical references to the Ark, and notes that the earliest
unequivocal reference to Mount Ararat is in the middle of the 13th century AD. He says that
prior to this the ancients argued that Mount Cudi, or one of its derivatives, was the landfall of
the Flood legend. However, this may not be contradictory, as Judi, spelled Cudi-Dagh in
Turkish, means "highest" or "the heights" in Arabic and some Islamic scholars assume that Al
Judi refers to Ararat. It seems that confusion rules.
However, while such arguments rage, other sites come light including a new debate
about a rock ‘Ark’ in the Elborz Mountains of Northwestern Iran initiated by Bob Cornuke,
which displays ‘beamlike sections that may be fossilised wood’ 29. In reality these sections
appear to be uncannily akin to basalt. We shall see more of such geological formations later in
the chapter, it will be seen below that the answer to the question of the ‘landfall’ of the Ark will
be found at a location that is, and was in antiquity, home to a strange geological anomaly. This
is a place that is now called Durupinar.
At the same time that much work was being conducted at Greater Ararat, during
the last two decades of the twentieth century, other researchers were interested in
another part of the region, namely a location near the ancient settlement of Nisir, where
earlier aerial photographs had seemed to show a large boat-shaped depression in the
background rocky landscape [See Figure 3.10]. This geological anomaly, that would
be the cause of so much debate in the 1990’s, is just below the centre of the photograph
and it can be seen that it is clearly in that form. The site is now named Durupinar, after
a member of the Turkish Armed Forces, Captain Ilhan Durupinar, who identified the
formation in a Turkish Air Force aerial photograph, whilst on a NATO mapping
mission in 1959. It is located about two miles north of the Iranian border, 10 miles
south-east of Dogubayazit, 18 miles south of Greater Mount Ararat and has an
elevation approximately 6,300 feet above sea level. There is an old settlement near the
site, which has been called Uzengili since the 1950’s, but for thousands of years
previously was known as Nisir [Nizir] or Nasar [Nazar], a name that has links to the
story of the Ark, as told in an early Chaldean flood legend and seen later in Tablet 11 of
the Epic of Gilgamesh:

141. The ship grounded on the mountain of Nisir.

30
142. The mountain of Nisir held the ship, it let it not move.

David Fasold, a key researcher of Durupinar in the 1980’s and 1990’s, thought this link
was important, and looked for its linguistic root. On his travels, Fasold by chance met with a
professor of Urdu and queried the meaning of the word Nisir and its close derivatives. He was
informed that the word meant ‘to present or make a sacrifice’. There was a correlation to be
seen here with the original mythology of the Deluge, for in all of the main instances of the
story, after the event, an alter was built and appropriate sacrifice in thanks of the deliverance
from the waters was made:

74
 ‘Noah built an altar of thanksgiving after disembarking from the ship and presented a
sacrifice’.
The above words could apply to any of the flood narratives but only the place of Nisir,
and hence Durupinar, has a direct correspondence to the word used in the epic.
The Durupinar site also has a key connection when considering the ‘Mountains of
Ararat’ as the location of the ‘landed Ark’. The mountains actually dominate the view from
there, as seen in Figure 3.11 and it can easily be surmised that it was this vista that prompted
the connection between the Durupinar site and the Mountains of Ararat.

Fig. 3.7 Durupinar: The Turkish Air Force photograph – the site of the Ark’s supposed landing
is just below its centre.

It was in the mid 1980’s that David Fasold, an American naval salvage expert, who had
long been interested in the story of Noah’s Ark, became aware of the site of Durupinar. His
account of the Ark’s supposed final resting place, and his own subsequent expeditions to the
site, are all enthusiastically related in his book, The Discovery of Noah’s Ark.

75
Fig. 3.8 The twin peaks of Ararat as seen from the site of Durupinar

The remainder of this chapter is an analysis of Fasold’s findings at Durupinar and in

particular, his survey of the supposed ‘vessel’.

3.6 Ships - Real and Imagined: Berossus’s Ark

‘Ararat is a Painful Mountain, as its name declares, for in Turkish it is called Ağri Dağ. Its
slopes were becoming a barren battleground of warring theories for fundamentalist thought.’
David Fasold
It is not hard to see why at the first sight of the anomaly, Fasold, whose expertise was
that of marine salvage, became convinced that what he could see was the remains of a large
vessel. In the course of his work, he had come across the wrecks of many ships off the coast of
the United States, and a large number of these would have been old sailing vessels. The
connection he must have made when viewing the Durupinar site, is apparent when Figure 3.10
is compared with Figure 3.11, a typical example of a sunken ship, in this case from the 19 th
century – The Spring Lake Sailor. This was a large sailing ship, and its remains lie just north of
the Sea Girt Reef off New Jersey in 73 feet of water.

76
Fig.3.9Aerial view of the Durupinar Geological formation (Michael Bonilla)

Fig 3.10 The remains on the seabed of the Spring Lake Sailor

77
 However, Fasold had not been drawn to the view that the location of Mahser or Mashu
Dagi close to Nisir or Nizir in the region of Urartu was the site of the landfall of the Ark on the
sole evidence of photographs. He based his initial judgement on a study that he had undertaken
of the writings of Berossus, who had apparently cleverly disguised the location in a false
description of the vessel.
[Note: From this point onwards Mahser or Mashu Dagi or Nisir is referred to as
Durupinar after the Turkish flyer who discovered the site and whose name has become
synonymous with the location.]
Fasold had long been fascinated by the story of the Ark, and the region of Eastern
Turkey emerged from his studies of the work of the Babylonian priest Berossus as being
worthy of a more detailed investigation. Berossus wrote a Greek history of Babylonia during
the first half of the 3 rd century BC. His Babylonian history or Babyloniaka of Berossus was
dedicated to the Seleucid king Antiochus I Soter, who ruled from 281 to 261 BC. Berossus was
an important official in Babylon at the time, as he served as šatammu, or head of the temple
organisation between 258 and 253BC. This function gave him access to the archives of the
Esagila, the temple of the Babylonian supreme god Marduk.
Using cuneiform texts, he wrote his three books of Babylonian history, which are
unfortunately only known from quotations by later authors such as Flavius Josephus. Berossus
seems well placed to give us a view of the history of the region as seen in the 3rd century BC.
Berossus’ three-volume history is a bit of a strange mixture. His first book is a
mystical creation story, where he tells us first how a mysterious creature called Oannes - half
fish, half man, came from the sea and showed humankind writing, farming and the arts [a tale
that has an affinity to the Indic flood story]. The first book also contained a description of the
epic struggle between the Gods, culminating in the victory of Marduk. In the second book, ten
legendary Kings are mentioned who ruled before the Deluge, as in Genesis, the flood itself
seeming to have been the climax of the second tome. After this story, Berossus discusses
several kings and sages, until he reaches the reign of Nabû-nâsir [747-734BC]. The final book,
however, is the only one that may be called historical in the modern sense of the word and
several Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian rulers are mentioned, not surprisingly, all from a
Babylonian perspective. Interestingly, the death of Alexander the Great on the 11th of June
323BC seems to have been the last event that Berossus mentions. Berossus’ focus on creation
stories, a Great Deluge, and an Ark therefore reflect the general theme of this work. He also
relates that the Great Deluge is part of a cycle of conflagrations and inundations that occur
alternately after a period of 1800 years making fire to fire or flood to flood events 3600 years
apart. These he claimed to be between planetary conjunctions, so alluding that the story has an
astronomical aspect. It is will be seen in later chapters that this specific period, in a similar
context, is key to an understanding of Deluge mythology.
Nonetheless, it would appear that Berossus was using allegory in at least part of his
narrative. We are alerted to this by Fasold’s realisation that Berossus’ often reported statement
that the Ark was ‘five by two stades in length’ was actually a cryptic message that pointed to its
location. This was because the size of vessel that Berossus was supposed to have reported was
impossible [as the stade value is normally thought to be about 600 British feet in length].
Consequently, he speculated that that a Chaldean symbol had been mistranslated at some point

78
in the past as a length, rather than as a triangle used in surveying, similar to the mr that was
used in ancient Egypt.
By following a particular meridian and using a given point on that meridian as a vertex,
Fasold reasoned that by using the 5 by 2 triangular ratio, it would then be possible to triangulate
to a particular location. Fasold first tried to triangulate into the region of Urartu from the old
geodetic centre of the Great Pyramid, without success. However, he realised that it was
necessary to look at things with a Babylonian perspective, and do the same from the
Babylonian ‘centre of the world’ [King Darius the Great had moved the geodetic centre to
Persia]. Fasold then found that his 5 by 2 triangulation with its angles of 68 and 22 degrees
brought him into Urartu at a location that he calculated to be 39 degrees 26 minutes north and
44 degrees 15 minutes east.31 This compares well with the centre of ‘vessel’ position since
ascertained by GPS of :- 39 degrees 26.4305 minutes N, 44.degrees14.0795 minutes E.
Fasold’s discovery of the Durupinar site using triangulation techniques provides us
with more proof of the abilities of cartographers during, or perhaps earlier than, the time of
Berossus. At this point another Ark researcher, or Arkeologist, as they have been termed by
the press and as Fasold, with his tongue somewhat in his cheek had earlier termed himself,
comes into the story; fanatical fundamentalist Ron Wyatt, who, ‘being curious about the boat
shaped object,’ had already been investigating this location of Durupinar before Fasold had
evaluated its position. The Durupinar site was reportedly first seen in modern times in 1948,
after a minor earth-tremor, having been buried just beneath the surface for probably well over
two thousand years. While the story of this earthquake ‘when the sky turned silver’ revealing
the ‘Ark’, which was first reported by a local man named Reshit is sometimes disputed, it
appears to be a highly likely explanation, the guess at a time span being realistic. This region is
prone to earth tremors and the geology of the area is frequently changing with rocky outcrops
sometimes visible and sometimes buried beneath clay and topsoil.
Berossus reported that people used to visit a site in the Durupinar area in pre-Christian
times in order to collect souvenirs in the form of pieces of bitumen, from the supposed remains
of Noah’s vessel. It would therefore appear that the ‘vessel’ had lain buried for a considerable
period only to emerge in very recent years. In reality, bitumen was not to be found on the
‘vessel’ in question but if it were believed to be the Ark, which does appear to be the case, then
an embellishment of this nature, as bitumen was commonly utilised in the region to waterproof
craft, would likely arise.
Even though the Durupinar site has not received publicity until relatively recent times,
Bill Crouse, in his essay Noah’s Ark: Its Final Birth has listed many references to the Ark, and
its supposed remains, in religious and other texts. These date from the time of Berossus up
until the Middle Ages.32
It is clearly apparent that those who have written off Durupinar, as ‘merely an unusual
rock formation’ have not noted the words of Berossus, or are unaware of other visitors to the
area, as reported by Josephus and Berossus. Equally, they have ignored the details found in the
Epic of Gilgamesh, in the Chaldean legend where the location, Nisir, the very mountain upon
which the formation was discovered is to be found. If people in the distant past were visiting
this remote and difficult to access site, even if the story regarding pieces of pitch was an

79
embellishment, it must have been seen as important at the time, at least in the minds of the
pilgrims who went there.
There is another consideration here in that not far from the Ark site was what could
only be described as a cemetery with headstones averaging around six feet high, some with
eight crosses inscribed. Fasold termed these stones ‘drogue stones’ as having what must have
been rope holes at one end for lifting or towing they appeared precisely as does a stone anchor.
Suggestions have been made to the effect that here is the source of the Greek flood legend
where Deucalion and Pyrrha escape in the usual Ark fashion and afterwards were instructed by
Hermes [who had his instructions from Zeus], to repopulate the Earth by throwing stones over
their shoulders as the stones would turn into people. In both Matthew 3.9 and in Luke 3.8 the
following words appear…
…. that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Were these New Testament authors replicating an earlier mythological tradition?
There has been confusion in the minds of some writers relating to an idea stemming,
one can only suppose, from a considerable while in the past. The Durupiner formation has
erroneously been given the title Varuna’s House of Clay. Varuna is an ancient Vedic God and
the ‘House of Clay’ associated with him is associated with death. In Rig Veda Book Seven
hymn 89 is seen a reference to a fear of a mortal entering this house as if it is a reference to
death. This comes after a number of hymns praising Varuna.

1) Let me not yet, King Varuna, enter into the house of clay:
Have mercy, spare me, Mighty Lord.

The hymn continues through a further four verses, begging for forgiveness of any sins
and clearly making a mortal plea for a continuance of life.
Contrasting this idea with ancient Egyptian religion, we can well imagine a pharaoh
having the same thoughts and he would be destined for the celestial boat of the gods, a
somewhat different scenario.
Varuna was an important Indic deity and was seen as being in charge of Cosmic Order
or Rta, [similar to what was known as Maat in Egypt]. He was an Indian god from the earliest
period, being of Vedic origin. Important to the narrative in this work is the fact that Varuna is
credited with finding the Sun, which was hidden in the ‘cosmic waters’ and setting it in its
rightful position the sky, hence Varuna is implicated in creation. But for this ‘house of clay’ to
be of such importance and associated with Varuna, there had to have been knowledge in Persia
of both the Indic religion and of the geological anomaly at Durupinar. Both, in fact, existed, but
that is where the similarity ends even though the fact that the ‘vessel’appeared to be at least half
buried and built of a material that had a greater affinity to clay than timber, makes the
description of Varuna’s House of Clay a fitting one.
In fact this house of clay idea can be traced back to the ancient Iranian work Avesta
:Vendidad where in Fargard II 20 it is stated that
The Maker, Ahura Mazda, called together a meeting of the celestial Yazatas in the
Airyana Vaejo of high reknoen, by the Vanguhi Daitya.

80
 This is continued and in II 22 Ahura Mazda tells of a fierce winter about to befall the
region. [Note: A possible valid explanation for this may be seen in Chapter 9 in association
with the Indian time periods known as the Yugas. This may just be a reference to the winter
period when the Sun moves to the South. Conversely it may be a further oblique reference to
the Ark ]
In II 25 Ahura Mazda says
Therefore make thee a Vara, as long as a riding ground on every side the
square, and thither bring the seeds of sheep and oxen, of men, of dogs, of birds, and of red
blazing fires. Therefore make thee a Vara, long as a riding ground on every side of the square,
for oxen and sheep.
Given that this is a walled structure, which the remnant on site appears to be, and in
one of the Chaldean versions we have King Xisuthros taking the place of Noah and building a
vessel 5 stadia square there appears to be a direct parallel. Who copied whom? This can be
taken further in that when asked how to build the Vara in II31 Ahura Mazda says to:
Crush the earth with a stamp of thy heel, and then knead it with thy hands, as does the
potter when kneading the potter’s clay.33
Here, therefore we find the reason for the confusion between the erroneously termed
‘House of Clay’ and the remains at Nisir, two texts apparently relating to the same thing but
with different descriptions and with one referring to clay it is easy to understand how Veruna
became entangles in the tale…

3.7 The Investigation of Durupinar

One of the Turkish Air Force captain’s aerial photographs of the site that is now known
by his name was published in the Australian magazine Pix on the 9th of July in 1960.
This was followed by its publication in the American magazine Life on September 5th
1960, but it was not until the mid 1980’s that the site began to be investigated. These
investigations soon attracted the attentions of a number of creationist researchers, some of
whom immediately wrote off the Durupinar site as the location of the remains of the Ark
because the formation was not in the rectangular shape defined in Genesis. However, one
wonders why they took this strict view as both the barge type structure as described by the
narrative of Genesis[Figure 2.3] and a more conventional boat design [Figure 2.2] are found in
mediaeval descriptions of the vessel. If a depiction of one Biblical story as seen at a cathedral
is accepted, whether carved in stone or built into a stained glass window, why not another?
Unlike the creationists who wrote off the ‘ship’ simply because of its shape, early in his
investigation, Fasold, from his knowledge of ship design, considered that if the Ark really once
existed it would of necessity been a ship rather than a barge. As did a number of other
researchers he had spotted that on a measurement basis, utilising the concept of its plan area, it
did indeed comply with the dimensions given in Genesis, which are 300 x 50 cubits. Here the
double-ended concept of a barge-type vessel is expanded in the centre and pulled in at the ends
and so replicating the rectangle of Genesis in terms of its square area.
Fasold logically argued that this would almost certainly have been a reed vessel, a very
much larger version of the Ra boats famously constructed and utilised by Thor Heyerdhal. This

81
would have been built on a raft base with protruding stem and stern sections. The base of the
raft would have had the same beam as that of the rectangle seen in Genesis but it would have
been expanded as it gained height and eventually, at waterline and above had the appearance of
a double-ended vessel. As the ends were tapered in and the beam expanded, the plan area
involved would have been virtually the same as that depicted in Genesis.
The cubit, which Fasold thought was in use, was the so-called ‘Royal Egyptian Cubit’
of 20.6 inches.
[Authors Note: In Deluge, the concept of the ‘Royal Egyptian’ cubit of 20.6 inches is
not accepted. Instead, the ‘short’ Egyptian measure, termed the Short Egyptian cubit by John
Michell, is asserted to be the correct cubit value in use here. To 10 significant figures, used
throughout the metrological parts of Deluge, this cubit is 1.718181818 British feet in length or
20.61818182ins. The difference is small but telling, and this value is part of a completely
coherent measurement system in which the commonly portrayed value of 20.6 inches does not
fit.
In addition, there is actually no ‘Royal’ connotation involved with this or any other
cubit; the term is purely an archaeological invention].
Fasold’s primary measurements at the Durupinar site related to the internal dimensions
of the ‘vessel’. He and his associates also discovered via metal detectors and ground radar
what they thought were lines of iron fixings following the lines of timber beams. This, it was
thought, reinforced the Biblical references to the Ark, in that according to Genesis, before the
Flood Tubalcain was ‘an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron’ [Genesis 4:18-22].
[Tubalcain was the great, great, great, great grandson of Adam and Eve’s first born, Cain, who
was sent to the ‘land of Nod’ for killing his brother Abel.] After conducting a survey of the
remains of the ‘vessel’, Fasold’s initial interpretation of the site was that outside a framework
of substantial ribs [Figure 3.12], was the hull [or ‘walls’ as will be seen a little later], composed
of a matrix of tightly woven and bound reeds impregnated and covered with a specific material.
This, it was presumed, had been coated within and without with pitch as portrayed in the Bible
[Genesis 7:14].
Many have puzzled over the Genesis description of the vessel's construction in gopher
wood. This term, according to Fasold, was a play on the word kaphar and is apparently, of
Accadian origin. Fasold considered that Kaphar could be considered to be a sort of ancient
ferro-cement and was a mixture of pumice, bitumen and natron, a form of sodium carbonate,
often called the Mummy Mineral due to its extensive use as a preservative in the ancient
Egyptian mummification process. Fasold reasoned that this was the material used in the hull
walls, as it is known that at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC, an artificial stone often
regarded as a forerunner of concrete was in use at Uruk, 160 miles South-Southeast of modern
Baghdad. However, the secret of its manufacture was apparently lost in subsequent years. 35
This was a bold and imaginative idea, which ultimately transpired to be incorrect,
although the geological implications were not far off the mark.
The issue of the presence of iron in the ‘vessel’ turned out to be one of the most
controversial aspects of the investigation at Durupinar. Wyatt [supposedly] recovered the
remains of large rivet-type heads, before an excavation commenced in 1995 by the Turkish

82
authorities who [again supposedly] found long iron bolts with similar heads to the rivet type
discovered by Wyatt.

Fig 3.11 Apparent evidence of ribs on the geological formation at Durupinar

Backing up this so-called evidence, an electronic remote sensing survey of the ground
appeared to show lines of what appeared to be iron fittings and contained within what looked
like ribs of the remaining structure there were sections of what appeared to be ‘iron angle
brackets’. Fasold’s team broke off a section of one of these ‘brackets’ for chemical analysis in
order to find out if they were artificial or had a natural source. The results of the initial
chemical analysis, organised by geologist Dr. John Baumgardner, seemed to confirm that the
material was metallic and not derived from meteoritic sources. In that, he was correct but the
ultimate nature of this metallic material was not at that time ascertained.
The results were initially enough to convince Fasold and Wyatt that they had indeed
found the resting place of the mythical Ark, and Fasold, with his maritime experience, began an
intense exercise to reverse engineer the Ark. Much of his later book relates to this imaginative
exercise, one that as far as Deluge is concerned had a fruitful metrological outcome.
Unfortunately, for Fasold and the other Ark researchers, the chemical analysis of the
so-called ribs was later revisited by another geologist, Professor Lorence Gene Collins of the
California State University.34 After Collins’ work was complete, and its results became
available, both Baumgardner and Fasold changed their minds regarding the reality of the
Durupinar site being the landfall of the Ark. On-site core drillings had revealed what Collins
had suspected, that the ‘Ark’ was a geological anomaly.
Microscopic studies of the ‘iron bracket’ indicated that it was actually a composite of
weathered volcanic minerals, and what was thought to be ‘metal-braced walls’ were natural

83
concentrations of limonite and magnetite. Magnetite is iron oxide and is a natural magnet.
Hence, the metallic element of what was thought to be the Ark was now explained. These were
in steeply inclined sedimentary layers, in what Collins described in geological terms as ‘the
limbs of a doubly plunging syncline.’
Wyatt, a Christian fundamentalist, who had agreed with the initial metal analysis,
refused to change his mind. He remained convinced for the remainder of his life that the
Durupinar site was the resting place of the Ark and it was of a timber construction, the ribs
found being of petrified timber. According to several websites, that belief is still held by some.
In an obtuse way, the outcome of the current investigation will show that indeed, this
geological anomaly was seen to be an earthly manifestation of the mythical vessel and hence
both Wyatt and Fasold were partially correct. Wyatt’s theory was that the Ark had slid down
from a much greater elevation on a lava flow and came to rest against a stone outcrop. It is
after this event that the rot is supposed to have set in. Water seeped under the lava and the
timbers began to decay, slowly being replaced by clay and, according to Wyatt, becoming
‘petrified.’ According to Collins however, the ‘fossilized gopherwood bark’ is no more than
‘crinkled metamorphosed peridotite.’ Fossiliferous limestone, which cross cuts the syncline,
precludes the structure from being Noah's Ark because, as Collins points out, these supposed
‘Flood’ deposits are younger than the ‘Ark.’ Professor John D. Morris, Professor of Geology at
the Christian fundamentalist Institute of Creation Research also supports Collin’s view of the
Durupinar site:

‘Briefly, the rock formation has a rather streamlined shape, is of a size consistent with
the Biblical dimensions given in cubits and is within the region called "the mountains of
Ararat" in Genesis...
The formation is situated in a sloping valley and is surrounded by a deposit of loose
soil and crushed rock, which is slowly sliding down hill, flowing much as a glacier flows. The
formation consists of a stable area, around which the material flows, and just as does water
when it flows around a rock in a stream bed, the site has acquired a streamlined shape, due to
the dynamics of the slowly flowing material. …
… It's sides, which are in places nearly vertical, are abraded by the flow, and are in
their character exactly equivalent to the scoured vertical walls on the hillsides adjacent to the
valley. The material with the formation is also equivalent to that in the surrounding hillsides.
Samples taken of every rock type in the formation have been chemically analyzed and studied
in thin section under a microscope. While it is acknowledged that the rock types are rather
exotic, there is nothing present which must be attributed to human construction.’ 35

So ultimately, the great discovery of the Ark appeared to be no discovery at all – just
an examination of a geological feature, albeit an unusual one. Indeed, features of this nature
are not unique in this region of the world and there are other smaller ‘Arks’ nearby, which have
led some researchers to suggest that these are impressions left as the ‘Ark’ slid down the slopes
of the valley in which Durupinar is located. As with much of creationist ‘science,’ these people
are unfortunately grasping at straws to defend another theory that is ultimately fatally flawed.

84
 Effectively the ‘Ark’ is a geological formation that been revealed in ancient times and
then covered by the effects of earth tremors dislodging material that has slid down the
mountain side from above and covered the odd shaped anomaly until recent times. An in-depth
review of the whole story of the discovery of the Ark was made in Creation Ex Nihilo, a
creationist magazine, by Andrew Sullivan, and the following extract from this study clarifies
John D. Morris’s view of the site above:

The boat-shape is situated in a sloping valley and is surrounded by deposits of loose

soil and crushed rock, which is slowly sliding down hill, flowing much as a glacier flows-a
mudflow… the stable area around which this mudflow material flows is an uplifted block and
erosional remnant of basement rock, including limestone and basalt. Just as water flows
around a rock in a riverbed, the site has acquired a streamlined shape due to the dynamics of
the slowly flowing mud... However, added to this is the fact that not only have the geophysical
surveys revealed a fault right down the north-south centre-line of the boat-shape, but
geological mapping indicates that there is a fault right along the western edge of the boat-
shape and other faults in the valley floor. It is thus significant that this boat-shape first came
into view as a result of an earthquake in 1948, and then its relief compared to the surrounding
terrain was enhanced as a result of a further earthquake in 1978… This clearly implies that the
earthquakes caused ground movements in this area which pushed up this block of basement
rock and some of the mudflow material draped over it. Some of this movement occurred along
the fault down the western margin of the boatshape, thus giving the almost near-vertical ‘walls’
which now define so graphically that portion of the outline of the boat-shape. Thus the ‘walls’
at this point are really what are known in geological terminology as fault scarps (that is, cliffs
caused by earth movements along faults)’ 36

From this summary of the geology of the site, it is reasonably clear that the ‘Ark’ being
visible in antiquity and being apparently ‘discovered’ only recently are not necessarily
contradictory. Over long periods of time, the slow-moving topsoil would blur the boat-like
image of the ‘Ark’, and perhaps obscure it entirely. However, taking into account the fault
lines around the ‘vessel’, earth tremors, which are common in the region, would perennially
redefine its form – sometimes the form of the Ark would appear at the site, sometimes not.
Another thing may be have been noticed by the reader - the scientific refutation of
Durupinar being the landing site of Noah’s Ark was primarily performed by scientists with
strong creationist connections. The reason for this is quite obvious – if the ‘Ark’ had been
found to be genuine, this would have been a great boost to the creationist movement. However,
if the idea of the Durupinar site being the landfall of Noah’s great Ark was widely publicised
and then successfully refuted by the conventional world of science then great harm would
ensue to the creationist cause. Hence, their interest in establishing the veracity of the discovery
as soon as possible can be understood, so as to nip any further criticism of the creationist
movement in the bud.
With regard to Fasold, the above analyses made his all of his brave and logical attempts
to overcome the technological problems of designing a vessel that would have matched the size
of the Durupinar anomaly come to naught.

85
 However, his estimates of the Ark’s dimensions are of interest, because they tie
Durupinar to the numbers in the Biblical story, which need to be examined before we continue
with Fasold’s investigation, as they are key to unravelling the Deluge mythology.

3.8 The Numbers of the Ark

One of the earliest pieces of research in this investigation began with the realisation
that the Biblical description of the City of New Jerusalem, seen in the Book of Revelation, was
that of a city symbolically complying with Earth measurement, specifically the anciently
accepted [spherical] diameter of 7,920 miles. This ‘revelation’ from Revelation came after the
following quotation from Encyclopaedia Britannica had been considered:

‘About the year 1500 the "old London" mile was defined as eight furlongs. At the time,
the furlong, measured by a larger northern (German) foot, was 625 feet and thus the mile
equalled 5,000 feet. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the mile gained an additional 280
feet--to 5,280--under a statute of 1593 that confirmed the use of a shorter foot that made the
length of the furlong 660 feet.’ 37

Yet this was not the commencement of such standardisation because Britannica also
relates that the movement for refinement of measure started with Edward I and:

‘… the linear units as the yard, foot, and inch--begun in Edward I's statute of 1303--
recognized the traditional sizes of rods, furlongs, and acres as fixed and therefore simply
redefined them in terms of the newly standardized units. Thus, the furlong, often measured as
625 northern (German) feet, became 660 Standard English feet, and the mile, always 8
furlongs, became 5,280 feet. Today, the furlong is used almost exclusively in horse racing’ 38

While the above picture of ‘New Jerusalem’ was long ago understood by John Michell
and is seen in his book New View Over Atlantis, this investigation has taken the numerical
analysis much further.
Here it is found the original foot in Britain was 1.056 of the later shorter version. This
is easily discovered via the information from Britannica, as one merely has to divide the
furlong length of 660 by that of 625 to appreciate the difference. The numerical value or factor
of 1056 certainly appears to have some importance and vastly predates the era of Edward I.
Some evidence implying the use of British measurement units from long before the
time that Britain was recognised as ‘British’ is seen below, beginning with the evaluation of
‘New Jerusalem’ as seen in the book of Revelation, where the city is described thus:

And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he
measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length, the breadth, and the
height of it are equal. Revelation 21: 16

86
 The latter sentence here implies a cube and as a globe could not be built, temples, or at
least the sacred regions of temples, were usually built as a cube. A furlong in the old British
measurement system was 625 feet with the foot value being 1.056 of the familiar British feet.
So if the values for the length in the verse from Revelation above are multiplied together, it can
be seen that 1.056 x 625 x 12000 equals 7,920,000 feet, a representation of the Earth’s diameter
of 7920 miles. If the Earth’s dimensions could be found in ancient structures [examples
emerge later in Deluge] and also in the Bible, in British measurement units, the question then
arose - what else was hidden? In particular, it was apparent that the date of Noah’s birth, at
1056 years after the date of creation [Table 3.1] appears to be a determining factor, a numerical
value that reoccurs in numerous places. As if to back up this ‘alert’, it was noted that the same
value could be inferred from information relayed by Flavius Josephus. He states that Noah is
traditionally said to have had ‘33 sons and 23 daughters’.39 If Noah is the tenth generation from
creation and has 56 offspring, one can again derive 1056.
Table 3.1 Dates of Birth of Biblical Figures from Creation
Name Year of Birth Life span
Adam 000 930
Seth 130 912
Enos 235 905
Cainan 325 910
Mahaleel 395 895
Jared 460 962
Enoch 622 365
Methuselah 687 969
Lamech 874 777
Noah 1056 950

In terms of the relevance of the ancient measurement system to Noah and his Ark there
are two immediately apparent connections. The first of these occurs when 1056 is expressed as
a reed value i.e. one reed = 10.56feet [or six 1.76 feet cubits]. From these values a dimension
set then emerges that relates to this Reed value as follows:
Table 3.2 Values directly associated with Noah in the Biblical story [in British feet and inches]
Foot Cubit Step Reed Mile
1.1733r ft 1.76 ft 2.9333r ft 10.56 ft 5,866.666r ft
14.08 ins 21.12 ins 35.2ins 126.72 ins 70,400 ins

Cubit Span Handbreadth Digit

1.76 ft 0.88 ft 0.293r ft 0.073r ft
21.12 ins 10.56 ins 3.52 ins 0.88 ins

Those familiar with the old Imperial system of measurement will immediately see the
connection here. There were 1760 yards of three feet to the mile and Noah’s vessel was said to

87
be 300 cubits in length. The Ark is described as 1/10 of a mile in length, which concurs with
Fasold’s evaluation at Durupinar. A connection to the British mile in terms of the ancient
5,000 feet mile has been demonstrated and here is seen a repeat of values associated with the
Imperial system. This is not a coincidence. In fact Indian time spans known as the Yugas also
contain oblique but definable reference to this value as seen in Chapter 9 of this work.
From the dimension set above can be derived other values.
Each of the inch counts for example could be counted as feet [in this system, the
decimal point is movable] or the foot counts regarded as inches. In such a way, multiple
dimension sets were derived from an original single set of values. Using the above dimension
set based upon the 1.76 feet cubit, it can be seen that the measurements of the Ark, as cited in
Genesis [300 cubits long, by 50 cubits wide by 30 cubits high], are 528 feet x 88 feet x 52.8
feet [if the Ark is considered to be a rectilinear block – the ‘barge’ concept]. In this case the
perimeter of the vessel would have been 1232 feet and dividing this by its beam of 88 feet we
have a result of 14. This emerging value appears to make a further association with the Indian
Yugas [Chapter 9] or perhaps to Noah’s time afloat, a lunar year. The next connection between
the measurement system of antiquity and Noah and his Ark comes when 1056 is expressed as a
foot value i.e. 1.056feet. This gives a corresponding cubit of 1.584 feet as part of its own
dimension set, which is also required here in deciphering Fasold’s visualisation of Noah’s Ark.
Tables 3.3 and 3.2 outline the measuring system in basic British [to clarify the system]
and Noachian [as we shall term these units in this book] respectively. As noted in Chapter 1,
other units were in use but ultimately all were interrelated via various factors.

Table 3.3 British Units (Modern)

Foot Cubit Step Reed Furlong Mile

1 1.5 2.5 9 660 5280
12 ins 18 ins 30 ins 108 ins 7,920 ins 63,360

Cubit Span Handbreadth Digit

1 2 6 24
1.5 0.75 0.25 0.0625
18 ins 9 ins 3 ins 0.75 ins

To show the interrelation between these values, a further set of ‘Biblical’ units, is
included at this point. The use of these units will emerge later in this and other chapters.

88
Table 3.4 The measurement units seen at Solomon’s Temple: Note the repeat of 1056 which
implies a further connection to Noah and the early British units.

Foot Cubit Step Reed Mile

1.056 ft 1.584 ft 2.64 ft 9.504 ft 5,280ft
12.672 ins 19.008 ins 31.68 ins 114.048 ins 63,360 ins

Cubit Span Handbreadth Digit

1.584 ft 0.792 ft 0.264ft 0.066 ft
19.008 ins 9.504 ins 3.168 ins 0.792 ins

The modern British mile is 5,280feet in length and if a cubit of 1.76feet is utilised to
evaluate the dimensions of Noah’s Ark then the vessel is found to be 528 feet long indicating a
possible link between the Ark and the Imperial system of measurement.
There is another numerical connection, in the time of Elizabeth I in Britain, there was a
unit of length in use called the ell. The Ell, possibly coincidentally, is the Egyptian word for
cubit. While a number of varying values have been put to this unit in relation to different
trades, one of them has great relevance here. One of the values ascribed to the Elizabethan ell
was 45 inches 40 or 1/1,408 of the British mile, which according to most modern sources, had
only recently come into existence. It is immediately apparent that there is a numerical
association with Noah via the derivative factor 1408, because the foot value of the 1.76 feet
cubit, and therefore the 10.56 feet reed is 1.173333333feet or 14.08 inches.
Noted above is the fact the Earth was for untold years accepted as being a sphere 7,920
miles in diameter. Traditionally, there was a diagram that was a Square containing the Circle
of the Earth to which we shall refer occasionally throughout Deluge. Numerically, this square
represents 7,920 x 4 or 31,680 units [whatever denomination they may be] in perimeter. These
values, or rather factors, are seen in many places in the ancient world and an example of
relevance here is the square of the Earth as seen at the Great Pyramid of Egypt. The side length
of this mountain of a building is 440 Short Egyptian cubits of 1.718181818 British feet, which
can be counted as 7920 [440 x 18] of the relevant inch length.
Therefore, the perimeter of the pyramid is measured at 31680 inches, which divided by
30, the count of days in the canonical lunar /solar month, results in 1056, the year of birth of
Noah, the hero of the Deluge. Even in the mediaeval British Isles, there are further connections
because another extract from Britannica relates that:

‘Elsewhere in the British Isles, longer miles were used, including the Irish mile of
6,720 feet and the Scottish mile of 5,940 feet.’ 41

To convert from the foot value associated with the 1.76 foot cubit to the Irish value we
take the mile associated with that cubit, [1.76 / 1.5] x 5,000 = 5,866.66666 feet and divide into
the 6,720 feet longer version. The result is 1.14545454545, which is the length of the Short

89
Egyptian foot in terms of British feet. In addition, the Scottish mile of 5,940 feet gives another
connection, four of these results in 23760 feet and the factor of 2376 will be seen later to have
an inherent relationship with the Ark.

3.9 Reconstructing the Ark

In this section, the narrative will follow Dave Fasold’s thinking when he was at
Durupinar as he thought at that time that he was investigating the remnants of a real Ark. The
Ark, according to Fasold, was built of the material KPR and reeds, but if that were the case,
there would have been much more to its composition than merely viewing it as a conventional
reed boat. Fasold, with his maritime experience, and knowledge of vessels in general, was well
aware of the problem of hogging that was mentioned earlier and the unusual nature of some of
the supposed constructional features of the ‘Ark’ gave his inventive mind many ideas as to how
this issue could be solved. He had made a detailed survey of this supposed vessel, as indicated
in Figure 3.13, which shows a plan and section based on his analysis and from the resultant
information effectively reverse engineered the vessel’s construction and appearance.
The measurements taken on site for the length of the Ark were considered to be for the
inside of the supposed structure. The beam measure was taken from the inside of what Fasold
calls the matrix line, a thickness of material, now virtually non-existent, on the outside of the
‘ribs’. An overall outside measurement could not be taken, as there was no definitive line from
which to work.
However, it is possible to assess, from the results of his surveys, what this
measurement was seen to be in antiquity.
Many authorities, on considering the constructional techniques used in building boats
at the time, think that the Ark would have had the form of a multi-decked structure on top of a
raft, with the raft top being a little wider than the decked section above. This idea is a
reasonable assessment and the model of the Ark here is based upon that assumption.
[Note: Any replica of an Ark based upon the Durupinar anomaly, is not, however, the
rectangular version as portrayed in Genesis, nor is it the cubic configuration of some
Mesopotamian stories, one of which gives a volume virtually twice that of the Genesis account
and describes the vessel as a cube. In the case of the Chaldean story, it has the length at 600
cubits and the beam and height at 60 cubits, giving a volume of 2,160,000 cubic cubits, some
4.8 times the capacity of the Genesis model. Here not only would the cubit be too small for the
length but the proportions would also be incorrect.]
The outline that Fasold described was that seen on site, of a double-ended
conventionally boat-shaped craft and he measured the internal beam on site as 138.88 feet.
Fasold was working to the ‘Royal Egyptian’ cubit value of 20.6 inches, although given the
inaccuracies inherent in such a geological shape, which was distorted in one place along one
side, it could not be seen to be strictly accurate, any more than it would if it had been the
remains of an ancient but battered vessel.
Fasold was also convinced that the so-called Golden Section or Phi was involved in the
design of the vessel, as it appears to be involved in the design of many ancient ships, for
example in the prow and the stern, where its properties can be discovered in the part-spiral form

90
often found there which leads to a slightly inward sloping stem and stern post. The Golden
Section, sometimes called, in the first case wrongly, the Golden Ratio or Golden Number, is an
irrational number or one that cannot be expressed as a simple ratio or a fraction and it has two
closely related values that are normally termed by mathematicians as phi and Phi.
The two values are closely related to each other in the equation: Phi = 1+ phi.
phi is 0.618033988 whereas Phi is this plus 1 hence Phi =1.618033988
therefore Phi – phi = 1, as can be deduced from the first expression.

Both these values are closely related to the so-called Fibonacci Numbers. The
Fibonacci numbers are a sequence of integer values where the next number in the sequence is
the sum of the previous two. In this example, beginning at zero, its commencing point, the
sequence operates as follows: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55 ... etc. As the sequence extends,
the ratio between a number in the sequence and the previous one eventually converges towards
Phi, which to 10 significant figures, equals 1.618033988.
If we take Phi at 1.618033988 and multiply by phi at 0.618033988 the result is 1.0 [to
within 10 places of decimals]. The full value here [calculated from 10 places of decimals] is
0.999999998323184144 which is pretty close to 1.0, but:-
the value of Phi can be set out algebraically and here we find that Phi =
[1+ square root of 5] / 2
= 1.6180339887498948482045868343656
and:-
1.6180339887498948482045868343656
x 0.6180339887498948482045868343656
= 1.0

Both these values are closely related to the so-called Fibonacci Numbers.
The Fibonacci numbers are a sequence of integer values where the next number in the
sequence is the sum of the previous two. In this example, beginning at zero, its commencing
point, the sequence operates as follows: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55 ... etc. As the sequence
extends, the ratio between a number in the sequence and the previous one eventually converges
towards Phi, which to 10 significant figures, equals 1.618033988. The Fibonacci numbers and
the Golden Section are closely associated with growth and are therefore widely seen in nature.
The latter is to be found in numerous places in the natural environment, including the
theoretical shape of the perfect wave, the formation of seeds in the flower head of a sunflower,
the spiral of snail's shells and indeed the shape of numerous galaxies. It is now beginning to
appear that it may have a part to play in geology that was previously not suspected! However,
as far as ship design and generally accepted mathematical history is concerned it is not clear
that the Golden Section was known in the third millennium BC.
Whilst some have suggested the Golden Section of Phi was a factor in the design of the
Great Pyramid or the Giza complex in general, it is more generally thought that its primary
relationship there was with π, expressed as the ratio 22/7.
The idea seems to be backed up by the Egyptian Rhind Papyrus of about 1650 BC,
which was written by the scribe Ahmes in about 1650BC and who claimed that he was copying

91
a document that was 200 years older. It is accepted that the document is one of the oldest
mathematical works in existence and includes the solutions to some problems relating to the
pyramid form but it does not mention anything about the Golden Section. 42 This is not evidence
that the value was unknown however, as one of the tenets of archaeology stresses - absence of
evidence is far from being evidence of absence.
To reinforce that last statement, we have the diagram above showing how the value can
be easily derived geometrically and just as Fasold perceived, the Golden Section was seen in
the measurements at Durupinar in antiquity as the measurements given in Genesis relate to it in
the following manner. If the measured ‘beam’ of the Durupinar anomaly is divided by the
Golden Section, and then further divided by 50, the number of cubits in the Genesis beam
description, the value for the relevant onsite cubit should emerge: 138.88feet / 1.618033988 =
85.8325604feet and 85.8325604feet / 50 = 1.716651208 feet or 20.5998145 ins.
This value is very close to that associated with the Short Egyptian cubit of
1.718181818feet - 20.61818182ins so while it actually is nearer to the so called 20.6 inch
‘Royal Cubit’, it equally is close enough to be seen as the Short Egyptian cubit. There is but
0.0183 of an inch between the cubit value derived from Fasold’s survey and the Short Egyptian
value. This is so close that we can be confident that the latter was the unit value that was
related to the internal dimensions of the perceived ‘Ark’. 50 Short Egyptian cubits multiplied
by the Golden Section of 1.618033988 is therefore the internal beam of the vessel. This results
in 139.003829 feet, a difference to Fasold’s measurement of 1.485 inches. Given the condition
of the ‘vessel’ which in reality was no more than an unusual geological feature, this very small
difference over a considerable length is acceptable. In addition, it cannot be escaped that it
could not feasibly be coincidence that this complies via the Golden Section to the beam value
seen in Genesis of 50 cubits. The internal length of the ‘Ark’ was measured by Fasold at 515
feet, but another survey by Wilson and Buamgardner made it 515.7feet. The average of these
surveys is 515.35 feet, which is 1.25 inches away from 300 Short Egyptian cubits or
515.45454545 feet. Hence, this unit was used to define the number of cubits in the internal
length and the breadth of the mythical Ark, 300 x 50 cubits as stated in Genesis, with the latter
value being extended via the Golden Section.
Fasold evaluated the respective thicknesses of the bow and stern to approximately 6.5
feet, and it appears likely that the surveyor of the ship in antiquity arrived at a similar
conclusion. 6.5 feet at each end added to the internal length of 515.454545 feet results in
528.4545455feet. As the factor 1056 with its attendant cubit of 1.76feet has been seen to be
associated with Noah, it can therefore be seen that 528 feet, or 300 cubits at 1.76 feet made up
the overall perceived length of the Ark. This results in the stem and stern sections being
6.272727272 feet in thickness [within 0.00104726 of an inch] of 5.940 [number of feet in
Scottish mile / 1000] x 1.056. Similarly, Fasold estimated the hull wall thickness as about 1.7
feet thick, giving a total maximum beam of about 142.88 feet. Calculating a theoretical beam
from the Biblical values an overall measurement is then derived of 1.76 feet x 50 [ = 88feet],
and as 88 x 1.618033988 = 142.3869909 feet this implies a thickness of the ‘walls’ on each
side of the ‘vessel’ of 1.69 feet, which is within 0.12 of an inch of Fasold’s estimate.

92
 Segment of circle centred on mid
point of base of square

Equal Equal

B A

A x 1.618033988 = B

Fig 3.12 Golden Section Derived From a Square

With regard to the height of the supposed vessel, it is necessary to look at the relevant
texts in order to extract further information. The Gilgamesh account of the number of decks is
six and this value divided into the height of the Biblical Ark of 30 cubits at 1.76feet gives a
deck height value of 8.8 feet. This equates to 5 cubits at 1.76 feet. Hence, there is a correlation
in whole numbers of cubits between the two accounts.
As stated earlier, the assumption from literature and logic is that this vessel was based
upon a raft. This implies that the term walls be utilised instead of hull, as what would have
been built, in effect, is a building on top of a raft. Looking for a Biblical analogy to this, it is
found that by applying the 1.76-foot cubit to the description of the city walls of New Jerusalem
in the Book of Revelation, 144 cubits, the height of the walls would be 253.44 feet. Utilising a
1/10 scale version of the same factor for the ‘walls’ of the ark, it is then found that the height of
the ‘Ark’ overall, less the walls, equates as 52.8 feet less 25.344 feet = 27.456 feet, which
equates precisely with 16 cubits at 1.716 feet. There was also an instruction to Noah from the
Lord, to ‘Finish it a cubit above’. This is a reference to the tso-ar or zohar, the roof light. If
this is 1.716 feet, a single cubit, there are now a further 15 cubits to find. It was seen earlier
how poor punctuation in translation made nonsense of the Genesis text relating to the depth of

93
the waters of the Great Deluge. However, the dimension of 15 cubits was emphasised in the
Biblical text in association with the water depth and here we are about to examine that specific
region.
Indeed, for this evaluation of the Noahic flood myth this number is crucial as it applies
here to two different dimensions sets and their attendant cubit values.
As seen above, after allowing the 25.344feet for the height of the walls, and a cubit at
1.716 feet for the roof light, there would be exactly 15 of these measures left to make up the
52.8 feet overall height, but which cubit was utilised to evaluate the depth of the waters? Here
it is seen that the cubit of 1.584feet with its foot value of 1.056feet is that utilised by the analyst
who relayed the information regarding Ark dimensions to the Biblical redactors. If this cubit is
utilised then it is apparent that the waters rose 15 x 1.584feet or 23.76feet, this was the draft of
the vessel, its depth of water displacement. The raft depth was then 52.8feet less 27.06 which
is made up of - [25.344 + 1.716] = 25.74 =15 x 1.716. The raft depth [25.74feet] less the water
depth [23.76feet or 15 x 1.584] is then 1.98 feet or 23.76 inches.

The raft would therefore have had a freeboard [height above the water] of 23.76 inches
and draught of 23.76 feet, and so the total raft depth was 25.74 feet.
It is proposed here that as:

i) the dimensions of 15 cubits were in association with the depth of the water;
ii) and the instruction from the Lord was to finish it ‘a cubit above,’ coupled with
the overall height of 30 cubits were implicit in the description,
iii) that this analysis is that which was envisaged by the author of the original
report or story.

Given the references to the 15 cubits, it must have been calculated that the vessel
would have a freeboard at raft level of 1.98 feet. It therefore transpires that the value of 15
cubits at 1.584 feet of water then gives the break off point, or flotation moment of the vessel.
We should also look to the Biblical account regarding the division into three stories at
this point. This is because if we divide the height from the raft upwards, of 25.344 feet into
three [excluding the roof light] as is implied by the Saint Savin Church depiction earlier, the
resultant individual deck spacings [not allowing for thickness] would be 8.448 feet or 8 x
1.056feet.
By utilising the overall height of 52.8 feet, as is implied by the illustration at Salisbury
Cathedral, and which visually contradicts the Biblical description [see Chapter 5 for illustration
and explanation], then the division by three gives us 10 cubits at 1.76 or 17.6 feet, confirming
the cubit value in use.

94
 Section through at widest beam

Triple beams trimmed to hull pool

Triple beams

95
Triple beams

Hull pool Hull pool

Triple beams

Beams at 7 cubit spacing along length of vessel

Fig. 3.13 Noah’s Ark Plan and Section developed from Fasold’s information
3.10 The Survey of the Ark in Antiquity

For all the possible practical advantages of Mount Cudi Dagh as a ‘landfall’ for a large
ship, this is unlikely to be the site referred to in ancient texts. Mount Ararat itself is an
impractical place in which to ‘land’ and as seen earlier, there is no evidence that any ‘boat’ ever
berthed or ran aground on the mountain. That leaves Durupinar, adjacent to the location
described in the Chaldean legend, Nisir or Nazar, as it is here that observers in antiquity
appeared to discover what is seen now - a boat shaped depression. Logically they surmised that
this was the remains of a large vessel and as it was deposited at this high altitude, it must have
got there as a result of a Deluge.
It would therefore appear that at some point early in the history of the Biblical, or
rather Middle Eastern legend, the source of the story of the Ark was confused with an
imaginative interpretation of this geological anomaly at Durupinar. There is therefore
something of a ‘chicken and egg’ situation here - was there a legend of a flood before the ‘boat’
was first discovered, or did the discovery of the ‘boat’ create the legend? Later evidence will
reveal that an existing narrative, whose ultimate roots sprang from events of thousands of years
earlier, was modified by the discovery of this feature. When this was, is difficult to evaluate,
but given the references in the Epic of Gilgamesh to Nisir near Durupinar, this dates the
modification to around the same time as the recording of that epic. However, as archaeological
and metrological evidence will reveal, this geological anomaly was well known and understood
at some point shortly before 2500BC.
There now appears to be ample historical, mythological and metrological evidence that
appears reasonably conclusive that the rock formation at Durupinar, was widely seen in
antiquity as the boat in which a flood hero or perhaps a god escaped death in a flood.
While the Iranian version of the flood story does not describe the vessel as a boat,
[neither do some of the Chaldean versions] it would appear that regions as far afield as Egypt
developed the myths surrounding this geological anomaly at approximately the same time
So in conclusion, it can be seen that it was at the site of Durupinar on Mount Nisir, as
recorded in the Chaldean myths that the remains of Noah’s Ark were thought to rest. In the
1980’s, initial investigations seemed to indicate that the site might indeed be the remains of a
large vessel. As part of those investigations, the ‘Ark’ was measured, a plan drawn and it was
then noted that the dimensions seemed to correspond to those in the Biblical account in
Genesis.
There is much more to this line of thinking where correspondences arise. In the region
of the mountains of Ararat are found a tall mountain and a ‘boat’ and also seen at Khufu’s
monumental complex at Giza are a pyramid, a ‘Stone Mountain’ and a boat. Here is found a
related symbolism, which, taking into account the date of the construction of the Great Pyramid
around 2550BC, possibly backs up the conviction that Durupinar is the key to the generation of
the story of Noah’s Ark in the third millennium BC.
Regarding Fasold’s survey, it will be confirmed in the next chapter that a similar
survey was conducted in antiquity, at the very latest at around the time of the early Fourth
Dynasty in Egypt, although it almost certainly was accomplished earlier. However, whether

96
this was done by an Egyptian architect or surveyor or by somebody from a similar vocation
from Mesopotamia remains unknown, as the two regions were using similar source units.
It is time to leave the supposed resting place of the Ark now, for the next task is to
demonstrate the association of the myth and it’s attendant metrology with some of the familiar
features of Egypt. We also leave David Fasold here too, as ironically, the final resting place of
the ‘Ark’ was also to be his final resting place, because after his death, his ashes were scattered
over the mythical ‘vessel’ by his colleagues. It is a great pity he died before this book was
finished as he unknowingly contributed a great deal to this work. Without his expeditions to the
Ark site and his resulting book, the research for Deluge would have taken a different route and
the revelations of this and the next chapter would have remained hidden. This chapter,
although we never met, is therefore dedicated to the memory of David Fasold, who died in
1998.

97
 CHAPTER 4
The Ark and the Pyramids
Man fears time but time fears the pyramids.
(Old Arab Proverb)
Num-Khufu, the builder of the Great Pyramid, dreamed of a coming deluge and built the
pyramid as his Ark of safety. He then ‘made his abode in the maritime pyramid along with
Noah.’
Murtadi, Arab writer (1584AD)
(Cited by Massey in Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World. (1907))

4.1 The Giza Complex

The monuments on the Giza plateau need almost no introduction, as they are probably
the most well known structures of the ancient world. The three main pyramids on the Giza
plateau are the centrepieces of the funerary complexes of three of the Pharaohs of the fourth
dynasty, which most Egyptologists date to about 2575 to 2465BC. The Great Pyramid,
attributed to the Pharaoh Khufu, is on the right of the photograph in Fig 4.1, with the pyramid
attributed to his son Khaefre next to it, and that of Menkaure, Khaefre’s son, the smallest of the
three, to the rear.
In the last twenty years or so, there has been much debate regarding the above dating of
the building of the Giza pyramids, and particularly the Great Pyramid, which appears to be of a
far superior design than its companion structures. This dispute has arisen due to inputs from
outside the archaeological community. The current work is also beginning to appear to be far
from the accepted ‘norm’ but the research has unearthed no reason to disagree with the majority
archaeological view of this pyramid dating. [Note: There are astronomical arguments, which
may have some validity, that suggest that the sequence is about 100 years younger than the
above range. These arguments do not materially affect the concepts outlined in Deluge
although it could be construed that this work reinforces those views.]
The primary aim of this chapter is to demonstrate a previously unreported connection
between the geological anomaly, the ‘boat’ at Durupinar, in what is now Eastern Turkey and
some of the major monuments of the Fourth Dynasty of ancient Egypt on the Giza plateau. In
other words, the supposed landing place of the Ark of the Deluge and by implication Noah,
displays a connection to the Great Pyramid, a connection implied in the citation by Massey
nearly a hundred years ago in one of the gate quotations to this chapter. Massey however, who
primarily appears to have been a writer of theosophy [basically, religious philosophy], was
piecing together mythological elements and could not argue from a metrological basis as will
be done here. Additionally, unknown to Massey, Khufu’s pyramid is not the only one where
there is such a connection and the pyramid that is said to immediately predate it also displays

98
similar links. It should be noted that these correspondences are linked to the dating of the
Deluge [as seen in later chapters] and are coupled with the emergence of the story of a boat
being involved in the narrative of the tale. In fact, boats are the key to the story as in everyday
life they provided the primary means of transport and correspondingly were also the means of
transport of the Egyptian ‘Gods in the sky’.

