Okay, this probably isn’t going to be fun (especially to followers of Zecharia Sitchin), but I’m trying.
Those of you who know of Sitchin and his work know that one of his major claims is that the Sumerian deities, the Anunnaki, were actually extraterrestrials. That’s right . . . aliens. Sitchin has published millions of copies of his various books that detail how the Anunnaki are from a planet (or is is a ship?) called Nibiru. And the really cool thing is that all this is right there in the Sumerian texts! Uh . . . well . . . no it’s not. Despite the fact that the New York Times ran a story on Sitchin just two weeks ago (he’s 89 now) and he says “I’m not making this up; it’s in the texts,” he IS making it up (hope you’re not shocked).
But how can I prove this to you, my dedicated PaleoBabble readers? (Wracking my brain . . . ). Oh, I know. There’s this website called The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL) . . . that lets you search for Sumerian words. Maybe that will help.
Yeah; it helps. This is the place where any loyal Sitchinites who come across this post may want to leave. Truth is about to send the Anunnaki home.
It ain’t exciting, but here is a video of me searching the ETCSL for the word “Anunnaki”. If you want a PDF of the search results, here it is. Better yet, after you watch it you can head over to the site and repeat the search so you can know by experience that I’m not the one making things up . . . that would be someone else.
Every generation produces its share of nut cases.
So you didn’t find that exact word – so what? Most everything he said made sense to me. As for the texts – I wouldn’t be surprisedto find out the what you are looking for is underground in the Vatican library under lock & key never to be seen again like so many other ancient writings (ancient Myan before Myan ancestors). Lets take the premise that it is true. First, the people who were created would not have been able to write and these people were literally spread all over the planet in search of that precious mineral – gold. And where to you find gold – lots of places besides Africa including right here in America. Remember there are “the ancient ones” the American Indians speak of. There are roads along the entire east coast of North America that are straight as an arrow with round circular mounded areas every so often. Saw this program on PBS. Of course we have destroyed the visibility of quite a bit of this by our cities & towns. I could go on. The time frame we are talking about is many thousands of years ago – remember how long these people lived. And I am sure there is a connection to the people who ruled Egypt (before it was known as Egypt) and I am sure they are related to the first created rulers mentioned and given education that they did not pass on to the rest of the people.
Many years ago I queried thru automatic writing many things. When I asked who this entity was he said he was from a planet that had been destroyed. We were discussing Atlantis at the time and if it existed – it did. So now I am wondering if there are any results of all those DNA tests that have been performed on the older Pharoahs? And I don’t mean just King Tut. Further back.
Yes this is somewhat off topic but it is all related to who populated this planet. Remember Cain married somebody and it wasn’t his sister.
@Dianne: You’re not getting the point. I *did* find the word – 182 times. And NONE of the cuneiform texts have the Anunnaki doing what Sitchin says. But, you seem to be someone whose worldview “makes sense” without corresponding to the reality of the texts Sitchin says he is quoting from. How *that* makes any sense escapes me. It’s like balancing your checkbook while not bothering to use numbers.
MSH, you sound like a real dick..nope,nope,nope..stfu. Stop pretending you have all the answers. If engineers/architects say they can’t build the pyramids today, quasi-stone-aged people can’t either. Period.
another thoughtful, evidence-laden response. Please keep them coming – since they will live forever on the web for all to see the dazzling brilliance.
I’ve only read part of one of Sitchin’s books so I’m by no means a fan or an expert (I stumbled across this site and found it interesting) but I’m open minded to things beyond our explanation. Is it possible that Sitchin has the translations correct and the original translator made a mistake because it never occured to them that ancient people would have a word for space ship?
No matter how logical and straight forward your thinking process, you have to admit that there are things in the world that we don’t currently understand. Construction of the pyramids, Noscan lines, crystal skulls, etc, etc. The true answer to some, most or all of these mysteries is probably much more benign and boring than aliens but I believe we need to keep our minds open to all possibilities in order to find the truth.
Also, it isn’t any of my business but if you are insulting people who post they will eventually stop posting. You seem convinced that you have layed out perfectly logical arguments that should put the issue to rest once and for all but that obviously isn’t the case for some people. Practice some patience. Just a thought.
who am I insulting who posts?
I’m not advocating a closed mind; I’m advocating examining evidence that exists (as opposed to “using” evidence that doesn’t exist). Sitchin’s problems are not those of translation; they are the fabrication of data that do not exist.
