Velikovsky, Freud and Geology

Geoscience Canada, Volume 2, Number 2. April, 1975, Page 109

Velikovsky, Freud and Geology

George Grinnell

Department of History, McMaster University, Hamilton,Ontario

“Thus from the Geological evidence,” Velikovsky writes in the back of Earth in Upheaval, “we came to the conclusion to which we had also  arrived travelling the road of the historical and literary traditions of the peoples of the world – that the earth repeatedly went through cataclysmic events on a global scale, that the  cause of these events was an extraterrestrial agent. and that some of these cosmic catastrophes took place only a few thousand years ago, in historical times.”

Velikovsky, like Darwin and Galileo and other great scientists seems to feel it incumbent upon him to misrepresent the manner by which he came to his theories. Actually, Velikovsky’s catastrophic hypothesis emerged out of a disagreement he had had with Sigmund Freud. Later he went searching through old geological papers to see if he could not find some evidence to support his ideas. His statement: “Thus from the Geological evidence we came to the conclusion that the earth repeatedly went through cataclysmic events,” is not an accurate description of his method. but then that is not really the issue. The issue is: is Velikovsky correct?

Immanuel Velikovsky in 1939 was the only practicing psychoanalyst in Palestine, but he disagreed violently with Sigmund Freud’s assertion that monotheism has arisen out of an incestuous event, in the early years of history, between Akhnaton and his mother.

Velikovsky claimed that the real traumatic experience underlying monotheism had been a natural one when a comet had passed close to the earth within historical times sending ancient civilisations into ruins and allowing nomadic tribes, like the Jews, to settle in Palestine.

I came upon the idea that traditions and legends and memories of generic origin can be treated in the same way in which we treat in psychoanalysis the early memories of a single individual,” he writes, “I spent ten years on this work. I found that the collective  memory of humankind spoke of a series of global catastrophes that occurred in historical times.”

Velikovsky received independent corroboration from the French archaeologist, Claude Schaeffer, who in 1924 had dug in the ruins of Ugarit and Enkommi to discover that these ancient cities had been destroyed by a natural catastrophe rather than by a man-made one. Schaeffer’s later researches led him to believe that in fact a world-wide catastrophe of unknown origins had befallen the earth and that there was a correlation between civilised ruins around the world.

The mechanism for this universal terrestrial catastrophe was provided by the Russian astronomer, Sergei Vseksviatskii, director of the Kiev observatory, who believes that comets are erupted out of Venus and that some of them could have passed near the earth within historical times.

Velikovsky noted the traditional fear of comets in ancient legends; he also noted that. according to the Greeks, Venus had originally been blown out of Jupiter. Velikovsky took these ancient legends seriously: in fact, literally, and argued that Venus had once separated from Jupiter, had followed an eccentric orbit, and had caused widespread destruction on earth before settling in its present position around the sun.

The combination of astronomical data and archaeological data along with his interpretation of legends provided Velikovsky with a powerful frame of reference by which to reinterpret geology. In as much as he had been trained as a psychoanalyst rather than as a field geologist, Velikvosky was forced to resort to the New York Public Library for his geological resources. Here he ran through a huge pile of sources ranging from Buckland’s 1822 treatise  Reliquiae diluvianae. to Liakhov·s 18th century accounts of massive animal graveyards in the arctic. To a modern geologist, his sources seem dated. Instead of approaching the subject  from within the well-established uniformitarian paradigm of Charles Lyell (equally dated), he insisted on going back to pre-Lyellian Geology when the catastrophic theory had been more respectable. Yet evidence is evidence. Velikovsky’s footnotes are in order.  Mounds of bones and broken tree trunks had been found on Arctic Islands. Buckland had found bones of  a hyena, a tiger and an hippopotamus in the Kirkdale caves. The real problem was one of correlation. No geologist would deny that the earth provided evidence of catastrophe, they would only deny that there was any  necessary correlation between the individual local catastrophes. and the great big, universal catastrophe demanded by Velikovsky.