Fig. 4.1 The Pyramids at Dawn, with modern Cairo in the foreground.

4.2 Boats in Egyptian Religion

The boat was a key part of life in ancient Egypt, even as far back as the Pre-Dynastic
period. However, it is not at well-known locations like Giza or Luxor [ancient Thebes, the
Egyptian capital for most of the time of the pharaohs] where the earliest known depictions of
boats are seen.
More than sixty years ago, in the winter of 1936-37, the German Egyptologist Hans
Winkler journeyed through the Eastern Desert of Upper Egypt to look for traces of early human
activity. Winkler’s dedication was rewarded by the discovery of dozens of sites where the
rocks were covered with drawings from many different archaeological periods. He revealed his
findings in two volumes entitled Rock-drawings of Southern Upper Egypt, published in 1938
and 1939. Unfortunately, Winkler’s important work never achieved the recognition it deserved
due to the disruption caused by the Second World War, during which he was killed in Poland in
January 1945, only a few months before the end of hostilities in Europe. His pioneering work

99
in the Eastern Desert has languished in relative academic obscurity until very recently when an
archaeological study team made several journeys through this wild, inhospitable place.
To illustrate the importance of the boat to the Nile-based cultures of the time, Winkler,
and the members of the more recent survey teams found a multitude of pictures of boats on the
rocky outcrops in the Eastern desert, depictions dating to at least 3100BC, and probably 2-300
years earlier. These artistic representations of boats match similar illustrations seen in the
decoration of contemporaneous pottery, and even at this early time, some examples show a
mast with a broad square sail. Some examples of the petroglyphs depict boats being towed,
with a number including what some Egyptologists term ‘the dancing goddess’.
Whether the tradition of the towed boats was indigenous to Egypt or was an idea
imported from elsewhere has been a subject of fierce debate. These different views are
probably best summarised in multi authored work edited by researchers Mike and Maggie
Morrow, who have made a detailed study of Winkler’s work and the more recent surveys. In
their opinion the petroglyphs only appear in areas with specific qualities.

'It became apparent during site recording that certain topographical conditions encouraged the
carving of petroglyphs.’1

These conditions varied but especially noticeable including through wadis as opposed to side or
dead end ones, sheltered rock overhangs and similar types of locations that in former millennia
associated with predynastic Egypt would have been wet, some of them even riverine places.
The Morrows take care to point out that any generalised assumptions regarding the
petroglyphs are unsafe, as there are significant stylistic variations between sample groups.
So it seems that there is insufficient evidence to indicate whether the ‘towed-boats’ was
a homegrown idea from Egypt or came from somewhere else. This is interesting, as a similar
religious concept is seen in ancient India.
The craft seen depicted on the rocks, moreover, appear to have similarities to reed
boats, which have been constructed along the shores of numerous lakes and rivers since long
before recorded history. Hence, there is no necessity to look directly to the Nile as a source for
the artists who carved the inscriptions in the Eastern desert as they may have originally arrived
from elsewhere.
The tombs of Dynastic Egypt have yielded pictures and even models of a variety of
river craft, ranging from rowboats and yachts to enormous barges. Some of the barges were
large enough to carry huge obelisks weighing hundreds of tons. These enormous pieces of
stone were required by the mega-monument builders of ancient Egypt and were cut from the
many quarries adjacent to the banks of the Nile. According to some modern thinking, this
indicates that the ancient Egyptians must have had knowledge of displacement theory that was
later ‘discovered’ by the Classical Greek Archimedes. However, it should be noted, as the
Norwegian historian and experimental sailor Thor Heyerdahl discovered with the reed vessels
Ra I and Ra II, the reed boat has a phenomenal carrying capacity. As these types of vessel were
used in Egypt, the barges could possibly have been constructed in this way. If the Egyptians
had built large barges and experimented with loading there would then have been no reason for
an understanding of displacement theory.

100
 The Nile River was the catalyst for all this boat building, being a perfect waterway,
running some 500 miles from the beginning of the Delta near Cairo, all the way to the First
Cataract at Aswan. This was home to the historical Elephantine Island and its Nileometer [one
of three river-depth measuring devices on the Nile in ancient Egypt]. Since the prevailing wind
blows against the flow of the water, boatmen could drift downstream with the current, and
when returning they could raise sail and then be gently driven back home. Not surprisingly
then, the ancient Egyptians were the first historically recorded people to use sails on their craft
with the earliest recorded evidence of planked boats [in this case clinker or lapstrake as against
the very much later carvel construction].
[Note: lapstrake is an American term for strakes or boards that ‘lap’ while ‘clinker’ is a
British term for exactly the same technique, the word being derived from ‘clench’ or ‘clencher’
where the fixing nails are clenched over roves].
With regard to the ‘earliest boat’ claim, it should be remembered that ancient Egypt has
left us much of its earlier culture to study due to its dry climate, in which paintings and
artefacts do not decompose and wither away. Most regions endure climatic conditions that do
not allow for such longevity of their material culture, hence today there is little of it left to
study.
This does not mean that these other regions did not have a great culture or made
scientific progress, but simply that all too often the evidence has been lost due to natural
causes. The Indian sub-continent is a prime case in point here and it is known that its
indigenous civilisations undertook much trade along its numerous large rivers and extensive
coastline. Historians are beginning to realise that the Indian region had extensive trading links
with New Kingdom Egypt, and it is also now known that some of these civilisations predate
ancient dynastic Egypt, which leads to the question – did the ‘Indians’ or another group who
acted as intermediary traders have sailing boats before Egypt? This is an issue that is
considered toward the end of Deluge.
Most ancient Egyptian boats were designed for the limited stresses of travelling up and
down the Nile, although evidence on some temple inscriptions as noted by Thor Heyerdahl
implies that they also were capable of building tough sea going reed vessels. In fact, the design
drawings for Heyerdahl’s Ra I and Ra II reed boats were from such original sources. This
marine capability was further practically demonstrated as far back as the Old Kingdom, when
ship designers were aware of the design requirements of boats that could traverse the open sea,
as is demonstrated by the famous voyage initiated by the Fourth Dynasty Pharaoh Snefru to the
Lebanon. It is thought that the ships used here however, were of a planked construction,
indicating a rapid development of shipbuilding skills in the region. The development of such
shipbuilding technology is perhaps not surprising when one considers the importance of boats
to the ancient Egyptian economy and it is equally apparent that a necessity such as boats would
become an important part of Egyptian religion.
The focus on boats in the religion of ancient Egypt intensified as part of its increased
sophistication in the Fourth Dynasty and, in the 1950’s at Khufu’s pyramid, a pair of planked
boats were found that were designed for use in the afterlife in his journey across the sky with
his father Ra. One of these boats is now on permanent display at the Giza complex, whilst the
other remains undisturbed for study by future generations of archaeologists.

101
4.3 The Boats of Khufu

The discovery of the Solar Boat of Khufu in 1954 on the South side of the Great
Pyramid of Giza ranks as one of the most important and exciting archaeological discoveries of
the 20th century. Up to the early 1950’s, the South side of the Great Pyramid had been
obstructed by debris to a height of some 20feet. or so [7m] but after King Saud of Saudi Arabia
commented on its presence during a visit to Giza, it was decided by the authorities to clear the
rubble. The leader of the team assigned to clear away the rubble was Gares Yani, who had
been well trained in archaeological excavation. When, in July 1954, his men uncovered several
huge limestone blocks lying flush with ground level, he was convinced that they covered a
large pit, one that would hold the boat of Khufu.
Yani immediately contacted his supervisor Kamal El-Mallakh, a young architect in the
Antiquities Department at Giza who had long thought that the South enclosure wall had been
built closer to the Pyramid’s base than the other walls in order to conceal one or more boat pits,
and Yani knew this. When El-Mallakh arrived at the site, he found that the 41 limestone blocks
seemed to be supported on a metre - wide shelf, and he broke through a massive slab to reveal a
deep vault beneath his feet. On lowering himself into what had previously been an airtight
chamber, he detected the unmistakable aroma of cedar wood. With the use of a torch and a
mirror, he perceived that what lay inside were the component parts of a boat and that moreover,
they appeared to be in a remarkable state of preservation. It was the first time in 4,500 years
that this boat, albeit in sections, had been seen by the human eye.
Hag Ahmed Youssef, chief restorer of the department of Antiquities, was put in charge
of the excavation and reconstruction of what was perceived at the time to be the oldest boat in
the world. Limestone blocks covering the pit were lifted with cranes and a resinous solution
was applied to the fragments of ancient matting found in the tomb so as to lift them without
damage. A platform had to be built over the working area to enable Youssef to conduct
operations without putting pressure on the boat itself and eventually the ancient timbers were
lifted, treated and restored. The boat's 1,224 separate components included cedar wood
planking and oars, ropes of halfa grass, wooden dowels and battens and copper staples. Its
near-perfect preservation allowed conservators to reconstruct the craft, which is now housed in
a museum built over the pit where it was found.
The timbers in the hull are bound together by rope and not nailed or pinned together.
This is a traditional method associated with the building of reed craft. Modern rope was used
during its re-construction, but its timbers are 95 percent original. It took Youssef, almost
single-handedly, 14 years to put this giant jigsaw puzzle together. 2
Almost from the date of the boat’s discovery, there has been a debate about its role.
This debate has centred on the issue of whether Khufu’s boat was a funerary boat or a ‘solar
barque’. Dr. Zahi Hawass, one of the world’s leading Egyptologists claimed that as shavings of
cedar and acacia timbers were still to be found in the boat pit, and there were traces of mud
plaster on its walls, there was insufficient evidence to support the theory that the vessel was a
funary boat and that it had never been floated on the Nile. However, this is as flimsy an
argument as the mantled boat, it simply does not hold water, the vessel could have been
assembled and then taken apart when all was seen to work correctly.

102
Fig. 4.2 The Solar Barque of Khufu

An argument arises again here because the aforementioned Thor Heyerdhal, happened
to be building the first of his Ra reed boats in the district at the time that Youssef was
reconstructing Khufu’s vessel. The two men became firm friends, both being interested in the
history of ancient vessels and their development. Heyerdahl reports in his work The Ra
Expeditions that Youssef showed him where the original ropes had chaffed the timbers and
concluded from this that as the chaffing was greater than that to be expected from construction
wear, the vessel had been used before being dismantled and stored in its chamber3. Perhaps it
was necessary to prove its seaworthiness prior to entrusting the Pharaoh to eternity in the vessel
and hence tests on the Nile were conducted. However, it would be virtually impossible to cut
and shape the planks for this vessel without assembly. Boatbuilding techniques demand that
the shape of each individual plank is dependent upon that of the fixed curved position of the
previous plank and all such lapstrake or clinker vessels are built up a plank at a time, one on
each side. Hence, it is highly probable that the soft cedar wood was marked during the course
of construction. It would then have to be floated and would initially take in some water until
the planking had expanded, putting strain on and further tightening the ropes.
There have been numerous arguments regarding this vessel, was it used or was it not
used and it is pointless to repeat any of them here as the evidence to a practical person is clear.
Even if it was not put in the water, it was of necessity assembled plank by plank and the soft
cedar planking would have been worn to a certain extent in the course of construction. It was
thought by two very practical people, one experienced in boat building who risked his life in
replications of ancient vessels, that the boat of Khufu was floated before being taken apart and
stored. One of the authors of Deluge is carpenter who has himself worked on timber boats and

103
sees no logic in any other argument regarding the practical aspects of this vessel than that
presented here.

Fig 4.3 Another view of the Solar Barque

Fig. 4.4 Forward View of Solar Barque (note the reverse lapstrake construction, an uncommon
but occasionally seen method in modern small boats)

104
 The most telling fact is that, as with the lack of any sign of a burial in the pyramid, no
mast was ever found in the kit of components of the boat. This reinforces the view that is held
not only by Hawass, but also by others [including the authors of this work] that the vessel’s
primary purpose was as a representation of a solar barque - a vessel for Khufu’s journey in the
afterlife across the Celestial Ocean in the sky.
Khufu’s Solar Barque was indeed related to the Gods, for it has a close metrological
connection to another boat that was thought in some religions to have been built on a God’s
orders. This was the Ark of Noah, which until recently, as well as in antiquity, was thought to
rest at Nisir, or as the location is now called, Durupinar in modern Eastern Turkey, as revealed
in the previous chapter. It was seen there that if the width of the Ark as described by Genesis
[50 cubits at 1.76feet.] is multiplied by Phi or 1.618033988 that conforms to the perceived
beam of the structure. Working to 10 figures, this value was 142.3869909 feet or
43.39955484m. The length of Khufu’s Solar Barque is usually reported to be 43.3 or 43.4m
dependent upon the source. As can be seen, this is virtually exactly the same as the overall
beam of the Durupinar ‘Ark’.
Therefore, it appears that there is a strange situation here - one of the most powerful of
all the Pharaohs having a boat built to emulate the dimensions of what was thought to be a
vessel associated with an escape from the Deluge. Yet this earlier vessel was not even in
ancient Egypt, or associated in any generally recognised way with its religion.
It would consequently seem that Khufu and his architects had a good knowledge of an
early version of a flood legend that would later be included in the legend of Gilgamesh and in
the Bible, and /or an associated legend, or perhaps even the source narrative. In particular, it
seems that they were aware of a survey that someone had done at Durupinar [similar to the one
done in modern times by David Fasold]. In fact, taking into account his reported personality
and, as suggested later, his role in the design of the Great Pyramid, it seems almost certain that
Khufu was the driver behind this enterprise of having his boat built to emulate a key dimension
of a craft that had been built under the influence and protection of the Gods, or one specific all-
powerful God.
Technology, practicality and possibly a reverence of the Gods, probably precluded a
1:1 representation in terms of the length, but by using the beam width of the craft that
supposedly landed at Durupinar, Khufu was demonstrating his close links with the deities of
the heavens.
There are those who will undoubtedly say that the close relationship between the
geological anomaly at Durupinar and the solar barque of Khufu is just a co-incidence – that all
the ancient Egyptians did is to take the 1.76feet cubit and multiply by 50, then further increase
the result by the Golden Section. But the question remains of why go to all this trouble, why
use that cubit value, why a multiple of 50 and why utilise the Golden Section? Evidently, this
numerical construct is based upon a solid idea, not merely a multiple of numbers. [Note: After
much analysis, it can be confirmed that there is no other coherent value in the realms of ancient
measurement that fits the above measurement in whole numbers].
Khufu did something else to demonstrate beyond all doubt his special relationship with
the Gods and their Ark - he enshrined more metrological features from Durupinar within his
pyramid. These will be considered a little later, but in trying to understand the meaning of the

105
pyramids in general, it is instructive to look at Khufu himself and some of the features of the
greatest of all pyramids first.

4.4 The Ark and the Great Pyramid

Firstly in Chapter 1 we made it clear that the flood story was about the loss of a pole
star. Effectively creation was the gain of a pole star and the flood the loss thereof, a cyclical
scenario. The flood lasted a canonical 3600 years, in reality a variable period but allotted this
period due the initial count of time involved from the loss of Vega to the gain of Tau Hercules.
So what connection is there between the pole star and Giza? If there is a connection
would it have any application at this location? Let us start with a legend , a report that is a bit
of a mystery and generally completely discounted. It is from the Coptic historian Masoudi who
dies in 956 AD and told of the reason for the building of the pyramids at Giza. The main
character is King Surid. This name is thought to be a corruption of Suphis, a late form of
Khufu. [See http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidlegends.htm]
The story tells of the king having a dream of the stars falling about, the motions of the
heavens were disturbed and his astrologers informed him that there would be a flood. He
therefore built the pyramid at Giza. [See full version athttp://www.ancient-
wisdom.co.uk/Ghizppendices.htm#masoudi]
So while this seems a bit of a fairy tale its author appeared to be aware of the meaning
of the flood tale when it was composed, albeit very much later than the time of Khufu…unless
there was some other story that has since been lost, something akin to the source for all three of
the Biblical synoptic gospels, the mysterious ‘Book of Q’ that allows them all to carry the same
information and in many cases identical wording, a common, more ancient source.
So is there anything further that connects Giza and in particular Khufu to the pole star
and the flood story? Indeed there is as shall be revealed.
The first thing here, having seen a hint of a connection via Masoudi, is in the location
of Giza. In the sky the Nile was seen as the Milky Way. This is common knowledge but what
is not so common is the fact that if the length from the Mediteranean to the first cataract which
at the fourth dynasty still generally regarded as the southern extremity of the country is divided
into sixths, then when transferred to the celestial Nile, the visible Milky Way, it emerges that
the location of Giza is at the position of the north celestial pole which at that time was the star
Thuban in the constellation Draconis, seen by the Egyptians as a hippo, a river horse. The flood
story is about the loss and eventual gain of a pole star. The story from Masoudi claims that the
king was told that the flood will occur in 300 years. This places the date of assessment at
2600BC as the celestial flood implied commenced at 2300BC. Infact this is not a bad stab at
dating for the time of over 1000 years ago, Egyptologists still argue over the dating but agree in
general to within a few years. There are many who would not argue against a date for Khufu of
just the other side of 2600BC…
Hence have a dream of a flood by Khufu [a legend not substantiated but certainly very
intriguing] and this flood uncannily is related to the stars in the sky being out of position and
moving incorrectly. The pivot of these revolving stars is the north celestial pole, a location that
is reverred as being directly associated with Mount Meru or Kailash in Indian lore. Kailash is a

106
large pyramidal shaped mountain in Tibet. This is further compounded by the fact that the
celestial vision of Egypt places the general area of Giza at the pole star position. So just why
did Khufu build his pyramid at Giza and not at another location as did was done by other
pharaohs? This appears to be an astronomical question.
Perhaps further evidence for this strange association will reveal an answer. However let
us look at a little background before digging too deeply intothe evidence for the associations.
The Great Pyramid on the Giza plateau, which lies just to the West of the Great
Provider of ancient Egypt – the River Nile, is truly worthy of its place amongst the world’s
best-known symbols. Over 2 million blocks of stone, weighing over 2 tons each, were hauled
into place by twenty thousand skilled labourers in order to build this shrine to the beliefs of its
designers.
The Great Pyramid, also known as Khufu’s Pyramid [or Cheops Pyramid to the
Classical Greeks] and its sister monuments, exude a sense of permanence, whilst also implying
that a message is being transmitted across countless generations. One wonders if this was one
of its purposes – its immense bulk, like that of the other Pyramids, was designed to ensure that
any such message would withstand a range of enemies - the ravages of time, rapacious tomb
and masonry robbers, and religious zealotry.

Fig. 4.5 The Great Pyramid

One of the Seven Ancient Wonders of the World, The Great Pyramid [note only this
pyramid], was, according to convention, built by the 4th Dynasty Pharaoh Cheops, better known
by his Egyptian name, Khufu, who reigned from 2589 – 2566BC.
Khufu’s architect [that some researchers suggest was his brother] found firm bedrock
on the Giza plateau and a convenient limestone quarry, maximising the probability that his
Pyramid would not have the construction problems of his predecessors. His pyramid is a work
of astonishing size and precision, and when completed stood 481.0909 feet high, with an angle
of slope of 51 degrees 50'. The length of its sides varies by less than 6 inches according to the
famous archaeologist Sir Flinders Petrie, and they are orientated almost exactly to the cardinal

107
points of the compass, whilst its base is almost completely level. To give an idea of the size of
the base, it has been calculated that the base of the Great Pyramid could accommodate both the
British Houses of Parliament and St. Paul's Cathedral with room to spare.
The Great Pyramid holds three chambers linked by a system of passageways and
galleries, the unfinished Subterranean Chamber; the ill-named Queen's Chamber; and the
King's Chamber, where Khufu was supposedly buried in an enormous, plain, red granite
sarcophagus.
What history we know of the Great Pyramid, and for that matter, of its builder Khufu,
comes mainly from the chronicler Herodotus.
Until recently, ‘scholars’ took a very dim view of Herodotus dubbing him with the
insulting title the father of the lie. Today he is thankfully seen as purely a chronicler of what he
was told. In the case of the Great Pyramid, when Herodotus was in Egypt, around 450BC, it
was nearly two thousand years after the pyramids were built, and many of the ‘facts’ as told
him by the Egyptian priests were undoubtedly already hazy. He may have been wrong in his
assertion that the Great Pyramid was built by 100,000 slaves, but in other aspects of the story
he is seen today as essentially correct. For example, Herodotus says that ‘The Great Pyramid
itself was twenty years in building’. This timescale seems to be backed up by Stadelmann’s
discovery, during his excavations at Dashur, not only the name of Snefru in a cartouche but of
dates being marked on the back of approximately every 20th block of the predecessor of the
Great Pyramid, the so-called Red Pyramid:
A building time of 17 years for the Red Pyramid closely corresponds with modern
estimates of the construction period of the Great Pyramid [which is slightly larger]. These
estimates are based on simulations and recent archaeological excavations of the ‘workers
village’ near the site and range between 20–23 years for the construction of Khufu’s
monument, with the workforce only employed 6 months a year during the annual Nile
inundation.
What little we know of Khufu seems to back up a vision of him reported by Herodotus
of being a cruel and heartless leader, much in contrast to his father Snefru who apparently was
fondly remembered in ancient Egypt many generations after his death. Even prior to
Herodotus, the author of the document now known as the Papyrus Westcar depicts Khufu as
cruel.
The Westcar text was inscribed in the Hyskos period prior to the 18th Dynasty, although
its composition apparently dates from the 12th Dynasty. Not many Pharaohs were known for
their beneficial nature, and so Khufu’s temperament may not be that unusual, but we can
speculate that Khufu pushed his people to the limit, as he seemed to be aiming to build the
ultimate pyramid before his death.
From the time of the Old Kingdom onwards tomb-robbing was a major problem and
ancient Egyptian architects became adept at designing passageways that could be plugged with
impassable granite blocks, creating secret, hidden rooms and making decoy chambers.
However, no matter how clever the designers became, the tomb-robbers always seemed to be
smarter and with almost no exceptions each of the great tombs of the Egyptian Pharaohs were
plundered.

108
 In 820AD the Arab Caliph Abdullah Al Mamoun decided to search for the rumoured
‘treasure of Khufu’. He gathered a gang of workers and, unable to find the location of a
reputed secret door, started burrowing into the pyramid’s North side. After a hundred feet of
difficult tunnelling they were about to give up when the noise of a heavy thud echoed
throughout the interior of the pyramid.
Cutting their way through stone in the direction of the sound, they soon came upon a
passageway that descended deep into the heart of the pyramid. On the floor lay a large block
that had fallen from the ceiling, apparently causing the noise they had heard. Upon
examination of the fallen block, a large granite plug was perceived at a higher elevation along
this sloping passage and the workers circumvented this by cutting through the softer stone
around it. They then found another passageway that extended up into the heart of the pyramid,
with more blocks in the way, which again were bypassed. Finally these pyramid burrowers
found themselves in a low, horizontal passage that lead to a small, square, empty room. This
later became known as the Queen's Chamber, though archaeologists consider it unlikely that it
ever served that function.

Fig. 4.6 The only known likeness of Khufu

Back at the junction of the ascending and descending passageways, the workers then
noticed an open space in the ceiling. Climbing up they found themselves in a high-roofed,
ascending passageway. This became known as the Grand Gallery. At the top of the gallery

109
was a low horizontal passage that led to an anti chamber, leading in turn via another low
passage to a large room, which is now called the King's Chamber. In this room was a huge
granite sarcophagus without a lid.
To the surprise of the tomb-robbers, the room was otherwise completely empty. From
the little that we know of the ‘cruel’ Khufu, it is very unlikely that he would wish to be
generous to tomb-robbers, as is exemplified by his stern visage in Figure 4.6. In his pyramid,
Khufu had apparently triumphed over them for neither his remains nor his treasure was ever
found in the Old Kingdom, or afterwards.
Possibly his ‘treasure’ was to be found in the metrology openly ‘hidden’ in the Great
Pyramid, such as in its external geodetically related dimensions as discussed in the previous
chapter and elsewhere in Deluge. If this were true, then the ‘jewels’ in the treasure were to be
found safely encased within the pyramid, something that will now be revealed to be the case.
As noted above, Al Mamoun’s workers revealed a complex set of chambers and
galleries, and a simplified cutaway view of these is seen in Figure 4.7.

Fig 4.7 Internal View of the Great Pyramid

Looking at the King’s Chamber first, which is detailed in isometric form in Figure 4.8,
it is found that the numeric value of target dimension [to 10 significant figures] for the length
of the solar barque, 142.3869909 feet, can be found within the confines of the King’s Chamber.
The contained coffer, utilising a mean of the dimensions from Smyth and Petrie has a target
volume of 142386.9909 cubic inches.
As seen in Chapter 3, the internal surveyed length of the Durupinar Ark was
515.4545454 feet. [Note that this is in British feet] Once more is discovered a replication of

110
the value within the pyramid. The target cubic diagonal length of the King’s Chamber is
515.4545454 British inches. There is no way that this could be coincidence.
Looking at the last statement, with regard to the cubic diagonal, the length of the
chamber is 20 cubits and the breadth is 10 cubits with the cubit length being 1.718181818 feet,
the Short Egyptian cubit. Hence, to create the value of 515.4545454 inches, [1/12 of the
internal Ark length] the soffit or ceiling height needs to be set to suit. In other words, there is
no standard measure that would accommodate the height and additionally create this cubic
diagonal measure.
Therefore setting the target height of the chamber to 19.20985671feet or half the base
diagonal is a creation designed to ensure that the cubic diagonal measure complies as a
representation of the internal length of ‘the Ark’. [Note: the dimensions within the chambers
and passages of the pyramid, as denoted by the surveys examined, generally correspond to a
tolerance within a maximum of 1/5 of an inch However, there is one notable exception to this
rule that will be seen shortly. Therefore these 'target dimensions', fine measurements as they
are, are seen as being realistic objectives for the builders of the structures. In some cases, there
is virtually no tolerance at all and the measures, for all practical purposes, are exact.]

111
 Internal width 10 cubits
at 1.718181818 feet
= 17.818181818 feet Internal length
20 cubits at 1.718181818feet
= 34.36363636 feet
Centreline of Pyramid
North / South axis

Internal height Cubic diagonal

=19.20985671 feet = 515.45454545 inches

Centreline of passages

10 cubits wide
half base diagonal 21 Cubits to centre of
= height Pyramids Great Step
14 cubits = = 515.45454545/14.2857142
Pyramids length
Centreline of Pyramid
/ 31.42857142
North / South axis
5.1545454545 x 5
Notes:- Centreline of Chamber
Centreline of passages
Total Coffer Volume = 142385.9909 cubic
inches

Length of Khufu's Funery Boat =

142.3869909 feet
O/A Beam of Noah's Ark = 142.3869909
feet
Internal length of Noah's Ark =
515.45454545 feet

Coffer dimensions
length 7.56 feet x 0.99 feet [11.88 inches]
breadth 3.24 x 0.99 feet = 21.6 x 0.99 feet
perimeter
rebate depth 1.72 inches
base thickness 6.92 inches
O/A height = 41.27 inches

Fig.4.8 Great Pyramid Kings Chamber [isometric] – Note the representation of values
associated with 22/7 [3.1428571]

The elevation perimeter of Noah’s Ark according to the Genesis model is 300 cubits x
30 cubits. The relevant cubit value, as revealed in Chapter 3, is 1.76feet, which gives a
resultant elevation perimeter of 1161.6 feet. The anti chamber leading to the passage entrance

112
to the King’s Chamber is 116.16 inches in length, which is a direct correspondence to the
1161.6 feet elevation perimeter of Noah’s Ark.

Fig.4.9 Ascending View of Grand Gallery

Possibly the most studied chamber in the Great Pyramid, is the Grand Gallery. The
Grand Gallery has seven recesses, each effectively an inward corbel on each sidewall, each
being 0.24feet in thickness. 0.24feet multiplied by 7 = 1.68feet and 1.68feet multiplied by 10
gives 16.8feet. If that value is then multiplied by one instance of the Golden Section, Phi
[1.618033988] we then get 27.18297100feet. This corresponds to the increase in the half beam
[port or starboard] of Noah’s Ark from its ‘raft base’ upward, as shown below [working to
target values of 10 significant figures again].
Referring again to Chapter 3, the total increase on Ark beam was calculated as
142.3869909 less 88 feet, which is 54.38699094feet. If we divide this value in two for the port
and starboard dimensional increases, we get 27.19349547feet, within 0.126 inches or 3.2 mm
of the above value of 27.18297100feet.
To illustrate the correlation between the two values, if we divide 27.19349547feet, by
Phi, 1.618033988 this results in exactly 16.80650448feet, which is within 0.078 [less than 2
mm] of an inch of 10 x 1.68feet. When this is further divided for each individual corbel, the
comparison between Genesis / Ark and Pyramid measurements results in a difference of 0.018
of an inch, less than 0.5 mm per corbel.
In effect, the Grand Gallery is very accurately emulating, in an inverted form, the
increase from the Genesis configuration to the onsite beam measurement of the Ark, via the

113
utilisation of Phi, which appears to confirm again that it was known in the Old Kingdom of
ancient Egypt.
However, this Noahic modelling in the Grand Gallery, is more of a composite picture
where the overall height of the walls above the Ark raft, 25.344 feet, are seen in the overall
height, square to the baseline. [All surveys examined give a plumb measure to a floor that it is
admitted by the surveyors to be very uneven in this passage]. This is explained in Figure 4.11.
The calculated draught of the vessel is seen in the 23.76feet measure from the shoulder
line, one cubit at 1.584 feet above floor line and the soffit. The associated step value to this
cubit [2.5 x 1.056feet] is seen in the 2.64feet height of each corbel.
The shoulder depth indicates the cubit value used to assess water depth of the ‘Great
Flood’ and where the pyramid appears to be lofted or set out in relation to the value 22/7 [see
the isometric drawing, Figure 4.8] we have a 1.68 feet inset each side. This is once more very
fitting because the length of the Ark [528 feet] / 3.142857142 [22/7] = 168 feet. Using the
dimensions specified in Genesis and the cubit of 1.76 feet, again as implied in that text, the
perimeter in plan of the Ark would have been 1,232 feet. he factor 1232 is seen as a foot value
in the Grand Gallery, as is its associated cubit value of 1.848feet.
If the floor area of the King’s Chamber is divided into the ground plan area of the Great
Pyramid of 756 British feet per side, the result is exactly 968. 0.968 foot = 11.616 ins and the
by now familiar elevation perimeter of Noah’s Ark was 1161.6 feet using the primary Noahic
cubit value. 116.16ins is also the length of the Anti-Chamber leading to the entrance passage
of the Kings Chamber. The Queen’s chamber treated in a similar manner is also revealing in
that its floor area divides into the ground plan of the pyramid, as defined above, 756 feet per
side, exactly 1,760 times, indicating again the relevance of the factor 176 to the Great
Pyramid’s construction.

114
 3.5 feet

0.24 feet recess

18.84 feet
first recess 2.64 feet rise
to soffit 23.76 feet
25.344 feet shoulder line
O/A height at to soffit
right angles to floor line

5.28 feet rise

1.584 feet

3.5 feet
1.68 feet

Fig.4.10 Grand Gallery Cross Section at 90 degrees to floor line

115
 Measure at 90dto floor line = 304.6699 British
inches

Vertical height (Smyth agreed by Petrie) 339.8

British inches

Slope angle 26d 17' which is at slight variance

to lower ascending passage where 26d 8' applies
(Smyth)

Height square to baseline is based upon the mean of measures to a floor that is not perfectly flat.
The target dimesion at 90 d to floorline is 304.128 British inches which then complies with the
25.344 ft seen on the Ark and with the 3041.28 ft of the perimeter of the pyramid measured
around the socket lines. Smyth and Petrie made the vertical height 339.8 inches which makes
the measure at 90d to the floor line 304.6699 inches. The difference between this value and the
target measure is 0.5419 of an inch.

Fig. 4.11Grand Gallery Height explained

116
 148
.5 f
eet

Gre
3.0 at Ste
03
fee p 156
.81
t hi 6
gh fee
151 t
.2 f
eet

123
of d .75 fe
esc et to
end
ing soffit
pas
126.72 feet to inside of Queens Chamber sag
e

Fig 4.12 Longitudinal section through Grand Gallery

There is one more point to be made here. The coffer, [Figure 4.13], when found, was
not in its precise position as seen in the drawing above, and there was a pebble placed under
one corner. There has been much speculation about this pebble ever since Petrie discovered it
in his studies of the Great Pyramid. There is a very simple explanation for its presence here – it
was put there by tomb robbers who were attempting to find whatever treasures have been
hidden within the pyramid. Once the coffer had been jacked up sufficiently to allow a stone to
be put beneath, it was easier to manipulate and it certainly would have been moved by any

117
tomb robbers in their search for further passages and chambers. This coffer would have been
originally placed in a geometrically and metrologically correct position as seen in Figure 4.8
earlier.

Fig. 4.13 Khufu’s Coffer after modern vandalism

It is clear here that there are a number of deliberate dimensional correspondences

between Khufu’s Great Pyramid and his solar barque, and what ultimately is no more than an
unusual lump of rock in the mountains many hundreds of miles away in Eastern Turkey. Yet in
antiquity, it obviously was seen as something else – the remnants of a boat that was connected
to the Gods. But was this fixation with a far-away ‘boat’ unique to the Pharaoh Khufu? The
evidence relates that it was not as shall be seen below.

4.5 The Development of 3rd and Early 4th Dynasty Pyramids

There is little doubt that the pyramidal shape developed from the mastaba, which was a
rectangular low structure, as is seen in a typical example from the burial complex at Saqqara
seen in Figure 4.14.
When considering ancient Egyptian pyramids one normally thinks of the Giza
plateau, but in fact they feature in a number of locations. The map below [Figure 4.15] is
instructive here in placing these locations in context.

118
Fig. 4.14 Mastaba tomb at Saqqara

The first large pyramidal structure erected in Old Kingdom Egypt is the one attributed
to Djoser, the second Pharoah of the Third Dynasty who reigned between 2668 and 2649BC.
The site chosen for this structure was a flat area of raised land above the royal capital of
Memphis, not far from Saqqara.
Djoser’s pyramid [Figure 4.16] is usually known as the Stepped Pyramid because of its
appearance. Clayton implies that its size was an effort to make his ‘mastaba’ clearly visible
from Memphis, and to differentiate it from other tombs:

119
Fig. 4.15 Egypt…Aswan to the coast

‘The tombs of officials from the previous dynasties had lined the edge of the plateau at
Saqqara, looking out over the cultivation towards the royal capital of Memphis. Being low
mastabas, they appeared only as low mounds on the skyline. Djoser decided to move his
monument back from the escarpment edge by about a mile and there commenced a grandoise
complex that was to be an architectural first: the famous Step Pyramid’ 4

120
Fig. 4.16 Djoser’s Step Pyramid

The Step Pyramid is seen by most Egyptologists as an extension of the religious

concepts behind early mastaba tombs. This becomes apparent when examining the structure of
the first step pyramid where the accretion of a number of mastaba like structures laid upon each
other can be observed. These predecessors to the step pyramid are generally thought to be a
symbolic replication of the ‘mound of creation’, [a crucial concept that arises later in Deluge]
but it is also suggested by some scholars that the step pyramid can be read as a stairway to
heaven. [Note: Neither of the above explanations discusses the archaeological evidence of
Mesopotamia where the ‘ziggurat’ form possible predated its appearance in Egypt by a
considerable period. However, as discussed in later chapters, this may not be surprising, as
although it is known that there were trading contacts between the ancient early Mesopotamian
and Egyptian civilisations, the primary cultural influence of early dynastic Egypt was from the
region of ancient India.]
Whatever the driver behind this concept of building mountains of stone in the form of a
step pyramid, it found favour with Djoser’s successors. The Pharoah Sekhemket [2649–
2643BC] built another step pyramid, supposedly in the six short years of his reign. Following
him was Khaba [2643-2637BC] who again, although his structure remained unfinished,
attempted much in his six years. Perhaps not surprisingly, the new type of monuments that
were built in the Third Dynasty, these Step Pyramids, made a strong impression on the
Egyptians.
Soon the pyramid became not only a resurrection machine for the Pharaoh, but also a
striking symbol of royal power in Earthly life and the next.
The last King of the Third Dynasty, a ruler named Huni, expressed this power in a
different way than his forebears by building some, if not all, of the eight smaller Step pyramids
that curiously dot the landscape from Athribis in the Nile Delta to Elephantine at Egypt's
southern border. His death ended the Third Dynasty, and a new Royal line would begin with
the first King of the Fourth Dynasty, Snefru in 2613BC, who came from a different family line.

121
Snefru apparently cemented the Royal lines of the Third and Fourth Dynasties together by
marrying Huni’s daughter, Hetep-heres, who would become the mother of the Great Pyramid’s
builder Khufu.
It may be that Huni believed smaller Pyramids were sufficient for his purposes, but
Snefru, as well as building similar structures, appeared to be driven to an even greater extent
than the earlier builders of massive pyramidal structures in his desire for perfection. There is a
better historical view of the Old Kingdom in the Fourth Dynasty and a rapid development of
religious concepts is found during Snefru’s long reign to 2589BC. For example, pyramids
became straight-sided, with the new form, according to Dr Aidan Dodson, 5 representing the
rays of the Sun.
Snefru’s accession would mark the beginning of the so-called Golden Age of the
Pyramids. The greatest pyramid builder of all the Old Kingdom pharaohs, Snefru’s reign is
distinguished by the sheer size and number of the monuments that he built - three full-sized
pyramids, and probably two smaller ones. These contained one-third more stone than the
pyramid of his son and successor Khufu.6 At Meidum, 30 miles south of Memphis, Snefru built
Egypt's first true, or straight-sided, pyramid. Previously believed to belong to Huni by
archaeologists, simply because no one could conceive of one Pharaoh building so much, the
pyramid at Meidum is now recognised as the first of Snefru's great pyramid-building projects.
Its slightly bizarre shape, the result of later stone robbing, has earned it the Arabic name Haram
el Kaddab or The False Pyramid [Figure 4.17].

Fig. 4.17 Snefru’s First pyramid: The False Pyramid of Meidum

This started as a stepped pyramid, but according to conventional wisdom, as seen

above, as religious fashion changed, Snefru seemingly decided to replace it with a smooth sided
pyramid on the Dashur plateau further north. However, structural problems with that pyramid
left it being well short of the perfection that one of ancient Egypt’s most powerful Pharaohs
required, and it ended up with a ‘bent’ appearance that gives it its name, The Bent Pyramid
[Figure 4.18] Snefru built a third pyramid, the second at Dashur, to replace the faulty second

122
one [although possibly as seen below, for other reasons], and it appears that the False Pyramid
was modified to be a true geometric pyramid as it neared completion.

Fig. 4.18 Snefru’s Second pyramid: The Bent Pyramid of Dashur

At Meidum, the steps were packed with stone, and the whole structure was encased in
finest limestone, possibly to provide a backup monument should any construction disaster
befall his third attempt to build the finest of all pyramids.
Features such as corbelled galleries that the general public seem to think exist only in
the Great Pyramid, in its Grand Gallery existed earlier in the pyramid sequence. Nowhere is
this more evident than in Snefru's third pyramid, although it is also seen at his second at
Dahshur. Often termed Egypt’s Second Great Pyramid, the Red Pyramid [Figure 4.19] was the
first successful true pyramid, although archaeologists are undecided if it, or its predecessor,
ever served as Snefru’s eventual resting place.
The Red Pyramid is positioned two and a half miles [4 km] to the North of the Bent
Pyramid and is given its name by the rusty tinge of the local limestone of its core. Snefru’s
architects were quick to learn from their mistakes in the construction of the Bent Pyramid, and
this time the Pharaoh’s architects laid a foundation platform of several courses of fine white
limestone to prevent the problem of subsidence from recurring. The lesson of the Bent
Pyramid also encouraged them to construct the pyramid with stones laid in level, rather than
inclined courses at the similarly modest angle of 43 degrees to a height of about 104.5 m [342.8
feet or 300 x 1.142857242 etc], making the Red Pyramid the fourth highest pyramid ever built7.

123
Fig. 4.19 The Red Pyramid of Dashur

The construction of the Red Pyramid demonstrates that the pyramid had left the
development phase and had finally achieved the distinctive and proper geometric form that they
would retain until their building ceased. The perfection achieved on the exterior of the Red
Pyramid is matched by the elegance of its internal chambers, and the stunning corbelled
ceilings where the stone blocks were placed in eleven to fourteen layers on all four sides until a
pyramid-shaped roof was obtained. In this ingenious way, the weight of the pyramid could be
supported. More than two million tonnes of stone rested on these ceilings, yet even today,
there are no cracks and no signs of subsidence.
Not only had the architects tackled the difficult problems of construction but also by
creating a pyramid within a pyramid, they reinforced the Pharaoh’s chances of resurrection. As
Stadelman comments:

'With this marvellous sequence of large and high rooms, King Snefru finally had achieved a
burial place he could be happy and content with. It was his eternal residence, built with
absolute perfection.’ 8

124
4.6 The Internal Metrology of the Red Pyramid

In this section the entrance and the three main chambers of Snefru’s third pyramid will
be examined. All three chambers were lofty affairs and corbelled inwards almost to meet at
soffit level. [The dimensional information here is from I.E.S. Edwards 9] It will be seen that
some numerical acrobatics have been utilised by the designers to maintain correspondence with
the Noahic numbers, as there is no other plausible explanation for the dimensions of the
internal features of the structure.
The length of the entrance passage is about 206feet, which could be seen as 120 Short
Egyptian cubits of 1.718181818feet. This is within 2.18 inches of the stated 206 feet, which is
not very accurate. The accuracy can be improved to just under an inch by multiplying 7.92 by
26 for a result that is within 0.96 of an inch of the approximate published value.
There is no exact value that has been found to comply with the horizontal passage
length of 24feet 5ins, but the step value associated with the 0.968 foot unit [11.616 inches] x
1.008 x 10 results in 24.3936 feet, which is within 0.2768 of an inch of the recorded measure.
The factor of 1008, it should be stated, is more important than merely representing a singular
unit of measure and has far-reaching implications that will be seen again later in a different
context. As a single example, in terms of short Egyptian inches, half of this increased by a
factor of 10 at 5040 = the height of the Great pyramid at 280 short Egyptian cubits or
481.09090909 British feet.
a) The Floor Plan of Chamber 1
The length of the first chamber is reported as 27feet 6ins, whilst the breadth was 12feet.
This is equivalent to 330 ins. by 144 ins. or 330 square feet. It is found that the length of the
chamber is virtually 16 Short Egyptian cubits, whilst its breadth is virtually 7 Short Egyptian
cubits.
These measurements are close enough to accept in cubits, being within 0.1 of an inch in
length and within 0.327 of an inch in width. Note that the average tolerance and variation
between published survey results of Khufu’s pyramid internally was 1/5 or 0.2 of an inch.
However, evidence suggests that in the case of the Red Pyramid, British inches take precedence
over Egyptian measures.
b) The Main chamber
The length of this chamber was reported at 27 feet 5ins [329ins] and the breadth at
13feet 9 ins (165ins). While the width here is virtually exactly eight short Egyptian cubits, the
length is one inch shorter than the previous chamber and therefore cannot comply with a cubit
value. Why should this be? The designers must have had a very good reason for such a
deviance from an accepted measure.
It is found that they did have such a reason, because when the square area is calculated,
which is 329ins. x 165ins it is found to equal 54,285 sq. ins. The relevance of this is seen in the
following. The plan area of Noah’s Ark according to the values given in Genesis, using a
1.76feet cubit, is 46,464 square feet or 6,690,816 sq ins. Dividing the Ark area by that of this
chamber, e.g. 6,690,816 sq ins / 54,285 sq ins = 123.2534954. As we have seen, 1232feet is
the plan perimeter of Noah’s Ark. Hence, within extremely close margins, this chamber
divides into the area of the Ark 123.2 times, a value implicating the plan perimeter of the

125
vessel. To indicate the validity of this argument the accuracy can be seen in the following:
46464 / 123.2 x 144 [to give square inches] = 54,308.57143 and the floor area of the chamber =
54,285 sq. ins. The difference here is 23.5714285 sq.ins. 23.5714285 sq.ins divided by the
perimeter of the chamber in inches, results in 0.02385 of an inch, or 0.6 of a millimetre. Length
and breadth were therefore built to within 1.2 mm of the above dimensions.
This is the tolerance to each wall that is discovered; the accuracy to which the builders
worked within this structure with massive slabs of stone, without modern mechanical means to
accurately place their enormously heavy loads. The feat can only be marvelled at but is only
appreciated when the true intention and hence this phenomenal accuracy is finally revealed.
There is a perfect numerical correspondence in the Main Chamber of the Red Pyramid with
numerical description of the Ark of Noah found in Genesis.
c) The Corbels in the Outer Chambers
In the outer two chambers, there are 11 corbels to each sidewall. The corbels
commence in all three chambers at 11feet 8 ins or 140 ins from the floor. The overall height in
the outer 2 chambers to the soffit = 40feet or 480 ins giving an overall vertical height of corbels
of 480ins less 140ins = 340ins , where 340ins / 11[corbels] = 30.90909090 ins per corbel.

Fig. 4.20. The Red Pyramid First Chamber looking south

126
 The exposed soffit is 14 ins wide therefore calculations for the slope length result in an
overall corbel length of 346.1574886 ins. This sloping length divided by 11 for individual
corbels results in 31.46886169 ins.

d) The Inner Chamber

In the inner chamber, there are 14 corbels to each sidewall. The overall height of the
chamber to the soffit = 50 feet = 600 ins. The overall vertical height of corbels = 600ins. less
140 ins = 460ins and 460ins / 14 = 32.85714286ins. The exposed soffit is 14ins wide therefore
calculations for the slope length result in 464.64ins. If this now familiar value is divided by 14,
[to relate to the individual corbels], the result is 33.18985714ins.

e) Inner to Outer Chamber: Correlations via Noatian numerical values.

The corbel length measured in the sloping direction, as calculated in the inner chamber,
was 33.18985714ins. In the outer chambers, the same corbel length is evaluated to
31.46886169ins. Here we again see a correlation to the Noahic values because the
33.18985714ins of the inner chamber corbels, divided by the familiar count of 1.056
representing the birth date of Noah and associated measure, results in 31.42978896ins. This is
within 0.039073002 of an inch of the calculated value from the overall height and corbel
commencement points of the outer chambers. This is so close that it can be taken, even without
the other correlating evidence, to have been the original intention. The difference in results
should be compared to the imperial version of a millimetre, which is 0.039370079ins and so the
tolerance here, in fact, is less than a millimetre, again revealing the great accuracy achieved by
these ancient engineers and builders. In summary then, here inside the Red Pyramid it can be
seen that there are further links to the value associated with Noah, namely 1056, which directly
links the corbels of the above two chambers. We now have within the chambers of the Red
Pyramid, which were set out in British inches, the factors 1056, 46464, and 1232, values all
specifically associated with Noah and his Ark.
With regard to the Red Pyramid in its wider context, as we have seen, in Snefru’s reign
there was not only a change in the shape of the monuments of the Pharaohs, but it would also
appear that there was a transformation of the concept of the afterlife and a modification of the
funerary complex necessary to ensure it. The orientation of the pyramid complexes of Snefru's
ancestors is thought to suggest they looked to the stars, linking their journey to the afterlife.
In Snefru’s time not only was the Sun now involved, but there was a more general
stellar connection in existence, even after the changes in early Dynastic Egyptian religion in the
Fourth Dynasty. These changes are often exemplified by scholars in the apparent metaphysical
change in what is termed the stairway to heaven. While earlier Pharaohs ascended a ‘staircase’
to the celestial sphere, Snefru apparently was to tread a ramp of gleaming white limestone [that
mirrored the Sun's rays] to heaven.
To reinforce this connection, Snefru laid out his temples along a new East - West
alignment in accordance with the course of the Sun. This new emphasis on the Sun led to the
adoption of a new title for the King on his ascension to the throne – the Son of Ra, the son of
the Sun God, a father he would join in the afterlife. Ra was always associated with a stellar

127
barque, or ‘boat of millions of years’ and at the Red Pyramid is seen for the first time a clear
association with what was thought to be an earthly representation of it, namely the geological
anomaly at Durupinar. Snefru pioneered the new design for his so-called resurrection machine
at all three of his pyramids, but it was only at the Red Pyramid that is seen the connection with
the boat of Ra. It was his son and successor Khufu at Giza who took this concept even further
with definitive representations that go beyond numerical correlations into the visually apparent
emulations of the flood vessel within his pyramid. The ‘Noahic measurements’ for want of
another reference, can be found in a slightly more obscure way in the design of later pyramids
of Khaefre and Menkaure, Pharaohs that followed Khufu, but this information is not crucial to
the discussion regarding the Deluge. However, they are clearly represented in the dimensions
of the Great Sphinx.

4.7 The Great Sphinx

The Great Sphinx is the perfect complement to the majestic Pyramids - a fearsome
guardian whose eternal gaze is always towards the rising Sun, the God of the Pharaohs. Much
has been written about the Sphinx over recent years, with a focus on the date of its
construction. We shall not become embroiled in that debate other than to note that most
Egyptologists consider that the Sphinx was built by Khaefre, although some say that of the
Fourth dynasty pharaohs it bears the closest resemblance to Djedefre.

Fig. 4.21 The Sphinx from the South – East corner – Khaefre’s pyramid is in the background

Once more arguments rage about an ancient stone monument and here we have one of
the pharaohs adding to the fray with his comment that the Sphinz is older than the pyramids.
As a generality this in fact may well be correct but it is felt by most that it was constructed at

128
approximately the middle of the Giza building sequence. The monument was almost certainly
covered with sand until Thutmosis IV (18th Dynasty, 1420-1411 B.C.), [supposedly] after a
dream of a god telling him to clear the sand away did in fact clear the site. He erected a stela
between the paws of the Sphinx that was discovered when the Sphinx was cleared of sand in
our time. A partially-eroded hieroglyphic phrase -- translated as "praise to Un-nefer [Khafre]
the statue made for Atum-Harmakhis" -- was found near the bottom of the stela. Some
Egyptologists claim that this evidence of Khafre being the creator of the Sphinx. Others
disagree. Some time after it was excavated, the inscription flaked off. Now only drawings
remain.
However, it is dimensions that apply to this feline depiction that are of the greatest to a
metrological study. These have been reported in a number works with no variation and they are
repeated here.

Bottom of chin to top of forehead measures 19 feet.

The face is 20 feet wide giving a 91 feet circumference.
The body of this large feline measures 172 feet with paws protruding 56 feet
The overall length is 242 feet.
Overall height 66 feet

Others have noticed the dimensional unit here, but have failed to comment upon the
obvious fact that it was constructed utilising counts of whole values of the measure we
understand as the British foot. There is one immediate conclusion that can be gleaned from this
information, if we had not made it already from the side length of Great Pyramid, – the British
foot is not a unit of measurement that originated in the British Middle Ages [as we said in
Chapter 1]. It is actually a very ancient standard unit, and at least 4,500 years old. [Given that
the British foot is closely inter-related to the remainder of the measurement system of the
ancient world, we can therefore also conclude that the whole system is at least that old as well.
John Neal in All Done With Mirrors claims that it is the basis of the whole ancient system.]
There is one measurement value that is of particular note regarding the Great Sphinx – its
height of 66 feet. This equates to 792 inches, and so we see the factor 792 again, and its
symbolic expression of the diameter of the Earth of 7920 miles. The ancient Egyptians
amongst others were very fond of this factor and the express dimension of 66 feet, and there are
a host of examples existing that span a wide timescale. Notable amongst these is one of the
Middle Kingdom Pharaoh’s Sensuret I’s obelisk at Heliopolis, which is 66 feet tall, which is
also the height of the famous statues of the New Kingdom Pharaoh Rameses II [seen in Figure
4.22].
Rameses II’s great temple is a structure built over a thousand years after the time
of the pyramid builders on the Giza plateau, and is an indication of the pervasiveness of
the measurement system of antiquity and its spread across both time and space. It is a
feature that occurs repeatedly in numerical symbolism, even to modern times – 66feet
or 792 inches is of course 22 yards, known in the Imperial measurement system as a
chain, which is the length of the heavily linked surveying instrument of the same name,

129
and, ironically, associated with Earth surveys. It is also, of course, the traditional
length of a cricket pitch.

Fig. 4.22The Four Colossal statues of Rameses II at Abu Simbel – they are 66 feet tall

The Great Sphinx also has an indirect connection with Noah’s Ark by imagining the
former to be a solid rectangular block. In the case of the resultant surface area, we find that the
top and bottom at: 242 x 20 x 2 = 9680 sq. feet and we see immediately that the factor 968 is in
use here as 0.968feet is 11.616 inches. In addition, the ends at 66 x 20 x 2 = 2640 square feet
and 2.64 linear feet is the step value associated with a foot length of 1.056feet and its 1.584-
foot cubit. The surface areas of top, bottom and ends totalled result in 12320 square feet a
numeric value that is 10 times the plan perimeter of Noah’s Ark. The total surface area of this
of this rectangular block when the sides are taken into account is 44264 square feet.
Furthermore, the side surface areas added together are 31944 square feet and the total volume
of this block is 319440 cubic feet. But there is more to be found here. 2.42 feet is the step of
the foot value of 0.968foot and there are 100 of these in the length of the extended body of the
carving.
Within around 0.1579776 of an inch in all directions, the cubic volume of our imaginary
block contains 352,000 x 0.968feet cubed. 35.2 inches is the step value associated with a 1.76-
foot cubit. A step of 3.52 feet has a foot value of 1.408 feet where the foot value associated
with a 1.76 foot cubit is 1.17333r feet or 14.08 inches. All these values are associated with
what might be called the Noahic Cubit, in other words, a cubit of 1.76feet with its attendant
reed of 10.56 feet, which represents the factor 1056, the year of birth of Noah as defined in
Genesis.

