~ Illuminati News ~

~ The Truth Will
 Set You Free ~

Site Search | Site Map | Biography | Disclaimer | Website on DVD | Donations | Contact

  Posted: Tuesday, February 05, 2008, 6:49PM

Last Updated: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 07:15:21 PM

 


Home

Site Map

Read First!!!

News & Updates

US Constitution

The Illuminati

Secret Societies

New World Order

Occultism

Banking & Paper Money

Politics

Business

Technology & Science

Media Control

UFOs & Aliens

Mind Control

Art & Mind Control

Microchipping

Drugs

War on Terrorism

Manmade and
Natural Disasters

Religions & Religious Wars

Wars Towards a New World Order

Government Patents To Control Us

Surveillance

Health

Miscellaneous

Solutions

Spiritual Solutions

Articles by Wes Penre

Guest  Writers

Archives

FAQ

Video & Audio Room

E-Books

Website on DVD

Links

Bibliography

Copyright Fair Use

Disclaimer

Site Search

Contact Webmaster
 


UFOS AND ALIENS:


ETs and Ancient Astronauts are Illuminati Propaganda
[Part 2 of 3]
article extracted from Truth Campaign issue 25 with additional material
by Ian Lawton
 

 

A REFUTATION OF THE THEORIES OF ZECHARIA SITCHIN by Ian Lawton

Copyright Ian Lawton 1st May 2000
Reproduced from Genesis – the official website of Ian Lawton
www.ianlawton.com

INTRODUCTION TO SITCHIN'S THEORIES

Ian LawtonThe first of author Zecharia Sitchin's Earth Chronicles series of books, The Twelfth Planet, was published in 1976. Perhaps the most appropriate way of introducing him is to quote from the cover of the 1991 edition:1

Zecharia Sitchin was raised in Palestine, where he acquired a profound knowledge of modern and ancient Hebrew, other Semitic and European languages, the Old Testament, and the history and archaeology of the Near East. He attended the London School of Economics and Political Science and graduated from the University of London, majoring in economic history. A leading journalist and editor in Israel for many years, he now lives and writes in New York.

One of the few scholars able to read and understand Sumerian, Sitchin has based The Earth Chronicles, his recent series of books dealing with Earth’s and man’s prehistories, on the information and texts written down on clay tablets by the ancient civilisations of the Near East. His books have been widely translated, reprinted in paperback editions, converted to Braille for the blind, and featured on radio and television programmes.

Again quoting from the cover, we will let Sitchin speak for himself in introducing his books:2

The Earth Chronicles series is based on the premise that mythology is not fanciful but the repository of ancient memories; that the Bible ought to be read literally as a historic/scientific document; and that ancient civilisations – older and greater than assumed – were the product of knowledge brought to Earth by the Anunnaki, 'Those Who from Heaven to Earth Came'.

The Twelfth Planet [1976], the first book of the series, presents ancient evidence for the existence of an additional planet in the Solar System: the home planet of the Anunnaki. In confirmation of this evidence, recent data from unmanned spacecraft has led astronomers to actively search for what is being called 'Planet X'.

The subsequent volume, The Stairway to Heaven [1980], traces man’s unending search for immortality to a spaceport in the Sinai Peninsula and to the Giza Pyramids, which had served as landing beacons for it – refuting the notion that these pyramids were built by human pharaohs. Recently, records by an eye witness to a forgery of an inscription by the pharaoh Khufu inside the Great Pyramid corroborated the book’s conclusions.

The Wars of Gods and Men [1985], recounting events closer to our times, concludes that the Sinai spaceport was destroyed 4,000 years ago with nuclear weapons. Photographs of Earth from space clearly show evidence of such an explosion.

Such gratifying corroboration of audacious conclusions has been even swifter for The Lost Realms [1990]. In the relatively short interval between the completion of the manuscript and its publication, archaeologists, linguists, and other scientists have offered a 'coastal theory' in lieu of the 'frozen trekking' one to account for man’s arrival in the Americas – in ships, as this volume has concluded; have 'suddenly discovered 2,000 years of missing civilisation', in the words of a Yale University scholar

– confirming this book’s conclusion; and are now linking the beginnings of such civilisations to those of the Old World, as Sumerian texts and biblical verses suggest.

I trust that modern science will continue to confirm ancient knowledge.

In fact this description somewhat undersells certain key elements of Sitchin’s theories, especially in relation to the contents of The Twelfth Planet, his most widely-read and influential book. Not only does he suggest that a race of 'flesh and blood' gods who were capable of space flight visited Earth from their home planet, which the Ancients called 'Nibiru', nearly half a million years ago. He goes on to speculate that they came in order to mine precious minerals which were abundant on our planet; that they created modern Homo sapiens by genetic engineering, mixing their own genes with those of the primitive hominids they encountered ('in their own image'); that they did this in order to create a slave race to take over the mining and refining work; and that they lived for sometimes thousands of years, were capable of good, evil, compassion and brutality, and warred with each other and their human offspring.

Sitchin’s comments on how he first embarked on this unorthodox path of research many decades ago are illuminating:3

My starting point was, going back to my childhood and schooldays, the puzzle of who were the 'Nefilim', that are mentioned in Genesis 6 as the sons of the gods who married the daughters of man in the days before the great flood, the Deluge. The word ‘Nefilim’ is commonly, or used to be, translated 'giants'. And I am sure that you and your readers are familiar with quotes and Sunday preachings, etc., that those were the days when there were giants upon the Earth. I questioned this interpretation as a child at school, and I was reprimanded for it because the teacher said 'You don’t question the Bible'. But I did not question the Bible, I questioned an interpretation that seemed inaccurate, because the word Nefilim, the name by which those extraordinary beings 'the sons of the gods' were known, means literally 'Those who have come down to Earth from the heavens', from the Hebrew word nafal which means to fall, come down, descend.

This experience proved to be the prototype for one of the major cornerstones of Sitchin’s work: the re-interpretation of a number of key words which appear in ancient texts in various languages. It is this approach, combined with the re-evaluation of archaeological and scientific evidence to support his theories, which led him to such a startling series of conclusions.

There is no doubt that the publication of these books has lead to Sitchin being feted by many as a visionary and scholar, with a 'guru-rating' that is almost off the scale. Indeed his knowledge of ancient Near Eastern history and language at first sight appears so vast that few authors have even attempted to elaborate on his work, let alone dare to criticise it.

But is everything in the garden as rosy as it appears to his many followers? Let us find out by making a more detailed examination...

NOTES

  1. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet (Bear & Co, 1991; 1st Edition, Stein & Day, 1976).

     

  2. For completeness it should be noted that there is a fifth book in the series, When Time Began, which was published in 1993 after this extract was written. It mainly examines precessional ages, and the ancient monuments such as Stonehenge and Machu Picchu which Sitchin argues were used to monitor them. Furthermore in 1990 he published a companion volume, Genesis Revisited, which essentially provided an update on his theories in the light of the latest scientific discoveries.

     

  3. Extract from an interview conducted in 1993 by Connecting Link, and published in Issue 17.


SITCHIN'S SCHOLASTIC APPROACH

Having read The Twelfth Planet some years ago at a very early stage in my own research career, and in keeping with my avowed approach of not accepting the research of others at face value, I began my search for intelligent appraisals thereof. I emphasise 'intelligent', because as usual on the Internet I found many fawning tributes, many of which proceeded to expand into all manner of 'para-babble' about visitors from elsewhere and channelled messages about 'The Ancient Ones' returning which, while they may or may not be true, are usually presented in so evangelistic and faith-is-all-you-need a fashion that the more discriminating reader is left cold. I also came across similarly stomach-turning bigotry from those of orthodox persuasions, to whom any mention of advanced ancient civilisations and visitors from other planets raises their stridency and vitriol levels to unparalleled heights.

However in the midst of all this I did find a few commentators providing snippets that were sufficient to set me off on the right course. And the first criticism I found was that Sitchin’s level of scholastic ability is not all it might seem. Although it does not flow particularly well, The Twelfth Planet contains so many apparent gems which appear to provide an explanation for the evidence of man’s level of advancement in antiquity, that you tend to read it in a frenzy of excitement. 'At last the answers for which we have all been searching!' is the initial reaction of many readers, and was certainly mine.

But when you go back and look again, you can see that the few who have dared to criticise his work have a point. Although The Twelfth Planet, for example, contains many references and a reasonable bibliography, many of the more contentious assertions are presented with little or no source information. This is especially true of his textual quotes from Mesopotamian literature, which are usually his own interpretations and not taken direct from the work of other scholars. Therefore merely locating the same passage in the orthodox translations can be exasperating; and if and when you do find them, they often bear little resemblance. Similarly much of his pictorial evidence based on carvings and reliefs on tablets and stelae is in the form of hand-copied drawings; this is fine if they are properly referenced to the original piece in a museum collection, but often they are not. This makes them similarly exasperating to trace when attempting to ensure they can be relied on as accurate representations of the original.

To the non-professional researcher these criticisms may seem unduly harsh and pedantic. But as soon as one gets a sniff that all is not well with Sitchin, and that there is a good chance he is at the very least mistaken in some of his interpretations, they become all too relevant when evaluating his work. The Twelfth Planet is littered with textual extracts which, as well as being poorly referenced and therefore sometimes untraceable even after significant amounts of detective work, is consistently so much at odds with orthodox translations that alarm bells ring all the time.

We saw in a previous paper that even expert Sumerologist Thorkild Jacobsen admitted relatively recently that the study of the Sumerian language, while not exactly in its infancy, still allows professional scholars to produce translations which 'may diverge so much that one would never guess that they rendered the same text'. On the face of it this gives Sitchin considerable support. However there are a number of factors which mitigate against this in his case.

First, much of his 'evidence' (where it is possible to establish the source) comes from Akkadian texts which do not suffer the from the same degree of uncertainty – and yet his translations of these still diverge.

