It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Famous Sumerian Seal Does NOT depict a 12th planet...?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:10 PM
Like so many others, I took at face value the common meaning attributed to the famous image that you can see in the picture is, we are told by many different authors, proof that the Sumerians knew about a 12th planet. However, I came across an article that throws this belief into question and with apparant good reason.........

FROM THE ARTICLE (not written by me...):

The study of cylinder seals is actually a very specialized sub-discipline within Sumerology and Assyriology.a It is possible to determine, through the efforts of cylinder seal specialists of the recent past and current experts, to decisively say that Sitchin’s interpretation of this seal is deeply flawed and lacks scholarly merit. In short, his theory is false and is unsupported by the seal itself.

In the discussion that follows, I will demonstrate that VA243 in no way supports Sitchin’s ideas. My reasons / lines of argument for this are:

1) The inscription on the seal (left hand and right hand sides – which are not discussed by Sitchin) says nothing about planets or any element of astronomy. Rather than offering an independent translation, I will defer to authorities on Sumerian seal inscriptions in this regard to avoid any charge of bias.
2) The alleged “sun” symbol on the seal is not the sun. We know this because it does not conform to the consistent depiction of the sun in hundreds of other cylinder seals and examples of Sumero-Mesopotamian artwork. I will describe the typical depiction (determined with certainty because it appears with texts about the sun god [Shamash Akkadian, known as Utu in Sumerian]) and provide image examples. Sources are provided for readers to check for themselves. The “sun” symbol is actually a star (which in Mesopotamian art could have six or, more commonly, eight points). Lest the modern reader retort that “well, the sun is a star,” I offer several images where the star symbol and the sun symbol (which again, is not that in VA243) are side-by-side and distinct from one another. The Sumerians and Mesopotamians distinguished the sun from stars by using different symbols – and associating each symbol with the sun god and other gods, respectively. There is simply no ancient Sumero-Akkadian evidence to support Sitchin’s identification.

3) If the “sun” is not the sun, then what are the dots? The dots are also stars, as is best illustrated by the Sumerian-Mesopotamian depiction of the Pleaides (seven dots together with reasonable astronomical accuracy since they are visible to the naked eye).b The Pleaides are actually one of the most frequently depicted astronomical features in Sumero-Mesopotamian art. As Sitchin points out (and this is corroborated by actual scholars in the field - it’s common knowledge), stars were associated with or considered to be heavenly beings – gods. In Sumero-Mesopotamian artwork, a star represents either a god or an astronomical body. The same can be said of the sun – it can either reference the literal sun or the sun god. There are three possibilities as to what VA243 is depicting:
(A) It is singling out a deity or special star and associating it with other stars in some sort of zodiacal representation. I don’t consider this likely because there are other far clearer representations of zodiacal constellations. Unless there are clear zodiacal connotations, a star was symbolic of a deity, which brings us to the second option.

(B) More probable is the idea that the central star stands for a deity that has some association with fertility (as in crops) since the inscription describes an offering made by a worshipper (who is named) to a seated god who is associated in the seal with fertile harvest. Since there are two other figures in the seal in addition to the seated god, and one is the offerer, the remaining figure is likely a deity also associated with the offering. In favor of this possibility are the “implements” shown on the seal with respect to these two figures facing the seated god and the figure’s headdress. Also in its favor is the fact that there are literally hundreds of such “offering seals,” and many have a star in upper proximity to the figures’ heads, signifying the figure is a deity (see the example).

You can read on by clicking This Link


You will need to scroll down the page to the second article as there are two on the page.

There is a growing amount of modern research suggesting another planet does exist but as far as the ancients are concerned, there is really NO evidence that they knew something we did not as far as I can tell. I have searched and searched but there is nothing I can find to suggest otherwise, as much as I wish this were not the case.