130
4.8 Dating the Pyramids

We have revealed what are direct metrological correspondences between some of the
major pyramids of the Golden Age of the Pyramids and what is generally discounted as a non-
existent mythical boat in modern Eastern Turkey. How does this affect ideas about the
accepted date of construction of the main pyramids on the Giza plateau and by implication, the
Great Sphinx? Alan Winston summarises the main arguments in favour of the conventional
historical sequence as put forward by such scholars as Clayton and Lehner:

‘1) Evolution: Monolithic, smooth sided pyramids did not just suddenly appear in Egypt. There
was an evolutionary period, leading to the great pyramids of Giza that began
with simple mastaba tombs, expanded into step pyramids, which led to
experimentation, some of which failed miserably, and culminating with the
perfected structure. In addition, the decorative themes associated with
pyramids also evolved over time.
2) Context: Pyramids fit within both a physical and theological context. Physically, they do not
exist alone. They are almost always a part of a religious compound, and
sometimes these compounds even fit within the larger context of the pyramid
field, all of it related to the very specific religion of the ancient Egyptians.
They do not honour a superior or ancient race, but rather their own well-
documented Sun god.
3) Construction Methods: We not only find the Egyptian's ancient stone cutting and other tools
within the ruins of pyramids, we also find some of the ramps that they used, and
evidence of other construction methods. These are contemporary tools, and
construction methods that would have fitted the times’. 10

The development of the funerary complex that accompanied each pyramid is left out of
the picture here as this aspect of the pyramids is adequately covered elsewhere in other works.
However, from a practical viewpoint at least, there is agreement with the above statements.
Winston also sees the Old Kingdom pyramids as being uniquely Egyptian, but intriguingly he
also notes that:

‘… it would appear that pyramids built both inside and outside of Egypt most often are in some
way related to Sun worship, or at least some form of astronomical religious activity.’ 11

The astronomical religious activity will become clearly apparent in later chapters, but
for now it is noted that the Sun is one of the ‘gods’ of both our historic and pre-historic past,
and its movements are intimately involved in the measurement system of antiquity.
Those who argue that the Great Pyramid, [or the Great Pyramid and the Sphinx], were
built in a different period to the others in the main pyramid building sequence ignore, or are not
aware of, the achievements of the Pharaoh Snefru [or rather his architects] in the construction
of his so-called Red Pyramid at Dashur. Charitably, we can say that this may be because the

131
Red Pyramid and its sister monuments were in a military zone that was not open to the public
until 1996.
More uncharitably, it is clear from an engineering standpoint that the Red Pyramid is
clearly a model for the Great Pyramid, that historical convention says was built directly
afterwards. The reader who has read so-called alternative histories of the Great Pyramid may
reflect on how many times the Red Pyramid has ever been mentioned – the authors certainly
cannot recollect any. This may be because the structure has been off limits until recent years,
but it is interesting to note that the Red Pyramid is the killer of alternative theories about the
Great Pyramid, as the two pyramids are clearly related to each other in the building sequence
on technical grounds. This association also extends to their internal metrology and common
representation of the Ark of Noah, the geological anomaly of Durupinar, in the design of their
corbelled galleries and chambers. This is something that is not seen in the structures of earlier
Dynasties, due in part to a lack of ability and in part to the loss of substantial remains.
There is only one conclusion, the relative chronology of the pyramids of the Fourth
Dynasty is correct, which is also backed up by what limited archaeological dating has been
achieved.

4.9 The Deluge and Ancient Egypt

A very strange situation has been revealed. The supposed Ark and its location were
well known, as Berossus has revealed, but he was speaking about a time long after any Great
Flood event, and so he does not give us any real idea of when this ‘flood’ actually took place.
Many Biblical researchers have stated that their calculations lead them to think that the flood
occurred since the building of Khufu’s pyramid. In addition, as also seen, the Genesis account
was probably written about 700BC – 800BC, from sources that probably date to a range around
1200BC, in the time of Moses, who many think was the original source.
As regards the relevance of any flood legend to ancient Egypt, according to mainstream
Egyptologists there is very little such relevance, and they generally point out that the Nile
flooded every year and so is the probable source for any Egyptian flood legends anyway.
Nonetheless, in addition to the legend involving Thoth mentioned earlier, and the story quoted
by Massey in the gate quote to this chapter, there is another flood story told by Al Masoudi, a
Coptic historian.
Al Masoudi related the Coptic tradition that two of the pyramids on the Giza plateau
were built by an Egyptian King after he had a vision of a Great Flood. This obviously has no
relation to the annual Nile flood and hints that there is more to be found in the annals of
Egyptian myth. But unfortunately, as with most ancient stories, even this tale is generally
ignored, effectively being seen as invented folklore, in the same category as the mythical Hall
of Records, where a vague Middle Kingdom legend became increasingly embellished over
time, particularly in the Arabic period.
Yet there is a direct metrological correlation between the odd geological formation at
Durupinar, thought to be the vessel of the Gods and the detailed measurements of the internal
passages and chambers of four pyramids, two being demonstrated here, including the greatest

132
of all the pyramids, the Great Pyramid. In addition, Khufu’s solar barque shows a similar
relationship with the supposed landing site of the Ark.
The dimensions involved all relate [via Durupinar] to the values ascribed to the Ark of
Noah that are given in the book of Genesis. This cannot be coincidence, and it must be
concluded that either:
i) The Great Flood occurred prior to the building of the pyramid of Khufu and the measures
of the Ark were noted and utilised as representations of the vessel, or:
ii) The story and attached values were known and understood for different reasons, and
when persons unknown discovered this strange geological anomaly, it was assumed to be
the vessel of salvation, as its dimensions coincidentally fitted aspects of some pre-
existing mythology.
The second scenario is by far the most likely for two reasons. Firstly, our
investigations into the metrology of Egyptian pyramids indicate that in both of the cases of
earlier and later pyramids the measurement system of antiquity [as we term it] was in use.
Indeed, in the case of earlier pyramids than those discussed here there is a hint that the primary
Noahic measurement set [again as we term it] was known. This discussion is outside the scope
of our arguments here, but we can say that when the eventual source of this dimension set is
revealed it will become understandable how this occurred, taking note of our ‘cultural bridge’
discussion in Chapter 8.
Secondly, it has to be remembered that boats were already important in Egyptian
religion long before any representation of them in the pyramids of the Fourth Dynasty, as was
noted in our discussion about the ‘dancing goddesses’ at the opening of this chapter. Further
evidence of this importance is that funerary boats have been discovered at a number of early
Dynasty sites in Egypt, most notably at Abydos as the American journal Archaeology reported
in 2000:

133
Fig.4.23 Boat at Abydos

‘The excavation of a 5,000-year-old wooden boat buried at Abydos in southern Egypt is

providing new clues to ancient ship construction and early funerary cult practices. Discovered
nearly a decade ago, the ship is one of 14 that had been encased in mud brick and buried near
a massive funerary enclosure belonging to the Dynasty II (ca. 2675 B.C.) pharaoh
Khasekhemwy Initially, site excavator David O'Connor of New York University and his team
assumed that the ships, buried side by side, were intended for that pharaoh's mortuary
complex…
… However, recent examination of the vessel and associated pottery jars has led them to
believe that the ships were buried some centuries before Khasekhemwy's enclosure was built.
The fleet may have been intended for use in the afterlife of a much earlier pharaoh, perhaps
even Aha, the first Dynasty I ruler of Egypt whom O'Connor believes may have had a similar
enclosure nearby. 12

The reference to 14 boats above is interesting and reminds one of the 14 parts that the
god Osiris was cut into in the Egyptian creation story [discussed in Chapter 12]. It will be
demonstrated in Chapters 7-9 that the number 14 is a key part of the root of Deluge mythology.

134
 We assert then, that the reason that there are multiple references to the Durupinar
anomaly at Giza is that there was a previous knowledge of flood mythology in ancient Egypt.
Effectively it can be said there are numerous references to the Noahic flood story in Egypt, but
until now they have generally gone unrecognised for what they really are. However, this early
knowledge of flood mythology and its association with what is a sophisticated measurement
system, one that has close connections with the Earth’s dimensions, raises another question.
How did all this knowledge suddenly emerge in the early dynasties of Egypt? There is
little evidence of any ‘run-up’in the sort of knowledge that we see in the early days of pharonic
Egypt in Pre-Dynastic Egypt so the conclusion is that it must have come from elsewhere. From
Mesopotamia? Perhaps, but the limited evidence available for this early period seems to
suggest that contact between Egypt and Mesopotamia was limited to specific trading links.
Another question relates to how the knowledge of Durupinar came to Egypt. Possibly we can
answer both questions by examining trade and Old Kingdom Egypt.

4.10 The Market-Place of Cultures

Egypt would have been a superpower in the ancient world and therefore a focus for
trade and cultural interchange in the Middle East and beyond. Knowledge, throughout history,
was a highly marketable commodity – one that was much in demand by Kings, Pharaohs and
Emperors – an asset just as important to them as the acquisition of gold and empires. There are
those who would ask how the knowledge of the Durupinar site, which as noted earlier is
located in a remote region of what is now Eastern Turkey, arrived in Egypt around the start of
the Fourth Dynasty. The response to that question is that it is well known that the Fourth
Dynasty Pharaoh Snefru formalised the extensive trade links that existed in the Middle East and
indeed, he has been called the father of international trade. Snefru is particularly noted for his
expedition to the Lebanon, from where he imported a large quantity of cedar wood logs, said to
be enough to fill 40 ships, some of which were 100 cubits long. [Whether the 100 cubits
applies to logs or boats is unclear in the translation.]
Why did King Snefru go to such lengths to get these cedar wood logs? The answer is
that Cedar, while being soft and not able to take rough treatment from scrapes and bumps, is a
good material in that its oils prevent water ingress. It is weather durable and hence suitable for
planking. In the Middle East it would have been the only available material for planking of any
size that had similar qualities. It has another quality, namely that the resin in the cedarwood
was thought to resist damage from shipworm which occurs on long sea-voyages of a few
months or more. There is no direct evidence that Snefru engaged on long sea voyages from the
Red Sea coast for example, but surprising reported discoveries in 2006 at Wadi Gawasis, a
small desert bluff near the modern city of Port Safaga raise that possibility.
Here the remains of a shipyard within six man-made caves indicate that the Egyptians
were making sea-going ships in the Middle Kingdom at around 2000BC [it is normally thought
the first sea-going ships were constructed in the New Kingdom some 700 years later]. It
appears that, from artefacts discovered so far, that the Egyptians were making voyages to the
mythical ‘God’s land’ of Punt, usually thought by Egyptologists to be about 1,000 miles to the
south.13

135
 Going to Punt was the exclusive preserve of the Pharaohs and some researchers have
suggested that it is in fact a generic name for distant places visited on Pharonic trading missions
in luxury goods. We return to this discussion about sea-borne contacts to the East in Chapter 8.
Regarding how the specific knowledge of Durupinar came into Egypt it can be said that
Lebanon is not far from Eastern Turkey and it is possible that an emissary of Snefru visited the
site during the mission to acquire the timber. Later in Deluge, we show how ‘the story of
Noah’ in another form, that of the Indic Manu dates to about 3200BC so it is also possible that
Snefru or one of his predecessors became aware of the geological anomaly through an audience
at his court. It is therefore not impossible that this Noahic dimensional knowledge came into
Egypt even earlier than the 4th Dynasty and was embodied into pyramidal structures but has
been obscured or lost. Certainly, all we can say is that the Noahic knowledge was there at the
time of Snefru and in the next chapter we shall demonstrate that over a thousand years later it
was to be embodied in a second Ark, the Ark of the Covenant.

136
 CHAPTER 5

The Second Ark, King Solomon’s Temple and the Rule of

Noah

Be not curious in unnecessary matters: for more things are shewed unto thee than men
understand.
Ecclesiasticus 3:23
5.1 The Ark of the Covenant and the Deadly Power of the Lord

Fig. 5.1 The Lost Ark found by Harrison Ford and friend

Ark, n.-- Old English arc, earc, 'Noah's ark, box, coffin', from Latin arca, 'chest', whence also
Old High German arahha, arka (Middle High German, German, arche), 'ark'. Old Slavic raka,
'burial cave, rakev, 'coffin', are Teutonic loan words.)
Arcanum, n. Secret, mystery.-- Latin arcānum, probably a substantive use of the neutered of
arcānus, 'shut up, secret', originally 'enclosed in a chest', from arca, 'chest, coffin', which is
related to arcēre, 'to enclose, keep away, ward off', and cognate with Greek άρκειν to keep
off',...Etymology of the Ark: James Carroll

The only ‘Ark’ other than that of Noah mentioned in the Bible was The Ark of the
Covenant, which was for a long time probably the most important Hebrew religious artefact or

137
monument, as spiritually it symbolised the presence of their God at one place on Earth, that
place being wherever it happened to be. It has a variety of names in the books of the Bible,
such as the Ark of the Testimony or The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, but it is most usually
known simply as the Ark of the Covenant.
The Ark of the Covenant was a kind of chest, the size of which was two cubits and a
half in length, and a cubit and a half in breadth and height. It was made of setim or shitim
wood, a stable variety of acacia and it was overlaid within and without with the purest gold,
with a golden crown or rim running around its top. At the four corners, golden rings had been
cast, and through them passed two bars of setim or sitim wood [usually thought to be a type of
acacia] overlaid with gold, by which means the Ark was carried.
These two bars were to remain always in the rings, even when the Ark of the Covenant
had been later placed in the temple of Solomon. [Exodus 25:10-16]. The cover or lid of the
Ark, termed the propitiatory [the corresponding Hebrew word means both ‘cover’ and ‘that
which makes propitious’], was likewise of the purest gold. Upon the cover were two cherubim
of beaten gold, looking towards each other, and spreading their wings so that both sides of the
propitiatory were covered.
From the above detailed description, it might be thought that there is a clear view of
what the Ark of the Covenant looked like, but there is not. There are thousands of images of
the Ark of the Covenant featured in books, articles and on the worldwide web with none being
exactly alike. Possibly the best–known and best guess at what the Ark’s appearance was
supposed to be, is featured in the reason why this ‘Ark’ is so well known, even among atheists
– it was the subject of the first of the Indiana Jones films, Raiders of the Lost Ark [as seen in
Figure 5.1]. However, the scale, once the correct dimensions of the Ark are understood, would
make Harrison Ford something over 7feet tall!
The Ark was said to have had immense latent destructive powers, so powerful in fact
that if it were to be touched, even accidentally, the punishment was death.
This punishment was not delivered via the hand of man but by God, as described in II
Samuel 6:6, 7 where it is recorded that:
6
And when they came to Nachon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God,
and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it.
7
And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God smote him there for his error,
and there he died by the ark of God.

The Ark of the Covenant was truly the earthly representation of the Lord in the Biblical
accounts. It was from above the Ark, from between the two cherubs that adorned the top of the
chest, that Moses heard the voice of Yahweh. Moses is said to have had to [warily] sit upon the
Ark on what was termed the mercy seat to commune with his God who would ‘appear in a
cloud over the cover’ [Exodus.25:22]. It was only Moses and later Joshua and the high priest
who had access to the Ark in the Holy Place of the Tabernacle, and even then, this access was
only for the Atonement Ceremony. This happened once a year on the Day of Atonement, or
Yom Kippur, the name of the Jewish holy day that is still celebrated today. Yom Kippur is
probably the most important holiday in the Jewish year and this complete Sabbath is set aside

138
to ‘afflict the soul’ or atone for the sins of the past year. It should be noted that these are sins
against God – sins against other individuals must be reconciled with them before Yom Kippur.
Much later, long after the time of Moses, David, and following him, Solomon, was in charge of
the Ark, but initially Moses was the only one with access.
The Ark of the Covenant seemingly possessed awesome and sometimes deadly powers
and also had a reputation for being unpredictable. There undoubtedly has been embellishment
in the retelling of the stories of this particular Ark, but given the range of tales found in the
Bible and other texts it is hard to believe that they are all invention, and it does not appear that
they are allegorical in nature. So if the stories about the Ark are based on an element of truth,
what was the source of the Ark’s deadly powers? Many suggestions have been made regarding
this element of the story but the most logical concerns the phenomenon known as Static
Electricity as the Ark seemed to be particularly dangerous to those in close proximity to it.
For example, when Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron, brought a foreign flame in a
censer to offer a sacrifice in the Tabernacle, they were devoured by a fire that emanated ‘from
the Lord’ [Leviticus. 10:2]. [Note the terminology here – while the term ‘from the Lord’ may
imply His presence within the Ark, in this case the Ark appears to be seen as the Lord rather
than a receptacle of His presence. This apparent change in emphasis is actually seen in several
Biblical passages.]
The design of the Ark of the Covenant, effectively two sheets of gold separated by an
insulator, in this case timber, has led many electrical engineers to suggest that it may have
operated as an electrical condenser or capacitor. Its design, they say, allowed it to store electric
charge, and thus could facilitate an electrical discharge between the cherubs, in what is called a
spark gap. The biblical accounts of individuals sudden deaths from touching the Ark, or by
being close to it could then correspond to death by a lethal high voltage charge. Louis
Ginzberg’s Legends of the Jews has ancient oral traditions referring to ‘sparks’ emanating from
the cherubim. These ‘fiery jets’ apparently occasionally burned and destroyed close objects.
Before these appeared they were preceded by a glow that the Bible describes as the ‘glory of
the Lord’. Also, as discussed earlier, Jewish legend has occasional records of a ‘cloud’
between the cherubim. The Ark was considered particularly dangerous at these times and even
Moses was reluctant to approach it. This cloud, in association with electricity reminds us of
ionised plasma in the form of ball lightning, which can be produced artificially, albeit under
extreme conditions, but there is little doubt, assuming that these narratives are not fables, that
the Ark could charge up, although whether there would be sufficient power available to do
lethal damage has been questioned. At this point, it is instructive to read what the brilliant if
somewhat eccentric electrical engineer Nikola Tesla had to say about the Ark of the Covenant
in his essay The Fairy Tale of Electricity in 1915:

‘…Moses was undoubtedly a practical and skilful electrician far in advance of his time. The
Bible describes precisely and minutely arrangements constituting a machine in which
electricity was generated by friction of air against silk curtains. and stored in a box
constructed like a condenser. It is very plausible to assume that the sons of Aaron were killed
by a high-tension discharge and that the vestal fires of the Romans were electrical...

139
... The belt drive must have been known to engineers of that epoch and it is difficult to see how
the abundant evolution of static electricity could have escaped their notice. Under favourable
atmospheric conditions a belt [drive can produce] many striking actions. I have lighted
incandescent lamps, operated motors and performed numerous other equally interesting
experiments with electricity drawn from belts and stored in tin cans. 1

Fig 5.2 A Depiction of Egyptian ‘Ark’ by Carrol. (Based upon temple depictions.)

The Ark of the Covenant was considerably bigger than a ‘tin can’. It is fairly well
known that the ancient Egyptians were aware of static electricity. In the hot dry air of the
Middle East, for example, its presence has been demonstrated at monuments like the Great
Pyramid as long ago as the 19th century. The movement of this dry air would have charged up
the Ark, and this possibly explains why it was always covered up while on the move. Other
parts of the texts seem to back up this static discharge theory. Exodus 28 prescribes the
garment worn by the priests, including Aaron and his sons. The garment is woven in a fashion
like a static control smock worn by those who handle static-sensitive, electrical components
today. Urim and Thummim, which are two prescribed but unknown substances, are mentioned
in Verse 30. Iron was banned from Solomon’s Temple and there are several references to iron
having to be kept away from the Ark of the Covenant. The reason becomes apparent if we
consider Aaron’s sons and the censer, which was metallic – it would become the lightning
conductor for the equivalent to lightning that the spark-gap of the Ark could produce when
heavily charged. Notably, author Richard Andrews built a model of the ark around 1999 and
he claims that when tested, it demonstrated that it would act as an electromagnetic accumulator.
In summary then, while the said properties may have been accidentally and
unknowingly inbuilt, it is at least plausible that the Ark was a cleverly designed storage device
for electrical static charge. It shall be demonstrated later that it is probable that the two bars of
the Ark actually fitted the internal width of the Tabernacle exactly, which feasibly has some
bearing on the structure of this mobile temple relating to the recorded powers of the Ark. The
Tabernacle walls were constructed of a framework of setim wood draped on the outside with

140
animal skins. Reportedly this cover comprised goatskins on the sides, and what are termed
badger skins on the roof. The lower wall sections of the structure were internally reinforced
with planks set into silver sockets and covered in gold with the whole of the interior being lined
with the finest linen [Exodus 26]. A curtain of the same type separated the Most Holy from the
remainder of the Tabernacle.

Moreover thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and
purple, and scarlet: with cherubims of cunning work shalt thou make them.

The internal curtains were tied together with gold taches and hung on gold rings. One
can envisage then, that the linen moving gently behind the animal skins in the breeze would rub
against the golden bars holding the Ark of the Covenant, the stronger the wind the more so the
effect, thereby continuously providing a source of static charge.
While it is commonly accepted that the Ark was to contain the two tablets of Law, the
Ten Commandments, there is some debate amongst religious scholars regarding the contents of
this enigmatic ‘box’. It is generally accepted that the Ten Commandments were placed in the
Ark, but according to Exodus 16.33 a ’gomor of manna’ was added and Numbers 17.10 claims
that the Rod of Aaron that blossomed was also placed with the Testimony, which we take to
mean within the chest with the two tablets of stone. Yet when the Ark finally reached
Solomon’s Temple many years later these additional items had miraculously disappeared
leaving just the two tablets of stone. So the only real agreement appears to be that the Ark of
the Covenant was initially built to carry the tablets of stone upon which the Ten
Commandments were inscribed. But from where was the design of this Ark derived?
One facet of the evolution of Egyptian religion that existed in the time of Moses and
the New Kingdom era, were portable shrines in the shape of boats.
These shrines looked very similar to the Ark of the Covenant used shortly afterwards
by the Hebrews [See Figure 5.2].
Another New Kingdom change that has reflections in the Old Testament was a greater
attention to both of the hidden and revealed aspects in temple worship. This worked in the
following way: the ‘Most Holy’ was kept sacred by keeping it hidden, while the adoration of
the masses was acquired through the use of the revealed. To accommodate these two
conflicting ideals the Egyptians kept their Most Holy inner sanctuary hidden, while placing
within it a sacred barque. James Carroll quotes Barry Kemp on the subject, who in his book
Ancient Egypt says:

‘Sacred boats were not new. They seem from early times to have had an important symbolic
and ritual role. What the New Kingdom did was to lavish great attention on certain of them
(especially the barge of Amun of Karnak called Userhat-Amun ‘Mighty of prow is Amun’), and
to develop the smaller, portable version. One ‘Superintendent of Carpenters and Chief of
Goldsmiths’ called Nakht-djehuty, who lived in the reign of Ramses II and evidently specialized
in making them, was repeatedly commissioned to make new ones for a variety of temples,
probably up to a total of twenty-six. Both the riverine and the portable boats were put at the
centre of temple design and temple celebrations The portable boat shrines were made of wood,

141
but ornately gilded and decorated and equipped with a closed cabin (sometimes called a seH-
neTr, ‘Tent shrine of the god’) in which the image of the deity sat. Long carrying-poles on
each side or set laterally and up to five in number bore the shrine along on the shoulders of
priests.’ 2

Already it can be seen that the Egyptian Sacred Boats have some similarities to the
Hebrew Ark of the Covenant. However, there are more, as Kemp continues:

‘Upon either side of the statue of the deity sat winged protectors much like the Cherubim on the
Israelite Ark of the Covenant.
Egyptians kept sacred portable shrines in the innermost sanctuaries of the temples. The focus
upon these portable sanctuaries is one of the distinguishing features of New Kingdom temple
design…’ 3

Although fundamentalists argue against such logic, it is therefore tempting to judge that
the design and function of the Ark of the Covenant was of the form that would have been
familiar to the Hebrews, or Israelites, before they left Egypt on their long trek to the Promised
Land or Israel.
[Note: The term Israelites is derived from Genesis 32:27-28 where God tells Jacob,
Abraham’s grandson, the eventual progenitor of the tribes of Israel, that his name is to be
changed to Israel.] There do appear to be some differences between the Ark of the Covenant
and the Egyptian tradition. For example, the former contained various items and it, and its
God, were always hidden from view of onlookers, even on its travels when it was covered
[many depictions of the Ark incorrectly show this], whereas the Egyptian Gods were openly on
display. Even a cursory reading of the Bible easily explains this nonetheless, as man was to
worship no images; God was not a visible entity in the form of something that could be cast in
bronze or gold or any other substance. But there were also similarities, as both types of artefact
were mobile, and were elaborately covered in gold. Their mode of transport was also very
similar. Moreover, recent discoveries by archaeologists seem to tilt the balance in favour of an
Egyptian influence in the design of the Ark of the Covenant. These have thrown more light on
the precessional ceremonies of these mobile figures of Gods, with one being particularly
relevant, The Procession of the Shrines. Carroll highlights this when he quotes an extract from
Robert Inghams Clegg’s 33rd Degree, Mackey’s Revised Encyclopedia of Freemasonry:

‘Among the ceremonies of that ancient people [Egyptians] was one called the Procession of
Shrines, which is mentioned in the Rosetta stone, and depicted on the Temple walls. One of
these shrines was an ark, which was carried in procession by the priests, who supported it on
their shoulders by staves passing through metal rings. This ark was thus brought into the
Temple and deposited on a stand or altar, that the ceremonies prescribed in the ritual might be
performed before it. The contents of these arks were various, but always of a mystical
character. Sometimes the ark would contain symbols of Life and Stability; sometimes the
sacred beetle, the symbol of the Sun; and there was always a representation of two figures of

142
the goddess Theme or Truth and Justice, which overshadowed the ark with their wings. These
coincidences of the Egyptian and Hebrew arks must have been more than accidental’ 4

It seems fairly certain then, that the design of the Ark of the Covenant had a strong
Egyptian New Kingdom influence, which is perhaps not surprising as its designers had lived in
Egypt for many years prior to them leaving in the Exodus.
As stated above, only two Arks are mentioned in the Bible The fact that the same word
is applied to both Noah’s vessel and the portable shrine above implies a connected value, in
other words, some sort of commonality. One could assume that the rush or reed boat that in
which Moses was supposedly found could be construed to be another Ark, but that was not the
case as different terminology was being applied there. We are then left then with but two of
these items we term ‘Arks’ in the Bible. As there is no cubit value given for the Ark of the
Covenant and it, as with Noah’s vessel, is specifically known as an Ark, the assumption is that
the same value should be applied. Hence, it is assumed that the Ark of the Covenant was
constructed utilising the ‘Noahic’ unit of 1.76 British feet as a cubit.
The length of the Ark of the Covenant was 2.5 cubits, and its breadth and height were
both 1.5 cubits. Using a 1.76feet cubit, this means that the 2.5 cubit length of the Ark of the
Covenant is 4.4 British feet or a familiar 52.8 ins, familiar, because according to Genesis
Noah’s vessel was 528 feet overall length or 1/10 of a British mile. The width and height of the
Ark of the Covenant were 1.5 cubits or 2.64 feet or 31.68 ins. This gives a square area in plan
and elevation of 11.616 sq. feet or 1/4,000 the plan square area of Noah’s Ark.
The total volume of the lesser ark, of 2.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 cubits = 30.66624 cubic feet and
divides into the volume of the greater ark 80,000 times. The perimeter in feet of a single large
face, which will be called the top to save any confusion, is: [4.4 + 2.64 = 7.04] x 2 = 14.08feet,
where 14.08 is the number of British inches in 1.17333333feet, the foot value associated with
the 1.76 foot cubit. The total edge perimeter on the two ends, [top, bottom and vertical edges],
amounts to 21.12 feet [the count of inches in a 1.76 foot cubit] and the four long edges total 4.4
x 4 = 17.6 feet or 10 cubits. The perimeter edges therefore total 38.72 feet, 22 cubits, or 464.64
inches where the square area in plan of Noah’s ark was 46,464 sq.feet. This configuration with
its direct and remarkable correlation of values appears to be unique to the cubit value applied.
The factor 11616 has previously been revealed in Chapters 3. It is seen here both in the
elevation perimeter in feet of Noah’s vessel (1161.6feet) and in here in square feet in plan of
the Ark of the Covenant [11.616sq.feet].
11.616 inches or 0.968 feet x 40 also denotes this perimeter of 22 x 1.76 feet. The
familiar value for pi shown to be in use in ancient Egypt, 22/7 or 3 1/7 or 3.147857142 etc [as
seen via the dimensions within the Great Pyramid] also re-appears here along with the foot
derived from Noah’s ark.
1/1,000 of Noah’s Ark plan perimeter is 1.232 feet and the Ark of the Covenant’s
perimeter of 38.72 feet is exactly 1.232 x 31.428571428feet. As noted above, the Ark of the
Covenant was said to have a cherub at each end and the probability here is that the containing
conceptual elevation perimeter was a square of 4.4 x 4.4 feet, which would give a perimeter of
17.6 feet. Khufu’s pyramid in plan measured 440 x 440 cubits and the measurement of 440

143
cubits emulated the 7920 miles diameter of Earth in Short Egyptian inches. The perimeter of
the pyramid was 31,680 of these inches where here the value 2.64 feet is 31.68 inches.
There is an additional connection to Earth measurement and both Arks, in that the
7,920 miles of the diameter contain 41,817,600 feet. If this value is divided by 36 million,
noting that 360 was an important number in the ancient world, the result is 41,817,600 feet /
36,000,000 = 1.1616. Again, the factor of 11616 is seen. It appears that dimensionally, the
Ark of the Covenant has been designed to emulate as many aspects of the larger Ark as
possible. Critics may argue that given the cubit values involved some correspondence will
always be found, which is true, but it stretches credulity that all the correlations involved are
accidental. However, further data that will reinforce the connections between the two Arks will
emerge from an examination of the dimensions of the Tabernacle.

5.2 The Tabernacle and the Journey of the Ark

Before the dimensions of the Tabernacle are analysed, a little of its history and
that of the Ark of the Covenant is given below. The Ark of the Covenant was built by
one Bezalel, son of Uri, son of Hur of the tribe of Judah, who, assisted by Aholiab, son
of Ahisamach of the tribe of Dan, also constructed the entire Tabernacle, and its
accoutrements. We can safely assume that these men were well aware of the
dimensional factors and correspondences involved [Exodus 31:1-11]. According to the
Biblical story, the Tabernacle was a portable Temple used in the desert after the Exodus
from Egypt, and during the conquest of the land of Israel.
The Tabernacle was the resting place for the Ark, and contained other vessels that were
used in the physical worship of God. Like most of the artefacts and structures in this chapter, a
detailed knowledge of the appearance of the Tabernacle is not available, and there are many
artists’ depictions. One of the more restrained of these, and one of the very few that fit the
Biblical description, except perhaps for colouration, is by Meek in the 19 th century which is
seen in Figure 5.3.
Perhaps surprisingly, Biblical commentators argue over why and perhaps even more
importantly, when, God commanded Moses to build a Tabernacle in the first place: According
to Rashi [Exodus 31:18], God realized after the sin of the Golden Calf that the Hebrews needed
an outlet for physical worship, and commanded that they build the Tabernacle as a way of
expressing their own need for physical representation of God.
The basics of the Golden Calf episode are that after becoming impatient at Moses' long
delay on the mount, the people ask Aaron to make them a god or gods to go before them. He
yields to their solicitations and making use of the golden earrings of the women and children,
he causes a molten calf or bull to be fashioned.
Shortly after its construction Moses returns and he, moved to wrath and indignation,
destroys the idol, reducing it to dust and throwing it into the brook from which the Hebrews are
made to drink.
According to Nachmanides however, the Hebrews were commanded to build the
Tabernacle even before the sin of the Golden Calf, [Exodus 25:1] and so rather than filling a

144
human need, the Tabernacle was God's method of achieving continuous revelation in the
Hebrew’s camp. As Shyovitz comments:

‘These two opinions as to whether the Tabernacles, and the Temples that followed
them, were an a priori necessity or a necessary evil demonstrate the controversial role of
physical worship in Judaism as a whole’.5

Fig 5.3 The Tabernacle and Court in the Wilderness - 19th century reconstruction and the
closest to Biblical description found to date.

It also indicates that the claimed clarity with which some view these texts does not
always exist.
Whatever the reason for building the Tabernacle, it accompanied the Ark of the
Covenant and the Jews throughout their time in the desert, and to their wars with Emor and
Midian. When the Jews crossed into the land of Canaan, the waters of the Jordan River
miraculously split and the Ark led them through [Joshua 3]. According to the Biblical stories,
its powers were sometimes brought into play to assist the Jews when the military situation
became precarious. This was most dramatically demonstrated when the Jews breached the
walls of Jericho merely by circling them, blowing horns and carrying the Ark [Joshua 6]. After
the conquest was completed, the Ark and the entire Tabernacle were set up in Shiloh [Joshua
18]. There they remained until the armed struggle between the Jews and the Philistines during
the Priesthood of Eli. The Ark and the Tabernacle then seem to fade from the story at this point
re-emerging at the building of the Ark’s next and perhaps final resting place, King Solomon’s
Temple.

145
 It can be seen that this smaller Ark and the Tabernacle were intimately related, a
relationship that extends to the Ark of Noah. The overall length of the Tabernacle, as described
in the Bible was 30 cubits, but here we have perceived a changed cubit value, as this was not an
Ark; this was a temple. The change in unit value is also seen at Solomon’s Temple. In the texts
that relate to the building of Solomon’s Temple, specifically at II Chronicles 3:3 there is
reference to the use of the ‘first’ measure in the construction of this great edifice. This is not an
inference that it was the first use of a specific measure but that the structure was built to this key
unit of length. Both Solomon’s Temple and the Tabernacle contained the Ark of the Covenant
at different times.
If one ‘temple’ was built utilising a different standard to that of the Ark of the
Covenant, then it is logical to assume that the other one was constructed to this alternative unit
of measurement. This idea is reinforced with Strong’s Biblical Concordance [7223]
interpretation of this word ‘first’ - ‘it is derived from a root meaning first: in place, in time, in
order or rank, beginning, first principle or thing.’ This is the only place in the Bible that such a
reference is made to a measure of distance. Given the importance of Noah’s vessel to the story,
if the same unit were to have been used here, it would surely have been stated, or at least be
inferred as such. It is therefore assumed with a degree of confidence that a different unit of
measurement was in use.
It was seen in Chapter 3 that there was a second cubit associated with Noah, namely
that of 1.584feet, and some experimentation is required to see if it is used here. What was seen
to produce results in the research operation was a utilisation of both units, the value of
1.584feet and that of 1.76 feet in a comparison between the Ark of the Covenant’s plan area
and that of the plan area of the ‘Most Holy’, the cubic resting place of the Sacred artefact.
Firstly, with the cubit value at 1.76 feet the plan area of this Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle
was, at its stated 10 cubits per side, 309.76 square feet. The 11.616 square feet of the Ark’s
plan divides into this precisely 26.666666 times. This is not very satisfactory. When the value
of 1.584feet is applied as the relevant cubit, the plan area of the Holy Place evaluates as
250.9056 square feet into which the 11.616 square feet of the Ark divides exactly 21.6 times.
The Most Holy is seen here as a cubic device, as one could not construct a globular temple to
emulate the circular heavens.
Utilising the volume of this cube for comparison, the result for the 1.76 cubit is
177.777r times the volume of the Ark while at 1.584 the count is 129.6. As both 216 and 1296
are important values in the relevant sexagesimal counting system, the analysis will proceed
with the lesser cubit of 1.584 feet. The length of the Tabernacle as given in the Bible was 30
cubits, and using a 1.584feet cubit this gives us 47.52 feet. The corresponding width of 10
cubits resulted in 15.84feet so the total perimeter was 126.72 feet or 120 of the foot value of
1.056 British feet relevant to the cubit value of 1.584feet.
The Most Holy Place, the secretive deepest recess of the tabernacle, screened off from
the remainder of the tent and containing the Ark of the Covenant was is also known as the
Holiest of Holies.
[It was also known as the Holiest Of All [Hebrews 9:3], the Most Holy [Exodus 26:33],
and the Most Holy Place [Exodus 26:34]]. Here the high priest, once a year, on the Day of
Atonement, would sprinkle the blood of an animal upon the Ark of the Covenant and the mercy

146
seat, which sat on top of it. The animal was sacrificed on the Brazen Altar and the blood was
carried into the Most Holy Place. In the wilderness on the day that the tabernacle was first
‘raised up’ the ‘cloud of the Lord’ covered the tabernacle. There are other times that this was
recorded, and instructions were given that the Lord would appear in the cloud upon the mercy
seat, and at that time the priests should not enter into the Tabernacle [Leviticus 16:2].
There was a courtyard surrounding this temple of 100 cubits x 50 cubits or 158.4 feet x
79.2 feet. This gives a perimeter of 475.2 feet or 270 [reflecting the count of days in the
sidereal month] of the ‘primary’ Noahic cubits of 1.76feet or 300 of the ‘secondary’ Noahic
cubits of 1.584 feet. The area derived from these dimensions is 12,545.28 sq. feet or 4,050
square cubits at 1.76feet or 5,000 square cubits at 1.584feet. Numerically this can be viewed as
7,920 x 1.584, which is a representation of the dimensions of planet Earth, as the value of 7920
in British miles was seen as its diameter in the ancient world.
Returning to the Tabernacle, there are some pieces of furnishing that require numerical
examination. Firstly, a table that was in the outer section of the temple. The top of this table
was two cubits by one cubit, with a handbreadth’s width as an edging. Its height was 1.5
cubits. [Note: A handbreadth is either 1/6 or 1/7 of a cubit; here we have the value of 1/6. The
1/7 value emerges with the ‘cubit and a handbreadth’.] The cubit utilised was 1.584 feet, which
means that the handbreadth was 0.264 of a foot or 3.168 inches.
The table without edging therefore had a length of 1.584feet x 2 or 3.168feet and a
breadth of 1.584feet making the perimeter without edging 9.504 feet or 114.048 inches, one
reed or six cubits of this dimension set. When the edging was in place this increased, making
the total length 3.696 feet and the overall width 2.112 feet. The total finished perimeter was
therefore 10.56feet. Here is perceived an increase in dimension of 1.111111111 [1 1/9] from six
cubits at 1.584 feet, which is the table top without edging, to six cubits at 1.76 feet, the table
top with edging. Effectively, this information is coded because it carries data regarding the
changeover factor for the two values 1.1111111r [i.e. 1.584 x 1.111111r = 1.76] and gives
some confirmation of the evaluation of the cubit value being utilised for this structure.
The height of this table at 1.5 cubits is 2.376 feet, 28.512 ins or 1/10 of the draught of
Noah’s Ark. There was also to be found an ‘alter of setim wood’. This particular unit was a
miniature ‘square containing the circle of the Earth’ in plan because its length and breadth were
five cubits, which at 1.584feet amounts to 7.92 feet. Its height was 3 cubits or 4.752 feet.
Thus, there is sufficient here to indicate that again there appears to be numerical symbolic
connections between these values and Noahic and Earthly dimensions.
There is also a geometrical element to take into account in this analysis when we
remember the boat-shaped anomaly high up in the Mountains of Ararat at Durupinar. Here we
can calculate the prcise length of the carry poles. The Genesis depiction of the Ark of Noah is
for a 6:1 rectangle, [300 x 50 cubits in plan] which uncannily results in the correct dimensions
of the ‘vessel’ at Durupinar for length and beam when the primary Noahic cubit is used and the
latterdimension, the beam of the ‘vessel’ is expanded by the Golden Mean. If the original
‘vessel’ was textually altered to a rectangle from a boat shaped object, why should not the same
practise apply to boat shaped shrines seen in Egypt, and the Ark of the Covenant be also
depicted as a similar rectangle? Utilising the Noah’s Ark proportional configuration would
make the length of this Ark longer than the Exodus account as indeed the Durupinar anomaly

147
[upon which the Ark of Noah was based] was wider than the Genesis description. On this
basis, using a 6:1 proportion, following the Genesis pattern of Noah’s vessel, the overall length
of the Ark of the Covenant including carrying poles would have been 2.64 [beam] x 6 =15.84
feet, rather than the 4.4 feet seen earlier. This would mean that the Ark of the Covenant was
designed in conjunction with its Tabernacle. The width of the Tabernacle is precisely the
overall length seen here of the 6:1 proportioned Ark. If we add that the 528 feet version at
Durupinar is 33.333333 times 15.84 feet we now have another value that appears to have been
utilised in these configurations as we have two Arks of the same proportions, one being 33.333r
times the size of the other. While in the case of the Ark of the Covenant this dimension would
embody the carrying poles which did not apply to Noah’s vessel there is an overall proportional
factor to take into account and the poles were an essential part of the Ark of the Covenant. Note
also that in a mile are 3333.33333 cubits
We can gain further information from this. Previously we did not have any dimensions
for the lip around the top of this Ark that would have been built in as a handle if nothing else to
facilitate opening. In fact all illustrations [of course imaginary] embody this in one elaborate
way or another. Virtue of the above numerical evaluation however, we can now calculate the
depth of this projection.
If the overall dimension of 15.84 feet [9 x 1.76] is divided by 3.333r, the result is 4.752
feet, [1.08 x 4.4, where 1.08 is a value change factor seen in Indian cosmology] and which is
0.352feet longer than the 4.4 feet derived from the Genesis account. This value of 0.352feet
has to be divided in two for the projection at each end and the sides and that projection is then
seen to measure 0.176 feet or 2.112 inches. Therefore we have this dimension to add all around
to the Genesis version giving a total perimeter measure of 15.488 feet, 10.56 x 17.6 inches or
88 x 2.112 inches, or seen another way, 11 x 1.408, all values intimately associated with Noah
and his ark. The carrying poles would now project each end three and half cubits beyond the
outer lip of the Ark, the Mercy Seat until they touched the curtains of the Temple wall. The
poles, of course, as in the Biblical narrative, were enclosed in a gold casing. We can now
return to Nikola Tesla’s The Fairy Tale of Electricity.

‘…Moses was undoubtedly a practical and skilful electrician far in advance of his time. The
Bible describes precisely and minutely arrangements constituting a machine in which
electricity was generated by friction of air against silk curtains and stored in a box constructed
like a condenser….

The poles, being gold covered and gold being one of the best conductors known to
man, rubbing gently against the walls of the tent [denoted as linen in the King James
interpretation] would charge the whole construction with static. Hence it appears that Tesla
was correct.
Within the dimensions of the Tabernacle we have seen again some detailed correspondences
with the metrology of the conceptual Ark of Noah, that which was based upon an ancient
survey that was accomplished at Durupinar. This correlation even extends to the use of a
second cubit value that relates to that survey. That electricity was in use [albeit perhaps
accidentally in this case] has also be seen.

148
 As revealed in Chapter 3, the cubit values and derivations [plan areas etc] are encased
within the Great Pyramid and other pyramids. Whilst tomb robbers may have entered these
structures after their construction, it is unlikely that they would have been interested in
surveying their internal structures in the gloom of the pyramid's interior. It is unlikely although
not impossible that the various tribes that would eventually evolve into the Hebrews had any
detailed knowledge of the dimensions of the Durupinar anomaly before they came to Egypt,
although they certainly would have been familiar with the story of the Deluge. So from where
did they obtain their information?
Around 2500BC, the secret dimensions of the Ark of Noah were entombed in many of
the pyramids of the Golden Age main building sequence, not available for inspection by
anyone, least of all foreigners. So was this information lost forever? This is unlikely - the
higher echelons of the priesthood would have surely have been aware of this design criterion.
For at least a period of some 1000 years this knowledge had been kept by the Egyptian
priesthood and at some point the Hebrews became aware of it. This is not difficult to explain.
Joseph [of multicoloured coat fame] became a vizier or Prime Minister to a Pharaoh and Moses
was brought up within the Egyptian Royal household. Hence, there was ample opportunity for
these people to learn of the values employed and both the cultural and religious traditions
surrounding the ‘Arks’ in Egypt. Effectively they were a part of this culture.
The princely elite of the Hebrews later incorporated their metrological knowledge of
Noah’s Ark either into a physical Ark, or into a story about a physical Ark. This is, of course,
the Ark of the Covenant, a concept that did not exist amongst the disparate tribes that were to
become the Hebrews prior to their extended time in Egypt.
These things happened at some point within the date range 1500BC - 700BC [when the
story was written] or about 1500BC - 1200BC [when the Exodus happened]. [Authors Note:
The date of the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt is still highly debated today. Although a
canonical Biblical chronology is seen later in Deluge that gives a date for this event and the
building of Solomon’s Temple, it cannot be accepted as reliable but is likely to be symbolic.
Religious scholars usually favour the earlier date for the Exodus during the reign of
Amenhotep II around 1444BC 6 but the weight of academic opinion is now tending towards an
alternative scenario where the Exodus took place around 1290BC during the reign of Rameses
II. Researcher Ahmed Osman 7 however, has forwarded some sound argument for a date of
around 1330BC. Whatever date eventually transpires to be correct date it makes no material
difference to the content of Deluge.]
The Hebrews had evidently become aware of the original 'vessel of salvation' and its
'sacred' numbers by the time of the Exodus. There seems to be no reason for the use of the
same cubit value in both the Ark of Noah and the Ark of the Covenant, other than there being
only two 'Arks' in the Bible. The question therefore arises of why a purportedly sea-going
vessel of huge proportions should be equated numerically and in a lingual fashion with a small
box that was carried by men. The only logical answer, given the evidence seen previously
regarding boats in Egypt, is a parallel to this idea, that the concept was derived from Egypt and
from the notion of the Gods in the sky in a boat, as indeed, the Pharaoh was regarded as a god
and he was transported on such a vessel.

149
 There is a connection via the belief that the former Ark was a vessel of salvation, life
was saved by its construction and use via the Word of God, while the latter contains the Word
of God in the form of His Laws. These laws formed a Covenant between the Hebrews and God
and as such, they are contained within the Ark of the Covenant. Hence, when the tablets of
Law were brought from Mount Sinai by Moses during the period of the Exodus the same cubit
value was applied, as it was associated with God the Creator, the Saviour.

5.3 More ‘Arkaic’ and Temple History

We now return to our potted ‘history’ of the Ark of the Covenant. The Jews, after
suffering a defeat at the Philistines' hands, took the Ark from Shiloh to Even-Ezer in hopes of
winning the next battle. But the Jews were routed, and the Ark was captured by the Philistines.
Back in Shiloh, Eli, the High Priest, immediately died upon hearing the news [I Samuel. 4].
The story then relates that the Philistines took the Ark back to Ashdod, their capital city in the
south of Canaan where they placed it in the temple of their god Dagon. This appeared to be a
bad move however, for the next day they found the idol fallen on its face.
The day after replacing the statue, it was found in a decapitated state with only its trunk
remaining. Things then deteriorated further and the entire city of Ashdod was struck with a
plague. The Philistines then moved their war booty to other cities, but the inhabitants had
reason to be less than grateful. It went to the city of Gath, and from there to Ekron, but
whatever city the Ark was in, the inhabitants were struck with plague. After seven months, the
Philistines gave up on this idea and decided to send the Ark back to the Israelites,
accompanying it with expensive gifts. The Ark was taken back to Beit Shemesh, and,
according to one account or midrash [a learned reading of the so-called ‘superfluous’ text in the
Jewish version of the Bible, the Torah], the oxen pulling the Ark ‘burst into song’ as soon as it
was once again in Israel's possession.
The actual text of the story, however, tells a much grimmer tale: the men of Beit
Shemesh were punished for staring disrespectfully at the Ark, and many later died of plague.
From Beit Shemesh, the Ark was transported to Kiryat Yearim, where it remained for twenty
years. From there, King David transported it to Jerusalem. En route, however, the oxen
pulling it stumbled, and when Uzzah reached out to steady the Ark, he died immediately. As a
result of this tragedy, David decided to leave the Ark at the home of Obed-edom the Gittite.
Three months later, he moved it to Jerusalem, the seat of his kingdom, where it remained in the
tented Tabernacle, until the construction of the First Temple by David's son Solomon [I Samuel
5-6].
The final part of the ‘history’ of the Ark of the Covenant says that it remained in
Solomon’s Temple until its destruction at the hand of the Babylonian empire, led by King
Nebuchadnezzar:

150
Now in the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month (which was the nineteenth year of King
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon), Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, who served the king
of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned the house of the LORD and the king's house; all the
houses of Jerusalem, that is, all the houses of the great, he burned with fire. And all the army
of the Chaldeans who were with the captain of the guard broke down all the walls of Jerusalem
all around.
Jer 52:12-14

What happened to the Ark after the above destruction of Jerusalem is unknown, and
has been pondered about and debated for centuries.
It is unlikely that the Babylonians plundered it, as they did the other vessels of the
Temple, because the detailed lists that are still in existence reveal the items taken from the
Temple and these lists make no mention of the Ark. According to some sources, Josiah, one of
the final kings to reign in the First Temple period, learned of the impending invasion of the
Babylonians and hid the Ark. Where he hid it is also questionable – according to one midrash,
he dug a hole under the wood storehouse on the Temple Mount and buried it there. Another
account says that Solomon foresaw the eventual destruction of the Temple, and set aside a cave
near the Dead Sea, in which Josiah eventually hid the Ark. [Maimonides, Laws of the Temple,
4:1]. The location of the Ark remains a mystery to this day from the time of the Babylonian
invasion and despite many works on the subject, no conclusive proof of what happened to it has
ever been demonstrated. However, while being lost, the Ark of the Covenant has not been
forgotten and it is the subject of much media interest even today. Regarding the history of
ancient measurement it has an importance, but it has no further relevance to the story of the
Deluge, so we will leave its mysterious history here.
A brief history of later temples is included below as it has relevance in understanding
the later historical context, and the attendant underlying metrology.
As noted above, Solomon's temple was destroyed and looted by the Babylonians under
Nebuchadnezzer around 600BC [586BC is the usual quoted figure]. The Hebrews returned
about 537 BC, being released by the Persians under Cyrus, and the Temple rebuild started
under Zerubbabel. It was known as the Second Temple and was dedicated on March 12th in
515BC. Cyrus had apparently limited the replacement temple’s height to 60 cubits, and it is
reported that the width was the same, but no length is recorded.
If we take the length to be the same and use the cubit of 1.584feet again, this results in
a side length, in British inches, of 95.04feet or 1140.48ins. The Second Temple lasted until the
late first century BC when it was defiled by King Antiochus Epiphanes in 168BC, but Judas
Maccabaeus later rebuilt the damaged areas. The Third Temple, often known as Herods temple,
after the Jewish King who instigated its building, was completed in 64AD, long after his death.
Herod’s Temple was destroyed just six years later in September 70AD by the armies of
Titus, the son of the Roman Emperor Vespasian, after a seven-month siege during the later
stages of the ruthless crushing of the Jewish revolt.
Figure 5.4 shows the frieze that commemorates this event. It is from the Arch of Titus
in Rome and depicts the triumphant Roman soldiers carrying off the symbol that God gave to

151
the ‘children of Israel’, the seven-branched Menorah along with other spoils captured from the
Temple in Jerusalem [The possible meaning of this symbol becomes apparent in Chapter 7.]

Fig.5.4 Frieze on the Arch of Titus, Rome

The Roman destruction of the temple did not stop its site from becoming one of the
world’s most important religious places, even today. Mount Moriah has something in common
with many of them as well; although not especially lofty, it is considered to be a mountain, an
important concept that arises later in Deluge. It was here, rather than a site that might be
considered less difficult and expensive upon which to build, that King Solomon decided to
construct his great Temple, one of the most mysterious structures of antiquity.

5.4 King Solomon’s Temple and Mount Moriah

According to the Bible, Solomon built the temple on the East side of Jerusalem on
Mount Moriah, ‘where the Lord had appeared to his father David, at the place that David had
prepared on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite’ [1 Chronicles 21:28; 2 Chronicles 3:1].
However, David had not been allowed to build the Temple due to his being a warrior and
having spilt much blood [1 Chron 22:8].
Being a ’man of peace,’ David’s son Solomon was allowed to begin the project of
constructing the Great Temple to the Lord. It was envisaged to be a grand affair – and in order
to secure an adequate site for the Temple and its courts, a large area was required. The chosen
site, the summit of Mount Moriah, was by no means ideal as it had to be levelled and slightly
enlarged by means of fill and retaining walls built on the sides. Biblical chronology indicates
that the construction was completed in the eleventh year of Solomon's reign, after seven and a
half years work, in 966BC. Today, the highest part of Mount Moriah is well known, as it is
now the site of the Muslim shrine The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem as is seen in Figure 5.5.