Second, even where he uses orthodox translations they are usually regarded as obsolete and, even more important, he can be extremely selective in his extracts. Nowhere is this better demonstrated that in the evidence he uses to suggest that the word shem, translated by modern scholars as 'name' or 'reputation', derives from a root which indicates that it means a 'sky chamber' of some sort. This is such a good example that I have devoted the entirety of the next paper ('What’s in a Shem?') to a case study thereof, for those who wish to review the detailed support for my criticisms. In my view this case study indicates that, at least in some cases, Sitchin shortens and even omits intervening lines from extracts which when considered in full render his interpretation meaningless in the context.

Third, at least one professional linguist who has taken the trouble to examine Sitchin’s work has come up with massive criticisms of his understanding of the Sumerian and Akkadian languages. These are contained in some newsgroup postings from several years ago made by a professor of Near Eastern Studies at a well-known American University. (I refuse to name him because in the course of a brief correspondence with him he made his views on Sitchin’s work abundantly clear, stating that he did not want his name associated with what he regards as 'rubbish', and nor did he want to be bothered by further correspondence from people he regards as cranks. I fully respect his wishes, and have only provided the scant information about him above in order that I cannot be accused of making this important evidence up.) The gist of his criticisms of Sitchin (or at least those that are scholarly and linguistics based) is that he demonstrates a consistent lack of appreciation of even some of the most basic fundamentals of Sumerian and Akkadian grammar, even to the extent of regularly failing to distinguish between the two entirely different languages, and mixing words from each in interpreting the syllables of longer compound words. As an example, he analyses Sitchin’s interpretation of the name Marduk as 'son of the pure mound',1 and suggests that he has mixed the Akkadian word maru, which means 'son', with the Sumerian words du and ku, meaning 'mound' and 'pure' respectively. But, he asserts, such words from different languages were never mixed, even in a proper name; they would have used a combination of words all taken from one language or the other. Our source provides countless other examples of this type of confusion, for example in Sitchin’s translation of shem, mu, naru, Enki, Enlil, Eridu, Ishkur, and Tiamat, which seem to provide compelling evidence that the bulk of his interpretations are spurious and incorrect – apparently made up from bits and pieces of different languages and with letters and syllables swapped at will. Since these examples all came from just a few chapters of The Twelfth Planet (before our source decided he had better things to do with his time), and there were hardly any translations that were not distorted, the conclusion our source drew is that none of Sitchin’s translations and interpretations should be implicitly trusted.

Fourth, even where Sitchin’s alternative interpretations might have some degree of foundation, the implications which he derives from them can be highly implausible for other reasons, unrestricted paradigms notwithstanding. A prime example of this is his literal interpretation of the Epic of Creation, in which his argument that this is a literal description of the formation of our solar system is supported by assumptions which, from the perspective of cosmology and astronomy, are highly dubious. Once again this is a subject to which we will return in a separate paper.

Fifth, he shows a great deal of imagination in weaving the web of a story from all this 'evidence', which has resulted over the course of the entire Earth Chronicles in the creation of a highly detailed account of events on earth over several hundred thousand years. In doing so he makes an incalculable number of assumptions, the incorrectness of any one of which would invalidate whole sections of his work. As a case in point, he relies heavily on assumptions about relationships between members of the Sumerian pantheon. For example, he repeatedly uses the underlying theme of a rivalry between members of the Enki-ite and Enlil-ite clans as an explanation for a whole series of events spanning many millennia. And yet we have seen in a previous paper that it is in most cases impossible to definitively identify any god’s parents, spouse, offspring etc. because of the extent to which they vary in the different texts. It is certainly highly dubious to make definitive assumptions about certain gods coming from a particular branch of the family tree. In my view this false assumption, combined with many similar examples too numerous to mention, undermine his detailed work to the extent that in large part it arguably becomes highly imaginative fiction – fascinating to read for the uninitiated, probably far more so than my own efforts which are relatively dry in comparison – but primarily fiction nevertheless.

As a final example of the quality of Sitchin’s work, The Twelfth Planet contains a hand-copied drawing of a cylinder seal which is accompanied by the following description:2

That radioactive materials were known and used to treat certain ailments is certainly suggested by a scene of medical treatment depicted on a cylinder seal dating to the very beginning of Sumerian civilisation. It shows, without question, a man lying on a special bed; his face is protected by a mask, and he is being subjected to some kind of radiation [my highligh].

Anyone who cares to look this drawing up will see an ordinary looking table, a body wearing a mask with a face on each side, and three wavy lines above the body which could just as easily be flames or water (which was often depicted in this way). To use the words without question is, without question, exaggerating a highly dubious and subjective interpretation. This is also a prime example, of which there are many, of the complete lack of any reference as to the location and source of the original seal. Indeed none of his books contain a separate reference section or footnotes. This is not normal practice for a supposedly scholarly reference work.

It is also interesting to note that British researcher Alan Alford, whose Gods of the New Millennium3 was probably the major book that followed up on Sitchin's work, has since comprehensively rejected the idea of 'flesh and blood gods'.4

I should perhaps say a few words about my motivation for going to some lengths to expose what I perceive as the weaknesses of a fellow researcher's work, instead of perhaps just ignoring it and moving on. The reason is that, over the last quarter of a century, Sitchin's books have made a considerable worldwide impact, and have persuaded a great many people that the 'gods' were flesh and blood visitors from elsewhere. This idea has become extended by many into the belief that they will return to 'save' the human race. I believe this is a fundamentally dangerous proposition which merely perpetuates the mistaken view that mankind must look outside of itself for its eventual salvation or destruction – when in fact our fate lies entirely in our own hands via faith in our own divinity.

NOTES

  1. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet (Bear & Co, 1991), Chapter 4, p. 105.

     

  2. Ibid., Chapter 2, p. 42; the reference is to Figure 15 therein.

     

  3. Alford, Gods of the New Millennium (Hodder and Stoughton, 1997).

     

  4. For example, see the interview with Alford in May 2000 on The Daily Grail web site http://dailygrail.com/interviews/alford1.html
     

WHAT'S IN A SHEM?

Sitchin claims that although the word shem – which is used repeatedly in both Sumerian and Akkadian texts – is translated as 'name' by orthodox scholars, it in fact refers to a far older derivation which originally implied some form of 'sky-chamber'. To quote Sitchin himself:1

The Mesopotamian texts that refer to the inner enclosures of temples, or to the heavenly journeys of the gods, or even to instances where mortals ascended to the heavens, employ the Sumerian term mu or its Semitic derivatives shu-mu ('that which is a mu'), sham or shem. Because the term also connoted 'that by which one is remembered,' the word has come to be taken as meaning 'name.' But the universal application of 'name' to early texts that spoke of an object used in flying has obscured the true meaning of the ancient records.

He goes on to describe how the etymology of the term can be traced from 'sky chamber' to 'name'. He argues that original stone sculptures of gods inside oval rocket-shaped chambers, which were used to venerate them in places remote from their temples, were eventually copied by kings and rulers and their own images placed thereon in order that they could associate themselves with the 'Eternal Abode', and have their 'name' preserved even if they were only mortal. These objects are what we now refer to as stelae. He further examines the words used for such objects in a number of languages, arguing that they all share common connotations of 'fiery stones that rise'.

Mesopotamian scholars have indicated that this analysis is highly misleading because the term mu is a Sumerian verbal prefix which does not require translation. For once Sitchin admits to being aware of this criticism, and counters that scholars have deliberately invented this grammatical construct precisely because they 'sense that mu or shem may mean an object not "name"… and have thereby avoided the issue altogether.'1

What are we to make of all this? As most of us are not scholars of Mesopotamian language we can hardly comment definitively on this element of the debate, although it is interesting to note how easy it is to add yet more fuel to the fire to obscure the picture still further. For example Thorkild Jacobsen notes, quite independently of this theme, that shem can also be used to denote a 'tambourine-like drum'.2 It would be perfectly justifiable for me then to argue that its use as 'name' or 'reputation' developed from association with this meaning of the word via the concept of 'banging one’s own drum'. This example serves to show how the use of words with multiple meanings, especially in the Sumerian language, can allow all manner of interpretations and associations to be made.

As we have seen this is true of many words on which Sitchin places great emphasis. Accordingly I have chosen the word shem as a case study for evaluating his interpretations, mainly because in this case he backs his argument up with a large number of extracts from texts which apparently support his case. My own approach was to examine these usually condensed extracts and see if his interpretations made sense in the context of the texts from which they came.

Of the twelve main textual extracts which Sitchin uses, three are taken from the Bible, three are from Sumerian texts, four from Akkadian texts, while I have been unable to trace translations for the remaining two due to the lack of referencing. They are presented in this order below.

I have used the following notation in presenting the extracts: words in square brackets represent the (sometimes assumed) original word in the source text, while those in upper case represent those omitted from the beginning, middle or end of quotes by Sitchin which can distort the full context. The italics used in the extracts themselves are mine, for emphasis. For each extract I have also added my own analysis.

Text Extracts

Genesis 6:43

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown [shem].

Sitchin’s quoting here appears to be perfectly accurate, and it has to be said that the use of the word shem here could equally well reflect either his or the orthodox interpretation.

Genesis 11:2-84

And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plane in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said to one another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name [shem], lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

Again, although he uses a different translation of the Bible, there is nothing wrong with Sitchin’s quoting here. However he stresses the impact the actions of mankind had on the gods, especially their fear that 'nothing will be restrained from them', and goes on to suggest that the building of a shem would have prevented mankind’s being 'scattered abroad' because, as their population increased and they spread out, a 'sky-vehicle' would have allowed them to stay in contact with one another. Although there are undoubtedly enigmatic aspects to this piece of biblical text, I would suggest that it is far simpler and more reasonable to suggest that mankind might wish to build an impressive tower to make a lasting reputation for itself.

Isaiah 56:55

Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place [yad] and a name [shem] BETTER THAN OF SONS AND DAUGHTERS: I WILL GIVE THEM AN EVERLASTING NAME [shem], THAT SHALL NOT BE CUT OFF.

