Questions after reading Sitchin's first book

I have some questions that I was hoping maybe someone here who has read the book like me could shed some light on (please no bashing or criticizing of Sitchin's work, as there are other posts for that).

1. The 12th planet says that the creation of man was done to make a worker to replace the annunaki works currently working in the gold mines of southern africa. But according to the book the humans were first made and introduced into (and then banished from) the "garden of eden" which was in the middle east. So why would humans be introduced so far from where the work was to be done?

2. The flood that ensued (of which there is no evidence of) would surely have wiped out all annunaki estableshments on earth as well as all human. So if the annunaki were still around when the flood was supposed to have occured, why would they destroy all their own work in an effort to destroy humans?

3. Lastly, since there's no evidence of the original annunaki establesments on earth (which I suppose could have been destroyed in the flood if it happened), were the first human cities (eridu, ur, etc...) built in the same locations? Because I remember reading something in the book about how humans used some city plans of the anunnaki to attempt to rebuild at least parts of their cities.

If anyone could help that'd be great.

Originally posted by mdcclxxvi
1. The 12th planet says that the creation of man was done to make a worker to replace the annunaki works currently working in the gold mines of southern africa. But according to the book the humans were first made and introduced into (and then banished from) the "garden of eden" which was in the middle east. So why would humans be introduced so far from where the work was to be done?

And why, if the gods created the earth and the heavens and everything there, did they need man to dig up gold for them? Couldn't they just have ... created more?

As it happens, Sitchin deliberately mistranslates the texts. The Sumerian texts very clearly state that the older gods decided they wanted to loaf around and made the younger gods do all the work (you know how older brothers and sisters are...) The younger gods whined that this was unfair and so they set about making humans to do the work for them so they wouldn't have to haul dirt and hoe gardens:

faculty.gvsu.edu...
www.geocities.com...

2. The flood that ensued (of which there is no evidence of) would surely have wiped out all annunaki estableshments on earth as well as all human. So if the annunaki were still around when the flood was supposed to have occured, why would they destroy all their own work in an effort to destroy humans?

The Sumerian gods lived in heaven; not on Earth.

There's not one version of the flood myth for the Sumerians -- there are several:
www.absoluteastronomy.com...(mythology).htm

3. Lastly, since there's no evidence of the original annunaki establesments on earth (which I suppose could have been destroyed in the flood if it happened), were the first human cities (eridu, ur, etc...) built in the same locations? Because I remember reading something in the book about how humans used some city plans of the anunnaki to attempt to rebuild at least parts of their cities.

Definite "no" to those. The first cities arise in several locations (Sumeria, India, China, Egypt) about the same time, and they arise as the climate becomes dryer and more people move into river valley areas (the climate change is called the "Younger Dyas.") And the idea of city planning is just laughable.

Remember that anyone with mud brick could build a house. Mud brick took time to make, but it wasn't hard to make and it wasn't expensive. Just clay and straw and a box to form the brick in. Voila! Instant mud brick.

So people built wherever they liked and streets just... happened. You can see a town plan here:
www.vnc.qld.edu.au...

There's no logic to it or order to it, and street widths varied wildly. It doesn't form any cosmic shape or symbol. When someone's house fell down, they just moved away and built a new one or built on the mound of dirt left by the old one.

I haven't read any Sitchin, and frankly I doubt I ever will because he makes a rather preposterous claim: that he is the only man in the scientific community who can read Sumerian. It just doesn't seem logical to me that if he really can read it that he can't lay out the rules of it and show the rest of the world where they went wrong. (well actually he's not in the scientific community, but I'm trying not to bash him too much)

That being said, I think I can take a stab at what the believers might say to reconcile the obvious disconect between his theory and the facts of ancient history. In case you didn't realize, that is exactly what you have found: a series of logical problems with Sitchin's story.

Forgive me for snipping the quotes down, but I hate to overquote. Please inform me if you feel that my shortening has caused your questions to be misrepresented.

Originally posted by mdcclxxvi
1. the creation of man was done to make a worker... in the gold mines of southern africa. But ... humans were first... introduced into... the middle east.

My best guess is that Sitchin supporters would claim that the gold was being processed up there, or perhaps that that's where the Annunaki space bases were or some such thing.

