The Puzzle of Human Origins

Some have suggested that the Sumerians should be researched more in depth because they were the first people. However, this is not true. Homo sapiens, meaning "man who knows," in Latin, is the scientific name for the general human species. Homo is the genus, or, taxonomic category that is positioned above species and below family. This includes Neanderthals and Denisovan, as well as many other of our extinct cousins. In fact, Homo sapiens is the only surviving species of the genus Homo. Modern humans are classified even further as the subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens. This classification system branches out further and further whenever a new specimen is found. Sometimes, a specimen that does not neatly fit into this ongoing jig saw puzzle gets conveniently forgotten in the basements of museums; museums funded by oligarchs.

Hall of Human Origins, Smithsonian museum in Washington, D.C.. Funded by one of the infamous Koch Brothers.

Now, you may argue according to your religious beliefs, or personal research theories, that these “ancestors” are of no relation to us modern humans, thus, their existence does not factor into the equation. To which I would point to the Omo remains, discovered between 1967 and 1974 in Africa, at the Omo Kibish sites near the Omo River, in Omo National Park in south-western Ethiopia.

Found at the site were a number of bones including, two partial skulls, four jaws, a leg bone, and about two hundred teeth. This discovery provided evidence of the first anatomically modern humans appearing in the fossil record about 195,000 years ago, right around the time scientists claim modern humans diverged from a common ancestor 200,000 years ago. If the radiocarbon dating is correct, these fossils are the oldest known Homo sapiens remains, “making Ethiopia the cradle of Homo sapiens.”¹

Ethiopia may be considered the cradle of Homo sapiens, but Mesopotamia, home of Sumer, is known as the cradle of civilization. The distinction is quite evident. Existing and civilization building are two very different things. However, one could then reasonably ask what about Göbekli Tepe? Evidence found at Göbekli Tepe clearly indicates more than just simple existing was taking place. Considering that the settlement is at least 11,000 years old, it is much older than any settlement found near Ur. Thus, the enigmatic inhabitants of Göbekli Tepe should be considered the cradle of civilization, but the problem with this is how one defines civilization. 

Some scholars adhere to the theory that Göbekli Tepe was a temple but not all scholars agree. Archaeological evidence of day to day activities have led other scholars to believe that Göbekli Tepe was a multi-purpose domestic settlement. Still, the general consensus is that Göbekli Tepe was a hunter-gather site with the possibility of rudimentary agriculture. Does this constitute civilization? Perhaps it is the seed of civilization but to date, no evidence of an advanced state of human society where a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been found.

This is not to suggest that Göbekli Tepe is not a profoundly important site to the history of humanity. After all, its mysteries have only begun to be addressed. I only mean to suggest that in Sumer, something different happened. This something would do more than simply plant the seeds of human civilization, it would go on to develop complex systems and hierarchies the world had never before seen. 

While not the first ever people, and not the first to make art or large settlements, the Sumerians forever changed the trajectory of humankind. Thanks to having invented the world’s first true system of writing, ² the Sumerians have left us with many artifacts and texts to paint a picture of life in their time. So what do we really know about the Sumerians? What made their version of civilization so different than in prehistory, and what makes it so similar to our modern version of civilization? Were they truly even human, or perhaps a hybrid of something else? Find out the answers these, and other questions in my book, Land of the Watchers.

_________________________

1. Leakey, R. E. F. "Early Homo Sapiens Remains from the Omo River Region of South-west Ethiopia: Faunal Remains from the Omo Valley." Nature, 1969, 1132-133.

2. Millard, A. R. (1986). "The Infancy of the Alphabet." World Archaeology 17 (3): 390–398. doi:10.1080/00438243.1986.9979978

Belief in the Anunnaki

In much of my research into alternative theories of civilization and archaeology, I often come across the Anunnaki. The Anunnakiis a group of ancient Mesopotamian deities headed by Anu, (Sumerian An) the sky god of Uruk and often symbolized by a horned crown on a shrine.

This group of chthonic deities of fertility later became the Judges, or Watchers of the Underworld. These Anunnaki deities have been popularized in more recent time by the late author Zecharia Sitchin, who proposed an explanation for human origins based on his interpretations of Sumerian creation myths, as it relates to the Ancient Alien/Astronaut Theory.

Many who read my blog and follow my work are likely already familiar with Sitchin and have at least a working knowledge of his theories. If you do not, I would suggest a simple Google search of Sitchin will be enough to give you a general idea.