152
 It shall become evident in later chapters that the location of Solomon’s Temple was no
accident. It is found in the second Book of Samuel 24:18 – 23 and again in 2 Chronicles 21:
20-23, that David purchased the threshing floor from Araunah the Jebusite. In fact, when told
of the purpose of the proposed purchase, the story relates that Araunah wished to donate the
site to David.
The location of a threshing floor had to be prone to a breeze and consequently was
usually on the top of a hill giving a good all round view.
Grain, being an important and tradable commodity, was often stolen and a location
from where all comers could be seen, in addition to being in a position to catch the breeze for
purpose of winnowing, was an advantage. It is noted that there are a number of comments
regarding these processes in the Old Testament. If David had bought this threshing floor and
did not use it as such, one rightly tends to ask why, as it would have commanded a fine price.
What was so special about a threshing floor that it was bought with the express purpose of
building a temple on the site? The answer relates to the nature of work carried out at such a
place. Separating wheat from chaff was a two-step process and was usually accomplished by
means of oxen being tethered to a post in the centre of the floor and walked around on the cut
stalks, which were piled on the floor.
The oxen towed a sledge that frequently had metal or timber spikes protruding beneath,
the purpose of which was to easier dislodge the grain from the stem. Once this element of the
process was judged complete then the winnowing was undertaken, an exercise that involved
tossing the grain into the air when the wind blew the dislodged outer husks away leaving the
heavier clean grain to fall to the ground.
It is the concept of ‘circling’ visualised by oxen walking around a central post at the
top of a hill that provides the first all-important clue to the ultimate root of the Great Flood
story. The title of ‘Mount Moriah’ also plays its part here – it is a title that several writers have
considered is a representation of the legendary Mount Meru, whose name or a derivative of it,
is seen in many ancient cultures. These concepts will be explained in later chapters.
Regarding the historical veracity of the Biblical story, until this very day, not a single
archaeological remnant has been found of the Temple of Solomon. Therefore, there are no
remains to measure, no walls to evaluate and hence as with the Ark of the Covenant, reliance
has to be placed upon Biblical commentary.
There is no certainty of when the Temple may have been constructed, or even if it was
built, although later in Deluge a specific date, based primarily upon canonical Biblical
numeration, has been ascribed to its dedication.
Nonetheless, even though there is uncertainty regarding this building, it now seems that
some evidence of trade associated with what may well have been Solomon’s Temple has
emerged, going a little way toward confirmation of the Biblical tale. A receipt for three shekels
[about an ounce] of silver for a donation to the House of Yahweh found its way into the
antiquities market in the late 1990’s and was identified in 1997 [See Figure 5.6]. The artefact
has been variously dated at being from the 8th to late 7th century BC, which firmly places it into
the timeframe when the Temple was still extant. So, it appears then that a three-inch square of
pottery may eventually transpire to be the first proof that one of the most famous buildings of
the ancient world actually existed. 8

153
Fig. 5.5 Three Shekel Receipt

5.5 The Temple Dimensions Revealed

Regarding the dimension of the building, the books of Kings and Chronicles give no
dimension for internal partition thickness or any other wall, not even the thickness of the main
structure. All they reveal are the internal room dimensions and the sizes of some artefacts in
counts of cubits. While many have postulated the length of the cubit in use, the values
suggested in all the literature consulted, including web sources, have failed to provide a figure
that is coherent with the values that we know were in use during the period under scrutiny. As
the books of Kings and Chronicles fail to reveal the relevant value we consequently, as indeed
others have done, have to turn to the vision of the rebuilding of the temple, as described by
Ezekiel. Here however is another problem, because Ezekiel, or at least the personage who was
his guide, was using the cubit and a handbreadth. This is seen in Chapter 40 verse 5 [King
James Version]:

In the man’s hand a measuring reed of six cubits long by the cubit and a handbreadth…

A reed has six cubits and a cubit a basic six handbreadths. A cubit comprised of a cubit
and a handbreadth has seven handbreadths.
To find the value of a ‘cubit and a handbreadth’ one therefore has to divide the cubit by
six and multiply the result by seven. Over the count of six cubits, therefore, an extra cubit [six
handbreadths] has been added so we now have a seven-cubit reed, which can be divided by six
for what is known as the cubit and a handbreadth.
The important element to note here is that the Book of Chronicles states the cubit
utilised for the structure was …after the first measure…[2 Chronicles 3:3]. A cubit and a
handbreadth is an increased value while the Chronicles text relates that the unit in use was a
specific singular cubit value, not an increased unit of measure. Hence, while the statement in
the work of Ezekiel mentions a reed of six cubits by the cubit and a handbreadth it is the
original or first cubit that is implied in Chronicles.

154
 The ‘first’ cubit is taken to be that of 1.584feet as seen at the Tabernacle. Here we
allow that this ‘first’ cubit of 1.584feet is increased to a cubit and handbreadth of 1.848 feet. A
further connection to Noah is now revealed, as the foot value of a cubit valued at 1.848 feet is
1.232feet whereas the perimeter of the Ark was 1232 feet.
If the measuring reed in the man’s hand as described by Ezekiel were six cubits long
by the cubit and a handbreadth then its length would be 6 x 1.848feet, which is 11.088feet or 7
x 1.584feet, and gives our original singular cubit length as implied in Chronicles. Further to
this Ezekiel measures in cubits and not cubit and handbreadths even though he mentions the
measure in the clue to the units employed. Ezekiel does not specifically state that this was the
measure utilised on the structure, one has to ‘read between the lines’ of his clue. Those who
were aware of the metrological implications would in any case have no problem in evaluating
his riddle. The evaluation utilised in this research used the 1.584feet cubit with its attendant
reed of 9.504feet and a foot value of 1.056feet, initially in an experimental nature, but it was
soon realised that indeed these are the correct values, the measures utilised on the Temple
structure. There is no requirement to relate the various configurations attempted during
research here, the revelatory nature of the values will be sufficient to convince most of the
validity of the evaluation [and readers are invited to try other values].
The cubit value utilised for the city walls and precincts outside of the Temple region
however is that of 1.76feet. Looking to the inner regions of the Temple layout, the wall
surrounding the temple area was 500 cubits per side with a further 50 cubits surround of
‘suburbs’. Effectively this gives a length of 600 cubits (500 + 50 + 50) at 1.584 feet or a
measure of 950.4 feet creating a perimeter of 2160 cubits at 1.76 feet.
At the wall on the inside of the suburbs, the measurement is 500 cubits [792 feet], so
here again, is the representation of the square containing the circle of the Earth. Both of these
walls measured a reed in thickness. The distance between them was 88 cubits making the
overall span of the two walls 100 cubits, or 158.4 feet. The inner area being 300 cubits in
length measured 475.2 feet. There is no requirement here to elaborate greatly on the
dimensions shown on the drawings other than to suggest converting them into British feet, as
the results can be quite informative [see below].
The area of the floor of the Debir [Holy Place] was 1003.6224 sq feet. The length of
the outer area, the Hekal was 40 cubits giving an area of twice that of the Holy Place at
2007.6448 sq feet.
The perimeter of the Debir or Holy Place was 126.72 feet reflecting the 126.72 inches
in 10.56 feet and the Hekal was twice this at 253.44 feet, again values that have factors
associated with the story of Noah. Here once more are cherubim, this time elevated above the
Ark and spanning the width of the Holy Place. Height of the Hekal is given internally as 30
cubit where the Debir would be 20 cubit.
The Ark of the Covenant would fit into the volume of the Debir exactly 1036.8 times
reflecting the length in inches of the Long Egyptian reed.
Surrounding the temple, with the exception of the porch, were found rooms described
as chambers. There were three floors of these. Those at the top were seven cubits deep, the
middle layer six cubits, while those at ground level measured five cubits. There was another
wall of six cubits surrounding these chambers with their walkways, and a doorway was let into

155
this on the one side only. At the outside of the lowest chambers ran a walkway, in fact, each
level contained a walkway. At the lowest level, it was three cubits wide while above this, at the
next level its width was two cubits. The walkway width at the top, only serving those using the
area, was consequently of only one cubit with access via a spiral stairs built into the wall.
This set of three tiered chambers were each individually five cubits high, with their
timber floor structure set onto corbelled rests and not directly let into the walls of the temple.
With the overall width of temple plus chambers being 60 cubits the proportion length to width
of the structure was 1:1.666r (100 / 60 = 1.666r). If we examine the Ark of the Covenant in the
same way the result is seen as: 2.5 / 1.5 cubits =1:1.666r. This relationship between religious
icons actually extends far beyond the land of Israel. For example, it is found at the Cathedral of
Chartres in France, where an extended grid pattern utilised in its initial setting out shows the
same proportion, as indeed does Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland. It seems that there is an
astronomical connection in that this proportion approximately follows that of the constellation
Gemini, which, as all three religious buildings mentioned here have twin pillars, appear to
correspond symbolically to the two bright stars Castor and Pollux.
This is possibly an allusion to a much more ancient time, place and calendar as is
discussed in Chapter 8.

50 cubit wide

100 cubit square

Temple and Chambers

100 x 80 cubit o/a

walls 5 cubit thick

100 cubit

300 cubit

500 cubit o/a

Walls 6 cubit [ 1reed ] thick

Fig. 5.6 Layout at Temple
Layout at Solomon's Temple

156
 Debir [Sanctuary:Holy of Holies] Hekel [Hall for Worship]

Paved area

6 cubit thick external wall Access steps this area

Chambers and walkways

6 cubit thick external wall
Boaz [Castor]
Elam [Porch]

Jachin [Pollux]
6 cubit thick external wall
Chambers and walkways

6 cubit thick external wall Access steps this area

Dimensions:- Brazen Sea 10 cubit o/a diameter. This represents the sun
as Jachin and Boaz represent the stars Pollux and Castor
Length of Gemini. Temple building proportions are those of the
constellation Gemini.
Entrance wall 2 cubits; Elam 10 cubits;
wall to Hekal 6 cubits; Hekal 40 cubits;
Partition to Debir 2 cubits; Debir 20 cubits;
External Temple wall 6 cubits; Ground floor chambers 5 cubits;
Walkway 3 cubits; External wall 6 cubits;
Overall length 100 cubits.

Width

Internally 20 cubits with the same features

plus a 20 cubit paved area each side

Fig. 5.7 Detail at Solomon’s Temple

157
5.6 The Mystical Diagram and the Eye

Below is an extract from James F.Kirk-White’s address to the good brethren of

Powassan Lodge in October 2003 where he comments upon how King Solomon’s Temple was
seen as a Masonic symbol in the Middle Ages:

‘... I came upon an interesting letter written in 1272, by a Master of the Work who was charged
with the building of an English Cathedral for King Henry the Third…
…Robert of Beverley, Master Mason, Master of the Work, mentions in his letter to his brother,
that King Solomon’s Temple, and the slaying of the head architect, was the major theme in a
dramatized ritual presented by his fellow Freemasons for the benefit of his workers upon
completion of the Cathedral – ‘Operative Masons’ in the year ‘1272 AD’’ 9

The study of Freemasonry and its forebears is far from a straightforward historical
investigation. Allegory plays a large part in Masonic matters along with a sound understanding
of ancient religion, astronomy and metrology. For instance below is a quotation from a
Freemason, an Anglican Vicar who wrote the book Light Invisible, A Freemasons Answer to
Darkness Visible under the pseudonym of Vindex, published in 1952:

‘We now come to the core of the matter, what is the religion of Freemasonry? It is the oldest of
all religious systems, dating from time immemorial. It is not in itself a separate religion and
has never claimed to be one, but it embodies in itself the fundamental truths and ancient
mysteries on which every religion is based. Taunts that it worships a ‘common denominator’
God are rather wide of the mark if the phrase indicates any inadequacy or limitation in nature
or title of the God we worship and believe as a first principle in the fullness of the Godhead of
which other religions see only part.’ 10

But if this statement has any validity, then surely Solomon’s Temple plays a role in this
‘original religion’ as the Freemasons claim to fame is having their birth at this location, masons
being the craftsmen who were entrusted with the project.
There are then, as to be expected, connections between the icons of Freemasonry, its
historical forebears and this subject area of King Solomon’s Temple. In Figure 5.8 is a
complex, symbolic, diagrammatic view of the Temple, which initially appears to have no
connection to Solomon’s Temple whatever. It is derived, it is thought, from the Rosicrucian
movement or perhaps the Knights Templar. But before the illustration is analysed in any depth
the similarity between this diagram and the plan layout of Solomon’s Temple, which was
painstaking evaluated from a number of Biblical translations should be noted – the diagram is
obviously a geometrical reference to the Biblical structure.
This depiction is somewhat complex and deserves some explanation. Importantly there
are seen the four quarters of the month and also the 365 days of the year. There is also a circle
depicting the year divided into 10-degree segments. The months are also denoted by name, and
there is reference to the lunar cycle [the importance of which emerges in later chapters]. The
circle around the cross between the two pillars contains the word EMANUEL. Let us look at

158
this word carefully. Could this, perhaps, be seen as EL [Lord] MANU, the ancient Indian
equivalent to Noah? Another possible connection here is that the Sun in Egyptian lore comes
from the land of Manu and sets at the horizon of Manu.

Fig 5.8 The Mystical Geometrical diagram from the Rosicrucians or Knights Templar. The
right hand pillar seen here is curiously akin to the so-called Apprentice Pillar at Rosslyn
Chapel, Edinburgh

159
 Here we apparently have connections between the Indian Noah [Manu] and Egyptian
religion and astronomy. This idea is reinforced by another Indian connection to the diagram
that is discussed below. The Rose and Cross depiction is thought to be a reference to the
Rosicrucian movement and the All Seeing Eye of God is seen in a triangle surrounded by fire in
the form of a circle of flames [presumably a reference to the Sun] at the centre of the diagram.
The triangle is surrounded by the word UNIVERS [the final e is left off for symmetrical
purposes.]
The Phoenix bird seen here is additionally of interest. The Phoenix is derived from
Egyptian mythology where it is the sacred ‘firebird’ that lives for 500 years or, dependent upon
source, 1461 years, which is classified as the Sothic cycle. [If counted as days this is precisely 4
years at 365.25 days per year. Compare this to the Sothic cycle description at Wikipedia for
example and note the Biblical and other uses for ‘a year for a day’ seen in this book; feasibly
other explanations for this period are possible.] At the end of this era [whichever period may
apply] a nest is built of cinnamon twigs to which the bird sets fire reducing both bird and nest
to ashes. From these remains a new young bird arises which embalms the ashes in a myrrh egg
which it then takes to Heliopolis. This strange creature also was thought to regenerate from
any wounds making it virtually immortal. As an emblem it was utilised by many including
early Christian artists as a symbol of resurrection.
The eye shown in the centre of the diagram [unfortunately at this scale barely
discernible in the middle of the central triangle], has specific dimensions, which took a
considerable time to ascertain. [For clarity, the centre of the diagram is magnified in Figure
5.9.] A clue to what was a total lack of linear numerical values in the diagram was found in
Wallace Budge’s interpretation of the Book Of The Dead.
In an extract from the Papyrus of Nu, which related to the protection of the Boat of Ra,
there was a reference to the eye known as the Eye of Horus, which was described as the eye of
seven cubits with a pupil of three cubits.11
By applying the cubit of Noah, at 1.76feet, it was found that the overall dimension is
such as might now be expected. The verse in the Book of the Dead is relating to the boat of the
Sun God, or the Solar Barque, or in other words the Ark and of course, 7 cubits at 1.76feet per
cubit is 12.32feet or 1/100 of the perimeter of Noah’s Ark. The pupil at three cubits of
1.76feet, is therefore 1/100 of the ‘vessel’s’ length of 528feet [5.28feet.].
Yet even with this information, the diagram does not fit the Temple because the centre
of the Temple precinct is not where one would expect, in the Debir, it is to be found 20 cubits
or 31.68 feet from its centre, in the Hekal. The implication from the esoteric drawing is that all
revolves around this centre spot, this unseen yet all-seeing eye. But how could such an emblem
represent the Sun when it is on the other side of the world at night? However, there is another
interpretation that we suggest here [the reasons for which will become evident in later chapters,
specifically with a Sun association in Chapter 8] - all revolves around the Pole Star just as the
oxen turn around the central post when threshing is taking place.

160
Fig. 5.9 The Centre of the Mystical diagram

The Pole Star or at least the polar position is, for all means and purposes, a fixed
location and is in position day and night. What have been taken for flames emanating from the
Sun in the diagram could correspondingly also be interpreted as the Aurora Borealis, or the
‘Northern Lights.’ This would then correspond to the monthly and yearly periods set out
around the perimeter of the diagram, as all revolves around the cosmic axis. Alternatively it
may be a representation of the Sun at the centre of the solar system drawn in the days prior to
Christian acceptance of the concept but evidence indicates that it indeed would have indicated
the northern regions. Taking this a little further, it can be seen that the measure of the square
containing the circle of the Earth [in circular format] with its perimeter of 31680 miles could be
represented here and purely allegorically this appears to be the case. While the All Seeing Eye
of the Lord or in Egypt as Ra at the centre of the Temple [the centre of the universe as seen on
the Templar diagram] and the Ark of the Covenant [the Seat of the Lord and therefore also the
centre of the universe] may be 31.68 feet or 20 cubits apart, they are designated by association
as being in the same location, they imply the same godly entity. If either position moved then

161
the association with the geometrical figure seen in fig. 5.12 would not apply. Although these
are drawn at the temple in different locations, they are in essence at the same place with the
distance between them being the hypothetical 31680 mile circumference. For two items on this
circumference to be the distance of the circumference apart they have to be in the same
location.
Here the above comments regarding the Aurora Borealis come into play because the
star above the North Pole is at the end of the axis of the universe and it is here, as we shall later
see, that creation via the Lord takes place. This, once the allegory and myth is deciphered is the
source of the Indian, Egyptian and indeed, Biblical universes. While the axis passes through
the Earth, it was at its Northern end that northern hemisphere myth claimed was the source of
all. The axis is sometimes represented as pole, or as a tree [echoes of Adam and Eve and the
Icelandic creation myths] or indeed as a mountain as in India. So effectively, as the positions
on the circle are the same, we must be looking at an indication of the North Celestial pole, the
Northern extremity of this circle, the seat of the Indian Brahma from which the All Seeing Eye
or Ra emerged at creation and which is the seat of the Lord.
There is a further similarity to the layout of the Temple to be found when the Indian
Yantras are examined. The diagram below indicates a replication of the Hindu Sri Yantra or
so-called King of Yantras 12 Its apparent similarity to the Figures 5.8 and 5.10 becomes even
more apparent if all are printed as transparencies with the square outline to the same scale and
then overlaid, as there are a number of matches of lines and measures between all three figures.

Fig 5.10 King of Yantras

The Hindu term yantra, which literally means ‘an instrument for holding or
restraining’, may be used to denote a variety of linear diagrams that play a significant role in
the meditative practices of Tantric Hinduism. Yantras may be simple designs such as the cross,

162
triangle, square, circle or lotus pattern, symbolising basic concepts, or may be more complex
combinations of such elements.
The best known, and most complex of the yantras is the Sri Yantra, which is considered
to be the ‘King of Yantras’ , and has several versions. One of its more common depictions of
the King of Yantras is seen in Figure 5.10. with a more complex version in 5.11
The centre of the more complex Figure 5.11 Sri Yantra involves two triangles with 60-
degree angles that penetrate each other. Of these triangles, the one with its apex is pointed
upwards, is said to represent concentrated energy, symbolised by fire, or the active principle,
also seen as the Cosmic Purusha the male energy. The triangle with the apex pointed
downwards is said to represent both mental activity and water, which tends to flow downwards
seeking its level. It is associated with the passive principle or the cosmic nature or Prakriti the
female energy. However this is a greatly simplified explanation and for a more detailed
understanding one has of necessity to study the Tantric element of Indian culture and religion.13
The whole geometrical construction is often enclosed in a bhupura, a word which
means earth-city as indeed a comparison between the yantra illustration from Danielou, the
Solomon’s Temple layout from the Knights Templar and that evaluated from Biblical
descriptions for Deluge shown in Figure 5.8 clearly demonstrates. Drawn to the same scales
they align perfectly. As can be seen, there is a commonality to the outer elements of the yantra
in this diagram. This has here been extended in Fig 5.12 to take in the circle of Stonehenge
[316.8 feet] and triangle of the Great Pyramid [based upon 22/7], all combining to create a
complex but coherent geometrical diagram. Maths and geometry combine to form patterns but
only parts of the patterns emerge at singular locations.
The Sri Yantra dates to at least mediaeval times according to Professor Subhash Kak,
making it at least co-eval with the Rosicrucians diagram seen earlier. Kak also comments that
it is certain that this Yantra was made on flat and curved surfaces implying that there was
knowledge that the angles of such triangles exceeded 180 degrees. This then raises the
possibility that non-Euclidian geometry was understood in India centuries before it was
systematically studied in Europe. The implication also arises of geometry and perhaps
cosmology being important facets of Hindu devotional techniques and practises. There is
clearly a connection here between the Sri Yantra and the other illustrations that were seen
earlier. We also have a hint from Kak that will later be seen to be confirmed, that this
connection is not from Western knowledge that filtered into Indic regions, as has been taught
for a long time. The flow is actually the other way.

163
Fig 5.11 King of Yantras associated with the Matrikabheda Tantra

164
 Temple Surround = 792 feet per side where 7920 miles = Earth diam.
Triangle = configuration of Great Pyramid

Inner circle 792 feet diam

Outer circle 1008 feet diam. [3168 circ]
1008 =792 + [108 x 2] where
108 represents lunar rad. of 1080 miles or more probably the 1080
years of half of a canonical precessional month.
Stonehenge circ. thro. centre of sarsen lintels = 316.8 feet.

Fig 5.12Complex Earth / Temple diagram

165
5.7 Jachin and Boaz

The two pillars in the porch of the Temple, [1Kings 7:15-22 & 2 Chronicles 3:15-16]
Jachin and Boaz are given different heights in the books of Kings and Chronicles. One claims
they were 18 cubits high while the other states 35 cubits. Why that is so is an issue we shall not
delve into here other than to note the dimensions of the pillars regarding diameter and
circumference, which have relevance to the metrological arguments seen in Deluge. There was
much ornamentation involved with these brass structures that does not affect the evaluation
seen here. In both cases, the circumference of the pillars is given as 12 cubits, which using the
1.584 feet cubit gives 19.008feet, making the diameter [when pi = 22/7] 6.048feet. This
diameter can also be seen as 6 x 1.008 feet, where 10,080miles is the diameter of a circular
version of the ‘Square containing the circle of the Earth’ [31,680 miles] as discussed earlier. In
fact, 1.008 is the short version of what Michell has termed for identification purposes, the Short
Greek cubit. Both versions of the pillars have chapitors of 5 cubits or 7.92feet, a reduction that
indicates the point of importance. On the longer version, there is, to the underside of the
chapitor, a height of 35 cubits or 55.44feet, which is seven times the chapitor height.

1 Kings 7:19 And the chapitors that were upon the top of the pillars were of lily work in the
porch, four cubits.

With the circumference at 12 cubits and using 22/7 for the calculation, a diameter of
3.8181818 cubits emerges and here we have a mention of 4 cubits for the dimension of the
chapitor. This is not for the height as that was previously given therefore it must be for the
protrusion of the lily work. So if we deduct the calculated diameter from the 4 cubits the
remainder that is protruding around the top of the pillar is half of 0.181818 cubits and this
evaluates at 1.728 inches. The shorter version of these pillars from Kings is 18 cubits to the
underside of the chapitor, making the overall height 36.432feet, or 23 cubits. The longer
interpretation found in Chronicles is 35 cubits to the underside of the chapitor, to which is
added the 7.92feet of chapitor height, making the overall height then 63.36feet. Using the
figures from Kings, a 12-cubit circumference at 18 cubits high gives a surface area of 216
square cubits.
In the longer version in Chronicles, the circumference is the same while the height is
35 cubits, giving in this case, a surface area of 420 square cubits.
In Figure 5.13 is an interpretation of the appearance of the pillars without the
ornamentation of chain work and pomegranates with the relevant dimensions all derived from
Biblical sources. In Figure 5.14 an illustration from a manual of Masonic ritual is given for
comparison.
What was the purpose of Jachin and Boaz? As seen in the drawing of the Temple, it
would appear that they represent Castor and Pollux of Gemini although during the course of
research no other reference to this interpretation has been found. None of the three Books of
the Bible that discuss the construction of Solomon’s Temple gives any clue. Indeed the
conventional knowledge of the pillars and their names is very sketchy indeed. It is known that
twin pillars were frequently erected at the entyrance to temples but their purpose remains

166
unkown. Those at Solomon’s Temple were named Jachin which has the meaning of, 'he set
up’, and Boaz which title remains of uncertain meaning although as some researchers have
implied, with different vowels [not in the original] it would mean 'with strength'.
There are a large number of greatly confusing ideas, generally derived from Masonic
sources regarding the purpose and position of Jachin and Boaz, some even going as far as to
reverse the positions of these pillars as seen in the Bible. Boaz, according to one of these
commentaries was the left-hand pillar standing to the South, which means that the Temple was
viewed from the East. Yet to the South and to the right was Jachin according to the Bible.
When the original account of the building of this temple is consulted, the following is
discovered:

1 Kings 7:39 And he put five bases on the right side of the house, and five on the left side of the
house: and he set the sea on the right side of the house eastward over against the south.

Chapitor 5 cubits at 1.584 =7.92 ft

diameter
Lilly work 4 cubits no circ
Height here for Lilly or diameter stated so taken
work not given in Bible as diameter. = 6.336 ft
but when drawn up CAD
makes it exactly 1 cubit
at 1.584 ft

Shoulder depth = 0.144

cubit = 1.728 inches.=
1/11of 1.584 ft cubit or
1 Egyptian inch. This
level denotes the top of
the pillars. 12 cubits at 1.584 ft circ = 19.008 ft
= 6 short Greek cubits diam = 6.048 ft
Height given in Kings at 18 cubits and
Chronicles at 35 cubits

Fig. 5.13 Pillars of Jachin and Boaz detail at top as per Biblical description. The shoulder of 4
cubits is the diameter to the outside of the Lily work denoted at this point.

Hence, the viewing of the pillars was from within the house. 1 Kings 7.21 makes it
perfectly clear that Jachin was to the right and to the south. Even if this Temple followed the

167
north/south alignment of the Oblation to the Lord [seen at the end of this chapter] the
description would not apply because then eastward to the south would mean anywhere behind
the front of the Temple to its east. Obviously, this would be incorrect. As the approach to the
Temple is clearly from the east, arriving through the East Gate with access for commoners on
Sabbaths and new moons, then the entrance to the Temple is also from the east. There is no
way that this configuration can be legitimately altered.
The original story of the pillars commences before ‘the flood’ as when warned of the
impending disaster, knowledge of ‘all science’ was inscribed upon two pillars, one that could
not be destroyed by fire and the other that would withstand flood. This would ensure that
invaluable information would not be lost to generations to come.
The Biblical story relates that Cain, Adam and Eve’s son, killed his brother Abel. As
punishment, Cain was sent to the land of Nod. Adam and Eve had another son whom they
named Seth and it was from his line that the remainder of the genealogy seemingly stems.
Meanwhile, Cain had children [although taking the Bible literally this was impossible as no
humans other than his immediate family were in existence at that time] and commencing with
his father Adam, the eighth generation from creation were the sons of Lamech, the brothers
Jabal, Jubal and Tubalcain. The sister of these brothers was named Naamah who according to
The Polychronicon, a history written by a Chester based Monk by the name of Ranulf Higden,
mastered weaving.
Noah’s wife, although whether this was the same woman is uncertain, had the same
name, a name that occurs in other places in the Bible. Nevertheless it is noteworthy that
Noah’s 1056 years divided by the eight generations leading up to Naamah = 132 years which is
1584 months. Of the three brothers, Jabal was the first of ‘those who dwell in tents and practise
animal husbandry’. Jubal was also the father of all those who ‘handle the harp and the organ’
while Tubalcain was an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron [as noted in Chapter 3
regarding the Ark of Noah].
Thus between them they were the founders of ‘all sciences’ and inscribed ‘all that was
known’ on two pillars, one of stone and one of Lternes as one would then be saved from fire
and one from flood. According to the account in The Pocket Book of Freemasonry 14 Higden
took this idea from Josephus [it is to be found in Antiquities of the Jews 2:3] who in turn had
copied it from Berossus who had taken it from a Sumerian narrative. The interesting element
here is that we are being inevitably drawn back to the flood story. The narrative in the Pocket
Book of Freemasonry extends to tell us that the Greek Hermenes [Hermes] was the grandson of
Noah via Noah’s son Shem and that it was Hermenes who retrieved the pillars after the flood.
So effectively, we have Noah at the end of the flood, his son Shem and then the third of the trio
Hermenes, who was in reality the Egyptian God Thoth, who in Egyptian tradition spoke the
words of creation [see Chapter 12].

168
Fig. 5.14 Jachin and Boaz as seen in 4th ed. Masonic Emulation Ritual Handbook of 1974

Here we can look to the Indian work, the Mahabharata for a little enlightenment.
According to the Mahabharata, Maharaja Dhruva was the son of Prajapati, who was the son of
Manu hence Maharaja Dhruva is the grandson of Manu. Manu is the Indian Noah and hence
Maharaja Dhruva, is here equated with none other than Hermenes or Thoth. Maharaja Dhruva
conducted austerities to gain the acknowledgement of the Gods and was rewarded an exalted
position as will be seen in later chapters. We shall later see that the Indian Manu did not carry
the animals with him in his vessel as did Noah but after the flood actually created anew…Manu
is a manifestation of the Indian creator god Brahma [not to be confused with Brahman who is
greater than Brahma.]

169
 There is a little more to take into consideration here in that not all generations need be
mentioned. According to the Genesis genealogy Noah’s sons were named Shem, Ham, and
Japheth. The immediate descendents via Shem, Noah’s grandsons, are seen as Elam, Asshur,
and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram. When this family line is extended it is found that Arphaxad
begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber. And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was
Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. Hence, there
was a descendent of Noah, Peleg, his great, great grandson who was living ‘when the Earth
was divided’. This hints at geomancy, of Earth measurement, of geometry and mathematics, of
astronomy; it also relates to the ultimate source of measures as seen in the companion work to
this, Measurements of the Gods…except for dating; the measuring took place before the flood
of Noah…as conventionally perceived…In fact this tale of Peleg has important ramifications
for the history of measure as seen in Chapter 18 of Measurements of the Gods.
Returning to the pillars that were supposedly buried before the flood there is a further
problem in that we cannot equate two brass pillars that were hollow with two pillars of stone.
Clearly there is some confusion here or one tale has emerged from another and been amended
to suit a purpose, a purpose that almost certainly has an allegorical core.
It would logically appear that it is more likely that the similarity between the Egyptian
concept of ‘two pillars’ and the pillars of Jachin and Boaz are derived from a common tradition,
or stylistic trend at the time. This idea is demonstrated at the North Syrian shrine at Tell
Tainat, which also had two columns that stood in the portico. In fact, such pillars flanking the
main entrance of a temple were common in the first millennium BC in Syria, Phoenicia, and
Cyprus.
They spread eastward to Assyria where they are to be found in Sargon's temples at
Khorsabad [late third century BC] and westward to the Phoenician colonies in the Western
Mediterranean.
A further commentary regarding the names of the pillars relates that the names Jachin
and Boaz actually seem to follow a common Near Eastern tradition, and ‘it has been
convincingly demonstrated’ that the names of the two columns represented the first words of
dynastic oracles that were inscribed on them. The ‘Jachin’ formula may have been something
like ‘Yahweh will establish [Hebrew yakin] your throne forever’ and the ‘Boaz’ oracle may
have run something like ‘In Yahweh is the king's strength’ [Hebrew boaz].15 This is
nevertheless something of a problem, because yet a further question is now raised, did all
religions in the various countries that built in these styles, have a similar idea? And why should
a religion that did not subscribe to Yahweh use his name in reverence and dedicate part of their
temple to this alien deity?
Jachin and Boaz have been frequently interpreted as sacred Obelisks, like those that
stood beside the great Egyptian temples at Heliopolis and Thebes, or beside the temple of
Melcarth at Tyre. Sometimes they have been viewed as stylized trees or again as cosmic
pillars. Others have suggested that they might be gigantic cressets or fire altars. Astronomical
research for this volume indicates that they represent the stars Castor and Pollux as seen in Fig
5.7. Albright stressed that each of the shafts of the two pillars is clearly said to be crowned with
a gullah - that is, an oil basin of a lampstand [1 Kings 7:41; reference also Zechariah 4:3].
Several other authors also suggest that documents were placed within the hollow core of the

170
pillars. This would then solve the problem of carving on stone ‘all knowledge’, which, would
surely require a large stone, but again, this raises the question ‘when was the flood’, and ‘when
was the material for these supposed documents first produced?’ Once more, we find nothing
but conventional scholarship bogged down in speculation.

5.8 A Further Oddity

There are a number of oddities that appear in the whole story of Solomon’s Temple not
the least of which is that of the Shamir.
The complete story is recounted in Ilil Arbel’s Asmodeus and the Shamir, 16 but the
essence of the tale is that King Solomon [with the aid of trickery] enlisted the help of the
Demon king Asmodeus to build the Temple and to accomplish this, the latter had to obtain a
Shamir, a small, magical worm-like creature that had the ability to cut through stone and that
lived in the sea. Moses had apparently used one to etch the tablets that carried the Ten
Commandments, but it was subsequently lost. Iron was considered an evil material due to its
connection with weaponry and its use was banned, even for tools. The artisans who were to
construct the temple complained that this lack of suitable iron tools made their job very
difficult as they were already hampered by the instruction to cut all stone and timber off site so
that no sound of cutting was heard at the temple site ‘..so that there was neither hammer nor
axe, nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was in building’.
Solomon then attempted to get them the Shamir. There seems to be a contradiction
here however in that it seems to be imply that the use of iron was acceptable off-site, which
seems to indicate that the tale of King Solomon and the Demon is an embellishment to the
Biblical texts regarding the building of his temple. The ensuing extract is part of a statement
made by Shamir to Solomon. It is an indication of the direction that Deluge will be taking
later, one that is towards the skies and in particular towards the polar skies as shall be seen in
Chapter 7.

‘My constellation (is like an animal which) reclines in its den in heaven; some men call me the
Great Bear, but others the Offspring of a Dragon. Moreover, a smaller constellation
accompanies my constellation, for the high position and throne of my father is always in the
sky…’ [The Testament of Solomon 5:4] 17

Another of these Masonic tales relates that alongside the records of sciences contained
within the hollow pillars was 'the secret of the magical Shamir and the history of its
properties.’ It is abundantly clear that the historical importance to the Masonic fraternity of
King Solomon’s Temple, and in particular of Jachin and Boaz is indisputable.

5.9 The Descendents of Noah

All of humankind, according to Genesis, is derived from Noah, as the previous people
had been destroyed in the flood. So why should the Freemasons think of themselves as

171
specifically spiritually descended from Noah? Kenneth Mackenzie in the The Royal Masonic
Cyclopǽdia defines the Descendents of Noah thus:

‘Noachidǽ: Descendents of Noah. Applied in Masonic legend to the Craft in

general, as being derived from Noah, traditionally claimed as founder and father of
Masonic theology, according to some theories, because Masons preserved the
traditions of the one God amidst the corruptions of surrounding faiths. In the second
edition of Anderson’s “Constitutions” we read- “A Mason is obliged by his tenure to
observe the moral law as a true Noachidǽ.’ 18

Noah followed the one God, as, it is stated, does the Masonic Brethren but where, apart
from Freemasonry, [on the assumption that their statement is meaningful] can one learn about
the original God from whom it is implied other faiths have strayed? Could there be a clue at
Solomon’s Temple or in the myth of the Deluge? In reality, Manu, the Indian version of Noah
was an aspect of God and we therefore find it not only intriguing but appropriate to discover
that the Freemasons, are termed ‘The Descendents of Noah’. The Brotherhood claim that they
have the original ‘true’ religion and worship the ‘Grand Architect of the Universe’ and this may
have some meaning. In India we find that the Lord of all Craftsmen and Architects is
Viśvakarma who is none other than Manu [Noah] in his after flood creative role when one of
his titles is Viśvakarma. On this basis we could expect Freemasonry to be seen as an
organisation working for good, rebuilding society when it takes the occasional tumble.
However, there is a little more to this ‘Noachian’ connection to Freemasonry in that the
Descendants of Noah connotation could be viewed as a Jewish notion. The Tanach informs us
that the B’nei Noah are descendants of Noah and hence according to the Biblical story all living
humans are descendants of Noah, and are thus subject to the Noahide laws. However,
according to the B’nei Noah, Jews, as the chosen people, have additional responsibilities placed
on them. The Seven Laws of Noah, Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach, or the Noahide Laws, are
seven moral rulings that according to the Jewish Talmud were given by God to Noah and were
a set of laws of moral principle for all. Judaism states that any non-Jew who lives according to
these laws is regarded as a Rightous Gentile and is assured of a place in heaven. Followers of
these laws are known as ‘B’nei Naoh’[Children of Noah] or "Noahides" and even non-Jews
adhering to these rules may network in Jewish Synagogues. The seven Noahide laws cover
idolatry, murder, theft, sexual promiscuity, blasphemy, cruelty to animals and the necessity for
a government to administer these regulations. As with a number of other Jewish rulings, these
were clarified by Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, who is better known as Maimonides in his work
of 14 volumes composed between 1170 and 1180, the Mishneh Torah. It is strange how few
Freemasons are aware of this.
Yet for all this, there still are connections to the story of Noah in his Indian guise as
shall become evident in this book.
There is no doubt that the building of King Solomon’s Temple is of key importance to
Freemasonry [and here we should also take the meaning of that word to mean Freemasonry’s
forebears]. It should also be remembered that it was here at Solomon’s Temple, that the

172
Freemasons traditionally and perhaps allegorically commenced their existence. However, the
connections to the subjects discussed in this chapter go deeper than just to the Temple. As we
have seen throughout this chapter, Solomon’s Temple is really the end result of an Exodus that
began in the New Kingdom of ancient Egypt. Solomon’s Temple can be seen to have at least a
passing similarity to Egyptian New Kingdom temples, and given the time the Israelites spent in
Egypt perhaps this is understandable. What may be said to be some rather obvious connections
are to be seen below at The Royal Arch Chapter Room at the Freemasons Grand Lodge in
Dublin. Figure 5.15 is derived from a postcard purchased within the Lodge, which is
frequently open to the public for viewing. The illustration is of one of the rooms therein.

Fig.5.15 The Royal Arch Chapter Room, Freemasons Grand Lodge, Dublin. Note the Egyptian
heads on the walls and the six-pointed star in the centre.
As the postcard is a Masonic publication, and given that depiction of the rooms is seen
on cards such as this, and the Lodge is open to the public, it would appear this so-called ‘secret’
fraternity is not as secret as many think. In fact, many books have been written about the
mysteries and rites of Freemasonry. Any worthy Masonic material is nevertheless written in
allegorical form, as indeed the ceremonies themselves represent things other than the apparent.
So while information may well be available, it is the correct interpretation of what is imparted
that is so elusive.
It could be said that the Egyptian figures have a New Kingdom appearance and
possibly the whole scene is meant to convey the notion that all Middle Eastern religions have
their roots in the knowledge and ideas of ancient Egypt. Indeed, this idea may extend to an
Egypt that is very much more ancient than this, a concept shared by Massey 100 years ago and
with many others since. However, the Freemasons call themselves the Descendents of Noah,

173
and if it is accepted that Noah is the Noah that was supposed to have landed his Ark on the
Mountains of Ararat, we can take this no further back than to the 4th Dynasty of ancient Egypt.

5.10 The Temple in the Ark

Many great cathedrals from the English mediaeval era have stunning stained-glass
windows that depict the Noahic story, those of Canterbury, Durham, Ely, Lincoln and Norwich
being just a few examples. Chartres Cathedral in Northern France is a further example of the
genre with its ‘Noah Window’, [seen in Figure 5.17], being a prime specimen of the stained-
glass window maker’s craft. Here it is a series of details on this window that are of particular
interest. Cathedrals expert Gerald R. Browning comments on one of these details:

‘The Noah Window is a stunningly beautiful example of the integration of many colours into a
window. Every colour known to the glass maker is used, including the tinted yellow grisailles,
which were intended to provide balance to the darker colours. Darker colours predominate in
order to give an impression of mystery. In this pane, the blue forms a bright background for the
men working assiduously at their task. They are set within an enclosed triangular area,
perhaps symbolically sculpting the keel sections for the great ark. The triangle looks
surprisingly similar to the inside of a ship, as if the men were working below deck among the
beams and knees.’ 19
The story of the Ark contained in the artwork of Noah’s window begins at the bottom
of the stained glass sections with the uppermost complete square showing the rainbow [God’s
‘bow’] as depicted after the flood in Genesis 9:13-15.
This detail of the bottom triangle of Noah’s Window is shown in Figure 5.17 below,
indicate two craftsmen preparing timbers beneath a roof on a set of sawhorses. Whilst during
the epoch of the building of the great cathedrals in the Middle Ages this would be normal
practice for small boats, the Ark, to which the whole window refers, was far too large to have
been built indoors, as indeed were the sailing vessels of the mediaeval period. Therefore, this
cannot be a reflection of the building of Noah’s vessel. As a generality, it would neither be a
reference to boat or ship builders of the period. The only possibility in this sort of boat
building context is that these characters were working within the confines of the Ark.

174
Fig. 5.16 The long Noah Window at Chartres Cathedral

175
Fig.5.17 Noah Window detail

As stated above, Figure 5.17 shows the preparation of timbers for the vessel as would
have been seen in boat construction in medieval times. Then, in Figure 5.18 is seen the Ark
with its hull complete. Finally, in Figure 5.19 the vessel is depicted in all it glory, floating
above the mountains. It is this last illustration that is of specific interest here. The roof
covering has a count of seven sections per side, of four different colours. The seven sections
are indicating 14 sections in total around the perimeter. Both the number 7, and its multiple 14,
will later be seen to be of crucial importance in unravelling the root of the Deluge story. The
side of the vessel has in this illustration either been graphically cutaway to reveal what is
contained within, or it has miraculously grown the pillars of a stone built temple. As the fore
and aft pillars are a little shorter than the remainder and it appears that the section of hull that is
still shown is hiding a portion of their bases, specifically toward the bow and stern, it would
appear then that here we have a depiction of a temple contained within the vessel.
This Temple depiction is clearly indicating that this is something more than a boat.
Looking to the metrology of the picture, there are five pillars and this creates six equal
divisions of the ships length. It is known that the overall length of the vessel was 528 feet and
this, divided by 6, results in 88 feet, the beam portrayed in Genesis.

176
Fig. 5.18 Building the Ark

Fig. 5.19 The finished Ark with the ‘light above,’ floating on the waves with the mountains
below and a ‘temple’ within the Ark.

177
 If, as is implied, this visual picture applies to both sides of this double-ended craft then
the value of 528feet for the length of the vessel has to be doubled to 1056, clearly implicating
Noah in a numerical context. This is by no means the only such artistic representation that can
be found. A question was raised regarding a mural from the 11 th century Saint Savin church in
France in Chapter 3, a mural that related the same sort of depiction as seen here.
The Saint Savin illustration has the vessel having columns but with the Biblical three
stories. Yet another depiction of a ‘temple within a boat’ is seen in Salisbury Cathedral [see
Figure 5.20]. In this figure is seen a depiction of a two storey Ark with the supports again
being pillars and arches, as in a high status building such as a temple. Above these is seen a
roof of tiles or stonework. The pillars appear to be sprouting branches, or the protruding
elements are visible parts of the animals on the vessel. However this is seen, it does not follow
the Genesis account, where there were three floors, no mention of tiles on the covering and
certainly no cutaway hull to reveal the contents and allow the raging oceans of the flood to pour
in. As implied earlier, and assumed by Dave Fasold, at the time the flood was supposed to
have happened any such vessel would probably have been a reed ship.

Fig. 5.20 Noah Frieze at Salisbury Cathedral

The carving here at Salisbury Cathedral appears to be relating the concept of a stone
built building within the Ark, as the does the artistic representation on the Noah Window at
Chartres and the illustration at Saint Savin. Here, however, there is no sign of the opening light
at the top of the vessel, which is seen at Chartres.
Why indicate that a ship contains a temple? It is apparent that there is more to this
story than initially meets the eye. Was there a ship that contained a temple in the Biblical
narrative? If there was, how and where was this information hidden? Indeed there was. It is to

178
be found in the Book of Ezekiel, cleverly hidden, as is much else in these texts, by the use of
metrology.

5.11 Jerusalem and the Oblation to the Lord

There is more to be discovered at Jerusalem, something that starts to explain why Noah
was so important to Masonic and other orders. It is a ‘something’ that as far as the authors are
aware has not been extensively examined in print, something that is not even discussed on the
11,000 entries on the Catholic New Advent database and something that explains the concept
of a Temple within the Ark. This is the mysterious Oblation to the Lord.
In the final part of this chapter, the importance of metrology to these studies becomes
clearly apparent. The analysis moves outwards from the Temple containing the Ark of the
Covenant to the city wall of Jerusalem, where it appears that Ezekiel commenced his
explanation of the city and Temple plan. This is not described in either Kings or Chronicles
and so whatever value appears to be logical can be applied as the design factor to this structure.
As seen earlier, we have deduced that the cubit value assigned to this part of city was 1.76 feet,
but further confirmation of that value for the outer perimeter of the Temple precinct would be
desirable. A section towards the end of the book of Ezekiel [Chapter 48 verses 15 and 16] is
enlightening in this regard:

15)…shall be a profane place for the city, for dwelling and for suburbs: and the city shall be in
the midst thereof.
16) And these shall be the measures thereof; the north side four thousand and five hundred, the
south side four thousand and five hundred, the east side four thousand and five hundred and
the west side four thousand five hundred.
[Note: that the wording is for ‘measures’ not cubits or reeds; it is left open for the
reader to decide what value applies.]

35) It was round about eighteen thousand measures; and the name of the city from that day
shall be, The Lord is there.

Here is found the perimeter of the city, 4500 measures in all directions with three gates
per side, one for each of the tribes of Israel, giving a perimeter of the square of 18000, which
are cubits of 1.76 feet.
The city was therefore 1.5 miles or 7920 feet along each of its edges. The Book of
Revelation describes the city of New Jerusalem in a similar fashion and after all, Ezekiel is
describing the rebuilding of the city and the temple, while in Revelation St. John sees the
completed article, the representation of the Earth come floating down out of the sky! At least,
this is the commonly held conception of the tale.
In the St. John’s version, an angel who measures the perimeter of the city accompanies
him. Each side, and the height, is seen to measure what is described as 12,000 furlongs. This
is rather intriguing because the furlong in use, to make any sort of symbolic sense, has to be the
early British furlong of 625 feet, which had a foot value of 1.056feet. This gives a side length

179
and height of 7,920,000 feet or 1500 miles [which also has three gates per side, in this case
named after the apostles]. As was seen earlier, what arises is a representation of the cube
containing the sphere of the Earth. [It should also be noted that within this city the Lord sits
upon his throne, he is known as the Ancient of Days.]
Outside Ezekiel’s square city there were suburbs of 250 cubits making the total length
per side 5000 cubits or 8800 feet [Ezekiel Chapter 48 verse17]. Then Ezekiel chapter 45 verse 1
reveals the following:

1) Moreover, when ye shall divide the land by lot for inheritance, ye shall offer an oblation
unto the Lord, an Holy portion of the land. The length shall be five and twenty thousand reeds
and the breadth ten thousand reeds. This shall be holy in all the borders thereof round about.

Firstly it should be noted that most, if not all other versions [this is quoted from the
King James Version] correctly quote cubits and not reeds in verse 1. This is the only place
during the course of our research that a description of a numerical entity in the King James
Version has been found to be erroneous, although the numerical value is correct. However, by
applying Noah’s cubit once again, as with the other sections outside the Temple complex, the
connection with the boat appears.
There is a rectangle of 25,000 measures long and 10,000 broad, the perimeter therefore
is 70,000 measures, which following the example seen earlier must, by definition, as this is part
of the outer precinct, be in cubits of 1.76feet. Therefore, there is an area known as an oblation
unto the Lord, a Holy portion of the land, which had a 70,000 cubits perimeter. As revealed in
earlier chapters the Genesis model Ark of Noah was 700 cubits in plan perimeter and using a
1.76feet cubit this equates to 1232 feet. By applying the 1.76feet cubit to the 70,000 measures
related in the Book of Ezekiel, the perimeter of the oblation to the Lord becomes 123,200 feet.
There is then, a numerical representation of the Ark, which is said to be an Oblation,
but it is not in the midst of the city of Jerusalem, which symbolically is itself a representation of
the Earth and contained what is probably is the most famed of all Temples. The Oblation
actually contained Jerusalem, as part of an obligatory allowance of a great area of land to the
Lord of Ezekiel.
Yet this Oblation is a representation of a vessel whose supposed landfall was on the
mountains of Ararat and the ‘ship’ itself has been physically revealed as no more than a
geological oddity, a boat shaped lump of rock. Furthermore, the Oblation is orientated North /
South, which reminds us that the Milky Way, another watery place in the sky that was the
celestial analogue to the Nile in ancient Egypt [and occasionally seen in the same way
regarding the Ganges in ancient India]. This gives rise to a different direction of questioning
regarding the Great Flood myth. It additionally seems rather strange that a whole nation should
expend so much energy replicating a lump of stone, as this Oblation must have had boundary
markers and then devised numerological stories claiming that this boat shaped oddity is greater
than their city. Nevertheless, Jerusalem and its suburbs, containing a representation of planet
Earth, is contained within an Oblation to the Lord with the latter construct being a
representation of the Ark of the Great Flood and where the Lord, according to the description,
by definition is none other than Noah!

180
 Temple area 600 cubits per side
at 1.584 ft per cubit = 950.4 ft
Jerusalem City 4500 cubits per side
at 1.76 ft per cubit = 7920 ft

West end

North end
South end

East end

City Suburbs 250 cubit wide

Notes at 1.76 ft per cubit
The Oblation to the Lord (Ezekiel 48.9)
Area of Oblation = 774400000 sq.ft
The Oblation to the Lord 25000 cubit x Area of City = 62726400 sq.ft
10000 cubits at 1.76 ft per cubit. Area of City with Suburbs =
Perimeter = 70000 cubits = 123200 ft. 77440000sq.ft
Perimeter of Noah's Ark =700 cubits Area of Oblation / Area of City =
=1232 ft 12.345679
Area of Oblation / Area of City with
suburbs = 10
Area of City / Area of Outer Court of
Temple area (500 cubits length) = 100

Fig. 5.21 The Oblation to the Lord

Here is the reason for the ‘temple in a boat’, here is the reason for the Freemasons, the
‘descendents of Noah’ claiming their birth at this very specific location. There are cathedrals
showing a stone temple within the Ark and those cathedrals were built by working craft masons
with direct affiliation to the Knights Templar and Freemasons. Certainly, Chartres has direct
correspondence to Solomon’s Temple and to the Ark of the Covenant in its units of measure
and proportions.
It is now very clearly apparent that the Freemasons, at least those who have taken the
higher degrees, know a considerable amount about the history of this temple, and indeed the
meanings hidden in the Bible. It is also increasingly appearing that there is far, far more to the

181
story of Noah and this Temple than is at first apparent. Noah is seen here as no less than THE
LORD - somewhat more important than a mere flood survivor!
If the Freemasons think of themselves as being descendents of Noah, given the
revelations seen here, they are presuming themselves to be descended from the Lord with that
Lord being Noah [Manu]. The organisation claims to have the ‘true religion’, that from which
others have strayed. In this depiction of Noah at Jerusalem, are we beginning to see just a little
of the meaning of this original ‘true religion’?

182
 CHAPTER 6

Major Flood Legends: A Comparison

[and related matters...]
Many a night I saw the Pleiads, rising thro' the mellow shade,
Glitter like a swarm of fireflies tangled in a silver braid.

Alfred Lord Tennyson, 1837-8, Locksley Hall

6.1 Introduction

In this chapter we shall examine flood legends from Chaldea and India, look at a
Chinese Noah and much more including a further expansion of the Genesis version. A number
of aspects crucial to the understanding of the primary Great Flood myths emerge here and prior
to looking at the stories, some understanding of the underlying astronomy is essential. The first
area we shall examine is that of Babylonian astronomy and the fact, recorded on clay tablets,
that the sky was measured in cubits and fractions of cubits.

6.2 15 Cubits: Astronomy [and the Celestial Flood?]

One possibility is that the story of the Great Flood has its roots in astronomy. In order
to demonstrate how the mythological flood could have occurred on an astronomical / numerical
basis we shall examine some aspects of Mesopotamian celestial observations. This analysis is
coupled with the use of the 24 Egyptian divisions of the day, which were widely in use in the
Middle East by the time the core of the Old Testament of the Bible had been written,
somewhere between 1500 – 500BC. The Egyptians initially counted twelve stars rising in
succession during the night, giving 12 ‘gates’ during the hours of darkness, and by 1500BC
used ‘sunclocks’ of varying types to divide up the day. With the advent of water clocks from
about 1500BC and the later more accurate sand clock, the dividing of time became better-
defined, not requiring celestial observation. Hence, our 24-hour day was born.1
The history of the region of Mesopotamia from the 4th millennium BC to the present
day, is a very complex one, and in general outside the parameters of this work. Here we are
focussed in the ancient astronomy of the region, which peaked during the Assyrian period of
Babylon from about the 8th century BC continuing unto the fall of the Assyrian Empire in the
later 7th century BC. As seen in Chapter 2, the date of composition of the flood narrative in
Genesis is after this period. It follows that whatever mathematics was developed by the
Babylonians, it would have been assimilated by the Hebrew scribes during the ‘Babylonian
exile’ and thereby could feasibly have been utilised in the later Genesis flood story.
The astronomers of Babylon were a special group of scribes who observed the
movements of the stars and planets and of course the Sun and the Moon. They had a number of

183
responsibilities – predominantly being related to the advice they gave the King on how their
observations affected the calendar. In addition, illustrating the synergy between astrology and
astronomy at the time, they also advised the King regarding the earthly effects of events seen in
the skies. This is where astrology came into the picture. Over hundreds of years, the
astronomers kept and compiled accurate records which were utilised by later astronomers. This
later Babylonian astronomy was a very accurate mathematical occupation. Whereas the
Egyptian and Greek, and also the Roman astronomers depicted the constellations in a mythical
manner, the Babylonians were more systematic in their approach, and used arithmetic. For
example, it is found that the astronomer Nabû-rîmannu [see Wiki Classical Dictionary]
calculated the length of the synodic month at 29.530641 days, confirmation of accurate
observation and recording.
[Note: The sidereal month is the time the Moon takes to complete one full revolution
around the Earth with respect to the background stars. However, because the Earth is
constantly moving along its orbit about the Sun, the Moon must travel slightly more than 360°
to get from one New Moon to the next. Thus, the synodic month, or lunar month, is longer than
the sidereal month. A sidereal month lasts 27.322 days, while a synodic month lasts 29.531
days2. The mean of these values is 28.4265 days. Both 27 and 28 days counted without the
fractions have been used in calendar counts and are seen as such later in Deluge.]
Yet another famous Babylonian practitioner of astronomy, Kidinnu, made the synodic
month 29.530594 which is within around 5 seconds of the modern estimate of 29.530589 days.
[see Wiki Classical Dictionary] Kidinnu, [his results are known from Greek sources] also
calculated the length of the Solar year as 365 days, 5 hours, 44 minutes and 12.52 seconds,
within 4.5 minutes of the modern version, and giving a greater accuracy than that of the
1887AD attempt by Theodor von Oppolzer. These very accurate estimates by Kidinnu were
made around 400BC3, with one tablet referring to his work dated to about 375BC. It is clearly
apparent that accurate clocks of some unknown type [but probably water, or rather sand,
clocks] were available during this period or the planetary movements could not be timed close
enough for this sort of calculation. This ability stems to 300-400 years before Kidinnu, as
records indicate the methods in use were first proven in 763BC with the correct prediction of a
solar eclipse on June 15 of that year.
To obtain this result the Saros cycle was utilised which is a period of 223 synodic
months or 18 years and 11.3 days. The lunar and solar eclipse cycles repeat themselves after
this period.
From about 700BC onwards, the astronomy of the sky watchers of Babylon remained
basically mathematical, and great importance was placed upon the lunar position in the sky.
Yet given the mathematical methods utilised by the Babylonians, it is strange that no evidence
has emerged indicating the existence of a Babylonian geometrical model of the heavens. The
discipline of astronomy, which reached its heights during the Seleucid period [320-141 BC],
appears to have been purely arithmetically based, producing a system that was brilliantly
accurate, leading to precise predictions. However, there must have been a geometrical basis to
these calculations because while there are no physical remains of instrumentation remaining,
some of the extant records clearly indicate that the sky was measured.

