Ancient gods of the whole world. Names of ancient Greek mythology

PART TWO. “GODS, MY GODS!..” - Can one word really mean so much! - Alice said thoughtfully. “When I give the word a lot of work,” said Humpty Dumpty, “I always pay him overtime.” L. Carroll, “Alice through the Looking Glass.” - 1. “IN A WHITE HARNESS OF ROSES...” Through the mouth

Gods Of course, gods exist - in other words, there are Forces that stand above the world and serve as conductors of divine energies. And only the physical mind, which believes in physical phenomena alone, denies their existence. There are other worlds inhabited by similar

Literally the entire life of ancient cultures took place with the participation of gods, whom our ancestors considered real beings, and modern historians attribute to fiction and fantasies of primitive thinking. Meanwhile, a huge number of traces of the real presence in the distant past of these very gods - representatives of a very highly developed civilization - have been preserved on Earth. What kind of civilization was this?.. Where did it come from?.. And why did our ancestors consider its representatives to be gods?.. This book is dedicated to the search for answers to these questions, which uses materials collected by the author during numerous expeditions and trips to the most different countries.

Gods in people's lives

In the modern imagination, the life of our distant ancestors was inextricably linked with the gods.

There were many gods. In some places their number was in the tens, and in others it reached many thousands - as, for example, in India.

The gods were different - both in status, and in strength, and in capabilities, and in the scope of their activities. Some of them “managed” only narrow areas - sleep, luck in the game, ripening of crops, fishing, trade and the like. Others were subject to the elements of nature. And still others controlled everything around – including gods of lower rank and capabilities.

The gods could be good, but they could also be evil. Moreover, there were practically no “absolutely good” or “absolutely bad” gods - even the most evil gods could provide help and assistance to a person, and the kindest gods could sometimes bring down very severe punishment on him for disobedience or simply even because of his own bad momentary mood .

People appealed to the gods for a variety of reasons - to cure an illness, ward off danger, provide assistance in a hunt or commercial transaction, support in a military campaign or during the harvest. In some cases, a short verbal or even mental appeal to God was enough for this; in others, such an appeal had to be accompanied by the performance of complex and lengthy ceremonies and rituals, often in specially designated places or luxuriously decorated temples.

To obtain the favor of some gods, a simple request was enough, for others it was necessary to make a blood sacrifice or make some other offering, and for others it was necessary to serve regularly or even constantly. A person could turn to some gods himself, but to communicate with others, additional intermediaries were required - sorcerers, shamans, or priests specially trained in special spells and prayers, equipped with temple utensils and sacred objects.

Everything around was subject to the influence of the gods - from the weather and the movement of celestial bodies to the appearance of heads or tails when tossing a coin. So literally everything was permeated with the invisible (and sometimes visible!) presence of the gods and their participation in human life. And, as a consequence, people perceived the gods as an integral part of their existence, and the corresponding attitude towards the gods was an integral part of the very worldview of people, and not just “accidental superstition” or “current religious doctrine.” Not a single important decision was made without consultation with one or another patron god...

This is exactly how historians and archaeologists, researchers of religion and culture, ethnographers and representatives of various other sciences, one way or another connected with the history of man and society, picture for us the life of our ancestors.

At first glance, ancient texts, sculptural and graphic images, as well as other various artifacts that have survived to this day completely confirm this idea. And sometimes we have no doubt about it at all.

But was it really so?.. Maybe the role of the gods was much more modest?.. And if, after all, this was the case, then what was the reason for such “omnipresence” of the gods in the minds of people?.. After all, this must be the case some reason...

A little about the reliability of our ideas

Of course, it is not so easy to draw any conclusions regarding such an intangible entity as people’s ideas and their worldview when we are talking about long past times. Indeed, in this case we do not have the opportunity to directly communicate with the very carriers of this worldview.

These difficulties are still somehow surmountable in relation to, for example, the ancient thinkers of Ancient Greece, with whose works we still have the opportunity to get acquainted, although for this we will have to learn the ancient Greek language. And here the conclusions about the worldview of people of a given period can be quite correct, and our ideas about their ideas can be quite correct.

For extinct languages, from which only written sources remain, this is much more difficult to do, but it is also possible. Although here we are already faced with the fact that the very process of “restoring” these languages ​​and translating texts requires certain additional hypotheses and assumptions, the validity of which is sometimes simply impossible to verify. As a result, there is always the possibility that a particular text has been translated with errors or even incorrectly.

There are plenty of examples of such errors, but I will give here only two of them, which, in my opinion, are very indicative.

The first example concerns the translation of texts that remained after the powerful Hittite civilization, which dominated Anatolia (the territory of modern Turkey) in the 2nd millennium BC and was, along with Ancient Egypt and Assyria, one of the most powerful states of that time. The Hittite civilization left us not only ancient structures and numerous bas-reliefs, but also many inscriptions and tablets with texts, the number of which amounts to hundreds of thousands.

Nowadays there are already weighty monographs describing the customs, laws and traditions of the inhabitants of the Hittite Empire, its social structure, the way of life of people and their religious worldview. These descriptions are drawn primarily from the Hittite texts themselves and are therefore considered completely reliable. Meanwhile, the translation of these texts was a very, very difficult task, to which the Czech researcher Bedřich Grozny made a huge contribution.

We will not go into details and nuances of problems with the translation of Hittite texts and its history here. Many books have been written on this topic, and anyone can find them quite easily. Only one point is important to us.

The fact is that Grozny was able to find an approach to “deciphering” (it would be more correct to talk not about decoding, but about translation) of the Hittite writing at the beginning of the 20th century and was engaged in translations until the end of his life. However, this was not at all a simple “linear” development of his knowledge of the principles of Hittite writing - towards the end of his work, he was forced to re-translate even those texts that he had previously supposedly translated, because he discovered errors in his own translations.

It is clear that errors in translations of texts directly entail errors in our ideas about ancient peoples, and even more so in ideas about the worldview of the people who made up these peoples. Only specialists who have spent many years studying ancient languages ​​can detect such errors. And such specialists for specific languages, as a rule, are very few - they can literally be counted on one hand. And the mistake of just one person in translation can lead to errors in the ideas about ancient reality for all of us...

Another example concerns an even more ancient civilization - the civilization of the Sumerians, who lived southeast of Anatolia, in Mesopotamia - in the vast territory between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. From this civilization, quite a lot of texts written in the so-called cuneiform script have also reached us.

One of the tablets with similar cuneiform writing was found by an expedition of the University of Pennsylvania in the ancient city of Nippur. It dates back to approximately 2200 BC.

An initial analysis of the text on this tablet led researchers to the conclusion that it contains descriptions of the preparation of potions from various minerals, plants and even animals, as well as a lot of obscure terms. As a result, it was concluded that it contains a text with some “magic spells” that were used by the ancient Sumerians in healing.

However, in 1955, linguist S. Kramer invited his friend chemist Martin Levy, a specialist in the history of natural sciences, to translate this text. And then it was discovered that the tablet contained a large number of special words and expressions that required knowledge of not only the Sumerian language, but also pharmacology, chemistry, botany and other things. In order to prepare a clear and accurate translation, it turned out to be necessary to make a complex comparison of the terms used in the text with the terminology of cuneiform documents of a later time. And in the end it turned out that the tablet contained not just descriptions of certain potions, but a fairly accurate description of the symptoms of diseases and recipes for preparing medicines for these diseases. It turned out that the substances obtained on the basis of the given exotic recipes have very effective pharmacological properties!.. And no “magic”!..

It is quite obvious that the first version of the translation led to ideas about the ancient Sumerians as people subject to the strong influence of religious prejudices. The second translation option is fully consistent with the natural science approach to the world around us. Two fundamentally different types of worldviews!..

Of course, in this case we are talking about just one sign. But where is the guarantee that other Sumerian texts are translated absolutely correctly? Nobody can give such guarantees. And this “medical plate” is a fairly clear confirmation of this. And if so, then we cannot exclude the possibility that our ideas about the worldview of the ancient Sumerians may also contain serious errors...

And even greater difficulties await us in the case of analyzing cultures from which there is no written language left at all. All we can operate with here is a certain amount of material evidence in the form of household items, images (very often quite sketchy), remains of buildings and the like. In this case, researchers are forced to put forward a lot of additional assumptions, most often boiling down to the transfer of ideas about some ancient cultures to even more ancient ones. In mathematical terms, they are engaged in simple extrapolation.

