Part 1: The Enemies of Historical Accuracy
Contrary to the common perception, "History" is not a true
science. True, the field of Historical Study does, to some extent,
rely on true scientific method for, at best, a respectable level of
accuracy. But it also requires the use of imagination and insight…
tools which are not usually accepted by hard science as valid
mechanisms for the application of the scientific method.
In fact, the most critical component of the process of
"Historical Analysis" is not the data itself. It is the
unique talent of a historical researcher to take flawed, conflicting,
horribly biased and often badly translated documents- or in most cases
only the decayed fragments of those documents- and miraculously
transform this confusing heap of rather unscientific chaos into a
cohesive chronology of Mankind’s Past. A tall order indeed…and,
hardly an activity of ‘pure’ hard science.
Historical Analysis, very much like Psychological Analysis, is an
"art" practiced in the realm of science. Like all arts, the
quality of the art produced is dependent upon both the talent of the
artist and the perceptions of the person viewing the work. Without the
foundation of good scientific data (i.e., the knowledge of compounds,
pigments, form, perspective, color-combinations, techniques, base
materials and applicators), the artist would lack the technical skills
to allow him to properly apply his talent to his work. This would, of
course, have a negative impact on the art that he produced (regardless
of the artist’s talent).
It is exactly the same with the Art of History and the
Artist-Historian.
The best historical works are those ‘historical compositions’
which combine technical data with the interpretative intuition… the
"gift" of interpretation.
How then should we define Interpretation of historical data? How do we
judge the criteria for excellence in ‘historical interpretation’?
Conversely, how too, do we determine poor historical interpretation?
The answers to these questions must be provided in order for the
historical scholar to make sound judgments on the quality of the
documentary portrayals of past events.
To begin, interpretation of historical-data consists of analyzing hard
scientific data (gathered by archaeological research, sociological
research, and anthropological research) and a literary analysis of
related historical works, as well as the literature, art, religion and
customs of the "historical subject".
But how does one achieve excellence in interpreting this data,
especially when the available data is often only tiny fragments of the
examples mentioned above?
The obvious answer seems to be quite simple. The historian who is
making the analysis needs to be completely unbiased throughout the
entire interpretation process. And, although this seems the obvious
path to achieving excellence in historical analysis, it is, in fact,
inaccurate and virtually impossible to achieve. Why? Social
conditioning marks each human being with deep biases. From childhood
to old age, we are all constantly submerged in and molded by
cultural-specific biases. These biases run deep and they taint our
perceptions in every aspect of our conscious and unconscious
thought-lives. We, without even being aware, receive daily
"conditioning"… conditioning which is bound to our
specific cultures and subcultures… conditioning which fills us all
with racial, religious, intellectual, artistic, sexual and
chronological prejudices. These prejudices exist in each one of us. No
matter how subtle or how blatant these biases may be… they are there
and they do impact our perceptions… and thus, our interpretation of
data either personally obtained or data gathered by others of our
species is immediately suspect. However, the fact that our perceptions
are flawed- an unavoidable aspect of living in our given societies-
does not mean that excellence in interpretation is beyond our reach…
perfection, yes… but excellence, no.
Prejudices can be controlled… biases can be modified and utilized as
valuable tools in the analytical process. Coupled with imagination-
the open-mind- these controlled biases can actually be used to defeat
historical interpretations most vile nemesis. That
"nemesis"… that enemy is, of course, the erroneous
application of a pre-conceived and unsubstantiated historical paradigm
to any given historical subject.
Much of what is currently viewed today as "accepted
history", is plagued by two diseases. The first of these ills is
"unbridled bias". The second and most deadly to the accuracy
of "content value" is, as mentioned in the above paragraph,
the "erroneous paradigm".
Okay, so we can solve the problem of unbridled bias by simply
admitting we have it and then applying a nice sturdy bridle to it.
But, what do we do about the problem of the ‘erroneous paradigm’?
Well, lets look at that problem for a moment and see what we are up
against.
First, in order to find a cure for this ill, we have to see that it is
there and we have to admit that we see that it is there. And (as
indicated in the "Forward" of this work), that is
accomplished by applying a simple formula to the paradigm in question.
I call this formula "The Anomaly Scale". It’s really very
simple to use. You just take the paradigm in question and look for any
anomalous data related to that paradigm… and bingo… out pops the
answer. If you’ve got those nasty little anomalies crawling around
all over the place (or even just one or two), then, you’ve got an
erroneous paradigm! Case closed. Wait a minute, now. Aren’t there
degrees of error? Yes, there are… but degree of error is irrelevant.
Any error in a paradigm means that the paradigm is NOT a ‘true
paradigm’… it is a faulty and dogmatic Technical Blueprint and not
the "Concept of the Possible" that is the requirement of a
true historical paradigm. So, what we need to do is change how we view
the paradigm in question and be willing to modify and change that
paradigm in accordance with all the data. It just doesn’t make ANY
sense at ALL to hide, delete, ignore, or ridicule data simply because
it doesn’t fit in with one’s belief of how, when, where, why, who
and what occurred. That’s not scientific thought. That’s religious
conviction. Those are, and have always been the tactics and the mode
of operation used by Religion against science. That’s not
open-minded research and eager growth in knowledge… that’s blind
faith in the infallibility of a concept that barely qualifies as
"theory". But, that is exactly what members of the
scientific community in general are doing, thinking and practicing!
Can I prove it?
