|
ANCIENT
ASTRONAUT HYPOTHESIS
The
ancient astronaut theory seeks to explain anomalies in the human
past, whether they be archaeological, mythological, anthropological,
or palaeoanthropological. Here, we are concerned with the latter – the
ancient astronaut theory for the origins of man, i.e. Homo
sapiens,
approximately 180,000 years ago.
Ancient
astronaut writers believe that a race of intelligent extraterrestrial
beings visited and/or
colonised Earth in the remote past, whereupon
they upgraded the primitive hominid Homo erectus by means of
genetic engineering to create the human race as we know it: Homo
sapiens.
Evidence
for this idea is found (a) in the improbability of Homo sapiens emerging so suddenly, according to the principles
of
orthodox Darwinism; and (b) in the myths of ancient civilisations
which
describe human-like gods coming down from the heavens and creating
mankind ‘in their own image’. Homo sapiens is thus
regarded as a hybrid being, incorporating a mix of terrestrial
genes from Homo erectus and extraterrestrial genes from the
race of the gods.
Prior
to the modern age of space travel and genetics, this
theory for the origins of man could not have been conceived.
And even
now, in the 21st century, there are many people who would
regard it as science fiction. However, in the light of the problems
with the orthodox theory of human evolution, the idea of
a
genetic intervention
by an intelligent human-like species (who themselves evolved
on another planet over a more credible time frame) does require
to
be taken seriously as a potential solution to the mystery.
The
most famous exponents of the ancient astronaut intervention
are the Swiss writer Erich von Daniken and the American writer
Zecharia Sitchin. The latter, in particular, has argued
the
case in great detail, and it is to his theory that we now
turn.
The
Theories of Zecharia Sitchin
Zecharia Sitchin claims to be able to read and translate the ancient
cuneiform tablets of Mesopotamia. Much of his evidence for ancient
astronaut intervention consists of his own translations of these
tablets, these translations differing significantly from those
that have been proffered by academia.
According
to Sitchin’s
interpretation of the ancient myths, an extraterrestrial race
of gods known as ‘the Anunnaki’ came
down to the Earth 445,000 years ago from a planet known as Marduk
or Nibiru – a planet which remains in our solar system
on a vast elliptical orbit of 3,600 years. These Anunnaki-gods
then
created Homo sapiens, partly in their own image, using
a process of genetic engineering, with the aim of using this
hybrid species
as a slave race. Sitchin undertakes a remarkable study of the
myths of the creation of man, in which he argues that many words
and
phrases anticipate the modern practices of genetic engineering
and cloning. See his books ‘The Twelfth Planet’ (1976)
and ‘Genesis Revisited’ (1990).
Sitchin’s
interpretation has gained considerable strength from the fact
that the myths
of the gods are inadequately explained
by academia. It is for this reason that many intelligent people
are attracted to his theory.
In
1989, I myself became infatuated with Sitchin’s theory,
to the extent that I felt motivated to publicise his idea
in the UK. In 1996, I self-published a book ‘Gods of the
New Millennium’ in
which I lent enthusiastic support to his ancient astronaut
hypothesis. The focus of my book was genetics, the myths of
the gods, and the
awesome improbability of human evolution according to the
principles of Darwinism. This book was relaunched by Hodder and
Stoughton
in 1997, at which time it became a number 11 bestseller.
With translation deals to follow, I suddenly found myself in
the position
of international
spokesman for the ancient astronaut theory.
However,
upon conducting further research for an intended sequel, I began
to
see that there was a ‘third way’ to understand
the myths of the gods, namely that the gods personified
the cataclysmic powers of creation. This idea had never been
considered
by academia,
nor by ancient astronaut writers, and yet it made sense
of everything, and was clearly, to my mind, not only a superior
theory but a true
explanation. Consequently, in my second and third books,
I performed a major U-turn, which had the unfortunate effect
of alienating
the majority of my readership. My contract with Hodder
and
Stoughton was terminated shortly afterwards.
In
1999 an astonishing thing happened, following my attendance at
the 8th annual UFO
Congress in Laughlin, Nevada (February
21st to 27th). At this conference, I delivered a lecture
about my second
book, but in informal private discussions I also proclaimed
my serious doubts about certain aspects of Sitchin’s
theory. About seven weeks later, I received a letter (recorded
delivery)
from Sitchin, the full text of which I reproduce below.
