Numerous genetic studies over the last few decades have shown that human genetic diversity is greatest within African populations, leading scientists to proclaim that modern human populations originated in Africa. However, the Bible says that humans were created in Eden, which is described as being in or near Mesopotamia. Can we stretch the biblical creation narrative to place Eden in Africa or is it possible that the science is wrong? Alternatively, is the Bible just wrong about where humans originated?

Some Christians have suggested that the Bible is not specific enough to conclude that Eden is in Mesopotamia. Let's look at the biblical description of Eden to see if it could be stretched to include eastern Africa.

The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Genesis 2:8-14)

Garden of Eden?Location of the garden of Eden

The location of Eden has always been somewhat uncertain. However, the Bible describes four rivers, two of which (the Tigris and Euphrates) are in Mesopotamia. The other two rivers are unknown. However, the Bible describes the river Gihon as being associated with Cush, which is described as being near Egypt, and is usually associated with the land of Ethiopia. The other river (Pishon) is said to be in the land of Havila, which is described as being east of Egypt, toward Assyria, probably being on the Arabian peninsula. A tentative map of the area is shown to the right.

So, although it is possible that the garden of Eden was in Africa, it would have to be at the very boundary of potential locations. In addition, such a location would contradict the Genesis narrative that says that God planted the garden "toward the east" (presumably east of Israel). Ethiopia is to the southwest. Therefore, Mesopotamia matches the description of the biblical narrative the best.

Numerous scientific studies have proposed to have shown that a small group of individuals migrated out of eastern Africa and eventually expanded into most of today's populations. In reality, what the studies have shown is that African populations exhibit the most genetic diversity among all people groups. The theory is that once a population has been founded, the amount of genetic diversity increases over time. The theory is generally good, but does make some assumptions. One of the assumptions is that the populations have undergone little or no interbreeding with other populations. For Africa, the assumption is generally good, since Africa is geographically isolated from the rest of the world. The only route to get into Africa is through Suez. Likewise, for Native Americans, there was only one route - over the Aleutians near the end of an ice age, when sea levels were low and temperatures were beginning to moderate. However, for people groups in Mesopotamia and the Middle East, there was no geographic isolation. Being at the intersection of three continents, the Middle East has seen numerous people groups migrate through and back. So, it would be very unlikely that peoples of the Middle East would have the greatest genetic diversity of modern humans, even if humans originated there.

Two new studies, the result of the human genome project, examined the genetic diversity of over 1,000 individuals from 51 population groups all over the world., As in previous studies, peoples of Africa were the most genetically diverse. However, these studies also determined that those from the Middle East were the second most genetically diverse. The authors of one study admitted that Middle Eastern population genetics was not just simple gene flow, saying, "The Middle Eastern populations may have experienced both continuous gene flow and shared ancestry with the rest of Eurasia."The authors of either study did not consider the possibility that humans originated in Mesopotamia, as the Bible says, since the out of Africa hypothesis is the current reigning paradigm. However, given the evidence of admixture in Middle Eastern populations and the fact that those populations are still the second most genetically diverse, it is entirely possible that modern humans originated in the Middle East, but lost much of their genetic diversity through subsequent migrations and replacement.

New genetic analysis of human population groups shows that peoples of the Middle East represent the second most genetically diverse group among world-wide populations. A hypothesis is proposed that modern humans originated in the garden of Eden, in or near Mesopotamia, through the direct creation of God, and subsequently migrated world-wide, first into Africa, then Asia and Europe, and eventually the Americas and Polynesia. Subsequent back migrations diluted the genetic diversity of this founder population, making them appear to be less ancient than the Africans. The hypothesis can potentially be tested by carefully examining more Middle Eastern populations in more detail to attempt to reconstruct the original founder population.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/h..._of_africa.html

and these people who wrote the Bible....who told them that this is where Eden was? That's my main question, how do the people who wrote the Bible know this stuff???? Especially Genesis, anyone who takes this literally, how do you think the writers know this? Did God tell them it happened this way? How does someone writing a book starting 700-800BC know what God did literally???

So it's a complete coincidence that the Bible writers came up with 2 rivers intercepting Eden has the exact same name of 2 rivers intercepting a particular area on Earth today?