This is our first example of Sitchin foreshortening a quote to lose the context. As soon as one reinstates the remainder of the verse, we must ask why god would wish to provide a 'spacevehicle' 'better than that of sons and daughters'? Unless rampant material one-upmanship had already infiltrated biblical society, his interpretation makes no sense whatever, and – far more disturbing – this could not have been anything other than entirely obvious to him when he selected the extract.

Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living, lines 4-76

'Enkidu BRICK AND STAMP HAVE NOT YET BROUGHT FORTH THE FATED END, I would enter the land, would set up my name [shem], In its places where names [shems] have been raised up, I would raise up my name [shem], IN ITS PLACES WHERE NAMES [shems] HAVE NOT BEEN RAISED UP, I WOULD RAISE UP THE NAMES [shems] OF THE GODS.'

Taken from one of the original Sumerian Gilgamesh texts and not the composite Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh (which does not contain this passage), this extract finds Sitchin on highly selective form once again. When the missing bulk of the first line is reinstated (at least Sitchin gives us a clue by providing an ellipsis to indicate something has been left out), we can immediately see the connection with 'brick and stamp', that is monument building and printing – the conventional method of preserving one’s name. Then, with the reinstatement of the last line, it appears more likely that Gilgamesh is being mindful to respect the reputations of the gods than deciding when to use his own rocket as against theirs.

Hymn to Inanna7

I cannot find this extract per se in Jacobsen’s composite version of the Inanna hymns, so the following is Sitchin’s version:

Lady of Heaven: She puts on the Garment of Heaven; She valiantly ascends towards Heaven. Over all the peopled lands she flies in her mu. Lady, who in her mu to the heights of Heaven joyfully wings. Over all the resting places she flies in her mu.

However Jacobsen’s version does contain multiple references to Inanna as the Evening and Morning Star (Venus) which involve her 'lighting up', 'stepping up onto', and 'wandering in' the sky. Consequently it is possible that Sitchin has provided his own interpretation of one of these passages – and if so it may be as inventive as many of his other extracts. Since as usual he provides no reference as to his source, it is impossible to comment further.

Gudea Temple Inscriptions

Again the following extract, being so short, is hard to trace in Jacobsen’s translation; this is Sitchin’s version: 8

Its mu shall hug the lands from horizon to horizon.

One passage towards the end of Jacobsen’s version reads as follows: 'He (Ninurta) has indeed established your (Gudea’s) name from the south to the north'.9 However it is hard to identify this as the same passage with any certainty, and further comment is useless without a proper source reference.

Adapa, Tablet II, lines 57-59

In this case Sitchin himself does not quote an extract proper, merely reporting that 'An demanded to know who had provided Adapa with a shem with which to reach the heavenly location'.10 I have found two translations of this text, the first by Alexander Heidel and the second by Stephanie Dalley. To place the extract in context, An wants to know why Adapa has been allowed to visit heaven (per Heidel’s translation), or alternatively how he obtained the powers to 'stop the south wind' (per Dalley’s translation). Dealing with each in turn:11

'Why has Enki revealed to an impure man The heart of heaven and earth? He has made him strong and has made him a name.'

This older translation appears to support Sitchin in as much as it contains the word name at the end, but that is about all. Meanwhile Dalley’s more recent translation bears little resemblance to this older version, and does not even contain the idea of a reputation or name:12

'Why did Enki disclose to wretched mankind The ways of heaven and earth, Give them a heavy heart? It was he who did it!'

Unless progress on the translation of this Akkadian text has gone backwards in recent years, or another set of tablets entirely was used by Heidel, we can assume the later translation is the more accurate – and once again it does little to support Sitchin’s interpretation.

Epic of Etana, Tablet II, last column13

This extract sees Etana asking the god Shamash (Utu) to help him obtain the plant of birth: 'O Lord, let the word go forth from your mouth And give me the plant of birth, Show me the plant of birth! Remove my shame and provide me with a son [shem]!'

Sitchin’s extract is sufficiently close in this case for it to be clear that the word he suggests is shem in the original is here translated by Dalley as 'son', which is slightly confusing. Nevertheless, although she does not say as much her translation would appear to use the phrase 'plant of birth' as a sign that Etana is infertile, in which case it would be quite understandable that he would want to change the situation and establish a lasting reputation by way of offspring. Despite the fuss that is sometimes made about Etana's subsequent description of how the earth gets smaller and smaller as he ascends towards heaven on the back of an eagle, this is separate and in any case only common sense, so once again Sitchin's interpretation appears by far the less likely and obvious.

Anzu, Tablet I, column 314

Here, while Enlil is taking a bath, the evil god Anzu steals the 'Tablet of Destinies': He gained the Tablet of Destinies for himself, Took away the Enlil-power. Rites were abandoned, Anzu flew off and went into hiding.

Again Sitchin does not quote here, simply suggesting that 'Anzu fled in his mu (translated "name", but indicating a flying machine.)' There is no direct mention of 'name' in Dalley’s translation as above, and since this is undoubtedly the same passage one may possibly conclude that here she has taken the word mu as a verbal prefix. It would appear therefore that once again Sitchin is on weak ground.

Epic of Creation, Tablet VI, lines 57-62

Dalley’s translation reveals how, after Marduk has vanquished Tiamat and asked Enki to create man, Babylon is constructed (originally by the Anunnaki themselves):15

'Create Babylon, whose construction you requested! Let its mud bricks be moulded, and build high the shrine!' The Anunnaki began shovelling. For a whole year they made bricks for it. When the second year arrived, They had raised the top of Esagila in front of the Abzu.

Meanwhile Sitchin translates the word Babili (Babylon) as 'gateway of the gods' to arrive at the following translation of the first two lines of the same passage: 16

Construct the Gateway of the Gods Let its brickwork be fashioned. Its shem shall be in the designated place.

He goes on to use the subsequent lines to argue that this mirrors the subsequent attempt by mankind to build a stage tower for launching rockets at the same site in the biblical Babel story (see above). However, once again we can see that the context is far more likely to refer to the construction as being something to enhance or revere 'names' and 'reputations'.

Untraceable Passages

I have been unable to trace translations of the texts from which the final two extracts used by Sitchin are taken. The first, supposedly from a Hymn to Ishkur, apparently contains the line: 'Thy mu is radiant, it reaches heaven's zenith'.17 The second, taken from what Sitchin describes loosely as a Poem to Ninhursag, supposedly contains detailed descriptions of the Great Pyramid of Giza, including the lines: 'House which is great landmark for the lofty shem', and 'Mother of the shems am I'.18 Unfortunately neither of these texts is mentioned by Kramer, Jacobsen or Dalley in their major works which I have used as my main sources throughout.

Conclusion

We can see that much of Sitchin’s textual 'evidence' in support of his claim that the words shem and mu refer to 'sky-vehicles' is badly referenced and, to say the least, somewhat creatively interpreted. His tendency in certain cases to leave out surrounding lines which would render his interpretations impossible in the context rings alarm bells which should put any reader on their guard, even if they do not intrinsically discount the possibility of flesh and blood gods with advanced technology.

NOTES

1. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet (Bear & Co, 1991), Chapter 5, p. 136.

  1. Jacobsen, The Harps that Once…(Yale University Press, 1987), Introduction, p. xiv.

     

  2. Authorised King James Bible; Sitchin’s comments can be found in The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 5, pp. 159-160.

     

  3. Ibid.; Sitchin’s comments can be found in The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 5, pp. 139-140.

     

  4. Ibid.; Sitchin’s comments can be found in The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 5, p. 138.

     

  5. Kramer, The Sumerians (University of Chicago Press, 1963), Chapter 5, p. 192; Sitchin’s comments can be found in The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 5, pp. 146–7.

     

  6. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 5, p. 134.

     

  7. Ibid., Chapter 5, p. 136.

     

  8. Jacobsen, op. cit., p. 444.

     

  9. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 5, pp. 144–5.

     

  10. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (2nd Edition, University of Chicago Press, 1951), Appendix, p. 151.
     

  11. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia (Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 187.


  12.  
  13. Ibid., p. 196; Sitchin’s comments can be found in The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 5, p. 151.


  14.  
  15. Ibid., p. 207; Sitchin’s comments can be found in The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 4, p. 104.


  16.  
  17. Ibid., p. 262.

     

  18. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 5, p. 141.

     

  19. Ibid., Chapter 5, p. 136.

     

  20. Sitchin, The Wars of Gods and Men (Avon, 1985), Chapter 7, pp. 143–5.


Ivan’s comment:

Some of Sitchin’s apparently more persuasive evidence comes from showing the cuneiform inscriptions of the texts from which he quotes. Many of these words do seem to reflect the meaning of the words given, as they are arrow-shaped and one could say ‘rocket-shaped ’. However, such words were in fact originally pictograms – literal drawings of the objects

– which were later inscribed using a reed stylus, thereby rendering them straight-edged with many wedge shapes – hence the name cuneiform. This is the reason why many of the words appear to be technical diagrams of what we would today be familiar with as rockets.

The early pictogram for ‘shem’ is in fact a plant in a pot. Considering the fact that the early Sumerian settlers – especially their founder Tur and his son Can – were ‘renowned’ throughout the area influenced by the early Sumerians as the bringers of agriculture, and later deified for this, the pictograph makes perfect sense in context. These historical figures were also consumed in later mythology with the attributes of the main gods and goddesses, themselves derived from natural phenomena such as the cycles of the heavens and the seasons, which were intimately associated with agriculture.

