Our planet has been the scene of major catastrophes many, many times. The end of the last Ice Age involved a period of glacial melting between 12,000 B.C. and 10,000 B.C. that was global in impact. A meteor shower devastated the planet in 9600 B.C., causing massive tidal waves. A second glacial melting occurred between 6000 B.C. and 4000 B.C. And a meteor shower shortly before 3000 B.C. caused an impact in the north Atlantic resulting in tidal waves along the coasts of Europe and North America.
Our notion of history dates from about the time of this last event, and small wonder. For very little knowledge survives these disasters. Wherever they strike, human beings are set back. We fondly believe that our accumulated knowledge dispels a primeval ignorance when instead it has been rebuilt from a time of despair and loss. As it probably was following the catastrophe that came before it.
Our attitude toward cultures that developed after 3000 B.C. is marked by confidence because the evidence of these cultures is plentiful. We can precisely date the archaeological finds and compare them to written records from within the culture. We may question the veracity of these records, but we believe that they refer to people who really lived.
We have archaeological finds from before 3000 B.C. They are regarded as very precious, but they are mysterious. We know that human beings left these treasures, but we have almost no written records about those human beings. We have few explanations why they built their strange monuments. We do recognize that distinct cultures produced these wonders, but we rarely give them names because we know so little about them. We have this attitude toward all discoveries back through three catastrophes, to before 12,000 B.C.
A few stories have come down to us from those bygone days. It is hard to know whether they are true or not, because they use archetypes. An archetype is a single character who represents a personality type, a nation or a dynasty. With successive retellings, only the gist of the story remains intact. When that sort of situation repeats itself, the similarity is recognized and a second version of the same tale is created. This second version uses the same archetype as the first, and someone from a later age might be led to believe that the events of both stories happened to the same individual. We simply cannot be sure when a name is used twice that it is referring to the same person in the same lifetime. We cannot even be sure that it's referring to a single person, for invading armies may be reduced to a lone trespassor in a grain field. Yet the stories probably refer to real events, and should be taken seriously.
This is the realm of legend. Many say it is the realm of myth, but I must differ in opinion because the archetypes of these old stories are human beings engaging in human activities within societies that have left evidence of their existence. The archetypes may have become gods in the stories, but they were in fact ancestors of the people who worshipped them.
The realm of myth is very different. Sometimes there is evidence suggesting that a myth has a basis in fact, but there is no proof. A myth speaks of beings that are more than human, of visitations from other planets or even other dimensions, of a consciousness which surpasses our understanding. And of the manner in which planets, galaxies, and even the universe have been created.
When myth enters the historical realm, we are confounded. It does not belong in our familiar world. We build religions around it. We perform rituals in its memory and we feel passionately, because our prosaic recent history has been touched by the enormity of questions concerning events that occurred eons ago. This may be sparked by a revelation that we believe came from another planet or another dimension. It may be the product of meditation upon the infinite and the supernatural. But it is something that imposes itself upon our mundane reality. When it is safely ensconced in the past we feel much more confident about the whole thing. That's what they believed then; we're just dispassionately interested now. But what they believed then and what we believe now are both in the realm of myth. The word 'myth' does not mean 'fiction', after all. It can be true, or it can be based on truth, and it deserves to be taken seriously.
The societies covered in this website are not mythical. They are well ensconced within the realm of legend. Dating roughly from 8000 B.C. to 200 A.D., they were comprised of human beings who have left archaeological evidence of their existence. These human beings have left us a wealth of information. The stories of Arthur and the Dynasty of Llyr come from the Mabinogi of the ancient Britons. Those of the United Kingdom come from the Lebor Gabala and Cathe Maig Tuiredh of Ireland, as well as from the Mabinogi, with inferences from the Volsunga Saga. Some of my accounts of the 'Hyperboreans' and Circaesir come from the writings of Diodorus and Herodotus. The story of the Aesir and Vanir comes from the Ynglinga Saga. The stories of the Faery and the Celts come from the Lebor Gabala, and from the Uillean and Fiannan cycles of the Irish.
If you want myth, you may look to what the Faery knew of ancient Mesopotamia. The Aesir seem to have had a contact with these mysteries, and the Celts claimed to be touched by them also. The mysteries reached all these people again with the advent of Christianity. Many people believe in them deeply. Yet those very same people suffer from a mental block when it comes to the legends.
How very odd that myth is believed, yet legend is not. Read between the lines, and discover why. The true story of northern Europe has been hidden from sight. Because at the heart of that story is a secret, and that secret is the fact that in very ancient times, northern Europe was populated by little people and by giants... and most of its current inhabitants are, to some extent, their descendants.
what the wizards really were
wizards in the Bible
graphic courtesy of Farvardyn
return to mainpage