There is only one race—the original and aboriginal Black or Pan-African race originating in the tropical regions of Africa, and specifically the Omo region of Ethiopia. Modern humans evolved from Black Africans who were spread throughout the tropical regions of Africa and who may be of a modern present-day human type, 150,000 years to as far as one million years ago—the Black African race existed in Southern Africa almost one million years ago.



The appearance of other "races" is a recent phenomenon in world history and occurred only after the migrations of Blacks from Africa into Europe and Asia about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. Even the non-modern human Neanderthal (physiologically and intellectually), said to be among the ancestors of Europeans and Caucasians, originally came from Africa about 80,000 years ago. The Neanderthal, who migrated from Africa, was of the African genotype before they became fair-skinned and retained excessive body hair due to the need to adapt to cold, damp climates of Europe. It is a fact the absence of sunlight on warm-blooded mammals and other creatures can lead to the adopting of a fair complexion.
http://stewartsynopsis.com/backwards.htm

Eden is in Africa. Man was created (naturally) and came out of Ethiopia. Right near the Rift Valley where man was really created (naturally).

Quite frankly the Bible writers hold not a scrap of credibility for me.......it was started when Homer was writing and holds about as much weight as the truth in his stories since he was a major myth maker of his time.

Also I can't make anything out of this statement/question you replied to me:
"So it's a complete coincidence that the Bible writers came up with 2 rivers intercepting Eden has the exact same name of 2 rivers intercepting a particular area on Earth today?"

I think they just stuck it anywhere they wanted to suit. My question is how do the Bible writers know where God's garden was? Did God tell them? Was Adam created in the garden of Eden anyway? Wasn't he just put there after being made?

Someone was probably aware of the rivers. When were they named?

Having some facts and real locations in a book doesn't make the entire book factual. London doesn't make Harry Potter real.

HN

Yes, very good answer. Now if only I could have said that in 2 sentences.

I'm simple...that didn't come out correctly.

Shoot - I found a typo in your quote...


Thanks

HN

If you belive the bible stories, and even scientist, then it is a given that the earth was alot diffrent when Eden was formed than it is today. IE A flood that covered the earth, and other catostrophic events.

And in Genises it states that God put an Angel outside the Garden with a flashing sword to guard the tree of life. Unless anyone has ever seen such a thing I don't think anyone knows where the Garden of Eden is.

As for the Genetic Studies in Africa if there was a great flood, then maybe africa is where Noah landed. . .

a typo in my quote???

Oh, your edit?

Simple things are often the best.

It is very possible mankind, unevolved originated in Africa, but civilization itself, which in my estimation requires and evolution of consciousness, evolved in Mesopotamia. The Genesis account merely states God created mankind (Adam). It is not a proper name, most likely it was not one person, but was exactly what the Jewish word means 'mankind'. Eve simply means life. If we notice the Genesis account has the simplest life forms created first, evolution, and mankind was created before God breathed the breath of life into mankind (Adam). To me this breath of life is interpreted as consciousness. Before that mankind was just like the other animals even if a bit more evolved but not as fully evolved as we are now and most likely this evolution especially spiritually is not complete.

With all that stated we cannot be certain Eden was in Mesopotamia. Regardless Eden is where man evolved a greater consciousness and most likely this process was not instantaneous and might not have even began in Eden but it was realized there among the population of humanity that was there at that moment. This is just my view.

HN

Good view. Sounds like the realisation in the Garden was the evolution of civilisation via consciousness through self awareness, maybe the breath of life is consciousness or the act of the apple eating because that's where I see Adam and Eve become conscious of themselves......it also seems a very important part to add it as though real meaning is there in the apple eating, the conscious decision....and that's where that happened rather than the creation of man, because as I thought, it doesn't say Adam was made in the Garden, just that he was put there. Not that I believe in the Bible but I do like to try and make sense of it, as hard as that is.

I keep trying on this theory as well, as it marries science and God together quite well. But something about it does not stick with me, each time I study up on it, I then go back to Adam being one person not a collective group. I want to know what is right though.

Do you think that in the Garden God took an unitelligent being and added intelligence? I always wondered if eating from the tree was what gave man intellegence and befor the bite they were like monkies??

Were did you do your research for your theory?

I'm pretty sure the people who wrote it had seen the Tigris and the Euphrates.