Consider Astrology for has been around for millenia in many parts of the world but up until modern times it only ever used The Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn for interpretation. The ancients did not even know about Uranus, Neptune or Pluto never mind a 12th planet and if they had they surely would have included these planets in their astrological texts, calculations and interpretations yet they did not.

So I just thought I'd post the article (not my work )and image and ask for your thoughts about what it discusses, and of course if anyone has any evidence to support the notion that the ancients DID know about a 10th planet then please do post it.

[edit on 15/7/09 by cosmicpixie]

[edit on 15/7/09 by cosmicpixie] problems embedding image.....

[edit on 15/7/09 by cosmicpixie]

[edit on 15/7/09 by cosmicpixie]

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:17 PM
So you have two different interpretations of this seal...both make valid points and both have their flaws.

But instead of keeping an open mind and not putting 100% trust into either of declare that Sitchen is WRONG because of this one other theory.

To me that is just as bad as taking Sitchen's interpretation as 100% fact.

The keywords here are INTERPRETATION and TRANSLATION. Neither of those will ever be 100% complete or true.

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:40 PM
reply to post by OutKast Searcher was the writer of the article who declared Sitchin wrong, I never even mentioned Sitchin. I am trying to keep an open mind actually but the author of the article has a good case so far and it warrants further investigation I think. The whole idea of the ancients knowing about a 10th planet is a concept based primarily upon the accepted meaning of the image in this seal...I've come across nothing else to support the idea that the ancients knew though WOULD like to find such evidence.

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:00 PM
Here is this arrogant behaviour again : (and this is corroborated by actual scholars in the field - it’s common knowledge)

This is to get the reader to feel embarassed for thinking other wise or have believed Sitchin..

The seal depicts the planets, and why shouldnt the one that look like a sun , be the sun? Wouldnt they draw in a face in there if it was an sun god?

Maybe it isnt even our solarsystem...
Or it shows the sun at Maximum...

Could mean so much, maybe they are beans surrounding an apple..

[edit on 15-7-2009 by ChemBreather]

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:28 PM
Well the seal clearly does not show the solar system because Eris and Makemake etal are missing
But of course Sitchen didn't know of them when he invented his alternative explanation to support his sci fi fantasy story.

Anyone interested in the subject might want to read this thread:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:22 PM
I think the interpretation of Mr. Sitchin carries more merit than the article which is presented here. There is no real evidence that the symbol which Michael S. Heiser and other scholars recognize as symbol of the "sun" is exactly what they claim it is. The same symbol is shown in some Sumerian tablets being stationed on a table like object while sun and moon and stars are always depicted in the sky in many different tablets. As mentioned here by some earlier posters, it all about interpretation and there is no real evidence that can back up the claims that are put forth in the above article. Another thing that worth mentioning is the claim by Mr. Heiser about Sumerians obsession with Pleiades constellation which does not make sense when 7 dots are depicted with presence of sun in the sky. No reason is given that why Sumerians might have been obsessed with showing Pleiades in their tablets and seals. If earth of "ki" is considered 7th planet (when counted from outside the solar system) in our solar system in some Sumerian scripts as claimed by Mr. Sitchin then I tend to believe that his interpretation is more accurate than any other ones so far. Moreover, Mr. Sitchin's interpretation fits better with status of Sumerian gods which indicate that they possessed some extra ordinary powers and knowledge to make them godly beings and worthy of the position that they held while this article does not present anything to explain why such huge figures which were clearly much larger than others were in the place that they were. There are many flaws in this article which is presented with the claim to be scholarly to debunk Mr. Sitchin's arguments in a website dedicated to prove "sitchiniswrong" that makes one wonder why? It is very interesting! As one of the posters stated earlier, Mr. Sitchin might be not 100% right (because it is all about interpretations) but this article is definitely very wrong by overlooking evidences that disprove the author's claims.

edit on 21-9-2010 by Toofaan because: missing word

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:32 PM
reply to post by Essan

Well maybe they meant Eris instead of Pluto (poor Pluto, left out again). But what about Sedna?
Never mind the fact that the Sumerians counted the Moon as a planet. That would put us back to nine planets. But we only have eight planets now, unless you really like Pluto. But then Eris should count and I really don't think it would qualify as Nibiru.