Date:
April 16, 1999
Dear
Mr. Alford,
It
has come to my attention that you have made it a practice,
in public talks and otherwise, to precede your
presentation of your own writings by devoting
a major part of your time and space to badmouthing me,
my writings and my theories and conclusions.
You
are of course free to hold and present your
own ideas and theories on any subject you
wish; you are not free
to defame me, destroy my reputation
and
wilfully cause me harm.
You
ought to be mature enough to present whatever you have to say
about your own work without
seeking justification
for
your
own theories by
viciously attacking mine.
I
trust you will give this letter serious consideration.
Sincerely,
Z.
Sitchin
Enclosed
with the letter was a news cutting from the New York Times,
dated April 14, 1999, which described
how a New York
law firm had
agreed to pay
50 million
dollars compensatory damages to Lexecon
Inc, a Chicago consulting firm, for its attempts to discredit
it
and destroy its reputation.
Sitchin
had underlined
in
red ink the words ‘50 million
dollars’, ‘destroy
its reputation’,
and ‘discredit’.
To
say that I was gobsmacked by this letter would be
an understatement. The truth was that
I had
not devoted
any time in my lecture
to criticising Sitchin’s
theories, as is evidenced by the video
recording of my talk (which can be purchased
from the UFO Congress). However, during
my seven days at Laughlin, I did spend
time criticising his theories in private
conversations – albeit
my comments were neither personal nor
vicious. As for the suggestion that my
arguments
could destroy his reputation, that is
pure melodrama
of course, but some
compliment to my powers of argument and
persuasion!
I
did not respond to Sitchin's letter, nor take seriously the legitimacy
of
his legal claim.
However, I did
take seriously
the risk that he
might pursue
his
unfounded case and submerge me in a
sea
of litigation, at great cost to my
ongoing research into the
mysteries of ancient religion,
Atlantis
and
the
Great Pyramid.
I therefore decided to keep my head
down by avoiding confrontation with both Sitchin
and his fans,
even to the extent that I became
guarded in
my private
conversations.
Such
a strategy was not without cost. In July 2000, I declined an
invitation
to appear on
the Art Bell
Show
(a leading US
radio programme)
on the
grounds that a proper defence of
my theory – in the face of
phone-ins from Sitchin fans – would
require a hostile refutation of Sitchin’s
theory before millions of listeners – a
sure fire way to bring his solicitors
down on my
head.
But
time has moved on, and it has become increasingly apparent
that
confrontation
with Sitchin’s theory is
imperative if my own theories are
to win the
recognition that they deserve.
As Alasdair Beal, the editor of ‘Chronology
and Catastrophism Review’,
put it to me in 2002: ‘to
review and analyse competing theories
(is)
an essential part of the process
of winning people over to a new
idea.’ And,
there can be no doubt about it,
Sitchin’s
interpretation of the ancient myths
is a real obstacle to my aim of
laying the groundwork for an eventual
unification
of all the world’s religions
by explaining the meaning of their
common mythology.
I
have therefore decided that I will take time out,
after my sixth
book
is published in early-2004,
to
write an
unprecedented
critique
of Sitchin’s theory,
and offer it free on-line to
interested readers. And if Sitchin
cares to
respond, be it in the
form of scholarly arguments or
litigious threats, I will be
more than happy to publicise
that too.
Watch
this space.
In
the meantime, I append a brief article which I wrote in 2000/01
for the benefit
of Zecharia
Sitchin
fans,
explaining,
in broad
terms, how
and why
I came to reject
his theory of the myths of
the gods. To read this article, please
click:A
Message to Sitchin Fans.
‘Gods
of the New Millennium’
Readers
of my
first book ‘Gods of the New Millennium’ are hereby
advised that I have retracted a large part of the ‘evidence’ for
ancient astronaut intervention which I cited in that book. This
evidence relates to Zecharia Sitchin’s
interpretation of the myths
of the gods who came down
from the skies. I am now
firmly of the opinion that
these gods personified
the falling sky; in other
words, the descent of the
gods was a poetic rendition
of the cataclysm myth which
stood at the heart of ancient
Near Eastern religions.
But this re-assessment
does not undermine other
kinds of evidence which
I cited in ‘Gods of
the New Millennium’.