I see the tree of life as the direct spiritual connection to God and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as us being our own masters and attempting to do all for our selves in the name of our selves. I used to think the fruit (not a real fruit) was a step in evolution but not so anymore when I began to think of it as a spiritual connection or the lack of one with God. It was the beginning of gnosis. Then again you have me thinking and perhaps this was also part of evolution which is the ability to have free will and do as we choose unlike the other animals, which we once were, that just act on instinct.



Another poster, will 1835, who knows Hebrew first gave me the knowledge of the meaning of the word Adam. When looking into it other sources state the same. (link) (link) (link)

It is quite a misconception IMHO that adam refers to one person even though it would see likely that it is. After all this person with the proper name of Adam had a child who began a lineage. It is clear though the Hebrew definition of 'adam simply means mankind but perhaps from out of all of mankind one man was chosen to be the start of this lineage and even though this man is just called Adam it does not mean this Adam was the first man that ever existed. Maybe it was the first man that had human consciousness developed to the point that we can consider it the first modern man. Hopefully this was directed to your question and I did not misunderstand what you asked.

Drago,

While the hypothesis of a Middle Eastern origin for humans is a possibility, this hypothesis is much weaker than the Out of Africa hypothesis. The Middle East can be seen as a major cross-roads in the spread of humanity in various waves across the continents of Africa, Asia and Europe - not all migrations were in one direction [out of Africa] - and so it is easy to see why genetic diversity might be high among the population in that region.

That Africa is not a cross-roads, but a probable starting/ending point for migrations, allied to the high genetic diversity in that region is very strong evidence that populations originated there. The only other possibility is that virtually all the early human migrations had Africa as their destination (so added to the diversity in that region) and this is not likely and not strongly supported by the paleoanthropological, paleoarchaeological and genetic evidence.

The location of Eden has always been somewhat uncertain. However, the Bible describes four rivers, two of which (the Tigris and Euphrates) are in Mesopotamia. The other two rivers are unknown. However, the Bible describes the river Gihon as being associated with Cush, which is described as being near Egypt, and is usually associated with the land of Ethiopia. The other river (Pishon) is said to be in the land of Havila, which is described as being east of Egypt, toward Assyria, probably being on the Arabian peninsula. A tentative map of the area is shown to the right.
================================================================================
====


The only problem I have with these rivers is everyone is assuming that those rivers where 1 around before the flood and 2 that they maintained the same names.

Are you talking about recent Homo Sapiens or Neanderthals? Genetics has shown that they are actually separate species. Maybe God counted our recent species of humans as true mankind and gave us souls.

Without going into the ramifications or account of the flood it is very possible the rivers we now know were named after rivers of legend. Sort of the way New York was named after the original York (or Amsterdam before that). The way we have many Salems etc...

Genesis was written after they were named, and I don't think the Bible copied the names out of confusion.

Maybe it is us that are confused and assume they were speaking of the two rivers we know today. What of the other two? The ancients might have known they were speaking of a land that does not exist and did not in their time if going by modern topography. It could be in the same region because the ancients had many place names that were identical if only hundreds of miles apart.

1. There is nothing simple about the usage of "Adam" in Genesis. The Hebrew language is multi-layered. Every 'letter' is also a number and a symbol. "Adam" has an ocean of meaning: 'red,' 'red clay' and 'mankind of red clay' for starters.

2. To believe that "modern" civilization began in "Eden" and not in Africa is to deny archeological fact. Google Richard and Mary Leakey.

3. Is it possible to view 'Genesis' as both literal and metaphorical?

......... It grew up along the Mediterranean coast and in today's Iran and Iraq as groups of hunter-gatherers evolved in-to agriculturists. Foragers from central Arabia, returning to the southern Mesopotamian plain, found it already resettled by these agriculturists. Because the process occurred before writing was invented, there is no record of what upheavals the evolution caused, what tortured questions about traditional values and life-styles, what dislocations of clans or tribes. Zarins posits that it must have been far more dramatic than the infinitely later Industrial Revolution, and an earthquake in comparison with today's computer-age discombobulation of persons, professions and systems.

"What would happen to a forager when his neighbors changed their ways or when he found agriculturists had moved into his territory?" Zarins asks. These agriculturists were innovative folk who had settled down, planted seeds, domesticated and manipulated animals. They made the food come to them, in effect, instead of chasing it over hill and dale. What would the forager do if he couldn't cope? He could die; lie could move on; he could join the agriculturists. But whatever happened, he would resent it."