Yes. And, so can you. All that you have to do to prove this to be true
is present data (and I’m talking about data that has been collected,
analyzed and verified using the same methods as ‘accepted data’)
which contradicts or calls into question some portion of the
established paradigm. Now, watch how fast those resurrected
‘inquisition tactics’ are applied to both the data and the
researcher (you).
To what sort of anomalous data am I referring?
I’ll list a few examples just to heat things up a bit:
(First an example of a find that is accepted)
Find Location Est. age of mineral deposit
Fossil Remains of Hominids Africa 1.5 to 2 million years old
No big deal. Easy to swallow. Fits the accepted paradigm just fine.
(Okay, now a few anomalous finds… definitely NOT accepted or
acceptable)
Find Location Est. age of mineral deposit
Inscribed Copper Coin USA 200,000 to 400,000 years old
Clay Figurine of Human Form USA 2 million years old
Metal Tubes (same shape-diverse sizes) France 65 million years old
BLAM!
Okay, now you can see why these anomalies (and literally hundreds more
like these) received such venomous treatment from the scientific
community. Now I’m not claiming that ALL of the anomalous finds that
have been discovered are what they seem… I’m saying that, in
general, these type of anomalous finds have not received and do not
receive a thorough and unbiased review from the mainstream scientific
community. They do receive nice ‘poo-poohs’ and really wonderful
‘brush-offs’… but not serious study. Why?
Isn’t it obvious?
It’s because of the aggressive protective reaction that is a common
component of the psyche or mind-set of the religiously fanatic. You
presented something that was obviously and patently contrary to their
belief system and they took the ‘angry’ or ‘condescending’
defensive stance. Now if these types of anomalies can be properly
explained (NOT ‘explained away’) even within the bounds of the
current (and rather restrictive) Historical Paradigm… then, fine.
Let’s explain them. Let’s publicize and publish the results of
those research findings so that we may justifiably put both the
anomalies and the questions they raise, to bed. Let’s play fair.
Let’s not stoop to the use of the same tactics that were used by
Religion to oppress and suppress the field of Science and the
community of scientific minds. This should be the mind-set of the
Scientific Community.
Sadly, it is not.
The most recent example of this dark-age mentality can be seen in the
ridiculously heated debate over the proposed (scientifically based)
revision of the age of the Sphinx. The geological evidence for a date
of from 9,000 to 13,000 years B.C.E (BC) is just as sound as using a
‘suspect’ graffiti-mark to establish builder and construction date
for the Great Pyramid. So what’s the problem? Well… damn it… it
messes up the ‘divine’ time-line of the established paradigm… so
that data obviously is bad. Because we know…
Wait.
What exactly do we know?
How did we arrive at that knowledge?
Were we accurate in our initial conclusions?
Does the evidence continue to support our conclusion?
Is there any conflicting data?
Has that data been fairly and thoroughly analyzed?
Anger, anger, anger. Name-calling and ridicule abound. Over what? The
Divine Paradigm has been proven wrong before. Oh, yes, it has. I seem
to recall that there was once a staunch belief that "the
beginning" of, or birth-place of Civilization was Ancient
Greece… oh (oops) and then Egypt… oh, wow (oops again)… and
then, eventually Sumer (actually ‘Shumer’)*. Oh… and remember
that nutty amateur archaeologist who actually believed that the city
of Troy once existed and wasn’t just a legend in a dusty poem about
the gods (lower case ‘g’ fully intended)? He found Troy… it was
a real city. Imagine that. There are many other examples but I’d
like to keep this work to a reasonable number of pages.
* Note: There is a growing body of evidence which indicates that
"Sumerian Legends" contain information that points to their
belief that they were descended from an even older civilization. The
possibilities are intriguing!
At this point I want to re-state the objective of this portion of
"Ki-umun". That objective is to bring the ‘Holy
Paradigm’ down from its’ unwarranted "throne of grace".
I want to take the current paradigm and de-mystify it until it is once
again viewed in the proper light. I want the reader to realize exactly
what (and who) the enemies of "Historical Accuracy" really
are. If, as I have proposed, this new ‘inquisition’ is actually
occurring (and it is), then we have to determine why this is so. What
are the motivating factors that are driving members of mainstream
science to behave like religious zealots?
Thus far, we have identified two of the enemies of historical
accuracy.
Unbridled Researcher Bias
Erroneous or Deified Paradigms
Now, let’s take a look at what motivates these enemies of true
science. What gives birth to bias, prejudice and, the ridicule of
those who are different or of differing viewpoints? What factor causes
the irrational-defense of a mere ‘concept’ against any opposition
or even the hint of opposition? What is the one factor that is common
to both bias and erroneous, over-blown conviction?
I’ll give you a clue.
(CLUE): It’s the same root-cause that manifests itself as the human
‘Religious Urge’.
Answer: The disaffected and/or dysfunctional Human Ego. Bear with me
as I elaborate.
All things manifested, all events, all actions stem from a root-cause.
That’s not theory… that’s provable, verifiable scientific fact.