However, extrapolation is a method that can lead to very serious errors. Especially in cases where the system of phenomena, phenomena or facts under study is subject to serious changes outside the interval for which its behavior is more or less known.

This can be illustrated, say, by the example of Neanderthals - an example that has already become somewhat “classical”.

For a long time it was believed that Neanderthals were not much different from ordinary animals, and their consciousness was practically undeveloped. However, then discoveries were made that radically changed scientists' views on these ancient human relatives. And now it is believed that Neanderthals already had their own highly developed religious ideas. In particular, ideas about life after death and the so-called “cult of the bear.” Here's how Clix writes about it, for example:

“The most famous example... is the Neanderthal bear cult. The first discoveries were made in the Swiss Alps at an altitude of 2400 meters, in the so-called Dragon Hole. At the entrance to this cave there was a kind of pillow made of stones with a side of about one meter. On top lay a massive stone slab. Underneath it were several bear skulls, facing towards the entrance. Numerous bear skulls in the same orientation were discovered in the depths of the cave. One of them had a leg bone inserted into the hole above the cheekbone. The object of this ritual was a cave bear...” (F. Klix, “Awakening Thinking”).

Ethnographers are well aware that many so-called primitive tribes have a cult of certain animals. As a rule, these are animals that a particular tribe often encounters in real life, and on which human life sometimes depends.

It is quite obvious that Neanderthals living in caves periodically had to deal with the cave bear - a large and dangerous predator. And it seems quite logical to put forward the assumption - by analogy with well-known primitive tribes - that they have just a “cult of the bear”. After all, the very location of the bear skulls with their obvious orientation towards the entrance to the cave must be explained somehow. It must have some reason. Simple logic and the method of analogies lead to the hypothesis of the “cult of the bear.” But this is the very extrapolation that can produce serious errors.

Is the “cult of the bear,” which has a mystical-religious basis, the only possible explanation in this case?.. Not at all!

Everything can be explained much more simply without any “rituals” and “cults” - the skulls served to intimidate dangerous predators and prevent them from entering the cave. In this case, a completely natural reaction of animals known to us is used - the sight of dead relatives creates a feeling of danger. This reaction is still sometimes used today, when several shot birds are displayed on a pole in the garden to scare away crows. And in this case there is no longer any “mysticism” or “religious ideas”, but a rational decision based on empirical experience.

But which interpretation is correct then? And what kind of worldview did the Neanderthals have - mystical-religious or simply natural-cognitive?.. But the difference between the two options is cardinal!..

Let's take another “discovery” of researchers.

“...Neanderthals buried their dead or fallen brethren. These burials contain additional, widely varied objects that may provide an indication of the role the dead played during life. In the La Chapelle-aux-Saints cave, the burial of a man was found with a bison's leg placed on his chest. There were also many crushed bones of animals and flint tools - care for the hunter or supplies for future life in the invisible “otherworldly” world. His needs “there” were determined by analogy with the needs “here”. Excavations at Mount Carmel in Palestine support this interpretation. There is no doubt that the burials of Neanderthals were accompanied by some kind of ceremonies and rituals, the content of which, however, we cannot say anything specific. However, there could be significant regional differences. Some indirect evidence suggests that witchcraft rituals associated with hunting were widespread” (ibid.).

At first glance, it also seems logical. However, here too there is a usual extrapolation that can lead to errors. Why, in fact, do researchers immediately unambiguously interpret such finds as some kind of “evidence of magical rituals and beliefs”?..

Let's look at the facts of burials from a slightly different angle.

Life in a society (or community) requires compliance with certain rules. Among them, it is quite natural for the rule of observing the prohibition to arise, say, on someone else’s property (no matter how small and insignificant it may be in our minds). A community member who died while hunting “took with him” not only his share of the spoils, in the process of hunting which he may have died, but also his (!) tools. Such “inviolability of property rights” could obviously be a very effective means of preventing civil strife in a community (tribe), and, consequently, increasing the stability and survival of society.

Therefore, if we leave aside the question of the reality of the possibility of the continuation of the existence of the human soul after physical death, in explaining the contents of such burials we can completely dispense with the version of the “magical” ideas of the Neanderthals.

“Some incomprehensible drawings, for example a scene from the Lascaux cave, where a bison with its intestines out, bending its horns, steps on a reclining man with the head of a bird, may apparently be associated with initiation rites or preparations for hunting” (ibid.).

But it could also be much simpler - the hunter disguised himself as a bird. And such examples are well known to researchers of primitive peoples, who often use this technique to increase the efficiency of hunting. And no “magic” has anything to do with it. Nor has any “cult of the animal” anything to do with it. There is simply a use of empirical experience...

The surprise of Europeans, who at one time encountered completely incomprehensible complexes of various actions of the so-called primitive peoples associated with hunting, is quite understandable. The most careful preparation of weapons, the painting of their own bodies by hunters, collective songs and some kind of coordinated body movements that imitate hunting. Well, why isn’t this “bewitching” a future victim or “appeasing the soul” of a killed animal?..

This is exactly how it is usually interpreted. Both in relation to modern primitive peoples and in relation to ancient cultures. But this is far from the only explanation for actions that are so strange to us.

Let's look at this again from a purely pragmatic point of view.

Collective hunting requires mutual coordination of the actions of hunters, and the maximum efficiency of this coordination can be achieved only with preliminary coordination of actions by the participants in the hunt. A schematic and symbolic representation of the hunting process itself, reproduction or imitation of their actions by hunting participants, is obviously the most effective way of both preliminary coordination of the strategy and tactics of the directly planned act of hunting, and a “visual aid” for training growing young animals.

“Hunting rituals” may well serve similar purposes not before, but after the hunt. Only here can future actions be planned for a more distant future and an additional “debriefing” be carried out on the just completed hunt (which is also necessary to increase the efficiency of hunting in the future).

Well, what does the “magic” or “religiousness” of the ritual have to do with it?..

There is one more point in these rituals, noted by modern ethnographic research. Let's say, before a battle with a neighboring tribe, in the process of simulating an upcoming battle, male warriors reach in advance that emotional state that allows them to carry out future military operations as efficiently as possible. Tracking down the “invisible enemy”, his pursuit and imaginary murder turn out to be not “bewitching” the enemy, but a means of achieving that psychological state, which is the goal of the entire patriotic educational system in the modern army. Moreover, it is a very effective means, due to the well-known relationship between motor (that is, motor - in a simplified sense) activity and the emotional and psychological state, which is well known to psychologists.

And again the question arises: why, in this case, are such actions of representatives of primitive peoples interpreted as “magical”?.. The answer is quite obvious: because researchers wanted to do so under the pressure of the approach now dominant in historical science - to attribute everything to some kind of “mysticism” of primitive tribes . Extrapolation of these ideas to ancient cultures also occurs automatically...

It is clear that if we change our approach and do not force ourselves in advance to fit into some excessive “mysticism” of our ancestors, then our ideas about ancient cultures will automatically change. Moreover, they can change quite seriously - the main driving force of ancient man, instead of religious and mystical superstitions, could be an objective analysis of the surrounding reality and a pragmatic approach.

However, even in this case one should not rush to the other extreme - it is simply impossible to completely and completely deny the religious component and its significant role in the life of ancient cultures. This will be a biased approach. There is too much evidence that our ancestors really worshiped a huge number of all kinds of gods.

And here another question arises. If this took place, then it must have a reason. Moreover, the reason is quite important, because it did not give rise to rapidly changing everyday superstitions, but to stable religious systems that persisted for a very, very long time.

For a society in which, as indicated above, it was quite possible that a pragmatic approach dominated, this reason should be all the more important. After all, it is quite obvious that without the presence of such a reason, without the constant stimulation of those same “religious ideas,” a pragmatic society would quickly abandon them.

So what was this reason?..

Official version

In the most simplified form, the reason for the emergence of religious cults and rituals presented by modern science comes down to the fact that ancient man did not have enough knowledge about the world around him. This ancient man, they say, did not know that natural laws govern phenomena and events in the world, and explained what was happening around him by the action of certain supernatural forces - spirits and gods. The multiplicity and diversity of objects and phenomena of the real world led to the multiplicity of these very supernatural forces. This is exactly what historical science has been teaching us, starting from school.

But if for a schoolchild such an explanation may seem quite logical and understandable at first glance, then the skeptical analytical mind of an adult is able to discern a very serious contradiction in this version.