Eden, Adam, and the birth of writing

The crunch came, Zarins believes, here in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys and in northern Arabia, where the hunter-gatherers, flooding in from less hospitable regions, were faced with more technically accomplished humans who knew how to breed and raise animals, who made distinctive pottery, who seemed inclined to cluster in settled groups. Who were these people? Zarins believes they were a southern Mesopotamian group and culture now called the Ubaid. They founded the oldest of the southern Mesopotamian cities, Eridu, about 5000 B.C. Though Eridu, and other cities like Ur and Uruk, were discovered a century ago, the Ubaidian presence down along the coast of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia has been known for little more than a decade, when vestiges of their settlements, graves and distinctive pottery turned up.

It was in Saudi Arabia that Zarins encountered the Ubaidians, and there that he began developing his hypothesis about the true meaning of the Biblical Eden. One clue lies in linguistics: the term Eden, or Edin, appears first in Sumer, the Mesopotamian region that produced the world's first written language. This was in the third millennium B.C., more than three thousand years after the rise of the Ubaid culture. In Sumerian the word "Eden" meant simply "fertile plain." The word "Adam" also existed in cuneiform, meaning something like "settlement on the plain." Although both words were set down first in Sumerian, along with place names like Ur and Uruk, they are not Sumerian in origin. They are older. A brilliant Assyriologist named Benno Landsberger advanced the theory in 1943 that these names were all linguistic remnants of a pre-Sumerian people who had already named rivers, cities-and even some specific trades like potter anti coppersmith-before the Sumerians appeared.

Landsberger called the pre-Sumerian language simply Proto-Euphratian. Other scholars suggest that its speakers were the Ubaidians. However it was, the existing names were incorporated into Sumerian and written down for the first time. And the mythology of the lush and lovely spot called Eden was codified by being written.

"The whole Garden of Eden story, however, when finally written, could be seen to represent the point of view of the hunter gatherers," Zarins reasons. "It was the result of tension between the two groups, the collision of two ways of life. Adam and Eve were heirs to natural bounty. They had everything they needed. But they sinned and were expelled. How did they sin? By challenging God's very omnipotence. In so doing they represented the agriculturists, the upstarts who insisted on taking matters into their own hands, relying upon their knowledge and their own skills rather than on His bounty.

There were no journalists around to record the tension, no historians. But the event did not go unnoticed. It became a part of collective memory and at long last it was written down, highly condensed, in Genesis. It was very brief, but brevity doesn't mean lack of significance."

How did it happen that an advanced people would perpetuate a myth making their own ancestors the sinners? It may be that the Ubaidians, who are known to have sailed down the east coast of Arabia and colonized there, ran into descendants of foragers displaced from a drowning Eden, from them heard the awful story of the loss of paradise and repeated it until it became their own legend. Or it may be that, responding to the increasing pressures and stresses of a society growing in complexity, they found comfort in a fantasy of the good old days, when life had been sweeter, simpler, more idyllic. However, it was a tale firmly established in Ubaidian mythology, then adopted and recorded by the Sumerians.,,,,,,,,,,

http://ldolphin.org/eden/

Click to view attachment

Civilization began in Mesopotamia. I am familiar with the Leakey's work in archeology and anthropology. There is quite a difference between the Out of Africa theory regarding the origin of modern humans and the start of civilization. Civilization requires agriculture and urbanization something which the first anatomically modern humans did not possess and civilization has nothing to do with the Out of Africa theory.

There have also been other independent civilizations that developed unrelated to Mesopotamia but Mesopotamia is regarded as the first development of it.

not to mentiion that the use of 'adam' in genesis is a very clever hebrew pun and so many miss out on the richnmess of the literary frame. due to literal interpretation......

This is absolutely fascinating

Or rather Mesopotamia is only the earliest civilization found so far, not that I'm suggesting that there are earlier ones but there's a possibility there might have been small undeveloped ones before it. Er.... I'm not a historian.

Sorry, I know I am the one that helped to push this myth into the light. But there was a civilization in india long before sumer. They even had running water.

