#letsdebunk

[sag-dab-sar]

I wrote a post trying to figure out why on earth some Pagans & Witches refer to Imbolc (an Irish spring agricultural holiday associated with St Brigid, a potential Christianization of the Goddess Brigid/Bríg) as Candlemas, the completely Christian holiday celebrating The Purification of Mary & Presentation of Jesus at The Temple— which originated in the eastern part of the Roman Empire (which the only "pagan" aspect was it competing with Roman Lupercalia for celebrants).

Many pagan & witch spaces online have a constant disdain for Christianity thus I could not wrap my head around them using such an important point of Jesus' & Mary's life as one of their festivals/'sabbats'.... then, after writing a bunch of stuff, I stumbled onto the answer on Wikipedia's Wheel of The Year page, which has citations for its claims:

Margaret Murray (very early 20th century scholar) in her now discredited witch-cult hypothesis said that the Scottish "witch" Issobell Smyth in 1661 confessed to attending meetings for witches on the cross quarter days included Candlemas. Robert Graves (oh how I loathe you ehem I mean: poet folklorist), mentioned that Candlemas was part of the 8 ancient British agricultural festivals. And Doreen Valiente ("The Mother of Wicca") included Candlemas in her list of Greater Sabbat Fire Festivals, while also listing "Gaelic counterparts," in this case Imbolc.

Sigh.

Early (read: 19th-20th century) paganism and witchcraft, or scholarly work about it, really was just: put every claim regardless of accuracy from any culture in this jar, shake it up real good, see what pops out from the mix, then pretend its historically attested to and traditional despite any and all evidence.

Also whatever Wikipedia writer wrote this, I appreciate your sassiness ... even if it was unintentional:

Due to early Wicca's influence on modern paganism and the syncretic adoption of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic motifs, the most commonly used English festival names for the Wheel of the Year tend to be the Celtic ones introduced by Gardner and the mostly Germanic-derived names introduced by Kelly, regardless whether the celebrations are based on those cultures.

EDIT: To be clear, not all neo/pagans, witches, wiccans, occultists, people-who-use-wheel-of-year are anti-Christian! I'm not trying to say that. But as a worshipper of Mary now, I notice it more and more. Nor am I saying all those people follow Murray/Grave/Valiente blindly but published works and trusted blogs often seem to. This is simply an observation, I've taken notice of, its not the entire communities.

[sag-dab-sar]

Sorry i blocked u i was very upset at the hatred(miso) of synchretism i see on here. i’m jewish i don’t need their or anyone elses opinion on Open vs Closed. i don’t think nonjews need their opinions either. though you are keen to summon them. as a sumerian polytheist i disagree that Lilith has no place to be deified up from her demonic origins. I believe Inanna may forgive her for shitting up in that tree. I agree that pseudohistorical declarations are laughable but i dont think theyre harmful in religious context. We don’t go after the exodus lie, and shouldnt! Why any modern mythologies about lilith? Fraudulent behavior! Recreating christian persecution in a way.

I love lilith and to me lilith is as free as the chill of the swift starkissed winds! Despite our differences I pray may Peace be upon you :3

I have no problems with you blocking me, please block people like me if we upset you. My unease was being blocked after someone asked an open ended accusatory question—which I now realize you didn't do. I didn't realize that you used the word misosyncretism, I have dyslexia and misunderstood and thought you were saying I was a misogynist so I am sorry for that misunderstanding and will erase those tags.

🔹Not Needing Opinions🔹

If you don't need anyone's opinion on whether or not something is closed don't reblog a post saying a particular thing is open. You are inviting dissenting opinions— whether its from Jews or non-Jews— when you reblog someone else's post with your own opinion. If you don't want to discuss open vs closed then simply ignore posts that say Lilith is closed, block people who say she is closed, do whatever, but don't engage if it makes you upset.

People are going to have opinions and, again, my opinion is that Lilith is closed based on numerous Jewish voices I have listened to. I recognize not every person in a group is going to agree with each other because no group is a monolith, but I do my best to listen to the voices of a paticular culture and come to a conclusion.

🔹My Opinion🔹

Yes, I am "very keen to summon" my own opinions because its my blog. If I reblog and add to a post I'm giving an opinion... thats kind of the point of blogging.

My conclusion is that non-Jews worship Lilith as a part of cultural Christianity, an ahistorical mythology they refuse to admit is modern, ignore all open entities that still fit the bill, and I see a lot of antisemitism among them. As well as a lot of Islamaphobia & Chrsitophobia. It is a form of cultural appropriation for their own comfort because they cannot be bothered to learn actual history.

My observation is that the majority of Lilith worshippers don't actually care about Lil-demons, they use the demons as a tool to try and validate their worship as something rooted in a non-Jewish historical tradition, when it is not. Lil demons are a convenient excuse. In reality they cling to her because they see her as a feminist icon who stood up the the Big Bad Misogynistic Abrahamic God™.

There is no need for non-Jews to worship a Jewish figure ahistorically when there are plenty of actual Ancient Near Eastern Goddesses who are open.

Thats my opinion. Its what I'm standing by.

🔹Pseudo-history🔹

Now again, I'm not going to try and argue from the Jewish side it is not my place. But I can and will argue from a Sumerian Polytheism and accuracy in history side.

Lilith is not a member of the Lil demons, she is not Ardat-Lilî even if there are some similarities. I show information about Lil-demons here and they are not Lilith. Syncretism is not the problem that was common in the Ancient Near East— Inana, Nanaya, Ištar, Šaušga— as one example. There may be some connection between Lilith and Ardat Lilî: mainly influencing the characterization of the Hebrew Lilith in the Book of Isaiah, but there is no evidence they are one in the same. There is no evidence they were ever considered one in the same by any ancient people or traditions. The issue isn't syncretism its pseudo-history.