Really. In order to “invent” certain “supernatural entities” that do not exist in reality (as the same version presents) that control everything around, a person must have a sufficiently developed thinking. Moreover: he must have a very developed ability specifically for abstract thinking. Meanwhile, the version presented by historical science is based on exactly the opposite - on the fact that ancient man had primitive thinking, which is characterized by the dominance of the principle “what I see is what I sing.” In other words, primitive thinking is focused on a simple description of surrounding phenomena, and not at all on the invention of abstractions.

And if we analyze from this point of view the existing ancient images, texts and other artifacts that are not directly related to the religious sphere of activity, then this is exactly the conclusion we will get. The “visual-applied” orientation of thinking will be simply obvious here. And this can be easily traced throughout almost the entire ancient history right up to the period of antiquity - until the times of ancient Greek culture, when (and only when) mythopoetic creativity in the full sense of the word appears, and when a person begins to create in the sphere of abstract images and abstract concepts.

But why then in the sphere of religious activity does this same “primitive man” manage to rise to the heights of the highest abstractions thousands of years earlier?.. It also does not happen that in one sphere a person is capable of something, but in another he is absolutely incapable of the same.

The contradiction is obvious. Moreover, this contradiction “works” against the basic position of the same version, according to which man is driven by the same completely natural laws.

How to be?..

Perhaps the only somewhat related answer to this question in historical science is still the Lévy-Bruhl theory, which since its inception has been repeatedly subjected to (sometimes harsh) criticism from historians themselves and other researchers.

“Lévy-Bruhl proceeded from an understanding of primitive thinking as qualitatively different from the thinking of modern man. Primitive thinking is prelogical, logical laws and abstract categories are not characteristic of it; the world is perceived in it through the prism of the so-called law of mystical participation (participation) - the identification of phenomena that are incompatible from the point of view of logic and common sense. An object can be itself and at the same time something else, be here and at the same time in another place. By virtue of the law of participation, everything in the world - people, real and fictitious objects and creatures - seems mystically interconnected. The leading place in Lévy-Bruhl's constructions is occupied by the concept of collective consciousness, imposing itself on individual consciousness, determining it - a concept put forward by Durkheim and his school. To understand primitive beliefs, one cannot start from the individual psyche, as was done before; they are a social phenomenon and represent a part of social consciousness, which has its own laws. Like Durkheim and Mauss, Lévy-Bruhl believes that in primitive society collective ideas dominate; at later stages of historical development they do not disappear completely, but here their specific weight is much less. Primitive collective ideas include emotions and volitional acts, reality in them is mystically colored...” (V. Kabo, “The Origin of Religion: History of the Problem”).

“Towards the end of his life, Lévy-Bruhl revised many of his previous views, trying especially to soften the opposition between primitive and modern thinking. And indeed, they cannot be opposed as fundamentally different systems of thinking: it is not so much human thinking that changes as the world with which it deals at different stages of historical development, but it itself is fundamentally one. The logical laws of thinking are the same in all known human societies, Lévy-Bruhl now asserted. However, he still believed that primitive thinking is characterized by a mystical orientation, that both the “affective category of the supernatural” and the phenomenon of participation retain their significance here. Lévy-Bruhl always considered participation as a fundamental property of primitive thinking. It became the key concept in his constructions, with the help of which only primitive collective ideas can be explained” (ibid.).

We will not analyze Lévy-Bruhl’s texts in detail, especially since others have already done this for us. Let us note that anyone can also do this and be convinced that the only (!) characteristic that distinguishes primitive thinking from the thinking of modern man, according to Lévy-Bruhl, is its so-called “mysticism.”

But what do we mean by “mysticism”?..

We usually interpret this term either as “belief in the supernatural” or (in a more expanded interpretation) as “belief in the reality of illusions.”

If we approach from the position of an expanded interpretation, we get the following: the religious and mystical life of ancient people was generated by their very primitive thinking only because it has the property of belief in illusion. Excellent!.. There is nothing to say: the oil is oily because it has the property of being oily...

If we return to a narrower and more specific interpretation of the term “mysticism” as belief in the supernatural, then not everything is smooth here either. Firstly, Lévy-Bruhl does not explain or justify in any way why he attributes to primitive thinking the property of belief in the supernatural (giving it the status of a distinctive property!). He simply introduces this position as an axiom. And secondly, in modern society there are by no means a small number of people whose thinking has the same belief in the supernatural, that is, this property ceases to be a distinctive feature of primitive thinking.

Here we again come to a question that has already been touched upon: why, in fact, is it considered that primitive thinking is “mystical”?.. On what basis do researchers claim that the entire way of life of primitive man is literally permeated with belief in the supernatural and, accordingly, is subordinate to early forms of religion ?..

When describing and analyzing primitive societies, for example, much attention is paid to such attributes as initiation rites, taboos, totems, shamanism, etc. At the same time, European researchers, say, in initiation rites were struck primarily by the external features of the rites: their solemnity, significance, colorfulness, and sometimes cruelty...

But let's look under the outer shell.

If we discard the “colorful tinsel”, which is very different in different primitive societies, then we can state that the essence of initiation rites comes down to the transition of a community member from one social group within the community to another. It doesn’t matter whether this is purely related to physiological changes due to reaching puberty or to the acquisition of some skills and knowledge. Another thing is important - the social role of the individual in the community changes, and consequently, the rules of his interaction with other members of the community change.

But man is to a very large extent a social being. Therefore, behind the words “he becomes a different person” (after the initiation rite) one finds not only “pure symbolism”, but also a very real basis. He really becomes a different (!) person.

The initiation rite in this case performs several important functions at once. Firstly, it records for other members of the community the change in the status of the initiate. And secondly, it helps the initiate himself to psychologically adapt to a new social role. The “old” person “died” - “a new one was born.” In essence, we are only dealing with a kind of “visualization in simple images” of an important social change. That's all...

But isn’t this what modern “rites of passage” boil down to: prom; delivery of a passport, certificate or diploma; dedication to students; admission to the party; inauguration celebrations upon assumption of a high government post?.. It is quite obvious that in its very essence it is all the same. However, do we see “mysticism” in them?..

Knowledge of the cultural traditions of our society frees us from such a “mystical” interpretation. But then why not look at the initiation rites of primitive peoples from the same positions (only with adjustments to the corresponding cultural tradition)?..

With the taboo system, things are much simpler. Here, it was not difficult for researchers to see behind it a system regulating the rules of behavior of individuals in society. The version of the “mysticism of consciousness” of primitive peoples arises here only due to the fact that in an attempt to explain the origin (or meaning) of certain taboos, the “savage” uses a version that is inaccessible to the analytical logic of the researcher and the cause-and-effect relationships known to this researcher.

But aren’t there many rules, norms and laws in modern society, the reasons for which are impossible or difficult to explain?..

How many people can explain, for example, why a certain part of everyday language is prohibited for use in society (we are talking about the so-called “profanity”)?.. Or why you cannot wear anything other than a tuxedo or a formal suit to official receptions, and you must have a tie or a bow tie?.. Is that customary?.. But why!?. What does "accepted" mean?

I’m willing to bet that in the discussions of the majority on these topics, a knowledgeable specialist (if there is one at all) will easily discover such a mass of erroneously constructed cause-and-effect relationships that, under other conditions, a researcher of primitive peoples will automatically write off the “mystical” ideas. But will this “mysticism” take place in reality?..

Let us now take such an object of primitive peoples as a totem. The totem refers to the “classical” attribute of “mystical” thinking. Here there is involvement (participation, according to Lévy-Bruhl) of the totem of a certain area and even of each member of the tribe. Here is the “animation” of an animal totem or even an inanimate object (an idol, for example)…

But let’s look at this “obvious mysticism” from a slightly different angle...

Try, dear reader, to determine for yourself the content of the term “homeland”... Wouldn’t you find in the essence of this very “homeland” a connection with a certain geographical region and with a certain circle of other people?.. But will there be such a relationship and integrity (sometimes very difficult to discern? and even more difficult to formulate) complete abstraction, fiction or mysticism?.. Perhaps almost everyone will be indignant at such an interpretation and will be right.

Behind the term “homeland” one can find a completely natural and really existing phenomenon, which correlates with a certain circle of people connected by a mass of territorial, cultural and sometimes even consanguineous ties into a single whole, into a single system. A dual system, having both material and spiritual-immaterial connections. But spiritual-immaterial connections, as it turns out upon closer analysis, are not “mystical” at all, but obey completely natural laws - albeit very peculiar ones (see the author’s book “The Code of the Universe”).