2. So if the annunaki were still around when the flood was supposed to have occured, why would they destroy all their own work in an effort to destroy humans?

Who was going to work there? What good is a mining colony with no miners? That's what I suspect they would say. Realistically though, I think we could expect ruins to remain through the flood, if there was one at all.

3. were the first human cities (eridu, ur, etc...) built in the same locations?

Disregarding the question of there ever being a flood in the first place, I'd say maybe. The biblical narrative, which I have heard is loosely based on the Sumerian stories, places the survivors in Turkey. If we assume that the antedeluvian sites were chose for good reason (namely the rivers Tigris and Euphrates) then it stands to reason they'd go back to that good land, especially if there was anything left of their cities at all.
But of course this is all just assuming that aliens or God actually did flood the entire world on a whim at some point in history (around 2348 BC as far as Christian's are concerned, using Ussher's timeline).


This probably isn't exactly what you had in mind, given the skeptical tone, but I tried to give the answers I would expect a believer to offer, while noting my personal disagreement with the theory so as not to be associated with Sitchin.

If anyone could help that'd be great.

The simple answer is because Sitchin is "full of it".
Probably what Byrd wanted to say, but she did so far more eloquently...

There is a researched deposition and debate lately the Great Flood may have been restricted to a particular area of the East and not anything more than that area.

A special on one of the specialty channels happened a year or so ago.
Sorry, I did not tape it to give particulars..

Dallas

There's a couple candidates for what you're thinking of Dallas. The one you're thinking about is probably the theory that the Black Sea area was somewhat civilized when the Mediterranean broke through the Bosporus Strait around 5600 BC. National Geographic looked into it.
www.nationalgeographic.com...

The other candidates are the Tigris and Euphrates river area, which has notable flooding every spring, having a real bad year. There is also the Persian Gulf which is believed to have been dry land up to about 12000 years ago, give or take a few millenia. I can't find many sites about those.
www.geosociety.org...

Sitkin, like Velikovsky and numerous others, relies on a very liberal interpretation of ambiguous ancient writings, and on speculative or fictional evidence.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by berglion]

Sure it's easy to bash Sitchin, but by providing an alternate translation of the Sumerian tablets, he has created interest in an area that may have never escaped acadamia. He may not be correct in his deductions, but at least it gets you to "Think". It makes you realize that everything you learned in public school might not be true. It prods at your mind, with the intent to bring about questions that you may have never thought about before. I know it's easier to drink out of a baby bottle, but at some point you have to learn to drink from a cup without spilling it.

Cheers

Dunno if I'd be so quik on the gun there. Though I have not read the man's book I have seen interviews with him and found I cannot dismiss his thoughts so easily.

I'm no master of his research speculations, but I do think the tablets he says he's interpreted need more study.

'Full of It', that may be bit far Gazrok, for now..

Dallas

With all due respect, how is he not full of it. The rest of the scientific community understands the rules of the Sumerian language and can therefore teach it to others at will.
Sitchin, who has no formal education in ancient languages, says he is the only person who can read it, but he can't lay out the rules of it for every body else.

My friends, where I come from, we call that being full of it.

Suppose that you can read French. And I tell you that I can read French. So you hand me a cook book and I say it's Moby Dick. You will say "Vagabond, I speak French, I learned it in school, I know how it works, and I know for sure that this is a cookbook." And I'll say "You were taught French wrong. All of the rules of the language which just happen to work perfectly and make great sense- they're all useless. This is Moby Dick, not a cookbook."

Come on, if I did that I would be full of it. I'd be more full of it than anybody else has ever dared to dream. And that's exactly what Sitchin is doing.

"With all due respect, how is he not full of it. The rest of the scientific community understands the rules of the Sumerian language and can therefore teach it to others at will.
Sitchin, who has no formal education in ancient languages, says he is the only person who can read it, but he can't lay out the rules of it for every body else. "

You say "The rest of the scientific community understands the rules of the Sumerian language and can therefore teach it to others at will. "

Can you supply a reference on this?

"Sitchin, who has no formal education in ancient languages, says he is the only person who can read it, but he can't lay out the rules of it for every body else. "

Can you elaborate on nonformal education in ancient languages and his lack of rules knowledge please ?