If an event or action is not clearly understood, then, it stands to
reason that it’s root-cause has not been clearly identified and
clearly understood. I think we all can agree on that much. Therefore,
when we see any problem, its only true solution must be resolved at a
root-cause level. And, in addressing the problems of uncontrolled bias
and faulty paradigm, as we travel along toward the sources of the
problems, we come upon a common thread… US. And that, boils down to
our very concept of SELF… Ego, if you will. The ‘Religious Urge’
(see the articles by Alexei Dolgorukii for details), as I see it, is
not a phenomenon unto itself. It is a phenomenon that has its root in
the condition of the SELF. If the Ego (or SELF) is healthy and
adjusted, what is manifested is good old human curiosity… the drive
to learn and discover… the need to know and understand. If the SELF,
Consciousness or Ego is dysfunctional, then, in direct proportion to
the type and severity of that dysfunction, the "Discovery
Drive" as malfunctions. These malfunctions manifest in various
ways. One such malfunction is what Alexei Dolgorukii calls "the
religious urge", which when analyzed completely, obviously
contains quite a diverse number of very negative behavioral phenomena.
The various manifestations of the "religious urge" have
never, do not now, nor ever shall, have any place in the exploration
of the sciences. Anger and the irrational defense of a mere theory are
NOT signs that a healthy "Discovery Drive" is in operation.
On the contrary, these negative attitudes are the common by-products
of the "Religious Urge" in full operation.
It would do us no good to proceed with the contents of this book if we
were operating with any other motivation than a singular, healthy
drive to discover. This is not to say that the reader should not
maintain a healthy level of inquisitive reserve. To do otherwise would
not be the mark of a wise researcher. However, this open-minded
reserve, should never be mistaken for its negative and destructive
opposite… what we now falsely call "skepticism". True
‘skepticism’ is what I have just described as ‘open-minded
reserve’. It is not the arrogant and violently aggressive attitude
that demands all things that are unusual, or new, or that don’t fit
within the defined boundaries of some deified paradigm, be debunked or
dismissed.
Harboring the enemies of ‘Historical Accuracy’ cripples our reason
and robs us of the sheer exhilaration of discovering the incredible
depth of our history… as well as the absolute wonder of our very
being. Embracing these enemies is a viscous barrier to beginning our
journey of discovery… a discovery of the mysterious magnificence of
our cosmos.
Perhaps, it is simpler to say, "The Researcher should first
examine his/herself before he/she examines the data".
Part 2: The Alternative Genesis
The accepted paradigm for the history of our species, when first
viewed by the student of history, seems quite sound. At face value the
paradigm does seem to offer a detailed explanation of the evolution of
humanity and of human civilization. In fact, this overview of recorded
history, in spite of its need for revision in certain areas (due to
the obvious taint of cultural and nationalistic bias) is relatively
accurate. There are a few problem areas though. And, unfortunately,
these problem areas deal with critical periods in our overall
evolution as a sentient species. All of these problem areas are
directly related to the questions of Human Origins and the Origin of
Civilization. In fact, it is within these two controversial historical
topics that the current historical paradigm tends to fall apart.
First, let’s take a look at the paradigm problems related to the
origin(s) of Human Civilization.
Why is the question of the origin of human civilization such a
controversial and confusing event in our evolution and why is the
current paradigm so weak regarding the overview of this event? Why is
the question of the date at which the first human civilization
appeared such a point of constant contention? Well, these are all
valid questions. The answer to all of these questions is really quite
simple. In fact, the answer lies in the textual body of the first
question that we posed… "The current paradigm is weak".
This weakness (in addition to the weaknesses caused by bias and a
rigid concept model) is due primarily to the begrudging and repetitive
revisions regarding this specific event. There were errors made. There
were errors that had to be corrected as evidence mounted proving the
need for revision. Now these errors regarding the question of the
birthplace of human civilization were (and, in some cases, still are)
the direct result of the following influences:
The Judeo / Christian Bible’s account of history as interpreted by
the religious community in general. This interpretation set the age of
the earth at about six thousand years. This interpretation of the
history (specifically regarding the history of western civilization)
of our species was taught and believed dogmatically for a very long
time. In fact, as incredible as it may seem, it is still taught and
believed by certain activities and organizations that are directly
descended from, or claim ties to the Judeo / Christian source. This
erroneously interpreted, mythical chronological influence* is still
evident and still has visible effects in this and other aspects of the
historical paradigm.
A lack of, or misinterpretation of archaeological data. (In short we
started with an inaccurate assumption of civilization’s origin and
then compounded the problem by adding ignorance to the equation.)
*Note: I want to be very clear here regarding the subject of
"myths" (and "legend"). Both myth and legend are
extremely important factors in the interpretation of, and exploration
of our historical origins as a sentient species. The problem lies with
the interpretation and use of these myths and legends during the
process of creating and presenting an overview of history or a
particular piece of (or aspect of) the paradigm. It has been the
experience of many researchers and archaeologists that the source for
some of the most profound and valuable historical discoveries was
found in none other than what we call myth and legend. It is all too
easy to equate the terms ‘myth’ and ‘legend’ with the
definition ‘worthless fairy-tale’. To do so is to perpetuate
ignorance and close the door to further incredible and fascinating
discoveries. This is due to the fact that hidden within the bodies of
these myths and legends are the clues to historical facts. This is not
a theory. It has been proven to be true time after time. The problem,
as I stated earlier, is in how one interprets the myth. (This will be
covered in more detail in a latter part of this work.)
It’s not at all difficult to see these two factors still active and
influential in the current realm of historical research. All one has
to do is to look.
Now, as to the second question we posed regarding the origins of the
human species itself. Here we find the same two influences to error as
were listed regarding the question of the origin of civilization. But,
we have another factor to add to the list. So, we now have the
following factors for error:
The dogmatic presentation of myth as fact.