184
Fig. 6.1 The Assyrian Empire

Fig. 6.2 A letter written to the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal

185
 So it is clear that by the time of writing the Old Testament of the Bible, [which is
generally thought to be in the 8th century BC], there was access to accurate astronomical
information. The Babylonians were keeping diaries of astronomical events, with the
observation of the Moon being of primary concern. Each month a diary recorded a day-by-day
and night-by-night account of events of note, with these primarily being of an astronomical
nature including the positions of the planets in relation to the stars of the zodiac.

‘The most frequently mentioned heavenly body in the diaries is the Moon. Every month
measurements are recorded of six timings…Also, when the Moon passes by any set of thirty
bright stars in the zodiacal belt (the Normal Stars) its distance from the star is given in units
called cubits and fingers (one cubit seems to have been equivalent of about 2.4 degrees and
contained either 24 or 30 fingers).- [The] Passage of the Moon by planets is similarly
recorded...
... For the planets, records are kept of their passages by the Normal Stars and by each other.
Additionally, their first and last visibilities, stationary points [i.e. dates when they appear to
change direction of motion relative to the stars] and sunset risings [when they are
approximately opposite to the Sun] are noted.’ 4
The above notation evaluates as follows:
Table 6.1
1 cubit = 30 fingers (1 degree = 30 / 2.4 = 12.5 fingers) = 2.4 degrees per cubit
1 cubit = 24 fingers (1 degree = 24 / 2.4 = 10 fingers) = 2.4 degrees per cubit

[Note that fingers are also known as digits.] Given that measuring in degrees and the
360-day year far predate this era, [as demonstrated later in Deluge] it is apparent that the 10
fingers per degree division, resulting in 3,600 fingers for a complete circle would have been in
use here. A finger, on this basis, equates as six minutes of arc, approximately 1/5 of the
apparent lunar [or solar] diameter. But for the finer observations, which must have taken place
to result in the accurate extant records, these divisions must have had even finer demarcation
lines. Effectively the Babylonians must have divided these results into, at the very least,
minutes of arc, to obtain the results noted above. This would not be too difficult, as taking the
British foot as the basic value, [360 degrees / 2.4 = 150 and basic cubit would be 1.5 feet] 1/6
of the digit or a minute of arc [1 / 21600 of the circle] would measure 0.125 of an inch or in
metric terminology 3mm. However, the cubit would almost certainly vary dependent up the
setting up and manufacturer of the equipment in use.
Although there is no extant evidence of the instrumentation used for the observations
that resulted in the recorded calculations and results, it had to exist in the period from around
700BC onwards for the accuracy of the said results to exist. The all-important hard
archaeological evidence has unfortunately been lost and all we have today are the results of
these people’s efforts, recorded on clay tablets [some of which are in the British Museum] by
the scribes of the day. While it is well known that lunar calendars were in use in the distant
past, and astronomical observations were noted long before this era, this is the earliest recorded

186
case of a fanatical drive to obtain phenomenal accuracy regarding the precise location of the
Moon at any given time. It involves, as seen…measuring the sky…denoting in linear values
the distances observed in the heavens…Here there is possibly vital clue to the flood story in
Genesis where ‘… the waters rose 15 cubits…and all the mountains were covered…’
If the 2.4 degrees per cubit is applied to 15 cubits, the result is 36 degrees. Simply
utilise 24 for 2.4 or 360 for 36, [a common ploy not unlike the Biblical ‘year for a day’ seen
below], and the result is the 360 degrees of Earth circumference, covering the ‘whole Earth’. Is
this the source of the ‘whole Earth’ being covered by a flood? It may well have been utilised in
the calculations of later redactors of the story who became convinced of its validity. One can
imagine a charismatic teacher demonstrating such a mathematical model to students to ‘prove’
to them that indeed, the flood had covered the whole world. But it is not the final answer, and
although it may have been utilised in the past and the notion does provide a possible clue, it
will be seen that the actual solution to the question is far removed from the commonly held
concept of the Great Deluge.

6.3 Some Time Constructs

Given that knowledge of the importance of 360 in terms of degrees associated with
days of the years was understood in the distant past we shall next look a little deeper into this
aspect. In the ancient world 36, 3600 etc. invariably indicated completeness. The 360-day
lunar / solar or lunisolar year was in use until about 800BC, generally in conjunction with other
more accurate solar or lunar calendars. This count, however, became a sort of symbolic
measure of time that complied with the ultimate count of 360.

The 360-Day Year

Where Egypt eventually took a predominantly solar / star based calendar, India
maintained the ages old lunar / star based version, which had solar correspondences. The 360-
day year seemingly has a curious origination in India. It is a lunar / solar count and not as in
Egypt a convenience [or so the Egyptologists would have us believe]. To accurately devise the
360-day year precise astronomical measurement is required. The easiest way to envisage what
probably happened is that it was understood that both the day counts of the solar year of 365
days and the lunar year of 354 days were a little short. The Solar year is circa 365.25 and the
Lunar year about 354.3. The mean of these very approximate values is just over 359.775 which
could have been taken to be 366. This could have been noted via sunrise and sunset in
correlation with star positions at opposite sides of the sky. However, to demonstrate how
accurate values give a similar answer we include the following.
Taking an accurate measurement of 29.5306 days for the lunar month giving 354.3672
days per lunar year and 365.242194 days for the tropical year, we have a mean value for the
year of 359.804697 days, which can be counted as 360 days. 360 days was the Indian civil
year. Every 5 years an intercalary month was added to comply with this count, which kept the
solar and lunar counts in line. For example, 354.3672 x 5 + 29.5306 =1801.3666 = 360.27332
x 5. In round figures this arrangement can be seen as (354 + 366) / 2 = 360 and (360 x 5) + 30

187
= 1830 whereas 366 x 5 = 1830. This then complies with the concept of the 366 day year. In
addition, this period complies with the five year ‘Yuga’ mentioned in the Indian Rig Veda, five
years at 366 days per year results in a total [within 0.86 of a day] of 62 lunations of 29.53 days.
What is therefore seen here is an effective combination calendar comprised of a count of
lunations in units of 62, a civil 360-day year and a count of 365 days combined with the annual
count of Earth revolutions of 366. The value 366 was essential for the 5 year yuga which
definitely was in use and hence this value did apply.

Year for a Day

Still with the counting of time, albeit in a rather obtuse manner, the next point is a
concept that is seen in the Bible, but is one that also extends to cultures outside that of the
Hebrews. We need to assimilate this, as it is important to this type of study and while a more
detailed explanation is associated with the Indian Yugas which are intimately related and
detailed in Chapter 9, here we take our reference from the Biblical year for a day to show the
widespread use of the same concepts. The idea is derived in this case from the following rather
strange verses from the Biblical book of Ezekial, Chapter 4:
4
Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to
the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity.
5
For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three
hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.
6
And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the
iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
And again in the Book of Numbers, Chapter 14
33
And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until
your carcases be wasted in the wilderness.
34
After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a
year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise…

In the latter extract can be seen the reversal of the ‘day for a year’ where a year is
substituted for a day. This interchangeable feature using the factor 36 is a valuable tool for the
decipherment of a number of Biblical and other religious mythical tales.
Effectively, as we shall later see, this year for day concept is derived from the polar
regions where the Sun is seen for a single period during the year against the daily appearance
and setting further south.
Finally, there is one other self-evident concept that will be seen to be important later,
sometimes associated with the factor 36 [along with a denominator]. Here we shall examine
1 Peter 3.8:

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and
a thousand years are like a day.

188
 Effectively this is stating that a day can mean not only 1000 days but also and perhaps
more importantly, 360,000. It is reinforcing the statement above where we noted that a
reference to 360 in religious texts, without any additional information, could relate to a value of
3.6, 36, 3,600 or 36,000,000 etc. Given the day for year rule with a 360-day year, these values
fuse very well. It is a concept that will emerge again, as hinted at above, from India. The same
gain or loss of noughts applies equally to this rule and in a later chapter, it shall be seen that the
1000 years can be reduced to 100 years.

6.4 The Chinese Noah

It is not generally realised that there is a flood mythology from ancient China.
Figure 6.3 depicts the Chinese letter or word picture for boat, which is a combination of
the elements that mean ‘mouth’ and ‘eight’, again following the eight in a boat concept of
Genesis.

eight

vessel

mouth

Fig 6.3 Chinese letter for ‘Boat’

In Secrets of the Ancient Races from which Figure 6.3 is drawn, Noorbergen relates
that a Dr. E.W.Thwing has investigated the flood account of various regions including China
and comments thus:

‘The Chinese have records and traditions of a great flood. And it is a curious fact that
the word used for ‘ship’ as printed in Chinese books and papers today is the very ancient
character, made up of the picture of ‘boat’ and ‘eight mouths,’ showing that the first ship was a
boat carrying eight persons. In looking over some some old books of ancient stories and

189
traditions, I found a story about the ancestor ‘Nu-wah’. Interestingly enough, Nu means
woman and wah is flowery.’ 5

This becomes even more interesting however, when it is considered that the two small
mouth symbols placed beside the name indicate that the sound was important, pointing, claims
Noorbergen toward a male ancestor. The early Chinese legends apparently relate of the
destruction of the world by Jung-ku and its reconstruction by Nu-wah. Three legendary men
then succeeded Nu-wah and these bridge the gap to the first dynasties.
A different, but associated interpretation was discovered by David Fasold in the 1950
publication by C.H. Kang Genesis and the Chinese, which was expanded into The Discovery of
Genesis by collaboration between C.H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson.

Fig 6.4 Alternative Chinese letter for ‘Boat’

Here we see that while the signs for vessel, mouth and eight equate with boat, eight
plus united and Earth correspond, when added to the sign for water, to a total meaning of
flood.6

‘In the Chinese version of history, however, history begins with three semi-mystical
and legendary individuals who taught the Chinese the arts of civilization around 2800-2600
BC: Fu Hsi, the inventor of writing, hunting, trapping, and fishing; Shen Nung, the inventor of
agriculture and mercantilism, and the Yellow Emperor (around 2700 BC), who invented
government and Taoist philosophy While Western historians dismiss these Three Cultural
Heroes as legend, they were regarded as historical fact for most of Chinese history’ 7

There is a commonality here to not only the Genesis account due to the affinity in name
and dating but also to Egypt. One description of Ra seen in a later chapter has commonalities
to Nu-wah. Interestingly the same creation era is implied as in Egypt, that of Thuban, with the
boat element of the tale and ‘Nu-wah’ referring to the same flood epoch of 2300BC as that of
the 40 days of rain seen in Genesis. At sometime over the millennia there has been great
cultural exchange between China, India and other regions because in addition to the above, the
measurement units seen in ancient China have a direct association with those from India and
this provides a link to Egypt and much further afield. Here we shall digress into metrology to
demonstrate the widespread use of interrelated values and therefore cultural connectivity. We
return to Nu Wah and further connections in a later chapter when more background to the
whole myth of the flood of has been revealed.

190
 Given the fact that the ancient people of all nations and cultures were watching the
skies intently it is no surprise that recently an ancient Chinese observatory has been discovered
near to Linfen in Shanxi toward the east of China. [BBC News, Tuesday, 1 November 2005].
This site dates to 2100 BC and is comprised of a circular platform quoted at 40 metres
or [130 feet] in diameter which was divided at its edge by 13 pillars. These pillars were used,
according to the report by archaeologists to ‘mark the movement of the Sun through the
seasons.’
Let us look in a little more depth at this information. Firstly 40 metres is NOT 130
feet, it is 131.2335958 feet. Secondly, there is no calendar associated with the Sun that
embodies the value 13. This is a count of the mean months of 28 days in a lunar year of 364
days.
The dimensional appraisal requires further elucidation. In the course of research into
metrology, it was discovered that the Chinese utilised a number of different values known as
Li. One of these measures was a distance of 2851.2 feet and the unit measure of
1.131428571feet divides into this exactly 2520 times. The value has affinity to two of the three
unit measures [usually incorrectly cited as two units and then with incorrect valuation] from
India known as Yoyanas, one of 4.608 miles and the other of 8.64 miles. The remaining yojana
value was 4.97664 miles.[A full explanation of these measures and their derivation is seen in
Measurements of the Gods]
1.131428571 [which fraction can be extended to 0.13142857142857142 etc etc] is an
interesting factor because when seen to represent a day [as in this case] multiplied by 7 it
becomes 7.92 [representing a week] and when 1.131428571 is multiplied by the 28 days of the
month, the familiar count of the miles in the perimeter of the square containing the circle of
Earth appears, albeit in abbreviated form, at 31.68 [See latter pages of Chapter 9 for
explanation of the origins of this concept.] Further multiplying this by 13 for the number of 28
day months in the year we find a count of 52 [weeks in the year] x 7.92. 52 x 7.92 = 411.84
and here we are looking at feet because this is the circumference of the circular platform around
which the 13 pillars were placed at 28 units of 1.131428571 feet apart, denoting the days in the
month and the 13 months of the lunar year.
Using 22/7 for pi the circumference evaluated here gives a diameter of 131.0399884
feet which is 39.94098848 metres compared to the reported value of 40 metres or [130 feet]. In
reality the calculation is at variance to the 40 metre estimate by a mere 59mm [still over two
inches] and it reveals, through painstakingly gained knowledge of ancient measures over many
years, the value to which the structure was originally set out and the purpose to which it was
put.
The Classical Greek scholar Eratosthenes is said to have measured the Earth at 252000
stadia. His stade value [using Michell’s 24883.2-mile circumference of Earth] evaluates at
521.3622857 feet, which is 460.8 times [see above yojana value] the 1.131428571 foot length
seen at this Chinese observatory. The numerical correlation to 4.608 miles is therefore clearly
apparent.
Demonstrating further use of these values in antiquity, the Aubrey Circle at Stonehenge
has a centreline circumference that is related to this circular structure as it measures 792 x
1.131428571. Its diameter [using 22/7] is 285.12 British feet or 252 feet at 1.131428571

191
British feet. If the circumference is divided by the 56 spaces indicated by chalk pits then the
value emerging is 14.1428571 at 1.131428571, which is within 0.01959 of an inch of the
frequently reported spacing of 16 feet. The square root of 200 is 14.1422135, which
numerically is within 0.0007215 of the spacing between these pits counted in units of
1.131428571.
1056 [also seen at Stonehenge as 10.56 feet] has been seen to be the prime value in this
study of Great Flood mythology, 1056 feet equates with 12672 inches, which is 11200 x
1.13142857142. 1.12 is the foot value related to a cubit of 1.68 feet which is seen in the Grand
Gallery of the Great Pyramid and the length of Noah’s Ark divided by 22/7 = 168
Holy Rood Abbey in Edinburgh has a knave of 8 bays at 15.84feet, which results in a
length of 126.72 feet with a width of 1.76 x 16.8. The foot value of 1.68 is 1.12 and this was
used to set out Holy Rood Palace.
Holy Rood Palace surrounds a central quadrangle, which is 79.2 x 1.12 feet per side.
The structure embodies most of the units associated with Noah as seen in Deluge. [Surveys and
evaluations in Scotland by Gillian and Harry Sivertsen]
It is clearly apparent from this that the use of associated and interrelated values is
widespread, not only over distance but also over time. With these associations travelled the
tales and astronomical configurations to which both the numerical values and the stories
related.

6.5 40 Days and Nights of Rain and The Lunar Year

Here we return to the Genesis story of the flood and explain the meaning of the
extended period of rain mentioned in the flood narrative. The period afloat in the vessel is also
examined here and an accurate time period with monthly associations emerges. Firstly let us
remind ourselves of the ‘rain’ aspects of the Genesis story:

Genesis 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty
nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth
day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the
windows of heaven were opened.
Genesis 7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the
earth.
Genesis 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights
Genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Expanding upon the already revealed Biblical evidence of a numerical nature, the
extract seen above emphasises further numerical values, the numbers 40, 7 and 150. Here we
shall deal with the value 40 - what is auspicious about this number? Is the number of
importance as with the date of the birth of Noah, or is it the time factor? Does it occur in other
versions of the story, and do other numerical values of note occur within these myths and if so
what do they mean? The Biblical 40, it is noted, appears in a number of places. But why

192
should this value be utilised for such diverse elements as periods of rain and the Jews 40 years
[or days] wanderings in the wilderness? It is repetitive, even to the New Testament where
Jesus is tempted by the Devil for forty days. [Luke 4:2]. Taking this a little further, at Sochoth,
Saul's army and the Philistines sat and looked at each other for forty days; Ishbosheth, Saul's
son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, David reigned for forty years, and
as did Solomon.
The implication of many [but not all] of the examples that one may care to unearth is of
unpleasantness, or at the least of strife and struggle, whether physical or moral, yet is the
researcher to examine the problem in this context? The answer is not really, because it has an
astronomical root. It is asserted here that:

This repetition of forty days is a no more than a reference to the loss of sight of the
Pleiades for forty days in the year.

This above loss is because of the proximity of the star-cluster of the Pleiades [part of
the constellation Taurus] to the Sun in the spring. This is still approximately viable today
although due to precession the positions have altered somewhat with Pleiades being much
further north and the timing therefore later in the year. In 2950 BC the Pleiades were rising due
east and hence were completely invisible at the vernal equinox. They also set in the west with
the same invisible result in the evening. Before 2950 the loss of view would have been nearer
the beginning of the year. For 20 days each side of the spring equinox at 2950 BC the Pleiades
were not visible. This also applied to the autumn but the time period of the loss of view was
completely different in the autumn and hence the 40 days applies to the spring specifically.
The view of the set of the Pleiades applies from autumn to spring and the view of the rise from
spring to autumn with the view of the set being lost 20 days before the equinox at 2950 BC
with rise coming into view at 20 days after the equinox. The rise then appeared earlier each day
until approaching autumn it was eventually lost as the sun was setting at around the same time
as Pleiades was rising. After a period of invisibility the Pleiades were seen to set early in the
morning becoming earlier each day and continued until the spring when again sunset and
Pleiades set came together and the view of the Pleiades set was lost. 40 days later the rise of the
Pleiades again became visible. These times are approximations of course and depend upon
localised conditions but were applied as a reasonably accurate generality.
In the Genesis event we are given a precise day, for the beginning of this loss when the
rains are traditionally supposed to have commenced, the 17th day of the second month which, if
the theory is correct should be 20 days before the spring or vernal equinox. We should
remember that most cultures in the Middle Eastern area began their calendar during the era in
question at the first new moon after the winter solstice. To put it to the test we simply run up
the relevant date on the astronomy program and see what results:-

193
 Table 6.2
Winter solstice 7/8 January 2300BC
[in our calendar]
New moon and beginning of year Jan 31st 2300BC
Beginning of second month [new moon] March 2nd 2300BC
Plus 17 days = 20 days before vernal
equinox = March 19th 2300BC
Vernal equinox = April 8th = 20 days after March 19th

Hence, we show that the Biblical description for the commencement of the forty days
of rain complies to the day with the commencement of the 40 days [in two sections of 20 days
each] relating to the Pleiades around the time of the spring equinox. The 40 days is split in two
here with 20 days at either side of the vernal or spring equinox and in fact as detailed in
Measurements of the Gods, this is replicated via standing stones and hills in South Wales UK.
However, as noted above, the most accurate dating for this 20 days either side of the
equinox is not at 2300BC but at 2950BC and hence the Biblical authors are merely following a
tradition. They have given a description that gives the 20 days before the equinox but in fact at
2300BC the Pleiades did not give the 20 days before the equinox as the set of the asterism was
visible up to around 9 days before the vernal equinox. Hence it can be seen from this that a
tradition had long been established by the time of the creation of the Biblical flood epic [written
circa 800BC] and was being applied to situations where it did not work. Nonetheless, the
narrative is sufficient to allow us to make an evaluation that in fact does make a lot of sense and
details the 20 days count which does apply to the Pleiades. The Pleiades are commonly known
as the Seven Sisters because the star cluster appears as a group of seven stars. In fact, the
cluster, known as M35 to astronomers, contains some hundreds of stars. The mythology
associated with the Pleiades is extensive; Burnham alone devotes eight pages to the subject and
Hinckley more than twice that number. 8,9
According to William Whiston in the footnotes to Chapter III Book I of his translation
of Flavius Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, the flood occurred at the Autumn Equinox, but
this would not be the case according to the evidence in Genesis. Josephus however, was basing
his analysis of the beginning of the year on later events. He claimed that Moses set the date of
the Jewish New Year to reflect the date of the Exodus out of Egypt which is evidence for a
different calendar being used before the Exodus and consequently at the time of the flood. Yet
the Hebrew calendar at this time began at the first New Moon [ not a fixed time every year]
after the Spring equinox and the Exodus, the date of which is frequently stated to be 1446 BC,
[although many academics disagree] was during the month of Abib, which is the ‘first’ month.
Hence, unless there is an alternative calendar that commences in the Autumn, Josephus has
made an error. In any case, as the Exodus occurred much later than the Deluge, it has no
reflection on the flood event whatever. What should be noted is that many cultures commenced
their New Year from the first New Moon after the Winter Solstice, adding intercalary months
to make up the loss to the solar year when necessary. Forty days as the period surrounding the
Sun / Pleiades conjunction then makes sense of the timing of Genesis story and the ‘17 th day of

194
the second month’ to a remarkably accurate degree and as moted above this still approximately
applies today.
As noted, the number 40 can actually be seen in a number of places in the Bible,
applied to a specific time period. For example, it emerges in the tale of Moses climbing up
Mount Sinai and remaining there for forty days and nights before arriving back among the
Hebrews with the two tablets of stone upon which were engraved the Ten Commandments.
After the forty years wanderings in the wilderness, [converting to forty days using the Biblical
day for a year adaptation, which was explained earlier] the Hebrews finally arrived at Jerusalem
and the Promised Land. 40 years can be applied in terms the ‘day for a year’ of Ezekiel’s
writing and revert back to 40 days.
David passes on the instructions for the building of the Temple to Solomon his son.
Outside this Temple are of course the twin pillars of Jachin and Boaz representing, as noted
earlier, Castor and Pollux, the twin bright stars of Gemini, the constellation following Taurus
and the Pleiades, as indeed did the Temple follow the 40 years [or days] in the Wilderness.
However, Hesiod, an early Greek poet who lived around 700BC reported in his Work
and Days that:

‘When the Pleiades, daughters of Atlas, are rising begin your harvest, and your ploughing
when they are going to set. Forty nights and days they are hidden and appear again as the
year moves round, when first you sharpen your sickle.’ 10

After Hesiod, the Greek astronomer Euctenom listed the dates of the year involved, as
indeed did the early Babylonians where the forty days in association with the Pleiades is also
seen in the Mul.Apin texts from Mesopotamia revealing astronomical thinking of between 1300
and 1000BC. However, the dates of the year from Euctemon differ to the Mesopotamian dates,
as they should, the variation corresponds to the differences created by the shift over the period
by precession, confirming the accuracy of observation at the time. The instruction from Hesiod
complies well with the agricultural analysis here because when the Pleiades set at sunrise the
date is around the autumn equinox, which is the ploughing time at these latitudes.
So in conclusion, the famous forty days is no more than the change in view in the
spring of a small group of stars, an asterism, the Pleiades in the constellation of Taurus. But
what of the other values in the Genesis account? For example, as forty days only refers the
period of rainfall, how long did the flood last?

The Flood Duration

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth
day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the
windows of heaven were opened.
While above is seen the commencement date of the Deluge, which is enlarged upon in
a later chapter, there is sufficient information to calculate the duration of the flood period in the
verses below.

195
Genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the
hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
Genesis 8:6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the
ark which he had made:
Genesis 8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the
ark;
Genesis 8:12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not
again unto him any more.

The relevant count of days, again an astronomical vision of time is 150 x 2 = 300 and
40 + 7 + 7 = 54 giving a total of 354 days. 12 synodic lunar months of 29.5 days equates with
354 days, a lunar year. Here we return to the debate regarding the composition of Genesis by
different authors. These are known as J and P, whose accounts were combined by an unknown
redactor. It was seen in Chapter 2 that the weight of academic opinion is that:
- "J" used Yahweh as the name of God, and wrote circa 848BC to 722BC in the southern
kingdom of Judah. [Note: J is the source of the 40 days of rain].
- "P" a priest who lived much later, but at sometime before 587BC
P is the author who added the two periods of 150 days to the pre-existing 40 days and
then to make up the lunar year, added a further two periods of seven days. He also gave the 15
cubits depth and gave the age of Noah at the time of the flood. Hence, according to this
scholastic interpretation of the composition of this section of Genesis, the original Biblical
Deluge story of about 800BC held only the astronomical reference to the Pleiades. The value
that is all important to the deciphering of the whole mythological construct, that of the date of
Noah’s birth, only emerges later, between approximately 600BC and 700BC.
The priestly composer effectively then assembled a second version of the flood story in
about 600BC when the lunar elements, the year of the birth of Noah and the depth of water
were utilised, but not the 40 days of the Pleiades. Then, at some point shortly afterwards, the
two different stories were merged into one relatively coherent whole.

6.6 Replenishing the Earth

There is another aspect to the early text of Genesis, which raises questions regarding
the meaning of creation:

8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of
the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the
ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
8:14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth
dried.

Here we see a date that is 10 days later than the lunar year of 354 days given
previously. It would appear that this is information in disguise because 354 days plus 10 days

196
= 364 days, and this is 13 months at 28 days, a very commonly utilised calendar construct in
ancient times. 28 days is the mean of the synodic and sidereal months and it will be seen
frequently in Deluge.
The first day of the 601st year was free of any flood, and the Earth was refreshed and
cleansed. Noah and his wife were now, in effect, a new Adam and Eve although they had
already raised a family. The total human population of Earth was now just eight persons,
Noah, his wife with their three sons accompanied by their wives. Genesis 9:1 then states the
following: And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth.
This is a reasonable statement considering that all human life on Earth had been
destroyed and all other life had been transported within the Ark. However, it is seen in Genesis
1:28 King James Version that after creating Adam and Eve, God instructs them to ‘Be fruitful
and multiply, and replenish the Earth.’ Why should the word replenish be utilised if this was a
brand new creation? This seemingly out of place missive is generally not commented upon by
other authors possibly due to the original Hebrew / Chaldean word from which it has been
translated. However, while the apparent anomaly is explained in the notes to this chapter, 11 it is
beginning to appear that perhaps religious ‘creation’ is a cyclic event, an idea that is explored in
later chapters.

6.7 The Epic of Gilgamesh

The Epic of Gilgamesh as an historical narrative has previously been commented upon,
but there exists more than one version of this story. The basic elements vary but little in the
different versions but names, times and minor details differ. Some of this information is useful
in the evaluation and the extract seen a little later in this chapter is from the earliest translation,
that which was first analysed and transcribed by George Smith. What is known of Gilgamesh?
Richard Hooker summarises current knowledge of this king below:

‘Gilgamesh was an historical king of Uruk in Babylonia, on the River Euphrates in modern
Iraq; he lived about 2700 B.C. Although historians tend to emphasize Hammurabi and his
code of law, the civilizations of the Tigris-Euphrates area, among the first civilizations, focus
rather on Gilgamesh and the legends accruing around him to explain, as it were, themselves.
Many stories and myths were written about Gilgamesh, some of which were written down about
2000 B.C. in the Sumerian language on clay tablets which still survive; the Sumerian language,
as far as we know, bears no relation to any other human language we know about. These
Sumerian Gilgamesh stories were integrated into a longer poem, versions of which survive not
only in Akkadian [the Semitic language, related to Hebrew, spoken by the Babylonians] but
also on tablets written in Hurrian and Hittite [an Indo-European language, a family of
languages which includes Greek and English, spoken in Asia Minor]. All the above languages
were written in the script known as cuneiform, which means "wedge-shaped.” The fullest
surviving version, from which the summary here is taken, is derived from twelve stone tablets,
in the Akkadian language, found in the ruins of the library of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria
669-633 B.C., at Nineveh. The library was destroyed by the Persians in 612 B.C., and all the

197
tablets are damaged. The tablets actually name an author, which is extremely rare in the
ancient world, for this particular version of the story: Shin-eqi-unninni.’ 12

Shin-eqi-unninni is regarded as the oldest known human author we can name by name,
and he is probably the editor or redactor who inserted the Flood legend into the Gilgamesh
story, as it is now clear that it was not originally part of it.
The oldest library in the world is often thought to be that at Alexandria, but in fact, the
library of Ashurbanipal predates it by three hundred years or so. King Ashurbanipal [various
dates are given for his reign, but it is approximately 668-627BC] was the ruler of ancient
Assyria when the nation was at the height of its military and cultural power.
Through military conquests, Ashurbanipal expanded Assyrian territory and its number of vassal
states [see map in Figure 6.1 earlier]. However, of far greater importance to posterity was
Ashurbanipal's establishment of a great library in the city of Nineveh. The military and
territorial gains made by this ruler barely outlived him but the Library he established has
survived partially intact. A collection of between 20,000 to 30,000 cuneiform tablets which
contain approximately 1,200 distinct texts remains from this collection awaiting study by
modern scholars. Ashurbanipal's library was not the first library of its kind but it was one of
the largest and one of the few to survive to the present day. Most of it is now divided between
the British Museum and the Iraqi Department of Antiquities.
The importance of Ashurbanipal’s Library to our view of the history of the region
cannot be overstated. It was buried by invaders centuries before the famous library at
Alexandria was established and since being uncovered has given modern historians much
information about the peoples of the Ancient Near East.
A version of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh and a nearly complete list of ancient
Near Eastern rulers, amongst other priceless writings, were preserved in Ashurbanipal's palace
library at Nineveh. This structure was the first that modern scholars can document as having
most, or even all of the attributes one expects to find in a modern library.
Just like a modern library, this collection was spread out into many rooms according to
subject matter such as history and government, religion and magic, geography, science, poetry
etc. His collection even held what could be called classified government materials where the
findings of spies and secret affairs of state were held secure in deep recesses of the palace much
like a modern government archive. Each group of tablets contained a brief citation to identify
the contents and each room contained a tablet near the door to classify the general contents of
each room in the library, much like a modern counterpart. The sort of cataloguing activities
that took place under Ashurbanipal's direction would not be seen in Europe for centuries.
Partially through military conquests and partially through the employment of numerous scribes
there was significant effort placed into what modern librarians would call collection
development. One of these scribes was the redactor that produced the version of the Gilgamesh
epic that included the Flood story.
In this version, probably the earliest, the hero of the day is Khasisatra and as this is a
long poem, only relevant extracts will be included here. To emphasise the value 36 we begin
with part of the building of the vessel which, taken literally, was accomplished in a few days.
The dimensions of the vessel seen in this version of the legend are 600 x 60 x 60 cubits, which

198
gives it a volume of 4.8 times that seen in Genesis. On the fifth day, and the implication is that
Khasisatra commenced building on day one, the two sides of the barque were raised. This
implies, as noted earlier, that the vessel was actually a raft with walls above. Here the walls,
after probably being partially prefabricated on the ground, were lifted into place. This was
almost certainly a recognised shipbuilding practice. In its covering were 14 rafters. Then the
tale moves to the sixth day and I embarked in it on the sixth day…I divided its floors on the
seventh…I divided the interior compartments on the eighth. This was yet another very busy
day as Khasisatra also stopped all the chinks through which water could enter and …poured on
the exterior three times 3,600 measures of asphalt and three times 3,600 measures inside.
Here is seen a total of 21,600 measures of asphalt and the total volume of the vessel at
600 x 60 x 60 cubits was 2,160,000 cubits. But in further emphasis of 3,600: three times 3,600
men, porters, brought on their heads the chests for provisions…I kept 3,600 chests for the
nourishment of my family…and the mariners divided among themselves twice 3,600 chests.
[Note: Here is seen a major difference to the Noahic account where there were no mariners,
only the family and animals.]
Now for the flood episode: this commenced at the end of the eighth day
when…Shamash [the Sun] made the moment determined…having earlier announced that…‘In
the evening I will cause it to rain abundantly from heaven…enter into the vessel and close the
door’…Then accompanied by much wailing of the Gods, [specifically by Ishtar who did not
desire to see humanity treated as such]…Six days and as many night passed; the wind, the
waterspout, and the diluvian rain were all in their strength. At the approach of the seventh day
the diluvian rain grew weaker;…the vessel was borne above the land of Nizir…the mountain of
Nizir arrested the vessel. A day and a second day the mountain arrested the vessel and did not
permit it to pass over. The third and fourth day the mountain arrested the vessel and did not
permit it to pass over. The fifth and the sixth day the mountain arrested the vessel and did not
permit it to pass over. At the approach of the seventh day I sent out and loosed a dove. The
dove went, turned and found no place to light on and it came back. I sent and loosed a
swallow; the swallow went, turned and found no place to light on and it came back. I sent out
and loosed a raven; the raven went and saw the corpses on the waters; it ate, rested, turned
and came not back. 13

The flood occurred in the eighth day after the commencement of building. Effectively
there are two periods of seven days following this exercise making a total of 21 days.
However, the flood duration is of 14 days. This period is of importance as a separate entity to
the earlier period of seven days, just as seen in the Genesis account. It represents half a month
and in Chapter 9 the relevance of this period and therefore the connecting factor to this specific
tale will emerge. In addition, seven days is the warning time here, just as that given to Noah.
Notable also is the mention of Nizir [or Nisir], where the vessel was grounded. This is the
location of the geological anomaly as seen in Chapter 3.
There is specific emphasis in this account of a terrible waterspout-that assailed after the
fashion of an earthquake and it would appear that here is the answer to the flood that Leonard
Woolly uncovered at Ur. The probability is that a severe storm with at least one waterspout

199
swept up the Persian Gulf and in addition to sweeping the waters of the Gulf inland, prevented
the river waters from reaching the sea.
This would account not only for the localised effect of the flood but also the depth of
water that would be necessary for the measured 12 feet of clay to be deposited by floodwater.

6.8 The Flood Story from India

This story is one that has been insufficiently aired in the past and has generally been
ignored by those attempting to analyse the Biblical story. The recorded history of India stems
from long before that of dynastic Egypt as will be plainly seen in later chapters and it is to this
region that the narrative will eventually turn for final enlightenment. The following is adapted
from the Srimad Bhagavatam 8:24. The Srimad Bhagavatam is part of the Puranic literature,
which generally dates to around 500AD or later. However, while a study of the material will
indicate changes in religious thinking, the astronomy and flood story contained are derived
from the early period [some material paralleling the early Vedas in date] and hence there can be
no doubt that the story of Manu, who is the equivalent of Noah predates the Hebrew version.
The following extracts from the Srimad Bhagavatum extend the ideas expressed in the verses
seen earlier in Chapter 2:

(32) The Supreme Lord said [addressing that master of man, Satyavrata]: 'On the seventh day
from today indeed will from then on this threefold creation…be flooded by the ocean of
destruction.
(33) When the three worlds are submerged in the waters of annihilation, you can at that time
count on the appearance of a very big boat by Me sent to you.
(34-35) For that time collect all higher and lower kinds of herbs and seeds and with the
[wisdom of the] seven sages surround yourself with all kinds of beings getting on that huge
boat to travel undaunted the ocean of inundation with no illumination but the effulgence of the
rishis.
(36) Attach with the great serpent [Vâsuki] to My horn close to you that boat being tossed
about by the very powerful wind.
(37) I will keep in touch travelling with you for as long as the night of Brahmâ, my best one, all
together with the sages on the boat in the waters. 14

Here is seen another repetition of the seven days warning pre-flood. The verses also
introduce another three elements into the story, a night of Brahmâ, Vâsuki and the seven sages.
Vasuki is the name of the serpent who was himself a God, used to tie the boat to the horn of the
fish Matsya. The fish may well be the Milky Way seen in the Puranic literature as both a
dolphin and a large serpent. If this is the case, then Vasuki is possibly the constellation
Draconis containing the Pole Star Thuban and it should also be noted that in the Bhagavat Gita
10:28 Brahma states that ‘of serpents I am Vâsuki, the chief ’.15 The night of Brahma will
eventually be seen as being of vital importance to the understanding of the meaning of the
Deluge. The seven sages have been identified in a number of ways but again, ultimately are of

200
an astronomical nature, being the stars of Ursa Major. Another version of this story can be
seen in the Mahabharata:

Then Yudhishthira, the son of Pandu, said to the Brahmana, Markandeya, 'Do thou
now narrate the history of Vaivaswata Manu?

"Markandeya replied, 'O king, O foremost of men, there was a powerful and great
Rishi of the name of Manu. He was the son of Vivaswan and was equal unto Brahma in glory.
And he far excelled his father and grandfather in strength, in power, in fortune, as also in
religious austerities. And standing on one leg and with uplifted hand, that lord of men did
severe penance in the jujube forest called Visala. And there with head downwards and with
steadfast eyes he practised the rigid and severe penance for ten thousand years. And one day,
whilst he was practising austerities there with wet clothes on and matted hair on head, a fish
approaching the banks of the Chirini, addressed him thus… 'Worshipful sir, I am a helpless
little fish, I am afraid of the large ones; therefore, do thou, O great devotee, think it worth thy
while to protect me from them; especially as this fixed custom is well established amongst us
that the strong fish always preys upon the weak ones. Therefore do thou think it fit to save me
from being drowned in this sea of terrors! I shall requite thee for thy good offices.' On hearing
these words from the fish, Vaivaswata Manu was overpowered with pity and he took out the
fish from the water with his own hands. And the fish which had a body glistening like the rays
of the moon when taken out of the water was put back in an earthen water-vessel. And thus
reared that fish O king, grew up in size and Manu tended it carefully like a child. And after a
long while, it became so large in size, that there was no room for it in that vessel. And then
seeing Manu (one day), it again addressed these words to him, 'Worshipful sir, do thou appoint
some better habitation for me.' And then the adorable Manu, the conqueror of hostile cities,
took it out of that vessel and carried it to a large tank and placed it there. And there again the
fish grew for many a long year. And although the tank was two yojanas in length and one
yojana in width, even there, O lotus-eyed son of Kunti and ruler of men, was no room for the
fish to play about! And beholding Manu it said again, 'O pious and adorable father, take me to
the Ganga, the favourite spouse of the Ocean so that I may live there; or do as thou listest. O
sinless one, as I have grown to this great bulk by thy favour I shall do thy bidding cheerfully.'
Thus asked the upright and continent and worshipful Manu took the fish to the river Ganga and
he put it into the river with his own hands. And there, O conqueror of thy enemies, the fish
again grew for some little time and then beholding Manu, it said again, 'O lord, I am unable to
move about in the Ganga on account of my great body; therefore, worshipful sir, do thou
please take me quickly to the sea!' O son of Pritha, Manu then taking it out of the Ganga,
carried it to the sea and consigned it there. And despite its great bulk, Manu transported it
easily and its touch and smell were also pleasant to him. And when it was thrown into the sea
by Manu, it said these words to him with a smile, 'O adorable being, thou hast protected me
with special care; do thou now listen to me as to what thou shouldst do in the fulness of time! O
fortunate and worshipful sir, the dissolution of all this mobile and immobile world is nigh at

201
hand. The time for the purging of this world is now ripe. Therefore do I now explain what is
good for thee! The mobile and immobile divisions of the creation, those that have the power of
locomotion, and those that have it not, of all these the terrible doom hath now approached.
Thou shall build a strong massive ark and have it furnished with a long rope. On that must thou
ascend, O great Muni, with the seven Rishis and take with thee all the different seeds which
were enumerated by regenerate Brahmanas in days of yore, and separately and carefully must
thou preserve them therein. And whilst there, O beloved of the Munis, thou shall wait for me,
and I shall appear to thee like a horned animal, and thus, O ascetic, shall thou recognise me!
And I shall now depart, and thou shall act according to my instructions, for, without my
assistance, thou canst not save thyself from that fearful flood.' …‘And there was water
everywhere and the waters covered the heaven and the firmament also. And, O bull of
Bharata's race, when the world was thus flooded, none but Manu, the seven Rishis [seven
sages] and the fish could be seen... ...I am Brahma, the Lord of all creatures; there is none
greater than myself. Assuming the shape of a fish, I have saved you from this cataclysm. Manu
will create [again] all beings--gods, Asuras and men, all those divisions of creation which have
the power of locomotion and which have it not. By practicing severe austerities he will acquire
this power, and with my blessing, illusion will have no power over him.’

Mahabharata Varna Parva SECTION CLXXXVI16

Notable here is the statement Manu will create [again] all beings while a little earlier
he was told to carry all the different seeds which were enumerated by regenerate Brahmanas in
days of yore, and separately and carefully must thou preserve them therein. Hence was Manu
able to re-create or was all carried in the boat? Given that Manu was described as superior to
his father and grandfather and was e1qual to Brahma we can safely assume that he was able top
re create. After all, he will return as a new pole star holding constellation.
After the flood, nonetheless, humanity spread from Noah’s family as described in the
Bible but otherwise, unlike Manu, who here seemingly plays a similar role to the god of
creation, the Lord in Genesis, Noah had no creationist tasks to accomplish. Again, the concept
of recreation rather than creation is seen here, as implied earlier with the instruction to both
Adam and Eve and Noah and his wife and sons to ‘replenish the Earth’ implying that creation
and the Deluge are some sort of linked cyclic events. Many of the traditional names of the
descendents of Noah and the regions they occupied live on today as can be seen in that Noah’s
grandson Mizraim is sometimes still referred to as the forebear of the Egyptians by Arabic
commentators.
As with the Mesopotamian flood myths there are a number of versions of the Indian
tale but there is far less deviation from the original. The Indian versions tend to change names,
because many Gods had a variety of titles, as indeed did the Egyptian Sun God Ra who
traditionally had 74 names. Surya in ancient India was the Sun, as occasionally was the God
Agni who generally is associated with fire. Other titles also applied, but we shall not confuse

202
matters here with a list of godly names. The other slight difference is that not all translations
and interpretations include the seven days warning and few note the night of Brahma.

6.9 Noah’s Rainbow and the Celestial Ocean

Many contemporary depictions of Noah’s Ark feature a rainbow, indeed it also features
in the logos of many organisations like animal rescue centres that are named after the vessel.
This association of the rainbow with Noah is not only true in the modern world; it can also be
seen in many mediaeval religious structures. For example, a rainbow can be found in the Noah
Window at Chartres Cathedral as seen in Chapter 5. This rainbow depiction is not at all
surprising, as it is well known that after the flood God set His bow in the sky. In Genesis 9.8-
16 God announces that the rainbow will be a sign of His Covenant that there will be no more
flooding [and presumably no more replenishing; however it will be found in later chapters that
in fact this is not the case…and that the rainbow is almost certainly something entirely
different…].
It therefore seems that in Genesis the rainbow is ‘God’s Bow’ and part of the new
covenant with mankind. There are hints of this in the New Testament. A ‘new Earth’ namely
New Jerusalem is seen in the Book of Revelation and while after the flood God’s bow was seen
and recognised as signifying the new covenant between God and mankind, in Revelation the
relationship appears to be expanded to take in Christ and an angel.

… And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow
round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. [Revelation 4:3] [Note: Jasper can be
red, yellow, brown or green while sardine stone is red]
… And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a
rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:
[Revelation 10:1]

Clearly, the rainbow was seen to be of importance and recognised as being associated
with the controller of the Universe, God. It is, perhaps, prominent that there is no mention of
the number of colours seen in a rainbow, commonly accepted as being seven, a value frequently
seen in a religious context. Possibly this is because everyone was aware of the seven hues that
are visible in its brilliant display. Whilst here we are looking at Biblical descriptions, the
rainbow has been of primary interest in most human cultures as far back as can be examined.
It invariably is associated with God or the gods, frequently in association with rain or
climate generally, sometimes as a bridge to heaven as in the Nordic myths and occasionally as a
serpent. In Vedic India, people worshipped the demon-slaying warrior-god Indra, who became
their ‘King of Gods’. Indra was an elephant-riding deity who again is associated with the
rainbow, he is seen as a storm god and the rainbow sometimes becomes his bow from which he
shoots arrows of lightning. There is a great deal of commonality among such naturalistic
themes, which vary only within their local cultures.
Noticeably many researchers into rainbow mythology and folklore have asserted that
generally only four colours are to be found in rainbow depictions. It has even been said that

203
prior to Newton it was thought that there were only four colours in the rainbow. However, one
only has to examine the cave paintings of many thousands of years ago to realise that this is a
mistaken notion. The colours of the rainbow are not mentioned Biblically, as there was no
requirement to do so as everyone except the colour-blind person would be aware of the multiple
hues gained from the blending of the primary colours. These hues are commonly expressed,
when it is necessary to do so, as the seven colours of the rainbow.
A related concept to Noah’s Rainbow is The Celestial Ocean. It is tempting to look to
ancient Egypt, and the notion of the ‘Gods in the sky in a boat’ to invoke the concept of a
Celestial Ocean. While it would be correct insofar as this concept is found in Egyptian
religion, it would be an inaccurate assessment of its derivation. The flood stories of
Mesopotamia and India also include escape in a boat, but in India the transport of the Gods, for
example in the form of Surya the Sun God, was usually [although not exclusively] by a chariot
whereas in Egypt, Ra always travelled by boat. This difference possibly occurs because in
Egypt, the primary transport system was via the Nile where boats were obviously the only
means of transport, while in India, although river transport was utilised, the principle means
was overland and therefore chariots or wagons were in use. But while chariots are frequently
mentioned in Indian literature as heavenly transport, boating gods of the heavens also are
mentioned.
The Heavens were also described as a sea, as in Egypt where the ‘Boat of Millions of
Years’ or the ‘Boat of Cubits Seven’ [divisions between what were at one time thought to be
cross members of the Ark as discovered by Fasold] carried the Sun and the remainder of the
Gods.
As rain falls out of the heavens and the rainbow was associated with the end of the
flood it does appear most likely that an ocean in the sky was seen as the source of rain. Genesis
in Chapter 1 tells us quite plainly that there is a sea between Heaven and Earth. During the first
day, God created Heaven and Earth and His spirit moved upon the face of the waters. He also
made light and separated it from the dark. Yet this creates a puzzle as there were no Sun or
Moon until the fourth day, it seems the chronology is in error. The second day saw the creation
of a firmament that God named Heaven dividing waters above this firmament from those
below. The next step was to bring what God called the Seas, the waters under the firmament,
together and allow dry land named Earth to appear. Plants then grew on the dry land. Here we
perceive an error in that none of the plants would grow without sunlight and yet there was to be
no sunlight until the fourth day.
There is sufficient here to see that even though there are errors in chronology, there can
be no doubt of the validity of the concept of a Celestial Ocean and hence if there is an ocean, it
is likely that there would be mythical boats on that ephemeral sea.
The remainder of the Genesis creation story runs basically as follows. The creatures of
the sea and those of the air, the birds, came along on the fifth day while the beasts that stayed
on the ground had to wait until the sixth day as did man who was given dominion over all other
creatures and the plants. Humankind, however, was made in Gods likeness, an image that
would almost certainly be metaphorical and allude to the initial moral properties endowed in
Adam and Eve.

204
 So here, according to Genesis, is seen the creation of all. Clearly, there is a heavenly
ocean involved in the story and it is above the vault of the heavens. As Genesis undoubtedly
implies that the mysterious Celestial Ocean exists, then we have to examine the likelihood of
the Deluge being, as we have hinted, a hypothetical overflowing of this aerial ocean, a flood
that obliterates the stars and ends with a rainbow, that the myth of the Flood be related to this
sea of the cosmos, rather than to one on Earth. It is necessary to determine whether other texts
can shed more light on this concept, and this idea is developed over the ensuing chapters of
Deluge. In this examination, we need to study the most long-term movement of the heavens in
the great cycle known as precession, which has been mentioned from time to time in previous
chapters. This is the focus of the next chapter, but first we look to the concept of the ‘skyboats’
from India that sail this ‘celestial ocean’.

6.10 The Sky Boat in India

We hear little of the use of boat by the gods from India while the Egyptian gods sail in
‘the boat of millions of years’, that of ‘cubits seven’ or the boat of the Sun god. A multitude of
titles has been given to this ‘barque of the gods’. Yet in India we also find that the Sun god has
a boat. Varuna, for example, is associated with Surya the Sun god and in Rig Veda 7:88:3

When Varuna and I embark together and urge our boat into the midst of the ocean, we, when
we ride over the ridges of waters, will swing within that swing and there be happy… 17

Here we have Varuna as described in the Rig Veda sailing in a vessel. Yet this deity is
directly associated with the Sun god Surya [Egypt’s Ra] as we find in Rig Veda 1:50 where
reference is also made to the seven stars of the Pleiades or Krttikas [the daughters of the car].
In the verses repeated below we see the Sun rising, being pulled in his chariot by the
Pleiades termed here as the Seven Bay Steeds, the ‘daughters of the car’ [verses 8 and 9] that
precede it above the eastern horizon. Here we can see that Pleiades rising one and quarter
hours and hence 11 degrees in front of the sun gives adequate visibility and this occurred on the
day of the new moon, 19/20 days after the vernal equinox of 3500BC. Therefore, there is a
close affinity between the steeds or daughters of the car, the Krttikas or Pleiades and the Sun.
It is therefore concluded that the reference here in Rig Veda 1:50 is to shortly after the Vernal
Equinox in the era of 3500BC when the relevant criterion would apply at circa 20 days after the
equinox.
Verse 1 His bright rays bear him up aloft, the God who knoweth all that lives,
Surya, that all may look on him.
Verse 2 The constellations pass away, like thieves, together with their beams,
Before the all-beholding Sun.
Verse 3 His herald rays are seen afar refulgent o'er the world of men,
Like flames of fire that burn and blaze.
Verse 4 Swift and all beautiful art thou, O Surya, maker of the light,
Illuming all the radiant realm.

205
Verse 5 Thou goest to the hosts of Gods, thou comest hither to mankind,
Hither all light to be beheld.
Verse 6 With that same eye of thine wherewith thou lookest brilliant Varuna,
Upon the busy race of men,
Verse 7 Traversing sky and wide mid-air, thou metest with thy beams our days,
Sun, seeing all things that have birth.
Verse 8 Seven Bay Steeds harnessed to thy car bear thee, O thou farseeing One,
God, Surya, with the radiant hair.
Verse 9 Surya hath yoked the pure bright Seven, the daughters of the car; with these,
His own dear team, he goeth forth.
Verse 10 Looking upon the loftier light above the darkness we have come
To Surya, God among the Gods, the light that is most excellent.
Verse 11 Rising this day, O rich in friends, ascending to the loftier heaven,
Surya remove my heart's disease, take from me this my yellow hue.

So here is seen identification of Surya the Sun god as Varuna with additional
confirmation of an association with the Pleiades, which as previously seen in this chapter, are
also connected to the flood story in Genesis. Yet Varuna also travels by boat and here Surya
and Varuna are seen as the same entity. Why sometimes does the Sun travel by chariot and
sometimes by boat? It would appear that the chariot applies only when the Pleiades are in
suitable proximity. Below is further confirmation of the use of a vessel in the ‘celestial waters’
by the Sun god in Indic texts. Rig Veda 10:63 Verse 10:

Mightily saving Earth, incomparable Heaven the good guide Aditi who gives secure
defence. The well oared Ship that lets no waters in, free from defect, will we ascend for
happiness.

This is seen in parallel to a different version of the ship in Verse 14: …That conquering
Car, [chariot] O Indra, that sets forth at dawn, that never breaks, may we ascend for
happiness…[Note should be taken of the wording above however, Mightily saving Earth, is this
not the role of Noah, or Manu that was seen in Chapter 5 in association with the Oblation to the
Lord ? ] These short extracts imply that ‘Car’ and ‘Ship’ are interchangeable and mean the
same thing. However, they almost certainly are differing references to travelling the skies at
different times of year as noted above. What is certain is that they are indeed referring to
journeys across the heavens.

206
 CHAPTER 7

Seven Pole Stars: Precession and the Flood

…there is the drying up of great oceans, the falling away of mountain peaks, the deviation
of the fixed pole star, the cutting of the wind cords [of the stars], the submergence of the
earth, the retreat of the celestials from their station. 21
Maitri Upanishad 1-4.