The Indus Valley Civilization developed plumbing by 2700 BCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumbing#History

IMO you cant productively compare scientific history with biblical history. Science will always "win" that debate because the evidence will always support a scientific investigation. This does not mean that early part of the the bible is wrong, just that it must be accepted on faith, rather than argued scientifically. After the first book or two, the scientific evidence and the biblical story become increasingly congruent, until you get to the visionary book of revelation.
Both the story of creation, and the location of eden, are things which require one to accept them through faith, but again that does not, in itself, lessen their validity.

If god is real and capable of creation, he is easily capable of creating whatever historical record he wants, to serve whatever purpose he perceives. Or the scientific proof may be real, and god may deliberately have had the bible written as it was, for his own purposes. In either case, evolution has no relevance to the reality of god.

I agree! fascinating!!! Thanks!

I know that one did. There was another one before it. The only city i know of is under 5 miles of water or something like that. This city was above water during the ice age.

Back to Noahs Flood. It is known that the earth had suffered several glacial periods and sever non-glacial periods. These latest are the times there is no ice on the poles. Imagine what that does to the waterlevels. I believe the people who lived in those days got pretty freaked out by watching the waterlevel rise.

Now think of early humans, like Neanderthal or other homo-ide (missing links) unable to write, but ables to tell stories. Every generation teaches the history to the next generation by word.
Until suddenly someone learns to write and starts writing the info of hundreds of generations.
Remember the problems of translating the bible. All the translation errors, do you really think the current bible has the same content as the original one?
I don't.

Mr W

I expected a better answer from you than a "God can do anything " routine


fullywired

In this case it fits, particularly in the context i was discussing. As an educated and rational man i know that evolution explains logically and credibly the history of the universe and mankind as far as it so far can(given the limits of contemporary science.)

However i have (whatever others may think) experienced the physical reality of god ansd his physical ability to alter matter and energy to create "miracles" This knowledge makes a real differnence to my world view. I dont lnow what god did or why he did it. I do know what he is capable of, And i do know what he has told hmanity historically what he did.

God could be lying. He may not have made either us, or the universe, but the fact that he exists, with the physical ability to do what he has apparently claimed to do, does alter the probability of belief/ the possibilities of what happened, for me personally.. I dont know about anything, but he certainly can physically do what he has claimed to do, and also what he has promised to do.

This is not, for me, a philosophical proposition about the nature of god, but an observed physical fact.However in the context of the discussion to that point I simply pointed out that if god was real and had the powers attributed to him that, yes god could do anything. If this point is accepted, one can philosophically divorce the possible existence of god from whether there is any fossil record of his existence (so to speak)

I do think that creationists who try to argue scientific evidence for creation miss the point, both of the nature of the relationship between god and man, and what it is that is sits at the core of that relationship.
Unfortunately i am the last person who should be arguing this, but essentially if god exists in your life and all round you, other "proof" of his existence is both unneccessary, and may "warp" the correct relationship which should exist between a person and god.

I would like to have been able to come to an understanding of, and a relationship with, god through faith. I dont think having the sort of "physical relationship" which i enjoy with god (although greatly beneficial to me personally)is as revelatory as the sort of experience of faith which connects a true believer with go,d without the slighest evidence that he exists.

Thus, god is more like a friend, or a relative, to me than a "god". If i believed through faith I would have an entirely different image of, and relationship with, god.

Eden is a garden, the birth place of agriculture, the birth place of civilization, and the birth place of civilized man as he stepped out of the whims of the food chain of nature and took control of his part of it.

Studies locate this as the ancient Mesopotamian area.

Mr W,

I do have respect for what you believe in.
But since I only tend to believe the measurable, the reproducable, I disagree with you.
I do not believe that God dictated what has been written down in His book.
The fact that people have such strong believes in their religion is admirable. It's just not something for me.

Does anybody know in what year the ancient Mesopotamia was founded/established/build?

I think around 5000 B.C. About 3000-5000 years after Adam was born.

Not possible. He is identified with agriculture, the first civilized man.
Those before him would be part of nature, wild, dust of the earth if you would, blown here and there as the seasons changed looking for food sources as all wild animals do.

Ancient figs found in an archaeological site in the Jordan Valley may represent one of the earliest forms of agriculture, scientists report.

The carbonised fruits date between 11,200 and 11,400 years old.

The US and Israeli researchers say the figs are a variety that could have only been grown with human intervention.