The lack of, or misinterpretation of data.
And the new influences of:
The dogmatic presentation of theory as fact.
The failure of researchers and scientists to expunge the irrational
belief or attitude that views the cosmos and its history from a
Human-Centered perspective and to accept the fact that there is
nothing ultimately impossible in the realm of science. Let me give an
example of this factor in operation. I have heard intelligent
scientists and astronomers make some incredibly unintelligent
statements. Open mouth and insert foot.
Here is one of the classics… "It is impossible for man to
fly". (Yes. But only until the technology comes along to allow
him to do so.) And here is one that I hear many, many times…
"There have been no visits to our earth by other intelligent
beings. This is simply because the distances are too great and faster
than light speed is impossible". That’s a pretty bold and
stupid set of statements. They are both closed-minded and "Human
Centered". It assumes that every sentient species in our universe
can be no more technically advanced than Humanity. This first
ridiculous assumption is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
It’s only ‘support’ is supposedly found within the second
ridiculous statement… and the answer to that is…(Yes. But only
until we have the technology to do so.) There is nothing impossible in
science where the appropriate level of technology exists to make the
impossible, possible.
The atmosphere and attitude of warfare. Now, what I mean by this is
that there is a war being fought between science and religion
regarding the origins of the species. This is an old and
intellectually violent conflict. And, just as in the case of all wars,
rationalism vanishes and is replaced by irrational thoughts and
behavior. One side attacks… the other side defends. The enemy
becomes a monster and is viewed by both sides as less than human. Now
this is a war that’s been stupid from the start. When Science first
presented its fledgling views regarding human evolution and was
immediately attacked by Religion, caution was unwisely thrown to the
wind… and the battle was joined. Not to say that the stand against
legislated religious dogma was not a noble stand… it was. But, after
that battle was won in the courts and in the halls of academia, the
war was, for all intents and purposes, over. No further discourse was
required (or expedient, or edifying) with the hostile and irrational
defeated-foe. The continuing discord and debate has made it all too
easy for the atmosphere and attitudes of warfare to continue and to
thrive. And this is the very attitude that contributes to the
irrational and vehement defense of the historical paradigm from any
and all data (be that data from a religious source or not) that might
contradict the hard fought and hard won historical paradigm.
Now that we know these factors exist, we are able to more objectively
pursue the answers to the questions that the science / art of history
is set to answer. And, we can start at the beginning (or as close to
‘the beginning’ as our finite minds will allow). We can clarify
some misconceptions and propose some alternative views. We can look at
what we know, and what we think we know and we can begin our journey
of discovery.
Well then, what are the questions that history must answer? 1.)
History must, to the degree possible, tell us where we have been…
from where did we come and, how it was that we came to be where we are
now. 2.) History, through the accurate overview of both pre-history
and recorded history, must provide the student of history (and
philosophy) with the tools required for answering the question of what
we are, why we are, and, of where we may be going.
Now, that’s a pretty tall order indeed! And, the only place to start
is at the beginning…
Let’s look at our genesis… our Alternative Genesis, if you will.
(Remember to keep in mind as you read this work that its purpose is
not to present the detailed results of research. It is to stir up the
curiosity of researchers and hopefully drive those researchers to
re-evaluate and re-interpret the current overview of history.) Let’s
look at the beginning through the eyes of modern scientific theory as
it is interpreted at its simplest level.
In the beginning there was the "absolute potential" for
cosmic existence. It was an infinitesimal and absolutely concentrated
potential of condensed energy. Its very nature demanded dynamic and
explosive ‘change’… and that ‘change’ happened with a bit of
a bang!
Science tells us (and rightfully so) that the universe exploded
outward in every direction from this central point of what I refer to
as ‘cosmic potential’. And it did. The universe expanded outward
from that center and eventually came to the point in its expansion
that we find evident today. There is both physical astronomical
evidence and mathematical theory to support this scenario, much more
evidence than the current religious view has to support its
misinformed and tenuous version of events. In fact, there may very
well be evidence (and I firmly believe there is such evidence) to
support an even more astounding and revolutionary addition to this
scenario. This evidence appears to indicate that the universe, once it
completes its outward expansion, through entropy, will contract once
again to that same point of origin! Even more astounding is the
evidence (see works on quantum and ‘new’ physics that are widely
available through various publishers) that also tends to support the
theory that this expansion and contraction of the cosmos is a
repetitive cycle of exponentially increasing big bang events. No.
I’m not going to prove it to you. The evidence is there for the
open-minded researcher to review and interpret. Go find it. Half the
joy and wonder comes from the quest for knowledge.
Well then, let’s look for a moment at what science tells us about
the beginning of life on earth and how we got to where we are now.
This is where things begin to get a bit sticky.
So, from the energy of that initial point of ‘cosmic potential’,
through the dynamic action of the big bang we come to the physical
universe. A physical universe that is (up to this point in evolution)
a manifestation or visible result of that expanding point of
‘energy’. From this, a person can reasonably conclude that all the
matter of this cosmos was originally ‘energy’ (at least at the
point of expansion). And if taken a step farther, the individual may
reasonable assume that the underlying ‘reality’ of matter is its
source energy. If you doubt this conclusion… simply review the
results of the "Manhattan Project". Now this data, if kept
in mind by any given researcher, will provide valuable guidance and
assistance in answering those difficult questions that tend to be
unjustifiably relegated to the realm of the religious (we’ll go into
this in more detail in a later portion of this work).