To fully understand the reasons for this partial U-turn, interested parties should
read the books that I have written since 1996. See the Bookshop section
of this website.
A brief position statement concerning my
partial U-turn has been inserted in the paperback
edition
of ‘Gods of the New Millennium’ as
a New
Foreword.
In addition, readers of ‘Gods of the New Millennium’ are invited to
read my long and very detailed Self-Critique of that book, which explains where
I now stand on a wide range of subjects from the origins of man to ancient science
to megalithic sites. This Self-Critique is a restricted site, access to which
requires insertion of a password. The password is in fact a number, of three
digits, which is the life span of Abram as estimated in chapter 13 of ‘Gods
of the New Millennium’. Please click
here Self-Critique and
enter the password when prompted.
Read
the Texts and Decide for Yourself
With
regard to the controversy between Sitchin and myself, I often
caution people against the dangers of forming a view based on
his books and/or mine. Rather, I advise people to read the ancient
texts and make their own judgements as to what these myths really
mean. I have therefore attached to this page a list of all the
relevant texts where the myths of the gods are recited. To view
this list, please click:Ancient
Texts Reading List.
A New
Scenario for Extraterrestrial Intervention
Although I no longer support Zecharia Sitchin’s brand
of ancient astronautism, I remain intrigued by the possibility
of extraterrestrial
intervention, albeit in the very remote past. My recommendation
is that we treat the mythological evidence with the utmost
caution, and focus instead on the archaeological, anthropological,
and palaeoanthropological evidence for the theory.
An
alternative scenario, which I find more plausible, is that an
extraterrestrial race came to Earth from a neighbouring planet
in our own solar system – a planet that exploded millions
of years ago.
Based on his studies of comets, asteroids and meteorites,
the American astronomer Dr Tom Van Flandern has postulated
the prior existence
of two additional planets in the heart of our solar system,
between the orbits of the Earth and Jupiter (see http://www.metaresearch.org).
According to Van Flandern, these two ex-planets exploded millions
of years
ago, possibly 250
mya and 65 mya respectively. The innermost of these two planets
is thought to have been the parent of Mars (i.e. Mars was
originally
a moon) and has been designated ‘Planet V’. The
outermost exploded planet has been designated ‘Planet
K’.
In addition, Planets V and K probably had moons, the majority
of which likewise exploded. Van Flandern believes that it
was one of
these moons, probably belonging to Planet V, which exploded
3.2 mya, giving birth to the current generation of comets.
Most pertinently,
the evidence of ice in comets and water in some meteorites
would suggest that this exploded moon was once a water-bearing
world,
not too dissimilar from the Earth but smaller in size. It
would thus have been entirely suitable for the genesis of
biological life
forms.
Did intelligent life evolve in the Planet V system? In my
book ‘The
Phoenix Solution’ (1998), I advanced the possibility, admittedly
quite speculative, that an intelligent species might have evolved
upon one of these former bodies, and then migrated to the Earth
in order to ensure the survival of their species:
‘One
of the interesting implications of the EPH is that it places one
or two previously unknown planets in the Sun’s ‘habitable
zone’. Moreover, these planets appear to have been watery,
which is an essential requirement for the development of life
as we know it. If there were two of these planets, and the furthermost
one, Planet K, exploded first (as seems to be the case), then
any life on the nearest one, Planet V, would have been ‘quickened’
to an even greater extent than life on the Earth. It would then
have had nearly 200 million years before it, too, exploded –
more than enough time for intelligent life to have evolved, realised
the state of its predicament and moved on.’
To
which planet would such intelligent life have migrated? The obvious
answer is: to Planet V’s neighbour – to planet Earth.
There, in order to survive in a different planetary environment,
the extraterrestrial species would have been forced to alter its
genetic make-up, perhaps by mixing its genes with a native terrestrial
species, thereby creating a hybrid. Might they be ‘us’?
Might we be ‘them’, albeit perhaps in some hybridised
form?
One intriguing line of evidence for this migration scenario is the
planet Mars which, according to Van Flandern’s EPH, was originally
a moon of Planet V. In an attached article, I discuss the evidence
for a former civilisation on Mars, and suggest that such a civilisation
might have been wiped out when Planet V or a second moon of Planet
V (known as ‘Body C’) exploded in its immediate vicinity.
Please click here A Civilisation on Mars?
|