They were not syncretic in history. Lil demons come from Mesopotamian tradition which spans the 4th millennium BCE to the 1st millennium BCE; while the Sumerian language continued as a liturgical language for quite some time the Sumerian Civilization ended circa 2000-1700 BCE. Aside from the extremely minor mention in Isiah 34:14, the story most Lilith worshippers base her on comes from a midrash written at some point during the 1st millennium CE. This is a significant time difference and people just seem to wipe away time differences as if they don't matter, or they simply can't wrap their head around them.

Pseudo-history absolutely can be harmful and I absolutely abhor pseudo history and always will. I literally have an entire tag, #letsdebunk , for it and its been apart of my blogging since I started in 2017.

"We don't go after the Exodus lie"

Plenty do, plenty of Jews debate the historicity of stories in Jewish literature including the Tanakh, as do many Christians when reading the 'Old Testament'. (Also I would call it a myth not a lie). But whether or not Exodus actually happened in history is very different than making things up and claiming that it was a real religion and real mythology people once believed. Saying "Exodus is a story in the Tanakh and Old Testament and it says [insert story]," is different than saying "Lilith was originally a Sumerian Goddess of love and war," when she wasn't.

You are comparing apple to oranges. The fake history around Lilith is more akin to saying something like "Exodus is a story about how an ancient Egyptian God punished Egyptians for there bad deeds and Jewish slaves escaped while their was chaos and then they found a tribe worshiping a God named YHWH and adopted the religion of that tribe" <- that is not the story of Exodus its abunch of made up bullshit. Made up bullshit is what I consider most modern neo-pagan/left hand path/witch claims about Lilith.

Pseudo-history is used to culturally appropriate many things not just Lilith. It has many problems:

It's used to make bigoted claims against Jews, such as "the Jews killed Jesus" which is historically factually wrong and one of the most damaging sources of antisemitism in history.

Bigotry against Christians, by claiming their only role in history is oppression and the silencing of any Christian voices including POC the world over. Like the dumb St Patrick pagan persecution story which is listed as a false meme by Snopes but shows up as a real belief among neo-pagans. This is also extremely dangerous towards African Diaspora Religions that are syncretized with Christianity, as just one example of how Christophobia is dangerous.

Bigotry against Muslims, by claiming they have solely been a patriarchal oppressor that made no advancements to humanity and only offer "violent jihadism." Which is false and ignores actual Islamic history because real history is very inconvenient for the narrative

Its used to validate bullshit like the Burning Times, blood based witchcraft lineage, and a false sense of persecution among modern neo-pagans. A completely toxic belief.

Its used by feminists who claim a unsubstantiated matriarchal pre-historic religion destroyed by evil patriarchy. They use it to deny anyone who isn't a cis-woman from Goddess worship, witchcraft, and other neo-pagan traditions and claim transwomen and transfemmes are just another iteration of the evil patriarchy trying to taint there ancient Goddess faith. A faith that never existed. Pseudo-history as a tool of transphobia.

Its used by Wiccans and neo-pagans to ignore real Irish history. And add things like Ostara a made up holiday based on the Goddess "Ēsotre" of dubious historicity according to medieval historian Bede & Mabon's fabrication by Aiden Kelly based on the name of a Welsh folk hero.

Its used to fabricate stories about deities that may or may not be real, like Ēsotre mentioned above, and then connect her to the holiday of Easter, and then make a huge leap and connect that to real historical deities like Ištar. Which is also used as a false sense of persecution among neo-pagans.

It can be a weapon for racial/ethnic supremacists. For example, the idea that Hellenic Polytheism was a national religion unique to the Hellenes is pseudo-history used by the boarding on ethnic supremacist YSEE organization.

Not to mention all the horrific pseudo-history of the extremely antisemitic Satanism group that I won't name. That constantly claims Lucifer is a Sumerian God or whatever and spams the inboxes of neo-pagans/witches/polytheists.

Its used by new agers to validate their appropriation of traditions from Dharmic religions for their own inaccurate purposes.

Its used to support, often very racist, "ancient alien" claims.

I could keep going and going and going with fake history touted among neo-pagans, witches, polytheists, left hand path folk, occultists, and new agers that is dangerous but hopefully I've gotten my point across.

"Recreating Christian persecution in a way"

If its not abundantly clear from my above examples pseudo-history is used to fabricate a lot of Christian persecution claims that have serious negative impacts. I don't even know what you mean by this so honestly I'm not going to try arguing against it.

Bottom line: pseudo-history absolutely is harmful in a religious context.

🔹Sumerian Polytheism🔹

As for "deifying" her up in Sumerian Polytheism. No I am 100% against that. Don't deify up demons and claim its still Sumerian polytheism because it isn't— its modern demonolatry.

First, Lilith isn't Sumerian.

Second, demons have their place in Sumerian cosmology and I'm not going to deify them. If a demon was honored, such as Pazuzu, then I many honor them. But I will not view Sumerian/Mesopotamian demons as Diĝir.

Third, I am a revivalist with a heavy reconstructionist approach, I value the real history of Ancient Near Eastern religions, cosmologies, and mythologies with a particular focus on Sumerian times (Ur III and prior) for my own faith.

This means I will always stand against pseudo-history, debunk claims, and defend actual ANE & Sumerian history. Ancient cultures deserve to be respected and not lied about. Pseudo-history is a lie.

🔹Last Thoughts🔹

Please do not pray to Lilith for me the mention in the ask made me feel uncomfortable.

Just like the "recreating Christian persecution" sentence in your ask I don't understand the "fraudulent behavior" statement so I can't really address it.

Tone clarification: The tone of this post is meant to be informative and explanatory not hostile and argumentative.

---

TL;DR Lil demons are not Lilith. Lilith is Jewish and I stand by my opinion that she is apart of a closed tradition. Pseudo-history is dangerous and I will always reject it.

EDIT: After reading their tags on this (x) and their rhetoric in the first reply to this post I think its better for me to not interact with this person. So I've decided to block. They've stated their stance and its literally just strawman arguments, many false equivalences, and whataboutisms; I have no time or patience for that. But this post is still useful as a rebuke against pseudo- history in our communities so I'll leave it up, I worked hard on it. I also deleted the original response post since it's redundant now. [Edit 2] The person has been extremely ableist towards me more than once, threatened me, tried to bypass my blocks, wished violent death on me more than once. I did report them and tumblr took one of their posts down... which is not enough but I won't waste my time trying to get tumblr moderators to do their job.