Now that brings us to the more current portion of that cosmic cycle or
event. Our physical world has formed and life begins to develop. How?
Once again… even mainstream science has it right… up to a point,
that is. The process that caused life to appear on this world was
called ‘Evolution’. All living things on this earth to one degree
or another are the result of this cosmic process. Is evolution the
only factor involved in the nature and characteristics of the living
things on this earth? Science would say yes… and, to a small degree
they are right… but not quite. One has only to look at the genetic
influence that man has exerted in the development of plants
(especially in the arena of grain) and the modification, through
breeding techniques, regarding domesticated animals. Oh, and did I
mention the modern science of genetic engineering which now includes
the technology to produce viable clones and the technology to do many
other frightening things through the artificial manipulation of the
basic code of life? Is this influence the direct result of evolution?
No. Not the direct result… however, if modern man is the direct
result of natural evolution (and natural evolution alone), then there
is a case for, at least, an indirect result. What do I mean
"if" modern man (by ‘man’ I infer ‘Mankind’ or
Humanity as a whole) is a direct result of natural evolution? Isn’t
this true?
Good question.
So, am I saying that there was some ‘other’ influence involved in
producing modern man?
Maybe, so.
There is as much (or more) evidence indicating that there were
influences in our development beyond the influence of natural
evolution, than the evidence indicating that we are the result of
natural evolution alone. What I am saying, at this point is, that
there is a possibility that ‘some form’ of ‘artificial’,
unnatural evolutionary catalyst may have been a factor in our current
developmental state. Am I a nut? No… (At least not in the technical
sense of the word) I am a firm proponent of fair and unbiased
research, however. I try to give all data a fair shake… no matter
how far outside the bounds of the current paradigm it might fall.
Now when I’m talking about an artificial, external evolutionary
influence, am I hinting at ‘God’?
Absolutely, NOT.
But… now that you brought up the subject of ‘God’ or for that
matter the very concept of a ‘God’ or ‘Gods’… you’ve
managed to open up a very large and very messy can of worms! First of
all, it is my belief that if your looking for ‘God’ in the common
use of the term, you are not on the right track. But we’ll discuss
all that in a latter part of this work. The very concept of ‘God(s)’
will take many pages to cover, even briefly. But, no, I am not talking
about divine influence.
Let’s try to pin this thing down a bit.
Science, in accordance with the current paradigm, would have us
believe that our present developmental state as a species is one
unbroken and fluid evolutionary vein that can be traced back through
time via the fossil record to the common ancestor of all primates…
and then some. But, although the evolutionary vein seems fluid and
intact it is not completely so. There are some minor holes in the
evolutionary path that are rather insignificant and not really worthy
of mention, but… there is one very critical problem spot in regard
to human evolution. And that problem spot seems to be the lack of a
viable and widespread link between Homo erectus and us… the modern
human. It’s a (not ‘The’) ‘missing link’… and contrary to
what some folks may be saying, this particular link is still… well,
…missing. This problem area is not easy to find. The researcher has
to dig between all the anthropological speculation and rhetoric and
look at the physical evidence alone in order to even see that the
problem area exists. No. I’m not going to do your research for you.
But, I will give you a hint at the approximate time-period that in
which this unusual break (and apparently inexplicable "jump"
to modern human status) occurred. Dig into the data (remember…
facts…physical evidence, only) available for the period of human
development approximately 450,000 years BCE to about 4000 BCE (give or
take a couple of thousand years) and you will find it. Also, when you
do your research, you must bear in mind that this ‘discrepancy’ is
not obvious and this obscurity is for a reason. Your search will not
be easy at all. It took me a couple of years to find the data that
would satisfy my own curiosity and answer some of my more perplexing
questions.
How does one know when they have found the data?
You will know because some of the related "anomalies" will
vanish. In other words the anomalies will begin to fit in with what
you uncover.
Have you folks been digging for those anomalies?
Okay, assuming something rather inexplicable did happened in our
evolutionary development some 452,000 to about 6000 years ago, how
does this inexplicable event threaten the paradigm? Well, it doesn’t
really threaten the paradigm… it blows it apart (and, no, it does
not support the Creationist Stance). But, in order to answer this
question at all we need to take a look at another critical problem
area of the paradigm… and this particular problem area deals with
the rise of human civilization. And folks, no matter what you’ve
been taught, the rise of human civilization is the most mysterious
aspect of the history of the human species! If anyone tells you
differently, they are either ignorant of the facts or simply lying to
you.
Hey! Wait a minute! …What about the theory of Creation? Aren’t we
going to discuss that?
Well, first of all, "Creation" is NOT a theory. In order to
have a genuine ‘theory’ you have to have at least some sort of
supporting physical evidence to back it… and there isn’t any. But,
yes we will be touching on this subject in a latter portion of this
work.
Well, let’s go on…
The important thing to remember (as you prepare yourself for your
journey of research regarding the origins of human civilization) is…
"No matter which road of history on which you may be traveling,
the data along that road (and all the roadways of history) will take
you back to (about 3800 BCE, give or take) one place… and that place
is Sumer (or more properly, Shumer)". And when you arrive at
Sumer… that’s where the mystery only deepens. And once again…
you have to really look only at the physical evidence and not the
paradigm fitting (twisted) interpretations and explanations of the
mainstream historians.
