UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY* Abstract:combined istorical nd cientific pproach s applied o ncient eports of what might oday ecalled nidentified lying bjects UFOs). Many onvention- ally xplicable henomena anbeweeded ut, eaving small esidue fpuzzling reports. hese all neatly nto he ame ategories s modern FO reports, uggesting that heUFO phenomenon, hatever t may edue to, has not hanged uch ver two millennia. T hroughout ecorded istory, eports f whatwe today might call unidentified lying bjects have been made and preserved. If more information were available to us, we would perhaps find that conventional scientific hypotheses could explain most, if not all of these.' Certainly his has turned out to be true of mo st reports from better-documented eriods. Therenonetheless remains a small residue of puzzling accounts, and regardless of what inter- pretation one places on them, these constitute phenomenon that spans centuries ftimeand widely different ultures. What may surprise the serious student of the subject is that, despite the numerous articlesand books published by scientists n UFOs over the past six decades, almost no scholarly studies of the very arlyhistory fthe phenomenon have appeared. What ittle has been accomplished was initiated n 1953 by the astronomer Donald Menzel's naturalistic nterpretation f reports n Pliny the Elder's Natural History.2 Menzel's study, however, proved superficial, nd had the unfortunate onsequence of inducing UFO enthusiasts to compile long, uncritical ists of all kinds of phenomena seen in the ancientskies and call them UFOs.3 Their methodology was roundly * I acknowledge an interesting onversation with J. Allen Hynekmanyyearsago, and record also my indebtednessto the Columbia University ibraries nd the New York Public Library. The final formof this paper owes much to the extensive and critical uggestions fS. Douglas Olson and two anonymous referees. 1 Mythological nd biblical iterature as been repeatedly ransackedfor vidence of UFOs; see, e.g., Jessup 1956); Le Poer Trench 1960). Skeptical views were first x- pressedby the stronomer Menzel (1953) 124-34, nd the psychologist ung 1958) 79-84. 2 Menzel (1953) 118-19. 3 Wilkins 1954) 163-74; Drake (1977). Other popularizing authors have generally followed, directly r indirectly, Wilkins nd Drake. THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL 103.1 2007) 79-92
Transcript
8/4/2019 Stothers, Richard - Unidentified Flying Objects in Classical Antiquity, The Classical Journal, Vol.103, 2007
Abstract: combinedistoricalnd cientificpproachsappliedo ncienteportsofwhatmightodayecalled nidentifiedlyingbjectsUFOs).Many onvention-ally xplicablehenomenaan be weededut, eaving small esiduefpuzzlingreports.heseallneatlynto heame ategoriess modernFOreports,uggesting
thatheUFOphenomenon,hatevertmay edueto,hasnot hanged uch vertwomillennia.
T
hroughoutecorded istory,eports f whatwe todaymightcall unidentified lying bjectshave been made and preserved.Ifmore informationwere available to us, we would perhaps
find that conventional scientifichypotheses could explain most,ifnot all of these.' Certainly his has turned out to be true of most
reportsfrombetter-documentederiods. There nonethelessremains
a small residue ofpuzzling accounts,and regardlessof what inter-pretationone places on them,these constitute phenomenonthat
spans centuries f timeand widelydifferentultures.What may surprisethe serious studentof the subject is that,
despite the numerous articlesand books published by scientists nUFOs over the past six decades, almostno scholarlystudies of the
very arlyhistory f thephenomenonhave appeared. What ittlehasbeen accomplishedwas initiated n 1953 by the astronomerDonaldMenzel's naturalistic nterpretationf reports n Pliny the Elder'sNaturalHistory.2Menzel's study,however,proved superficial, nd
had the unfortunate onsequence of inducingUFO enthusiasts tocompile long, uncritical ists of all kinds ofphenomena seen in theancient skies and call themUFOs.3 Theirmethodologywas roundly
*I acknowledgean interestingonversationwithJ.AllenHynek manyyears ago,and record also my indebtedness to the Columbia University ibraries nd theNewYork Public Library.The final formof thispaper owes much to the extensive andcritical uggestions f S. Douglas Olson and two anonymousreferees.
