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
The 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...
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.
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
Sitchin,
The Twelfth
Planet
(Bear & Co,
1991),
Chapter 4,
p. 105.
Ibid.,
Chapter 2,
p. 42; the
reference is
to Figure 15
therein.
Alford,
Gods of the
New
Millennium
(Hodder and
Stoughton,
1997).
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.
Jacobsen,
The
Harps
that
Once…(Yale
University
Press,
1987),
Introduction,
p. xiv.
Authorised
King
James
Bible;
Sitchin’s
comments
can be
found in
The
Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter
5, pp.
159-160.
Ibid.;
Sitchin’s
comments
can be
found in
The
Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter
5, pp.
139-140.
Ibid.;
Sitchin’s
comments
can be
found in
The
Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter
5, p.
138.
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.
Sitchin,
The
Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter
5, p.
134.
Ibid.,
Chapter
5, p.
136.
Jacobsen,
op.
cit., p.
444.
Sitchin,
The
Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter
5, pp.
144–5.
Heidel,
The
Babylonian
Genesis
(2nd
Edition,
University
of
Chicago
Press,
1951),
Appendix,
p. 151.
Dalley,
Myths
from
Mesopotamia
(Oxford
University
Press,
1989),
p. 187.
Ibid.,
p. 196;
Sitchin’s
comments
can be
found in
The
Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter
5, p.
151.
Ibid.,
p. 207;
Sitchin’s
comments
can be
found in
The
Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter
4, p.
104.
Ibid.,
p. 262.
Sitchin,
The
Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter
5, p.
141.
Ibid.,
Chapter
5, p.
136.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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. 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.
These
arguments
are
contained in
Sitchin,
The Twelfth
Planet
(Bear & Co,
1991),
Chapters
6-7, pp.
184-188.
Ibid.,
Chapter 7,
p. 189,
Figures
99-101.
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.
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.
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.
Sitchin,
The Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter 8,
pp. 222-3.
Sitchin,
Genesis
Revisited
(Avon,
1990),
Chapter 2,
p. 39.
Ibid.,
Chapter 5.
Heidel,
The
Babylonian
Genesis
(2nd
Edition,
University
of Chicago
Press,
1951), p.
115.
Sitchin,
The Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter 7,
pp. 208-9.
Sitchin,
Genesis
Revisited,
Chapter 3,
p. 46.
Ibid.,
Chapter 1.
Sitchin,
The Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter 8,
pp. 217-8.
Apparently
translated
by R.
Campbell
Thompson in
Reports
of the
Magicians
and
Astronomers
of Nineveh
and Babylon.
Sitchin,
The Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter 8,
pp. 218-221.
Taken from
Sitchin,
ibid.,
Chapter 6,
p. 161, and
Genesis
Revisited,
Chapter 1,
p. 19.
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.
Jacobsen,
The Harps
that Once...
Sumerian
Poetry in
Translation
(Yale
University
Press,
1987), p.
240, Note
10.
Sitchin,
Genesis
Revisited,
Chapter 4,
p. 87.
Sitchin,
The Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter 9,
pp. 246-251.
Alford,
Gods of the
New
Millennium
(Hodder &
Stoughton,
1997), Plate
41.
Sitchin,
The Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter 8,
pp. 215-6.
Dalley,
Myths from
Mesopotamia
(Oxford
University
Press,
1989), pp.
272-3.
Ibid.,
Glossary, p.
325.
Sitchin,
The Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter 8,
pp. 216-7.
Sitchin,
Genesis
Revisited,
Chapter 13.
Sitchin,
ibid.,
Chapter 13,
pp. 319-321.
This is an
abbreviation
of Sitchin’s
extract,
which is
itself
abbreviated.
See Mark
Littmann,
Planets
Beyond:
Discovering
the Outer
Solar System
(Wiley and
Sons, 1988),
Chapter 13,
p. 204.
Van
Flandern,
Dark Matter,
Missing
Planets and
New Comets
(North
Atlantic
Books,
1993),
Chapter 17,
p. 312.
Ibid.,
Chapter 18,
p. 322.
Quoted
in Littmann,
op. cit.,
Chapter 13,
p. 198.
Ibid.,
Chapter 13
and the
Chronological
Table on p.
258.
Ibid.,
Chapter 13,
pp. 216-9.
Van
Flandern,
op. cit.,
Chapter 19,
pp. 332-6.
Ibid.,
Chapter 19,
pp. 340-2.
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).
Sitchin,
The Twelfth
Planet,
Chapter 8,
p. 229.
Again I am
indebted to
Rob Hafernik
(see Note 6)
for pointing
this
out—even
though it
should
perhaps be
obvious
common
sense!
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
Sitchin,
Genesis
Revisited
(Avon, 1990),
Chapter 4, p.
87.
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.
Jacobsen, The
Harps that Once…
(Yale University
Press, 1987), p.
400.
In Tablets VI
and VII; see
Dalley, Myths
from Mesopotamia
(Oxford
University
Press, 1989), p.
273.
Sitchin, The
Twelfth Planet,
Chapter 4, p.
121.
Sitchin, The
Wars of Gods and
Men, (Avon,
1985), Chapter
6, pp. 126-7.
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 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.
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.
The 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
.jpg)
Wes Penre is an
researcher, journalist, and the owner of the domains