Note: Contrary to what I’ve read in many works regarding
‘esoteric’ or occulted knowledge, neither Ancient India,
Assyrian-Babylon, Ancient Egypt nor Ancient China was the ‘source’
of ‘true esoteric knowledge’. If a possible source (not to be
confused with its ultimate source) were to be properly identified, it
would have to be identified as Sumer.
It will really amaze you to find out just how many people… educated
people, know very little to absolutely nothing about Sumer. It
currently stands (within the current view of mainstream history) as
the oldest (as identified through physical archaeological evidence)
Civilization of Humanity. Now, right off the bat (if you’re
practicing ‘good research habits’) you should note a little
problem with this stated view… and that is it should be viewed and
stated as "the oldest identified Human Civilization"…
which, of course it is. Its influence, from language to cosmogony, can
be seen in all of the well known younger grand societies (i.e., Indus
Valley, Israel, Egypt and Ancient Greece… just to name but a few).
Yet, it seems that this strange place gets very little historical
attention. And, believe me, Sumer needs to be the subject of great
attention! And that is exactly why we are preparing to travel there…
with our open-minded reserve in place and the blinders of the current
deified paradigm removed from our eyes.
Oh… and when we arrive, don’t you folks start to think that
we’ve reached our goal. There may very well be clues in Sumer that
will lead us even further down the path in our search for the source
of Human Civilization…
Part 3: The Mysteries of Sumer
We find ourselves at the mouth of the Euphrates River. To our east
lies the azure waters of the Persian Gulf and to the west lies the
land of the nation of Iraq. The Euphrates River winds to the northwest
and is a ribbon of life in the arid regions of what is now southern
Iraq. This area has changed quite a bit over the past 450,000 years.
If we were to turn back the hands of time to the period of the last
ice age we would see a rather lush environment… a very attractive
environment. In fact the entire area we now refer to as
‘Mesopotamia’ would have been some of the most desirable and
fertile land available during the last Ice Age. This last Ice Age
ended about 13,000 years ago and it was after this point in time that
the fertile lands of Mesopotamia began their more rapid decline into
the less hospitable vistas that we see evident today. What
characteristics would have made this area so ‘attractive’ during
this fertile period? Well now… that is a very good question indeed.
And another good question would be ‘from what perspective’? Now
what do I me by that? What I mean is… by what peoples’ standards
and needs would this land be viewed as the object of settlement? Who
would want it? When was it wanted? And, for what purposes was it
wanted? Let’s see…
Mesopotamia was perfect for growing things and for the grazing of
herds. The Euphrates was a source of fresh water and a natural medium
for water-transportation. In fact, it was along and / or near the
banks of this river that the Sumerian People built (or, as the
evidence found within the historic record of these people indicates,
…re-built) their cities. There were also many other natural
resources… primarily ‘bitumen’… more commonly referred to as
crude oil and / or the derivatives or manifestations thereof. There
was ore for the taking in the surrounding areas and at the mouth of
the river was the bountiful harvest of the gulf. It was a haven. It
was a perfect place in which to settle.
So then, who were this people and what did they do that made them so
special and …different?
The Sumerian People were an ‘Aryan’ people who ‘migrated’(?)
(from where?) to the fertile area of the river (or seemed rather to
‘suddenly appear’ in the area) and then immediately proceeded to
established the first known and quite grand ‘Civilization’. They
built wonderful cities, complete with schools, ziggurats
(step-pyramid-temples), grand houses, and industrial facilities. They
had an odd ‘religion’ that seemed more like ‘a code of homage’
(that one might pay to a group of lords or kings) rather than the
mystical worship of ‘God(s)’ that we currently think of when
speaking of ‘religion’. In fact, it seems that this relationship
with the gods (lower case intended) was the driving force in the rise
of this most incredible civilization. The very reason for the
existence of Sumer and her people seemed to lie with these strange and
mortal ‘deities’. And… the very reason for existence… the
reason for ‘being’ for every Sumerian person was to worship the
appropriate deity.
Now what did this worship mean? Nothing more or less than complete
servitude… the very purpose for which ‘mankind’ was
‘created’ by the Sumerian gods… the Anunnaki (the Nefilim of the
Judeo / Christian Bible). This divine servitude was the driving force
for the rise of this civilization and for the achievements and
activities of Sumerian civilization. So then, it should be evident to
the researcher of Sumer that in order to properly understand Sumerian
History and the Sumerians themselves, the researcher must understand,
in proper context and perspective, the gods that ruled and motivated
the Sumerian People. But, before we look at the gods of Sumer, we need
to understand what it is that makes it so important for us to
understand these ‘deities’… we need to examine the mysterious
‘anomalous’ data that is associated with this ancient society.
There are just too many things that the Sumerians knew and did that
just don’t fit the nice pat picture that the mainstream historians
paint of these people. It is simply impossible for me to understand
how it is that the majority of historians who have studied these
people have simply overlooked the incredible knowledge of these
people. They just should not have known the things that they knew.
What do I mean? Well, lets ignore most of their incredible
achievements and just look at one anomalous area. Let’s look at
their knowledge of the Cosmos.
Now what could such a primitive people like these possibly know about
the cosmos? Funny you should ask about that. Hold on to your hats…
this will shock you. We are just now, in the last decade of this
century, catching up with their level of cosmological knowledge. Let
me rephrase that. We are just now learning what the gods of Sumer
taught the Sumerian people about the cosmos. That’s not my opinion
folks… that’s what the Sumerians themselves tell us in their own
histories. What knowledge of science and astronomy they held was given
to them by their gods… the Nefilim… the Anunnaki.