The earliest settlement, known as Eden, or Khar Sag, was an agricultural settlement. The Sumerian text ‘The Arrival of the Anunnaki’ is the story of the establishment of a mountain farmstead (see The Shining Ones – O’Brien & O’Brien). It was from the mountainous regions in the Van area that the first Sumerian king proper – Can/Kan – ‘came down’ to the plains of Mesopotamia and began his agricultural and building reformation. There is still a mountain in the Van region called Nimrud (Nimirrud being a title for Can – meaning ‘the increaser of plants’, which became the biblical Nimrod - same chap, many and diverse legends attributed to him and his mythological attributes) that commemorates Can/Cain. Just South of this area is a town still called Nod, which the Bible states was a stopover point on the journey from Eden to Shinar (Sumer).

The association later with the word ‘shem’ and ‘men of renown’ is easy to see in this respect. Also its association with ‘heights’. The plural ha shemmim came to be a popular term for ‘the heavens’, which in earlier issues I explained was also the name for the mountain farmstead, otherwise called himin. Of course, later the word would descend to us as meaning the skies/space or the place where the Creator dwells in Judeo-Christian mythology.

In the above extract from the Epic of Etana, we have the God Shamash, who is often represented as the sun-god, but is frequently associated with agriculture, and here is helping Etana seek the plant of birth. Sham-ash is equivalent to shem-ash, which basically translates as Lord of the Plant. Of course, he is also recognised as the sun god because he is equivalent to Asar/ Osiris – because in the early Sumerian aristocracy, like the Egyptian, the king or pharaoh was considered to be the son of the sun. As Can was renowned in Egypt as Horus – Heru – the son who is risen to become one with his father (also the sun), we find great familiarity, as this is the prototype legend which would eventually become merged into the legend of Yesu (Egyptian IUSA) – Jesus. Jesus, of course, is also associated with agriculture in the NT through numerous references to roots and vines, wine and bread, and parables on a farming theme etc.

Another ancient character from the book of Enoch (written hundreds of years after the Sumerian period) is Shem-jaza, the leader of the ‘watchers’, and famed teacher of horticulture. Shem-jaza is clearly derived from the same root, as aza is a variation on asa, which is consonant with ash - Lord.

The symbol of the plant in a pot was also the pictogram for the word li ‘cultivation’. Later the word would be used as lil in the name En-lil, a title given to Tur and in some aspects to Can. One translation of Enlil is Lord of the Winds/Air. And there is a logical connection, which also fits in with the use of the word shem in relation to ‘heights’, and ‘rising’. The sun would have been very much associated with the force which ‘raises’ plants. As would water; and Enki is regularly depicted as a water bearer. Our forebears would have been familiar with the action of the heat of the sun on water: turning it to vapour and raising it into the air. As both Tur and Can would later be deified as sun gods, the strong association is there between sun, raising, plants, wind and air. It doesn’t have to follow, as Sitchin would have us believe that Lord of the Air has anything to do with flying through the air in spaceships. Although, ships were commonly depicted symbolically as the mode of transport for the sun – the solar bark which sailed through the sea of space. Again, the likes of Sitchin have ignored all of these well-acknowledged correspondences in linguistics and mythologies (which are repeated around the world and therefore make their meanings quite clear) and never refer the reader to all of these alternative, down to earth explanations, in order that they can make far more of a meal of highly selective quotations taken out of context, in order to spin them in only one dubious direction.

Both Tur and Can were famed for their profound influence on the lives of the Mesopotamians, and over the years, many legends regarding one would be grafted onto the other. Both were associated with many later gods, and for this reason there is a degree of confusion in many mythologies because legendary names and events associated with one will also be in myths of the other. For example, although the first king was Tur, also titled Uduin, in later Norse mythology Odin (Uduin) would be the father of Thor (Tur) and many of the aspects of his son Can were given to Odin’s son Thor. More strikingly, however, titles for Tur – such as Ia, and Jah, would eventually feed into the Jewish name for God – Yahweh, whilst the very same historical character is also recorded as Adam, the first man – neither, of course are true. There was only One Adar/Adam/Tur, and he was the first Sumer-Aryan king; and like his son Can/Cain was deified and renowned throughout the ancient world in many guises, and under many names as the bringer of prosperity to mankind, largely through the agricultural reforms which the indigenous peoples of Mesopotamia inherited from their first true kingship.

The Sumerians and Babylonians were also builders of great stepped pyramid temples, some of which incorporated great agricultural works, if the legend of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon is to be believed. And it is Can/Nimirrud/Nimrod who was famed as the bringer of great agricultural reform from the mountains to Sumer, as well as for building the first great temples (recorded in the Bible under the legend of the Tower of Babel), which reflected and commemorated the original mountain farmstead, from whence these famed ‘patriarchs’ and ‘gods’ came. Later, all manner of legends and myths developed of the gods who came from ‘the heights’, and clearly the words such as shem developed over hundreds and thousands of years, to end up in the Bible as meaning ‘renown’ or ‘name’.

One can understand that those who were remembered as building the first great farmstead of legend, who then came to teach the indigenous people of Mesopotamia, and thereby greatly improve their lot, were THE ‘people of renown’ par excellence. So it is not a great stretch of imagination to see how the word shem would naturally be intimately associated with the same biblical patriarchs who came to build mountain-shaped towers and gardens.

Shem is clearly, then, derived originally from early depictions relating to plants and agriculture. Thenceforth acquiring a secondary association with ‘heights’ and the people who first brought their agricultural genius from those heights, with ‘men of renown’ To build a tower/temple and garden etc. was a sign of achievement and nobility – something instituted by the aristocracy. To do so would certainly acquire one renown, a great reputation, a lasting memorial – a ‘name’. Hence, shem became the word for ‘name’ in the Bible.

But shem has absolutely nothing to do with sky vehicles, rockets, spaceships or anything else from the world of 20th century technology and science fiction.
 

SITCHIN'S COSMOLOGY AND 'PLANET X'

The Mesopotamians’ 'Twelve Planets'

We have already seen that Sitchin’s starting point is to ask who were the Nefilim or Anunnaki. Convinced that they were capable of space travel (which theme we will examine in the next paper), he turns his attention to identifying the planet from which they came. He examines the evidence for the Mesopotamians having astronomical knowledge far in excess of that attributed to them by orthodox scholars, and then quotes extracts from a number of astronomical texts for which he, for once, provides references1 – and which, he suggests, indicate that the Mesopotamians considered our solar system to be made up of twelve planets. This would presuppose that not only did they know of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto (the latter three only being discovered in modern times since 1781); not only did they typically count the Sun and the Moon as 'planets'; but also they knew of the existence of an additional twelfth planet.

He suggests that it is this factor which determined the number of gods in the supreme pantheon which he regards as being made up of twelve members. Further, he argues that they used this number twelve in a variety of contexts as a result – for example, dividing the heavens into twelve signs of the zodiac, the year into twelve months, and the day into two sets of twelve hours.2

I have not investigated the astronomical texts to which Sitchin refers for reasons which will become obvious. However it is worth considering the main piece of pictorial evidence he cites – a six-pointed star surrounded by eleven spheres of varying size, which forms part of an Akkadian seal. For once this is not a hand-drawn reproduction but a photograph, and surprisingly we are once again given a source – we are told that it is in the Vorderasiatische Abteilung of the State Museum in East Berlin, and even given the catalogue number – VA / 243. However we should not hold our breath. Sitchin goes on to blow up the relevant section with a drawing and compare it to a representation of what our solar system would look like if the planets were placed to scale in a circle around the Sun, in order, rather than in linear fashion as we normally depict them.3 This reconstruction requires so much imagination and assumption that I could devote pages just to this one piece of analysis, but we do not have the time and it is not that interesting. Suffice to say that in the real version, the centres of the 'planets' are shown at varying distances from the centre of the 'Sun', for no apparent reason even if a simple circular rather than linear representation is indeed what the artist intended; and the relative sizes of the 'planets' are hopelessly inaccurate in most cases – Mercury, the Moon and Pluto being much too large, while Jupiter and Saturn are way too small.

The foregoing could be dismissed as inaccuracies in knowledge or simply artistic licence, since this is only a relatively rough engraving on a stone seal. However if Sitchin’s analysis has any basis, Mercury is effectively shown as a satellite of Venus (with Venus lying directly between it and the Sun, just as the Earth is shown lying between the Moon and the Sun) – and this point is completely ignored by Sitchin.4 Further Pluto is shown out of position between Saturn and Uranus – a point which Sitchin attempts to reconcile with events in the Epic of Creation (see below). Despite all the foregoing, Sitchin uses this seal as a major foundation for the existence of a 'twelfth' planet; for its position relative to the others – arguing that its orbit brings it between Mars and Jupiter; for its relative size – apparently smaller than Jupiter and Saturn, but significantly larger than Mars and the Earth; and for its role in the creation of Earth (see below). In my view this supposedly major piece of primary evidence is weak, and its interpretation selective and inconsistent.

The Creation of Earth

Sitchin places a highly literal interpretation on the Epic of Creation. This is another of the major pieces of evidence which apparently persuades him that this 'twelfth' planet was primarily referred to as Nibiru, and was the planet from which the Anunnaki came. Ignoring for the moment whether he has any grounds for such a literal interpretation, let us review the principal elements of his analysis.5 (Note that in the main his interpretation requires the names of gods to be substituted for those of the planets, and these are provided in brackets where appropriate.)

In brief, he suggests that originally our solar system consisted of, in order of orbit: the Sun (Abzu), Mercury (Mummu), Venus (Lahamu), Mars (Lahmu), Tiamat (a planet then orbiting in what is now the asteroid belt), Jupiter (Kishar), Saturn (Anshar), Pluto (Gaga, which was then in a closer orbit – see above), Uranus (An) and Neptune (Enki). He argues that the planet Nibiru (Marduk) came from outer space on a retrograde path (i.e., moving in the opposite direction from the rest of the planets in our solar system), was attracted by the gravitational pull of the outer planets into an ever tighter orbit around the Sun, caused a variety of initial disruptions, and then on its second pass collided with Tiamat which split into two – one half forming the Earth which proceeded into a tighter orbit inside that of Mars, the other breaking up to form the asteroid belt. The Moon (Kingu), a satellite of Tiamat, was at the same time shunted into an orbit of the Earth (and because it had originally been a planet on its own before becoming a satellite of Tiamat and then the Earth, the Moon continued to be regarded as a planet in its own right.)