Widely considered controversial at best, Sitchin's theories are routinely dismissed as pseudoscience and his work has been shown to have many flaws. It may be easy to dismiss his claims; however, it is not so easy to dismiss his conviction. Sitchin was a prolific writer and researcher. Though technically an amateur, he was dedicated to researching the fundamental questions of human origins. He must be at least respected for the level of work and gall he had to allow his creativity to fuel his scholarly quest. 

With this being said, I enjoy Sitchin. I am intrigued by its romanticism and I am supremely interested in the overall themes. However, having studied Sumerian creation myths as well as a variety of other myths with the hope of finding some unifying themes, which I have, I must conclude that the Sitchin account is not something in which I believe. Does this mean it has no value? I wouldn't say that. I believe Sitchin and his predecessors, Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken have brought to light some interesting ways of looking at myths, artifacts, and society as a whole. However, just as I wouldn’t take the word of any one professor, I would not accept the word of any one author. I think it is important to expand our thinking and entertain theories even if they seem contrary to our belief systems, or even outlandish. At the very least, it spurs creative thinking and offers counter arguments and new perspectives.

So, my suggestion to anyone interested in theories of Anunnaki as our extraterrestrial creators is to do the research yourself and come to your own conclusions. In doing so, be sure to consider many views, from the most fringe to the most sterile and academic. Allow yourself the freedom of both creative and critical thinking. Don’t stop until you have answered all your questions and have filled in all the gaps. Build yourself a framework of historical variables and don’t succumb exclusively to the methods of hard science or Reductionism.

Cartesian style Reductionism is at the heart of modern scientific thinking. This method of understanding says that complex systems can be explained by reducing them to their most basic and fundamental parts. There are many data points that must be in place for Reductionism to work well, a luxury we don’t often have when looking at history or the archaeological record. While this works to some extent, it is not always the most effective approach when dealing with social sciences.

In history, all variables are, in a sense, dependent. To isolate one as independent is to alter the nature of historical development (Gaddis, 2004). Historical variables are not causal. As a historian, archaeologist, or student of the past, there are only pieces of history with which to study. Each variable is a piece of the puzzle as a whole. There is a valid need to generalize based on the variables and their connections to gain a more holistic view of past events.

This is why as a social scientist, I often favor Holism, over Reductionism. I believe that natural systems and their properties should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts. I believe that humanity is an extremely complex system whose function cannot be fully understood by its pieces alone. We need creative dot connectors, including Sitchin and others, to help open our minds to possibilities outside of our own intellectual comfort zones. Even Sir Isaac Newton allowed himself the privilege of entertaining theories which science would surely deem superstitious and based in fantasy.

Do I believe in the Anunnaki? If I were limited to Reductionism or semantics I would say no, not in the popular sense. But in a holistic way, I would say I believe there is some greater truth buried deep within the Sumerian myths, as there is with all myths. By studying these myths, this truth can be realized but by limiting ourselves to romantic ideas, semantics, or the word of authority figures, we will forever be vulnerable to the story-telling of anyone with enough charisma to convince us into complacency.

So for now, I personally need more “proof,” but I am happy to be approaching this question with an open heart, and critical mind. Like many truth-seekers, I am still seeking, but you can be sure of one thing, if/when I come across this proof, you will be the first to know! 

NASA's Latest Discovery of Possible Ancient Life on Mars and the Man from Clay Monomyth

NASA/JPL-Caltech/Cornell Univ./Arizona State Univ.

A recent report from NASA says that samples taken from the surface of Mars has indicated the presence of clay and other minerals, indicating a long history of contact with water. 

According to the scientists, “Clay minerals tend to form only at a more neutral pH. This is water you could drink. It was much more favorable for things like prebiotic chemistry – the kind that could lead to the origin of life.” Since Mars was warmer and wetter billions of years ago, it could have theoretically sustained life. 

What is interesting to me is that clay and water have been an important reference point to life throughout history. Perhaps the ancients knew something we do not? Could complex organisms arise from such simple material as clay? Here is just a short look at the universality of the “Man from Clay” myth from varied translations, cultures, and regions: 

• Assyro-Babylonian: Aruru (Ninmah, Nintu, Ninhursaga, Belet-ili, Mami) - made Enkidu in Anu's image by pinching off a piece of clay, throwing it into the wilderness, and birthing him there. 