1Mythological nd biblical iterature as been repeatedlyransackedfor videnceofUFOs; see, e.g.,Jessup 1956); Le Poer Trench 1960). Skepticalviews were first x-
criticized n the 1968 Condon ReportbySamuel Rosenberg,who did
not,however,attempt fresh tartby tracking own and analyzingthe primary ources themselves.RichardWittmann,gnoringtheseauthors,produced in 1968 a morescholarly, utalso morerestrictedstudyof ancient"flying hields." The subjecthas languished since1971 and 1975,when Peter Bicknellpublished two cautious articlesinwhich UFOs weretreated nly ncidentally.4
The mostliberal attitudewould allow that, o an ancient obser-ver,many aerial phenomena were mysterious nd hence to someextentunidentified, espitetheobserver's bility o describethem nfamiliar ubjectiveterms nd despite ancientattempts t theorizing
about theirnature.Today we can filter ut themost obvious cases ofconventionalphenomena, n spiteof the archaicterminology sed todescribethem.The approach adopted here willbe to searchfor erialphenomena n themorereliable ncientreports hat ook likemodernUFOs, but without gnoringothermanifestations f "strangeness."My working hypothesiswill be that most such reports can beexplained by conventionalscientific deas and that,among all thereports, nlythose thatdefyreasonableinterpretationfter ull ana-lysiscanbe said to resemble hemostpuzzling reportsmade today.5
Preliminary creeningsrelatively asy,
thanks to a numberofstudies of sky phenomena reported n classical antiquity,most fa-mouslysolar and lunareclipses,whose reported imes nd pathscanbe compared withmoderncalculations, nd comets and new stars(novae), which can be checkedagainst ndependentobservationsbyChinese imperialcourt stronomers.Aurorae toohave been inferredfromGreek and Romanreports f"chasms,""skyfire," night uns"and the like; statistical nalyses of the times of occurrenceofthesephenomena duringthe well-documented nterval223-91 BC showagreementwith the modernauroralperiodicity f about 11years, s
well as withthemodernclusteringnto two temporalpeaks withinauroral cycles.Even rare phenomena such as the aerial lightsthatoccasionallyaccompany earthquakescan be identified nsome cases.After argevolcaniceruptions, hesun for fewyearsappears dim,red and sometimeshaloed on account of aerosols injected nto thestratosphere;heseopticalphenomenatoocrop up in ancientreportsand can be correlatedwithmodernmeasurements f aerosol falloutin dated polar ice cores.6Mock suns and mock moonshave notbeen
4 Wittmann1968);Rosenberg 1969);Bicknell 1971) and (1975).' ModernUFO cases date from 945-1947,when a wave ofsightings riggeredmedia frenzy. allee (1965)has discussed a numberofsimilarcases from he 19thndearly 0th centuries; iscollectionwas foreshadowedbythework ofFort 1941).
systematically ataloged,but are infrequentlyecorded and tend to
be obvious, owing to theircharacteristicppearance in pairs. Thisleaves unusual fireballs, aytimeand nighttime isks and the like,and rainsof variousmaterial, ll of whichrequirefurthernalysis.
