Re: The Bear Goddess...IE?/Seven Stars

--- In cybalist@..., "Glen Gordon" <glengordon01@...> wrote:

> Cort:
> >Yep, but I wasn't sure if we addressed the possibility that the
> >Pleiades themselves might have been at the core of this issue. As
> >I recall, in the last discussion we had, we connected the number 7
> >in the Eurynome myth to the 7 planetary shperes. Someone mentioned
> >that some of the planets were not clearly visible to the naked eye,
> >and thus this might be a difficult association for very ancient
> >cultures to make.
>
> Hmm, but first of all, to assume that all the seven bodies MUST
> be planetary is rather too modern-thinking, don't you think? As
> far as I'm aware, I don't think neolithic peoples could really
> tell the difference between stars and planets, aside from
> knowing perhaps that the planets "wander". They were good
> but not that good. So, let's reexamine the 7 "planetary spheres"
> idea.

Well, I tend to agree, and that is one reason I suggested the
Pleiades alternative. However, the seven planetary spheres were known
about by early Mesopotamian civilizations, so who knows? I wouldn't
put astronomy skills past some ingenious neolithic folk.

> We know that Venus is visible. It is the brightest planet in
> the sky, followed by Jupiter (again, highly visible). There is
> Mars which I can certainly spot with the naked eye personally,
> but then I have good eyes. I mention the Pole Star as well,
> because it is quite bright and visible too. Also, it is the
> "center" of the sky and might be especially linked with the World
> Tree.
>
> That's four VISIBLE bodies right there: Venus, Jupiter, Mars
> and the Pole Star. Then you have the Sun and the Moon. Now
> we're up to six. The last one is hard to say. Afaik, Saturn
> is visible enough in the sky even if it is less bright, thereby
> making seven. Further, I continue to have a sneaking suspicion
> that the "seven" bodies were divided up into a set of "three"
> (Venus-Sun-Moon) and "four" (Jupiter-Saturn, Mars-Venus).

> Now I know I shouldn't rely on general impressions but my
> "impression" is that constellations were a late outcrop from the
> original concept of linking *individual* stars to individual gods
> or deceased people. Over time, _entire groups of stars_ came to
> be individual entities. This seems like the natural course of
> development here. So, I doubt that the Pleiades is as old a
> mythological concept as, say, Venus. In fact, I doubt that Orion
> and Taurus are of great antiquity either, even though they
> evidently appear to be linked to the whole axe-and-horn concept
> which happened to survive the neolithic (in altered form, of
> course).

I counter with general impressions of my own:) It seems to me the
combination of myth and constellation would be an early association
for people to make, since all that is necessary is to look at the
stars with an imaginative eyte. Kids do the same thing with clouds.
I agree Venus was probably very important from way back when. After
all Venus has some special characteristics: Very bright, visible near
dawn etc.
However, if the Pleiades were used to mark the coming of the new
yeear, that suggests not only antiquity but a cultural significance I
would expect to see reflected in a similarly important role of myth.

Cort Williams