In a fit of frustration, members of the AAAS attempted to repress Velikovsky’s work. “The book is worse than an attack on science,” Dean McLaughlin wrote to the president of Macmillan, Velikovsky’s publisher. “The book is a serious threat to education and, I believe to the democratic principle itself. It raises very serious questions that go far beyond the domain of science.”

The pressure on Macmillan was so great that it finally had to drop the  book, fire the editor and to apologize to the AAAS for having published the book in the first place. Atwater, curator of the Hayden Planatarium in New York was fired the day before he attempted to put on a show illustrating  Velikovsky’s ideas.

Velikovsky was somewhat surprised at the violent reaction his books had engendered. As a psychoanalyst, however. he explained it away as being a product of this traumatic experience through which man had suffered. So great was the experience, he claims, that we do not wish to remember ii, and if anyone brings it to the surface. the only defence is suppression.  Nonetheless, Velikovsky believes that this suppression is dangerous and that we must face the fact that Nature is not nearly so much under scientific control as we would like to believe.

On the 16th through 19th of June, 1974, a Velikovsky Symposium  was held at McMaster in order to  evaluate his ideas as objectively as  possible. The work of  Claude Schaef fer  was given a very favourable review at the hands of  Dr  Beatty from  North Carolina,  and the  American  Indian, Vine Deloria. was happy that at  least one white man (Velikovsky) had taken Indian  legends  seriously,  legends which had long since spoken of early catastrophes. But the American space experts. Drs. Morrison and Zeller were effective  in tearing  apart Dr.Vseksviatskii’s paper, although Dr. Vseksviatskii had already  been successful in tearing  apart  the American hypothesis on comets. There was  a standoff  in the heavens.  Everyone agrees that there are some very peculiar things about the planet Venus, particularly it s slow retrograde motion and hot temperature, but while Venus is an embarrassment to the nebula  hypothesis of  the uniformitarians, there were some major difficulties  in  the  Velikovsky explanation  as well;  namely,  how did Venus manage to break from Jupiter without first exploding, and how did it manage to go from a  highly  eccentric orbit to a nearly circular orbit within the prescribed  time?

By the end of the symposium. it was clear that we needed to hear from geologists on the question of catastrophe. but all the geologists. or nearly all. who  had been  invited refused to come. At the moment, the issue is not really whether Velikvosky is correct or not, the issue is whether Velikovskys hypothesis is worth taking seriously  enough  for  professional geologists to spend their time on. It would not hurt geologists or geology to go  back to fundamentals once in a while.  At the root of Velikovsky’s theory is a  serious  philosophical  question about Man’s  relationship to  Nature.  Is the earth in the grip of forces far more powerful  than  anything  we can conceivably contend with? This is the uncomfortable proposition Velikovsky asks us to live with. The details of his theory may well need revision, but it is no longer so clear that technological man is as capable of controlling his destiny as we had once believed. It seems possible that, in the last analysis, we may be forced to use our science as a vehicle by which we may come to stand in awe of  nature after we have despaired of taming her.

MS received  December  1 1, 1974.

About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. I spent my professional life looking for mineral deposits, found some, and also located a number of kimberlites in NSW and Western Australia. Exploration geology is the closest one can get to practicing the scientific method, mineral exploration always being concerned with finding anomalous geophysical or geochemical data, framing a model and explanation for the anomaly and then testing it with drilling or excavation. All scientific theories are ultimately false since they invariably involved explaining something with incomplete extant knowledge. Since no one is omniscient or knows everything, so too scientific theories which are solely limited to existing knowledge. Because the future always yields new data, scientific theories must change to be compatible with the new data. Thus a true scientist is never in love with any particular theory, always knowing that when the facts change, so too must he/she change their minds.
This entry was posted in Catastrophism, Geology, History, plasma universe, Science and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s