Blog
The Progenitor Theory: Part 1

If you have read any of my previous posts (and if you haven’t, why not?!), or even just paid attention to this website’s title, I’m sure you would have noticed one central motif to which everything keeps coming around.
The Moon Mask.
According to their origin myth, the Bouda’s Moon Mask is a ‘composite’ mask: a section of an older, broken mask incorporated into a later façade that became central to the Bouda people’s spiritual life.
It is little different to hundreds or even thousands of objects and idols belonging to ancient and contemporary societies worldwide.
So why do I care so much about it?
In truth, I don’t.

I certainly don’t believe the fairy tales about its time-travelling powers, but, as previously explained, my disbelief in no way limits the importance of the fact that some people did/do believe in its magical properties.
Yet, it has been the focus of my career, my life, for as long as I can remember, ever since seeing that ‘graffiti’ on a standing stone at Wassu as a child.
Ultimately, though, to me, the mask, even the myth about its ability to see the future, is unimportant.
What matters is what the discovery of the Moon Mask would represent.
Going Global
The Moon Mask myth is not unique to the Bouda, nor even to the African continent.
Rather, my father and I have argued that one finds versions of the myth in ancient and modern cultures across the globe.
It has been passed down through folk tales and oral traditions or recorded in cave art and even textiles.
Tales of future telling masks are seen throughout the Americas, many linked to the stories about the moon. Cultures throughout Australasia and the Pacific islands likewise have similar myths, as do many traditional societies in East and South East Asia. Even the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead talks about a powerful mask that existed during Zep Tipi (The First Time), which drew its magic from the moon and may, it has been argued, have given birth to a millennia-spanning tradition of death masks.

My father and I have spent years unravelling these stories, many of which are admittedly obscure. In some cases, peer review of our work suggests that we have interpreted some stories to fit with our theory.
You can find our protracted responses to such criticism in the relevant academic journals. Succinctly though, I highlight that such accusations are rarely levelled at us when our interpretations fit with the status quo.
On the contrary, we are considered the world’s foremost experts on mythology. Our work to interpret folklore and oral traditions have been met with praise by archaeological and anthropological communities. Our work to ‘decode’ recurring, universal motifs in cave/rock art, oral traditions and possible early ‘epi’ picture languages has gone from being a ‘crackpot theory’ (McKinney 2007: 76) to an ‘underutilised but indispensable resource for peering into the ancient human mind’ (Duval 2014: 142).
Yet, as ever, there is reluctance, even fear, to accept evidence that doesn’t conform.
If you want to find out more about global Moon Mask myths, read our abridged versions or explore our interactive map here. While the specifics of each story vary, the underlying theme (a magical mask, often associated with the moon, which grants its wearer the gift of foresight) repeats across time and space.
This is too niche a topic, too specific a theme, to have coincidentally developed in so many cultures, in so many forms, so many times.
Global Conspiracy . . . Or Pseudo Paranoia?
This comparison of similar mythologies is hardly a unique study, and our theory much builds on foundations put in place by numerous scholars.
Indeed, while academic emphasis now focuses on the differences between cultures and the individuality such differences represent, this wasn’t always the case.
A large corpus of research, compiled over many decades, has now fallen out of fashion. Much of it, deservedly so. Much of it, like the Hamitic Hypothesis, steeped in Western bias and outdated prejudice. Much of it arguing for hyper-diffusionist links between cultures that did not exist, sometimes to push forward racial discrimination or cultural self-aggrandisement – i.e., history/archaeology proves we’re better than you (think Hitler, 1938).
The danger, however, is that, in our escape from the quest for individuality and the celebration of diversity, links, ties, and similarities will be glanced over or, worse, ignored entirely.
Nowadays, any cultural ‘cross-pollination’ study is aligned too closely with the so-called pseudo-archaeological work conducted by non-peer-reviewed ‘experts’. These often employ unscientific approaches. Some claim to be unravelling a global conspiracy that has intentionally rewritten human history (for no apparent reason) or seeks to highlight extra-terrestrials’ role in human development.

Sure, adherents of the status quo, i.e. mainstream scholars unwilling to entertain ideas that conflict with their worldview, have argued vehemently against my own so-called outlandish theories. But, in my experience, such resistance comes from a deep-seated fear of their own research (and themselves) becoming outdated, rather than them being agents of a global conspiracy.
Yet, despite some of the outlandish claims made by pseudo-archaeologists, some of their ideas help break through the closemindedness of mainstream academia. They ask questions that, for fear of fear academic ruin, others don’t. We’ll explore one of these questions in my next post.