It helps to understand common misspellings and name translation differences. Search the terms ANUNA and NIBRU. As with any ancient texts written by those with less than modern scientific understanding, you will have to look at and even past the flowery crap and distill what is really being related. You may find your ridicule is not quite as funny or accurate as you did before…provided, of course, you are a truly open mind rather than simply a simple, knee-jerk conformist who cannot understand more than that which you can touch with your hand, too afraid to reach out and touch with your intelligence.
uh…look again. The search for Anunnaki that I did *catches* the Anunna references. Wow — what a penetrating insight this was. Try watching the video with your eyes open next time.
YOU FOCUS ON ONE WORD THAT DOESNT QUITE FIT YOUR RIGID VIEWS OR THINKING. SITCHIN LOOKS AT THE BIG PICTURE AND READS ALL THE MATERIAL FROM ALL THE CULTURES FROM THE CRADEL OF CIVILIZATION TO MEZO AMERICA. YOU AND OTHERS LIKE TO TAKE A SPECIFIC WORD OR PHRASE AND SAY, THATS A LIE OR HE MADE IT UP. SITCHIN IS DOING THE SAME THING AS PRIVIATE DETECTIVE WOULD DO AND THATS LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE AND ITS A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE COMPILED OVER HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS SOME IN WRITTEN FORM SOME PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT OUR SATATLITES AND ROVERS HAVE FOUND RECENTLY ON MARS AND THE MOON. SITCHIN HAS ALSO GATHERED A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE FROM ARCHEOLOGISTS FROM GERMANY FRANCE ENGLAND AND OTHER COUNTRIES. THIS RESEARCH DONE BY OTHERS OVER HUNDREDS OF YEARS, NOT BY SITCHIN ONLY REINFORCES SITHCINS VIEWS NOT YOUR NARROW FLAT WORLD VIEWS:)
so, my website is about one word? Sorry for using the word HE uses in his book dozens, maybe hundreds of times, and asking “hey, is what he says about the Anunnaki in the texts? Let’s go look.” And even a worse sin — giving you and the world the chance to look for yourself. I’m really not ready to repent for any of that. Thanks for a wonderful comment, though, that will live forever on the blog.
I respect what you’re doing. To get closer to the truth you must question every aspect of the subject. It just seems as you’re questioning wordings that are insignificant in comparison to the big picture. Why is it so inconceivable that they came from the sky? Would it not concur with accounts from ancients from other parts of the world? The multitude of rock paintings and other things of that nature raise questions that I think your findings don’t conclude enough to change the overall view of the possibility of them being extra-terrestrial. Please get back. I would actually like learn more about the “rational” side, if you will, of this subject. Namaste.
Well, can’t cover everything (just yet!). The problem with rock paintings and such is that they are entirely subject to imagination. WE process them one way, as we live in the age of science fiction and science. We have no idea how an ancient person would process them or what they were thinking.
Either way, I really like how you’re going about it with links to the dictionaries and what not. For me, it is just that some of Sitchin’s theories (in general. Not the ones that are word specific because you have obviously handled their inaccuracies) make sense in a global way, i.e. serpent like people being worshiped. Anyway, I was just showing my appreciation for your pursuit.
I quite agree with you regarding Nibiru as marking the northern celestial pole.
The whole misere is that Marduk is not identified for what “he” is – and that other “major deities” is taken for planetary deities in stead of being Milky Way “deities”.
On both hemispheres on the Earth we have “half a Milky Way” supposedly revolving on the night sky. The northern hemisphere Milky Way figure is symbolised in many cultures as a big man7giant (Marduk) who is revolving around the celestial north pole point/crossed wheel = Nibiru.
Se more here: http://www.saturn-myth-delusion.net/nibiru.htm
Thanks for reading your PDF files on the matter.
All the Best from Ivar Nielsen, Denmark
18 February 2010 at 6:34 AM.
MSH, you sound like a real [expletive deleted]..nope,nope,nope..[acronym of expletive deleted]. Stop pretending you have all the answers. If engineers/architects say they can’t build the pyramids today, quasi-stone-aged people can’t either. Period.”
Edward Leedskalnin: http://coralcastle.com/
Who are these engineers? I can give you several (and have on this blog) engineers who know in considerable detail how the pyramids could be built.
Gods that eat beef and foul (chicken)? Gods that drink beer? Gods that fashion(ed) (created) the Black headed people as well as the four legged animals upon the earth?
Gods that display great power and (possibly) use weapons of mass destruction (my un-decided opinion based upon what I’ve read in the texts I’ve looked at)?
