Here's a repost of my take on Sitchin from reading Genesis Revisited. I send this out to people who ask me about Sitchin through my Sumerian or Assyro-Babylonian Mythology FAQs. I don't include it in the FAQ because I don't want to lend legitimacy to his writings. Now my interest in Mesopotamian mythology is purely amateur, but I have done a fair amount of research into it and I am also a physics doctoral student with a special interest in astronomy and astrophysics so I have a little insight into the astronomical aspects of this:

Enough people have written to me about his astronomical ideas that I have developed a form reply which I include below. As for the genetic engineering business, I don't think that holds much water either. This much is true: there are myths from Mesopotamia dating back to about 4000 years ago which describe the creation of man. In a couple of versions of those myths man is created in order to do the work that the minor gods, the Igigi, don't wish to do. In one version, a god who is mentioned no where else, Geshtu-e, is killed and his blood is mixed with clay to create the first humans. This bit is where Sitchin gets the idea of genetic engineering. Later, Enlil, the ruling god, gets tired of the noise that man is making and starts sending disasters after him, including the flood. In another version of the creation of man story, more in-line with the Sumerian version, man is created with clay, but without any blood. Several flawed versions are fashioned before the final form is arrived upon. I think these myths speak more to the desire of the appreciation of human life and the desire to see the divine within humanity than hint at alien designs.

His planetary identifications don't sit well with me. I have yet to see any evidence, such as an ancient sky chart or telescope, that would suggest that the Sumerians could have possibly seen Neptune or Pluto, or that they noticed Uranus. Uranus is only visible with the naked eye on the clearest of nights, moves so slowly that one would have to watch it over years to notice movement without telescopic aid, and fails to show up on any known pre-Galilean sky charts.

(I've seen the diagram he claims comes from this Berlin cylinder seal in Genesis Revisited, but the "planets":
a) seem out of proportion compared to their relative sizes in reality (which is how one would expect one informed by the Annunaki to depict them)
b) they are also not in proportion to the relative brightness of those objects as seen from Earth (which one might expect had the Sumerians heard about them from someone else and then figured out how to find them).
c) it's not clear to me from that sketch what the Sumerians identified those objects as. The central object --- the 8 pointed star with the circle in the middle, was often associated with Ishtar/Inanna as the morning or evening star. I have some suspicion that if the seal is meant to be a depiction of the heavens, it might be a map of a region of the sky as the planet Venus (or perhaps another planet, but not the sun, which was usually depicted as a disk or a winged disk) against a background of stars.
d) for an outsider's description of the solar system, it seems particularly odd. Why include Pluto, but not its moon Charon, which is very large in proportion to it? Why include Pluto, but not the asteroid Ceres, which is about 1/2 the diameter of Pluto? Why include Pluto and Mercury and not include those moons in the solar system which are larger than those two planets? Why no depiction of Saturn's rings?

Below I list what planets were identified by what names by the Sumerians, It also seems clear from the mythology that Tiamat and Ea were both associated with the Abyssal waters (the Apsu) beneath the mountains and underworld as well as those same waters which lay above the dome of the sky. Ea was designated one band of space in the sky by the Babylonians, but it did not include all of the zodiacal region - which would have fit for a planet - but only the southern most portion, which a planet might wander through during one sixth of its orbit. This makes sense as the Persian Gulf, a source of an outflow of those Abyssal waters, lay to the south of Sumer. The stars in his region would be below the horizon to the south for most of the time. Anu held a similar region to the north of the celestial equator, only covering 1/6 th of the zodiacal region. The stars in his region would be above the horizon longer, which is fitting as he was the god of the heavens. Tiamat was split in to two - her celestial half forming all the heavens, and her eyes and lower half going to the waters beneath the earth and being used as the source of rivers and oceans. I have not seen her associated with a particular celestial body. I think Sitchin is over interpreting the Enuma Elish (which, by the way does not show up in Sumer, but only in Akkadian texts which could not date back earlier than around 4000 years ago, with the earliest written account dating to around 700 B.C.). The themes expressed in that work seem more earthly and elemental and less celestial and planetary.

Sitchin also suggests that Tiamat formed the Earth, moon and asteroid belt. His witnesses to this event are the Anunnaki, whom he claims came here about half a million years ago and with whom he associates the Nephilim of Genesis 6:1. Frankly, this strikes me as a bunch of bunk. I've really only read Genesis Revisited and I haven't read the 12th Planet, where most of this is laid out, but the textual evidence for this, which seems to be the Akkadian "Atrahasis", seems partly a projection of human society on godly society and and explanation as to why we are here and why life is so difficult at times.

When one resorts to aliens to explain the actions of our predecessors, I think we sell our predecessors short. Sitchin has little to go on beyond the text and some drawings which are more easily explained in a metaphorical context than as witnessed creations.