For presentationpurposes, I group the ancientreports n fourcategories s definedby HynekformodernUFO sightingsbutomit-tingradardetections), lthough have combinedHynek'sNocturnalLights nd DaylightDisks into a singlecategory,which call DistantEncounters. have acceptedas separatecategorieshis Close Encoun-ters of theFirst,Second and ThirdKinds,which are differentiatedaccording to proximity,material remains and the presence of
"occupants."'7A briefdescription f modern UFO sightingsmaybe helpfulat
thispoint.8AlthoughUFOs varyin morphology nd behavior,con-sistent atternshave emerged.At close range,UFOs appear as disksor otherextendedobjects, ncludingverticalcylinders nveloped in"clouds" and associatedwith mallerdisks.Dependingon theviewingangles, their ntrinsic hapes mightbe similar or even identical: adisk seen face-on ooks circular, lthoughedge-on it looks ellipticalor oblong.Colors in thedaytimeare usually describedas silvery r
gray,and in the
nightas
resemblingred or multicolored
ights.Estimated dimensionsrange from bout one meter to hundreds ofmeters,with the scatterbeing probably ntrinsic.UFOs are usuallysaid to be noiseless.Theyare seen in the air or on theground,hover-
ing or stationary, rmovingacross thesky n a continuousfashion,eveniferratically.ometimes hey uddenlyappear or vanish.
A. DistantEncounters
Ideally, ancient Distant Encounters would be separated intonighttimend daytime categories, ut this s possible in only a few
instances. have insteaddesignated woobjective ubgroups,depend-ing on whetherthe objects are described in military anguage, astypesof"flying rmaments," r in meteorological nd astronomical
Aurorae: tothers1979a) nd 1979b); olow 2005). arthquakeights:tothers2004).Volcanic ffects n theatmosphere:ammer t al. (1980);Stothersnd Rampino(1983);Stothers2002). cientific ethodsppliedto the ncient rodigyists re arelativelyewweapon nthe rsenal f extualontrols.
7 Hynek's1972) s theonly lassificationystem avingwidespread amiliarity,
and this s justas well,sinceVallee's 1965)earlier ystem, hichhe continuallyrefined,s tooelaborateor se n the ase of he elativelyimplencienteports.8 Mydescriptionummarizeshe atternsiscernednd discussed y heVallees
(1965), 1966) nd (1990);Hynek1972).A convenientummaryf known uminoussky henomena ithwhich hese uzzling aseshavebeen omparedanbe found tAltschuler1969).
8/4/2019 Stothers, Richard - Unidentified Flying Objects in Classical Antiquity, The Classical Journal, Vol.103, 2007
language, as various kinds of "fieryglobes." Within ach subgroup
the ncidents re treated nchronological rder.FlyingArmaments
Most reportsof flying rmaments come fromLivy's prodigylists,which for heyears precedingca. 123 BC were derived perhapsindirectly) rom he AnnalesMaximipublished by the PontifexMaxi-mus ofRome. In view of thetime-consumingnd costlyproceduresrequired by the Roman authorities o investigatewitnesses,verifyclaimsand physicalevidence, nd expiatethemore unusual portents,most modern scholarswho have troubledto
analyzethe
prodigylists have come to regardthemas trustworthynd accurate.9Theunavoidable limitations re thatthe reporting rea is restricted ocentral taly,while thenumberofreports ends to mirror revailingsocial conditions;regrettably,hereports re always veryterse.Themilitary erminology eflects he most advanced technologyknownat thetime, tendency ound also inmodern UFO reports,nwhicha witnessgropesfor familiar echnicalvocabulary-and perhaps arationalization-to describe an unaccountable phenomenon. Thatmanyreportswere made duringwartimemaypartially xplain the
military erminology.The followingthreereportswere made under the considerable
pressureof theSecond PunicWar,when prodigiesweremost ikelysoughtmorefrequentlynd carefully hanusual. The observers reunknown,but were probably many in number,whichmay accountfor the spike in prodigyreports t this time.No compellingreasonexists to infer an epidemic of mass hallucination n central taly,althoughLivydid note a measure of masshysteria,nd evenhysteri-cal contagion, mong thepopulace because of the loomingCartha-ginianthreat.10
* At Rome in the winter of 218 BC "a spectacle of ships (navium)gleamed in the sky" (Liv. 21.62.4). FranklinKrauss, for ack of analternative xplanation, peculated thatthe "ships" were clouds ormirages, although suggestive cloud formations had been long-understood, amiliar eatures.11
9 See n.6, above; Krauss (1930).10Itdid notescape the shrewd notice of Liv. 21.62.1and 24.10.6 that he ncreased
numberofprodigy reportsgeneratedat this timewas a sociological consequenceof
themany reports hat had alreadybeen made and publicized,as well as a psycho-logical product of fear caused by the war with Carthage.Although Livy voicedskepticismbout some ofthesereports, e did notspecifywhich ones he doubted.