Gods that define the fate of all things in the Assembly of the Anuna? This is NOT possible – Gods can’t eat meat and drink plonk because they’re “spiritual” beings, not flesh and blood being’s, right?
Then again perhaps these “Astrotheological” Gods of Sumer were just the creation of some pre-historic hokie on hemp 🙂
This Oxford website is very interesting, Michael, very interesting! I was fascinated in the story of the flood..This story had over 250 lines missing plus a number of fragmented lines as well..
This is most unfortunate because for the most part, all other texts I’ve read have been complete and intact? If I was a conspiracy theorist I’d be scratching my head about that one..
Fwiw I know well better than to accept the word of one qualified scholar or academic over another based upon what he or she sees in front of them!!
I myself have 25 years experience in Financial Markets and I can tell you that in my business, everything is about opinion and if it wasn’t, and we all agreed upon everything we saw in front of us, we wouldn’t have Financial Markets because there would be NO market!
I am not a suppporter of Mr Sitchin, nor am I supporter of everything that scholars and academics prescribe to either for the reasons I outlined in my example above.
Scholars and academics have been squabbling amongst themselves for years over archaeological findings concerning everything in the ancient world, each having their own opinions and drawing their own conclusions based upon their own individual findings, or interpretations of what they see in front of them – and this is not going to change!
Your point in relation to the actual term “Anunnaki” is correct based upon what I have seen so far in the texts (albeit not much, only approx 50 translations) however someone mentioned above, the “big picture”, and this is what I believe is the cause of all the conjecture or mystery if you like..The planet X theory and Nibiru aside, one can look at the texts that I have read on the Oxford site and say to themselves, “wow who were these people – if they were real flesh and blood beings as described in the texts and not created by some hokie on hemp looking up at the stars one night, then where were they from and where did they go.Who are these beings of the Anuna”?? An, Enlil, Enki, Ninhursaga, Nintur, Ninmah, Namma and so on and soforth!
I love this one – excerpt from The Flood Story: “10-14. After An, Enlil, Enki and Nin?ursa?a had fashioned the black-headed people, they also made animals multiply everywhere, and made herds of four-legged animals exist on the plains, as is befitting”.
I thought it was quite funny how the Oxford Scholars used the term “fashioned” instead of “Created” or “produced”..Both words are appropriate to the context of this translation, yet fashioned sounds so much less intimidating to the masses reading it.
A religious zealot or a layperson for example, could look at the word fashioned and think, oh they clothed the black people or dressed them up etc etc, when that is not what is actually happening – clever stuff from the scholars 🙂
I love this one too (link below) it a story between Enki, his mother, Namma and his sister, Ninmah(?)
Namma goes to Enki and asks him to create a “substitute” to do the toil of the Minor Gods who were complaining because they were doing all the work whilst the Senior Gods sat on their arses lol..Enki and Ninmah go to work to create a “substitute”..There appears to be some set backs before they were successful! Fascinating reading – I will continue to read these texts! Thanks for placing the link to this site on your website 🙂
this reply sounds a bit hokey itself, though that may not be intended. I write what follows in case you were being sarcastic. I believe you were. If not, that lack of clarity would be your problem. A few simple replies of my own:
1. On the gods doing human things … it’s called “anthropomorphism”; something you should have studied back in lit class in junior high. Since non-human entities (gods is one label) are not cast as part of the human world, human writers imagine what they do in … human terms … since human writers ultimately have no other terms.
2. There are complete scholarly editions of the flood story. Learn some Akkadian and get the monographs. The most complete is by Andrew George, but it’s over $400. Sorry that these sorts of things don’t all exist on the web … why would you supposed this was all there was?
3. Scholarly journal articles on the Anunnaki are available. I know of three that exist, all in German. I am having them translated into English so I can post the contents (two down. one to go at present). No, no one is hiding anything about the Anunnaki. I’m sure you’re not really saying that, since that would be an argument from silence (and of course fabricated conspiracy, to avoid the reality of the textual situation so one could keep their fantasy).
4. Scholars don’t quibble about synonyms like “create, form, fashion, build” etc. Why? Well, you’d know that if you had searched, say, the Hebrew Bible, and found that “create” (bara’) is not the only verb used for producing humankind. Other terms (‘asah, yatsar) are also used of Adam and Eve and heaven and earth, etc. So your attempt to contrive a dishonest approach by scholars shows only your own lack of knowledge of the material. No one’s trying to avoid “creation” language here.
Ps, as Mr Sitchin has now been deceased for almost 3 months, it might be appropriate for you to remove your open letter to him on your other website.
you’re right – I need to change that to be more generic, applied to his followers. Thanks for the reminder.