I suppose its time for me to read his book too.

Dallas

Honestly if he relabelled his books as fiction and had them rereleased he'd have a times bestseller for archaeo adventure fiction. But when held up to the light of day not a single person that actually can read cuneiform agrees with him.

"Honestly if he relabelled his books as fiction and had them rereleased he'd have a times bestseller for archaeo adventure fiction. But when held up to the light of day not a single person that actually can read cuneiform agrees with him."

Well who's all the single persons that would not agree with him?

Geez when moderators are asked questions on subjects I find it strange but perhap's a little usual lately how many of the brass come in support of the moderators and not the others, ie members views?

This is something I have already voiced some concern over. It's sort of forget the facts or theories and let's just show moderator to moderator support. Of course I'm not suggesting the majority but I am suggesting some. Don't mind being right or wrong but this powerhouse stuff should be controlled - yes?

Dallas

I have read most of them and find them entertaining but also a bit of a stretch.

Several universities actually have courses on cuneiform, there's also translation programs available to anyone who is interested. Like Latin, it may be dead, but people that have a reasonable knowledge of it are more common than one might think.

www.upenn.edu...

www.brown.edu...

Originally posted by Dallas
You say "The rest of the scientific community understands the rules of the Sumerian language and can therefore teach it to others at will. "

Can you supply a reference on this?

Dallas,
The Sumerians actually left behind dictionaries and lexicons. It's not that hard to understand the "rules of the...language" when you have these kinds of tools available.

Originally posted by Dallas "Sitchin, who has no formal education in ancient languages, says he is the only person who can read it, but he can't lay out the rules of it for every body else. "

Can you elaborate on nonformal education in ancient languages and his lack of rules knowledge please ?

Here's a couple of links for you:
Sitchen is Wrong
Sitchen Skeptical Archive

The first webpage linked to will provide the references you requested in your post (and a whole lot more). The second is unnecessary, but I provided it as a way to illustrate to you just how many experts actually do disagree with Sitchen.

Originally posted by DallasI suppose its time for me to read his book too.

Dallas

Do the world a favor here. If you must read this charlatan's "work," at least only borrow the book from a friend or a library. No need to allow yourself to be ripped off by one of the more successful con artists in the field of pseudohistory.

Harte

Originally posted by Dallas
Well who's all the single persons that would not agree with him?

You know, the college educated types who rely on structure, repeatability, logic, etc. The ones who believe in the scientific method. The ones who would probably kill to prove something as Earth shaking as Sitchin's theories, but for the most part couldn't stand to humiliate themselves by backing something that has no evidence behind it. Those single persons.

Geez when moderators are asked questions on subjects I find it strange but perhap's a little usual lately how many of the brass come in support of the moderators and not the others, ie members views?

I sincerely hope that you do not feel that you're being ganged up on by some sort of "good ol' boys" club. Gaz really hasn't said all that much- just offered his opinion on Sitchin in like 2 lines.
As for me, not only am I not part of the brass on ATS, but I do my own thing. Nobody calls on or expects my support. I used to be bigtime pro-flood, pro-biblical historical accuracy, pro-sitchn, pro-ancient nuclear war, etc etc etc. The evidence changed my mind (mostly from Byrd, and Nygdan-before he was a mod).

Anyway, please don't take it the wrong way. Just because some people are skeptics, and some people have various positions on ATS (which chiefly revolve around making ATS a good place for members- especially in the council's case) doesn't mean that we're some sort of truth-supression squad.

2. The flood that ensued (of which there is no evidence of) would surely have wiped out all annunaki estableshments on earth as well as all human. So if the annunaki were still around when the flood was supposed to have occured, why would they destroy all their own work in an effort to destroy humans?

The Sumerian gods lived in heaven; not on Earth.

There's not one version of the flood myth for the Sumerians -- there are several:
www.absoluteastronomy.com...(mythology).htm

I'm just saying, in Sitchin's book (whether right or wrong) he says that the gods did have settlements here (just look at the book, clearly they can't mine gold here if they dont live here), but I was just curious as to the remains of these settlements / what happened to them.