Now, are we supposed to accept this at face value and run with this
little tidbit of odd data? Do we just take the Sumerian’s word for
it? No. We must first examine this statement in a little more detail.
We need to know: 1.) What kind of cosmological data they learned from
these ‘gods’ and: 2.) What other possible source for this data was
available.
Now, mainstream historians refuse to analyze this information for what
it is. This is the case because this data is so unbelievable… and
it’s so unbelievable because the paradigm upon which they base their
interpretation of this data is so erroneous. This stuff just wont fit
into the pattern that they have set for this period of our history.
Nevertheless, the data exists in spite of their disbelief. It is a
fact that the early Sumerians knew of the solar system. They knew that
the solar system was made up of the Sun –a sphere- (Apsu) at its
center and was circled by spherical celestial bodies. They knew of
Mercury (Mummu), Venus (Lahamu), Earth (Ki), the Moon (Kingu), Mars
(Lahmu), Jupiter (Kishar), Saturn (Anshar), Uranus (Anu), Neptune
(Ea), Pluto (Gaga) and a mysterious celestial body known as Marduk or
Nibiru. The Sumerians assigned to these celestial bodies (as is the
case to this day) the names of some of the very gods who had imparted
to them this celestial knowledge. They knew and understood that these
celestial orbs were not those gods. They were in no way confused. Nor
did they believe that the stars in the night sky were deities.
Depictions of the solar system as they understood it have been found
in various works of art from that period. It should be impossible to
view these depictions and not see them for what they obviously are. If
one goes by the current paradigm, one can see quite clearly that this
knowledge would be impossible.
Why?
Because the technology for them to have obtained this knowledge simply
did not exist… and as archaeological evidence still tends to
indicate, it did not. And yet… the data is still there. Keep in mind
as you ponder this information that "modern" man did not
acknowledge that our world was a sphere until just after the time of
Columbus. Nor did we even know of the planet Pluto (Gaga)’s
existence until this century! So how could this data be possible? How
Indeed! There is some archaeological evidence that indicates that the
early Sumerians did possess a high degree of technology for that
time… but no where near the degree of technology required to have
gained such cosmological knowledge on their own. So then, from where
did such knowledge come?
What was it that the Sumerians claimed? Did they not credit their gods
with having given them their knowledge?
Once again the answer is… yes.
So, where does that leave us? It leaves us in the same uncomfortable
position that the mainstream historians found and still find
themselves in… it leaves us considering the possibility that the
Sumerian "gods" may have been much more than mere myths. And
that is a very uncomfortable position in which to be. We could react
in the same way as the mainstream historians did (and still do)… we
can reject the data, we can ignore the data, we can find pat answers
that only explain-away rather than explain… or, we can choose to
pursue "the path not taken". Let’s be bold… let’s
examine these ‘gods’ of Sumer. Let’s find out just who and what
these ‘mythical’ beings were.
What exactly do we mean by the "gods" of Sumer? First of
all, let’s de-mystify the word ‘gods’. This is necessary due to
the fact that the very source of the concept of Gods that we currently
(in general) hold is not the concept held by the early Sumerian
People. Our concept is the result of thousands of years of
multi-cultural influences and superstitious infusions. Why is this so?
Mostly due to a loss of knowledge that was, in the beginning, common
knowledge of the Sumerian People. The historical data available to us
regarding this mysterious civilization tends to support the concept of
Sumer as the source for the customs, languages, politics, the arts and
‘religions’ of those more familiar civilizations that followed on
her heels.
So, it would seem logical to study the data from her earliest period
in order to obtain the most accurate idea of how these people first
understood these "gods". The view of these gods that is
indicated by the earliest data tends to portray them as merely very
intelligent, long-lived and very mortal beings. These beings were
referred to as the ‘Anunnaki’. Biblical accounts (which are but
paraphrased mirrors of the earlier Sumerian accounts) refer to them as
the ‘Nephilim’ a term that in many translations of the Bible has
been erroneously translated as "giants". According to the
Sumerian accounts, these beings came from the ‘heavens’ to the
earth (Ki) long before the ‘coming’ of mankind. They came to earth
as exploiters and colonizers… and they kept coming for some time.
The Anunnaki established a home upon the earth and built grand
cities… cities that were associated with specific ‘functions’.
These cities were ruled and peopled exclusively by the Anunnaki. The
data indicates that the colonies of the ‘gods’ spread
northwestward along the Euphrates with settlements in far off and
mysterious places such as Magan (possibly the lands of Egypt) and the
Abzu (possibly southern Africa).
NOTE: I have no intention of detailing the vast amount of data that
seems to detail this supposedly ‘mythological’ colonization within
the confines of this work. Excellent research has already been
accomplished by more knowledgeable researchers than myself. I would be
doing their works a great injustice by duplicating their superb
efforts. Researchers such as Zecharia Sitchin, Alan Alford and Neil
Freer have presented the available data in numerous works. These works
are priceless collections that deserve to be carefully considered in
the search for answers regarding the mystery of our origins. These
volumes were inspired by the same search as the one we are now
undertaking… by the very questions that we have analyzed thus far in
this work.