" Krauss (1930) 79. Cloud formswhen imaginativelynterpreted ere generallyrecognized n antiquity obe psychologicalprojections:Ar.Nu. 346-57;Lucr.4.129-42;Cic. Div. 2.49;TheophanesConfessorAM 5870.
8/4/2019 Stothers, Richard - Unidentified Flying Objects in Classical Antiquity, The Classical Journal, Vol.103, 2007
* In 217 BC "at Arpi round shields (parmas)were seen in the sky"
(Liv. 22.1.9; Orosius 4.15). A parmawas a small round shield madepartlyor whollyof iron,bronze or anothermetal;we do not knowwhetherthe lusterof these devices (and not just theirshape) wasintended to be an element of the description.Mock suns are anunlikelyexplanation,since in the Roman prodigylists these wereroutinely escribed as "double suns" or "triplesuns" (i.e. two mocksuns on either ide of therealone).* In 212 BC"at Reate a huge stone (saxum)was seen flying bout"(Liv. 25.7.8). The implicationwould seem to be that the object in
question was a stony gray color; that it is said to have movedirregularlyvolitare)eaves open thepossibility hat the objectLivydescribeswas a bird or somekindof airbornedebris.
Sporadic reportsof similarobjectscontinueto appear after hisin the Roman prodigylists. The immediatesources are again Livyandhisextractors liny,Plutarch,Obsequens and Orosius:
* In 173BC"at Lanuviuma spectacleof a greatfleetwas said to havebeen seen inthesky" Liv. 42.2.4).
* In 154 BC "at Compsa weapons (arma)appeared flyingn thesky"(Obsequens 17). The termrefers o defensiveweapons, especiallyshields.
* In 104 BC"thepeople of Ameria and Tuder observedweapons inthe sky rushing togetherfromeast and west, those fromthe west
being routed." Thus Pliny (Nat. 2.148) who uses the termarma;Obsequens' (43) version s essentially he same. Plutarch Mar. 17.4)calls theweapons "flaming pears and oblong shields,"but maybe
merelyglossingand expanding;since he notedthetimeas night, he
phenomenon n question mightbe the streamers f an aurora bore-alis.
* In 100BC,probably t Rome,"a round shield clipeus), urning ndemitting parks,ran across the sky from west to east, at sunset."Thus Pliny Nat.2.100),althoughObsequens (45) called thephenom-enon "a circular bject, ike a roundshield." The clipeuswas a roundshield similarto the parma,but bigger.Seneca (Nat. 1.1.15; 7.20.2),quoting Posidonius (1st centuryBC), referred o a class of clipeiflagrantes, aying that theypersisted longer than shooting stars.12
12 Possibly related to these are the disceuscomets,which displayed electrum-coloreddisks surroundedby scattered ays;see Plin. Nat. 2.89;Avienus in Serv.Aen.ad 10.272;Campestris n Scholiast to Luc. ad 1.529 and in Lyd. Ost. 15; Apuleius in
Lyd. Ost. 10;Mens.4.71; Heph. Astr.1.24.See also Fuhr 1982) on theTyphoncomet,which was twisted ike a red coil (Plin.Nat.2.91).
8/4/2019 Stothers, Richard - Unidentified Flying Objects in Classical Antiquity, The Classical Journal, Vol.103, 2007
Nothingin the ancientreportsforbids that these were spectacular
bolides (meteoricfireballs),whichmove across theskymoreslowlythan ordinaryshootingstars,but enormouslyfasterthan genuinecomets,which are seen fordays orweeks.13* In 43 BCat Rome "a spectacleofdefensiveand offensiveweapons(armorumelorumquepecies)was seen to rise from heearth o theskywith a clashingnoise."14 t mightbe possible to visualize in this
report bolide explodingwhilerising bove the horizon.