7.1 Ancient Skywatchers and the Cycles of the Heavens

The stars of the ancient night skies were far more prominent to the naked eye than
those of the neon-obscured heavens of today. In modern built-up areas and for many miles
around, it is often impossible to discern the patterns in the heavens above, even on a clear night.
Consequently, the night skies of antiquity took on a much greater importance to daily life than
they do today, and played a major part in the practical and religious activities of the peoples of
the ancient world. Whilst literature has left us a good deal of knowledge of these religions,
which stem to around 3000BC or a little earlier, what our ancient forebears thought about the
mechanics of the heavens is not as clear. For example, whilst direction was obtained from the
celestial objects in the sky and calendars were derived from the motions of the Sun, Moon and
stars, there appears to be some uncertainty regarding when the notion of a Solar-centric solar
system as against an Earth-centric model first emerged. Even in the Classical Greek world, this
was the subject of much debate and it appears that a Solar system centred on the Sun was also
envisaged by some of the earlier Indian astronomers. However, whilst a better understanding
of the Solar System may have been suggested by a few of the astronomers of ancient times, we
have to conclude that in general that an Earth-centric cosmos was the dominant view of the
Heavens in antiquity. Much information regarding this idea is ultimately derived from what are
generally thought of as religious texts, which indicates the close affinity in antiquity between
religion and what we today term science.
It appears that the relationship between the Earth and the Moon was one of the better-
understood phenomena in the ancient world partly as a result of eclipses and also as a result of
the latter’s gravity, which, amongst other earthly effects, creates, with the assistance of the
Sun, the range of coastal tides all around the globe. From about 4,000 years ago at the very
least, this Sun/Moon eclipse cycle was known, as is evidenced at Late Neolithic sites like
Callanish in Scotland, implying that the ancient watchers of the skies knew that the Moon
orbits the Earth, and that the Sun was further away.
The five major visible planets were regarded as ‘wanderers’ whose movements were
studied by many ancient cultures, for example, by the Maya in Central America in the 1st
millennium AD. Scholars such as Professor Anthony Aveni [in his many works] have shown
that the planetary cycles, such as that of Venus, had been generally observed and recorded in
antiquity and the authors of Hamlets Mill, De Santillana and Von Dechend, demonstrated that

207
this knowledge predated the Maya and indeed was virtually a worldwide phenomenon. These
cycles, however, were not understood except in terms of their [orbital] periods, a criterion that
also applied to the Sun and Moon. The majority of ancient cultures saw in these predictable
celestial movements in the sky a form of calendrical stability that contrasted to an unpredictable
world in which they lived. In many of these societies, the primary celestial entities became
Gods. Hence, it can be easily understood that the studies of what we term astronomy and what
we think of as religion, were effectively the same discipline in these ancient times.
It is generally accepted that ancient civilisations did not comprehend the mechanism
behind the cycle of precession, the Earth’s ‘wobble’ in its rotation over approximately 26,000
years. However, that does not mean that they were unaware of it. The authors of Hamlets Mill
demonstrated clearly that this is the case, although we disagree with the major part of their
hypothesis, which relates how this knowledge was related to perceived global catastrophe.
Precession, it will be seen, was the driving force behind a number of events and there was a
need to understand what the movements were and what they represented. The reasons for this
extend beyond mere scientific or even religious curiosity. As shall be revealed, precession is
intimately associated with the Deluge and the focus of this chapter is to explain this
phenomenon and its relationship to the Pole Stars, those celestial entities that as we have hinted
earlier, have considerable bearing on the subject of the Great Flood.

7.2 Precession and the North Celestial and Ecliptic Poles

The axis of the Earth's rotation is not fixed in space; rather like a rotating top of a child,
the rotation axis, which holds the terrestrial North and South poles, executes a slow wobble,
which is termed precession, and which has a period of about 26,000 years. [We shall be
working throughout Deluge with the canonical value of 25,920 years, which is generally seen
by researchers in this field to have been in use for millennia.] The cause of the precession is
the equatorial bulge of the Earth, which results from the centrifugal force of its rotation, which
in turn changes the planet from a perfect sphere to a slightly flattened one. The basics of what
is maybe a more complex interaction are that the gravitational attraction of the Moon and Sun
on the equatorial bulge is then the force that makes the Earth precess. 1 With the canonical
precessional period above there is then a rate of precession of 72 years per degree, or 2160
years per zodiacal month [defined as 30 degrees of the Celestial Equator].
If the Earth were not tilted at 23.5 degrees from the position of Pole of the Ecliptic, or
the North Ecliptic Pole [see Figure 7.1] then the North terrestrial pole would permanently
point to this location in space and there would never be any direction giving Pole Star.
While there is an interesting celestial object adjacent to the position of the North
Ecliptic Pole, it has been visible very rarely and cannot be taken to be one that was observed by
ancient astronomers.

208
 North Ecliptic Pole

North Celestial Pole.

23.5 degrees

Earth

Fig. 7.1 The Earth’s Precessional Cycle

The planetary nebula NGC6543 (or the Cat Eye Nebula) is situated almost exactly at
the North Ecliptic Pole. It is important historically in the astronomical world, being discovered
by William Herschel in 1786 and the first such nebula to be investigated regarding its spectrum
by the amateur astronomer William Huggins, who published his results in 1864, an
investigation that eventually led to its identification. The Cat Eye nebula [seen in a NASA
Hubble Space Telescope image in Figure 7.2] is not now visible, having a stellar magnitude of
+8.1, but this spectacular object may have been brighter in the historical past and it is thought
that it had it’s latest burst of nuclear fusion reactions in the outer layers of its core star around a
thousand years ago, 2 but this is only a very rough estimate as NGC6543 is over 3,000 light
years away from us. If this estimate is out by a few thousand years, and the Cat Eye nebula
was visible in the early days of Ancient Egypt, this would have made the North Celestial
Pole/North Ecliptic Pole relationship easier to track. However, no evidence to support this idea
has been unearthed, so it would appear, from the current state of knowledge, that this was not
the case. (Note: Stellar magnitude is measured in such a way that the lower the number means
the brighter the object. The Sun currently has a magnitude of just under -27 while the three
stars of Orion’s Belt average around +2).

209
Fig. 7.2 The Cat Eye Nebula

Our current Pole Star, Polaris, is presently [in 2005] fractionally over a degree from the
Northern Celestial Pole itself. It is what is known as a large Cepheid variable type of star [the
unusual properties of which were discussed in Chapter 1] and is located in our galaxy some 419
light years from Earth. Polaris, as is true of the other Pole Stars of the precessional cycle,
would occupy an apparently stable position in the heavens over many tens of thousands of
years, if it were not for the precessional ‘wobble’ of the Earth. Modern observations have
determined that the Seven Northern Pole Stars discussed in this chapter stars do have a real
motion through space, but this motion is not apparent to the naked eye over the time spans
under discussion in Deluge [15,000 years approximately]. For all practical purposes, the
background star field, including the constellations of the familiar zodiac, can also be considered
as static over this period. It is only the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and the former’s
aforesaid ‘wobble’ that creates the illusion of the movement of the starfield over both an annual
and precessional timescale.
Precession has two effects of interest to sky watchers; it causes the North Celestial Pole
to trace a circle through the star field in the sky [likewise the South Celestial Pole] and it also
causes the Equinoxes to move though the Zodiac, again at a rate matching the precessional
cycle. The position of the Northern Celestial Pole is always due north from an observer's point
of view, and occasionally there is a star at, or very close to, that point. Today it is the turn of
Polaris, which will be at its closest to the North Celestial Pole, about half a degree, in 2100AD.
From the surface of the Earth, it appears that all celestial objects rotate around the Northern
Celestial Pole once each day. This is an illusion - it is the observer who is carried round the
Earth's own poles each day by virtue of the planet's rotation. Precession takes Polaris on an

210
apparent circular journey relative to the Northern Ecliptic Pole over its cycle, a journey that
applies to all of the seven of the Pole Stars discussed in this chapter.
The declination of the Pole Star [its angular distance from the Celestial Equator, which
is directly above the Earth’s equator] is fixed, by definition, at +90°. However, its altitude [the
angle it makes with the horizon] is not fixed. This varies according to the latitude of the
observer, being 0 degrees at the equator and 90 degrees if one is at the North Pole. This feature
is very useful for navigating in the Northern hemisphere because the altitude of the Northern
Celestial Pole is always equal to the observer's own latitude - by measuring the Pole Star’s
angle to the horizon, it is possible to exactly calculate it. 3
Navigators South of the Earth’s equator are not normally thought to have this luxury, as
there is not a bright star anywhere near the South Celestial Pole. However, this is not strictly
true, as we shall see later – the bright star Canopus although not ever close to the Southern
Celestial Pole, has long been used as a stellar guide by travellers.
There is an issue here that needs to be addressed regarding the tilt of the Earth. While
we have quoted it at 23.5 degrees or 23° 30' and shall continue to work with that value, it is an
approximation, albeit more than close enough for the purpose. The angle is currently some 23°
26' from the Plane of the Ecliptic, but is not constant as it changes fractionally in cycles of
41,000 years [frequently approximated to 40,000 years] from a minimum of about 22° 6' to a
maximum of about 24° 30' due to a phenomenon known as the obliquity of the ecliptic. Along
with precession, it is the second of the three components of the Milankovitch theory, that has
been the mainstay of the explanation for the cycles of the Ice Ages for the past 50 years or so
[although this is now disputed by Richard Muller of the University of Berkeley in California 4].
However, while humankind has almost certainly been watching the sky for 40,000 years, noting
this specific cycle in the sky would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible. The
position of the North Ecliptic Pole is not normally marked by any close star as it sits in the
centre of what we shall here call the ‘crook’ of Draconis and takes some 16,000 years to move
1 degree, a movement that is not discernible except by calculation derived from positions
denoted by modern instrumentation. It is therefore clear that the variation in position of the
North Ecliptic Pole [some 40-arc seconds per century] was not known in antiquity and given it
is so very slight it is not seen to be of relevance to this enquiry. What is important here is the
relationship of the Pole Stars to the Pole of the Ecliptic. Given that there is a relationship
involved, we are left with the question of whether it was possible to work out the position of
the North Ecliptic Pole by observing the movement of the North Celestial Pole over time, as
depicted in Figure 7.3. Certainly, over many thousands of years, if records were kept, this
could be established in an approximate manner, but conventional history does not allow us the
sort of timescale required to develop such knowledge.

211
 NEP

The ‘crook’ of Draconis

and Pole of the Ecliptic

NCP

North Celestial Pole

Fig. 7.3 The relationship between the North Ecliptic and North Celestial Poles

The Pole Star featured in the figures below is Thuban in the constellation Draconis
when it was close to the position of the North Celestial Pole at 2800BC [why this particular
Pole Star is utilised will become evident later].
The stars are known as the ‘fixed stars’ although they appear to move due to the
rotation of the Earth. Over a precessional timescale, they also appear to move relative to the
North Ecliptic Pole. During the course of a day however, the whole cosmos appears to revolve
around the North Celestial Pole. Both these celestial poles are visible in the Northern
hemisphere [at least at certain times of the day]. Figure 7.1 gives a diagrammatic example of
these movements at latitude of 30 degrees north, the approximate latitude of the Great Pyramid
of Giza. Similarly, at the equator, the North Celestial Pole would appear at the horizon, but at
midnight, the North Ecliptic Pole is located 23.5 degrees above it.

212
 Position of North Celestial Pole at ½ precession

North Celestial Pole

position apparently
circles North Ecliptic
23.5 degrees Pole over period of
North Ecliptic Pole precession (25920
years)

23.5 degrees
Apparent daily movement
around Pole Star

North Celestial Pole

23.5 degrees

6.5 degrees
Horizon

Fig. 7.4 Apparent Celestial and Ecliptic polar movements from 30 degree latitude.

We have gone into this description of the respective celestial poles in some depth here
because in ancient Egypt at least, there is some debate about whether the relationship between
the two poles was known and indeed if the astronomers of ancient Egypt were aware of
precession at all. We shall address both these issues later, but at this point we can assume that
they knew that on that a daily [and long-term] basis, the heavens revolved around a central
point in the heavens, which we term today the North Celestial Pole. This seems to have been of
key importance to the star-focussed Egyptian religion, which developed at the end of the Pre-
Dynastic period, around 3100BC. Of prime importance to this religion were those stars that
surrounded the centre of the whirling skies, that never set as seen from the latitudes of Northern
Egypt – the imperishable ones as they were known. Indeed, the North Celestial Pole was the
place of creation for the Egyptians. But in this period, it is very doubtful whether any
knowledge of the celestial mechanics of the precession of the heavens was in existence
although it was observed and accepted. It would be instructive then at this point to see what
conventional history tells us about the discovery of this phenomenon.

213
7.3 Hipparchus and The Precession of the Equinoxes

Precession is more normally referenced as the Precession of the Equinoxes and

conventional history informs us that it was a Greek astronomer, Hipparchus of Nicea (190-
120BC), who first discovered it. Comparing observations made during lunar eclipses more
than a century apart, Hipparchus proposed that the axis around which the Heavens seemed to
rotate, shifted gradually, albeit very slowly.
We do not know much about Hipparchus’s life, as is true of many of the Classical
Greeks who made significant contributions to the science of mathematics and astronomy.
However, in the case of Hipparchus, there has been considerable uncertainty in the past as to
how much he achieved, as only a minor work of his survives, Commentary on Aratus and
Eudoxus. Hipparchus has therefore been the subject of much study by scholars, particularly
with regard as to what he achieved, as against the supposed contribution made to science by
Claudius Ptolemy, a subject that has caused major debate since Sir Isaac Newton’s day.
Ironically, most of the information we have about the work of Hipparchus comes from
Ptolemy’s famous work The Almagest and it is unfortunate that Ptolemy assumes the reader has
access to Hipparchus’s texts, which are not available today.
Whatever Ptolemy accomplished, and while Eudoxus, about whom more later, is
credited with naming the constellations, it was Hipparchus who produced the first
comprehensive star catalogue in 129BC, containing probably 850 items. Hipparchus is also
credited with calculating the length of the year to within 7 minutes, which is closely related to
his work regarding the Moon and the Earth’s precession, the issue that interests us here.
After making a careful study of the motions of the Moon, Hipparchus calculated the
eclipse period of 126,007 days and one hour. This he compared with Babylonian records, and
known pairs of eclipses, which confirmed his results. He then apparently used the data from
one eclipse, probably on the 14th March 190BC, to present his treatise On Sizes and Distances
[unfortunately now lost]. In this, he gave a value for the distance from the Earth to the Moon
of between 59 and 67 Earth radii, a reasonably accurate value for the time, as the correct answer
is about 60 Earth radii. What is notable here is that he used pre-existing Babylonian records to
confirm his results, which again provides evidence of the competence of Babylonian
astronomers at the time.
The discovery for which Hipparchus is most famous, that which concerns us here, is
the Earth’s precession, which came from his attempts to calculate the length of the year with a
high degree of accuracy. To expand upon what was discussed in Chapter 6, it should be noted
that there are two different definitions of a 'year'. The first definition is the length of time that
the Sun takes to return to the same place amongst the fixed stars – this is called the Sidereal
Year. The second definition is the length of time before the seasons repeat, which is defined by
considering the equinoxes. This gives us the so-called Tropical year. The data needed by
Hipparchus to calculate the length of these two different years was not something that he could
find over a few years of observations. It has been suggested that Hipparchus calculated the
length of the tropical year using Babylonian data to arrive at the value of 1/300 of a day less
than 3651/4 days. He then checked this against observations of equinoxes and solstices
including his own data and those of Aristarchus in 280BC and Meton in 432BC. Hipparchus is

214
also recorded as having calculated the length of the sidereal year, again using older Babylonian
data, and arrived at the highly accurate figure of 1/144 of a day longer than 365 1/4 days. This
gives his rate of precession as 1 degree per century. The modern figure is 1 degree every 71.58
years, which is less than 1% different from the value that we say was used in the ancient world
– 72 years. The corresponding values of the modern and ancient precessional cycles are 25,770
[although this figure also varies slightly dependent upon the source consulted] and 25,920 years
respectively.5
To explain the concept of the tropical year let us consider the following: when viewed
from Earth, the Sun appears to move around the ecliptic, one full circuit each year. Twice a
year, at the equinox, the length of day and night is equal and the Sun rises exactly in the East
and sets exactly in the West. Ancient astronomers [before, for arguments sake, 1000BC] did
not have accurate clocks, and could not therefore tell when the day and night had exactly the
same length, but they could identify the Equinoxes and other prominent celestial times of the
year. The horizon was the sighting point and various spots indicating specific dates would be
marked for observation from a platform designed for that purpose. [It is generally thought by
archaeologists that this was the idea behind of many of the ancient standing stones around the
world.]
In the case of the Equinoxes, the Sun's position is that of an intersection between the
line of the ecliptic and the Celestial Equator [See Figure 7.5 a)-e) below]. These diagrams
clearly show the relationship between the line of the ecliptic and the Celestial Equator at the
Equinox and Solstice times. From knowledge of the roles of more modern Shamans, it is
known that such movements would have been observed and recorded by those interested in the
celestial bodies of the sky in antiquity. This is because the cultures of the ancient past had a
stake in understanding their movements in order to develop calendars that would give them the
times of year for planting, migrating and religious festivals. Counting the months and years
was also important in the prediction of stellar conjunctions such as eclipses.

Celestial Equator
Line of
Ecliptic

Pleiades

Sun
Fig.7.5 a) Sunrise at the Equator, Greenwich meridian Spring Equinox, 2300 BC Sunrise is at
90 degrees azimuth. Note the Pleiades adjacent to the Sun. Here the line of the ecliptic meets
the line of the Celestial Equator at the horizon at Sunrise.

215
 Pleiades Sun

Line of Ecliptic

Celestial Equator

Fig. 7.5 b) A depiction of the same sky three hours after Sunrise at the same location and date.
It can be clearly seen via the position of the Sun and the Pleiades that the line of the ecliptic is
moving directly along the Celestial Equator, which is above the Earthly equator.

Line of Ecliptic

Celestial
Sun Equator

Fig. 7.5 c) Sunrise at the Equator, Greenwich meridian 2300 BC Summer Solstice at 66 degrees
3 minutes [within a few seconds of arc]

Line of Ecliptic

Celestial
Equator

Sun

Fig.7.5 d) Sunrise at same location Winter Solstice at 113 degrees 52 minutes

216
 Sun
Celestial
Equator

Line of Ecliptic

Fig. 7.5 e): The above map is depicting the Winter Solstice sky three hours after sunrise at the
same location. It can be seen that the positions of the Sun etc do not follow the Celestial
Equator, as is the case at the Equinox.

Precession produces another, better known, effect in the sky as well as the movement
of the Celestial Poles. This is the slow backward slip of the constellations over the millennia
where they appear again after an apparent complete circle of the heavens in about 26,000 years.
This long-term movement is very similar to the monthly changes seen in the sky although they
are in the opposite direction. The Spring Equinox or what is known as the Vernal Equinox then
resides in each constellation for its celestial ‘monthly’ duration. This is known canonically as
being about 2160 years, 1/12 of 25,920 years, as defined earlier but in fact the period has a
great deal of variability and the divisions are far from equal. Effectively, what is seen during
the course of a year with the apparent month-by-month zodiacal movement is also denoted long
term, as the period of precession, but here, as stated, the movement is in the opposite direction.
The constellation in which the Sun resides at this time of year is often termed to define ‘an
age.’ Thus, we have the ‘Age of Pisces’ or the ‘Age of Aquarius’.
The constellations were named first, according to convention, probably in the Near
East, and the zodiacal signs were chosen as 30-degree divisions of the ecliptic corresponding to
these constellations. The Greeks are commonly thought to have developed the tropical zodiac
that is the basis of the astrological zodiac used today. Here the signs [sometimes termed
houses] align with the Vernal Equinox and steadily slip backwards against the constellations.
So for example, a person’s Sun sign may be Aries, but at his birthday, the Sun is actually in
Pisces. This slip of one constellation, will actually become two very shortly, after we enter the
so-called Age of Aquarius.
There are other earlier, albeit similar zodiacs, or rather schemes of houses and related
calendars, other than the one we use today, such as those found in the earlier periods of ancient
Egypt. For example, the tropical zodiac used in India aligns with the constellations at about the
same time of Hipparchus at about 150BC, although this may well have been an astronomical

217
update of an earlier zodiac, as Thompson points out.6. As Thompson also indicates, ancient
Indian astronomical texts such as the Puranas, some of which date to around that time, contain
very much older material, some which can be dated by the location of the equinoxes at the time,
in one case to 2200BC. In fact, many such examples of early astronomical observations can be
derived from Indian texts [as will be demonstrated in Chapters 8 and 9]. One such example is
that the same zodiacal shapes, with the same animal characteristics and names within the Rg
Veda, which has now been seen by scholars to date to before 3000 BC, complies with the
Western zodiac of much later millennia.
In summary, while the celestial mechanics of the skies may not have been
comprehended in the distant past, the movements of the heavens were certainly well known, the
shapes in the sky were understood, were familiar… and their movements were recorded.
While it is accepted that Hipparchus had access to Babylonian data, it is not generally
thought [although some have argued otherwise] that he based his work on that of the
Babylonian astronomer Kiddinu, who was discussed earlier in Chapter 6, and who had
apparently evaluated precession some hundreds of years earlier [albeit inaccurately]. What is
clear is that Hipparchus stated that Eudoxus’s statement was in error at around 150BC, and it is
definitely known that he was in Alexandria in 146BC. So while Hipparchus would have been
aware of precession, it seems probable that he learnt more of the mechanics of the process
whilst in Egypt, and then set out to extend his knowledge by calculation. It is generally
accepted that he utilised at least some Babylonian records for this purpose.
We next turn to the knowledge of precession of another Classical Greek scholar
Eratosthenes, the third curator of the Great Library of Alexandria, a great store of knowledge
that existed in the latter days of ancient Egypt.

7.4 The North Ecliptic Pole

Maps and charts are one of the key themes of Measurements of the Gods, the authors’
overarching work behind Deluge, because they link the knowledge of the past to the present.
This nonetheless can be problematical. Here we are not referring necessarily to maps of earth
but of star charts. The ability to reasonable accurately denote where one is on Earth denotes
how accurately one can map what one is standing upon…Earth. Knowledge of astronomy is a
great help here and to this end we include a little of what was known, and what may have been
known.
Firstly at the time in question there was no star accurately at the North Celestial Pole.
The direction could be found by splitting the angle of the nearest circling star and likewise the
polar position could be ascertained. Hence one’s latitude could be calculated via the angle
from the northerly horizon to the polar position. Longitude would be been assessed in relation
to known locations on Earth, a mountain for example.
It has been suggested that the Pole of the Ecliptic was understood in ancient times. In
fact some are convinced of this. That its approximate position could have been discovered is
not in doubt, but we have to ask what may have prompted a search for this entity when the
Celestial Pole was that which visually all revolved around…Perhaps a bright astronomer
realised that all was not quite so straight forward after all and looked for a more effective

218
pivoting point…What can be said is that while we have no solid proof that its existence and
position were understood, there are indications that this was case.
But let us explore whether someone could have calculated what was happening in the
heavens. For example, working out the tilt of the Earth can be evaluated from most latitudes by
comparing the Sun’s position to the Celestial Equator at noon at the Solstices, but working it
out from Sunrise positions is very difficult at most latitudes. However, the effects of the tilt
and its relationship with Draconis can be easily seen at the Equator, as is demonstrated by
analysing the modern day diagrams in Figures 7.6 a) and b) below. But then, how does an
observer know that he is on the Equator? Ascertaining an equatorial position is actually quite
easy as at the Equinoxes, the Sun at Noon is vertically overhead – in other words, the plane of
the Ecliptic is overhead.
At the equator, the Sun rises about 23.5 degrees North or South of its easterly equinox
position at the solstices, thereby giving the value of the tilt of the Earth. It can be seen in
Figure 7.6 a) and b) that the line of the Ecliptic oscillates back and forth following Draconis.
On both diagrams, the Sun rises the same distance from Draconis, but comparing the
constellation’s position from one diagram to the next it can be seen that the ‘crook’ has moved
47 degrees in position. It has moved from one side of the North Celestial Pole to the other.
The perceived effect, therefore, is of Draconis pushing or pulling the Sunrise up and down the
horizon. The centre of Draconis’ twisting movement around the North Celestial Pole is then
the centre of the period between the two solstices, which is the equinox. The stable equilibrium
point is the Equinox that is between these extremities and therefore must be visually 23.5
degrees above the Celestial Pole. The diagrams below are set in the present day and Polaris is
at the North Celestial Pole [or rather, very close to it].
Logic tells us that this effect would have been noticeable in antiquity for those
observers at the equator. The line of the Ecliptic, which the zodiac, Sun, Moon and planets
follow, rises at different points along the horizon during the year at the Equator, as it does
elsewhere, but it is only at the former that the 23.5-degree oscillatory effect with Draconis is
clearly defined. Could perhaps someone have observed and recorded this? Such a concept is
not as remote as one may assume as knowledge in India was derived from equatorial
regions…as is very clearly demonstrated in the book Measurements of the Gods. Some
important early learning was derived from South Malaysia from where people moved out a in
number of directions, some to India to escape rising sea levels circa 8000BC.
However, it is not generally thought that there was knowledge of the North Ecliptic
Pole in the Old Kingdom of ancient Egypt. Arguments still ensue regarding knowledge of
precession in ancient Egypt an easily observable entity that is easily calculated. A star rising at
or adjacent to the line of the ecliptic will fall backwards half a degree, a full lunar diameter in
about 36 years. This simply had to have been noticed. It is also almost certain that the angle of
the ecliptic was known in antiquity, because it is the angular distance between the rising Sun at
the Solstices and the Equinox as seen in Figures 7.5c) and d) earlier. Indeed, we are well aware
that knowledge of the approximate 23.5 degree value existed long ago as it is seen in numerous
places in the ancient world, and even appears amongst the Megalithic circles and Standing
Stones of Europe. Whether understood in terms of degrees or not, it had been measured. This

219
also says much for the imaginative powers in the furtherance of scientific discovery of our
distant forbears.
Understanding of the North Ecliptic Pole nevertheless is a different matter, and
involves knowledge of the Earth’s orbit and tilt and there is no evidence that its presence was
known in Old Kingdom Egypt. On the other hand, Schwaller de Lubicz’s impression of a
spiralling view of the constellations around the pole reminds us of De Santillana’s concept in
Hamlet’s Mill of ‘a whirlpool in the sky’ 7, and indeed, this can be clearly be seen when running
modern astronomical simulation packages. But such a vision is far more obvious around a pole
star which was approximately in place in the early days of dynastic Egypt added to which
modern computer programs were not available in the ancient past, and it would take careful
observation of the skies and accurate recording over millennia to have sufficient information to
be able to analyse such movements

Polaris at
N
horizon Sunrise and
‘crook’ of Draconis Head of ecliptic
Draconis

Fig. 7.6a) Winter Solstice Sunrise from Equator looking North East
Sunrise 23.5 degrees South of Celestial Equator

220
 N E
The ‘crook’ of
Draconis Polaris at
horizon Sunrise and ecliptic

Fig. 7.6b) Summer Solstice sunrise from Equator looking North East. Sunrise 23.5
degrees North of Celestial Equator

Furthermore, the North Celestial Pole at the 30 degrees latitude of Giza is 30 degrees
above the horizon. The Pole of the Ecliptic is visually rotating about it, at an angle of 23.5
degrees giving a total of 53.5 degrees at midnight. It therefore appears that it is far more likely
that the source of the knowledge of the North Ecliptic Pole came from simpler observations
made at or near the Equator. From here the centre of rotation is 23.5 degrees above the
northern horizon which matches sunrise at the solstice at this location.
While we can construct illustrations to indicate what happens in the skies this does not
mean that the people living thousands of years ago necessarily understood what was observed,
indeed even noticed all of which we are aware today. Nonetheless, as will become apparent in
this work, much more was understood than is generally accepted and certainly precession
seems to have been appreciated long ago in India.
Conventional history would decry the possibility of the recorded observations seen
later in this work…yet recorded they were…long before the written word, recorded in oral
traditions until such time as writing became available.…It becomes blatently apparent apparent
that precession was understood far earlier than the historical Hipparchus of Nicea (190-120BC)
who is usually credited with its discovery and as stated above this is such an easy movement to
spot by a multitude of generations of observers of the heavens that it simply had to have been
noted. This does not mean that the celestial mechanics were understood but that the movements
were observed, noted and were predictable.
Some take this further and claim that the pole of the ecliptic was known and understood
as is seen in a statement from A. Bouche-Leclerq quoted by Giorgio De Santillana and Hertha
Von Dechend in Hamlet’s Mill, and further cited by Bauval. Here it is noted that,

221
 ‘It is well-known that the pole par excellence for the Chaldeans was the pole of the
ecliptic, which is in the constellation of the Dragon (Draconis)’.8
Bauval additionally cites Giorgio De Santillana and Hertha Von Dechend in Hamlet’s
Mill where it is stated that the ancients perceived the pole of the ecliptic as the centre of a ‘hole
in heaven’ a region that ‘has no star to mark it’ around which the constellations move
excruciatingly slowly. 9 The problem here is that we have no definitive dating for this
knowledge as ‘Chaldean’ may well mean 3000BC or earlier and no method for its calculation.
As was seen earlier, the Babylonian records were purely mathematical and to return to the
statement above from A. Bouche-Leclerq, there is a part refutation to its content from Dutch
historian Jona Lendering in an article titled Kidinnu, The Chaldaeans, And Babylonian
Astronomy which was cited earlier in this work:

‘It has been argued in the 1930's that Kidinnu also discovered the precession that is the slow
reorientation of the earth's axis. He was certainly in the position to discover this phenomenon.
In our age, the stars seem to rotate around the Pole Star, but in Kidinnu's age, the north pole of
heaven was somewhere halfway between the Little Bear and the Dragon…

…Kidinnu must have known that in the days of the legendary king Hammurabi (1792-1750),
the earth's axis was directed to a point inside the Dragon and he must have been able to
conclude that the axis of the earth was slowly changing its direction. However, there are no
indications that he really reached this conclusion, and the theory that Kidinnu discovered the
precession has now been abandoned’. 10

With this latter statement we disagree as the celestial pole position at that time was
almost at the end of the tail of Draconis whereas in 2800 it was Thuban in Draconis that was
Pole Star... further toward the head end of this celestial snake. It would have been noted that the
position was slipping down the length of Draconis…
Apart from his astronomical and mathematical prowess and achievements, all that is
known about Kidinnu is that he lived during the fourth century BC. But let us explore whether
Kidinnu or perhaps someone even earlier could have calculated what was happening in the
heavens. For example, working out the tilt of the Earth can be evaluated from most latitudes by
comparing the Sun’s position to the Celestial Equator at noon at the Solstices, its declination,
but working it out from Sunrise positions is very difficult at most latitudes. Whether the
celestial equator played a part in ancient astronomy is uncertain, the ability existed to record
observations in this fashion but we know of no evidence that indicates that the practise was
utilised. However, the effects of the tilt and its relationship with Draconis can be easily seen at
the Equator, as is demonstrated in Figures 7.6 a) and b).

7.5 Precession and Ancient Egypt

It was noted earlier that precession affects zodiacs and calendars and is particularly
noticeable at the equinoxes, where the Sun’s position and its consequent apparent drift against
the background stars can be easily seen over timescales in the high tens of years. As a

222
consequence of this, it would appear logical to make the assumption that knowledge of
precession existed in antiquity.
Given the apparent ease with which precession could be noticed [if not understood] in
antiquity, it is perhaps surprising that Bauval says that there is ‘an angry heated debate’ going
on between archaeologists and other researchers over whether the Ancient Egyptians had any
knowledge of precession at all. Yet early Egyptian Pharaonic religion was possibly more
stellar-related than later evolutions of the form, and early Dynastic priests were avid observers
of the skies, as Bauval himself relates:

… ‘it would have been unlikely for a people like the ancient Egyptians, who were very keen
and avid observers of the sky and stars, not to be aware of the precessional shift, even though
they might not have understood its underlying cause or have been able to compute it
mathematically 11 …

In 1894 the British astronomer, Sir Norman Lockyer (1836-1920), the 'father of
archaeoastronomy', brought further evidence in support of this view in his book The Dawn of
Astronomy (1894), when he demonstrated that the ancient Egyptians' aligned their temples to
stars rising in the east… and often changed the alignment of the temple in order to take into
account the drift caused by precession. Athough Lockyer was largely ignored by the
Egyptologists, a century later the same findings were reported by the American astronomer
R.A. Wells for temples such as the Satet temple of Isis on Elephantine Island in Upper Egypt. 12

So, even in the 19th century, it seems that some scholars worthy of their positions were
well aware that the ancient Egyptians had discovered the celestial backward drift in the rising
of the stars, 1 degree in 72 years, easily visible in a few generations. However as Bauval again
relates, it was not until 1964, that Lockyer's findings prompted the well-known American
university professor at MIT, Giorgio de Santillana [co-author of Hamlets Mill] to conclude that:

‘When a stellar temple is oriented so accurately that it requires several reconstructions at

intervals of a few centuries, which involved each time the rebuilding of its narrow alignment on
a star, and the wrecking of the main symmetry that goes with it; when Zodiacs, like that of
Denderah, are deliberately depicted in the appearance they would have had centuries before,
as if to date the changes, then it is not reasonable to suppose the Egyptians were unaware of
the precession of the equinoxes, even if their mathematics was unable to predict it numerically.
Lockyer let the facts speak for themselves, but it is he who has given the proof. Actually, the
Egyptians do describe the Precession, but in a language usually written off as mythological or
religious.’ 13

Here is evidence of following the lateral movements of stars over a long period as they
rise and hence of observation and a following in the line of the buildings, of the precessional
movements. Many researchers assert that the mythology of ancient Egypt confirms what de
Santillana said, and note in particular, references to 72 and 360 in religious texts. 72 x 360 is
equivalent to the 25,920 year precessional cycle as seen in antiquity, although it can conversely

223
be argued that these values would be a product of the sexagesimal system and canonical
numeration. Nonetheless, we have no doubt that the effects of precession were understood at
least at the time of the building of the first pyramids in ancient Egypt but it is not clear that the
celestial mechanics were understood until much later.

7.6 The Zodiac of Denderah

The Zodiac of Denderah is a drawing/engraving depicting the Northern Celestial

Hemisphere that was located at the temple of Hathor in Denderah, Egypt. It dates to the Late
Ptolemaic or Hellenistic Period. This is similar to other Egyptian zodiacs in that it is late, as
they originated in that period and the Roman period that followed it. The temple was used
primarily for the celebration of the New Year, and the zodiac was situated in the ceiling in a
middle room of the small eastern Osiris chapel located on the roof of the structure. The Zodiac
of Denderah is essentially comprised of two concentric circles and the entire disk is
approximately 240cm or 94.48818898 British inches in diameter, with a circumference [within
0.06 of a British inch] of 259.2 Short Egyptian inches, most suitably replicating the
precessional period as seen in the sky. The circular inner star map is approximately 150cm in
diameter, which appears to be a symbolic replication at 51.5454545inches of the internal length
of Noah’s Ark, a value seen within the confines of the pyramid of Khufu. The inner diameter is
1/1.6 of the outer, larger diameter with a circumference of 162 Short Egyptian inches and a
thickness quoted as being approximately 90cm. Within 0.2 of an inch this thickness complies
35.2 inches or a step measure associated with Noah.
The total weight of the two blocks of sandstone that make up this first known carved
physical representation of a zodiac is many tons. It is thought by Egyptologists that
construction began on the temple of Hathor about 125BC, finishing about 60BC with the
Zodiac of Denderah being added later between 36BC and 30BC. However, there is some
debate about its discovery as Gary D. Thompson explains:

‘Accounts differ as to who discovered the Denderah circular zodiac. One source states it was
discovered in 1798 by Louis Chastel, a captain of dragoons. Another source states it was first
discovered in 1799 by Napoleon's General Louis Desaix when he was pursuing the remnants of
Murad-Bey's army across the Thebaid. It would seem that Napoleon's troops reached
Denderah on 25th May 1799. (The French artist Dominique Denon was the first to make a
drawing of the Denderah planisphere. He was commissioned by General Louis Desaix to do
such (for the Description de l'Egypte). In 1820 it was redrawn by Dominique Denon's
compatriot the Italian scientist Girolamo Segato.) ...
... The British consul Henry Salt had attempted to acquire it for the British Museum but the
French antiquities collector Sebastian Saulnier employed a French engineer, Jean Lelorrain,
to remove the sandstone slab (and he carefully used gun powder to blow holes in the temple
roof) and arrange its transport to France by ship.’ 14

224
 In 1821, the original sandstone work was removed to Paris from Denderah being
shown to the public until King Louis XVIII bought it for the sum of 150,000 francs. The king
had it put on show in the royal library [which later became the Bibliothéque Nationale], from
where, in 1919 it was moved to the Louvre Museum, Paris, its original French display location.
Only a plaster replica, modelled on the original zodiac, is now in the ceiling of the Osiris
chapel at the Denderah temple. Gary Thompson states that the Zodiac of Denderah is

‘The first appearance in Egypt of our own 12 zodiacal constellations’

Norman Lockyer’s depiction of the zodiacal markings is included for reference in Fig 7.7
below.

Fig.7.7 The Zodiac of Denderah [after Lockyer]

Thompson then discusses the source of the Zodiac of Denderah, which we will not
comment on here other than to say, in common with other commentaries upon early astronomy,
like most researchers, an Indian input to astronomy is not mentioned. But we shall see in later
chapters that the concept of the zodiac that was later adopted by Western cultures is much
earlier than the below mentioned sources.

225
‘All available evidence indicates that the concept of the zodiac was not native to Egypt but that
it was imported at a late [but unknown] date. [Perhaps during the period of the expansion of
the Assyrian Empire.] The Denderah star map integrates ancient Egyptian star-groups with
the zodiacal constellations of the Babylonians (and Greeks). The Babylonian zodiac has been
integrated into the Egyptian sky. [The French Egyptologist Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt
has argued for an Egyptian origin of the zodiacal signs. She connects them with the cycle of
the Sun and Osiris.] The constellation figures outside the zodiac [except the Southern Fish,
which was regarded as part of the Waterman] are Egyptian. [The identity of most of the other
(purely Egyptian) constellation symbols remains unknown.]’ 15

Thompson’s detailed description of the Zodiac of Denderah is interesting but outside the direct
context of Deluge. It is his comment in relation to the discussion of the North Celestial Pole
and North Ecliptic Pole that is of interest to us here: ‘The figure of the Hippopotamus is in the
centre. [One controversial view is that a mark on the breast of the Hippopotamus identifies the
north ecliptic pole.]’ 16
In keeping with this hypothesis, Bauval states that R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz
demonstrates that the astronomical arrangements of the circumpolar and zodiacal constellations
at the centre of the circular Denderah Zodiac show both the North Ecliptic Pole as well as the
North Celestial Pole.
‘The zodiac [of Denderah] is a circle at the centre of which is our north pole... our north pole is
correctly located in the constellation of the jackal, or Little Bear (Ursa Minor), as it was at the
time the zodiac was carved, sometime about the first century BC. But the zodiac also shows the
pole of the ecliptic, located in the breast of the hippopotamus, or constellation of Draconis. To
Schwaller this explains the spiral formation of the constellations. The mythological figures are
entwined in two circles --one around the North Pole and one around the pole of the ecliptic.
Where these two circles intersect marks the point of the equinox, or due east. The zodiac thus
becomes a calendar going back to remote antiquity’ 17
There had been a driver behind a search for astronomical knowledge in the past, a
necessity to understand the movements of the Pole Stars and their relationships to the remainder
of the heavens. It would seem that slowly, over the millennia, the knowledge seen just before
the time of Christ was developed and accumulated and from the information given in this
chapter so far, there can be no doubt that the precession of the equinoxes was very well
understood by the time of the construction of the Denderah Zodiac. Regarding knowledge of
the Northern Ecliptic Pole, the balance of probabilities seems to suggest that in the last few
hundred years of ancient Egypt the mechanics of its relationship to precession were understood.
Previous to this, there was an awareness of precession and the 72 years per degree relationship
in Egypt but this knowledge does not seem to have developed into a sort of celestial
precessional zodiac until much later.

226
Fig. 7.8 The dark-lined circle has its centre at the North Celestial Pole. The faint-lined circle
has its centre at the North Ecliptic Pole. Where the circles intersect are to be found the
equinoxes. The North Celestial Pole and the Vernal Equinox will drift with time, denoted by
the other small circles, but the North Ecliptic Pole will remain fixed. [After Bauval and
Schwaller de Lubicz]

227
Fig. 7.9 The Denderah Zodiac by Schwaller de Lubicz has the North Ecliptic Pole on the breast
of the Hippopotamus [Egyptian version of Draconis] constellation, and the North Celestial Pole
at the front feet of the Upuaut/Fox constellation [Ursa Minor].

7.7 The Pole Star and the Flood

Eudoxus of Cnidus [circa. 400-347 BC, a student of Plato] claimed that,

' there is a certain star which always remains at the same spot'

This appears to be a little odd, as at the time there was no Pole Star. But Thompson
notes that Eudoxus may have been following a tradition [although one wonders why] dating
backwards to the time when Thuban was at the pole; a tradition that was mirrored in the Indian
Puranas, compositions that contain information dating to an even earlier period than that of
Dynastic Egypt [See Chapters 8 and 9]. Thompson also relates that both a fixed Pole Star, and
one that abruptly shifts, are present in Indian tradition.18 There is a cautionary note here that
should be taken into account by students of ancient astronomy and legend. If Thompson is
correct, then Eudoxus was speaking of past events in the present tense implying that what was

228
past and gone is present and ongoing unless, of course, he was speaking in an allegorical
manner, meaning that there is a fixed point in the sky. But if this were the case, there is no
indication of what that fixed point may be.
It is not just the location of the Pole Star that is affected by precession. Once every
2160 years, [approximately] the constellations precess backwards by one constellation,
equivalent to 1 degree every 72 years. Von Dechand and de Santillana, although agreeing in
principal with the pole star theory, maintain in their acclaimed work Hamlets Mill that the idea
of a violent shift in the heavens relates to the time of this zodiacal change, 19 these authors
suggest that the Precession of the Equinoxes was well known in antiquity [with which we
agree]. But they also claim that this relates to catastrophe in the heavens as constellations rise
and sink in the Cosmic Ocean [which they defined as the space below the Celestial Equator ], a
concept that gives rise to the universal flood legends around the world.
We do not agree with Von Dechand and de Santillana regarding the latter view,
because as seen earlier, legends relating to a Great Flood seem to point to a real event, possibly
in addition to some abstract concept, something that Thompson also notes when he quotes the
traveller Sir William Jones who wrote, in 1801, about a flood story he obtained in China.:

‘The Chinese believe the Earth to have been wholly covered with water, which, in
works of undisputed authenticity, they describe as flowing abundantly, then subsiding
and separating the higher from the lower ages of mankind…’The pillars of heaven were
broken; the Earth was shaken to its very foundations; the heavens sunk lower to the
north; the Sun, Moon and stars changed their motions; the Earth fell to pieces, and the
waters enclosed within its bosom burst forth with violence and overflowed it’ 20

We now examine two Indian quotations regarding flood myths and their relevance to
the Pole Star. The first is the gate quote to this chapter from the Maitri Upanishad 1-4.

There is the drying up of great oceans, the falling away of mountain peaks, the deviation
of the fixed pole star, the cutting of the wind cords [of the stars], the submergence of the
earth, the retreat of the celestials from their station. 21

This verse was, according to conventional historical thinking, written long after Thuban
was Pole Star, and yet it emphasises the Pole Star argument, and not the Hamlet’s Mill type of
idea, that of zodiacal constellation displacement being the cause of disaster. Specifically, we
note that:

i) If the oceans had dried, what is the flood? Certainly not a physical one on Earth.
ii) There is admittance here that the Pole Star had been displaced.
iii) The interconnection between all the items in this verse means that not only are the
concepts of a flood and the Pole Star displacement inter-linked, but there is also
planetary displacement due to the cutting of ‘wind cords’ which have also been
translated as ‘mooring lines’.

229
 The second quotation is from The Markandeya Purana:

‘While the Sun, which was the centre of the worlds, was whirling around, the Earth with it’s
oceans, mountains and forests mounted up into the sky, and the whole heavens with the Moon,
planets and stars went downwards, and were tossed together and confused...
... And all creatures also were scattered about with the waters out of the ocean; lofty hills were
shattered to pieces, their summits and roots were torn asunder. The supports of the pole, all
the asterisms, oh best of munis, with their bands and foundations splitting, went downwards in
thousands. 22

i) This description of a flood event is similar to many Northern European versions of the
legend. These often refer to ‘mooring lines’ being cut and / or of ‘foundations
splitting’ which seems to indicate the ‘mill’ aspect of circular motion being lost.
ii) The supports of the Pole were lost.
iii) All that were attached to the Pole went downward, the mooring lines no longer being in
place.
iv) The above verse is a more elaborate version of the earlier legend.

Comparing the Indian quotes above with Sir William Jones’s account from China
earlier, there are a number of similarities. We can see a reference in the Chinese account to
‘the heavens sunk lower in the North’ whilst the second Indian account talks about ‘whole
heavens with the Moon, planets and stars went downwards.’ Similarly, the Chinese account
refers to the Earth ‘falling to pieces’ whilst the Indian text speaks of the ‘lofty hills were
shattered to pieces’. There seems to be two interconnected strands running through these
accounts, one relating to the precession-based pole shift: [Pillars of Heaven were
broken…and…The supports of the pole… went downwards in thousands], and the other
apparently relating to physical flooding: [waters… burst forth with violence and overflowed
it…and …scattered about with the waters out of the ocean].
We can therefore claim that emerging from this limited study of precession and ancient
texts is the concept that in at least some areas of the ancient world, the loss of a Pole Star is
associated with the fear of a Great Flood, the most pervasive of all world myths and legends.
It also should be noted that it is a legend that is also common amongst cultures that did not live
by the sea. How did this fear of a Celestial Flood, come about? We need to look much deeper
into the past to find an answer, to a time when the world really started to flood, at around the
time of the end of the last Ice Age, some 13,000 years ago.
For virtually all of the timescale of modern humanity, humankind had known the last
Ice Age, and the various climates it had brought around the world. Possibly precession had not
been noticed [something we think unlikely] or had concluded it had little to do with world
affairs. But about 13,000 years ago, a few centuries after the Pole Star Vega left its position
near the hub of the Northern sky, the climate around the world started to change, a process that
continued in a stop and start manner, creating very dramatic changes in climate and sea levels

230
until after 4000BC. In some locations, changes to the geography of the planet were created that
will last until the depths of the next Ice Age, whenever that occurs.
The ‘End Cycle’ of the last Ice Age began about around 11000BC and produced wild
variations in global climate for well over three thousand years. These conditions would have
resulted, at times, in ice melts producing severe floods in many parts of the world, and it is
noted that South-East Asia, specifically the region known as Sundaland, would have been one
of them. At around 8000BC, the ice sheets finally permanently receded in the Northern
Hemisphere, and then began a worldwide rise in sea level that would continue for four
thousand years [with some intermissions as seen in Figure 7.12 a little later].
As Vega moved further and further away from its position adjacent to the North
Celestial Poles, sea-level rise and attendant climatic change intensified. It is easy to imagine
that in the minds of any stargazers of remote antiquity, a connection would be made between
adverse world events – particularly those concerning floods, and the state of the Heavens. In
the coastal regions of the world where many people lived, they started experiencing the
devastation of flooding, the product of a net rise in the sea level. A factor heightening this
awareness would have been the loss of Vega, [known in modern times as Alpha Lyrae] the
third brightest star in the Northern sky, from its Polar position. Science now knows much
about Vega, the Swooping Eagle or Al Nasr al Waki in Arabic. [In fact, Vega was the first star
to be photographed in 1850. 23] The movements of Vega have actually been noted in many
places, including ancient Egypt, where it was known as the Vulture Star. This can only date the
time of this observation of Vega to when it was exhibiting a circling motion around the North
Celestial Pole, in other words to about 14,000 - 10,000 years ago. The Swooping Eagle
description places this naming to about 6800 BC when Vega, viewed from around latitude 30
degrees North, would have been seen to ‘swoop’ down to the horizon, a different visualisation
to that denoted by the movements of vultures.
[It is noted that the latitude here is that of Cairo, approximately that of Jerusalem,
Merhgarh in India and another location that shall be examined later this work, Mount Kailash,]
This was a time before the astronomers of Nabta Playa 24 [a Mesolithic prehistoric culture in
Southern Egypt] when the Western Sahara region of Egypt was even drier than today and as far
as is generally known was not populated. However, the vulture is a resident of Southern [or
Upper] Egypt as well as the drier regions of India.
The vulture was ancient Egypt’s symbolic icon, so it can be initially surmised that the
motion of Vega around the North Celestial Pole was compared with the circling characteristics
of the vulture somewhere in the Indic East and the name derived from this adhered to the star
when a later cultural transmission from India to Egypt took place. The alternative to this idea is
that either in Egypt or somewhere to the South within central Africa, the same observation had
been made. It would then be from this region that the transmission into Egypt occurred. It is
interesting to note the difference in descriptions applied to this star. The Egyptians term it the
‘vulture star’ while the Arabic version is that of the eagle connotation. Yet the vulture circles
while both searching for food and in its descent to a meal while the eagle swoops down onto its
prey. The vulture description is therefore closer to the time when Vega was in its position
adjacent to the celestial pole, say 10000-12000 years ago and not, as described by the swooping
eagle, that of around 6800 BC. Here therefore is evidence, via a descriptive name for a star that

231
indicates that observational astronomy has a much greater antiquity than has previously been
accepted by scholars. This element of our past will be further demonstrated in later chapters
via documentary evidence in the form of Indian texts recording very precise and specific
astronomical observations.
For observers in some parts of the world, the association of the movements of the
Northern Pole Star, which at that time was the third brightest star in the night skies with
flooding, would be accentuated by the behaviour of its counterpart in the Southern skies, the
brilliant star Canopus. Unlike the Northern hemisphere, the importance of the Southern
Celestial Pole does not relate to a particular Pole Star, possibly because one was not needed, as
its position was always indicated by the movements of this stellar orb. Although not close to
the South Celestial Pole, the track of Canopus through the heavens always gives a good
indication of the Southerly direction, and the Pole itself.
Canopus, or Alpha Carina to give it its astronomical name, is the second brightest star
in the sky [for the technically minded it has a stellar magnitude of - 0.72]. Even in modern
times, Canopus is an interesting celestial body. According to the Hipparcos satellite it is 310
light years from Earth and is at least 30,000 times brighter than our Sun and the most powerful
star within 700 light years or so from Earth. Canopus is much more luminous, intrinsically,
than the only star that appears brighter than it from the Earth, Sirius the Dog Star, which is a
mere 22 times more luminous than our Sun and depends on being much closer to us to beat its
rival. In fact, for a large fraction of stars in the local stellar neighbourhood, Canopus is the
‘brightest star in the sky’. Because of its distance away from us, Canopus is like the Northern
Pole Stars – its real movement through space is not historically detectable to the naked eye,
something that is not true when considering Sirius. Consequently, because of its stability and
its position away from the orbital plane of our Solar System [the latter being in contrast to
Sirius' position], Canopus is often used by American space probes for navigational purposes,
using a special camera known as a Canopus Star Tracker in combination with a Sun Tracker. 25
According to what has been called ‘a touchstone of stellar mythology,’ namely Richard
Hinckley Allen's, Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning the name Canopus has two common
derivations, with scholars undecided as to which is correct, possibly it is a mixture of the two.
The first of these comes from the legend of the Trojan War. Canopus was the chief pilot of
Menelaus's ship on his quest to retrieve Helen of Troy after she was taken by Paris. 26 The other
possible etymological source of the name is that it comes from the Egyptian Coptic language
which termed the star Kahi Nub or ‘Golden Earth.’ This term refers to the way Canopus would
appear when it was near the horizon as seen from Egypt, when it would be correspondingly
reddened by the thickened atmosphere at that position in the sky.
Allusions to Canopus in every age indicate that everywhere it was an important star,
especially in the desert where it was known as the Ship of the Desert. There it was a great
favourite, giving rise to many of the proverbs of the Arabs, their stories and superstitions and
was supposed to impart the much-prized colour to their precious stones, in addition to
immunity from disease, and as was noted earlier, Canopus actually really served as a major
navigational star - an alternate name being as the Lighthouse of the Universe.
In a general way in antiquity and even in later times, Canopus served as a Southern
Pole Star. It was also was used in ancient astronomy; Posidonius of Alexandria, in about the

232
middle of the 3rd century BC, utilized Canopus in his ‘attempt’ to measure a degree on the
Earth's surface. The Arabs meanwhile, knew Canopus as, Suhail, or Suhel, the ‘Plain’ – the
word also was a personal title in Arabia, as being the symbol of what is brilliant, glorious and
beautiful and applied to a handsome person. Amongst the Persians, Suhail is a synonym of
wisdom, seen in the well-known Al Anwar i Suhaili, the Lights of Canopus and referred to wise
thought, and the brilliance of the mind. The Classical Greeks called it the Rudder, ‘The
slackened rudder has been placed beneath the hind-feet of the Dog.’ [Ancient ships had a
rudder on each side of the stem, in one of which Canopus generally was figured, thus differing
from the modern maps that locate it in the bank of oars]. The Hindus called Canopus Agastya.
There is a traditional legend associated with Agastya, who was a great sage or rishi who has
definitive connections to Deluge and specifically to this chapter:

‘Agastya was a great rishi and although he was short, he was immensely strong. His wife
Lopamudra was a princess. When Lord Siva married Parvati at Kailasha, all men and women
went to Kailasha in the north to attend the marriage. [Note the reference here to Mount
Kailash, in Tibet, whose importance in the overall explanation of the Deluge will become
evident in Chapter 8] This created problems because the weight on Kailasha became so heavy
that the earth here appeared to sink while its other end seemed to tilt upward. Siva at once sent
Agastya to the south to balance the weight. On his 'way to the south, the Vindhya, a mountain,
stood in his way. Agastya requested the mountain to bend as low as possible because he was a
short man. It bent and waited for his return from the south. Agastya settled in the south and
never returned to the north; and so the Vindhya has always been a low mountain…Rishi
Agastya developed the Tamil language. He also wrote many sastras in Sanskrit. He has his
ashrama in the Malaya hills of the south, and people say he is still alive.’ 27

Other tales of a similar nature exist regarding Agastya, who some sources claim is a
manifestation of Agni [fire]. The Sanskrit word Agastya means ‘he who balanced the Kailasha
mountain with his weight’. The relevance of the above reference to Canopus, will become
evident a little later. The S'rîmad Devî Bhâgawatam Chapter VII ,On the checking of the rise of
the Bindhya Range, [see Swami Vijñanananda 1921-22 translation on Sacred Texts CD or
Website] relates a different version of the tale of Agastya moving to the South and yet other
variations on the same theme exist. There seems to be little doubt that this Southward
movement of Agastya or Canopus was noted in myth in Indian tradition.
[Note: It can also be said that Canopus seems to have been important in the Middle
East since the time of the Egyptian New Kingdom. This period, according to conventional
history, was the first time in ancient Egypt that there is evidence of direct contact with ancient
India. However, as will be seen in the next chapter, it is certain that there were much earlier
Indic influences into Egyptian religion than those seen in the New Kingdom.]
It is not the astronomy contained in the Indian texts that is of importance in assessing
the influence of Canopus in the study of the Great Deluge. We have to look back thousands of
years further to reveal the cause of consternation regarding this star, to a time when Canopus
shared a distinction with Vega as hinted at above. What is not generally appreciated is that
when Vega was the Pole Star, Canopus occupied the same place in the Southern skies. Not as

233
close as Vega perhaps, never going nearer than 8 degrees to the South Celestial Pole, but a
significant event nonetheless because as when Vega started to move away from its polar
position, so did Canopus. [This change is visually depicted in Figures 7.10 and 7.11].
To an observer who could see both poles this would be a momentous and unique event
in the precessional cycle of 25,920 years. There are implications to this correspondence of the
loss of Pole Stars at both celestial poles simultaneously. This stellar view can only be seen at
or close to the Equator. With this statement, we look back to the legend of Agastya seen
above, as it appears to have a very close affinity to the visual loss of these stars from their
positions.
Even in Egypt this stellar phenomenon could not have been seen, and so the concept of
Mount Meru [explained in Chapter 8] embodying both Pole Stars cannot have come from
Egypt, or from the North of India, Turkey, Tibet or other Northern latitudes. The concept has
to date from a time at or adjacent to the Equator over 11,000 years ago, as there is nowhere else
it could have developed.