There are primarily two angles from which this interpretation should be judged. First, does his interpretation hold up under the scrutiny of modern scientific understanding? Although I am no cosmologist, my research reveals that there are a number of objections to his theories:6

  1. It would require an extraordinary series of coincidences for even one of the Earth, Moon, Pluto and Nibiru to stabilise in a different orbit after a collision without additional accelerative stimuli. It is therefore highly unlikely that they could all benefit from such an unlikely sequence of events.

     

  2. Sitchin’s view of gravity and its effects is hopelessly inadequate. For example, he has Nibiru being affected by the pull of Neptune and Uranus, but there is no contra effect on them; gravity works both ways, especially since Nibiru is supposed to be of similar size to them, and yet their orbits remain to this day more circular than that of the Earth. Similarly, he suggests that the gravitational pull of other planets could cause 'bulges' in Nibiru sufficient to cause satellites to be ripped out of it; this is an idiotic view of how gravity works.

     

  3. Nibiru had to make at least two orbital passes to tear Tiamat in half – and yet on the second pass it came back in roughly the same orbit, despite all the gravitational interactions it must have suffered on the first pass which should have altered its orbit considerably. From the opposite perspective, one might also ask why Nibiru managed to cause so much devastation on these first two passes, and yet cause none on the myriad of passes it has supposedly made subsequently.

     

  4. As a corollary to the above, Sitchin uses another supposed text (unnamed) to suggest that Nibiru’s orbital plane is inclined at 30 degrees to the ecliptic.7 I am inclined to ask how, if this is the case, did it manage to come so close to so many of the planets in our solar system on its first two devastating passes? Or is he suggesting that once more unknown forces forced it to stabilise in this non-aligned orbit thereafter?

     

  5. Nowadays the asteroid belt does not contain anything like enough mass to make up a planet the size of the Earth (i.e., the other half of Tiamat). However it must be appreciated that Jupiter would have acted like a giant suction cleaner on any debris from an exploding planet (a possibility that still cannot be written off, even if Sitchin's interpretations are wrong), and other factors would have reduced the extent of the debris remaining over time.

     

  6. Bodes law predicts that not only should a planet have originally formed between Mars and Jupiter as Sitchin asserts (but which many astronomers believe never formed due to the gravitational effects of the massive Jupiter, leaving the asteroid belt only), but also that a planet should always have been where the Earth is now. Yet according to Sitchin the latter’s position was achieved subsequent to the original formation of our solar system, so originally this space must have been empty. This law supports him in one sense but at the same time undermines him in another – although at one point he does produce what appears to be somewhat contrived evidence, involving simplification of Bode’s Law, to refute this claim8. (However in fairness it should be appreciated that Bodes Law is not as foolproof as it sounds, and is in reality only another 'theory' about how the solar system was formed.)

     

  7. The idea that the Moon was originally a planet in its own right is not supported by modern discoveries; the latest thinking appears to be that, most likely, it split off from the Earth after the impact of a Mars-sized body.

     

  8. Sitchin’s initial evidence for Nibiru having a retrograde orbit appears to be purely based on the order in which it encounters the outer planets – according to him, Neptune then Uranus. Given that the relative position of these two to each other must change as they orbit the Sun at different speeds, it appears to me that this argument is pretty insubstantial. I would have thought that in a sense it could just as easily have passed them in this order while travelling in a conventional direction of orbit.

     

  9. In Genesis Revisited Sitchin goes to some lengths in attempting to prove that modern scientific analysis of the Earth and its crust, the theory of continental drift, and the study of plate tectonics all support his claim that the Earth as we now know it was formed by a huge impact.9 This may be so, but in my view his analysis does not support his theory of the Earth being formed by the splitting in two of another planet any better than it supports the more conventional idea of the Moon being split off from the Earth.

The second approach is to question the extent to which it is reasonable for Sitchin to even attempt to place a literal interpretation on this most enigmatic of texts. We have already seen that one of the motives of this relatively late Akkadian work is political – to elevate the late-emerging Babylonian god Marduk from local to national status. When criticising Sitchin’s interpretation, some of the orthodox scholars tend to place most of the emphasis on this factor – suggesting that this is the text’s primary purpose. While this is undoubtedly true, the issue is far more complex. Sitchin himself acknowledges the political influence, but argues that the text has far earlier Sumerian origins. In this he appears to be supported by many of the scholars, despite the fact that no Sumerian version has yet been discovered (apart from similarities in isolated passages). Furthermore the common practice of amalgamating originally separate texts and tacking on new passages is probably at work; for example, Marduk’s establishment of Babylon and the extensive listing of his epithets in Tablets V to VII are likely to be late additions, while a brief version of the creation of man story is stuck in the middle of all this. Since Tablets II and III deal mainly with the search for a champion to fight Tiamat – in which role Marduk finally offers himself – this leaves us with the likelihood that it is primarily Tablets I and IV, if any, which reflect important earlier tales.

Concentrating on Tablet IV, Marduk’s battle with Tiamat – who represents primeval 'watery chaos' – in which he splits her in two to create heaven and earth and restore order to the universe, is clearly a basic creation theme which ties in closely with that of many other ancient civilisations. Alexander Heidel points out that in Egyptian legends 'the air-god Shu separated heaven and earth by lifting the sky-goddess Nut from the earth-god Geb and placing himself between the two', and that the Phoenician and Vedic legends both contain the concept of 'the cosmic egg being split to create heaven and earth'.10 Meanwhile Sitchin is quite right to draw parallels with Genesis 1:6-8:

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.

Sitchin goes on to argue that the Hebrew word Tehom, used in Genesis to denote the 'watery deep', stems from the word Tiamat, and also that the firmament which was called 'heaven' is in the original Hebrew 'rakia', which translates as 'hammered bracelet', and therefore argues that it actually refers to the asteroid belt.11 However we have already seen that his etymological work is often flawed, and in any case I have little doubt that all these texts should be interpreted from an esoteric rather than a literal viewpoint. This factor, combined with the blatant cosmological flaws in his theory, in my view utterly refute his interpretation of the Epic of Creation.

Visitors from Elsewhere?

Even if Sitchin’s account of the creation of Earth is fatally flawed, is he nevertheless right to infer that the Anunnaki were indeed visitors from elsewhere? I can find precious little evidence to support Sitchin’s repeated claim that the Mesopotamian texts state that the planet Nibiru is where the Anunnaki originated. In Stephanie Dalley’s translation of the Epic of Creation it is directly mentioned only in the brief passage which is quoted below, while the remaining references are all to Marduk – and it is only Sitchin’s creativity which links the two. Furthermore I have found no reference to Nibiru in any of the other literary texts. With no supporting argument Sitchin suggests that the multiple versions of a 'winged globe', which are indeed found in great numbers on a variety of reliefs from Mesopotamia and elsewhere, represent Nibiru14 – but most enlightened commentators recognise this as a universal esoteric archetypal symbol. He goes on to suggest that various Babylonian astronomical texts15 and biblical passages foretell of the events which accompany each return of Nibiru,16 but as I have previously indicated I have not consulted these in detail because of the evident weaknesses in the other aspects of his argument.

It is in fact Sitchin’s interpretation of the words Nefilim and Anunnaki which appear to provide most support for this assertion. We have already noted his argument that the Hebrew word has the Semitic derivative 'nafal' or 'nfl' which he suggests means 'to fall, come down, descend' – although, after quoting supposed backing from the 19th century Jewish biblical commentator Malbim, he exaggerates this somewhat in his books into 'those who were cast down upon Earth', and 'those who have come down, from the Heavens to Earth'.17 As for the Sumerian term – which he translates similarly without any detailed explanation – there is no doubt that the separate word An is not only the name of the chief deity, but also translates as 'heaven'; similarly the word Ki as 'earth'. However as we have seen this does not mean that when they are combined the syllables can be neatly deconstructed to suit one’s purpose, and in any case I can find no support for the remaining syllables (un.na) providing the necessary meaning of 'fall' or 'come down'. The only attempts at translation of the entire term that I have found are by John Heise18 in which he breaks it down as A.nun.nak and translates it as 'the semen/descendants of the monarch (nun)', and by Thorkild Jacobsen who translates it similarly as 'the sons of princes'.19

It should also be noted that orthodox commentators suggest the alternative term Igigi is of unknown origin and meaning, while Sitchin insists it means 'those who observe and see'20 – which ties in with his theory that they remained in orbit, and is possibly backed up to the extent that one of the meanings of the Sumerian word igi is 'to see'. However, even if Sitchin’s interpretation is correct in this instance, it hardly represents overwhelming evidence of visitors from elsewhere.

Sitchin produces a variety of other examples of interpretations of words and reproductions of statues and stelae to support this argument. They are too numerous to be analysed individually, but suffice to say that there is strong reason to believe that they suffer from the same inadequacies as evidence as those we have already considered here and in previous papers. However he does produce one other piece of evidence that at least at first sight appears quite enigmatic, sufficiently so for us to consider it here. It is a most interesting circular clay tablet which was found in the ruins of Nineveh, and is now in the British Museum (exhibit WAK 8538). Although about 50 per cent of the surface is worn away, it is divided into eight equal triangular segments, and clearly contains an assortment of cuneiform signs along the dividing lines and elsewhere which are often repeated. More curious still are the 'arrowed' lines which appear in several places, along with at least two diagrams which look very much like constellations. Although Sitchin’s copy is hand drawn,21Alan Alford has reproduced a photograph which allows us to establish that Sitchin's blown-up drawing is reasonably accurate22 (some of the cuneiform signs appear slightly different, but the scale makes it difficult to be sure of this). Sitchin quotes a number of turn of the century studies of this tablet in which a consensus that it is a planisphere of some sort appears to have developed. However these early scholars seemed to have struggled with the interpretation of what they considered, given its location and age, to be Akkadian cuneiform signs – which in this language made no sense.