* Historically, hemostfamous"skyarmy" appeared in thespringofca.AD65 overJudea.The historianJosephus eports:
On the21st fthemonth rtemisium,here ppeared miraculousheno-menon, assingbelief.ndeed,what am about orelatewould, imagine,have beendeemed fable,were tnotfor henarrativesf yewitnessesndthesubsequentalamities hichdeserved o be so signalized. or,beforesunset hroughoutllparts fthe ountry,hariots ere een nthe irandarmed attalionsurtlinghroughhe louds ndencompassinghe ities."5
Although Josephusprobablyviewed thisphenomenonhimself ndapparentlydid researchon it,he appeals to eyewitnessaccountstobolsterhis
credibility.he
phenomenondoes not seem to have been
an aurora,cloud patterns r meteors, ut does resemble the "aerialfighting" fmodernUFOs.
FieryGlobes
* The first lusterofreportsoffieryglobes fallsduringtheSecondPunicWar.Livyreports hat n 217 BC"at Capena twomoons roseinthedaytime .. and atCapua a kind ofmoonfellduring rainstorm."16TheCapuan "moon"mayhave been a manifestationfball lightning,but the "two moons" at Capena mostlikelywere not. Mock moons
are seenonlyatnightwhen thereal moon is verybright, ut a bolideseen togetherwith the realmoon in thedaytime, r a bolide split ntwo, s a possibility.
13Formodernbolides,see Nininger 1952).14 Obsequens 69;D.C. 47.2.3;possiblyalso Verg.Aen.8.527-9.15 J. BJ6.5.3 (translationby H. Thackeray);Tac. Hist. 5.13.2. Silverman 1998)
discountenances a rare daytimeaurora,which would be quite faint.Compare themilitarymagerywith that n 2 Kings2:11;Zechariah6:1-8; Verg.Aen.8.528-9. Otherancientreports fcelestial armies seem too vague, illusionary r likely pocryphalto
16 Liv. 22.1.10-12;Orosius 4.15. Three moons appeared simultaneouslyn 223 BCand in 122 BC,and probablyconsisted of two mock moons on either ide of the realmoon,although he time s notexplicitly tatedto have beennight: lin. Nat.2.99;Plu.Marc.4.1;Orosius4.13;Obsequens 32;Apuleius inLyd.Ost.4; Zonaras 8.20.
8/4/2019 Stothers, Richard - Unidentified Flying Objects in Classical Antiquity, The Classical Journal, Vol.103, 2007
* Seneca (Nat. 1.1.2; 7.15.1) gives two examples fromthe eastern
Mediterranean.n 168BC,when L. AemiliusPaullus was wagingwaragainstKing Perseus ofMacedon, "a ball ... was the formofa firethat ppeared, as largeas the moon." This could have been a bolide.
* A morecomplicatedobjectmade itsappearance sometimebetween151 and 146 BC:
Afterhedeath fKingDemetriusf yria,.. a little efore heAchaeanWar,a comet lazedout,not nferioro the un.At firstt was a fieryeddisk,17emittinglight obrighthattdissipatedhenight. hen,ittle y ittle,tssizedwindlednd tsbrightnessaded; t astthe ight iedcompletely.
Since theobjectwas seen formorethana moment as indicatedbyitsdesignationas a cometes),t was probablynot ball lightningor abolide; italso seemstohave been toobright o have been theformer,and too stationaryohave been the atter.Nor could it have been aninstanceof"night un" (solnoctu), efinedbyPliny s creating iffuse
light nthenighttime kyand interpreted odayas an aurora.18
*Two parallelrecordsof91 BCpreservedbyLivy'sextractors rosiusand Obsequens refer o central taly.19 ver thecityofRome "about
sunrisea ball of fire shone forth rom the northern egionwith aloud noise in thesky."The sonic boom indicatesthatthis was prob-ablya bolide,rather hanball lightnings Bicknell uggested.* The same year, muchstranger bjectwas noticednearSpoletium:
Furthermore,everalRomans n a journeyawa gold-coloredallrolldownfrom he ky o theearth; fter rowingarger,t was seen toriseupwardagain romhe arthowardhe isingun ndtoblock he un tselfy ts ize.