Thanks for your reply,
You’re right I didn’t study English Literature in High School, it was an elective subject I chose not to take as I am an audio/visual learner plus I took business subjects from year 9 until year 12 🙂 Reading was not one of my favourite pastimes when I was younger, although that has now changed!
Yes, I am sorry to say that my understanding of the Ancient Languages and ways are very, very limited unfortunately. I know nothing of the Hebrew Language, nor the Akkadian Language and nor the Sumerian Language, but I am enjoying the Sumerian Translations provided by the University of Oxford.
My comment on the Flood Story was not a jibe at Scholars, not at all.
I also did not assume that that was all there was to the story! My point was in actual fact that as I said, there were over 250 lines missing from the Sumerian texts on the website provided by the University of Oxford ?? That’s what they say – not me!! Exactly how much text translated into direct English would 250 lines of Sumerian equate to? Quite a bit I might imagine?
If someone like Mr George or others of his ilk possess a full Sumerian account of the Flood Story then why is that not a completed text on the website provided by the University of Oxford – is that not a fair question? I don’t particularly care either way, just to say that when I found that story (quite by accident too I must say) I was expecting to see alot more than what was actually there..That’s all I’m saying.
On the Anuna Gods themselves, I don’t know? Who really does know? Were they the product of someone’s imagination or were they real flesh and blood beings? This is something that will undoubtedly be supported by some, ala Mr Sitchin’s followers and rebuked by others such as yourself for along time to come. I’m not convinced either way but there is fun in doing the reading and the researching and trying to formulate my own opinion on the matter 🙂
Finally my conspiracy theory comment was obviously tongue in cheek as was my reference to the word “fashioned”..I am surprised you took that so obviously to heart to be honest lol.
You know, I’ve watched YouTube videos on this whole Anuna subject without formulating an opinion one way or the other – I find this site (yours) which has been set up by a scholar of Ancient Languages and I think “great this should be good I’ll join”..So I join and I find this thread, put a post up which is in part light-hearted and in part serious and the reply I get is that I have no idea what I’m on about? I obviously lack knowledge? (Duh know kidding lol) I’m attacking scholars and accusing them of subversion????? I mean come on, lighten up!
Instead of shooting me down and taking it so personally, why couldn’t you have just said, “Hey, yeah I see where you’re coming from with what you say about the word fashioned – but did you know it can be used like this and like that etc etc etc”??..Would that have been so hard???
But no, you appear to take it personally and slate me for it lol..There’s no need to attack people’s knowledge levels on a subject when you can plainly see that their knowledge base is inferior to your own, yes??
Anyway, I shall take your advice and have a look into some Akkadian work, but here is my advice to you – go to your wardrobe or chest of drawers, grab a cap, grab a pair of Raybans, grab a glass of coke or whatever, go sit outside in the sun and take a chill pill whilst you’re out there 🙂
If I may have the last parting tongue in cheek comment – you mentioned that I should have learned about “Anthropomorphism” in “Junior” High School, yes? On the basis of that statement you MUST assume that I am American??? Well, in actual fact I am not American and where I am located we do NOT have Junior and Senior High School..We have only High School ranging from year 7 through to year 12..Tut tut Michael, I thought scholars based there statements on facts and facts only..You made an assumption based upon no tangible evidence hehe 😉
Happy New Year to all 🙂
I think your response here indicates that I was on track. You’re just being a smart ass. And honestly, can your jabs get any sillier? Yes, scholars work with data … but guess what … we aren’t omniscient or clairvoyant. Duh.
Not posting to argue with you whether Sitchin was wrong or right.
However, I listened to video clips from you making your case against Sitchin.
Several times you say something to the effect; “I’m arguing strictly from an academic point.”
I think you are fibbing here. I think you are arguing from an academic point AND a Christian point.
I think you use your academic achievements as legitimacy to fight these Sitchin theories.
Thanks for listening. Please disclose your Christian beliefs.
P.S. I think Sitchin’s work compliments Christianity.
wrong – I could be an atheist and argue exactly the same points. If what he says isn’t in the texts (and it’s not) that has nothing to do with any religion (or none).