He contends that it was only when he attempted to read these signs in Sumerian that they started to make sense, and revealed a 'Celestial Route Map' which records how the Anunnaki travelled to Earth via the outer planets. If he is right about the language used, based on the fact that this is a copy of an older Sumerian tablet, his interpretations of the words thereon are still open to question. Here are some examples: we have sham (not shem) translated as 'rocket', an interpretation we have already dismissed in detail; na translated as 'high', when the word an is the normal Sumerian term (because of the association with An), so this is perhaps a casual and inappropriate juxtaposition of letters; and apin translated as 'where the right course is set', when every use of the word that I can find clearly indicates it means 'plough'.

Sitchin’s further interpretation of this tablet is a hotch-potch of ideas which mixes, for example, supposedly technical flight direction details with mundane issues such as stocking up with grain for the return journey; personally I find it unlikely that the two would be combined on one diagram of such supposed importance. Furthermore I fail to see how such a technical set of instructions would be expressed using such unspecific terms as 'high', 'sky', 'mountain', 'set', 'change' and 'glide', which according to Sitchin are repeated numerous times apparently without further detail, and which in any case may be distorted translations of the cuneiform signs. Despite the fact that I do not believe this tablet supports his contention that space travel was at one time familiar to the Ancient Mesopotamians, I would accept that this enigmatic disc – which as far as I am aware appears relatively unique – deserves further study by experts.

'Planet Nibiru'

Let us briefly review the remainder of the points Sitchin makes about Nibiru itself. First, he provides further evidence (in addition to that in the diagram on the seal mentioned above) that Nibiru’s (retrograde) orbit takes it between Jupiter and Mars. His support for this comes in the form of extracts from the Epic of Creation, in which Nibiru supposedly 'holds the central position' (i.e., he suggests that it divides the other planets, excluding the Sun, into two groups of five) and 'in the midst of Tiamat keeps crossing' (i.e., it returns to the original position of Tiamat); and also of 'astronomical texts' (unnamed) which 'list the planets in their celestial order'.23 It is worth noting that at least the first of these, the extract from Tablet VII of the Epic of Creation which relates to several of Marduk’s epithets, is, as so often, somewhat at odds with Dalley’s version:24

Nibiru: he does indeed hold the crossings of heaven and earth. Neither up nor down shall they cross over; they must wait on him. Nibiru is his star which is bright in the sky. He controls the crossroads; they must look to him, saying: 'He who kept crossing inside Tiamat without respite, shall have Nibiru as his name, grasping her middle.'

All we can say is that Dalley does accept the translation of Nibiru as 'crossing place', which seems to support Sitchin’s 'planet of the crossing' and his assertion that its pictographic sign is a cross (which, he claims, is the same as that for An) – although Dalley identifies it with Jupiter itself.25

Second, in answering the question as to why we have not yet observed such a large planet in the inner solar system, Sitchin uses a variety of textual references to suggest that it has a highly elliptical orbit which takes it deep into space at its apogee (furthest point from the Sun).26 These are as follows: From the Epic of Creation, he quotes that Marduk 'established an outstanding abode' – this is so innocuous that I have not even traced it to check its accuracy against Dalley’s version. From Job

26:10 he suggests that 'Upon the Deep he (the Lord) marked out an orbit; where light and darkness merge is his farthest limit', whereas the Authorised King James Version says 'He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end' – not much similarity there, so perhaps this is yet another of his creative translations, this time of the original Hebrew Old Testament. Finally from Psalms he suggests 'From the end of heavens he (the Lord) emanates, and his circuit is to their end' – I could not even trace this passage, but it is hardly conclusive even if the rendering is anywhere near accurate. Altogether then, not convincing evidence in itself.

Third, one of the chief units of Mesopotamian time measurement was the 3600-year 'sar', and Sitchin suggests that this measure derives from the periodic return of Nibiru from its deep-space orbit (because its appearance held so much significance for the Ancients that, having recorded its orbital period over many millennia and measured it at 3600 years, they designated the sar to represent this number). He further cites the apparent fact that this number was written as a large circle, and that the similar word shar was an epithet for the word planet which translates as 'perfect circle' or 'completed cycle'. Of course this could represent a piece of brilliant intuition, but somehow I doubt it.

It would be a mercy to leave this analysis of Sitchin's cosmology here and return to something more constructive.

However, because Sitchin and his supporters make such a song and dance about it27, we must turn our attention to some recent findings which appear at first sight to support his claims of Nibiru’s existence: a number of modern astronomers have in fact gathered evidence – most of which came out after The Twelfth Planet was published – which suggests to them that what is in reality an additional tenth planet (if one ignores the Sun and Moon) might indeed exist in our solar system...

The Search for 'Planet X'

Neptune was only discovered in 1846 after astronomers had noticed perturbations in the orbit of Uranus. Similarly Pluto was only discovered in 1930 after its existence had been postulated because of irregularities in the orbit of Neptune. However observation of continued irregularities in the orbits of primarily Uranus and Neptune remained a puzzle to astronomers. It was originally believed they were caused by Pluto itself, but the discovery of its moon Charon at the US Naval Observatory in Washington in 1978 indicated that Pluto was too small to have the necessary influence on the other planets.

In fact back in 1972 discrepancies in the orbit of Halley’s comet had already caused one astronomer to suggest that a tenth planet may exist – dubbed 'Planet X' to reflect the number ten and its unknown status. The later revelations about Pluto, combined with theories regarding the gravitational force required to have so disrupted Neptune’s satellite system that, for example, Triton was forced into a retrograde orbit, led to a renewed search for Planet X spearheaded by two astronomers at the US Naval Observatory – Robert Harrington and Tom Van Flandern. They commenced with computer simulations which have been constantly updated, but observation was also attempted when NASA linked up with them in 1982 and announced that one of the objectives of the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) would be to scan the skies for Planet X.

Sitchin and his supporters attached great weight to subsequent announcements made in the press, and two in particular. The first was reported in the Washington Post of 30 December 1983 (the highlights in this and subsequent quotes are mine):28

A heavenly body possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter and possibly so close to Earth that it would be part of this solar system has been found in the direction of the constellation of Orion… [by IRAS]… astronomers do not know if it is a planet, a giant comet, a protostar… or a distant galaxy… 'All I can tell you is that we don’t know what it is,' said Gerry Neugebauer, chief IRAS scientist… Conceivably it could be the tenth planet that astronomers have searched for in vain.'

A proper reading of this announcement reveals it was hardly conclusive proof that Planet X had been found. However in his 1990 book Genesis Revisited Sitchin put what he termed the 'official denials' down to a government conspiracy to withhold information which was in fact shaping the end of the cold war, as the two superpowers combined to ward off the threat of imminent extra-terrestrial invasion. He also inferred that his own theories were ignored by the establishment as part of a cover-up, and used an assortment of contrived arguments to insist that although the multitude of satellites and probes launched in recent years and planned for the future had been officially searching for planets in neighbouring solar systems, in reality they were concentrating closer to home. However, as we will see, many teams of astronomers were involved in reviewing the IRAS data, and have written about it at great length. This does not smack of a cover-up to me.

The second announcement was reported in Newsweek of 13 July 1987:

NASA held a press conference last week to make a rather strange announcement: an eccentric 10th planet may – or may not – be orbiting the Sun. John Anderson, a NASA research scientist who was the principal speaker, has a hunch Planet X is out there, though nowhere near the other nine.

Hunch is the right word! On further investigation29 we find that what Anderson had done was observe the lack of gravitational effects on the Pioneer 10 and 11 craft – which were by then well into the outer reaches of our solar system – and from this negative evidence postulated the possibility of a tenth planet which would have to have a highly elliptical and inclined orbit to produce no effect. Since this was only a supplement to the fact that he had recently become converted to the idea of a tenth planet by the theoretical 'irregular orbit' argument (having previously been a sceptic), this is about as unconvincing as 'evidence' gets.

Returning to Harrington and Van Flandern, both have been courted assiduously by Sitchin and his supporters because of the scientific backbone their work supposedly gives to his theories, and he quotes their work as if the existence of Planet X is almost a foregone conclusion. In addition to the 'announcements' reviewed above, Sitchin detailed numerous predictions about Planet X – culminating in his suggestion that by 1990 Harrington’s team believed 'that the tenth planet is about five times larger than Earth and about three times farther from the Sun than Neptune or Pluto', and that they had initiated all manner of searches of the skies, providing detailed instructions on where to look. Yet if you read Van Flandern’s own book, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, published three years later in 1993, you obtain a rather different picture:

Certainly if such a 'Planet X' were to be discovered in a highly inclined and eccentric orbit that approached Neptune’s orbit at perihelion and has a mass near the interesting range of 2-to-5 Earth masses, its existence would argue strongly for the essential correctness of the whole scenario [of the development of Neptune’s satellite system] just described.30

A planet in the two-to-five Earth-mass range… could explain the observed irregularities in the planet orbits if it were presently located 50 to 100 times further from the Sun than the Earth’s orbit.31

This is as explicit as Van Flandern got in his book, and hardly suggested the definitive distance, size, and orbital plane which Sitchin would have had us believe; as far as the orbital period was concerned, all the studies seemed to work on the basis of something like 500-1000 years, substantially lower than Sitchin’s 3600. Moreover Van Flandern indicated that further study of the orbits of a number of comets beyond Neptune – and possibly detailed changes to the laws of gravity – would be required before the mathematical calculations could properly predict the location in which observational searches for Planet X should concentrate 'if it exists'. Primarily because of this dissatisfaction with the theoretical data at that point, Van Flandern did not mention the IRAS observational programme at all. By contrast Harrington remained somewhat sceptical about the orbital irregularity data, and was therefore more inclined to use the 'brute force' mass computation and observational method, although with in his own words 'nothing to show for my efforts'.32

We should also recognise that a number of other groups have been engaged in the search for a tenth planet in recent decades. All have pursued different logic and come up with different conclusions, some convergent, some divergent. These studies were thoroughly described by Mark Littmann, former director of the Hansen Planetarium in Salt Lake City, in his 1988 book Planets Beyond: Discovering the Outer Solar System.33

In particular, Littmann at the time quoted a number of experts who feel that reliance on the apparent deviations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune to predict the existence of a tenth planet is misguided. He himself argued that the deviations are extremely small, and their analysis relies on data which has been gathered over several centuries; since it is highly likely that the older data

– which has been collected using many different reference systems and has to be converted to a common reference frame – suffers from many potential inaccuracies, he suggests it is incorrect to rely on them to draw such conclusions. E. Myles Standish, Jr. of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory even discovered that these older observations suggest irregularities in the orbits of all the planets, and asks: 'Did Planet X visit each one on a grand tour'?34 However, in fairness we should stress that Van Flandern based his beliefs not only on orbital irregularities but also on the idiosyncrasies of the Neptunian planetary system.