In exactly the same way, the totem correlates with a certain dual system - a tribe (clan, community). He is the embodiment of this system with the totality of its connections, and is its unique symbol.

How a child uses some objects in a game to symbolically represent objects that are inaccessible at a particular moment in time, but really exist; Likewise, primitive man sees the totem as the embodiment of his society. However, even now fully grown people in modern society carry state flags to rallies and draw national emblems, without even thinking about the fact that they are essentially using the same “totems”!..

If we take into account that society, as a single system, has well-defined spiritual and non-material properties, then we have the right to use the term “collective consciousness” in relation to it. Then primitive man may overestimate the abilities of the collective consciousness of his society, attributing to the totem the properties of rational behavior, but still in this he reflects a completely objective reality!..

And finally, another phenomenon often found in primitive societies, which is directly related to the theme of gods and mystical-religious ideas, is the so-called “animism,” that is, the “animation” of animals and plants.

“...characteristic features of archaic thinking. Its first property is a high degree of fusion of the individual with the nature around him. Direct and constant confrontation with forces in the physical world and biological environment, the scale of which exceeds the imagination of an individual, creates a highly emotional and ultimately deeply personal relationship with these forces. This is most clearly expressed in animistic thinking, which populates nature with deities, demons and spirits. The action of natural forces is attributed to fantastic causes. In accordance with mental habits, these causes are isolated and come into use as the animation of things and phenomena. The oldest tales convey from hoary prehistory the remnants of this thinking: animals speak to each other like people, thunder and lightning are caused by a humanoid creature; illnesses are caused by spirits; the dead and gods wander along invisible paths, however, preserving the thoughts, feelings, desires and hopes of the living” (F. Clix, “Awakening Thinking”).

It would seem that the phenomenon of animism is completely consistent with the picture of the origin of the mystical and religious ideas of ancient peoples that academic science paints for us. However, a more detailed analysis reveals no more “mysticism” even here than in everything else.

If we do not stand blindly on primitive materialistic positions, but analyze real facts, then we will have to admit that all our daily life and all our experience indicate that in addition to the material physical body, a person also has some active spiritual-immaterial component, better known as "soul". Even Natalya Petrovna Bekhtereva, who for a long time headed first the Brain Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences and then the Institute of the Human Brain, was forced to admit that it is impossible to explain all the features of human activity only by the presence of a material brain - it is also necessary to assume that he has a soul as something special, but a really existing “something”.

But if a person has such an active spiritual-immaterial component as a “soul,” then the simplest logic tells us that we have no right to deny to animals and plants the existence of a similar spiritual-immaterial component – ​​albeit a less developed one. Which, however, is fully confirmed at the empirical level... Consciousness (in the expanded understanding of this term) does not appear suddenly and immediately. In a certain sense, both the animal has consciousness (not to be confused with self-consciousness!), and so does the plant (although here I prefer the term “preconsciousness”). For more details, see the author’s book “The Code of the Universe”...

But in this case it turns out that the most basic position of animism has a very real basis!.. And it turns out that in their ideas both the members of the modern primitive tribe and our ancient ancestors were guided not at all by some kind of “mysticism”, but by a reflection of a completely objective reality!..

It is curious that the “details” and “details” of animism, upon closer analysis, also turn out to be devoid of any mysticism. Take, for example, the ability of animals to “talk.” Let us just take into account that in the broadest sense of the word, the term “talk” implies not only the exchange of sound signals, but includes the entire complex of methods for transmitting information from one object to another. Then, from these positions, it will turn out that it is quite possible to “talk” with animals if you understand their “language” (and even the author uses quotation marks here, paying more tribute to tradition than trying to reflect the essence). This is well known not only to natural biologists who have devoted their lives to the study of animals. Perhaps any competent “dog owner” knows that he is able to talk to his dog in the full sense of the word, sometimes achieving an amazing degree of communication and mutual understanding. Moreover, even if he is a convinced atheist, devoid of any mystical-religious inclinations...

However, if with animals and plants everything is quite simple and clear, then with the “animation” of the forces of nature the situation is somewhat more complicated. In Klix (as in the general view of modern academic science), everything is lumped together - both animism as such (that is, a certain “humanization” of animals and plants), and the “animation” of natural elements. But is this legal?..

Let's carry out the following logical chain. Let’s assume that we are the owners of that same “primitive consciousness.” It is not something unusual or strange for us that animals, plants, and even inanimate objects have their own souls - stones, rivers, rocks, and the like. But then we (due to the primitiveness of our thinking) have no reason at all to endow animals, plants, and especially inanimate objects with a human (!) soul. It is much more natural to correlate the image of the soul with the image of the object itself. A fox running past has its own “fox” soul - it will not have arms or legs, but will have four paws and a tail. A hare hiding under a bush has its own “hare” soul. A tree rustling with its crown is the soul of a tree in the form of that very tree. But then the stone will also have its own “stone” soul, which no longer has paws and a tail. And even more so, there is no need to put a soul in the form of a person in stone.

The same can be said with regard to natural elements. A river should have its own “river” soul, similar to a water stream, and not a person with arms, legs and a head. As a last resort, you can still imagine (with your primitive consciousness) the soul of the river in the form of one of its inhabitants - for example, a huge fish moving large masses of water with its body.

A thundercloud must have the soul of a cloud, not a person. And it’s much more likely to imagine a bonfire in the sky, from which lightning sparks periodically fly out, than to imagine some kind of Zeus throwing fiery arrows. So, from the “animation” of animals, plants and even natural elements, the idea of ​​hominid gods, gods in human form, does not automatically follow (as academic science presents to us). Anthropomorphic (that is, “humanoid”) gods are generally inexplicable from this point of view. And even more than that: their very appearance in the ideas of primitive man is unnatural and illogical!..

The exclusivity of anthropomorphic gods

The modern version of the ideas of ancient people, presented by academic science, has another significant drawback. In it, literally everything is dumped into one heap - souls, spirits and gods. However, these concepts have very significant differences.

The soul for a person is something quite “understandable”. This is what he constantly feels in himself and perceives it as an integral part of himself. In the overwhelming majority of cases, he cannot see the souls of other people - this can only be done by people with extraordinary abilities (shamans, sorcerers and others whom we would now call people with extrasensory abilities). But feeling his own soul inside himself, a person easily perceives the idea that other people also have their own soul.

Within the framework of ideas about the soul as something “not entirely material,” it is also easy to imagine the emergence of the idea of ​​​​the possibility of the posthumous existence of the soul, that is, the continued existence of the human soul after his physical death. And in the light of Robert Moody’s fairly well-known studies in the field of post-mortem experience and clinical death, it can be stated that for an ancient person (not burdened with modern materialistic ideas), ideas about the post-mortem existence of the soul could also be only a generalization of some, albeit not entirely ordinary, but universal empirical experience. “Mysticism” again turns out to have absolutely nothing to do with it...

The soul of the deceased leaves this material world - again, it is not visible to the vast majority of people. Therefore, she moves to a certain “spirit world”. Here souls and spirits become essentially one and the same. Since the study of the world of spirits is not the subject of this book, we will not dwell on it here.

But anthropomorphic gods differ sharply from both the human soul and the spirit. First of all, if we focus on ancient texts, they are periodically present directly among people in a state that is completely accessible to the ordinary vision of an ordinary person. They are visible!..

These gods physically live next to people. They often need ordinary material houses and material food (although they do not refuse spiritual food at all).

Moreover: anthropomorphic gods are not at all invulnerable. They can be physically injured - and the wounds will also be quite visible. Sometimes you can even kill them - if not with the usual primitive weapons (although this does happen), then certainly with some “divine” weapon. And if it is very difficult for a person to do this, then there are plenty of cases of defeat and even murder of anthropomorphic gods by other gods in ancient legends and traditions.

And as is easy to see in the same legends and traditions, anthropomorphic gods stand apart from souls and spirits. Ancient man never identified his soul with the gods. The gods could take her away, dispose of her, could even give her some kind of privileged position in the afterlife, but the soul of a person could never do anything like that in relation to God himself or the soul of God.