-not audio proof read-

[zenlesszonezero]

[sag-dab-sar]

TIL .... about the psychogenic modes of child rearing that basically says people, especially mothers, didn't value and help children until the mid-20th century. And just.... ? (Oh but hunter gathers, Rome, Greece, and China are exempt from the model for vague reasons). It was created by Lloyd DeMause a person with a bachelor's in political science and training in psychoanalysis. Culminating in the "field" of psychohistory. I honestly wish psychoanalysis would fall off the face of this planet. Disinformation and misinformation about history being spread in books always leads back to a Jungian Analyst. And psychoanalysis is IMO extremely European-centric. Especially "archetypes". I just hate it, and this "modes of child rearing" shit that casts all humans (except the listed exceptions) as evil towards their children until ✨modern civilization✨ and the "helping phase"; has made my hatred of this "field" even stronger.

[sag-dab-sar]

Nergal & Ereškigal's Marriage

🔹And old debunk post that I'm turning into its own post🔹

"Nergal, sumerian god of war, disease and destructive sun"

No, not at all. By the end of both myths he absolutely wanted his marriage. Here is me gushing over the myth.

He tries to hide in both versions of the myth which one could assume means he didn’t want the marrige but had no choice; thats a false conclusion based on one section of each myth rather than examining the whole. In the first version he was sure he would be killed if he went down so tried to hide. In the second version he goes down but when he comes back up to heaven the Gods decide to hide him so he doesn’t have to return. In essence, he really was not in the mood to deal with the consequences of his actions when he chose not to bow to Namtar, Ereškigal’s son and Sukkal.

If Nergal did not want to be her husband he would have killed her— it's that simple.

🌹Longer Later Version of the Myth🌹

In the longer version he goes down, makes love to Ereškigal for six days; he then tricks her by making a false promise of returning. She allows him to return to heaven without sounding the alarm. Anu, Enlil, and Ea all know that Ereškigal will seek to bring him back down so they disguise him. (Why is he called son of Ištar? No idea.)

Ereškigal asks her father to send Nergal down to be her husband. When he is not returned to her she threatens Anu by saying she will send up the dead.

(Opinion on the Irkalla usage)

Namtar finally finds him; he gives a long speech about traveling back down. Nergal “takes the speech to heart” and follows instructions so that he doesn’t have to removing clothing as he goes down; he gives objects instead.

In the broken text, we see that Nergal is speaking [Footnote 98], the following line we do not know who is talking but Nergal is threatened with death to become a permanent resident of Kur [Footnote 99].

When he finally gets past all seven gates, he laughs. He goes directly to the throne and drags the Queen of the realm he just entered to him by her hair. Importantly, Ereškigal is described as the love of his heart. They embrace and make love for 6 days. On the 7th day Anu makes the verdict that Nergal will dwell with Ereškigal for the rest of his days.

In the passage that contains footnote 99, someone threatened to kill Nergal, the translator clarifies it would be to make him a permanent resident of Kur. So Anu made him a permanent resident of Kur— without him having to be killed.

🌹Earlier Version of the Myth🌹

"But, this shows it wasn’t his choice?"

No, he acceptes Anu’s decision. Ereškigal the love of his heart, as we've seen, if she wasn't he would have killed her if he did not agree with Anu’s decision. The earlier version of this myth proves that.

In the earlier myth, when he does not bow to Namtar, Ereškigal demands he comes to Kur, not to apologize, but in order to kill him. Nergal initially hides but when he is found out he becomes fearful and wheeps for he is certain he will die. However, Ea sends with him some troops in order to abate the fear.

When he finally gets through the 7 gates his fear has vanished. He goes to Ereškigal, forces her onto the ground, and is about to cut her head off.

However, Ereškigal cries out and asks to speak which he allows. She offers to be his wife. With that offer he becomes gentle. The love that will develop between them as husband and wife is bluntly showcased by a kiss and him wiping her tears away.

🌹His Choice🌹

In the earlier version Nergal accepts Ereškigal’s proposal. In the later version, if he did not approve of Anu’s decision, he could have killed her just as he nearly did in the first one.

In the later version he would not even need any form of troops or help from Ea to kill her. Because:

A.) He is not afraid of dying.

B.) Ereškigal is deeply in love with him, she weeps profusely when his trick is revealed, when she realizes she was lied to. She begs, laments, pleads, and eventually threatens her father.

C.) When he returns he asserts a level of dominance by pulling her from her throne into an embrace— she is not his captor, she is his lover.

🌹Conclusion🌹

Tl;DR-ish

The love that shall bloom between the two is evident in both versions of the myth. The “Love of his heart,” and becoming gentle by kissing her and wiping her tears— as one would comfort their wife.

Nergal wanted his marriage ❤️

🌹Sources🌹

▪️Earlier version: “New Readings in the Amarna Versions of Adapa and Nergal and Ereshkigal” by Shlomo Izre'el. http://www.academia.edu/3538014/New_Readings_in_the_Amarna_Versions_of_Adapa_and_Nergal_and_Ereshkigal

▪️About the Armana letters in which the early version is found: https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/amlet/hd_amlet.htm

▪️Later version: The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures edited by James A. Pritchard

▪️About the Sultantepe Tablets where the later version is found: https://biaa.ac.uk/research/item/name/study-of-the-sultantepe-tablets Link broke

🌹

Originally written 2019, edited/added to 2022

[sag-dab-sar]

I see frequently everything pagans and recon/revive polytheists don't like gets shoved under "it's Christian baggage" label. For some cultures they feared the Gods, in others they don't.

If you don't want to fear your Gods (either because the ancient culture did not, or because you want to adapt to modernity) then don't— but don't dismiss the idea as Christian or even as monotheistic.