Sitchin has the following planetary identifications:

Here's a list of planets and their names by more accepted Babylonian (and Sumerian?) sources:

Planet

Sources:

1. Christianson, Gale E. This Wild Abyss, The Free Press - A Division of Macmilan Publishing Co. Inc., NY., 1978.

2. O'Neil, W.M. Early Astronomy from Babylonia to Copernicus, Sydney University Press, Portland, Oregon, 1986.

3. Thurston, Hugh Early Astronomy, Springer-Verlag, New York Inc., NY, 1994.

4. Swerdlow, N. M., The Babylonian Theory of the Planets, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1998.

5. Evans, James, The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy, Oxford University Press, New York ,1998.

Chris Siren
cbsiren at alum dot mit dot edu http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/
Myths and Legends: http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/myth.html
UNH Observatory: http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/observatory.html

Return to Doug's archaeology page

Here's a repost of my take on Sitchin from reading Genesis Revisited. I send this out to people who ask me about Sitchin through my Sumerian or Assyro-Babylonian Mythology FAQs. I don't include it in the FAQ because I don't want to lend legitimacy to his writings. Now my interest in Mesopotamian mythology is purely amateur, but I have done a fair amount of research into it and I am also a physics doctoral student with a special interest in astronomy and astrophysics so I have a little insight into the astronomical aspects of this:

Enough people have written to me about his astronomical ideas that I have developed a form reply which I include below. As for the genetic engineering business, I don't think that holds much water either. This much is true: there are myths from Mesopotamia dating back to about 4000 years ago which describe the creation of man. In a couple of versions of those myths man is created in order to do the work that the minor gods, the Igigi, don't wish to do. In one version, a god who is mentioned no where else, Geshtu-e, is killed and his blood is mixed with clay to create the first humans. This bit is where Sitchin gets the idea of genetic engineering. Later, Enlil, the ruling god, gets tired of the noise that man is making and starts sending disasters after him, including the flood. In another version of the creation of man story, more in-line with the Sumerian version, man is created with clay, but without any blood. Several flawed versions are fashioned before the final form is arrived upon. I think these myths speak more to the desire of the appreciation of human life and the desire to see the divine within humanity than hint at alien designs.

His planetary identifications don't sit well with me. I have yet to see any evidence, such as an ancient sky chart or telescope, that would suggest that the Sumerians could have possibly seen Neptune or Pluto, or that they noticed Uranus. Uranus is only visible with the naked eye on the clearest of nights, moves so slowly that one would have to watch it over years to notice movement without telescopic aid, and fails to show up on any known pre-Galilean sky charts.

(I've seen the diagram he claims comes from this Berlin cylinder seal in Genesis Revisited, but the "planets":
a) seem out of proportion compared to their relative sizes in reality (which is how one would expect one informed by the Annunaki to depict them)
b) they are also not in proportion to the relative brightness of those objects as seen from Earth (which one might expect had the Sumerians heard about them from someone else and then figured out how to find them).
c) it's not clear to me from that sketch what the Sumerians identified those objects as. The central object --- the 8 pointed star with the circle in the middle, was often associated with Ishtar/Inanna as the morning or evening star. I have some suspicion that if the seal is meant to be a depiction of the heavens, it might be a map of a region of the sky as the planet Venus (or perhaps another planet, but not the sun, which was usually depicted as a disk or a winged disk) against a background of stars.
d) for an outsider's description of the solar system, it seems particularly odd. Why include Pluto, but not its moon Charon, which is very large in proportion to it? Why include Pluto, but not the asteroid Ceres, which is about 1/2 the diameter of Pluto? Why include Pluto and Mercury and not include those moons in the solar system which are larger than those two planets? Why no depiction of Saturn's rings?

Below I list what planets were identified by what names by the Sumerians, It also seems clear from the mythology that Tiamat and Ea were both associated with the Abyssal waters (the Apsu) beneath the mountains and underworld as well as those same waters which lay above the dome of the sky. Ea was designated one band of space in the sky by the Babylonians, but it did not include all of the zodiacal region - which would have fit for a planet - but only the southern most portion, which a planet might wander through during one sixth of its orbit. This makes sense as the Persian Gulf, a source of an outflow of those Abyssal waters, lay to the south of Sumer. The stars in his region would be below the horizon to the south for most of the time. Anu held a similar region to the north of the celestial equator, only covering 1/6 th of the zodiacal region. The stars in his region would be above the horizon longer, which is fitting as he was the god of the heavens. Tiamat was split in to two - her celestial half forming all the heavens, and her eyes and lower half going to the waters beneath the earth and being used as the source of rivers and oceans. I have not seen her associated with a particular celestial body. I think Sitchin is over interpreting the Ennuma Elish (which, by the way does not show up in Sumer, but only in Akkadian texts which could not date back earlier than around 4000 years ago, with the earliest written account dating to around 700 B.C.). The themes expressed in that work seem more earthly and elemental and less celestial and planetary.

Sitchin also suggests that Tiamat formed the Earth, moon and asteroid belt. His witnesses to this event are the Anunnaki, whom he claims came here about half a million years ago and with whom he associates the Nephilim of Genesis 6:1. Frankly, this strikes me as a bunch of bunk. I've really only read Genesis Revisited and I haven't read the 12th Planet, where most of this is laid out, but the textual evidence for this, which seems to be the Akkadian "Atrahasis", seems partly a projection of human society on godly society and and explanation as to why we are here and why life is so difficult at times.

When one resorts to aliens to explain the actions of our predecessors, I think we sell our predecessors short. Sitchin has little to go on beyond the text and some drawings which are more easily explained in a metaphorical context than as witnessed creations.

Sitchin has the following planetary identifications:

Here's a list of planets and their names by more accepted Babylonian (and Sumerian?) sources:

Planet

Sources:

1. Christianson, Gale E. This Wild Abyss, The Free Press - A Division of Macmilan Publishing Co. Inc., NY., 1978.

2. O'Neil, W.M. Early Astronomy from Babylonia to Copernicus, Sydney University Press, Portland, Oregon, 1986.

3. Thurston, Hugh Early Astronomy, Springer-Verlag New York Inc., NY, 1994.

Chris Siren
cbsiren@hopper.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren
Myths and Legends: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/myth.html
UNH Observatory: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/observatory.html

Return to Doug's archaeology page