Continuing our perusal of Van Flandern's book, we find that although he supported Sitchin’s ideas of a 'dynamic' evolution of our solar system – whereby collisions and interactions continually form or change the roles of planets and satellites – his own theory of the creation of the solar system was completely at odds with Sitchin’s in the detail. For example he appeared to support the commonly-held view that the Moon was formed by splitting off from the Earth, and argued that the Earth itself was one of the original members of our solar system.35 Furthermore he argued that there is evidence that a planet that has nothing to do with Planet X exploded between Mars and Jupiter about three million years ago, and – in a self-acknowledged departure into pure speculation in a book which is otherwise highly rigorous and scientific – suggested that this was the home planet of the gods who, knowing their imminent fate, escaped to Earth, created mankind and passed on their knowledge.36 Again this was totally at odds with Sitchin: he was talking about a totally different planet (one which exploded), the timescales were about 2.5 million years too early, and his gods died out early on, unable to live long-term on Earth due to its different environment. Intriguingly none of these discrepancies were mentioned in the book.

Although more work has been performed in the last few years since I conducted the bulk of the research for this paper,37 I nevertheless believe we can draw only one valid conclusion. Planet X may indeed exist, as for that matter may Planet XI and others. But it has not yet been definitively discovered and observed. Furthermore the huge variety of theoretical postulations concerning its properties do not lend great credence to Sitchin's claims that its orbital eccentricity, plane, and period are so well defined that they confirm the details of what the Sumerians were recording 6000 years ago.

Furthermore, there remains an essential aspect of this debate which we have so far ignored: it is only if an additional planet could support life that its existence or otherwise would be of any real relevance to Sitchin's theme

Life on Planet X?

In considering this question, let us first see what Sitchin himself has to say:38

The notion that the only source of energy and heat available to living organisms is the Sun’s emissions has been discarded. Thus, the spacecraft Pioneer 10 discovered that Jupiter, though much farther away from the Sun than Earth, was so hot that it must have its own sources of energy and heat. A planet with an abundance of radioactive elements in its depths would not only generate its own heat; it would also experience substantial volcanic activity. Such volcanic activity provides an atmosphere. If the planet is large enough to exert a strong gravitational pull, it will keep its atmosphere almost indefinitely. Such an atmosphere, in turn, creates a hothouse effect: it shields the planet from the cold of outer space, and keeps the planet’s own heat from dissipating into space.

What are we to make of this? For many years cosmologists had assumed that the planets in the outer reaches of the solar system would be mainly gaseous. Sitchin is right to point out that data collated by various probes over the last thirty years has proved this to be incorrect – most notably in the cases of Uranus and Neptune. Although hardly an expert, I can find no obvious fault with his assertion that distant planets can generate their own internal heat and atmosphere. However, remember that we are attempting to assess whether a race of beings who are virtually identical to ourselves (since they created us 'in their own image') could have evolved on such a planet. And in my view there are two fundamental objections to this.

First, both Sitchin and certain of the astronomers he cites are united in their belief that Planet X has such an elliptical orbit that at its apogee it is an extremely long distance from the Sun. Consequently, even if its core did provide sufficient heat to unfreeze the surface, it would be in complete darkness for most of its orbit.39 Second, the chances of its atmosphere being of similar composition to Earth’s when it has such different circumstances are highly remote.

Two further sources are worthy of mention. First, the apparent opinions of Harrington and Van Flandern themselves, as reported by Littmann:40

He [Harrington] and Van Flandern still agree that Planet 10 should be a frozen methane, ammonia, and water world somewhat like Uranus and Neptune…

Second, the following report which appeared in the Sunday Times of 27 October 1996:

A new planet with an egg-shaped orbit has been discovered by American astronomers. It orbits Cygni B, a star resembling our own sun. William Cochrane, the head of the team that discovered the new planet, is baffled. 'We don't understand how it could have formed like this' he says. 'The new planet has a wildly changeable temperature as it swoops close to the star, then moves out into the far reaches of its solar system.' This elliptical orbit is similar to that postulated for Planet X by astronomers such as Tom Van Flandern. Its 'discovery' is mathematical rather than visible, which places it in exactly the same category as Planet X.

The phrase which I have highlighted surely indicates that, even if it had its own internal heat source, Planet X itself would suffer from similar wild fluctuations in temperature as its orbital position in relation to the Sun varied by enormous amounts – having a massive impact on any life-forms which might inhabit it.

Once again a vital piece of Sitchin's jigsaw appears not to fit at all.

Summary

  • The Mesopotamians may have been aware of the existence of all nine currently-discovered planets in our solar system.

     

  • They may also have been aware of the existence of a tenth (or to them 'twelfth') planet, which they called Nibiru – although there is minimal support for this in the literary works.

     

  • Sitchin’s theory of the creation of Earth, and of the role Nibiru supposedly played in it, is most certainly incorrect – both from a theoretical standpoint, and because it is far too literal an interpretation of the Epic of Creation.

     

  • An additional 'Planet X' may yet be proved to exist by modern astronomers who are searching for it based on theoretical evidence.

     

  • This planet has not been discovered as yet, and theories about its orbital properties vary widely. Therefore even if it is discovered it is highly unlikely to support Sitchin’s detailed theories.

• If this planet exists, for it to remain undiscovered by modern technology it must have a highly eccentric orbit, or an extremely remote circular one. Either would dictate that human-like life could not have evolved and prospered there. It could not therefore be the 'planet of the gods'.

NOTES

  1. 1. For those who would like to investigate further, the works Sitchin quotes are: Charles Virolleaud, L’Astrologie Chaldeenne, 1903-1908. Ernst F. Weidner, Der Tierkreis und die Wege am Himmel, (date unspecified). S. Langdon, Babylonian Menologies and the Semitic Calendar, (date unspecified). Fritz Hommel, Die Astronomie der alten Chaldaer, (date unspecified). Charles F. Jean, Lexicologie Sumerienne, (date unspecified). F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 1921. These all appear to be relatively old studies; however since they do not necessarily concentrate on literary works but on perhaps lesser-studied astronomical ones, and since at least some of these authors are scholars whose work is recognised even by myself, we must not assume that their age necessarily renders them obsolete. Whether or not Sitchin’s quoting from them is accurate is of course another matter – and is something I have not investigated, for reasons that will become clear.

  2. These arguments are contained in Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet (Bear & Co, 1991), Chapters 6-7, pp. 184-188.

     

  3. Ibid., Chapter 7, p. 189, Figures 99-101.

     

  4. Interestingly, astronomer Tom Van Flandern (of whom more later) suggests that Mercury may indeed have been a satellite of Venus during the early development of our solar system. However this does not affect my overall impression of the evidence.

     

  5. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 7, pp. 191-213. Sitchin’s analysis is highly detailed, and again for reasons which will become clear I have provided a brief summary only. Note also that, although I do not compare them in any detail, the many extracts from the Epic of Creation which he quotes are very much his own interpretations, and differ substantially from Dalley’s.

     

  6. The bulk of this information comes from a posting (www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/hafernik.html) by Rob Hafernik, who has a degree in Aerospace Engineering and worked as a government contractor for NASA on the Space Shuttle for three years.

     

  7. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 8, pp. 222-3.

     

  8. Sitchin, Genesis Revisited (Avon, 1990), Chapter 2, p. 39.

     

  9. Ibid., Chapter 5.

     

  10. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis (2nd Edition, University of Chicago Press, 1951), p. 115.

     

  11. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 7, pp. 208-9.

     

  12. Sitchin, Genesis Revisited, Chapter 3, p. 46.

     

  13. Ibid., Chapter 1.

     

  14. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 8, pp. 217-8.

     

  15. Apparently translated by R. Campbell Thompson in Reports of the Magicians and Astronomers of Nineveh and Babylon.

     

  16. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 8, pp. 218-221.

     

  17. Taken from Sitchin, ibid., Chapter 6, p. 161, and Genesis Revisited, Chapter 1, p. 19.

     

  18. Heise is a senior scientist in the High Energy Astrophysics Division of the Space Research Organization Netherlands, whose high quality Internet site indicates that Assyriology must be a serious hobby for him.

     

  19. Jacobsen, The Harps that Once... Sumerian Poetry in Translation (Yale University Press, 1987), p. 240, Note 10.

     

  20. Sitchin, Genesis Revisited, Chapter 4, p. 87.

     

  21. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 9, pp. 246-251.

     

  22. Alford, Gods of the New Millennium (Hodder & Stoughton, 1997), Plate 41.

     

  23. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 8, pp. 215-6.

     

  24. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia (Oxford University Press, 1989), pp. 272-3.

     

  25. Ibid., Glossary, p. 325.

     

  26. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 8, pp. 216-7.