🔹Mesopotamian Example🔹

From Babylonian Pentinetal Psalms (*finding newer translations of these is difficult so this comes from early 20th century link) [Archive Page 2]:

Lord whose heart on high reposes not. Lord whose heart beneath calms not. Who above and beneath reposes not. Who has crushed me, who has undone me. Who has pat affliction into my hand. Who has put fear in my body. Who the iris of my eye has filled with tear's. Who has crushed my heart and filled it with sorrow. His pure heart I will appease; intercession unto him will I speak. May his heart by persuasion repose. May his soul by persuasion repose. "O heart repent, repent." be spoken unto him.

The Babylonians seem to be significantly more invested in sin and repentance compared to Sumerians. But I'm too tired to go find a source where I learned that, it may have even been conjecture on the part of the academic.

Another Psalm [Archive page 50]:

Ea has enlarged thy destiny among the great gods. The ordering of the Land into thy hand he entrusted, Fear of thy divinity doth fill the lands.

Lament for Sumer and Urim (ETCSL 2.2.3 with sources spelling):

An frightened the very dwellings of Sumer, the people were afraid. Enlil blew an evil storm, silence lay upon the city. Nintud bolted the door of the storehouses of the Land. Enki blocked the water in the Tigris and the Euphrates. Utu took away the pronouncement of equity and justice. Inana handed over victory in strife and battle to a rebellious land. Ninjirsu poured Sumer away like milk to the dogs. Turmoil descended upon the Land, something that no one had ever known, something unseen, which had no name, something that could not be fathomed. The lands were confused in their fear. The god of the city turned away, its shepherd vanished. The people, in their fear, breathed only with difficulty. The storm immobilised them, the storm did not let them return.

I don’t think we are meant to fear the Gods. Not even Gods of storms, death, or war. To believe in them is to accept them as they are. Don’t let anybody convince you that polytheists should fear the Gods. Be awe-struck, be humble before them if it feels right, but in this modern day and age, spirituality shouldn’t feel unsafe.

[sag-dab-sar]

So I was writing a debunk of a quote from "When God Was a Woman" by Merlin Stone 1976, and I came across and entire PDF of the book. I actually spent a long time skimming through it and reading sections.

I really just hate this theory of some monotheistic pre-historic Mother Great Goddess; I hate peaceful matriarchal pre-history society theory even more. Were there cultures where Goddesses reigned supreme? Not impossible but books like this seem to not actually care about religion and care much more about a gotcha-moment argument for feminism.

Its also extremely reactionary (not the word I'm looking for but close enough) to the dominance of current religions. Like you can tell just how much she can't stand "Judeo-christian" religion and values though out much of it, she mentions Islam as well at the beginning:

She eventually goes on to make the argument that the ruling elite of the "Hebrews" were actually Indo-European in origin. She takes the historical accounts of the Bible as fact way too much; I don't know if thats because the book was written in 1970s and the Bible was considered a better historical tool back then than as it is now or for some other reason. Either way the scholarly consensus (from many fields) shows that the ancient Israelites were just a Canaanite group no different from their neighbors in the Levant. They simply evolved with their own language and religion just as their neighbors did. Not that they lived in Egypt for generations and then invaded Canaan. A lot of her argument in some places relies on the idea that the Hebrews were outsiders, some coming from Egypt and invading Canaan at the behest of their God and others coming from the north Indo-Europeans/Indo-Aryans who had a male religion and the two groups combined and formed "The Hebrews" whose ruling elite were extremely antagonistic to the "Goddess Religion"

Which speaking of the Indo-European connection this was such a fucking bizarre passage that popped up when I was reading:

Like..... why did Hitler come into this discussion?

Also she makes the claims that earliest humans didn't connect sex to pregnancy and thus didn't have any sense of paternity and therefore saw woman as just magically being able to create a new human......and .... how stupid do you think our ancestors are?

The claims about aboriginal Australians is ridiculously reductive and the conclusions she draws from it are even worse. The only way to come to these conclusions is to study indigenous people through an extremely thick lens of "primitive people can't possibly understand science!" If anyones intrested in the idea you can read it here, paternity IS recognized (page 2) https://www.jstor.org/stable/2803097?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3A338b1b647c8b5dd8b37523c756a9008c&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (you can get 99 articles for free each month if you want to read it)

Anyways, one thing I REALLY hate is, Goddess Religion Theory's desire to lump all Near Eastern & Mediterranean Goddesses as all the same. Like if you want to believe that, you do you, but its not history.

I literally have a post coming out soon (well "soon") that showcases how Astarte = Asherah is 100% false from the perspective of the ancient people who worshipped them.

I don't know why authors who approach the pre-history Goddess theory insist that all Goddesses were the same. Would a multitude of Goddesses detract from their argument?? I don't see how. Its especially weird considering this isn't religious apologetics shes not writing this as a theological or historical argument. She says herself this is to help woman view the world differently and draw new conclusions. So why is a ancient monotheistic Goddess preferred over polytheistic Goddesses? That was actually what I was going to debunk, a quote that called them all the same, but basically said screw it after finding the book and "reading" huge chunks of it.

One of the most annoying things is, unlike many books I debunk making dumb claims about Mesopotamia, Stone actually cites tons of sources. BUT she does it in such a way that its hard to fact check. No footnotes or endnotes just names and quotes with a MASSIVE bibliography. So I have no way of knowing if Professor [name] is actually in a field relevant to the claims they are making. For example, she cites Jacobsen, cool he's an Assyriologist, she also cites Robert Graves .... not so cool, he is mainly a poet. These two sources aren't on the same level of credibility when speaking about ancient religion. But I only know that because I know of both Jacobsen and Graves prior to reading this; allllll the myriad of other people she mentions I don't know. Without footnotes or endnotes it would be a arduous task to look up every person she is citing to see if they actually have credentials to support the claims in a 200+ page book. Sources wise she's fantastic simply because she actually provides them, unlike most. But the method makes it extremely frustrating.

Anyways. I'm 100% okay with Goddess Worshippers please don't think I'm not. If your a monotheist and view all Goddesses as The Singular Supreme Goddess or a duotheist who views them all as facets of The Goddess, or sees them as archtypes or whatever else— thats fine. What I hate is re-writing history to try and fit these claims. The people of the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean did not view all their Goddesses as the same, please stop twisting it to fit your new religion or your political ideology.