Bicknellproposed thatthis was ball lightning. ut outside ofhigh-
altitude torm louds,ball lightningverages only23 cm. ndiameter,and the description suggests somethingmuch larger than this.
Although the reported verticalmotion, drawn-out duration and
prevailing unnyweatherare not unheard-ofnball lightning bser-vations, the combinationof improbable characteristicsmakes thisexplanation unattractive.The object's apparent trajectory ppearsmore consistentwith theapproach,overheadpassage and retreat fa bolide. On theotherhand,an actual landingon or nearthegroundis stronglyndicated.
17 ContraryoRamsey 2006) 79-81,the color ndicatesthat twas not a genuine,whitecomet; ee also Sen.Nat.1.15.2.
18 Plin. Nat.2.100;Stothers1979a) 94-5.19 Orosius 5.18; Obsequens 54. See also Bicknell 1971) 13-16 and (1975) 286-8.
Ball lightnings describedbySmirnov 1993).
8/4/2019 Stothers, Richard - Unidentified Flying Objects in Classical Antiquity, The Classical Journal, Vol.103, 2007
* Pliny Nat. 2.100) also reports n incident hatat first lance looks
like theprecedingone,but occurred tnight:A sparkwas seento fallfrom star ndtogrow s itapproachedhe arth;aftert hadbecome s large s themoon,ightwas diffusedll around s ifon a cloudy ay;then, etreatingo the ky, heobject hangednto torch.This s recorded o haveoccurrednly nce:Silanus heproconsul ithhisretinueaw t, n the onsulshipfGnaeusOctavius ndGaiusScribonius.
M. Junius ilanus was governor ftheprovinceofAsia in 76 BC, ndthe incidentprobablytook place there.Silanus' testimony eceivesindirect upportfrom n allusion
by Lydus(Ost. 6) to several later
occurrences f the same phenomenon, lthoughwithoutreferenceoa torch.The size,brightness nd transience f theobjectat itsmaxi-mum seem to rule out a cometor a new star nova), interpretationssuggestedby Barrett nd Hertzog,respectively.But Bicknell'spro-posal ofball lightning lso founders on the object's change into atorch.Wittmannhas postulateda complexUFO encounter, ut thisexplanationseems unnecessary.Since no landing of the objectwasreported,tis simplest nd most naturalto interpretheevent as theoverheadpassage of a bolide leavinga luminous train.20
* It is not until four centuries ater that the next report n thiscategorys found:
This occurredca. AD334,and was recordedby a Byzantine nnalist,Theophanes Confessor,writingfive centuriesafterthe event and
usingunknownsources.The
one-day,wo-hourdurationof the
phe-nomenon is much too shortfora comet,despite the suggestionsofBarrett,Mango and Scott, nd Ramsey,while the smokingtrailofabolide would have appeared most unstarlike,being elongated,irregular,nd graduallydissipative.22
21 Theophanes Confessor AM 5826; Barrett1978) 103; Mango and Scott 1997)49-50; Ramsey 2006) 173-5.Cf. Revelation9:1-2. This astermaybe the same objectas
the cometmentionedby Eutropius10.8 and Aurelius Victor 41 as having appearedbefore he death ofConstantine.22 Two otherdated reports fmysterious iery lobes are notsufficientlyeliable
to be worthdiscussinghere:one in 323 BC,Ps.-Callisth. .33 (cf.JuliusValerius3.90);and theother n AD 363,Epitome e Caesaribus 3 (cf.Amm. Marc. 25.2.4-8). A fierypillarappeared nearAthens n404 BC on a moonless, tormy ight nd was possiblya
8/4/2019 Stothers, Richard - Unidentified Flying Objects in Classical Antiquity, The Classical Journal, Vol.103, 2007
Hynekdefined a Close Encounterof theFirstKind as an obser-vation at close rangeof a UFO thatfailsto interactwith theobserverand does not leave a physicaltrace.Bythisdefinition,he"fiery eddisk" of ca. 150 BC and the "gold-coloredball" of 91 BC mightbeconsideredborderline xamples.
