Beginning with some of the classical philosophers, scholars have pondered the nature and origin of mythology for centuries. Yet while the disciplines of geology, astronomy or biology gradually accrued a theoretical bedrock on which an entire edifice of thought could subsequently be built, no similar consensus core was ever reached for the subject of mythology. Mythopedia’s concern is to establish a theoretical foundation, consisting primarily of peer-reviewed articles and books, on which a future discipline of comparative mythology can be constructed.

A decade’s research suggests that, as a guideline, whatever induced our distant ancestors to produce the central themes of myth had to be:

These three key points, in unison as in isolation, serve as a watershed setting the present approach apart from most preceding theories of myth. In a 21^st-century revival of catastrophism, it is argued that the most credible hypothesis for ‘mythogenesis’ invokes extraordinary, impressive and often short-lived events observed by human beings and often taking place in the sky. Conspicuous candidates for such transient and cosmic events as 'mythogenetic' experiences are the following:

The nascent subdiscipline of geomythology studies the potential presence of geologically relevant information in mythical material, concentrating on possible mythologised reports of historical tsunamis or volcanic eruptions and the idea that ancient discoveries of fossils, such as those of Dinosaurs or Pleistocenic megafauna, could have contributed to the belief in fabulous creatures such as dragons. Important names in this fast-growing field include the pairs of Elizabeth & Paul Barber, Amos Nur & Dawn Burgess, and Luigi Piccardi & Bruce Masse.

Other specialists in the humanities draw attention to short-lived celestial events, such as the passage and possible impacts of comets, with concomitant effects such as meteor showers, an enhanced zodiacal light and enhanced aurorae. Recent contributors to this line of investigation include Bruce Masse, Derek Allen & Bernard Delair, Richard Firestone & Allen West, Victor Clube, William Napier & Mark Bailey, Duncan Steel, and Peter Bobrowsky & Hans Rickman.

Insofar as the findings of geomythologists and ‘cometary mythologists’ appear to complement rather than exclude each other, it seems useful to look for an embracing term to define this recent movement. The common denominator in St. Elmo's fire, lightning, aurorae, ion plumes, flux transfer events, cometary tails, sunspots, solar flares, and some more contentious phenomena such as ball lightning and earthquake lights is plasma; as is well known today, all of these are formed of plasma or ionised gas that responds with great sensitivity to changes in the earth’s magnetic field and the influx of charged particles from the solar wind or the interplanetary medium. A strong electromagnetic component, if not a direct correlation to geomagnetism, also appears to underlie aspects of the geological phenomena listed here:

In addition, optical phenomena such as the zodiacal light and crepuscular rays have no electromagnetic causes themselves, but are secondarily affected by the quantity and distribution of debris in the inner solar system, suggesting that increased cometary ‘dusting’ would enhance these effects as well as meteor showers significantly.

Considering the dominance of electromagnetic forces in these phenomena, plasma mythology seems a convenient umbrella term for this branch of mythological theory. Thus:

'Plasma mythology' explores in what ways ‘plasma phenomena’ in near-earth space are reflected in human myths, rituals and artefacts ranging from stone circles and petroglyphs to pyramids, sculptures and mythical writings.

Within the history of ideas, ‘plasma mythology’, with its emphasis on transient natural phenomena, can be seen as a modern successor to the ‘introspective’ and structuralist psychosociological models preferred during most of the 20^th century, that were championed by thinkers such as Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, Émile Durkheim, Georges Dumézil, and Claude Lévi-Strauss. The exploitation of cutting-edge scientific knowledge of the listed geological, atmospheric and astronomical events as potentially the ultimate inspiration for numerous mythical themes can be regarded as a modern continuation of the old 'nature school' of mythology, which – beginning in the late 19^th century and eventually supplanted by the ‘psychosociological’ theories – sought to invoke the behaviour of the sun, the moon, vegetal life, and so forth as the inspirational source of prominent mythical themes. Yet unlike the old school, the modern interdisciplinary approach –

Before the Space Age, scientists still described the solar system as a relatively uneventful ‘vacuum’, in which only planets, asteroids and the occasional comet moved on fixed courses with Aristotelian precision. As a consequence, scholars in the humanities investigating the reflections of astronomical concepts in ancient traditions were very much restricted to this straightjacket. The modern understanding of the solar system as a highly complex web of combined gravitational and electromagnetic forces, in which the solar wind interacts with interplanetary space and planetary magnetospheres, injects a new lease of life into the obsolete pre-1950 understanding of the solar system, allowing theorists to account for a much greater variety of traditional observations at a higher level of intellectual satisfaction.

'Plasma mythology' explores a fluctuating scale of events. Relatively common events such as the observation of megalightning, earthquake lights, an auroral pillar or the fall of ‘thunderstones’ occupy one end of the scale and provide a limited challenge to the mind. Such events will have inspired a large number of local traditions. On the other end, the unparalleled and drastic cosmic changes collectively remembered in traditional societies as the ‘creation of the world’ call for consideration of the possibility that these encapsulate an event that is extremely uncommon on a human scale. Such universal and archetypal themes require atmospheric events on a cosmic scale.

The ‘plasma-physical’ approach to a number of myths, notably creation myths, does not simply deny or ignore older mythological theories such as those of Edward Tylor, Sir James Frazer, Émile Durkheim, Carl Jung, Mircea Eliade, Georges Dumézil, and Claude Lévi-Strauss, but merely places them in a different perspective by incorporating them in a larger overarching framework:

In each case, the external, visual experience will have been primary and will have informed the psychological, sociological and artistic dimensions of myth. The celestial provenance of the myths’ original contents may account for the remarkable uniformity of human tradition. And unlike many previous theories of myth, the interdisciplinary connection with plasma science adds the invaluable benefit of testability: controlled laboratory experiments are capable of testing the theory by replicating the structures presented in myth and traditional art. Another test might consist in a comparison of the geographic distribution of specific mythical motifs to the way a hypothetical prototype in the sky would have appeared to terrestrial stargazers, allowing for latitude, longitude and altitude, local climates, the orbital motion of the earth and other objects possibly involved. The element of testability adds considerable plausibility to this theory of myth.