PS, its 1am I didn't proof read intensely sorry for spelling and grammar if its messed up

[sag-dab-sar]

The first paragraph is not scientific consensus at all.

Edit: Tone Note— This is meant to add to the post, not harm the OP or make them feel stupid, I like giving information which is why it's all quotes primarily. And I admire OP.

🔷 "Neanderthals may have used something similar to language though they had very different voiceboxes meant they could only use a limited range of sounds."

This is called the Larynx Descent Theory

The idea human vocal cords/larynx is special and gives us a special ability at speech is highly contested. It was first hypothesized in the 1960s-ish. But while it caught on, it never actually had a conclusive amount of evidence, and has been increasingly challenged recently.

This review produces three major findings. First, even among primates, laryngeal descent is not uniquely human. Second, laryngeal descent is not required to produce contrasting formant patterns in vocalizations. Third, living nonhuman primates produce vocalizations with contrasting formant patterns. Thus, evidence now overwhelmingly refutes the long-standing laryngeal descent theory, which pushes back “the dawn of speech” beyond ~200 ka ago to over ~20 Ma ago, a difference of two orders of magnitude. — "Which way to the dawn of speech?: Reanalyzing half a century of debates and data in light of speech science" in Science Advances 2019

Laryngeal descent theory (LDT). It was taught in textbooks and routinely disseminated in publications on the origin of language and seemed so evident that it was taken as canonical, even axiomatic. It was taken by scientists as explaining the failure to teach speech and language to home-raised chimpanzees. As documented below, researchers tended to overlook criticism of his conclusions, even serious arguments regarding articulatory capabilities of Neanderthals (23–25) or infants (26, 27), because these arguments could be discounted as tangential to the core of the theory, the vocalizations of nonhuman primates. Moreover, although LDT generally lacked support from speech researchers (see below), the LDT became an early foundational tenet of a complex school of thought claiming a recent, sudden, and simultaneous appearance of speech and language in AMHS (3). In our view (28, 29), LDT is a paradigmatic example of a “contagious idea” understandable through the “epidemiology of representations” framework developed in anthropology and cognitive sciences by Sperber (30, 31) to explain how some theories spread more quickly and broadly than others, sometimes before the formation of any consensus on their scientific validity — Same as above

This descended larynx has traditionally been believed to distinguish humans from all other mammals, in whom the larynx rests at the back of the oral cavity. The acoustic and evolutionary significances of this trait were first realized during the 1960s: having a low larynx allows humans to create a wider range of vocal-tract shapes, and thus more varied and distinctive speech. sounds, than other mammals A lowered larynx has thus been considered a key anatomical prerequisite for modern human speech and extensive debate has focused on precisely when in hominid evolution the larynx descended. The beliefs that a descended larynx is uniquely human and that it is diagnostic of speech have played an central role in modern theorizing about the evolution of speech and language. In this report, we document descended larynges in males of two deer species, the red deer, Cervus elaphus, and the fallow deer, Dama dama, thus demonstrating that this feature is neither unique to Homo sapiens nor necessarily tied to speech production. — "The descended larynx is not uniquely human." in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2001

Additionally Neanderthals may have had languages like us, since we aren't as anatomically special as we thought we were:

Our results show that the occupied bandwidth of Neanderthals was greater than the Sima de los Huesos hominins and similar to extant humans, implying that Neanderthals evolved the auditory capacities to support a vocal communication system as efficient as modern human speech. — "Neanderthals and Homo sapiens had similar auditory and speech capacities" in Nature Ecology and Evolution 2021

This research suggests that other Homo species had the ability to produce speech sounds that overlap with the range of speech sounds of modern humans, and that species such as Neanderthals possessed genes that, in humans, play a role in language. But we do not know whether these archaic hominins actually produced speech, and if so, to which extent it was similar to our capacity for language. As of now, the anatomical and genetic data lack the resolution necessary to differentiate proto-language from modern human language. — "Dating the Origin of Language Using Phonemic Diversity" in PLOS ONE 2012

🔷 "All modern human languages are thought to be descended from one unknown language, spoken at most about 180,000 years ago"

This is called the Proto-World / Proto-Human Language

There is not even remotely enough evidence for the proto-world theory—the idea that all languages on earth descend from one 180,000/150,000 years ago—to be stated as fact in anyway. Or at least not without a big disclaimer.

Linguists are sort of divided on the topic, most not in favor of it; primarily because the mere ability to analyze or find evidence for the hypothesis is near impossible to begin with. It is a hypothesis for sure, but the evidence is scant and all methods can be criticized.

Q: Do all languages come from one language? The Proto-World theory suggests that there was one proto-language that is the origin of all languages today. Even though there is some evidence to support the theory, many linguists strongly disagree with it. — "Proto-languages and Their Evolution" on Wondrium 2020. | This professor John McWhorter from Columbia University has a huge course on the history of human language on Wondrium

The paper concludes that it is highly unlikely that use of comparative linguistics can be used as a method as far back as the origins of human language. [...] Whether or not Ruhlen's notion of a proto-human language is a reality or not is difficult if not impossible to determine using the evidence of the present. — "A Proto-Human Language: Fact or Fiction" in The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology republished 2023. | This individual supports the proto-human language but explains why evidence is nearly impossible to prove it.

Where possible, [Evolution of Human Languages] linguists are attempting to reconstruct – and then compare – ancestor languages, moving ever closer to the first human language. Viewed by many linguists as a fringe movement, the project has attracted much criticism. Many linguists say that historical languages cannot be studied beyond an 8,000-year threshold; they change too much, they say. Some take issue with the project's methods: A few words shared among reconstructed languages doesn't prove a familial relationship, they insist, especially far back in time. — "Linguists seek a time when we spoke as one" news article in Christian Science Monitor about a scientific study's / researchers goals 2007

Also this is from the wikipedia page but it gave me a laugh:

The concept [Proto-Human Language] is speculative and not amenable to analysis in historical linguistics.

because I had to look up 'amenable': "(of a thing) capable of being acted upon in a particular way" Makes the quote sounds straight up sassy.

