From time to time even fringe writers can surprise me, and that was the case with “ethno-psychologist” Christine H. Hardy’s new book, The Wars of the Anunnaki: Nuclear Self-Destruction in Ancient Sumer (Inner Traditions, 2016). This is not because the book has any shocking new proof of ancient atom bombs but rather because it carries an inscription dedicating the Sitchin-inspired text to “Martin Luther King and the courageous and daring people of Selma’s march.” This must be a first: comparing, implicitly, advocacy of fringe history to the Civil Rights Movement! Will wonders never cease? Hardy additional thanks Linda Moulton Howe for her assistance, which must be the first time that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Howe have ever received shout outs at the same time.
Hardy, who published primarily in French before this millennium, claims to hold a Ph.D. in cultural anthropology, but she does not provide information about this degree. I could not find a dissertation for her in ProQuest, but who knows what her name was or what country she resided in when she earned her degree decades ago.
In terms of the book itself, I probably don’t need to offer any more of a review than to note that it begins with a list of abbreviations used for ten (!) of Zecharia Sitchin’s collected works, forming as they do the bulk of what passes for “research.” The volume is clearly derivative of Sitchin’s faulty ideas, and it does little to build anything new atop the ruins. However, because of this false start, Hardy asserts that various Mesopotamian figures are identical with those of other cultures: Noah with Xisuthrus, Marduk with Ahura-Mazda, Heaven with Nibiru, Tiamat with Eve, etc. Tiamat the chaos monster with Eve? Sure, why not. We’re making stuff up anyway.
The book opens with the claims, aired last year on Ancient Aliens, from John Brandenburg that Mars had been destroyed by nuclear weapons. Hardy then explains that this is an important fact for understanding what the Anunnaki did to the Earth. She believes that the Anunnaki were “Giants,” the Sons of God and Nephilim of the Bible, and yet also Yahweh and the Elohim. Hardy makes no effort to defend her summary of Zecharia Sitchins fantasia of prehertoric divine family drama among the Babylonian gods, nor does she evince even a passing familiarity with the ancient texts she claims is referencing secondhand through Sitchin. She fails, like Sitchin, to distinguish between Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian tablets and cultures. Indeed, as her argument (no—“description”—“argument” is too strong) begins to expand beyond Mesopotamia, she remains similarly blind to primary sources. She uses David Childress’s Technology of the Gods to describe nuclear war in the Mahabharata, referring to the same false quotation I debunked five years ago.
Hardy claims that her original contribution to Sitchin Studies is to bring Semantic Fields Theory (sic) to bear on the Bible in order to psychoanalyze the three different authors she believes composed Genesis. Semantic Field Theory, derived from earlier work in linguistics, refers to the idea that words and expressions work together to represent a world view, and these therefore can be analyzed to make comparisons between cultures. Hardy believes that applying this to Genesis can reveal the differing world views of its various redactors across time. This is not controversial, but she then concludes, somewhat illogically, that comparing this to Sitchin Studies can prove that the original semantic field referred to the actions of hostile giant space aliens who hated us and who were gradually etherealized into the Judeo-Christian God.
Even this seems relatively logical, within its crazy paradigm, but Hardy also feels that the Bible is evil, calling it “blinkered” and full of “dire lies and shadows” that gave her a sense of “liberation” to overcome. Therefore, she wants to destroy the Biblical narrative by proving earlier Mesopotamian accounts to be the true original in order to combat what she fields is the stranglehold of Genesis over the Western psyche. Hardy experienced her rejection of religion at age 17 and has apparently been dealing with the consequences ever since.
The trouble with the book, of course, is that Sitchin was wrong and always has been, so any book derived from his work is necessarily incorrect, too. His mistakes become Hardy’s mistakes, and she is singularly uninterested in looking for physical evidence of her outrageous claim than in the third millennium BCE aliens used nuclear weapons against most of the cities of the Levant. Surely some trace of this would remain in the archaeological record.
Hardy thinks she’s writing a startling new account of how the authors of the Hebrew Bible misunderstood prehistoric contact with aliens, but she really wrote a book about how she hates her childhood faith and wants to use paganized aliens to replace the God she stopped believing in many decades ago while allowing her to maintain a belief that the events and people of the Bible were real.
4/29/2016 12:02:26 pm
It occurs to me that, if aliens did nuke human cities in the Mideast millennia ago, it would be easy to prove by the presence of radioactive actinides and long-lived fission products in the soil levels associated with that time period. This would be a relatively easy and cheap test to perform, and would not need access to restricted archeological material.
4/29/2016 01:05:35 pm
Of course one could argue that aliens advanced enough to get here in the first place would also have "clean" nukes. If their objective was to inhabit Earth, then why "crap where you sleep". Its hard to believe that aliens came here just to destroy our planet, then return home. I'm sure they have a lot of nearby planets they can destroy just for fun. Although I imagine they could mine uranium here and process it into bombs - but why?
4/29/2016 01:50:41 pm
I haven't read _Wars of the Anunnaki_, but Jason's review says that the claim that Mars was the scene of an ancient nuclear war was derived from Dr. John Brandenburg. Dr. Brandenburg is a legitimate physicist who has unfortunately gone somewhat off the rails, and he bases his hypothesis on the presence of fallout isotopes on Mars such as Xe-129, which is the decay product of the long-lived fission product I-129. So, if you believe Mars was nuked, you believe that it was nuked using weapons that used fission for at least a component of their energy yield.
4/29/2016 09:04:19 pm
"Which points out the illogical ancient aliens premise anyway. It takes a lot of energy and time to get here - just to kill humans and bang Earth girls?"
5/8/2018 11:40:55 am
High traces of uranium isotope 235 has been found in the South Sanai tip as you should know this , the pictures from space of the Sanai south area has a blackened hue to it due to the vitrified glass all over the desert floor ..... the eden ( eridu )
4/29/2016 01:50:55 pm
Here's Christine Hardy's background from the Bibliothèque nationale de France catalogue:
4/29/2016 02:26:32 pm
Thanks for the C.V. Can you translate for non-French speakers?
4/29/2016 03:46:08 pm
I want to try and match publication titles to their published English translations where possible, so I won't be producing a translation until tomorrowish, but meanwhile, it turns out that the full title of the thesis (presumably submitted for academic year 1987 but made available in 1988) is:
4/30/2016 03:28:40 am
Ooh, this is getting complicated. Combining the biography page on her blog:
4/29/2016 06:40:53 pm
It still puzzles me how the info about Sitchin and his pseudoscience has been available for quite some time, yet people still cling to his wrong ideas.
5/2/2016 12:57:08 am
The simple answer is that it's easier to pick up and read a book about a topic you're interested in, but it requires far more effort - and willingness - to seek out critiques of that book. The information may be known to the generation that has been into the topic for a while, but as with most snake oil there's always people new and naive to join the flock.
11/7/2016 04:04:28 pm
11/7/2016 04:46:55 pm
What I mean is that in her book Chris Hardy makes both the earthlings and the Anunnaki humans, which is really ridiculous.
7/2/2017 12:11:19 pm
ELLA SHUNYA, I either misunderstood the author of this blog or you did not notice that the author is criticizing both Chris's "War of the Annunaki" and the everything related to Sitchin's work. Which means that it doesn't matter weither Anunnaki were human or not, because according to him, they don't even exist. They are chimere, legend, you name it.
Peter C. Patton, Ph.D.
10/25/2017 03:25:07 pm
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
I am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Terms & Conditions
Please read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.