It should also be separately emphasized that when it comes to ancient anthropomorphic gods, it is necessary to remember that our ancestors put a completely different meaning into this concept than we now put into the concept of “God.” Our “God” is a supernatural omnipotent being who lives outside the material world and controls everyone and everything. The ancient anthropomorphic gods are not at all so comprehensively powerful - their abilities, although many times greater than the abilities of people, are not at all infinite. Moreover, quite often these gods, in order to do something, need special additional objects, structures or installations - even “divine” ones.

In general, we can say that ancient anthropomorphic gods are much more similar to ordinary people - they only have abilities and capabilities that are significantly greater than the abilities and capabilities of an ordinary ancient person. At the same time (which is very important) our ancestors quite clearly distance themselves from these characters of legends and traditions, calling them not people, not “heroes” or “heroes”, but rather “gods”. And the closest thing would be to compare these gods with, say, modern people, equipped with the most modern equipment, who found themselves in contact with representatives of some primitive tribe in the Amazon jungle. Members of this tribe could well mistake modern people for those very “gods”. Only the “gods” they met in reality...

But our ancestors, if we go by ancient texts, perceived anthropomorphic gods precisely as very real persons with their own habits, whims and other “troubles”!.. The gods here look much more like completely natural beings - like representatives of a certain civilization , which has gone far ahead in its development than human civilization. And this, in my opinion, is one of the most important factors in the ideas of ancient cultures about gods.

Is this similarity coincidental?..

As practice shows, such accidents practically never occur in life...

And it would be even more strange to expect such a similarity between the relationship of gods and people with the contact of two civilizations of different levels for the gods, which would be a purely product of the primitive thinking of ancient man. The primitive mind with the dominance of the “mystical principle” in it is simply not capable of such a result. And even more so, he is not able to maintain such a “mental result” in the culture of many peoples for many millennia.

But if we abandon the now accepted approach to anthropomorphic gods as a product of the fantasies and inventions of the primitive mind, then it turns out that in some ancient times our ancestors came into contact with another, much more developed civilization. A result that modern historical science generally does not consider as a possible version of our past.

And the question naturally arises: do we have any reason to consider the very possibility of the simultaneous coexistence on our planet of two civilizations that radically differ from each other in terms of their level of development? ..

However, in my opinion, the question should be rephrased and put in a completely different way.

What reasons do we have? NOT to consider the possibility of the simultaneous coexistence of two civilizations of different levels of development in some of our distant past?..

By calm and sensible reasoning, we have to admit that there are simply no such grounds. And if so, then with a truly scientific approach to ancient history, we not only can, but simply must consider this possibility! ..

And here, as a fairly obvious consequence, we get a good criterion for choosing between two different options for the appearance of anthropomorphic gods in the ideas of our ancestors. If, in the case of the accepted view of academic science on this issue, it was simply pointless to look for any objective and material evidence, then in the case of the reality of contact between ancient cultures and a more developed civilization, such evidence not only can, but should exist!.. Time does not erase everything down to the ground. Something must remain!..

If no evidence of such contact is found, we will have to return again to the version of “fantasies” and “fictions” of primitive consciousness, which has some kind of incomprehensible “mysticism”. But if real traces of contact between two civilizations are discovered, the currently accepted version of the explanation of anthropomorphic gods will simply not be needed. And these same gods, and their presence in the views of our ancestors, will receive a completely rational explanation.

Possible search directions

It would seem, what is there to look for here?.. After all, archaeologists and historians, who have been studying ancient civilizations for so many years, “have not found” any signs of any civilization that would differ sharply in level of development from those known to us from school textbooks?..

However, it should be borne in mind that the result of research is sometimes very dependent on the subjective attitudes of the researchers themselves. And if the version of contact with another highly developed civilization is not taken into account from the very beginning, then no one will simply look for anything on this issue, and, accordingly, “will not find it.”

Therefore, let’s abstract from the “subjective verdict” accepted in current academic science, accept the version of ancient contact between different civilizations as at least possibly acceptable, take the path of simple logic and first determine what could be looked for here.

At first glance, the task of searching for traces of the ancient gods (that is, traces of an unknown ancient civilization) seems as vague as in the famous Russian fairy tale: “go there - I don’t know where; find something - I don’t know what.” However, in fact, not everything is so bad, since very important information that can help in solving this problem can be found directly in ancient legends and traditions that have come down to our time.

Why exactly there?.. Yes, because, following simple logic, it is easy to come to the conclusion that if some contacts of two very different civilizations took place in the distant past, then some could have survived (we don’t know which ones yet). and whether) “eyewitness accounts” of these contacts have been preserved. And if they are preserved somewhere, then they can be precisely in ancient legends and traditions - transmitted orally or in the form of texts and drawings written on something.

What can you learn from these sources?..

Firstly, the most striking characteristic of the gods is that they had capabilities and abilities that far exceeded the abilities and capabilities of the people who lived during the period of the events described.

And secondly, we are clearly talking about quite ancient, from a historical point of view, times - about the period when the first human civilizations known to us were just emerging and rising to their feet (such as, say, Egyptian, Sumerian, Harappan and the like ). After all, legends and traditions, being themselves very ancient, directly indicate that the events described in them date back to even more ancient times.

Archaeologists and historians have worked hard to reconstruct a picture of life in such civilizations. Including in that part that concerns the capabilities of people at the corresponding stage of development of society. And for now we will assume that in general (only in general!) this reconstructed picture corresponds to what happened in reality.

Then, based on the same simple logic, it turns out that we need to look for such artifacts and traces of events that significantly go beyond the capabilities of known ancient civilizations and that do not fit into the picture of the life and capabilities of people at this stage of social development.

The task seems to be greatly simplified. But…

The problem is that historians and archaeologists, when describing ancient societies, really do not like to mention traces and artifacts that do not fit into this very description. And this is quite natural - who will accept such a picture into which something does not fit. As a result, it turns out that looking for descriptions of such traces and artifacts in textbooks, scientific papers, archaeological and historical publications is practically useless. And as practice shows, this logical conclusion is fully confirmed in practice...

In addition, the overwhelming majority of archaeologists and historians have a purely humanitarian education. And the further the development of science goes, the more the gap between different branches of knowledge widens, the more “humanitarian” the system of training archaeologists and historians becomes. Meanwhile, when we talk about the possibilities of a particular civilization, the lion’s share of them is occupied by those opportunities that relate not to the humanitarian, but to the “technical” aspects of culture.

On the one hand, this further aggravates the situation, since the view of a humanist easily passes by what would be very important for a person with a technical education, and as a result, many important “technical” details simply do not fall into the descriptions of ancient artifacts - their archaeologists and historians do not notice. Moreover, on trips to archaeological sites, we had to make sure that sometimes they not only “don’t notice” (that is, they pretend not to see), but even physically don’t even see - the historian’s gaze often passes by (in the literal sense of the word) significant for the parts technician!..

But on the other hand, these same reasons lead to the fact that on the shelves of museums you can sometimes see things that - historians and archaeologists understand what these things mean for techies - would instantly disappear in some “bins”, since such objects sometimes not only do not fit into the picture of the capabilities of known ancient civilizations, but directly undermine it. And this, on the contrary, greatly simplifies the task of our search.

Fortunately, not only professional historians and archaeologists are interested in ancient cultures and monuments. And by now, a whole area of ​​so-called “alternative” historical literature has already appeared, in which the authors purposefully focus on “anomalies” that do not fit into the stereotypical perception of ancient cultures.

True, there is a “but” here too...

The big problem is that the vast majority of authors of this very alternative literature often sin with a very careless attitude to facts. Moreover, in pursuit of sensation and circulation, as well as in an effort to “prove” their theory in any way, these authors often use very dubious information without any verification of its authenticity, or severely distort real data involuntarily or even deliberately. As a result (according to my personal estimates), the reliability of information in such literature as a whole is now approximately “fifty-fifty” - that is, in simple terms, it contains only about half the truth, and the other half is fantasy and even outright lies ...

Some “don’t see” and hide information, others fantasize and lie. What to do?..

If just reading books at home and in libraries, as well as combing the Internet space, does not give anything, the only option left is to go to the place and look at archaeological finds and objects with your own eyes. Check, search, evaluate and compare.

And, starting in 2004, we gradually formed a group of enthusiasts, each of whom realized that “no one will do what we need for us.” Now, this group of enthusiasts, under the auspices of the Foundation for the Development of Science “III Millennium”, has carried out a whole series of survey and research expeditions to Egypt, Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Greece, Turkey and a number of other Mediterranean countries in order to search for various “historical and archaeological anomalies” that do not fit into the academic picture of the distant past. The material presented below is based primarily on information collected during these expeditions, which has already formed the basis for a number of books and more than twenty hours of documentaries from the series “Forbidden Topics of History”...