-Not audio proof read-

Is it true that the Sumerian was the first human language on Earth?

It is not! Humans have been using language for hundreds of thousands of years, at least since the evolution of anatomically modern humans 200,000 years ago. Current scientific consensus is that language evolved gradually, and human relatives like Neanderthals may have used something similar to language, though they had very different voiceboxes meant they could only use a limited range of sounds. All modern human languages are thought to be descended from one unknown language, spoken at most about 180,000 years ago in eastern Africa (though multiple human languages may have existed at that time). And human language continued to change, evolve, and diversify over the subsequent tens of thousands of years.

Sumerian, instead, is one of the oldest written human languages. Writing was also invented gradually, so there may be languages recorded in proto-writing mnemonic systems older than Sumerian, dating back many thousands of years. But linguists consider the first full writing system, depicting the full range of a language, to have been used in Uruk in Sumer, around 3400 BCE. Writing may have been invented simultaneously and independently in Egypt (in the form of hieroglyphics), or have been influenced by the rapid spread of cuneiform writing from Mesopotamia. So Sumerian and Egyptian are normally considered the two earliest written languages.

[sag-dab-sar]

Lilitu is NOT a Goddess of sex and war. They are demons, with Ardat-Lili usually being the one people try to claim is Lilith. They are nothing like what neo-pagans / left-hand path people claim Lilith is like.

Lil-demons:

From Mesopotamian Pandemonium by Frans A M Wiggermann:

The ghosts of (unmarried) youngsters who died sexually unfulfilled become lil-spirits, a type of "phantoms" or "apparitions" that try to satisfy their needs with the living, and in the process cause suffering and disease; the female ones are particularly aggressive.

The group of lil-spirits consists of:

Ardat lilî / Kiskilīlu — "phantom-bride"

Eṭel lilî — "phantom-bridegroom"

Lilītu — "female phantom"

Lilû — "male phantom"

and probably

Naššuqītu "(phantom-)kisser (demoness)".

The plural "lil-spirits" occurs only in Pazuzu's qualification "king of the evil lil-spirits", and must cover Lamaštu, one of the beings over whom Pazuzu exerts power as king.

The remarkable and unexplained grouping of sexually unsatisfied spirits under a king cannot be independent from the king's equally remarkable and unexplained serpentine penis.

From Gods Demons & Symbols by Jeremy Black & Antony Green:

Lilitu

The male lilû and the two females lilitu and ardat-lilî are a sort of family group of demons. They are not gods. The lilû haunts desert and open country and is especially dangerous to pregnant women and infants. The lilitu seems to be a female equivalent, while the ardat-lilî (whose name means 'maiden lilû') seems to have the character of a frustrated bride, incapable of normal sexual activity. As such, she compensates by aggressive behaviour especially towards young men.

The ardat-lilî, who is often mentioned in magical texts, seems to have some affinities with the Jewish Lilith (e.g.Isaiah 34:14). "She is not a wife, a mother; she has not known happiness, has not undressed in front of her husband, has no milk in her breasts." She was believed to cause impotence in men and sterility in women. A plaque thought possibly to depict her shows a scorpion-tailed she-wolf about to de. vour a young girl.

From Gods & Goddess of Ancient Mesopotamia by Stuckey and Frayne

Lil, Lilla, Kisikil-lila (Sum.), Lilû(m), Lilitu(m), Ardat-lili (Akk.)

The name derives from Sumerian lil, "air, spirit." The Akkadian Liliu(m) and Lilitu(m) haunted the open spaces and deserts.

They posed a threat to pregnant women and infants. They had no spouse and were sexually predatory, rather like incubi and succubi. The Lilitu(m) was incapable of "normal" sexual activity and was very aggressive with young men. She could not give birth or suckle a child. It was a Lilitu(m) that made its home in the trunk of Inana's haluppu-tree and refused to leave. Lili-tu(m) seems later to have been assimilated with the baby-stealing monster Lamastu(m).

Sumerian Kisikil-lila and Akkadian Ardat-lili mean "Maiden Air Spirit." The demons, particularly the Ardat-lili, were often mentioned in magical texts and incantations. The Ardat-lili were credited with causing sterility in women and impotence in men.

.▪️.

No matter what source you find, they are demons, not a Goddess. Please don't spread misinformation to fight misinformation and cultural appropriation. Information on Lilith.

There is a Mesopotamian Lili goddess attested only in a theophoric personal name. And another Goddess Lil / Lil(l)u as a name for Belet-ili a mother/birth Goddess or the child of Ninḫursaĝa and Šulpa'e & sibling of Ašgi and Lisina (Stuckey). These are clearly not what people are referring to when they make the Sumerian origin claim.

There are plenty of Goddesses of Sex and War, all of these spread beyond the originating pantheons:

Inana (Sumerian)

Nanaya (Sumerian)

Ištar (Akkadian/Babylonian)

Attart [Astarte in Greek] (Ugarit/Canannite)

Išhara (Eblaite/Anatolian)

Šaušga (Hurrian/Anatolian)

Aphrodite Areia / Aphrodite Hôplismenê (Greek)

Venus Victrix (Roman)

If you need "edgy" Goddesses:

Ereškigal (Sumerian)— Queen of the Underworld

Allani [Allatum in Akkadian] (Hurrian/Anatolian) — Goddess of the Underworld

Išnekarap (Elamite) — Goddess of the Underworld and assistant in the cult of the dead

Ištuštaya (Hattian) — Underworld Goddess of fate

Papaya (Hattian) — Underworld Goddess of fate

Tiamat [modern worship] (Akkadian/Babylonian) — Primordial Salt Sea , "Dragon", has an entourage of monsters

Sekhmet (Egyptian) — War

Tannit (Phoenician/Carthaginian) — War

Enyo (Greek) — War

Eris (Greek) — Discord & Strife

Alala (Greek) — Personified War Cry

No one needs to make up the worship of literal demons as alternatives to Lilith. No one needs to culturally appropriate Lilith to find a sex & love Goddess in the ANE & Mediterranean.