• Canaan-Ugaritic: According to Gibson's translation, "men are considered made of 'clay'."

• Sumerian: According to Samuel Noah Kramer (Tablets of Sumer, Colorado,1956) Nammu and Ninmah, mixed clay which was 'over the abyss' and brought man into existence. Gods were having difficulty in finding food, and their problems have increased when the later born goddesses joined them. Enki the water god - he was the god of wisdom and in a position to help them - was fast asleep in the sea and did not hear their complaints. Enki's mother Mother of all Gods Nammu brought the tears of the complainants to Enki and told him in their presence: "O! my son, get off your bed... do what is wise. Give shape to (make some) servants to gods. Let them make their own copies.(?)" Enki thinks, decides to head the 'union of good and bright modelists' and says to Nammu: 'O! mother, the creature you have mentioned exists: Put the image of gods(?) on him. Shape his heart from the clay on the surface of the Bottomless Deep. Good and bright modelists will thicken this clay. You make its organs; Ninmah (Goddess of Earth) will work in front of you. While you are making a model…goddesses of birth will be with you. O! mother decide on the faith of the newborn, let Ninmah put the image of gods on it: This is the human."

• Ancient Egyptian: Khnum, the ram-headed god of Elephantine, the potter, fashioned men on his wheel, making use of the clay in his locality as his basic material.

• Ancient Greeks: Prometheus shaped man out of clay and Athena breathed life into this clay figure.

• The Qur'an, the lord says "I am going to create a human being out of clay. When I have formed him and breathed My Spirit into him, fall down in prostration to him!" (Qur'an, 38:71-72), Then inquire of them: Is it they who are stronger in structure or other things We have created? We created them from sticky clay. (Qur'an, 37:11)

• The Pangwe of Cameroun say that God first created a lizard out of clay which he placed in a pool to soak. He left it there for seven days, and then called ‘Man, come out’, and a man emerged instead of a lizard.

• The Inca: "There he raised up all the people and nations, making figures of clay and painting the clothes each nation was to wear. To each nation he gave a language, songs and the seeds they were to sow. Then he breathed life and soul into the clay and ordered each nation to pass under the earth and emerge in the place he directed."

• In Asia, The Bagobos, a pagan tribe of South-Eastern Mindanao, say that a god took two lumps of earth, shaped them like human figures, and spat on them; so they became man and woman.

Due to the monomythic nature of the "Man from Clay" narrative, some scientists have tried to study its possibility. 

According to the findings of scientists, Martin Hanczyc, Shelly Fujikawa and Jack Szostak at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and published in the highly reputable journal Science (vol 302, p 618 ), it may appear possible that life can originate from clay particles and water. After experiments, the team found that the two crucial components for the origin of life (genetic material and cell membranes) could have been introduced to one another by a lump of clay. 

They studied montmorillonite clay and concluded that it can dramatically accelerate the formation of membranous fluid-filled sacs. These sacs can grow and undergo a simple form of division, giving them the properties of primitive cells. Previous work has shown that the same simple mineral can help assemble the genetic material RNA from simpler chemicals. 

Leslie Orgel, an origin of life expert at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in San Diego, California has noted that “the clay also gets internalized in these sacs”, postulating a connection between the mechanism that creates RNA and encloses it in a membrane. One theory about how this works is that the negatively charged layers of clay’s crystals create a trapping of positive charge, creating a highly attractive environment for RNA subunits to concentrate and join together into long chains. In their research with clay, it was seen to have a 100-fold acceleration of the formation of these sacs. Once formed, the sacs were able to use bits of clay and grow by absorbing more fatty acid subunits. They essentially made "protocells” that could divide, grow, and evolve. 

This fits very well with not only ancient “Man from Clay” myths, but it also fits the scientific research showing how the basic building blocks for RNA-like molecules and membranes can be spontaneously created by chemical reactions that could occur not only on a primordial Earth, but outer space as well.

Considering all of this in relation to the new findings by NASA, it really shows just how important the discovery of clay on Mars is. Could this mean there were complex life forms on Mars billions of years ago? If the theory of panspermia is accurate, could life on Earth have been a result of primordial seeding of this material from Mars? This is especially interesting to think about when considering the ancient creation myths. 

There are too many uncertainties to conclusively answer any of these questions. To me, this is precisely why it is such an exciting subject. One thing is certain; we have only scratched the surface!