Jerusalem, March 29, 1976
I was very pleased to get your acknowledgment of my contribution to the Festschrift as well as your invitation to write to you. Accepting the later may I ask you the Gretchenfrage?
In your section about Stonehenge which first appeared in a Rejoinder to Burgstahler and Angino (1967) and was reprinted in Pensée of May 1972, mention is made of the Slaughter Stone (Altar Stone) and its shifting location during the ages, so as to be met by the first ray of the rising sun. In this connex your statement the shining forth of the first ray of the sun was the moment demands an amplification! My question is: Is it not obvious that the scrupulosity of the observance was not meant for astronomical calculation alone, but also to fix the exact moment for ritual slaughtering? Worlds in Collision quotes from unpublished notes of G. A. Dorsey: There seem to have been astronomical beliefs connected with the sacrifices (p.?92). I think that the heliacal rising of the Morning Star after leaving its inferior conjunction was the moment.
Checking my notes, which I feel I should have done already 3 or 4 years ago, I find: Man nimmt an, dass dort [auf dem astronomischen Stein des Sonnentempels zu Stonehenge] im Augenblick des Sonnenaufgangs ein feierliches Opfer gebracht worden sei,... (E. Krause, Tuiskoland, 1891, Kap. Griech. Sagen über die Herkunft der Lichtreligion , S. 178). Should there be any doubt about the nature of the sacrifice, or the source which constituted in ancient faith the light-spending power, the following may lend some insight: Noch die alten Sarazenen opferten dem Morgenstern Venus, der Göttin Al-Uzza, bei ihrem Aufgange das Beste aus der Beute, besonders schöne Knaben,... Der Morgenstern, Venus (Phosphoros) geht auf und Helios folgt ihm... (transl. from Nili opera, Parologia graeca, Vol. 79, 611ff ed. Migne). A very strong trend prevails to weaken and to repress the impact of the whole issue, to ascribe to it legendary meaning. This can be seen from a paper titled: Ist der sogenannte Nilus-Bericht eine brauchbare religionsgeschichtliche Quelle? (Autor: J. Henninger, Anthropos 50, 1955). In his conclusion the article says: Das Ganze erklärt sich viel zwangloser, wenn das Kolorit dieser Schilderung aus der Buchgelehrsamkeit [...] stammt . Initially I intended to give this reference only in passing. However, passing over my notes, I find too many factors relevant to our theme, which I feel (perhaps subjectively) should not be swept below the carpet:
1. Die Beduinen bringen regelmässig Menschenopfer dar...
4. Dieses Opfer wird der Morgensterngottheit dargebracht.
5. Deshalb findet es in der Morgendämmerung statt und muss vor Sonnenaufgang beendet sein (solange der Morgenstern noch sichtbar ist).
6. Als Schlachtaltar dienen aufgeschichtete Steine.
7. Das Blut des Geopferten wird als Libation ausgegossen...
10. Das Opfer hat Sühnecharakter.
(Pseudo-Nilus-Bericht, Patr. gr. Col. 641 and 680-88).
Your commentary about the 56 Aubrey holes makes Stonehenge a cult-place holy to Typhon. The term Typhonic Sacrifice has so far been avoided in Velikovskian literature. But we should go right to the cultural background of things (Original Text fehlt!). But we know from Manetho that red-haired (better blond) human beings were burnt alive as so-called Typhonians at the tomb of Osiris (Plutarch, De Isis et Osiris, ch. 73) and at Heliopolis (Diod. Sic. I, 88). This custom, justified by all kinds of political beatifications, is continued until this day. This is manifested by Jasser Arafat, who has appeared as the mouth-piece of the offerers at UNO, while the victims are silenced by a hostile audience and even more by their inaptitude to conceive their right for survival.
A few days ago I had a call from your granddaughter, and was glad to learn that you are well and working as usual.
With very kind regards, also to your wife,