People cling to Lilith because they believe ahistorical claims about her. They see her as antithetical to the Christian (or ""Abrahamic"") Patriarchal God. The "woman" who defied the Christian God by refusing to be subjugated to her husband's authority. Thats why they can't let her go: cultural Christianity.

--

*Edited to turn photos into texts and add a bit of information on the other Lil Goddess

-not audio proof read-

the frustrating thing about the lilitu/lilith debate, for me at least is

like, yes, the ancient sumerians were pretty open with their religion

but even if lilith was 'inspired by' or another form of her

that doesn't mean that she could still be worshipped and whatnot by gentiles?

like on a spiritual level, if you think about it, her making herself known in a specific way to a specific culture means something, and people who aren't from that culture trying to dilute and steal that is disrespectful as hell.

if they really are the same person, then why can't you worship lilitu? why is worshipping this specific iteration (in their minds) of her so important to you?

this is the goddess of sex and war and such that you want lilith to be! you don't have to twist up another culture's religion to make her that! lilitu is everything they want lilith to be! so why can't they just worship lilitu?

insisting on worshipping lilith is, quite frankly, disrespectful to her and disrespectful to jews.

just. worship. lilitu.

This. 👆🏼

Like, why is there even a debate to begin with. Lilitu is Mesopotamian, Lilith is Jewish, the end.

[sag-dab-sar]

Old reblog-post of mine. Correction Irkalla is a name of Ereškigal, variations of Kukku are more likely to reference the underworld in Akkadian.

Note: Using Kramer probably isn't a good idea.

I realize I may have come off as superior in the post but I didn't mean to, I've grown up and try not to come of pompous now, I promise.

Ereshkigal, the Mesopotamian goddess of Irkalla, the land of the dead or underworld. She was the only one who could pass judgment and give laws in her kingdom. The main temple dedicated to her was located in Kutha.

requested by @electrokinetic

[sag-dab-sar]

From my old blog, the last link is broken I know

I’m pretty sure I follow the other Babylonian practitioners, but I haven’t seen anything from them in forever. So I have no one to talk about this. The more I read, the more I think Ishtar and Enki really suit each other. Not just because they sort of dual-rule over creative influences, and that suits me, but for how they actually interact in mythology. Yeah, yeah, Ishtar liked Dumuzi for a time, but let’s face it, he’s a fuckboy. Your girl defeats death and come back to find you completely unconcerned, sitting on her throne? I’d drag you into the underworld too, shit.

And when the gods find out what happened to Ishtar in the underworld, who is the one who sends help? Enki. He’s also the only person I’ve seen in mythology able to calm her down–after she was raped, no less. And after he convinces her they need a trial, he tells her exactly where the asshole is and is like “go gettum’.” And once when he was drunk, he was so into Ishtar that he gave her rule over all the creative arts of civilization(and of course woke up remembering nothing and hung over).

Enki’s also just….probably the least of a jerk of all the Mesopotamian gods. He created man and helped man survive the deluge. It’s kind of a shame no one talks about this guy. Just saying, given Ishtar’s proclivities…unverified personal gnosis, they totally banged.

[sag-dab-sar]

Note to readers: I wrote this before checking their blog. This person claims they've experienced "apotheosis" (divinehood/deification: wikipedia info) and that they have a "genuine claim to the label godkin" and in a separate post states "I am not human. I am magic." Also outright tells Haides "So you, Hades, you fucking bastard, dickless coward with a poorly-shaven beard and no sense of true pride." and says that Hades godspouses should beware because they "hate your hubby and he hates me" 🙃 So why am I interacting? Because this took way way too much work, so I'm not deleting it. But the person I'm responding to, you can just ignore this because I have no patience for anyone claiming any level of divinity, even if its a past life, nor patience for anyone who outright insults any Theos especially to that degree and openly hates them. As for readers do not send this person hate or harass them if you have a problem with them/their statements just block. Stay out of their inbox don't be an asshole.

-🔹-

Anyways moving on...

But it's still.. You have to take the time to get to know a deity.

Fun fact: No you don't!

How many Athenian's had to get to know Athena before worship? Everyone? No. Most people? No.

How many people of Ur had to get to know Inanna & Nanna before worship? Everyone? No. Most people? No.

How many Japanese people need to get to know their local Kami (Ujigami) before worshipping them? Everyone? No. Most people? No. (Kami aren't 100% synonymous with "Gods")

How many Taiwanese & Chinese people need to get to know Mazu before worshipping her? Everyone? No. Most people? No.

How many Hindus need to get to know Shiva before worship? Everyone? No. Most people? No

Its almost like polytheistic practices are followed by hundreds of millions of people.

You absolutely DO NOT need any sort of interpersonal connection with a deity— you don't need "quality time" like some sort of friendship to get to know them at literally any point: be it your first week of worship or your 12th year. Nor do you need to have any sort of sign, knowledge of their personal preferences, or whatever other UPG this community won't shut the fuck up about. More loud emphatic discussion here.

The prep someone needs to do is accepting that working with a deity will change your life and circumstances, mentally or otherwise. There's no avoiding that.

I must be some sort of miracle then because I certainly did no preparation. I've been practicing for over a decade. Polytheism is not hard. It just fucking isn't. Have some more emphatic discussion here.

-🔹-

Polytheistic cultures past and present wove the Gods (and many other types of spirits) into their lives and communities. Because The Gods and a variety of spirits are just apart of life.

You don't need to "get to know" Hestia before worshipping her. Not every ancient Greek person took the time to focus on religious practice enough for such a feat of "getting to know" her. For them it's simply a fact that the hearth played a role in domestic rites [1]. She was also fundamental in some cities' politics [2] stressing how inseparable religious beliefs and political activities were. Ancient Greek festivals were plentiful, mixed "religion", sport, art, and sense of community [3]. Not all participants got to know the Gods being celebrated— and their worship was no less sincere.