I came to this site via your other one Sitchin is wrong.com because after recently discovering his works I wanted to see if there was any solid evidence that he was wrong. I thought that I would find a plethora of sites informing that his theories were for tinfoil-hat wearing nuts. That didn’t happen. Instead I found links and comments from people (like yourself) claiming flaws in his theories. Fair enough, no theory can be called evidence, that’s why it’s a theory. I’m not going to say that I believe in what he says but I find it incredible that so many individuals point a light into a corner that if left dark would never be seen. So I have to ask myself why would people go so far out of their way to debunk him if it didn’t suit some kind of personal gain? Maybe monetary, maybe ego, or maybe it just doesn’t fit with their world view? I don’t know but, what I do believe is that like writing this post I was motivated because, something didn’t sit right.
I will be the first to state I am no scholar, academic, or that I have any interest in religious studies. I am interested in discovering my world, and meeting people who have unique views that give me pause for thought. I found Mr Sitchin’s work to be unique to say the least. It all seems a little too far-fetched to me, but the dots he connects in his views make more “sense” to me than divine creation theories, which I rejected years ago. Although because of what he discussed it made look back into my copy of the bible and check some things out.
As I skimmed over the text looking for his interpretations, I was reminded why I had put this book down in the first place. It is self-righteous, misogynistic, and a stretch at best for the human imagination. Talking snakes, poof out of thin air we got animals, a god that creates perfect beings that rebel against him (?), and Noah’s Ark is really the icing on this bit of fantasy work. For it to be taken so seriously by so many is beyond me. Never mind studied at length and called an academic pursuit. Yet here I am looking back through it to now find some kind of connection to “ancient astronaut” passages, made me feel pretty childish. The more I thought about what Sitchin described made it at least have a little more credibility. At least it was based on something, not just a collection of broken-telephone style interpretations crawling out from antiquity.
I find it incredible that you yourself are a religious person, and yet you can’t imagine why people would want to believe in something that they cannot prove. Then go out of your way to try to make people feel uneducated, and wrong about following this train of thought. All I have to do is walk down my street and there are four churches, each with a different take. There is the Pentacostals, Protestant, Catholic, and Jews. These groups have built whole communities and places of worship (planet wide, if I may add) based on an ancient belief system that they cannot prove. Based on a faith, that this is how things are, and more importantly that they choose to believe.
What I find rearing it’s ugly head here in your work is (although you never say it) heresy. Someone decided they had a different idea of how things are, (right or wrong), and decided to put it out there. The earth used to be flat, the universe used to revolve around us, and people that thought differently were hunted and persecuted. Well we can’t take any of that back now, but we can learn from it.
Sitchin may have been wrong, or he may actually be right on, we don’t know. What I do know is he is allowed to have his beliefs and followers, and much like your beliefs they should be allowed to find their own audience. I think people come to this site not because they found you, it’s because they found him, and are looking for an open debate. Yet like the know everything school teacher you scold them for asking questions that don’t fit with your ideas. At the same time praising those who do. After your degrading, and humiliating treatment of the only open letter that you have received I felt compelled to write this.
Your only goal may be to be right, but you are going about it so wrong.
It doesn’t show respect to people to lie to them. My response to the open letter wasn’t degrading; it was honest and direct. My requests are simple and straightforward — show me where Sitchin’s core ideas LIVE IN THE TABLETS. If they were there, it would be a trivial thing to show me wrong. And so this isn’t about “interpretations” being wrong — it’s about the ideas not even existing in the texts. You can’t misinterpret something that doesn’t exist. People deserve to be told the truth and not misled. It’s no more complicated than that.
And with respect to religion, the idea of the existence of God is not the same as Sitchin’s claims. The idea of a God is a metaphysical / philosophical issue. Since neither you nor anyone else can demonstrate the philosophical or metaphysical incoherence of a personal God, it’s a little silly of you to cast them as the same issue, or pretend to be able to say with certainty that God doesn’t exist. That has been attempted so often so long without success that you’re better off just saying you don’t like the idea and leave it at that. But it doesn’t provide you any sort of intellectual superiority (and the converses is true as well, so I’m not picking on you). Unlike that, I can say with certainty that the kinds of things I want tablet citations for to support Sitchin’s ideas do not exist. They just don’t. I don’t think it can be any simpler. They aren’t there, and that isn’t a metaphysical issue. The problem for Sitchin is that, even if there was physical (biological) evidence for intelligent aliens, he still couldn’t say the things he says about nibiru and the Anunnaki, because those two things aren’t connected in the tablets. Again, not a metaphysical question.
im not sure what the deal is but i can’t see my post so…
I just approved it; a bit behind this week.
sorry it just keeps saying that I am making a duplicate post when in fact I am trying to post something new. not sure if it your site or what. (let’s see if it takes rigs one…
unbelievable that worked so I’m not sure what the deal is.