Megaliths

Of course, in search of traces of the ancient civilization of the gods, the eye first falls on the so-called megaliths - ancient structures made of large and even huge stones. Pyramids, temples, palaces, fortresses, menhirs, dolmens and so on, etc., made of blocks weighing several tens and hundreds of tons, which “alternative” researchers have long paid attention to...

For example, blocks weighing one hundred tons are quite common in structures on the Giza Plateau in Egypt. Here the builders placed such blocks at the base of the second pyramid (the so-called Pyramid of Khafre), in the walls of the pyramid temples, the Temple of the Sphinx and the Granite Temple.

But even a hundred tons is not the limit. In ancient structures one can find examples of the use of much heavier stone blocks. For example, in Lebanese Baalbek, on the western side of the complex, in the masonry of the wall there are so-called trilithons - three huge limestone blocks, each of which reaches a length of about 21 meters, a height of 5 meters and a width of 4 meters (see Fig. 1-c) . If we take into account that the local limestone is quite dense, and take its specific gravity to be 2.5 g/cm3, then it turns out that trilithons weigh about 1000 tons each! And with such an enormous weight, they are not at all at ground level, but raised to a considerable height - to the very top of the masonry, also made of quite large blocks!.. Let's say, the row under the trilithons consists of stone blocks, although one and a half to two times smaller, but Each such block can carry the weight of a dozen modern heavy Abrams-type tanks!…

Not far from the Baalbek complex, in a quarry there is the so-called “Southern Stone” - a block that was not completely separated from the rock mass and remained in its place. Its dimensions are even larger - 23 meters long, 5.3 meters wide and 4.5 meters high. This gives a weight of about 1400 tons!..

Although the South Stone remained in the quarry, the builders clearly intended to use it. And if we take into account the size of this block and the architectural features in the western part of the Baalbek complex, then the version suggests itself that the “Southern Stone” should have been laid on top of the trilithons!..

There is a similar example in Aswan, Egypt. Here, in the granite quarries, an obelisk about 42 meters long remained lying (see Fig. 2-ts). Each side of its square base is 4.2 meters long, which (taking into account the fact that the density of Aswan granite is at least 2.7 g/cm3) gives a weight of almost two thousand tons!!!

In both cases, the ancient craftsmen clearly had no doubt that they would be able to successfully complete the work begun and deliver these stone colossuses to their destination. But how?!.

Historians suggest that we accept the version that the ancient builders delivered such solid blocks by hand using the simplest devices and mechanisms, thus performing an almost heroic feat.

However, in ancient times it was not just single stones that were moved, which could still be allowed for such “heroic deeds.” In the same Baalbek, blocks weighing hundreds of tons are laid along the entire perimeter of the so-called Temple of Jupiter, forming a row on which trilithons are located. In total, it turns out to be at least fifty giant blocks, which are not just laid, but adjusted to each other so that the joints of the blocks are sometimes even invisible to the eye!..

Dozens of equally massive blocks were used in the construction of Sacsayhuaman, an ancient fortress near the capital of Peru, Cusco. But here the stone monoliths had to be moved not across the plain, but in the mountains!..

And not tens, but hundreds of hundred-ton (or more) blocks can be seen in buildings in Egypt. And if we take into account that everything mentioned together constitutes only a very small part of the ancient megaliths, then we are not dealing with isolated cases of heroic feat, but in fact with mass construction (without exaggeration - on an industrial scale) from huge stones!..

This no longer fits in with the rather low (I would even say primitive) level of technology development that took place at the dawn of ancient human civilizations. This already (at least from the point of view of banal logic) just creates the feeling of that very “anomaly” that should not exist, but it still exists...

Another thing is that supporters of the version of manual labor and transportation of such huge stones using the push-pull method are not at all convinced by such examples. They prefer to refer to a certain “mobilization of all the resources of society” and “a long period of construction” - they say, a drop wears away a stone, and, wasting the lives of entire generations, our ancestors still did it all themselves.

Many techies understand that ordinary arithmetic does not work here at all. Organizing and implementing large-scale construction is not a simple sum of one-time efforts. And here we need to talk about fundamentally different technologies.

But be that as it may, the situation now has developed that - in relation to the size of the blocks and the scale of construction - the arguments of one side do not have any effect on the other side, which sometimes cites the same arguments as proof of its point of view. This debate has already been going on for decades and can last forever, since humanists don’t even want to listen to techies...

Meanwhile, there are examples that are completely out of the ordinary. Let's say, the “anomaly” becomes literally obvious in cases where we see the similarity of work with similar megaliths on different continents. Not only does the size of the huge blocks create a complete feeling of some kind of “standardization” used by the builders and determined, apparently, by the technologies at their disposal. There are more surprising examples.

For example, the megalithic masonry of an ancient object in the town of Aladzha-huyuk in the territory of modern Turkey, like a twin brother, repeats the features of a similar masonry in the center of the city of Cusco in Peru (see Fig. 3-c). Not only are the blocks practically the same size, there is absolutely the same style of masonry - the so-called polygonal masonry, in which the blocks are articulated with each other along a surface of a complex shape with many angles, creating all sorts of additional “hooks” and “fastenings”. Moreover, even the chamfer along the edge of each block is made in the same style.

You don’t need to be an expert to understand that the same masters worked here. Well, if not exactly the same, then using the same technology and having the same capabilities. In other words, these structures, despite the fact that they are located in different hemispheres of the planet, have one “author” - the same civilization.

Meanwhile, historians attribute Aladzha-huyuk to the times of the Hittite Empire (II millennium BC), and the construction of Cusco is attributed to the Incas in the period immediately preceding the Spanish conquest of South America - that is, as much as three thousand years later!.. In addition, that there were no contacts between the continents before Columbus...

Then where does such similarity come from between objects so distant from each other in time and space?.. It simply cannot be explained. Moreover, historians and archaeologists do not even mention the very fact of this similarity. It is of no interest to representatives of academic science, since it not only does not fit into the constructed picture of ancient history, but completely undermines it. The simplest logical explanation of this similarity in the form of a common authorship does not suit them even more so...

Therefore, we will not delve into the analysis of the arguments (which, in my personal opinion, speak in favor of the fact that known human civilizations have nothing to do with the creation of a significant part of megalithic objects), but will pay attention to one much more important aspect of the scale of megalithic construction.

Header photo: Mother Mnemosyne by T-R-Brownrigg @ Deviantart.com

If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.

ABDER - son of Hermes, friend of Hercules

AUGIAS - son of Helios, king of Elis

AGENOR - King of Sidon

AGLAVRA - daughter of Kekrop

AGLAYA - one of the graces

ADMET - King Fer, friend of Hercules

ADMETA - daughter of Eurystheus, priestess of the goddess Hera

HADES - god of the underworld (among the ancient Romans PLUTO)

ACID - son of Semetis, lover of Galatea

ACRISIA - king of Argos, father of Danae

ALKESTIS - daughter of King Iolcus Pelia, wife of Admet

ALKIDS - the name of Hercules given to him at birth

ALKION - one of the seven daughters of Atlas

ALCMENE - daughter of the Mycenaean king Electryon, mother of Hercules

AMALTHEA - the goat who suckled Zeus with her milk

AMPHITRYON - Greek hero, husband of Alcmene

AMPHITRITE - one of the daughters of Nereus, wife of the god of the seas Poseidon

ANGEUS - Greek hero, participant in the campaign of the Argonauts

ANDROGEUS - son of the Cretan king Minos, killed by the Athenians

ANDROMEDA - daughter of the king of Ethiopia Cepheus and Cassiopeia, wife of Perseus

ANTEUS - son of the earth goddess Gaia and the god of the seas Poseidon

ANTHEA - wife of King Pret of Tiryns

ANTIOPE - Amazon

APOLLO (PHEBUS) - god of sunlight, patron of the arts, son of Zeus

APOP - in ancient Egyptian mythology a monstrous serpent, the enemy of the Sun god Ra

ARGOS - shipbuilder who built the ship "Argo"

ARGUS - mythological standing monster that guarded Io

ARES - in ancient Greek mythology, the god of war, the son of Zeus and Hera (among the ancient Romans MARS)

ARIADNE - daughter of the Cretan king Minos, beloved of Theseus, later the wife of the god Dionysus