You don't even need to "get to know" your personal Diĝir, they could be nameless, related to your profession, related to your family, or one of higher cosmic Gods [4] [5]— kind of like a patron saint though not exactly. Its a thing that sounds alien to Mesopotamian tradition since paying honor to the Gods, was necessary for the well being of the person, the household, and the city/empire [6], it wasn't some personalized cultivated spiritual endeavor by every Mesopotamian. Gods where not some separate domain. Not to mention divination was a profession [7] since it is utterly absurd to imply every ancient person communed with the divine for guidance by themselves.

You don't need to "get to know" Amaterasu-Ōmikami or Oharashisama [8] before installing a Jingū Taima [9] within a Kamidana— which Ise Grand shrine distributed 4 million in 2011 [10]. Japanese people might have Kamidana in their homes— but they also might in their workplace [11] (not all have Jingu Taima). Because Kami are not some separate religious thing that needs to be deeply learned by every individual person in Japan. Japanese people make the first shrine visit within the first 3 days of the year called Hatsumode. And its not a small number, 3.5 million visited Meiji Jingu, 3.1 million to Kawasaki-Daishi, 2.7 Million to Fushimi-Inari and also 2.8 million to the Senso-Ji Buddhist Temple [12] and there are thousands of shrines in the country. Kami, (as well the various Buddhist spirits that I don't know enough to talk about but here is some info), are simply apart of life, they aren't entities you need to square out time in your day to "get to know," them.

You don't need to "get to know" Mazu before going on the Dajia Mazu Pilgrimage, that 4 million people attend each year [13]. She has 5000 temples and her veneration is listed by UNESCO as a representative of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity [14]. One of her Temples, Thian Hock Keng, is designated as a National Monument of Singapore [15]. Chinese folk religion isn't some sort of central institution. It communal. You can go to a temple, buy some incense, pray with it, and leave it in the incense holders (if they are there) without ever "getting to know" a God or spirit [16]. Trying to define it as a religion in the western sense fails to capture the actual tradition because the practice is cultural and readily mixed with other Chinese philosophies not some religious "identity" [17].

The idea that any ancient pantheon required everyone to have interpersonal (getting to know) relationships with deities or that culture's variety of spirits is utterly absurd, we are talking hundreds to thousands of people depending on time and place.

So. No. You don't need to get to know them. This should make the meaning of my original post crystal clear.

🔷 Notes 🔷

▪️ THIS EXCLUDES CLOSED PRACTICES

▪️It is important that you follow tradition when worshipping Kami and be respectful when visiting Shinto Shrines & Buddhist Temples (info) and also when visiting any variety of Chinese/Taiwanese Shrines/Temples (info).

▪️I didn't add a section of Hinduism because I ran out of energy whilte writing this. I was using these three as the proof of living traditions— there is no reason to think these principles were different in 'dead' traditions.

▪️Didn't even attempt to proof read this I'm so tired by the end. Whatever dyslexia did in a first draft just go with it.

▪️Read article on Haides (link) or better yet peruse his Theoi Project page (link)

▪️Sources:

[1] Referencing a review written by John Gladhill of Household Gods: Private Devotion in Ancient Greece and Rome by Alexandra Sofroniew. Link

[2] "Hestia: Hearth, Goddess, and Cult" by Mika Kajava in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 102. Link.

[3] "Ancient Festivals and Their Cultural Contribution to Society" by Ioanna-Soultana Kotsori. University of Peloponnese, Kalamata, Greece. Link.

[4] Summary of "The Personal Deity in the Ancient Mesopotamian Religion" lecture give by Prof Ichiro Nakata Doshisha University. Link.

[5] Treasures of Darkness Chapter 5 by Thorkild Jacobsen. Internet Archive — though it says borrowing is unavailable.

[6] "Living Deities: Ancient Mesopotamian Patron Gods & Their Statues" by Iilias Luursema (MA & MS) in The Collector. Link.

[7] "On the Beginnings and Continuities of Omens Sciences in the Ancient World" by Amar Annus in Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World, University of Chicago.

[8] Daijingu Temple of Hawaii had their Jingu Taima listed as for Oharashisama, the household God. Link. While generally Jingu Taima are seen as representing Amaterasu-Ōmikami as mentioned in source 9. From what I've read Jinja Honchō, Association of Shinto Shrines, doesn't actually define Jingu Taima.

[9] "Jingū Taima" by Nakanishi Masayuki in the Encyclopedia of Shinto maintained by Kokugakuin University. Link.

[10] Wikipedia page on Jingū Taima. Link. Citing a Japanese article "神札:頒布１４０周年記念、神宮大麻の歴史など紹介 伊勢・徴古館で企画展/三重" Roughly translated: "Jingu Taima: 140th anniversary of its distribution, introducing the history of Jingu Taima, special exhibition at Chokokan, Ise/Mie." Link.

[11] "Why do so many Japanese Companies worship Shrines and Kamidana" by Yasuhiro Matsumoto blog. Link.

[12] "Hatsumode" on Japan Experience. Link.

[13] "8 Things you didn't know about Dajia Mazu Pilgrimage" on Taiwan-scene. Link.

[14] "Mazu Belief and Customs." UNESCO. Link.

[15] List on Singapore government website Roots. Have to scroll a few down. Link.

[16] "How to visit a Chinese Temple" on Chinese Highlights. Link.

[17] "Exploring Chinese folk religion: Popularity, diffuseness, and diversities." by Zhang, C., Lu, Y., & Sheng, H. in Chinese Journal of Sociology, 7. Link.

There is no such thing as a beginner deity.

There is no necessary changes you need to make to your life in order to worship a deity.

There is no psychological preparation that needs to be done.

You don't need to break a habit. Reframe your psyche. Finish medical treatment. Reach a life 'milestone'. in order to worship a deity.

If anything you should approach a deity to help you through these things.

Learning the religion can occur at the same time as worship. They can be parallel events.

You can begin worshipping a deity the day you read this. There is no future point in time where you will somehow be more ready to approach a deity.

You are already ready.