Vega

Fig. 7.10 Vega viewed from the Equator at 9998BC.[Maximum altitude = 11.27 degrees, about
6.3 degrees difference to nearest position to The North Celestial Pole in 12200 BC]

234
 Canopus

Fig. 7.11Canopus viewed from the Equator at 9998BC. (Maximum altitude 13.5 degrees, an
increase of over 3 degrees since 12200BC when it was nearest the South Celestial Pole.)

The above unique stellar event would have been particularly remembered because the
loss of two of the brightest three stars of the night sky, in a ‘celestial flood’ coincided with real
terrestrial flood events, possibly very violent inundations in a region of the South-East of Asia
that is known in today as Sundaland.
In fact, all three of the brightest stars of the night sky were involved in this shifting of
the heavens, as Sirius has a stellar relationship with Canopus. Viewed to the South, they both
appear to move in parallel. As noted above, although not close to the South Celestial Pole, the
track of Canopus through the heavens always gives a good indication of the southerly direction,
and the pole itself. As Sirius is much nearer the Celestial Equator than Canopus, this possibly
explains the Indic Puranic reference earlier ‘whole heavens with the Moon, planets and stars
went downwards.’ In effect, the whole of the stellar axis of the heavens was thought to be
being twisted ‘downwards’ around this time and the Moon and the planets were entering new
and unfamiliar constellations.
The quotation regarding Agastya appears to be a reference to the apparent loss of
Canopus at the same time as Vega was moving rapidly out of position.
Canopus, however, does not move as far from its celestial pole as do the various North
Polar Stars and this legend probably stems, as astronomically and mythically indicated, from a
period before Tau Hercules [the next Pole Star after Vega]. It was then realised that Canopus
appeared to have approximately stabilised, in other words Agastya ‘was keeping things under
control’ and had ceased his northward movement. Interestingly, the implication of Agastya
still living in the Malaya hills of the South is a close approximation of the direction of rise
above the horizon of Canopus today as seen from India.
While researching the history of Canopus, apart from the mythologies mentioned here,
we often came across the assertion that ‘tradition claims that Canopus was the pilot of Osiris’.
In addition, it was said that the ship Argo was seen in many cultures as a sort of stellar

235
representation of an Ark, an idea that of course reminds us of Noah. What is particularly
intriguing about this legend is that most authorities state that there are no flood legends in
Egypt. As has been seen earlier, we are not the first to have found that this assertion is not true
at all, but it is still surprising that most Egyptologists ignore these traditions.
To the ancient mind and in an ancient lifetime, the precessional movements of Vega,
Canopus, the polar stars and the constellations of the Ecliptic were not understood as they are
today. Yet in the Northern hemisphere Vega, around which the other constellations visually
circled, was moving out of place and this apparent change in the pivot of the heavens coincided
with watery disaster. Surely, there was a connection here between the state of the heavens and
the state of the Earth?
The floods and climatic changes that wrought havoc at the end of the Ice age, which
were specifically associated with the loss of Vega as the Pole Star in the Northern hemisphere
seemingly became indelibly etched in folk memory. The fear of flooding and changes in
climate, and hence the ability to produce the essentials of life, were never far away. This state
of affairs was to last a long time, up to the so-called ‘beginning of civilisation’ about 3000BC.
In India this period of the late 4th millennium BC was also one of great geological
upheaval causing even greater mayhem in the region. The effects of floods, climatic change
and earthquake were never far away from the thoughts of many people in diverse regions. It is
not surprising that such events were almost certainly seen, as the Biblical text typically relates,
as the result of the displeasure of God or the ‘gods’.
But before that epoch of around 3000BC, which itself heralded the onset of Thuban in
Draconis as a new Pole Star, there had been another Pole Star, Tau Hercules and something
else, something unexpected and welcome that was recorded. If we examine Figure 7.15, it
seems that the climate coincidentally followed what could be termed a Pole Star and No Pole
Star cycle. [For reasons that will become apparent later we have generally called a star a ‘Pole
Star’ when it is within 3 degrees of the North Celestial Pole, with the exception of Vega where
we have allowed 5 degrees.]
Around 8100BC, Tau Hercules arrived at three degrees from the polar position. This
‘event’ coincidentally corresponded, due to a change in climate, to a turndown in flooding
which happened approximately 2-300 years after Tau Hercules was at its peak in 7600BC.
This relationship may have reminded ancient skywatchers of handed-down stories relating the
events that followed Vega moving outwards from its 5-degree proximity of the polar position
and the flood’s commencement, although we do not know how accurately the skies were
measured in those far off days and so cannot say with certainty whether this was seen as a
demarcation line.
The relief from flooding was not to last and once more, just other side of 6000 BC with
Tau Hercules now well away from the pole position the floods recommenced - with a
vengeance. With the loss of the Pole Star there again there was a flood – the unrelenting rise
of the apparently insatiable sea occurred when a Pole Star was not in place. The loss of the
Pole Star, in the minds of these ancient skywatchers, meant that there would be continuing
floods and devastation. It is easy to see how this causal link came about and how it would
affect ancient religions. The resulting religious construct that came out of this linkage is
introduced in the next section. It is the basis of all the resulting argument in Deluge.

236
Fig. 7.12 Four Different Flood Levels from Different Beaches

7.8 Seven Pole Stars

So strongly had the concept of Great Floods being associated with the loss of a Pole
Star been etched in the minds of numerous cultures, it appears that a canonical value for ‘Pole
Star periods’ became a standard, even though the periods do in fact vary considerably. In
addition, at probably the same time, the positions of Seven stars that appeared close to the
North Celestial during the precessional cycle were assessed. The main assertions of Deluge
relate to the above two statements, which we will expand on a little, in reverse order.

i) As suggested by Massey, about a hundred years ago, it is these Seven Pole Stars that
are at the root of flood mythology [they are discussed in detail a little later]. As discussed in
Chapter 13, Massey was convinced that this mythology predated known ancient Egypt, but he
thought that it came from a more ancient Egyptian civilisation than is now known to have
existed. In fact, as shall be seen in later chapters it actually came from a more ancient India.
ii) Massey suspected that there was a canonical value involved with these Seven Pole
Stars but did not discover it. 28 In Deluge we assert that as the time taken for approach and
departure to and from the polar position was seen as 500 years in each case, then this period
was taken to be 1000 years with a 3,600-year intervening epoch.

237
 Before the above ‘Seven Pole Stars’ are analysed it is worth considering something that
Massey made much of. This is the incidence of the number 7, a common important factor in
ancient texts.

The Importance of Seven

Massey considered that the repeated references to seven in ancient mythologies and
religions [including Plato’s Atlantis texts] were coded allusions to an overarching religious
context of the ‘Seven Pole stars’ scenario, for example in the extract below:

‘…Here then, if anywhere on earth, we find a geographical prototype for the Atlantis that was
lost in seven islands, according to the records kept by the astronomers, which are preserved in
the mythography. Among the many types of the heptanomis and its septenary of powers and
stations of the pole may be enumerated: — A mount with seven caves; seven islands in the sea;
the seven-headed serpent whelmed beneath the waters; a tree with seven branches; a fish with
seven fins; a pole with seven horns; a cross with seven arms; the seven supporting giants; the
ark of seven cubits; the boat with seven kabiri on board; the group of seven cities…’ 29

To the above can be added the Seven main stars of the star cluster Pleiades, which
seems to have an inordinate importance in Middle Eastern ancient mythologies as was
demonstrated in Chapter 6. In more northern cultures such as those of the Mesolithic North
American Plains Indians and in northern Neolithic Turkey we see a reference to the Seven stars
of the Great Bear or Ursa Major. A notable other example is the Hebrew Minorah [seen in
Chapter 5] whose ‘sacred’ version has Seven candlestands. The list is endless and even extends
into the Lucky Seven of today.
It would be easy to get carried away with all the above, but we feel that the true root of
the ‘importance of Seven’ is more subtle and complex. For a start, as discussed in the next two
chapters, the role of seven as a quarter of a lunar month was known in ancient India before the
advent of flood mythology there around 3200BC. Indeed, this importance probably extends
back into the depths of the Upper Paleolithic, long before any of the scenarios discussed in this
chapter. Depictions of another important northern constellation – the Seven stars of the
constellation of the Hunter or Orion are also thought to stem from that very period. It should
also not be forgotten that there are seven major wanderers against the fixed stars – the Sun,
Moon and the five visible planets Mars, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
We suggest that long before the Seven Pole Stars and Deluge mythologies came into
being, Seven was already seen as being associated with the Creator/God or the Gods
[depending on the society in question], as so many major features of the heavens were
associated with that value. Indeed, this has to be the case, as the seven Pole Stars in the ‘polar
circle’ are by no means obvious, even in skies not polluted by the artificial lights of today. In
fact, the authors only elucidated that there were seven Pole Stars involved, rather than some
other number, after an analysis of the Indic texts and the 14 Manu’s [discussed in Chapter 9].

238
 Seven then was a mystic number, whose importance became even more evident when
factorial pi was discovered – 22/7, whose relationship with the hemisphere of the heavens
became obvious to those ancient sky-watchers, probably priests or the like. This raises one
other discussion point.
The Seven Pole Stars and Deluge mythology is not immediately obvious from the
religious texts that have been discussed in Deluge so far and while clearer in the ancient Indic
texts, is even there by no means easy to elucidate. The mythology is not generally known –
only Massey in a rare work [until recently] specifically mentions it. The conclusion [echoed in
Chapters 4 and 5] is that this mythology was not known or practised by the general public but
was reserved for the senior priesthood [or certain Shamans] and those kings that were
worshipped as gods, such as the Egyptian pharaohs. If this was not the case than the content of
Deluge would have been published long ago.

Seven Pole Stars – A Detailed Analysis

Let us now look at the derivation of the Seven Pole Stars concept in more detail.

Table 7.1 Seven Pole Stars : Dates

Name Date Period from Period to Proximity

Polaris(Ursa Minor) 2100 AD 1600 AD 2600 AD 0.5 degree
Thuban (Draconis) 2800 BC 3300 BC 2300 BC 0.5 degree
Tau (Hercules) 7600 BC 7100 BC 8100BC 0.75 degree
Vega (Lyra) 12000 BC Outside three degree limit 4.7 degrees
Delta (Cygnus) 14200 BC 13800 BC 14570 BC 2.2 degrees
Alderamin Cepheus) 18200 BC 17850 BC 18540 BC 2.4 degrees
Errai (Cepheus) 21500 BC 21200 BC 22030 BC 2.0 degrees

[Authors Note: Given the early dates of some of these positions, the dates derived from
Skyglobe [used in this case where generally the Skymap series of programs has been utilised]
would possibly not be accurate to the year. Consequently, we have rounded up or down to the
nearest decade.]
They were computed, probably using some sort of wheel shaped sighting device, from
a view of the sky similar to that as seen in Figure 7.17.
[Note: This implies that some conception of the centre of the circle, the North Ecliptic
Pole was known. Whether it was understood though, is a different matter; we have been unable
to find any reference to it in translations of ancient texts]. Table 7.1 accompanies the figure
and gives some more details. Table 7.2 that follows then considers the inter-Pole Star periods.
As stated above, the operative period denoted for a Pole Star Period in this work is 1,000 years,
which involves a distance that is approximated here to 6 degrees, but according to a number of
ephemeris programs is actually about 5.6 degrees.

239
Fig. 7.13 View from Giza, Midnight Midsummer 2800BC. Circle radius 23.5 degrees.

[Authors Note: Fig 7.16 is a diagrammatic view of the circle of stars as in essence this is not a
true circle either geometrically or visually. Neither a circle nor an ellipse denotes the true
points on the map but a combination of this diagram and Table 7.2 above indicates the
approximate visual positions in the sky. Here all seven of the Pole Stars are seen and noted in
their various approximate positions around the centre of the visual precession, the North
Ecliptic Pole. Thuban at the North Celestial Pole is 30 degrees above the horizon and the North
Ecliptic Pole a further 23.5 degrees above that position.]

Table 7.2 Seven Pole Stars: Dates and periods between Pole Stars -based on the generally
accepted approximation of a 26,000yr cycle. [Note that later calculations will be based upon a
25920 year cycle.]

c.2100 AD Polaris 4900 yrs to Thuban

c.2800 BC Thuban 4800 yrs
c.7600 BC Tau Hercules 4600 yrs
c.12200 BC Vega 2000 yrs
c.14200 BC Delta Cygnus 4300 yrs
c.18500 BC Alderamin Cephus 3000 yrs
c 21500 BC Errai Cephus 2400 yrs to Polaris

240
 If we adopt the aforementioned figure of 5.6 degrees proximity to the pole position,
there is an approach to the closest position to the North Celestial Pole of 2.8 degrees and a
departure of the same amount. It would have been difficult in the epochs prior to the telescope
[and the development of Babylonian astronomical techniques mentioned earlier] to assess small
fractions of a degree such as the difference between 2.8 and 3 degrees [12 minutes of arc] seen
as part of an arching movement, high in the sky without fixed reference points. Therefore, as
the values all appear to fit, we shall take the stance that both 3 degrees and 1,000 years were the
values that were in use in the past. [Note: Programs such as Skyglobe and Skymap will clearly
show that the Pole Star approaches and leaves the position at a rate of about 2.8 degrees in 500
years - a value that, as stated above we have here rounded to 3 degrees for the same period.]
This appears odd when it is realised than in the precessional cycle of 25,920 years the
time to move a single vertical degree from the horizon takes 72 years [as seen earlier]. 3
degrees expressed at 72 years per degree gives 216, and hence the 6-degree period of a Pole
Star being near the Pole would amount to 432 years.
The explanation for this is that the measurement of Pole Star movement here is taken
only in terms of degrees east or west from a central north/south line just as it would have been
observed and counted, moving from east to west or vice versa and measured from the north-
south line running through the polar position. It makes no allowance for altitude. What would
have been observed is the radius of the circle that the star apparently inscribes in the sky and it
is this radius that is denoted here. At 2800BC, when Thuban was at its closest position to the
North Celestial Pole, the radius would have been within half a degree of the precise polar
position, but 500 years later, that distance had increased to virtually three degrees. It was the
horizon line, whether natural or man made at a suitable elevation for the purpose, against
which stellar movement would have been measured in the early days of astronomy. This
horizon line would have indicated a distance just a little short of 3 degrees, and the little
fraction was so small it probably was not noticed.
Hence, we arrive at a value of 166.666r years per degree of apparent Pole Star
movement corresponding in a circular format to give 60,000 years, which is a number that
directly relates to the sexagesimal system in use in the ancient world. This arrangement would
therefore have been seen in antiquity as a mathematically elegant one, something that seems to
have been important to those who understood the systems in use.
As stated, we have taken a maximum of 3 degrees deviance from the Celestial North
Pole as acceptable for a designated ‘Pole Star’ [which accommodates Thuban in particular].
The exception to that generality is that of the third brightest star in the heavens, Vega, which is
seen no closer to the Pole than 4.7 degrees. Tables 7.1 and 7.2 expressed the resultant
information in a tabular form and the earliest Pole Star era liable to have been recorded in the
past is that between Vega and Tau Hercules. This gives a period of 4600 years peak to peak.
The time that the star is operative at the pole is 1000 years, with an epoch of 3600 years when it
is not operative. The Vega-Tau Hercules ‘No Pole Star’ period relates to the time when the
flooding was at its most severe with vast areas of low laying lands being covered for the first
time. It was then that the association between terrestrial flood and loss of a polar guide was
almost certainly first noticed. Along with 3600 being a highly canonical value, it is proposed
here that the canonical flood epoch is derived from this period. The period of 3600 years

241
between Pole Star events became an accepted value even though the onset of Thuban was 3800
years after the loss of Tau Hercules.
While 3600 is far from an average value, the texts eventually revealed that this is
correct; it is the value that was utilised in this context.
In the case of Thuban, it became Pole Star [according to our criteria of 3 degrees from
the North Celestial Pole] in 3300BC, ending the Deluge at that time. A further [celestial] flood
then commenced in 2300BC.
Similarly, the previous Deluge commenced at 7100BC with Tau Hercules moving
away from its pole position, being three degrees from the pole at 7100BC. This was 1000 years
after the earlier inundation had finished in 8100BC with the onset of Tau Hercules as Pole Star.
In this scenario, genuine terrestrial floods began to be experienced with the inundation
that occurred when Vega left the Polar region [using a five-degree criterion] in 11700BC, just
before the start of the End cycle of the Ice Age, some 13,000 years ago. Previous to this
occasion there would have been no great concern regarding the Pole Stars. Vega, as with the
Southern bright star Canopus, circled the pole rather than being seen as its actual location. It
was only when it moved well away from its previous position, when the circumference of its
apparent orbital circle greatly increased that it became associated with terrestrial floods on
Earth.

Dating the Deluge in Mythology

We therefore have a selection of dates above to consider. Can these be correlated to

religious texts, myths and legends? The date of 2300BC in particular would be a promising
one for which to search, as writing was in use in most civilisations at that date in the Middle
Eastern region. One such example has an Indic flavour. Subhash Kak notes that a work by al-
Biruni first written in 1030AD contains reference to ‘chariots of war’ and a Greek claim to be
the first to use them. Abu Rayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Biruni was a famous mediaeval
Persian scholar who travelled to India [in fact, the first Muslim scholar to study Indian and
Brahminical tradition]. al-Biruni apparently insisted that the Greeks were wrong because:

‘…they were already invented by Aphrodisios the Hindu when he ruled over Egypt about 900
years after the deluge’.30

Kak states that this is a reference to the Hyskos kings who ruled much of Egypt during
the Second Intermediate Period just before the New Kingdom. The term ‘Hyskos’ was a
generic term for Asiatic foreigners, who may have been Hindus.
We have been unable to identify Aphrodisios but the reference could possibly be to
Apepi of the 15th Dynasty who ruled in about 1580-1540BC. If that is so, we are talking about
1550BC, which would place the above ‘deluge’ to about 2450BC. However, possibly Al-
Biruni has got parts of two stories conjoined here [a common occurrence in ancient mythology]
and the 900 years could be a reference to the later Armana period. During this era, Egyptian
rulers were close to the Mittani, a people from Northern Mesopotamia, who practised an Indic
religion and may have been seen as Hindus. If we date the celestial Deluge to 2300BC then

242
900 years later we find ourselves looking at a date of 1400BC. This date is within 50 years of
the commencement of the reign of the ‘Heretic Pharaoh’ Akhenaten and the Armana period.
Indic influence was already strong in Egypt before Akhenaten; so if the reference to Hindu rule
is actually to this period it would seem to confirm the Deluge dating of 2300BC. It was 900
years previous to 1400BC that Thuban moved beyond the three degrees position from the North
Celestial Pole and at that time, the heavens, according to tradition, were then in Flood.
A short extract of an Atharvaveda hymn (AV XX 39, 8) where there is reference to
“the spot where the boat glided down, on the peak of the Himalayas” backs up this time period.
The date of this event predates the arrival of Thuban at the pole position by 500 years and
implies that the composition of the Atharvaveda is also of a relatively early date, before
2800BC, when Thuban was the Pole Stare but after 3300BC, the astronomically confirmed date
of the event described, that of the arrival of Thuban at the three degree embarkation line.
We also have evidence for the mythical Deluge commencing at the end of the period
when Tau Hercules was in pole position as revealed in Genesis via its internal history, where
the offspring of Noah were actively involved with the build up of the Middle Eastern
civilisations.
In antiquity, after Tau Hercules had left its position at the North Celestial Pole and the
floods recommenced the skies would probably have been viewed continually for any sign of an
end to the creeping disaster of sea-level rise. Eventually, the handed-down information
regarding the affinity of floods and the lack of a Pole Star was confirmed again because any
observers would have noted that Thuban in Draconis was approaching the polar position and in
3300BC, it was within 3 degrees of the North Celestial Pole. In most regions, again in
conjunction with the Pole Star arrival, the floods had just about stopped, even reversing a little
in some areas. Here was absolute confirmation of the connection to the axis of the cosmos, the
Pole star was back where it should be and the floods had ceased. The home of the controller of
the heavens, the seat of God, the Architect of the Universe, was reinstated and all was once
more in order.
However, when the Pole Star began again to move away from its rightful position, after
2300 BC there was a great fear; a Beast had usurped the seat of Heaven, a beast to be feared,
which destabilised the universe. The visual seat of God, the controller of all, the central pivot
around which all revolved, had disappeared from its rightful place and the chaos of a ‘regime of
the beast’ had taken over for a canonical period of 3,600 years. The ‘Beast’ is a late concept, a
specifically Biblical construction not seen elsewhere that has intimate links to the flood story.
There were no more floods and hence something had to take the place of the Deluge to
maintain the cosmological cycles…
Conversely, there is a supposedly peaceful era when the Pole Star is in place, such as
the 3300–2300BC epoch of Tau Hercules. [Authors Note: Although if we examine the current
era of Polaris, from 1600AD to 2600AD in a literal manner, we are not doing very well so far
regarding the peaceful element…]. But of course the descriptions apply only to the heavens,
when the celestial orbits are organised, a period of 1,000 years. This is the period of creation,
of the original concept of Eden and possibly of the idea of a Golden Age. Here also lies the
origin of the Indian cosmic order Rta, which was correspondingly known in ancient Egypt as
Maat.

243
Fig. 7.14 Location of the Vernal Equinox over one precessional cycle including Northern Pole
Stars dates [based on a cycle of 26,000 years]

Rta [or Maat] was a concept devised when the flooding was subsiding, possibly during
the Tau Hercules era but more probably at the beginning of the Thuban period, around 3300BC
as then there was confirmation of the observations and experiences of the Tau Hercules period
and its demise. We return to this and other discussions to reinforce the presented hypothesis in
Chapters 8, 9 and 10 where in the latter, dating correlations are to be found. There are further
religious correlations in Chapter 11.
The effects of precession on any attendant zodiac were naturally of interest to ancient
astronomers/astrologers. The whole system of the current zodiac was re-calibrated in the
Middle East and Greece around the end of the 1st millennium BC with this zodiac in itself being
a simplification of older zodiacs and related calendars, such as those that are found in the Old
Kingdom of ancient Egypt. The principal western zodiac of today, however, will be seen in the
next chapter to be of Indic origin and very ancient indeed.
To complete the picture here, the relationship between the precession of the North
Celestial Pole and the precession of the Equinoxes over a complete period spanning 23,500BC
to 2,500AD is shown in Figure 7.18. For example, during the epoch of Thuban in Draconis,
circa 2800BC, the Vernal Equinox was in the constellation Taurus. However, during the epoch

244
of Tau Hercules, the Vernal Equinox was in Cancer. [Authors Note: This is a figure that is
expanded upon to take in further information in later chapters].
While it appears highly likely that precession was understood in the far off days of
which we write, we cannot state when this understanding emerged. What will become apparent
in the following chapters is that the sequence of the precessional zodiac and the Pole Star
changes were known in India at an early time. We therefore now begin to examine the
astronomy of ancient India or to use its correct title, Bharat.

245
 CHAPTER 8

The Celestial Clock: The Astronomy of Ancient India

"Time creates the sky and the earth. Time creates that past and the future. By Time the Sun
burns, through Time all beings exist, in Time the eyes see. Time is the lord of all."
Atharva-Veda (19.54)
The Moon is that which shapes the years.
Rig Veda 10.85.5

8.1 Setting the Scene: An Invented History

Fig. 8.1 Political geography of the Indian sub-continent today

246
 Bharat or Bharata, the correct name which we apply to India today, was in past
epochs, which for the purposes of Deluge implies before 2500BC, a vastly larger region than
that confined by the political boundaries of modern times as depicted in Figure 8.1.
At its peak, culturally, it covered an area that was larger than that occupied by the
civilisations of ancient China, Egypt and Mesopotamia combined and its culture influenced all
these regions. As we note elsewhere in Deluge it was Josephus who claimed that ‘Eden’
stretched from, what the Greeks call the Ganges to what the Greeks call the Nile. Hence, here
we have a chronicler of Jewish history admitting that the enormous sphere of influence of the
Indic culture extended even as far as his own ancestors.
The true history of ancient Bharat or India is rarely taught in Western places of learning
and even many Indian schools still preach a completely false history devised by Europeans.
This false history is that of the ‘Aryan Invasion,’ an invasion that in reality never occurred 1.
The basic tenets of the theory are that around 1500 BC, the fair-skinned ‘Aryans’ came
on horseback and driving chariots from somewhere in the north-west into the region of
Saptasindhu, [the land of the Seven Rivers]. They then completely destroyed the local society,
driving the darker skinned natives to the south of Bharat. Around 300 years later the Aryans
supposedly began composing what we now know to be indigenous Indian texts, beginning with
those that are known as the Vedas.
The roots of the Aryan Invasion Theory, or AIT as it has become known, go back to the
19th century when many missionaries and explorers were travelling the world, and during this
period a great deal was seen and discovered about India. Amongst these travellers was a
French missionary by the name of Abbé Dubois (1770–1848AD) who was interested in the
concept of the Deluge and how it related to ancient India. Dubois attempted to correlate the
Genesis flood epic with what he read in the newly translated Indian literature.
Dubois’s work, in French, was bought by the British East India Company, the effective
rulers of India at the time. It later appeared in an English translation under the title Hindu
Manners, Customs and Ceremonies in 1897, with a preface by the famous, albeit nowadays
seen as somewhat controversial, German archaeologist Max Muller 1. Dubois had a problem
relating the people of India to those mentioned in Chapter 10 of Genesis, the table of nations
and descendents of Noah [Dubois accepted the 4004BC date for creation and 2348BC for the
flood]. He proposed that the Indian peoples were descended from Japhet, Noah’s third son,
having reached India from the north and the Caucasus. 2
Muller, in the middle of the 19th century, postulated a series of dates for the
composition of the Indian literature without any evidence whatever other than the then accepted
Biblical dating and began his list with the Rig Veda being composed around 1200BC.
Throughout, however, he maintained that these works have their own unique place in world
literature. Then late in life, in a work entitled Physical Religion, published in 1892, he stated
that:

‘No power on earth will be able to determine whether the Vedic Hymns were composed
in 1,000 or 1,500 or 2,000 or 3,000 years before Christ.’3

247
 Nonetheless, it was the work of Dubois that adhered to the minds of the influential
people of the day and it was from this work with its apparent acceptance by a very eminent
scholar of the day, Muller, that the Aryan Invasion was born. It must be noted and emphasised
that there is no reference whatever to any such invasion within any of the referenced Indian
texts, as was most emphatically demonstrated by M. S. Elphinstone, the first governor of the
Bombay Presidency, in his book History of India in 1841.4But it is no secret that early British
Indology ignored such rational texts, and was driven by missionary zeal. As early as 1811, the
famous and important, Boden Chair for Sanskrit at the University of Oxford in England was
founded by a Colonel Boden with the explicit object of the translation of Christian Scripture
into Sanskrit thereby assisting missionaries in the conversion of the natives of India to the
Christian faith.
Whatever Muller said slightly later, it is that which he recorded in a letter to his wife in
1886 that may be more telling of the time and was remembered:

'The translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and
on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show
them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during
the last 3000 years.’ 5

However, as expected, with powerful institutions such as Oxford University behind it,
the Aryan Invasion Theory gathered strength and did not wane in the face of rational argument.
One assessment claimed that the Indian literature was of too high a standard to have been
composed by the mere ‘natives’ of India.
This attitude unfortunately still prevails today with the AIT still being taught in many
places in Western world, such as Washington State University in the USA 6 and in British
universities as recently as 1998, 7 and even in India itself. Yet Prof. G. F. Dales (Former head
of department of South-Asian Archaeology and Anthropology, Berkeley University, USA) in
his ‘The Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo-daro’, states that,

…there is not a single bit of evidence that can be brought forth as unconditional proof of an
armed conquest and the destruction on the supposed scale of the Aryan Invasion8

The situation is comparable to the concept of people believing the world was flat prior
to Columbus’ ‘discovery’ of America, another ludicrous idea that is even today still being
taught in numerous American schools.
The AIT has been thoroughly rebuked in recent years by scholars such as Subhash Kak,
David Frawley and Nicholas Kazanas among many others who specialise in Indic studies. An
extract from an essay A New Date for the Rig Veda by Kazanas effectively, albeit as shall later
be revealed, rather conservatively, sums up the feelings toward this outmoded and erroneous
concept,

‘In the RV (or later texts) there is no hint of the Aryans coming into the Saptasindhu,
from elsewhere, no trace of memory of previous habitats. It is unlikely, given the prodigious

248
oral tradition they developed and the mnemonic power supporting it, that they would not have
brought recollections and interwoven them, even unwittingly, in their hymns. So Keith wrote
(1922: 79): “It is certain … that the Rigveda offers no assistance in determining the mode in
which the Vedic Aryans entered India … the bulk at least [of the Rigveda] seems to have been
composed rather in the country round the Sarasvati river.” 9

The material contained within the ‘Vedic’ and some other texts is very old and it will
be revealed in this and the following chapter that there is a corpus of astronomical information
contained within the verses that predates any found in later Middle-Eastern cultures. Over the
course of these chapters, it will become apparent what the information contained within these
texts meant to the people of a variety of cultures and indeed, why it spread from its source to
the remaining regions of the Middle East. Incidentally, this outbound transference is another
nail in the idea of the inbound transference of the AIT, as is seen later.
Regarding the AIT concept itself, it can be seen that the work of at least one translator,
and numerous others over the previous seven decades starting from around 1750 was ignored
when the AIT concept was being put forward. Scholarly work was effectively ‘pushed under
the table’ and conveniently hidden.
Another example of the above concerns the work of one Eugène Burnouf who around
the year 1825 was engaged in a study of Aryan languages and their geographical extent. He
was examining ancient Persian material and eventually created the first coherent translation of
the Zend Avesta.
Burnouf, ignoring much of the work accomplished by others over the previous decades
looked to a Sanskrit translation of the Yasna made in the fifteenth century by the Parsi
Neriosengh, which was in accordance with the old Pahlavi version, itself reinforced by a
publication by Sylvestre de Sacy in 1793. Burnouf closely examined the information given by
Neriosengh and tested it, either confirming or correcting, by a comparison of parallel passages
with the assistance of the new technique of comparative grammar developed by Bopp. This
method was ultimately successfully applied by Burnouf in tracing the general outlines of the
Zend lexicon and in fixing its grammatical forms, and founded the only correct method of
interpreting the Avesta. In so doing, he also gave the first notions of a comparative mythology
of the Avesta and the Vedas, by showing the identical nature of the Vedic Yama with the
Avesta Yima, plus a number of other parallels. It was becoming increasing clear that the
cultures of Persia and India had common roots. Here we see academic confirmation of the
cultural relationship between India and Persia that was, and has remained, ignored by the AIT
pundits.

249
8.2 Dating the Texts: The Loss of the Sarasvati

In this discussion, we first introduce another researcher into early Indic history, Dr.
Koenraad Elst:

‘One of the earliest estimates of the date of the Vedas was at once amongst the most
scientific. In 1790AD, the Scottish mathematician John Playfair demonstrated that the
starting-date of the astronomical observations recorded in the tables still in use among Hindu
astrologers, (of which three copies had reached Europe between 1687 and 1787) had to be
4300BC. His proposal was dismissed as absurd by some observers, but it was not refuted by
any scientist.’ 10

We have no argument with Playfair’s astronomical findings but it must be remembered

that the work as a whole was originally composed as prose, and was recited, not written, a
talent that was especially important in ancient non-literate cultures. Astronomical events were
recorded in what today would be seen as a mythical format, a story, and hence its meaning,
revolved around characters in precise positions with the characters, in this case, being celestial
objects.
Kazanas has calculated what he terms a ‘new’ date for the RigVeda [except for the last
book (the tenth) and some accretions] of 3500 BC. This date is based upon logical arguments
that comply with Indic tradition. However, it will be seen later in Deluge that even this ‘early’
time, is considerably later than some of the dates that are hidden in several of the related texts.
Either there were a number of prose compositions from which various texts drew or
there was a central ‘national composition’ that all utilised. This concept of a central
composition is reminiscent of the idea that the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke
were based on an earlier singular and the central body of work upon which all three depended,
the so-called ‘Book of Q’. While this is not a direct parallel, it is difficult to explain identical
wording such as we see in the Gospels without a common source.
The research for Deluge later reveals a specific date in the Indic Mahabharata that is
only revealed via astronomical computer programmes. It shows that the skies above India were
observed and that the observations were recorded-in what today may be termed a ‘mythical’
format. This date is then seen to be associated with a cyclical construction that again is
dependent upon astronomy and events both celestial and terrestrial.
The information derived from just this one date coupled with other constructs within
the same epic implies a far greater knowledge of astronomy than is historically accepted for this
or any other region in the era to which it points. Other cyclical counts from India that are
upheld by both tradition and modern scholars convince us that indeed, this is no error on our
part. The Mahabharata, while containing some very early material, is a late composition by
comparison to the Rig Veda, being composed, according to scholastic thought, by three authors
over a greatly extended period.
Another set of writings are the so-called Puranic works which are very late [generally
around 500AD and later but stemming from a couple of hundred years before Christ], but as

250
with the Mahabharata contain very early material as is later demonstrated via information
contained in the Skanda Purana.
Effectively, we can say that the most accurate dating regarding the composition
[as against the later writing] of the Rig Veda, or perhaps at least the core material from
which many texts and poems were drawn, is that from Tilak.
Various researchers have claimed a date for the Rig Veda much earlier than the
generally accepted 1500 BC. These include H Jacobi and B G Tilak who, via examination of
the astronomical data in the Vedic texts, calculated earlier dates. Jacobi [1894: Indian
Antiquary 23] gave a date of 4500BC, where Tilak [1893: Orion: Researches into the Antiquity
of the Vedas] traced some Vedic texts as far back as 6000 [BC]. Winternitz in his History of
Indian Literature [revised ed. 1927] gave a mean of the dating available c 2500-2000 BC.
[our emphasis]
Later in this chapter and in the next we trace dates close to 700 years earlier than that
of Tilak, that mentioned above which was found during the course of research in the
Mahabharata. This early point is further reinforced by a well-known and traditional
commencing point for a calendar that is further verified by other information. Hence, the
historical concept of the AIT is completely nonsensical The dates now given for the Indian
texts by Koenraad Elst are:

The astronomical lore in Vedic literature provides elements of an absolute chronology

in a consistent way. For what it is worth, this corpus of astronomical indications suggests that
the Rg-Veda was completed in the 4th millennium AD, that the core text of the Mahabharata
was composed at the end of that millennium, and that the Brahmanas and Sutras are products
of the high Harappan period towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC. 11

While Kazanas, amongst earlier researchers such as Tilak accepts that the bulk of the
work is pre-Harrapan, the tenth book of the Rig Veda was composed very much later, verified
by the lingual style, and a lack of consistency in its form.
In considering the age of the composition of the Rig Veda, one pointer relates to
geological events– this is the relationship between the Rig Veda and the now lost Sarasvati
River. The incorrect historical view of the nature of the so-called Aryan Invasion Theory even
extends to the name of this once great river - the Sarasvati:

‘The Indo-Aryans transferred river names from the old to the new country. For
example, the Indian Sarasvati was named after the Iranian Hara Vaiti after the migration in
India.” (Burrow: 1973..pg 126)’ 12

The civilisation of early India and its Miracle River, the Sarasvati, nonetheless predate
anything of a comparable nature in ancient Iran and are associated with the Vedas, specifically
the early Rig Veda. This civilisation, now often termed the Sarasvati-Indus Culture or
Civilisation or SIC, occupied a vast region of the sub-continent at its peak [around 3100–
1900BC] - approximately ½ million square miles. Dr. David Frawley is arguably one of the

251
most important Vedic scholars working today and he [along with others] has shown that the
vast majority of early sites are on the banks of the now dried Sarasvati. In fact, this river was
dry by around 1900-2000BC and had started losing its copious waters long before 3000BC.
The ‘Indus Valley’ culture with its towns of Harrapa and Mohenjo Darro is generally
seen as being that of ancient India but these regions flourished after the Sarasvati began drying
up, after geological upheaval had caused it to begin to lose its principle river, the Yamuna, to
the Ganges. The ‘Indus Valley’ culture is late in comparison to that of the Sarasvati region of
earlier eras.

All the antecedents of Harappan civilization have been traced in the Indian
subcontinent through various pre-Harappan sites back to the great village complex of
Mehrgarh, which was the largest of its time c. 7000 BCE. In other words, ancient civilization
in India was advanced and indigenous, comparable to anything in the Middle East at the
same time.13

Modern geological studies, including satellite data and archaeological results show that
the Sarasvati, previously a watercourse in many places over 7 kilometres wide, had ceased to be
a perennial river of any substance long before 3000BC. It no longer was a river that flowed
‘from the mountains to the sea’ and by 2000BC was completely dry for ’40 days horse ride’
from the coast. Further scientific evidence from the Bhaba Atomic Research Centre has
revealed that, in extreme desert conditions the water of the Sarasvati remains available at a
depth of fifty to sixty metres, and radiocarbon measurements of some of the water samples
have shown them range from 2400 to 7400 Before Present with no modern recharge
discernable.
As another researcher comments on this discovery,

This means that the Rig Veda describes the geography of North India long before 3000
BC. This is further supported by the fact that the Drishadvati River, also described in the Rig
Veda, had itself gone dry long before 3000 BC. All this shows that the Rig Veda must have
been in existence no later than 3500 BC. There is other evidence from metallurgy and
astronomy that lend further support for this date’14

However, in a more recent paper titled The Rig Veda pre-dates the Sarasvati-Sindhu
Culture.February 2009, Kazanas has extended the dating of the work to 3800-3500BC.15

The primary development and expansion of the SIC therefore took place on the banks
of the Sarasvati. It would also appears that around 70% of what is sometimes called the
Harrapan Civilisation existed here. The Sarasvati effectively stopped flowing to the sea
around 3000-3100 BC, or perhaps earlier and by 2000 – 1900BC was petering out into the
desert many miles from the coast, some 40 days ride on horseback according to one account.
Before this time, the massive Sarasvati complex of rivers and tributaries was the lifeblood of
the region, and the following extracts from the Rig Veda reveal its importance to the inhabitants
therein.

252
 Pure in her course from mountains to the ocean Sarasvati River bestows for Nahusha
nutritious milk and butter. [RV. 7.95.2]

May the glorious seventh (stream) Sarasvati, the mother of the Sindh [emphasis here to
show the importance of this river and the possibility that the Sindhus or Indus, itself a large
river, may have been a tributary ] and other (rivers) charged with copious volume of water,
flow vigorously; come together, gifting abundant food and milk. [RV. 7.36.6]
As implied above, it has been said that there is a possible interpretation of some of the
verses of the Rig Veda that indicate that the Sarasvati had seven tributaries. In addition, it is
said that the verses indicate that the Indus and her 5 tributaries Sindhu [Indus], Sutudri [Sutlej],
Parushni [Ravi], Asikni [Chenab], Vitasta [Jhelum], Vitasa [Beas], were also the tributaries of
the Sarasvati.
RV. 3.24.4 is also thought to indicate the possibility that Drishadvati and Apaya were
also tributaries of the Sarasvati. It is small wonder that the Sarasvati River was revered
virtually as a Goddess, one that eventually was lost, but would be remembered forever within
the hymns of the Vedas.
The sheer scale of the SIC can be seen in Figure 8.2, where the density of townships
clustered along and around the Sarasvati is illustrated. Here, nearly 2/3 of the 2500 Harappan
settlements that have been found [more may yet be uncovered] were on the banks of rivers
connected to the Sarasvati while only 100 have been found on the banks of the Indus.
It was previously thought that tectonic upheavals diverted the Yamuna, the principle
tributary, into the Ganges and the Satluj into the Indus, which produced the death knell of the
Sarasvati and while the Harappan civilisation was flourishing, the Sarasvati was reduced to an
irrigation system. As seen earlier in Deluge, however, the demise of the river was due to a loss
of feeding streams and springs and a change in monsoon patterns, these lesser waters now
seemingly feed the Yamuna and Ganges and even though monsoons changed after 3500BC the
river did not return as the streams and smaller rivers were no longer running into this once
mighly watercourse.

253
Fig.8.2 Harappan Sites: showing density of townships along the Sarasvati River

Fig. 8.3 Map indicating the Yumuna/Ganges junction (After J.Fowler)

254
8.3 The Dawn of Writing

Early man communicated with his neighbours easily, so why did he invent writing?
The logical answer is that it was trade, which did not lend itself to the memorising of
mythical stories containing information that forced the development of permanent records of
both a numerical and written form. The carrying of messages in an accurate manner certainly
would have contributed to the need for more reliable form of records.
‘The oldest and most casual account of the invention of writing is perhaps that of the
Sumerian epic "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta… According to this version of events an
emissary was sent back and forth between Uruk and Aratta, but because the messages were
difficult to memorize, the lord of Kulaba promptly invented writing…

‘In a second Sumerian poem, "Inanna and Enki, the Transfer of the Arts of Civilization from
Eridu to Erech, writing is conceived as one of a hundred basic elements of civilization held by
Enki, the lord of wisdom. Inanna loaded writing and the other divine decrees on the Boat of
Heaven and started an eventful journey back to Uruk.’ 16

It is noted here that Aratta is a very similar word to Bharatta the correct name for
India, hence the story implies the development of writing due to dialogue specifically between
Sumeria and India. Little research into Indian writing systems had been achieved until recently
with much work remaining to be accomplished and many still assume that writing did not
develop in India until around 500 BC. However, as Kak states,

‘Written characters are mentioned in the Chhandogya and the Taittiriya Upanishad,
and the Aitareya Aranyaka refers to the distinction between the various consonant classes. The
voluminous Vedic texts also contain hints of writing in them. For example, Rigveda 10.71.4
says: “One man has never seen Vaak, yet he sees; one man has hearing but has never heard
her.”… Since Vaak is personified speech, it suggests knowledge or writing.’ [A deaf man
cannot hear recitation of verse and hence unless he could read would be unaware; again, a
sighted man may well read passages but not understand, not gain knowledge.] … Another
verse [RV 10.62.7] mentions cows being marked by the sign of "8". The Atharvaveda [19.72]
speaks of taking the Veda out of a chest [kosh], [uncannily like the Ten Commandments within
the Ark of the Covenant] and although it may be a metaphor for knowledge coming out of a
treasure house, it could equally have been meant in a literal sense.
[Perhaps the most interesting facet here however, lays in the fact that while the fish
Matsya was the tenth incarnation of Vishnu, and Noah was tenth from Biblical creation, the
following should emerge.] It is also remarkable that the "fish" sign is used as a symbol for
"10" in the Indus [used without the gills; it's such use was determined by a statistical analysis]
and the Brahmi scripts, although the Brahmi "fish" for "10" is shown sideways’17

At Harappa, 'plant-like' and 'trident-shaped' markings have been found on fragments of

pottery dating back 5500 years, giving some reinforcing to the above arguments. The marks
were etched onto jars before and after firing and may have indicated the contents of the jar or

255
be signs associated with a deity. It has been suggested that this may be the earliest form of
writing, but with the Indus language unfortunately now dead and with no Rosetta Stone to assist
translation, the major problem remains analysis of the symbols.

Fig. 8.4 Early ‘writing’ from Pakistan – it is estimated to be about 5500 years old
Harappa, originally a small settlement in 3500BC expanded rapidly along with
Mohenjo-Daro [another city of the region] due to the loss of the Sarasvati and by 2600BC
became the centre of the great Indus Valley civilisation with a population possibly as high as
50,000. The Brahmi script, while not itself of a great age, does show compliance with ideas
internal to the texts, old traditions, probably dating to composition of the Deluge story. There
is also similarity between Brahmi and early Semitic scripts:
…it should be noted that Indic kingdoms, in which Sanskrit names were used, were
prominent in West Asia in the second millennium BC…Just as in the Vedic system, the
Ugaritics, a people closely related to the Phoenicians and the Hebrews, have 33 gods. More
importantly, Yahvah, the name of the God in the Judaic tradition, occurs as an epithet for Agni
in the Rigveda a total of 21 times [yahva in RV 10.110; yahvah in RV 3.1, 3.5, 4.5, 4.7, 4.58,
5.1, 7.6, 7.8, 9.75, 10.11; yahvam in RV 1.36; 3.3; 4.5; 5.16 8.13; 10.92; yahvasya in RV 3.2
and 3.28]. Indus ideas on writing may thus have, through the agency of the powerful Mitanni
kingdom of Syria, been influential in the various Semitic traditions of the second and first
millennia BC. 18

A Common ancient Old World Cosmology

It emerges throughout Deluge that there is a widespread cosmological story in antiquity

that was well known in many regions. There can be no doubt that this was greatly enhanced in
the second millennium BC by the use of writing. In addition, the flood tale, given the spread of
Indic lingual and religious concepts, appears to have emanated from the region of Bharat.
Nonetheless, while some details of the story have possibly been misunderstood in various
places and interjections have changed other peripheral elements of the narrative, the implication
is that it is the same underlying event that is portrayed. Some later chroniclers either wrote in

256
allegory to disguise the material still further, or misunderstood their sources. In the case of
most modern historians of antiquity [with some notable exceptions, as seen in this chapter],
there seems to be a lack of understanding of the concepts involved here. This is possibly due to
a lack of acceptance of the abilities of the peoples of over 5000 years ago and the inability to
project their thinking beyond the mindset of today.
One important route for the transference of this Indic cultural influence into the Eastern
Mediterranean region may not have been via what might be thought to be the most likely route
– overland trade with Mesopotamia as suggested in the Sumerian mythology. Here we look at
a different route to the Middle East from India by which the transference of information and
culture may well have occurred.

8.4 The Phoenicians: The Cultural Bridge

It will be seen throughout later chapters of Deluge that the flood mythology of Egypt
and the Middle East seems to be predated by that of India.
The logical route for this cultural transmission would be appear to be via the cultures of
ancient Mesopotamia, as in Chapters 2 and 6 it was described how similar flood mythology to
that of the Biblical Middle East existed in the region. However, it will be seen in later chapters
that mythology may well post-date that of Egypt. Additionally, although not relayed in Deluge,
the research has examined the mathematical and structural achievements of cultures such as the
Sumerians and their possible contacts with adjoining cultures. Suffice it to say that it is by no
means clear than any transference of what we would define today as technical information
came to ancient Egypt via Mesopotamia [although there was some contact in pre-Dynastic
times].19,20 Given the doubts relating to both instances of possible cultural transference it seems
prudent to ask if there was any other route of contact between the Indian sub-continent, Egypt
and the Mediterranean region. To discover a plausible answer to that question we first return to
the Jerusalem of the early 1st millennium BC.
In the Biblical story of the building of Solomon’s Temple, the leading character, apart
from Solomon is one who has become known as Hiram Abiff. In part, the familiarity of the
name can be ascribed to Masonic tradition, because this character plays a leading role in the
Masonic story. However, in the Bible we read that Solomon sent a plea to Hiram King of Tyre
for timber. Hiram was very willing to assist and also sent a man skilled in metalwork,
masonry, engraving cloth and colouring; a true master of all necessary skills. This man was
also named Hiram, or as the Book of Chronicles spells it Huram and was a son of a woman of
Dan.
Solomon's Temple, it has been seen, was designed around a pattern utilised by
Canaanites, or as they later became known, the Phoenicians. There are numerous connotations
to this Hiram element of the story into which we shall not immerse ourselves here but the point
is that the people with whom Solomon was dealing were the Phoenicians.
The Phoenicians are renowned for their shipbuilding and sailing abilities yet other
regions around the same coasts did not develop the same skills. This situation appears a little
odd as all were daily faced with the same sort of terrain, similar coastal waters and the same
everyday problems and yet it was this group that shone in the skills of sailing and all related to

257
boat building. If they developed their skills locally then surely some of their neighbours, as all
faced the same living conditions, would likewise have evolved similar skills.
It would appear that there is a different source for this shipbuilding / sailing affinity
among the Phoenicians. One alternative answer is that the Phoenicians learnt from others, but
if this was the case, then who were their tutors and how and why were they in contact, while
their neighbours were not? These questions do have an answer, an answer that relates to the
design of Solomon’s Temple, a design that was from the brain of a Master Mason, in fact a
master of many skills. The character we know as Hiram Abiff or ‘father’ Hiram, denoting his
seniority and the origination of the name.
Many researchers state that the Phoenicians initially arrived in the Eastern
Mediterranean sometime about 3,000BC, gradually assimilating local customs and traditions,
blending in and living alongside the people who would later refer to them as the Canaanites. It
is, however, the source of the Phoenicians that is interesting, because while modern scholars
generally state that nothing is known of their original homeland, some studies have indicated
that they may have arrived in the so-called Fertile Crescent from the Indian sub-continent long
before 3000 B.C. 21 This region, the Fertile Crescent, is described as roughly an arc-shaped
area. It commences at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers at the Persian Gulf, and
then stretches west to the Red Sea [see Chapter 6, Figure 6.1].
The people of the region have been classified as Semitic and although this includes the
Sumerians, according to recent genetic investigations this particular group were not related to
the Semitic race. However, the earlier, apparently indigenous Ubaidian peoples of the region
probably were Semitic.22 It is this association with the earlier population via land occupation
that probably created the impression that the Sumerians were a Semitic people. Ideas are
changing though, and in support of the theory of long distance movement of peoples in the
distant past, it is now known that elements of Dravidian were in the Sumerian language and
that genetically the Sumerians were linked to Southern Malaysia.
The Semites who lived in the eastern portion of the Fertile Crescent were therefore not
inclusive of the Sumerians, and this left the Assyrians and Babylonians.
The eastern region of this area was home to the Amorites, a people who settled in what
we today term Lebanon, Syria, and Israel. A generic term of Canaanite was applied to these
people, a name that the later Greeks changed to Phoenician. The name Canaanite was derived
from a very similar word beginning with a K that the Phoenicians called themselves and which
meant trader.
Phoenician is a Greek term meaning purple, the colour being derived as a dye from the
murex snail, a shell-fish found in the waters of Tyre and Sidon and favoured by the Canaanites
as colouring on the cloth they manufactured.
As far as back as 3200BC, the people of Gebeil [Byblos] were felling cedar trees in the
mountains of Lebanon, to be shipped to Egypt and Mesopotamia. In return, the Phoenicians or
Canaanites brought back gold, copper, and turquoise from the Nile Valley and Sinai. Canaanite
ceramic pieces have been found in Egyptian tombs dating back to 3000BC. The famous ‘solar
boat’ of Khufu seen in Chapter 4 was built with the same cedar from Lebanon. Important to
this discussion is the Persian tradition noted by Donnelly which relates that the Phoenicians
originally migrated from the shores of the Erythraean Sea.23 Ancient Persia was decidedly

258
Indic in religious orientation from its early days and while being many miles from the ocean,
the seers of the country would have had knowledge of which group of people had arrived from
where.
While the notion of the Phoenicians originating from the shores of the Erythraean Sea
[as depicted in Figure 8.5], may be an ancient Persian tradition, it seems that it has much in its
favour. As described in the Periplus, a description of regions and ports by a first century trader,
it spanned the region from Egypt to beyond the Ganges [echoes of Eden as described by
Josephus] and hence the notion of these people being emigrants from the region appears highly
probable.
They were proficient shipbuilders and sailors and they arrived in the region of the
Fertile Crescent with these skills and abilities fully developed. We would hazard an educated
guess that these people traded between India and Mesopotamia. The Sumerians, who arrived in
the south of Mesopotamia probably shortly before 3000BC are not known specifically for their
seafaring abilities, and yet from the early days material from India appears to have been in their
possession. The same can be said of Egypt.
Hence it would appear likely that the Phoenician’s original territory was somewhere
between the Red Sea and India, or effectively South Pakistan as seen today or perhaps the
region of the Persian Gulf. This being the case, it would be expected for them to have an
affinity to Indic culture and customs. We know from archaeology that by the fifth millennium
BC Northern India [Merhgarh now in Pakistan] was trading with regions far to the south, with
Northern Afghanisatan and Northern Iran. All these areas in turn would be trading with other
regions hence knowledge from North Iran for example could very easily be picked up on the
coast of what is now Pakistan.
Indic influence covered a vast area, a region that had extended culturally by the time of
the building of Solomon’s Temple, although later the trading nature of India had tailed off due
to geological and climatic problems.
This influence caused many from the region to move westward, extending the religious
and cultural influences of ancient India. It can therefore be understood why there is such a
powerful influence of Noah [Manu] at this temple.