It is odd to think of these beings in any other way than as characters
of mythology. However, one must take into consideration the fact that
the Sumerians seemed to do just that. One such piece of evidence that
demonstrates their view of these so-called ‘Gods’ as ‘real’
beings (independent of humanity) can be seen within the
"King-Lists". This odd document is a supposed record of the
kings of early Sumer. This document is ‘odd’ due to the fact that
it includes both easily acceptable and historically verifiable
information and information that can be nothing more (when analyzed
under the guiding pattern of the accepted paradigm) than fantastic
myth.
The "King-Lists" is divided into dynastic periods that are
city-state oriented as apparently regards the seat of central power.
The most startling of these sections is the list dealing with the
pre-deluge Kings (Larsa list No.1). Eight Anunnaki Kings are listed,
as are five city-states where centralized rule apparently was held.
Length of rule is given in what is known as a "sar". All of
the remaining King-Lists sections have the length of rule measured by
years. The ‘sar’ was apparently the period of time required for
the "heavenly abode" of the Annunaki to complete one
revolution around its (our?) Sun. This ‘sar’ was equivalent in
length to 3,600 years. (NOTE: some researchers believe that the sar
was equivalent to 2,160 years… this point remains in debate.
However, the evidence does, in my opinion tend to favor a 3,600 year
sar.) The incredible thing about the pre-deluge list is directly
associated with this sar unit of time-measurement. Let’s take a look
at the list to get an idea of the impact that this information has
when it is viewed as anything other than pure mythology.
Anunnaki King City of Rule Length of Rule Sars Years
A-lu-lim NUN 8 28,800
A-la(l)-gar NUN 10 36,000
En-me-en-lu-an-na Bad-tabira 12 43,200
En-me-en-gal-an-na Bad-tabira 8 28,800
Dumuzi Bad-tabira 10 36,000
En-Sib-zi-an-na Larak 8 28,800
En-me-en-dur-an-na Sippar 5 (5 ner) 21,000
(?) du-du Suruppak 5 (1 ner) 18,600
And here ends the Kingship of the Annunaki. Now it is important to
note that during this incredible span of years only two Anunnaki held
overall reign. First was Enki (later known as Ea) (‘En’ meaning
‘Lord’) and the second was Enlil, a half-brother of Enki. And the
event that ended this first list was, as ‘myth’ would have it, the
legendary ‘deluge’. It was also, as ‘myth’ would have it,
during the latter part of this first period of the King-Lists that
‘modern humanity’ appeared. So when did these ‘gods’ arrive on
our world… and from where did these gods originate? Well that
depends on one’s interpretation of the sar’s length in years. At
3,600 years it would place the Anunnaki arrival at about 450,000 years
ago. If one accepts the 2,160 year sar, then it places the Anunnaki
arrival at about 272,000 years ago. In either case it was a very long
time ago and well before the accepted date of modern civilization of
any kind. And in either case the Anunnaki had extremely long
life-spans!
So then, taking into account the theoretical date of the ‘deluge’
(an event which, although obviously not ‘global’ in scope, did
apparently occur on a rather large scale) approximately 13,000 to
10,000 years ago, one can surmise that these Anunnaki reigned without
native challenge or competition for quite some time. That is, if one
does not dismiss the data as myth outright.
Now let’s be very careful to not allow our cultural and educational
conditioning to get in the way of our analysis. A lot of us will be
tempted to scoff at this point (the author included) due to the fact
that we are considering the ‘reality’ of an event which is related
to us in The Bible. Some of us simply do not accept this book as an
infallible source of information. But, we are not talking about an
event that was an original Biblical account. We are talking about
events that The Bible only paraphrased from much earlier and much more
detailed accounts. The Bible’s book of Genesis is not the source of
the account of ‘the flood’. Once again the source is Sumer. In
fact, when the book of Genesis is read in the light of the Sumerian
accounts and in the light of Anunnaki and Sumerian customs, it is so
much less mystical and even somewhat understandable. We will look at
some examples of this in the next part of this work.
Let’s return to the date of this cataclysmic deluge for just a
moment. The approximate date was between 13,000 and 10,000 years ago
(give or take). Now, let’s just think about the significance of that
date.
Q. What ‘anomalous’ dating of an ancient structure is currently
raging as a hotly debated issue?
A. The Sphinx.
Q. What is the ‘new’ age of the Sphinx that is being set at by
some researchers?
A. About 10 to 13 thousand BCE (give or take).
Q. And upon what do these researchers base this new date for the
Sphinx?
A. Signs of erosion that is caused by a heavy flow of water (not
possible from mere periodic flooding of the Nile).
Hmmm? Sounds like something to ponder. Sounds like perhaps we should
dig just a bit deeper into this strange source of information that is
Sumer. We need to go much deeper. We need to know more about these
‘gods’. We need to know more about these ‘myths’ that might
very well be much more than silly fairy tales. We have a long way yet
to travel. So, we’ll rest a bit before we go onward. We need some
time to review our note… to read the volumes of data that are
available to us.
Our journey will be long and arduous. I encourage all of you who
decide to continue on this path with me to read the available material
that will provide us with the appropriate clues to find our way to our
ultimate goal. And, that goal is the truth… no matter how
incredible, or how mundane it may prove to be.
So rest and study. And when we continue on our way we will dig deeper
into the mysteries of Sumer. We will move deeper into that flow of
information that has issued from what may very well be ‘the
source’ of what we seek.