I have read several of Sitchens books, and I find them very interesting. The books give the reader a different perspective on things. I believe that everyone should be able to take the information and mull it over and come out with thier own rational on the subject matter. I would like to know who on earth really has the answers to life? Isn't the Bible, which use to be the best seller, full of holes? For example, it mentions Adam, Eve, Cain, Able, and Seth, but fails to explain where all the other people came from. Remeber when, per the Bible, Cain slew Abel and Cain was cast out to dwell in another land and a Mark was put on Cain so that none who meet him would kill him? Who are the "none" and where did they come from? All I'm saying is, I yearn for knowledge and I like the fact there are other people out there who actually try to physically seek it for those of us who can't. I thank Sitchen and all the other authors who do research and walk the beat so to say, so that those of us can see things in a possible different light and come to our own conclusions. NO HAS THE ANSWERS.

Thank you,
Starr

Hey mdcclxxvi, I’ve read his books. In reply to your original post:

1) Actually, if you flip through the pages again, I think you’ll find that the “dark haired” ones were originally created to work in the Abzu. At a later time, the folks up in the Eden noticed how cool a slave race was and decided they wanted some of their own. A military expedition was made to the Abzu, human slaves were captured and brought back to the Eden to perform menial tasks.

2) The alleged flood was a natural catastrophe, not a created event. In theory it was caused by a combination of global warming, the close approach of the “12th planet”, and the slippage of a substantial portion of the Antarctic ice sheet into the ocean. The combined effects of this produced a tidal wave that covered the entire world. The advanced Annunaki were able to forecast this natural disaster in much the same way we were able to forecast Katrina…. (fat lot of good that did us) The Annunaki had enough time to get themselves back up into space and watched the destruction from orbit. One of them (Enki) broke the rules and found a way to tell a human (Ziusudra) that a flood was coming and that he should build a boat…

3) Everything WAS pretty much wiped out by the tidal wave, although some of the more megalithic stone foundations survived (such as can be found at Baalbek) Once things dried out enough the surviving humans and Annunaki got together and rebuilt the olden cities… The cities were NOT rebuilt according to some individual city planning council, but rather the Location of each city relative to each other is the “plan” you mention. The cities relative distances and locations to each other were set up to help provide geographic landmarks for airborne or space borne vehicles to locate the landing field.

Having said alla that, I’m not a blind Stichinite. I find many of his conclusions to be lacking. However, his conclusions aren’t empty. He provides the evidence and the source material, and describes the etymology he uses to base his conclusions on. Anybody can examine the materials he uses first hand and reach their own conclusions. There are no “secret files”, no “forbidden tombs” or “untouchable holy artifacts” everything is either available in the library or on display in a museum.

Glancing at a web site that disagrees with his conclusions isn’t really an in-depth investigation, is it? Pick up a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh and give it a read. Pick up a copy of Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth, and give it a read. Pick up a copy of Enki and the World Order and give it a read. Stitchin had absolutely nothing to do with the translation of these stories, he simply read them and then made a conclusion based upon his readings… you can do the same.

Before people go off half cocked and shout that there is nothing to be learned from reading stupid ancient mythologies, do a little tiny bit of research on Troy, or Ur, or Babylon. Until just recently, these cities were thought to be pure fantasy. For hundreds of years Troy was just another Atlantis, a nice bedtime story with no truth to it… now we know better.

Biblical stories are the same way. It never ceases to amaze me the number of intelligent, educated people who are more than willing to shout down any type of Biblical reference whatsoever based solely on the fact that it came out of the Bible, and yet they have never actually read the thing. Until just recently, Ur was just another mythical Biblical city, not to be taken seriously… now, of course, we know better.

The History Channel is nice. The Discovery channel is nice. Getting as close to the horses mouth as you can get is even nicer. Why let somebody else read the book and then tell you what to think when you can read the book for yourself and make up your own (now well informed) mind?


[edit on 4-10-2005 by torbjon]

1776, you put me at a bit of a disadvantage.

You say you want some questions answered, but you say you don't want anyone bashing Sitchin. I regret to say I cannot do both of those things at once, since I consider Zecheriah Sitchen a fraud and hoaxer.

You may, in my never-humble opinion, dicuss Sitchen as though her were a real scientist, or you can (to quote your own signature-block) look for "Unmitigated, unadulterated, immutable truth. Look upon the bucket of truth."

But you can't have it both ways.