* A more characteristicxample occurred n 74 BC,when a Romanarmyunder L. Licinius Lucullus was about to engage theforcesof
KingMithridatesVI of Pontus.According o Plutarch:
Butpresently,.. withnoapparent hange fweather,utall on a sudden,the kyburstsunder,nda huge, lame-likeodywas seentofallbetweenthetwo armies.n shape, t was most ikea wine-jarpithoi),nd in color,likemolten ilver. oth ides were astonished t thesight,nd separated.Thismarvel,s they ay, ccurrednPhrygia,ta placecalledOtryae.23
The presence of thousands of witnesses, including Lucullus andMithridates, ouches for the incident's occurrence.The termpithoswas routinely pplied by ancientmeteorologistso any largebarrel-
shaped, smoky celestial fire, ccordingto Posidonius.24Could the
objectof74BChave been a meteorite? he bright ilvery olormightdescribe the incandescence of the objectwhile falling,but freshlyfallenmeteorites re black, and Plutarch makes no mentionof anynoise, let alone an impact. The objectmust have measured muchmore thana meter cross,since it was easily resolved at a distance
greater han half therange of a bowshot. If ithad remained on theground, meteorite fsuch size would doubtlesshave becomea cultobject n Phrygia,with ts long tradition f meteoriteworship,25 etlater historical records referringo Phrygianmeteorites re silentabout it. n modern
experience,n
episodelike this would
easilyfall
underthe rubricof a classicUFO encounter.Butwe cannot rule outthefall ofa bolide.
* A fourth ncidentis known froma biographyof St. Anthony,probablywritten y Athanasius,bishop ofAlexandria,followingpersonal interviewwith the witnessyears afterward. he date wasca.AD285, n or near theFayiim n theEgyptiandesert.Anthony aw
on thedesert loor largesilverdisk that uddenly anished ike
smoke.26lthoughhe ncounters introducednto hebiographyna straightforward,actualway,thebiographys notedfor tsreli-giousvisions,ndeven f uthentic,he pparitionmayhave been adesertmirage.
C. Close ncountersf he econd ind
In Hynek's system, Close Encounter f theSecond Kind leavesa physical race.Ancientiteratureontains orecord fa UFO-likeobject ressingn imprintnto heground rdepositing material
residue.On theother and,rains fstrangematerial ereoccasion-allyreported,ndsince nalogousreportsn modernUFO researchare cceptedwhen ufficientlyell-documentedndverified,ncientexamples re citedhere n the absenceof moredirect vidence.nmodern eports, whitish ossamerubstance ubbed"angelhair"is said on rareoccasions ohave droppedfrom UFO and some-times o have vanished uickly n contact ith heground.notherreports,lassy ibersre eft ya UFO after akeoffrom heground,ora chalkyubstance emains.27
*Anancientample f angelhair"wasperhaps icked p atRomeinAD196bythehistorian assiusDio,who writes:
A finerainresembling ilver descended from clearskyupon theForum ofAugustus. didnot, t s true, ee itas itwas falling,utnoticed t afterthad fallen,ndbymeansof t plated omebronze oinswith ilver; heyretained hesameappearance or hree ays,butbythefourthayall thesubstance ubbed nthem addisappeared.28
Other falls n which a solid whitish ubstance was involved includetwo "rains of
chalk,"one at Cales in 214 BC and another t Rome in
98 BC. No other nformations offered bout thephysicalnature ofthischalk.29
26 [Athanasius] itaAntonii1.Mirageswerea familiarhenomenono thoselivingntheNorth fricaneserts: .S. 3.50.4-51.5;ert.Adversus arcionem.24.Adesert-dwellerikeAnthony ould ertainlyavebeen ware f uch neffect.