     

  27. Sitchin, Genesis Revisited, Chapter 13.

     

  28. Sitchin, ibid., Chapter 13, pp. 319-321. This is an abbreviation of Sitchin’s extract, which is itself abbreviated.

     

  29. See Mark Littmann, Planets Beyond: Discovering the Outer Solar System (Wiley and Sons, 1988), Chapter 13, p. 204.

  30. Van Flandern, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets (North Atlantic Books, 1993), Chapter 17, p. 312.

  31. Ibid., Chapter 18, p. 322.

  32. Quoted in Littmann, op. cit., Chapter 13, p. 198.

  33. Ibid., Chapter 13 and the Chronological Table on p. 258.

     

  34. Ibid., Chapter 13, pp. 216-9.

     

  35. Van Flandern, op. cit., Chapter 19, pp. 332-6.

     

  36. Ibid., Chapter 19, pp. 340-2.

     

  37. Hence my repeated use of the past tense in this section. For example, see Alan Alford's summary of Van Flandern's current 'Exploded Planet Hypothesis (www.eridu.co.uk/Author/ Exploded_Planets/EPH_Intro2/TVF_EPH/tvf_eph.html – it should be emphasised that Alford is now following this theory from an entirely non-Sitchinesque viewpoint). Also Van Flandern's own Meta Research (www.metaresearch.org/) organisation's web page (and again it should be emphasised that a new edition of his book has been published which I have not consulted).

     

  38. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 8, p. 229.

     

  39. Again I am indebted to Rob Hafernik (see Note 6) for pointing this out—even though it should perhaps be obvious common sense!

     

  40. Littmann, op. cit., Chapter 13, p. 199.

SITCHIN'S PANTHEON

We looked at the complexities of the group names given to the Sumerian Pantheon, and the various and often conflicting hierarchical structures suggested in the texts, in a previous paper. In The Twelfth Planet Sitchin rarely refers to the Igigi and normally uses Anunnaki as a blanket term covering all the gods (although he does separate them from the 'twelve great gods' occasionally), which we have seen is something of an oversimplification. In Genesis Revisited he attempts to rectify the error by acknowledging the separate roles of the two ascribed in the Epic of Creation, but typically he ignores the complexity associated with this and states categorically that 600 Anunnaki were installed on Earth while 300 Igigi remained in orbit in heaven1 (which numerically is a misreading of the relevant section of Tablet VI of the text anyway, which states there were 600 in total, i.e., 300 of each), let alone the fact that it ignores the contradictory statements in separate parts of this and other texts.

However there is an underlying rationale to Sitchin's assembly of the Sumerian pantheon: he suggests the existence of a 'cryptographic numbering system' by which mechanism the 'pantheon of twelve great gods' can be established. He suggests that the names of gods are substituted in certain texts by numbers (using the quasi-sexagesimal system) which identify their numerical rank.2 He further suggests that the pantheon had to remain at twelve, so that only when a member died could one of their offspring step into their shoes, thereby also taking over their numerical rank. Although this sounds perfectly plausible I have found no mention of such a ranking system in the work of the orthodox scholars, and of course Sitchin provides no reference as to the source of his theory. There is a passage in the Gudea Temple Inscriptions in which Ninurta (Ningirsu) is referred to as having been 'invested with fifty offices' by his father Enlil,3 which given the latter's supposed ranking number of 50 would appear to support the idea of the rank being passed on. However this analysis can become more complex: in the Akkadian Epic of Creation, Marduk is in a similar way given fifty titles which in this case are recorded in full4 – and since his supposed father Enki's rank is 40 this does not appear to match the pattern; on the other hand Sitchin sites this as clear evidence of Marduk taking over the supreme role of the 'Enlilship', despite his supposedly being Enki's son.

We also looked at my reconstruction of the Sumerian Pantheon's 'family tree' in a previous paper, and noted that it must be regarded as an approximation rather than a literal set of relationships. The only other attempt at this I have come across was made by Sitchin himself,5 but as we will see he seems to make a great many assumptions and oversimplifications, and is often extremely inconsistent from one book to the next. Among a great many other examples, perhaps the best case study of this is his treatment of Enki's supposed sons. His original family tree lists three: Marduk, Dumuzi and Nergal; we know that the first of these is a very late addition to the pantheon who is recorded as Enki's son only in the Akkadian Epic of Creation, while I can find little evidence to suggest that the second and third are Enki's sons at all. But worse still by the time of The Wars of Gods and Men (1985) he is referring to six sons of Enki, although he proceeds to only list five: Marduk, Dumuzi, Nergal, Gibil (who this time gets a mention) and Ninagal (a little-known deity).6 By contrast, when we come to The Lost Realms (1990) we find him introducing another new son, Ningishzida, to whom he ascribes a great deal of significance by assimilating him with the Egyptian god of wisdom and knowledge, Thoth (the Greek Hermes).7 The latter is in fact not one of the celebrated deities, which would not appear to justify such a lofty assimilation, and all we can say is that he is sometimes linked with Dumuzi – but then Sitchin always treats the latter as a separate deity in his work anyway. Meanwhile he assimilates Marduk with the equally pivotal Egyptian deity Ra.

To put this into context, Sitchin suggests that An was a remote figure who visited the Earth only occasionally (with the return of Nibiru every 3600 years), to the accompaniment of great pomp and circumstance, leaving Enlil in charge on a day-to-day basis. He further suggests that originally the first-born son Enki colonised the Earth, but that his command was subsequently usurped by Enlil – the latter being superior by virtue of having been sired by An's half-sister, and thus of purer genetic stock. According to Sitchin this lead to great animosity between the two brothers, spawning an inter-clan rivalry which continued through successive generations and shaped many of the events of the Earth's formative years. However, we can now see that if his detailed reconstructions are heavily dependent on knowing to which 'clan' any particular deity belonged, and that his 'allocations' are littered with assumptions and inconsistencies, then the entire edifice of his highly detailed reconstructions comes tumbling down.

NOTES

  1. Sitchin, Genesis Revisited (Avon, 1990), Chapter 4, p. 87.

  2. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet (Bear & Co, 1991), Chapter 4, p. 119. He suggests the male ranks were as follows: 60 – An, 50 – Enlil, 40 – Enki, 30 – Nanna, 20 – Utu, 10 – Ishkur; and the female ranks were: 55 – Antu, 45 – Ninlil, 35 – Ninki, 25 – Ningal, 15 – Inanna, 5 – Ninhursag.

  3. Jacobsen, The Harps that Once… (Yale University Press, 1987), p. 400.

     

  4. In Tablets VI and VII; see Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia (Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 273.

     

  5. Sitchin, The Twelfth Planet, Chapter 4, p. 121.

     

  6. Sitchin, The Wars of Gods and Men, (Avon, 1985), Chapter 6, pp. 126-7.

     

  7. Sitchin, The Lost Realms (Avon, 1990), Chapter 9, p. 183.

CONCLUSIONS ABOUT SITCHIN'S WORK

I have already explained that the reason I have devoted a not insubstantial amount of time and effort to refuting the theories of Zecharia Sitchin is because I believe that, over a number of years, they have misled a great many people about matters of great significance.1 To the extent that, like his former supporter Alan Alford, I was introduced to the enigmas of Ancient Mesopotamia by his work, I do owe him some debt of gratitude. Nevertheless it seems to me a great shame that his ideas are so misplaced that such massive effort is required to correct the balance of opinion in the alternative history community. Were his vivid reconstructions presented in novel form, we could perhaps enjoy them as harmless entertainment. But they are not.

What is my own view of the Mesopotamian texts? I believe that very little, if any, of Sitchin's work deserves to be salvaged. I believe, as I have already hinted on many occasions, that there are certain texts or passages which deserve close scrutiny from an esoteric standpoint; perhaps none more so than the multiple references to the 'creation of mankind'. Although I do not believe the 'gods' were flesh and blood visitors who genetically created man in their own image, nevertheless there are enigmas in these and other aspects of the Mesopotamian texts which are mirrored around the world. However the process of arriving at the most appropriate interpretation thereof is a difficult and lengthy one, not to be undertaken lightly.

However, lest I be accused of continually refuting the theories of others without substituting something positive in return, I can assure my readers that I am currently working on just such a project. I sincerely hope it will be worth the wait...

NOTES

1. Readers should also be aware that I fundamentally disagree with Sitchin over the age of the Giza Pyramids. In order to support his revised chronology of mankind, and his contention that these pyramids were built as "ground markers" for the Anunnaki's incoming space flights, it was Sitchin who first suggested that Colonel Richard Howard Vyse faked the hieroglyphics in the Relieving Chambers in the Great Pyramid, some of which include the name Khufu. On proper investigation this proves to be one of the most appalling and distorted attacks on Vyse's character and integrity imaginable, and a full and highly detailed rebuttal of this nonsense can be found in Giza: The Truth, Chapter 2, pp. 94-113. Bearing in mind that it was this original attack by Sitchin which prompted so many other 'alternative Egyptologists' to repeat his accusations without question – although fortunately now most of them have seen the light – this saga perhaps more than any other tells us a very great deal about Sitchin and his work.

Go to Part 3
Go back to Part 1

Important: Also read: Sitchin is Wrong, website by Michael S. Heiser (biography here), who is a linguist, just like Sitchin. Wes Penre


Wes PenreWes Penre is an researcher, journalist, and the owner of the domains Illuminati News and Zionist Watch and is the publisher of the same. He has been researching Globalization and the New World Order and exposed the big players behind the scenes for more than a decade now. He has published his research on the Internet at the above domains, which are currently updated to keep people informed what is going on. He has also done spiritual research to present a solution to the problems of this world. Also check out his MySpace website: http://www.myspace.com/wespenre.


RESIST THE NEW WORLD ORDER!!!


Source: http://www.ivanfraser.com/articles/conspiracies/etagenda.html
 


This page may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
 




Free Stuff: Wallpaper - Screensaver - Ringtone - Animation - Game - Clip art - Theme - Template - Font

Design downloaded from FreeWebTemplates.com
Free web design, web templates, web layouts, and website resources!