259
Fig. 8.5 The area of the Erythraean Sea

As stated throughout Deluge, the Indian Noah is Manu, and each creation and flood
had a different Manu while only one is recorded in the Bible, although as we shall see there is
sufficient reference to a cyclic situation to call this into doubt. Reprising the Srimad
Bhagavatum 1:3:28:

All the powerful sages, the godly, the Manus and their progeny, as well as the Prajâpatis
[founding fathers] are aspects of the Lord. 24

From this verse, it can be seen that the Lord can be referred to as Manu and the Earth is
in the care of the Lord, so we see at Solomon’s Temple a depiction of Earth contained within
the Ark of Noah [or Manu] - the Oblation to the Lord. It has now been revealed why this
‘oblation’ is so important to the story. It indicates that Noah, as noted in the earlier text, was
more than a flood survivor who was to repopulate Earth.
In Ezekiel’s description of the temple, the Temple designed by a Phoenician who
undoubtedly would have Indian elements in his religious background, Noah was described, via
the dimensions of the oblation, as the Lord. The verse from the Indian Srimad Bhagavatum
seen above confirms that Ezekiel’s approach was correct, that Hiram had allocated his
dimensions correctly and that indeed Noah or Manu is regarded as an aspect of the Lord. This
confirms the Indian relationship to the Old Testament writings, to Solomon’s Temple and to the
flood story in particular. It implies that the factor attributed to Noah in the Bible, 1056, should
occur in Indian evaluations.
It will be seen in Chapter 9 that indeed, this factor of 1056 is to be found there,
although in not quite the same context as seen in the Bible. This is an older idea, one that

260
relates the origination of the value. That origination is a reference to the Celestial Clock, in
other words, it is associated with counts of time.

8.5 The Antiquity of the Zodiac

An example of Indian astronomy and a hint of a calendrical use is seen early in the Rig
Veda 1.164.11, [now dated to 3500BC or earlier] where reference to the 720-paired sons of the
wheel of time, which has twelve spokes is a clear reference to the zodiac [Authors Note: The
translation of the Rig Veda used throughout Deluge is the Ralph T. H. Griffiths version]:

Formed with twelve spokes, by length of time, unweakened, rolls round the heaven this
wheel of during Order. Herein established, joined in Pairs together, seven hundred Sons and
twenty stand, O Agni.

Here is seen the 720 days and nights of the 360-day ‘civil year’ or ‘lunar-solar’ year
plus the twelve divisions of the zodiac. In addition, in Rig Veda 1.164.48 we are explicitly told
of the 360 parts of the wheel of time:

Therein are set together spokes three hundred and sixty, which in nowise can be
loosened.
Taking this division of the skies a little further, one can also find reference to quadrants
of ninety degrees [or days] as seen in Rig Veda 1.155.6:

He like a rounded wheel, hath in swift motion set his ninety racing steeds together with
the four.

Such metaphorical descriptions occur elsewhere in [slightly later] Indian literature of

the age, but the above extracts are from an early part of the Rig Veda. It is clear that the
division of the year into 360 parts, with a further division to 4 equal astronomical parts of 90
days was known millennia before the rise of Babylonia, and long before dynastic Egypt. This
implies not only time but geometry and degrees, mathematics from a period before it was
supposed to exist in such a manner. Yet there are numerous references to wheels in Indian lore
and what is a wheel if not geometrical? It will also become clear that these constructs were not
only applied to the duration of the year but even at this early time, long before dynastic Egypt,
were also utilised in conjunction with precession. This long term time count of 25920 years
was understood at least at 3500BC and as this is the case, the zodiac was also a part of common
understanding.
Given the new view of the age of the Rig Veda and other ancient Indic texts, [and not
forgetting that these were drawn from older material], it is clear that astronomy in India is
indeed a very ancient practice predating the texts themselves, as there had to be a learning
curve, which is not apparent in the narratives. This also obviates the long held idea by scholars
that sexagesimal maths [based around counts of 60’s] developed around 3000BC in Sumeria.

261
 By careful reading of the Rig Veda it is found that the months are set out in a format
that complies with the modern Western zodiac. Some indications of the similarities are found
in the verses shown in Table 8.1, which was compiled by Professor Subhash Kak of the
Louisiana State University in the USA, who amongst his many interests is a scholar in ancient
Indic astronomy. The simplest to identify are The Bull, The Archer, The Ram [Indra] which
correspond to modern Western zodiac entities. Here then is evidence of the familiar zodiac
dating back to the time of the Rig Veda in ancient India, which according to Kazanas, dates to
before 3500BC. Taking the ideas above idea further, could the Indians have also understood
the 25920-year [canonical value] cycle of precession? It could be argued that the knowledge of
the zodiac above only applied to the year and is not evidence of any awareness of the slow,
backward, a [canonical] degree in 72 years west to east movement of the precessional cycle.
We can demonstrate otherwise.

Table 8.1 The Ancient Indic Zodiac (After Subhash Kak )

Vaisakha = Taurus = Bull or Cow R.V. 8.33.10

Jyaistha = Gemini = Twins
Asadha = Cancer = Crab R.V. 1.155.6
Sravana = Leo = Lion R.V. 4.16.14
Bhadrapada = Virgo = Virgin R.V. 5.3.2
Asvini = Libra = Balance = Scales R.V.2.39
Kartika = Scorpio = Scorpion
Margasira = Saggitarius = Archer R.V. 2.33.10
Pausa = Capricorn = Goat
Magha = Aquariuas = Water Bearer
Phalguna = Pisces = Fish R.V. 10:68
Caitra = Aires = Ram R.V. 1.51.1

The Egyptians looked for the heliacal rising of Sirius to warn of the imminent annual
Nile flood. As a star such as Sirius slips backward due to precession, it becomes less visible
against the light from the morning Sun until, eventually, it cannot be seen. Many different stars
have been used in such a fashion for different reasons, some as a heliacal rising and some
against a backdrop of the horizon.
Knowledge of such stellar movement was very important and any deviation would
have been noted. This continued for generation after generation and the knowledge of the
ancestors was added to as it was handed down. Hence, the loss of a star would have been well
known. It would not have taken long to understand the time elements involved. To re-quote
the so-called father of archaeoastronomy, Sir Norman Lockyer: ‘The telescope of early times
was the line of the horizon.’
While Hipparchus is credited with discovering precession in 127BC, precessional
movement was known long before his time. There is a verse in the Srimad Bhagavatum
[5:22:1] regarding precession:

262
 ‘King Parīksit inquired from Śukadeva Gosvāmī: My dear lord, you have already
affirmed the truth that the supremely powerful Sun-god travels around Dhruvaloka with both
Dhruvaloka and Mount Sumeru on his right…
…Yet at the same time the Sun-god faces the signs of the zodiac and keeps Sumeru and
Dhruvaloka on his left. How can we reasonably accept that the Sun-god proceeds with Sumeru
and Dhruvaloka on both his left and right simultaneously?’

The terms Dhruvaloka [more about this early character later in this chapter] and Mount
Sumeru [or more usually Mount Meru], mean respectively the Northern Pole Star and the
mythical heavenly or ‘World Mountain.’
The latter is thought to be the mountain to the north, which lies directly beneath this
heavenly point [discussed towards the end of this chapter]. The Srimad Bhagavatam is
admittedly a later Puranic text, but this literature makes great play of the wisdom of the Vedas
and other early texts and does not claim any discoveries by its authors. Here, as revealed later,
it is making reference to the era of Tau Hercules, of 8100-7100BC. In the quotation above, the
question relates to the Sun apparently going in two directions simultaneously. Yet this is what
visually happens with the constellations slipping backward due to precession. In the short
period of a year the Sun is visually travelling forward through the zodiac with the direction
north on its right but precessionally, over the lengthy period of 25,920 years [canonical value
against the commonly used round figure 26,000, Chambers 25,800 or the generally accepted
25,772 years of 19th century Newcombe or some other similar calculations], it is seen to move a
full circle in the opposite direction, with north on its left. Effectively, over the period of 72
years, the Sun will have moved backward by a degree in precessional terms. In the ensuing
verses of the Srimad Bhagavatum, the seer explains this to the said King Parīksit.

8.6 Some Key Aspects of Ancient Indic Astronomy

Subhash Kak reminds us that:

‘The idea that India did not have a tradition of observational astronomy was refuted
convincingly by Roger Billard more than thirty years ago. In his book on Indian astronomy, he
showed that the parameters used in the various siddhantas actually belonged to the period at
which they were created giving lie to the notion that they were based on some old tables
transmitted from Mesopotamia or Greece.’ 25

In a 1980 paper, which was titled Two Treatises on Indian Astronomy, B.L. van der
Waerden examined the views of David Pingree and Billard. He ruled thus:

‘Billard's methods are sound, and his results shed new light on the chronology of
Indian astronomical treatises and the accuracy of the underlying observations. We have also
seen that Pingree’s chronology is wrong in several cases. In one case, his error amounts to
500 years… 26

263
 The Indian literature mentions a number of celestial events between approximately
4000 – 2000BC and some scholars have suggested even earlier events are also recorded. It
additionally appears that the Indian astronomers may have pre-empted the notion of a Sun-
centered solar system as seen in Aitreya Brahmana 2:7

‘The Sun never really sets or rises. In that they think of him –He is setting, “having
reached the end of the day, he inverts himself; thus he makes evening below, day above. Again
in that they think of him-He is rising in the morning” having reached the end of the night he
inverts himself; thus he makes day below, night above. He never sets; indeed he never sets.’

As Kak comments on this text:

‘One way to visualize it is to see the universe as the hollow of a sphere so that the
inversion of the Sun now shines the light on the world above ours. But this is impossible since
the Sun does move across the sky and if the Sun doesn’t set or rise it doesn’t move either.
Clearly the idea of inversion denotes nothing but a movement of the Earth. 27

As asserted above, several in-depth studies of these ancient texts have made it clear that
observational astronomy was practiced in India long before they were in Classical Greece and
Babylon. Kak additionally states that it is noticeable that the development was in stages,
visible in the different layers of Vedic texts, the Brahmanas and Vedanga Jvotisa. Kak further
comments:

‘The Mithuna rashi/Gemini is said to destroy darkness and to be basis [budhna] of

heat [tapas] (RV 3:39:3)…
… During Gemini's heliacal rising in 4000 BC, the Sun was in Cancer, then coinciding
with our month of May, in northern India the first month of summer (May-June), a season of
drought and extreme heat. During Leo's heliacal rising, around summer solstice in 4000 BC,
the rainy season began. Therefore, verse 5:83:3 says: "Like the charioteer driving the horse by
the whip, he releases the messengers of shower. From afar the roars of the simha declare that
the rain-god is making the sky showering." It could not be clearer’. 28

This is also confirmation of the zodiacal picture seen earlier. A further comment from
other scholars in this field notes that the dating of Indian astronomical knowledge is being
pushed back further and further in time:

‘The analysis of astronomical references in the Taiteriya Brahmana [3-1-15], where

Brushaspati [Jupiter] crossed the Pushya constellation, gives a date of 4650 B.C. The Aiteriya
Brahmana points to dates to the order of 6000 B.C.’ 29

264
Naksatras

In ancient Indian astronomy, the circle of the Moon’s orbit was divided into 27
units known as naksatras [approximate days or tithis], which results in 13.33333 degrees per
naksatra. These naksatras were themselves further divided in the same fashion into 27
upanaksatras. Hence, there are now 27 x 27 [729] units divided into the circle of the lunar
orbit of 360 degrees. This results in 0.49382716 of a degree or 29.62962963 minutes of arc of
the lunar orbit.
Visually this is the diameter of the Moon [or the Sun] - half a degree or 30
minutes of arc approximately and thus appears to be the astronomical unit in use, which was
then possibly further subdivided via some sighting device to give finer divisions. [However, it
should be noted that we do not have any archaeological evidence for such instrumentation].
The month also had the value of 30 civil days [30 tithis] or 1/12 of the 360 day
civil year equates with the 30 arc minutes of its diameter. Indeed, in ancient India we see a
counterpart to this concept - a day was also divided into both 30 units or muhurtas and 60 units
or nadis. Hence, if these divisions were applied to the apparent lunar diameter, the astronomers
of the day could have been working in units of 1 minute of arc or 1/30 of the lunar diameter.
In addition the month was seen as both 29 and 28 days.
The 27-day month was the sidereal month [actually 27.3217 days] where the
same location among the fixed stars is the beginning and end point of the observed orbit.
However this includes the ‘no moon’ periods and hence while there are 27 naksatras the whole
29.53 days is covered within the 27 divisions. The naksatra is therefore just over a day in
length.
28 days is a mean lunar month, [more accurately 28.425 days but anciently
utilised as 28 days] which relates to the sidereal value and the synodic month of 29.53 days.
The naksatras, however, do not represent the 27 day month but are locations in the sky, various
stars and asterisms [groups of stars such the Pleiades or in the relevant language, Krttikas] that
divide the synodic month into 27 units. The moon will reappear at the same place a synodic
year [354 days] later than the initial observation. Occasionally in some branches of Indian
astrology a 28th naksatra is added but that has no place here.
Note: The value 108 is seen frequently in India and here we see the lunar association
from where it possibly originates in that the sidereal month multiplied by 1.08 results in the
synodic month i.e. 27.32 x 1.08 = 29.5056.
The 30-day [30 tithis] month was associated with the 360-day year. Each of
the naksatras had a name, as did each of the 12 divisions of the zodiac hence the naksatras
cover the 360 degrees of lunar orbit…in the synodic period. Each naksatra is 360/27 = 13.3333
degrees in arc across the sky.
Previously I had given a possible date for the commencement of the naksatras
of 3256 BC. As the naksatras are supposed to have commenced at the vernal equinox this of
course was an erroneous albeit in some respects attractive idea given that the first quarter moon
and hence beginning of the bright half of the month coincided with the same picture relating to
the solar year. The naksatra starts with a new moon not a quarter moon! The relevant naksatra,

265
Krttikas, needs be directly associated with the equinox and hence this neat correlation did not
apply. Further investigation shows that the dating seems to commence at 16thApril 3186BC.

Fig 8.6. Sun and moon one hour after sunrise vernal equinox 3186 BC

266
Fig 8.7. The moon and sun one hour after vernal equinox over Mumbai at 3167 BC, 19 years
after the 3186 BC observation.

In Figure 3, the Naksatras are seen in the 27 per month format with
corresponding deities’ names. The western zodiac names have been added for clarity here. Also
shown are the lunar segmental titles and the names applied to the divisions of the Solar Year.
Some of the naksatras are actually asterisms [groups of stars that are parts of constellations]
that lie near to the plane of the ecliptic, and in Subhash Kak’s Babylonian and Indian
Astronomy: Early Connections he explains in more depth what they are now thought to
represent. The naksatras have two divisions, those that revolve from the north and those that
revolve from the south. The devas are said to have their abode at the North Pole and yamas at
the South Pole. They each revolve toward and away from the equator from opposite directions,
hence the deva naksatras revolve south of the North Pole and the yama naksatras revolve north
of the South Pole indicating seasonal changes.
The start point from Kak in Figure 3 would appear to be associated with the
spring, as at that time of year the yamas would be rising toward the north from the south. In the
second half of the year the opposite would be the case, with the devas descending toward the
south. The Taittiriya Brahmana 1.5.2.7 gives not only this information but also confirms the
fact that the first naksatra is the asterism of Krttikas or what are more commonly known as the
Pleiades, echoing the importance of this asterism or group of stars to ancient cultures.

267
 41 Arietis Aries Hamal
Pleiades Sheratan Aries
Apabh Asvini
Aldebaran Revati 99 Piscium
Krttika 1 27
2 26
Rohini U. Prosth.
63 Piscium
Alnath 3 Aries 25
Taurus
Vaisakha Caitra Prosthap.
Mrga
24 28 - 6 Piscium
4
Alhena Gemini Pisces
Ardra Jyestha Phalguna Satabhisaj
5 1 12
23
Pollux 2 11 Sadachbia - 48 Aquarius
Punarvasu Sravishtha
6 22
Cancer Aquarius
Asadha Magha
Pusya 3 10 Srona Deneb Algedi
Al Tarf
7 21

Asresa
Leo 4 9 U. Asadh Algedi
Asselus Australis 8 Capricorn 20
Sravana
Pausa
Magha 5 P. Asadh
8
Regulus 9 19 Sabik [Ophiuchus]
Virgo 6 7
P Phal Bhadrapada Saggitarius Mula
10 Margasira 18 Nunki
Chort
U. Phal Libra Scorpio
Asvayuja Jyestha
11 Kartika 17
Zavijava Hasta Anuradha Antares
12 Citra Svati Visaka 16
Porrima 13 14 15
Dschubba
Spica
Syrma Zubenelgenubi

Fig. 8.8. The construction of the Naksatras and their positions [after Prof. Subhash Kak]30
degrees covers approximately 2.25 naksatras. Here we see the relationship of the Naksatras to
the lunar months. Additional info from Dr. S. Balakrishna [NASA].

Kak notes that the commencing date for this sort of event should belong to the 3 rd
millennium BC or earlier. Indeed the best date as far as this investigation can ascertain that
seen above, Vernal equinox 3167BC. The association applies also, albeit not quite so accurately
to ‘the Pleiades continually rising in the east’ at around 2950BC, which prompted a much-
quoted verse in the Satapatha Brahmana to this effect. At that time the sun and Pleiades were
rising virtually together.
Of course this picture this picture is not repeated year after year due to the
speed of the lunar orbit. One solar year later the moon will be 11 days movement away from
this position as the lunar orbit is 354 days against the 365 of the apparent [we travel around the
sun not vice versa] sun. However, every 19 years when the sun and moon are virtually in the

268
same positions it will be seen to repeat itself. Again at 95 year cycles or 5 x 19 the same
situation arises.
Roughly every 250-260 years a small adjustment of the day was necessary to keep the
new moon in Pleiades at the equinox on track until there was a change to the Aries around
19007 when the sun rise at the vernal equinox was some ten days earlier than it was at the
naksatra start at 3167BC as seen for that period on our astronomy programs.
What this does very clearly indicate is that the skies were well understood before
3000BC in India and positions had been well plotted.

It is also a handy rule of thumb in these astronomical investigations to remember that

for every 1000 years back in time one has to move the day of the equinox forwards about seven
days. This is an approximation and the value is fractionally less than seven days. [With the
change in calendar in Europe from old Julian to Gregorian this gets confusing as ten days were
‘lost’ in the process of changeover, but it works for these early calculations.]

Saptarishi Calendar

There is further evidence of the great antiquity of Indic astronomy that relates to a very
ancient calendar indeed – the so-called Saptarsi Calendar. Whilst the Saptarsi calendar is very
early and apparently pre-dates the creation of worldwide Deluge mythology in the late 4 th
millennium/early 3rd millennium BC, it will be seen eventually to have a relationship with
Deluge mythology and dating. Despite its great antiquity, the Saptarsi calendar is still in use in
several parts of India. According to Kazanas, the term Saptarsi means ‘Seven Seers’ which
refers to the seven Rsis [or Rishis]. This is of course the constellation of the Great Bear or
Ursa Major, which was important to many ancient cultures. The term Saptarsi is interesting in
that it reminds us of the term in the Chambers Dictionary ‘Septen’trional’ in Archaic Latin,
which means ‘Northern’. Similarly, Septentrio’nes referred to the seven stars of the Great Bear
or the ‘plough oxen’.
According to Kak,

The Greek historians inform us that the Indians during the time of the Mauryas remembered
more than 150 generations of kings spanning over 6,000 years. (We assume that these lists
remember the prominent kings only.) The earliest calendar in India was centennial, with a
cycle of 2,700 years. Called the Saptarsi calendar, it is still in use in several parts of India. Its
current beginning is taken to be 3076 BC. Notices by the Greek historians Pliny and Arrian
suggest that, during the Mauryan times, the calendar used in India began in 6676 BC. It is very
likely that this was the Saptarsi calendar with a beginning of 6676 BC.32

However, there is an element of unexplained surmise here as is obvious from the

following paragraphs.
The dating from Pliny indicates an era for the creation of the Greek gods, at least for
Dionysus and gives a BC date of 6786.75 BC, when the calculation is based upon the ascension
to the throne of Alexander.

269
From the time of Father Liber [Roman Bacchus or Greek Dionysus] to that of Alexander the
Great, [356-323 BC, ascension in 336 BC] one hundred and fifty-three kings of India are
reckoned, extending over a period of six thousand four hundred and fifty-one years and three
months.33
Here we have a date from the summer of 336 when Alexander ascended the throne.
Effectively this can be seen as 335.5 BC to which we add the 6451.25 years mentioned by
Pliny to arrive at a date of 6786.75 BC or the spring of 6787 BC, the vernal equinox. Here we
have the onset of the Age of Gemini. The onset of the new zodiacal age is gradual and either
date, 6787 or 6676 would be equally viable from a visual perspective. Note also that this is a
visual dating when the Sun rose approximately midway between Cancer and Gemini as against
the modern date of 6500 which is based upon a geometrical division of the sky. [see Figures 8.8
and 8.9]. If we accept a small variation in dates ascribed to this event such as the 111 years
between the commencement of the Saptarsi Calendar and the date given by Pliny, which
visually was barely noticeable, then we can accept that the beginning of the age of Gemini
denoted not only the Saptarsi Calendar but also the birth of Dionysus. Other correlation
[Chapter 10] will eventually show that the 6676BC date nonetheless applied in India.
The Saptarsi calendar initially was allotted a cycle of 2,700 years, probably following
the naksatra monthly division of 27 days [or vice versa]. Its current beginning is taken to be
3076BC when its format was altered to one of 3,600 years as against the earlier 2,700 years
[possibly reflecting the yearly 360 day cycle or perhaps even the ‘No Pole Star’ cycle of 3600
years, although the onset of Thuban as pole star came in 3300BC.] from that point its beginning
was allotted the period of 3600 years previous or 6676 BC as we understand it today. Kak notes
that there is reference to this calendar construct in the Satapatha Brahmana where there is a
story of the Seven Sages [the Rsis or seven stars of Ursa Major] and the Krttikas.
The tale is later elaborated in the Puranic literature where it is stated that the Rsis stay
100 years in each Naksatra. As there are 27 Naksatras [here giving 2700 years in total] this can
only be a reference to the earlier Saptarsi count.
This is relatively easily explained however, the connection is with the number 27. The
naksatras number 27 to the month while the Saptarishi calendar has 2700 years to its make up.
A numerical lunar connection indeed and here we see the connection to the 100 years.
It is said the Saptarishi stay in each naksatra for 100 years but in fact it would be a little
more accurate to reverse this statement! Let us look at this from a different perspective. If we
symbolically equate a naksatra with a day we see that:-
2700 years = 985500 days
= 36500 naksatras
= 36500 days in 100 years
= 100 years
Hence we see that 27 naksatras or a month x 100 years
= Saptarishi Calendar
Of course there are more than the 27 sidereal days [27.32]to the month as the synodic
month is 29.53 days then there is the 30 days of the canonical count associated with the 369
day year and of course the 28.425 days of the mean month more usually seen as 28…but here

270
we are looking at a symbolic notation. Physically this does not work, mathematically it does
not work as days and years, however, the permutation is so blatently obvious that this has to be
the source of the concept as there is no practical application.
This has been confused with the 1000 year that the naksatras were visibly associated
with the Saptarishi as observed in the heavens. Here, as with the monthly version, a line is
taken from the celestial pole position to the relevant naksatra, implying that this was set up
when a pole star was in place. The pole star or at least its position comes into play as seen
above but with the monthly version the naksatra houses the moon and not necessarily the
Saptarishi when the line is accurately placed. The 1000 year version does not require the use of
the moon but does use the Sapstarishi and hence here we see the association in a physical
context, not, however for 100 years but for 1000 years. The line from the pole passes through
the Saptarishi to the relevant naksatra and this is visually viable for circa 1000 years. However,
to utilise all naksatras this would take 27000 years, well over a precessional period and hence
only a small portion of it had been actually checked. In fact it works from the early period
under discussion here circa 6-7000BC, right up to circa 3000 AD in this fashion so if the value
were seen as 1000 years then this was not a bad attempt at all, it does go astray after this period
however…hence this alignment does not, in reality apply even though it is widely stated albeit
using the 100 years period. However this is not the case as also applies to the other widely held
notion of the saptarisi rising to the east of the current naksatra. Therefore the mathematical
consideration seen above must have been the underlaying reason for the statements.
The question now is why did this Sapatarisi calendar commence at that year of 6676
BC and at what point in the year did it spring into life?
There was nothing specifically notable about the early part of the solar year or lunar
year when denoted by either the winter solstice of the first new moon afterwards. Hence we
look to the vernal equinox.
The vernal equinox occurred at three quarter moon, not exactly an exciting occasion, so
what was the cosmological event that was so important that it had to be commemorated with
the commencement of a new calendar?
As hinted at above in relation to the notes from Pliny the Elder, we see a slight
variation on the Greek version of the visual commencement of the Age of Gemini, which, using
a modern demarcation line between constellations commenced in 6500BC.
In modern times, the stellar areas of the constellations are geometrical regions in the
sky, which are not necessarily good visual representations. Hence, the modern demarcation
line between Cancer and Gemini is much closer to Gemini than the visual division between the
two. However, this geometrical division between one constellation and the next did not apply
in ancient times. The changeover marker then was when the Sun rose at a point that visually
was fractionally over halfway between the two. If we consider that the ‘dawning of the new
age’ or start of the Saptarsi calendar was the spring equinox, then this differential can clearly be
seen if Figures 8.8 and 8.9 are examined.

271
Fig. 8.9 The spring equinox, shortly after Sunrise in 6500BC, the modern date ascribed to of
the dawn of the Age of Gemini. Yet the Sun is well past the centre of the apparent space
between the constellations Cancer and Gemini, which logically should visually be the
demarcation line between Ages. This would NOT apply in ancient times.

There is a clear, visual representation of a central transference point between the two
relevant constellations in Figure 8.9. From this event, it therefore appears [as there was nothing
else auspicious in the sky, not even a planetary conjunction], that at the spring equinox in
6676BC, there was a neat correlation of the so-called ‘Beginning of the Age’ positioning of the
Sun within the zodiac.
From the above and Fig 8.9, it seems acceptable that the Saptarishi Calendar
commenced life at 6676BC. So it seems relatively safe to state that it appears that the
Saptarishi or Saptarsi calendar started at 6676 BC as tradition dictates, occurring at the spring
equinox . 36 of the 95 year cycles later, 3420 years, it appears that the nakstaras sprang into
life. The Sapstarishi calendar seems to be related to the start of the Age of Gemini although that
may well be coincidence, nevertheless, mythical stories regarding twins may well be a
reference to this era…Importantly both these entities are irrevocably related to the pole star
position.

272
 Moon adjacent to Krittikas [Pleiades]
Sun midway between Cancer and Gemini signifying the approximate commencement of the
Age of Gemini.

Fig. 8.10 The Sun in 6676BC, at the spring equinox, approximately midway between Gemini
and Cancer and three quarter moon adjacent to the Krittikas.

There is only one other consideration to take into account and that is derived from
ancient Egypt, where one more intriguing piece of evidence links to the above dating. In the
preface to her translation of Jean Richer’s Sacred Geography of the Ancient Greeks, Christine
Rhone states that:

In Egyptian astronomical tradition, there was a type of calendar where the beginning of the
year was related to the helical rising of Spica. 34
6676BC is a date that fits the described Egyptian calendrical event extremely well if
the year is seen to commence at midsummer when Spica would have risen above the horizon 35
minutes before the Sun. This astronomical vision would not have been available for long
however, and at the time of the onset of the first dynasty of Egypt, the Sun was rising around
three hours before Spica. Hence the Egyptians must have inherited an Indian tradition, or at
least a concept stemming from the same era as is under discussion here because plainly, this
calendar implication had long ceased to have any meaningful correlation by the time of
dynastic Egypt.
If we note once more the attribution to Indian king lists dating to 6676BC then it is also
obvious that this heliacal rising did not feature very highly in Indian importance, having been
noticeable from as early as 8200 BC when Spica rose some 80 minutes before the Sun. In fact,
by 5600BC, Spica and the Sun were rising in conjunction at midsummer and hence Spica
would have been invisible at that time.

273
 Spica

Fig. 8.11 Heliacal rising of Spica in the Midsummer of 6676 BC

The mean of these two dates is 6900BC when the difference in rising times was 45
minutes. This time difference does not have to be precise and was in any case getting less year
by year. This leads us to the conclusion that this Spica-orientated observation is derived either
from the Saptarsi calendar commencement year, or from another calendar commencement year
of 6681BC that is explained in the following chapter.
Certainly ancient cultures appear to have been obsessed by time keeping via the
heavens, but this is not surprising when the skies were the only stable element in anyone’s life
and even then, this stability occasionally was disturbed, as we shall see in a later chapter. Rig
Veda 1.164.11 speaks a wheel of time, while other texts relate information regarding the pivot
of the universe, but are these to be taken as abstract entities, or is there something more tangible
implied here?
Regarding these early astronomical developments, India of course was not alone in
such activities although perhaps it is the best and by far the most accurately recorded at early
dates, because the observations were textually recorded after being accurately orally handed
down for countless generations. This cannot be said of other regions where we have to rely
upon megaliths, structures or postholes for guidance. These sometimes are accurate but
occasionally have moved from their original positions a little, a continual freeze / thaw year
after year may be sufficient to move the alignment of a standing stone, if only to create a lean
that did not originally exist.

274
8.7 Dhruvaloka [The Pole Star]

If, as has been hypothesized in Deluge, Noah is the equivalent of the Indian Manu and
that the flood is astronomical, and if it effectively is directly associated with Pole Stars, we
should be able to find some confirmation among the Indian texts. The reference we need to
find is to the Pole Star being the centre of the Universe because if that centre, the axis, slips out
of place then the celestial waters that appear in the creation stories are going to move as well,
creating a flood. The naksatras are seemingly connected to the pole star and theSaptarishi
continually circle the pole in close proximity. This may be a flood in heaven, a flood of the
gods and not of man but nonetheless it is a flood and in any case, much of the literature
revolves around tales of the gods. The importance of the Pole Star is apparent if we consider
some verses from the Srimad Bhagavatum 5:23:5: Here the Pole Star is denoted as
Dhruvaloka.

With, situated at the end of its tail, Dhruvaloka and with its head bend downwards, it has its
body coiled up. The Prajâpati, Agni, Indra and Dharma are found on the tail with also Dhâtâ
and Vidhâta at its base; the seven sages are situated on its hip…
…Coiling to the right there are as its separate parts the constellations of the fourteen stars
[from Abhijit to Punarvasu] that mark the northern course and to the left in the north there are
the same number of them [from Pusyâ to Uttarâsâdhâ], that for sure make it on both sides
appear like the coiled body of a dolphin. On its back are of course seen the first three stars
[Mûlâ, Pûrvasâdhâ and Uttarâsâdhâ] and on the belly one sees the celestial Ganges [the band
of stars of the complete body of the Sisumâra star cluster that we know as our Milky Way].
Shortly previous to this extract we read,
When bulls are yoked together and tied to a central post to thresh rice, they tread around that
pivot without deviating from their proper positions--one bull being closest to the post, another
in the middle, and a third on the outside. Similarly, all the planets and all the hundreds and
thousands of stars revolve around the polestar, the planet of Maharaja Dhruva, in their
respective orbits, some higher and some lower. Fastened by the Supreme Personality of
Godhead to the machine of material nature according to the results of their fruitive acts, they
are driven around the polestar by the wind and will continue to be so until the end of creation.
Srimad Bhagavatam 5:23:3

275
Fig. 8.12 Sisumâra Serpent [the sacred river][The Milky Way]

Dhruva was the son of Uttanalada and Suneethi and legend has it that due to his
devotion, Vishnu allowed him his rightful place at the center of the whole revolving universe,
the North Celestial Pole. The Indian name for the pole star is Dhruvaloka [although it
sometimes called Dhruvapada]. Srimad Bhagavatam, in 5:21 indicates that there is an
association between planetary movements and the year, the Pole Star and a fabled mountain:
5:21:13 It has only one wheel [a solar year] with twelve spokes [the months], six segments [the
seasons] and three pieces to its hub [the four month-periods], that in its entirety is known as a
tropical year [samvatsara]; its axle is fixed on the top of Meru with Mânasottara at the other
end. The wheel of the chariot of the Sun is fixed there rotating on the mountain range of
Mânasottara like a wheel of an oil-pressing machine.
5:21:14 To that axle with its fixed base there is a second one that, like with the axle of an oil
pressing machine, measures one quarter of it. By its upper portion it is fixed to Dhruvaloka
[the centre of the stars]
The axle described above passes through the centre of Earth and in Srimad Bhagavatam
5: 7-11 is a description of the Sun’s movements from the vantage point of an observer looking
south from Dhruvaloka. But in one respect, perhaps the following has even more importance.
Srimad Bhagavatam 5: 16: 28 informs us that,
On top of mount Meru [Sumeru] is in the middle the dwelling place, the city of the most
powerful self-born one [Lord Brahmâ] …

276
 So here, as Brahma is the creator, we have the birthplace of creation, denoted as a city
at the celestial North Pole. In this cosmology the whole revolving wheel of the heavens has its
axis through the centre of the Earth with the northernmost point on Earth being Mount Meru
[discussed a little later] and the southernmost that of Manasottara. Above the top of Meru is
the North Pole Star, Dhruvaloka, the home of Visnu the preserver and Brahma the creator. The
Srimad Bhagavatum elaborates on this in verse 5:23:2:seen below.

Established by the supreme will of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the polestar, which is
the planet of Maharaja Dhruva, constantly shines as the central pivot for all the stars and
planets. The unsleeping, invisible, most powerful time factor causes these luminaries to revolve
around the polestar without cessation

Maharaja Dhruva is one of those mythical characters in Indian religious mythology

who was allowed his position after practising yoga on the bank of the Chirini River in the
Madhuvana Forest on one leg and through absolute devotion to the Lord achieved Narajana.
This is the highest status and Maharaja Dhruva achieved it in only six months. For his pains,
he was given not only his father’s kingdom, but the kingdom of the universe for a period of
36000 years.
Yet there is more to this than expected because the forest was not a terrestrial location.
The river was not to be found on Earth. Here we have reference to a forest, which, by
definition, has a heavenly location, as Maharaja Dhruva eventually was seen as the Pole Star.
In the Skanda Purana, which is examined in relation to dating in Chapter 10, there is an
episode that has a similar connotation in that it relates to terrestrial plants in the sky and a
‘child’ raised by the Pleiades or Krttikas.
So we are on safe ground when we say that Maharaja Dhruva was not doing his yoga
on the banks of the Chirini amongst the trees of an earthly forest, but was actually somewhere
in the skies. Here the Chirini river provides us with a clue, as it was seen as the Milky Way. A
different version of the tale mentioned earlier relates that it was Manu who practiced austere
fervor for 10,000 years on one leg and effectively Manu and Maharaja Dhruva were one and
same character or perhaps to be a little more accurate, celestial object.
According to the Mahabharata, Maharaja Dhruva was the son of Prajapati, who was
the son of Manu hence Maharaja Dhruva is the grandson of Manu. Vivasvat, father of Manu,
is in this text seen as a solar deity and the architect who built the cities and palaces of the gods,
a master craftsman who appears here to be equated with Brahma as the Mahabharata has Manu
as the son of Brahma. Hence, Brahma, while being prime creator, is here specifically
associated with the Sun without which nothing survives. So ultimately, we have a prime Sun
god who was also given the position of the centre of universe, the pole star location.
Maharaja Dhruva gained his father’s kingdom for the duration of his jurisdiction at the
pole position but then he had control of the universe for 36000 or 3600 years, the canonical
flood duration. This is confirmed in another version of the flood myth which has: The great
sage Manu, son of Vivasvat performing his austerities on the banks of the Chirini when he was
approached by Matsya the fish, in a similar manner to the other flood stories.

277
 So, is there a connotation seen in the sky that complies with this description? There
certainly is and it relates to the era of Tau Hercules as Pole Star. Firstly, for the river
connotation we can look back to the Sisumara Serpent, the Milky Way. This has been seen as
the Sarasvati and probably other rivers apart from the Chirini which we have yet to positively
identify. There is no doubt of the Milky Way identification as the pole star at the time
implicated was adjacent to the edge of this river, ‘on the bank’ in fact.
Which river on Earth, if any, was implicated by the Chirini? As the date here is pre ‘all
areas being sacred’ which ran from 6681-5090 BC [See Chaps 9 and 10 for yuga evaluation
and dating] this is difficult to evaluate and there is no indication. At 5090 the Sarasvati region
became the first to be singularily sacred, a step down from all areas being sacred. Much later
the Ganges took over. As the date for this pole star secenario runs from 8100 to 7100BC it is
clearly long before the ‘all is sacred’ definition applied and hence the Chirini could be
anywhere.
However, if we examine the shape of a constellation perched over this sacred place at
the north of the heavens [see Fig 8.12] then there can be no doubt of the intention, Maharaja
Dhruva was none other than Hercules with his big toe being Tau Hercules the Pole Star. This is
a vital key to many of the Deluge and Atlantis mysteries.
As the Pole Star is in position within its six-degree margin for 1000 years here we see a
perfect correspondence, the value of 10000 is reduced to 1000 but as we have seen that is
allowed in the texts. The dating here is from 8100BC to 7100 BC and is therefore leading up to
the episode of the Deluge. So in this we have confirmation of the Pole Star connection to
Indian mythical figures and indeed to ‘heavenly forests’ of which we shall learn a little more in
Chapter 10.
The Srimad Bhagavatum 4.9.21-22 and also Mahabharata Varna Parva CLXXXV1
relate that:

I shall award you [Dhruva] the glowing planet known as the polestar, which will continue to
exist even after the dissolution at the end of the millennium [here meaning 1000 years] which is
surrounded by all the solar systems, planets and stars. All the luminaries in the sky
circumambulate this planet, just as bulls tread around a central pole for the purpose of
crushing grains. Keeping the polestar to their right, all the stars inhabited by the great sages
like Dharma, Agni, Kasyapa and Sukra circumambulate this planet, which continues to exist
even after the dissolution of all others.

Further to that we read:

As Dhruva Mahârâja, the King's son, kept himself steadily standing on one leg, the
pressure of his big toe pushed down half the earth, just as an elephant being carried on a boat
rocks the boat left and right with his every step.
Srimad Bhagavatam 4.8.79

278
Fig. 8.13 Maharaja Druva, alias Sraddhadeva Manu, otherwise known as Vaivasvata Manu but
in fact here the constellation Hercules doing yoga on one foot with arms raised on the bank of
the River Chirini [Milky Way]. He is recorded as spending 1000 years in this position.

'O king, O foremost of men, there was a powerful and great Rishi of the name of Manu.
He was the son of Vivaswan and was equal unto Brahma in glory. And he far excelled his
father and grandfather in strength, in power, in fortune, as also in religious austerities. And
standing on one leg and with uplifted hand, that lord of men did severe penance in the jujube
forest called Visala. And there with head downwards and with steadfast eyes he practised the
rigid and severe penance for ten thousand years.

Mahabharata Varna Parva CLXXXVI

In the illustration we see Manu alias the constellation Hercules standing on one leg
with head down and raised arms. Other versions have this occurrence in the bank of the Chirini

279
River, obviously seen, as was the Nile in Egypt, as the celestial river, the Milky Way. The
period stated in the Mahabharata of 10,000 years is, as is so much else with the applied values,
too great and the correct era is 1000 years. This scenario, the picture of the constellation at the
pole, was also used by Plato in his Atlantis story where he wrote regarding the ‘Pillars of
Hercules’. The concentric circles of the canals of Atlantis closely resemble those formed by
the movements around the central pole star of Tau Hercules of the other stars in the
constellation. Plato was describing a time and not a place and when this is taken into account
his date of 9000 years before his own time is correct because he was looking beyond the
‘Pillars of Hercules’ to a period long before but after the previous demise of the pole star Vega.

Now for Dhruva

(18) Maitraya said:- After thus truly being worshipped by means of the fines
intelligence of his good intentions only, the Supreme Lord who is always there in favour of His
devotees spoke to him, after first having congratulated him.

(19) The Supreme Lord said, ‘I know about the determination within your heart oh son
of the king. Since you are sworn to piety, I shall grant you all the fortune, even though it is a
wish difficult to fulfil.

(20-21) Never before my good boy, there was anyone who managed to settle for such a
brightly glowing place known as the planet of Dhruva around which all the other planets and
constellations of stars are circling like a group of tethered bulls does running around a
pole[for crushing grain]. It is the planet which, keeping it to their right, along with the stars,
all eth sages of the forest move circumambulating like Dharma,Agni,Kas’yapa and S’ukra
whose lives stretch beyond a millennium.

(22) As soon as your father has left for the forest you will be awarded the entire world.
It will be under the pious protection of your rule uninterrupted for 36000 years in full control
of your faculties.

(25) Thereafter you will head for MY abode that is worshipped on all planets and is
situated above those of the rishis [Seven Sages or Ursa Major]. Having gone there, you will
never come back.

Srimad Bhagavatam 4.9.18-22

A further extract from the Srimad Bhagavatam, 5.22.17 which refers to the seven sages,
or Ursa Major, reads as follows:

280
…the seven saintly sages who are always thinking of the well being of the inhabitants of the
universe. They circumambulate the supreme abode of Lord Visnu, known as Dhruvaloka, the
polestar.
Hence there is no doubt whatever of the descriptions involved. It would appear from
the above that Druva and Manu are representing the same thing but in fact Manu is seen as
Hercules and Hercules including pole star Tau Hercules was taken away in the vessel towed by
Matysya the fish incarnation of Vishnu. So where does that leave Dhruva? It appears that
Druva, while being awarded the entire world… uninterrupted for 36000 years [3600] was to
care for Earth and though invisible, maintain the pole position and hence keep all the planets
circulating correctly around this location when the pole star was missing. Then when a new
pole star appeared[Thuban in Draconis] he was to head for that one and he would stay there.

Let us look a little further into the geneology involved in this sky myth. We have
observed lunar correlations in the calendar make up and now we are looking at the pole star
position but we should not leave the Sun out of the equation completely as shall be seen in the
line of family descent below. However to emphasise the lunar values yet again and introduice
the solar association we see a lunisolar connection in the Srimad Bhagavatam 5,:21:18:

So too do, with a variety of names, fourteen others knowing the saints, the Gandharvas,
Apsarâs, Nâgas, Yaksas, Râksasas and the demigods, thus one by one in seven groups of two,
every month worship the most powerful Sungod Sûrya, who is the life of the universe and who
carries different names depending on the different ceremonies.

This implies that Manu [or Noah] is now associated with both the Sun and Moon, and
is not dissimilar to the Egyptian Ra who had 74 titles and was a solar deity. In India the Sun
also had a multitude of titles and as in Egypt was accepted as the ‘eye of God’.
An extract from Bhagavad-gita 4:1 reads,

The Blessed Lord said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the Sun-god, Vivasvan,
and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind…

And in Bhagavad-gita 10:6

The seventh Manu is called Vaivasvata, and he is the son of the Sun-god. The eighth Manu is
called Savarni, and he os also a son of the sun- god…

Hence we see that the Manu prior to Sraddhadeva Manu, or Vaivasvata Manu was
Vivasvan. We read in Wikipedia [Manu (Hinduism)] that: According to the Puranas, the
genealogy of the 7th Manu, Vaivasvata is as follows:

1]Brahma
2]Marichi, one of the 10 Prajapatis created by Brahma.

281
3]Kashyapa, son of Marichi and Kala. Kashyapa is regarded as the father of humanity.
4]Vivasvan or Surya, son of Kashyapa and Aditi.
5]Vaivasvata Manu, originally Satyavrata, son of Vivasvan and Saṃjñā.
6]Ikshvaku, Nabhaga, Narishyanta, Karusha, Prishadhra, Dhrishta, Sharyati, Pramshu and
Nabhanedishta were the nine sons and Ila was the only daughter of Vaivasvata Manu

Therefore Surya the Sun god can be equated with the first Manu because he was
Manu’s father and according to this listing that means that the association with Vaivasvata
Manu is with the pole star Tau Hercules. Vivasvan or Surya, the sun god, relates to the period
of the earlier pole star, Vega and is directly associated with the star Spica in Virgo which ros e
with the sun at the vernal equinox in Virgo at that time. Creation was by Brahma or to use his
Vedic title, Vishvakarman. However, we have seen how the Manus are directly related to
Brahma. It now appears that the sun was seen to have a greater association with the process of
creation at this earlier period and here we see more credence given to Spica and its solar
association than to Vega the pole star. The implication is that it was only after the loss of the
pole star[s] that their importance to the visually revolving universe was noted and that the
creative actions were deemed to take place at the pole star at, but not before, the time of Tau
Hercules.
So we now see how the concept of Manu being ‘son of the sun’ arose. We are now also
aware that the concept of the pole star being the home of the creator did not apply until the
onset of the pole star Tau Hercules. These astronomical concepts seem to link to the early
developments at Merhgarh [now in Pakistan] circa 7000BC and a little earlier via people who
had migrated from Sundaland.

282
Fig.8.14. Spica and sun at vernal equinox era of Vega as pole star.

Here we refer to the findings of colleague Christopher John of Kuala Lumpur. Chris
has revealed, via a study of Vedic astrology, that the presiding deity of Spica is indeed
Vishvakarman, seen as creator in Vedic times. Later, this creative role was taken by Brahma.
As Brahma was later associated with the pole star it is apparent that a change took place in the
associations between deity and celestial body although the Spica connection was maintained in
astrological lore. The creator, effectively Manu, who is a manifestation of Vishvakarman or
Brahma because Manu re-creates after every flood, or with the onset of a new pole star, is here
closely associated with Spica.
Chris has also discovered a parallel to this in the creator Ptah of Egypt among
numerous other such astronomical and astrological alignments between the two cultures. The
mention of the calendar involving Spica has now seen to have more merit and a plausible
reason for inclusion. There are many more associations here than have generally been accepted.
Herodotus was told by Egyptian sources that… a total of 341 generations of kings and
priests have passed since the beginning, during which the sun rose twice where it now sets and
set twice where it now rises.[Histories book2 v 142 Rawlinson translation Wordsworth
Classics] Herodotus was born around 484 BC and hence we can deduce that he was referring to
the sun in Virgo.

283
  Date of info supplied to Herodotus circa 450BC.
 Sunrise at vernal equinox was in Pisces and at autumn in Virgo.
 Mid-summer one quarter of a precessional cycle earlier the sun was in Virgo-
mid-winter it was in Pisces
 Half a precessional cycle earlier, hence 12960 plus 450=13410BC the sun at vernal
equinox was in Virgo while at the autumn equinox it was in Pisces.
This explains the sun riddle. The sun was twice in the constellations it was seen in at 450-
BC between 450 BC and half a precessional cycle earlier.
So we now need to divide the 12960 years of the half precession period by the number of
generations of kings for a result of 38.0058 years.
In confirmation of this value, the Saptarisi calendar is said to span 71 kings or generations
and its length of course is 2700 years. 71 x 38.016 = 2699.136 years or put another way,
2700/71 = 38.028. Other correlations to this value will be seen in Chapter 10.
It is nevertheless apparent that Brahma and Vishvakarman are not often cited correctly
with Brahma often being seen in a Vedic context where in reality the name is from a later era.
At this point, we should look back to Chapter 5 where it was noted that according to
Masonic lore [derived ultimately, via Higden, Josephus and Berossus, from Sumerian sources]
the pillars that were buried before the flood were unearthed by Thoth, Noah’s grandson. Thoth
was later known as Hermenes in Greek lore and here we have Hercules at the pole with Tau
Hercules as the Pole Star equating with Maharaja Dhruva, Thoth and Hermenes. It appears that
the Hermetic Tradition is also based upon this concept of Pole Stars. Manu or Noah in reality
is Maharaja Dhruva because at the time of the next flood he will be saved once more in the
vessel of salvation, the Ark.
So effectively, we can equate a Pole Star, in this case Tau Hercules, with Manu, Noah,
Thoth, Hermenes and with Maharaja Dhruva. In Egypt the term utilised for the circumpolar
stars that did not set was the Imperishable Ones and we have a situation where Thoth
effectively created via speaking a word, but the creation was the desire of the chief god,
Ra…this is virtually a direct parallel to the earlier Indian system of beliefs regarding creation
where Brahman had to will the creator Brahma into being and it was Brahma who fulfilled
Brahmans desires. The Gospel of John introductory verse states that:- In the beginning was the
Word; and the Word was with God and the Word was God…here the Word can be viewed as
Brahma, as Thoth etc …yet another parallel…
The Indian texts do not refer to the Pole Position as the permanent home of Maharaja
Dhruva as he was allotted his place there for a finite duration of 1000 years and jurisdiction
over the universe for a further 3600 years. During the flood period, the canonical 3600 years,
the pole star is not in place, its position is ill defined, hidden, and we have to wait for the onset
of a new pole star in a different constellation which appears at the end of this period…and a
new creation by Manu, a personification of the creator god, Brahma.

284
8.8 The Cosmic Axis

There is a physical location that is accepted as the terrestrial hub of the centre of the
cosmic wheel of the apparent movements of constellations and planets around the Earth. This
place is sacred to a number of religions, creeds and cultures. It is revered by all in India and
both Buddhist and Hindu travel to its location in pilgrimage. The Bon people of Tibet
especially claim reverence for the location as tradition has it that their founder, the Lord Tonpa
Shenrab was born in 16000BC at the south of what is almost certainly the most sacred
mountain on the face of the planet. With this peak being understood as the centre of the axis of
the universe, it is often referred to as a heavenly or celestial mountain or generically as a
‘World Mountain’.

Fig. 8.15 The revered pyramidal shaped Mount Kailash.

If we are to follow Hindu tradition this journey into Tibet should lead us to Mount
Meru, as it is the most revered mountain in this mythos and indeed it is to be found in Tibet, but
not as might be expected, in the Himalayas. It lies further north across the Tibetan plain, at a
location that many see as the centre of the plateau and even of the world itself. This is where is
found what is probably the most awesome mountain in the world – the black pyramid of Mount
Kailash seem in Figure 8.17.
While many regions have their own sacred mountains, which are frequently associated
by local culture with God or ‘the gods,’ none can equal Mount Kailash in importance or have
such a fearsome reputation.

285
 The Himalayas are said to have been built by Vishnu as a first step in the formation of
the universe and on Mount Kailash, according to tradition, sits Shiva in a state of perpetual
meditation, generating the spiritual force that sustains the cosmos, whilst Shiva wears the bones
of the dead as decoration and smears himself in ash - signifying the burning of the lower
desires. The higher significance of the destroyer aspect is that he cuts asunder the bonds of the
ego, ‘liberating the Atma [essence of Brahman within] from the darkness of ignorance’.
Coincident with this theme of death is the presence of two large hollows on Mt Kailash
so that from one particular angle; the ice-covered dome of Kailash appears as a skull with two
large eyeholes peering out from beneath the skull-like dome.
The reverence of this mighty, natural pyramid of rock soaring over 22,000 feet upwards
is generally accepted to go back before recorded history. Mount Kailash is in an extremely
remote location that is difficult to access today, let alone in the distant past and it is very
unusual for such a sacred mountain to be in such an inaccessible place. Much could be written
about this location and the concept of the World Mountain and its relationship with the Deluge
construct in general but we will limit ourselves here to the specific meaning of Mount Kailash
in the mythical portrayal of astronomy in Indian culture and in fact to Asian culture in general,
where it is more generally referred to as Mount Meru or sometimes Sumeru.
As noted above, the Tibetan Lord Tonpa Shenrab was traditionally born at the south of
the mountain. While the birth of this specific character is of no importance to our discussion,
the location of this traditional event does have an impact. The angle of the mountainside
approximates 30 degrees and its location is 30 degrees 45minutes north by 81 degrees
30minutes east.
Looking at the top of the mountain from its southerly base at night between the dates
seen above, 8100BC to 7100BC, the illustration in Figure 8.16 would have been recognisable.
This is because not only would the constellation Hercules be seen in this position, apparently
standing on the mountain, but the ‘big toe’ of Hercules’ foot, the Pole Star Tau Hercules, would
have been seen at an elevation matching that of the top of the mountain. Maharaja Dhruva
would be seen standing on tiptoe at the peak of Mount Meru. For a description of this event we
can turn once more to the concept of Maharaja Dhruva, practising his Yoga in Srimad
Bhagavatam 4.8.79

As Dhruva Mahârâja, the King's son, kept himself steadily standing on one leg, the
pressure of his big toe pushed down half the earth, just as an elephant being carried on a boat
rocks the boat left and right with his every step.

So here, we see a description from the Srimad Bhagavatam matching what was seen in
the sky between the dates seen above from a location at the southern base of Mount Kailash.
Note the big toe pushed down half the earth creating equilibrium, a balancing. This is at the end
of a flood period when the cosmos regained stability.
We could not wish for better confirmation, we have Tau Hercules at the pole position
described in an Indian text. Dhruva Mahârâja was not an earthly personage; he was a
constellation.

286
 The constellation Hercules and its abode at the pole was in the forest, a celestial
northern forest through which a river passed [the Milky Way seen as the Chirini which today is
translated as the Yamuna, but the Milky Way is also recognised as the Ganges and as the
celestial Sisumâra Serpent], and the fringes of which came very close to the location of the Pole
Star, almost, but not quite, submerging it, thereby giving the appearance of the star being on the
banks of the river.
However there is more here in that Dhruva Mahâr