The team, writing in the journal Science, says the find marks the point when humans turned from hunting and gathering to food cultivation. source

Previously, the oldest cultivated fruits were thought to be olives and grapes found in the eastern Mediterranean that were dated at about 6,000 years old.

Researchers behind the new study discovered the ancient figs at the Gilgal archaeological site in the Jordan Valley near the city of Jericho source

First i am pleased you could actually work out what i "believe" in. Thats a hard task, even for me.
Second i'm with you all the way (you're actually saying you dont "believe" in anything, because if something is measurable and reproducible then belief is redundant, being replaced by the certaintity of knowledge.
Thats my position precisely. I can not believe in god at all, just like i cant believe in my father. In both cases I know they exist through the physical interrelationship which exists/occurs between me and them.

Thus, i logically deduce that if god can have that relationship with me, he may well have had it with other people, and they may have interpreted his interest in them and his expressed intentions, in the record of contact we get from the bible and other religious texts. Thus i dont believe in, or have faith in, the bible either. It is just logically possible, given my own experiences, but more so it works; both as a contact record, and as what a god would say to primitive cultures, to improve their; social, economic, health and spiritual lives.The core of what it says is also relevant to more sophisticated societies, such as our own

I would not attempt to interest you in religious belief. It is not for everyone, and some people, i think, are physically incapable of it. I do appreciate your comments about respecting what i believe in.

the bible contradicts in various places throughout. " an eye for an eye a touth for a touth" ... in christianity as im christian myself we are taught to forgive and not seek revenge. contradiction or what?

No two different laws for what people were ready for.


But if you really look at them. An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth. Means inflict no harm unless harm is done to you. Where as turn the other cheek means do no harm even if harm is done to you. Christ also knows that no man can turn the other cheek in all cases. Point in fact, the fig tree that had no fruit for him, and the money changers in the temple. He wasn't upset that they were selling that stuff. He was upset because they were cheating the people. this is my opinion.

In the time Homo sapiens has been on Earth the poles have never not had ice.

Do the most ancient versions of the Bible call those two rivers the Tigris and Euphrates? It seems very possible to me that some ancient translator put words into the mouths of the original scribes by reasoning, oh, obviously they're talking about the Tigris and Euphrates. So why not just write "Tigris" and Euphrates?.

Most ancient religions think of there as being four directions. Some native American traditions require people to bow in the four directions. Some Wiccan beliefs encourage this too. I suspect that it's natural for humans to divide the compass into four directions because the rectangle is the shape which most closely represents the space our bodies occupy when we're standing. Front, back, left and right.

So my guess is that when they wrote that the river divides into four rivers it was simply a way of saying the effects of Eden went everywhere (to the "four corners of the earth"). I also suspect that listeners who were contemporary with the scribes who wrote the Bible would automatically translate "four" to "everywhere".

There is a river that does divide into three major heads. The mississippi.

As per the OED and my Ph.D. in Literary and Cultural Studies, 'Civilization' is defined as "a state of human society characterized by a high level of intellectual, social, and cultural development." When "Lucy" perched herself upon her two legs and peered down the Great Rift Valley was she alone? Consider what her thoughts may have been. Simply of survival?--I doubt it. Just because we yet to find the remains of a civilization in the GRV doesn't mean it did not exist. Mesopotamia (like Columbus) is a great story and a fine example, but I sincerely believe there were dozens upon dozens upon dozens of "Out of Africa" civilizations before they (we) left Africa.

The word 'civilization' comes from the Latin word civilis. It speaks of citizenship and being under the rule of a government. Either way there is no proof that Lucy, who is not even in the genus homo, did not even reach the level of using stone tools. There is no proof she used any tools whatsoever. She was not part of any civilization and most likely, if going by the classical definition of culture, lacked that as well. Though I am aware some wish to attribute culture to primates and some go even as far as claiming animals in general have culture.

I doubt she was even intelligent enough to get up to that point in the level of society.

Thats inaccurate. Shaped stone tools are nearly out of the question based on escavations. But, its entirely plausible, and is in fact expected (due to double evolution in chimps and hominids), that Afarensis was able to use wooden tools or stone tools that were not 'created' in any way (ie just rocks on the ground). The proof of this comes not from the tools themselves, since the tools wouldn't be able to survive this long, but in what we know about chimp/hominid evolution and bipedalism/bone structure.