ARKAD - son of Zeus and Callisto

ARTEMIS - goddess of the hunt, daughter of Zeus and Latona, sister of Apollo

ASCLEPIA (ESCULAPIUS) - son of Apollo and Coronis, a skilled healer

ASTEROPE - one of the seven daughters of Atlas

ATA - goddess of lies and deceit

ATAMANT - King Orkhomenes, son of the wind god Aeolus

ATLAS (ATLANT) - a titan holding the entire celestial sphere on its shoulders

ATHENA - goddess of war and victory, as well as wisdom, knowledge, arts and crafts (among the ancient Romans MINERVA)

APHRODITE - goddess of love and beauty (among the ancient Romans VENUS)

AHELOY - river god

ACHILLES - Greek hero, son of King Peleus and the sea goddess Thetis

BELLER - Corinthian killed by Hippo

BELLEROPHON (HIPPO) - son of King Glaucus of Corinth, one of the greatest heroes of Greece

BOREAS - god of the winds

VENUS (see APHRODITE)

VESTA (see HESTIA)

GALATEA - one of the Nereids, beloved Akida

GANIMED - a beautiful young man, the son of the Dardanian king Troy, kidnapped by Zeus

HARMONY - daughter of Ares and Aphrodite, wife of the founder of Thebes, Cadmus

HEBE - the forever young beautiful daughter of Zeus and Hera

HECATE - patroness of night evil spirits, witchcraft

HELIOS - god of the Sun

HELIADS - daughters of the god Helios

GELLA - daughter of Atamant and the goddess of clouds and clouds Nephele

HERA - wife of Zeus

GERION - a terrible giant who had three heads, three bodies, six arms and six legs

HERCULES - one of the greatest heroes of Greece, the son of Zeus and Alcmene

HERMES - in Greek micrology, the messenger of the Olympic gods, the patron of shepherds and travelers, the god of trade and profit, the son of Zeus and Maya (among the ancient Romans MERCURY)

GERSE - daughter of Cecrops

HESION - wife of Prometheus

HESPERIDES - daughters of Atlas

HESTIA - daughter of Kronos, goddess of the hearth (among the ancient Romans VESTA)

HEPHAESTUS - in Greek mythology, the god of fire, patron of blacksmithing, son of Zeus and Hera (among the ancient Romans VULCAN)

GAIA - goddess of the Earth, from whom the mountains and seas, the first generation of gods, cyclops and giants originated

HYADES - daughters of Atlas who raised Dionysus

GIAS - brother Hyades, who died tragically during a lion hunt

GYLAS - squire of Hercules

Gill - son of Hercules

HYMENEUS - god of marriage

HIMEROT - god of passionate love

HYPERION - titan, father of Helios

HYPNOS - god of sleep

HIPPOCONT - brother of Tiidareus, who expelled him from Sparta

HIPPONOI (see VELLEROPHON)

GYPSIPYLA - queen of the island of Lemnos

GLAUK - king of Corinth, father of Bellerophon

GLAVK - soothsayer

GRANI - goddess of old age

DANAE - daughter of King Acrisius of Argos, mother of Perseus

DAR DAN - son of Zeus and daughter of Atlas Electra

DAPHNE - nymph

DEUCALION - son of Prometheus

DAEDALUS - unsurpassed sculptor, painter, architect

DEIMOS (Horror) - son of the god of war Ares

DEMETRA - goddess of fertility and patroness of agriculture

DEANIRA - wife of Hercules

DIKE - goddess of justice, daughter of Zeus and Themis

DICTIS - a fisherman who found a box with Danae and Perseus in the sea

DIOMEDES - Thracian king

DIONE - nymph, mother of Aphrodite

DIONYSUS - god of viticulture and winemaking, son of Zeus and Semele

EURYSTHES - king of Argos, son of Stenel

EURYTHUS - father of Iphitus, friend of Hercules

EURYTHION - the giant killed by Hercules

EUROPE - daughter of King Agenor of Sidon, beloved of Zeus

EUTERPE - muse of lyric poetry

EUPHROSYNE - one of the Charites (Graces)

HELENA - daughter of Zeus and Leda, wife of Menelaus, because of whose abduction by Paris the Trojan War began

ECHIDNA - a monster, half-woman, half-snake

ZEUS - ruler of Heaven and Earth, thunderer, supreme god among the ancient Greeks (among the ancient Romans JUPITER)

ZET - son of the wind god Boreas, participant in the Argonauts' campaign

ID - cousin of Castor and Pollux, killer of Castor

ICARUS - son of Daedalus, who died because he came too close to the Sun

ICARIUS - a resident of Attica who was the first to grow grapes and make wine

IMHOTEP - Ancient Egyptian physician and architect

INO - daughter of the founder of Thebes Cadmus and Harmonia, wife of King Orkhomenes Adamant, stepmother of Phrixus and Hella

IO - daughter of the river god Inachus, the first king of Argolis, beloved of Zeus

IOBAT - Lycian king, father of Anthea

IOLA - daughter of Bvrit

IOLAI - nephew of Hercules, son of Iphicles

Hippolytus - the son of the Athenian king Theseus and Hippolyta, slandered by his stepmother Phaedra

Hippolyta - Queen of the Amazons

IRIDA - messenger of the gods

ISIS - ancient Egyptian goddess, great-granddaughter of the sun god Ra

IPHICLES - brother of Hercules, son of Amphitryon and Alcmene

IPHITUS - friend of Hercules, killed by him in a fit of madness

KADM - son of the Sidonian king Agekor, founder of Thebes

KALAID - son of the wind god Boreas, participant in the Argonauts' campaign

CALLIOPE - muse of epic poetry

CALLISTO - daughter of the Arcadian king Lycaon, beloved of Zeus

KALKHANT - soothsayer

CASSIOPEIA - Queen of Ethiopia, wife of Cepheus and mother of Andromeda

CASTOR - son of Leda and the Spartan king Tindareus, brother of Pollux

KARPO - ora of summer, one of the goddesses who were in charge of the change of seasons

KEKROP - half-man, half-snake, founder of Athens

KELENO - one of the daughters of Atlas

KERVER (CERBERUS) - a three-headed dog with a snake tail, who guarded the souls of the dead in the underworld of Hades

KEPHEI (see CEPHEI)

KIKN - Phaeton's friend, who turned into a snow-white swan

KILIK - son of the Sidonian king Agenor

CLYMENE - daughter of the sea goddess Thetis, wife of Helios, mother of Phaethon

CLIO - the muse of history

CLYTEMNESTRA - daughter of Leda and the Spartan king Tyndareus, wife of Agamemnon

CAPRICORN - son of Epianus, childhood friend of Zeus

KOPREI - the messenger of Bvrystheus, who conveyed orders to Hercules

CORONIDA - beloved of Apollo, mother of Asclepius (Aesculapius)

CREON - Theban king, father of Megara, the first wife of Hercules

KRONOS - titan, son of Uranus and Gaia. Having overthrown his father, he became the supreme god. In turn, he was overthrown by his son Zeus

LAOMEDONT - King of Troy

LATONA (SUMMER) - Titanide, beloved of Zeus, mother of Apollo and Artemis

LEARCH - son of Atamant and Ino, killed by his father in a fit of madness

LEDA - wife of the Spartan king Tyndareus, mother of Helen, Clytemnestra, Castor and Pollux

LYCAON - king of Arcadia, father of Callisto

LYCURGUS - Thracian king who insulted Dionysus and was blinded by Zeus as punishment

LIN - music teacher of Hercules, brother of Orpheus

LINKEUS - cousin of Castor and Pollux, distinguished by extraordinary vigilance

LICHAS - messenger of Hercules

MAYA - daughter of Atlas, lover of Zeus, mother of Hermes

MARDUK - patron god of Babylon, supreme deity of the Babylonian pantheon

MARS (see ARES)

MEG ARA - daughter of the Theban king Creon, first wife of Hercules

MEDEA - sorceress, daughter of the king of Colchis Eeta, wife of Jason, later the wife of the Athenian king Aegeus

MEDUSA GORGON - the only mortal of the three Gorgon sisters - winged female monsters with snakes instead of hair; the gaze of the Gorgons turned all living things into stone

MELANIPPA - Amazon, Hippolyta's assistant

MELIKERT - son of King Atamant and the sorceress Ino

MELPOMENE - muse of tragedy

MERCURY (see HERMES)