But what's that other "planet" doing way out there in front of that guy's nose?

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:49 PM
reply to post by Phage

Well all I know is Sedna and Eris are both on an eliptical comet-like orbit just like Sitchin stated with Nibiru as being on a comet-like orbit. which proves that it is possible that it could happen.Humanity is around 200k years old and the last advanced civilization known to man was sumeria. Also take note that the 12 gods/goddess that were of Sumeria have followed throughout time till the Greeks/Roman time. They are the ones who gave knowledge on Astronomy and Mathematics as well to us humans.

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:56 PM
reply to post by cosmicpixie

sure it does...its between the guy on the throne and the guy in front of him

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by dragnet53

You sort of missed the point. Sitchin claims 12 "planets" are shown. Shall we name them? Say it with me; Mercury, Venus, Mars, Earth, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Nibiru.

But, if the Sumerians knew about Pluto through their advanced astronomical knowledge brought to them by the Annunaki, how could they miss Eris which is more massive than Pluto and has an orbit which brings it closer to the Sun than Pluto (but nowhere near Earth)? Hmmm? How come? Shouldn't there be at least 13 "planets" on the seal? Which one(s) did they forget?

edit on 9/21/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:40 PM
reply to post by dragnet53

Only 12 gods and goddess? There were more like thousands of them (60 x 60). Which ones are you leaving out?

It's pretty convoluted but it seems that at the top of the heap was Nammu. Followed by An, Ki, Enlil, and Enki. Then there were Nanna, Utu, ad Innana. That's eight who can be considered top dogs but it gets really tricky after that.

There fifty "great gods" which included: Ereshkigal, Nergal, Ninlil, Ningal, Nanshe, Nidaba, Ninisinna, Ninkasi (godess of beer, yea!), Ninurta, Ashnan, Lahar, Emesh, Enten, Uttu, Enbilulu, Enbilulu, Ishkur, Enkimdu, Kabta, Mushdamma, and Sumugan.

So, who are you going to send home to make up your twelve? And why? And Ninkasi better not be one of them.

The Greeks had 12 "Olympians" but there was some controversy over who they were exactly. Even though he was very important, Hades wasn't included because he didn't live on the mountain. According to Ennuis the Romans shifted things around a bit, dumping Bacchus in favor of Vesta in interest of sexual equality. Herodotus decided that Alpheus, Cronus, Rhea, the Charities (as a group), and Heracles should be there and dumped the other guys to keep the number right.

It ain't easy being top dog. Or even one of the top twelve.

edit on 9/21/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:19 AM
reply to post by Phage

Where the hell did you get 60 from? Please show your 'source' please. I don't accept blogs as sources by the way or wikipedia at that if you went to college you know better than to use wikipedia.

lol damn

edit on 22-9-2010 by dragnet53 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2010 by dragnet53 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:33 AM
This counts 27 gods/goddess, but it also includes their children and some of the old gods/goddesses. the main circle was 12.

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:40 AM
reply to post by Phage

That isn't a planet by his nose.

It's clearly a ufo making chem trails.... or a doorbell.

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:43 AM
reply to post by dragnet53

Not 60. 60x60. 3,600. Of course most of them were probably "god of dirty linen" and things like that.

Source? Ok, how about Karen Rhea Nemet-Nejat. Does she meet your high standards?

The number of gods increased in the Neo-Sumerian period; the Sumerians themselves estimated that there were 3,600 (60 x 60) gods.

-Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia -page 182

This counts 27 gods/goddess, but it also includes their children and some of the old gods/goddesses. the main circle was 12.

Which 12? According to who? (Sitchin doesn't count).

edit on 9/22/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics


log in