27See the ooks y heVallees1965), 1966) nd 1990).28
D.C. 75.4.7. he "rain f ilver" uring urelian's eignAD270-5),mentionedby GeorgiusMonachus .168,probably lluded to thatemperor's eform f theimperialilveroinage,lthoughaternnalistsnterpretedhe ain iterally.
A Close Encounter ftheThirdKindinvolves a UFO seeninasso-ciationwithan occupant,usuallydescribed s human orhumanoid.
* Accordingto Livy, in 214 BC "at Hadria an altarwas seen in thesky; around it were forms of men dressed in shiningwhite." Thenatureof the altar ara) is notspecified.Butfouryearsearlier, in thedistrict f Amiternum, n many places, forms of men dressed inshiningwhite were seen at a distance;theydid not approach any-one."30Exceptforthisreport, ntitiesunassociatedwitha UFO willnot be a
subjectof
investigationhere,as
problemsof identification
and verification resent nsurmountable bstacles even in moderncases, as Hynek and others have shown. The incident of 214 BCnonethelessstrikingly ecalls the classic observationofUFO occu-pants on a hovering,overhead craft een by FatherGill and his
companions n 1959off apua New Guinea.31* The last encounters again from heearlyChristianhagiographicalliterature nd tookplace near theVia Campana betweenRome and
Capua ca. AD 150. On a sunny day, a "beast" like a piece ofpottery(ceramos)bout 100 feet n size,multicolored n
topand
shootingut
fiery ays, anded in a dust cloud, accompanied by a "maiden" cladin white.32 here was only one witness to the event,probablyHer-mas thebrother fPope Pius I.
Conclusions
This collection f whatmight e termed ncientUFO reportshasbeen culled from muchlargernumber ofreportsof aerial objects,most of whose identifications ith knownphenomenaare either er-tainor at leasthighlyprobable.Embedded in the mass ofrelatively
explicableancientreports, owever, s a small setofunexplained orat least notwholly explained) reports rom resumablycrediblewit-nesses. If thesereports re examined statistically,ssentialfeaturesofwhat will,for rgument's ake,call the ancientUFO phenomenoncanbe extracted:
* sound-usually nonereported;* typeof motion-hovering, rraticor smoothflight,with a rapiddisappearance.
In at least one instance, hepresenceof"occupants"covered n shinywhite clothing s reported.Encountersrange fromdistantviews to
possiblyactual contact; hepreferred lace and time of observationseem to be ruralareas in thedaytime.Physicalevidence is generallylacking.
Greekand Roman scientific hinkers,who were never at a loss
fortheories,usually regarded these types of aerial phenomena asstars,clouds, atmosphericfires, ightreflections r movingmaterialbodies.33 ince most of the originaltheoriesharkback to Aristotleand his predecessors,withnone being laterthan Posidonius, theygenerallypredatethereports ollectedhere,none ofwhich s earlierthan 218 BC. It is accordingly mpossibleto know whether he laterobservers (mostly practical Romans) interpreted he phenomenaliterallyas they described them or were simply using the bestdescriptive anguage theywere capable of,while holding back ontheoretical
peculation.34ut
anyviable
theorymust reckonwith the
extraordinary ersistenceand consistencyof the phenomena dis-cussed here over many centuries.Whetherone prefers o think ntermsofuniversalrecurrent isions from he collectiveunconscious,misperceptionsof ordinaryobjects, unusual atmosphericeffects,unknownphysicalphenomenaorextraterrestrialisitations,what wetoday would call UFOs possess an intrinsic nterest hat has tran-scended thepassage of time nd the ncreaseofhumanknowledge.