MEROPE - daughter of Atlas

METIS - goddess of wisdom, mother of Pallas Athena (among the ancient Romans METIS)

MIMAS - a giant struck by the arrow of Hercules during the battle of the gods with the giants

MINOS - Cretan king, son of Zeus and Europa

MINOTAUR - a monster with the body of a man and the head of a bull, who lived in the Labyrinth, was killed by Theseus

Mnemosyne - goddess of memory and memories

PUG - a Greek hero who understood the language of birds and guessed the future, a participant in the campaign of the Argonauts

NEPTUNE (see POSEIDON)

NEREIDS - fifty daughters of Nereus

NEREUS - sea god, soothsayer

NESS - a centaur who tried to kidnap Deianira, the wife of Hercules, and was killed by him

NEPHEL - goddess of clouds and clouds, mother of Frixus and Hella

NIKTA - goddess of the night

NOT - god of the southern humid wind

NUT - the ancient Egyptian goddess of the Sky

OVERON - in Scandinavian mythology, the king of the elves, a character in William Shakespeare's comedy "A Midsummer Night's Dream"

OINEUS - king of Calydon, father of Meleager - friend of Hercules and Deianira - his wife

OCEANIDS - daughters of the Ocean

OMPHALA - Lydian queen who had Hercules as her slave

ORION - brave hunter

ORPHEUS - son of the river god Eager and the muse Calliope, famous musician and singer

ORFO - two-headed dog, the offspring of Typhon and Echidna

ORY - goddesses who were in charge of the changing seasons

OSIRIS - in ancient Egyptian mythology, the god of dying and resurrecting nature, brother and husband of Isis, father of Horus, patron and judge of the dead

PALLANT - a giant defeated by Athena, from whom she skinned and covered her shield with this skin

PANDORA - a woman made by Hephaestus on the orders of Zeus from clay in order to punish people, the wife of Epimetheus - the brother of Prometheus

PANDROSA - daughter of Cecrops, the first king of Athens

PEGASUS - winged horse

PELEUS - Greek hero, father of Achilles

PELIUS - King Iolcus, father of Alcestis

PENEUS - river god, father of Daphne

PERIPHETUS - a terrible giant, son of Hephaestus, killed by Theseus

PERSEUS - Greek hero, son of Zeus and Danae

PERSEPHONE - daughter of the fertility goddess Demeter and Zeus, wife of the ruler of the underworld Hades (among the ancient Romans PROSERPINE)

PYRRA - wife of Deucalion

PITTHEY - king of Argolis

PYTHIA - prophetess of the god Apollo in Delphi

PYTHON - a monstrous serpent that pursued Latona, was killed by Apollo

PLEIADES - seven daughters of Atlas, sisters of the Hyades

PLUTO (see HADES)

POLYHYMNIA - muse of sacred hymns

POLYDEUCK (POLLUX) - son of Zeus and Leda, brother of Castor

POLYDEKTES - king of the island Serif, who sheltered Danae and Perseus

POLYID - soothsayer

POLYPHEMUS - Cyclops, son of Poseidon, in love with Galatea

POLYPHEMUS - lapith, husband of Hercules' sister, participant in the Argonauts' campaign

POSEIDON - god of the seas, brother of Zeus (among the ancient Romans NEPTUNE)

PRET - king of Tiryns

PRIAM - Trojan king

PROMETHEUS - the titan who gave people fire

RA - the sun god of the ancient Egyptians

RADAMANTHUS - son of Zeus and Europa

REZIA - daughter of the Baghdad caliph, faithful wife of Huon

RHEA - wife of Kronos

SARPEDON - son of Zeus and Europa

SATURN (see KRONOS)

SELENA - goddess of the moon

SEMELE - daughter of the Theban king Cadmus, beloved of Zeus, mother of Dionysus

SEMETIS - mother of Akidas, lover of Galatea

SILENUS - the wise teacher of Dionysus, depicted as a drunken old man

SINNID - a terrible robber defeated by Theseus

SKIRON - a cruel robber defeated by Theseus

SOKHMET - daughter of Ra, had the head of a Lioness, the personification of the fire element

STENEL - father of Eurystheus

STENO - one of the Gorgons

SCYLLA - one of two terrible monsters that lived on both sides of a narrow strait and killed sailors passing between them

TAYGETUS - son of Zeus and Maya, brother of Hermes

TAL - nephew of Daedalus, killed by him out of envy

THALIA - the muse of comedy

TALLO - ora of spring

TALOS - a copper giant given by Zeus to Minos

THANATOS - god of death

THEIA - eldest daughter of Uranus, mother of Helios, Selene and Eos

TELAMON - faithful friend of Hercules, participant in the Argonauts' campaign

TERPSICHORE - muse of dancing

THESENE - Greek hero, son of the Athenian king Aegeus and the Trizen princess Etra, killed the Minotaur

TESTIUS - Estolian king, father of Leda

TEPHYS - titanide, wife of the Ocean

TYNDAREUS - Spartan hero, husband of Leda

TIRESIAS - soothsayer

TITANIA - in Scandinavian mythology, the wife of Oberon, a character in W. Shakespeare's comedy "A Midsummer Night's Dream"

TITON - brother of the Trojan king Priam

TYPHON - a hundred-headed monster, the product of Gaia and Tartarus

TOT - the ancient Egyptian god of the moon

TRIPTOLEMOUS - the first farmer who initiated people into the secrets of agriculture

TRITON - son of the ruler of the seas Poseidon

TROY - Dardanian king, father of Ganymede

URANUS - god of Heaven, husband of Gaia, father of the Titans, Cyclops and hundred-armed giants; was overthrown by his son Kronos

URANIA - muse of astronomy

PHAETON - son of Helios and Klymene, hero of a tragic myth

PHEBE - titanide

PHAEDRA - the wife of the Athenian king Theseus, who fell in love with her stepson Hippolytus and slandered him

THEMIS - goddess of justice, mother of Prometheus

PHOENIX - son of the Sidonian king Agenor

THETIS - sea goddess, mother of Achilles

FIAMAT - among the ancient Babylonians, a monster from which all troubles stemmed

PHILOCTETES - friend of Hercules, who received his bow and arrows as a reward for setting fire to the funeral pyre

PHINEUS - king of Thrace, soothsayer, blinded by Apollo for revealing to people the secrets of Zeus

FOBOS (Fear) - son of the god of war Ares

FRIKS - son of Atamant and Nephele, goddess of clouds and clouds

CHALKIOPE - daughter of the king of Colchis Eeta, wife of Phrixus

CHARYBDA - one of the monsters that lived on both sides of the narrow strait and killed sailors passing by

CHARON - the carrier of dead souls across the River Styx in the underworld of Hades

CHIMERA - a three-headed monster, the product of Typhon and Echidna

CHIRO - a wise centaur, teacher of the famous Greek heroes Theseus, Achilles, Jason, etc.

HUON - knight of Charlemagne, an example of a faithful spouse

CEPHEI - king of Ethiopia, father of Ariadne

SHU - son of the sun god Ra

EAGR - river god, father of Orpheus

EURYALE - one of the Gorgons

EURYDICE - nymph, wife of Orpheus

EGEI - Athenian king, father of Theseus

ELECTRA - daughter of Atlas, lover of Zeus, mother of Dardanus and Jasion

ELECTRYON - Mycenaean king, father of Alcmene, grandfather of Hercules

ENDYMION - a beautiful young man, Selena’s lover, immersed in eternal sleep

Enceladus - the giant that Athena overwhelmed with the island of Sicily

ENYUO - goddess who sows murder throughout the world, companion of the god of war Ares

EOL - god of the winds

EOS - goddess of the dawn

Epaf - cousin of Phaethon, son of Zeus

EPIAN - father of Capricorn

EPIMETHEUS - brother of Prometheus

ERATO - muse of love songs

ERIGONA - daughter of Icarius

ERIDA - goddess of discord, companion of the god of war Ares

ERICHTHONIUS - son of Hephaestus and Gaia, second king of Athens

EROS (EROT) - god of love, son of Aphrodite

ESCULAPIUS (see ASCLEPIA)

ESON - King Iolka, father of Jason

EET - king of Colchis, son of Helios

JUNO (see HERA)

JUPITER (see ZEUS)

JANUS - god of time

IAPETUS - Titan, father of Atlas

YASION - son of Zeus and Electra

JASON - Greek hero, leader of the Argonauts' campaign