Introductory Comments
for the Reader:
The work
of Zecharia Sitchin was brought to my attention just over a year ago,
shortly after I completed my book, The Facade. As a trained
scholar in ancient Semitic languages with a lifelong interest in UFOs and
paranormal phenomena, I was naturally enthused about Mr. Sitchin's studies,
particularly since I had also heard he was a Sumerian scholar. I
thought I had found a kindred spirit, perhaps even a guide to navigating the
possible intersection of my academic disciplines with ufology, a discipline
unfairly ridiculed by the academic mainstream. Unfortunately, I was
wrong.
What
follows will no doubt trouble some readers. I have come to learn that
Mr. Sitchin has an avid following, and so that is inevitable.
Nevertheless, I feel it my responsibility as someone who has earned
credentials in the languages, cultures, and history of antiquity to point
out the errors in Mr. Sitchin's work. Indeed, this is the academic
enterprise. I have yet to find anyone with credentials or demonstrable
lay-expertise in Sumerian, Akkadian, or any of the other ancient Semitic
languages who positively assesses Mr. Sitchin's academic work.
The
reader must realize that the substance of my disagreement is not due to
"translation philosophy," as though Mr. Sitchin and I merely
disagree over possible translations of certain words. What is at stake
is the integrity of the cuneiform tablets themselves, along with the legacy
of Sumer and Mesopotamian scribes. Very simply, the ancient
Mesopotamians compiled their own dictionaries - we have them and they have
been published since mid-century. The words Mr. Sitchin tells us refer to
rocket ships have no such meanings according to the ancient Mesopotamians
themselves. Likewise when Mr. Sitchin draws connections between Sumero-Mesopotamian
gods and stories that simply do not exist in the literature (like insisting
the Sumerians believed there were twelve planets and having the Anunnaki
living on Nibiru, the supposed 12th planet), my argument with him is one
that opposes such fabrications, not just one how words are translated.
To persist in embracing Mr. Sitchin's views on this matter (and a host of
others) amounts to rejecting the legacy of the ancient Sumerian and Akkadian
scribes whose labors have come down to us from the ages. Put bluntly,
is it more coherent to believe a Mesopotamian scribe's definition of a word,
or Mr. Sitchin's?
I do
believe that Mr. Sitchin has done some kind of work in the ancient languages
(though I have never seen academic credentials in the form of degrees or
transcripts), but some of the mistakes he makes are at so basic a level of
language knowledge that I sincerely doubt he knows ANY of the ancient
languages he says he does. I'm guessing that with Hebrew, for example,
Mr. Sitchin (being Jewish) can sight-read the language but doesn't
understand ancient Biblical Hebrew grammar (much like many English readers
don't have a real grasp of the mechanics of English grammar). I have
seen little that convinces me that Mr. Sitchin knows any ancient languages,
much less demonstrating that he is a language "expert". I
say this because of Mr. Sitchin's linguistic mistakes (see below), and
because he rarely interacts with scholarly articles pertaining to any
linguistic material in the texts he uses. Unfortunately, there are
even points he just makes up.
The
reader should also know that I believe that the strange phenomena people
have experienced in antiquity through the present day with respect to
"UFOs" and "aliens" are real. The Facade offers an
alternative paradigm to these phenomena, one that, contrary to Mr. Sitchin's
reconstruction, CAN be defended (if the connections be legitimate) through
ancient texts.
Dear Mr. Sitchin,
While the
contents of this letter may constitute a challenge to your academic
scholarship, the intent of this letter is more in the interest of research
than confrontation. I recognize and appreciate your efforts toward
understanding the ancient texts of Mesopotamia and the Hebrew Bible in more
than a sterile, unimaginative way than characterizes most scholarship in
this area. However, I find many of your positions to be curiously
lacking in precisely the area which you (or perhaps mainly your followers) have
claimed expertise - the languages of the ancient near east. At this
point I can only conclude (perhaps ignorantly) that either you do not know
the grammar of these languages, did not do enough research into the
languages and therefore missed the points I have raised above on this
website, or (hopefully
not) do not want your readers to know what's going on in these ancient texts
with respect to the grammar and structure of the languages. Toward
clarifying why your work has overlooked some obvious linguistic issues, I
would ask that you respond to the following questions:
1. Can you
please provide transcripts of your academic language work, or an address to
which I could write to obtain proof of your training in this area? I
would like to post this information on my website, and would gladly do so.
2. Can you
explain why your work on Genesis 1:26-27 overlooks so many obvious
grammatical indications that Elohim in that passage refers to a single
deity (as demonstrated above)?
3. Can you
explain why you did not include the comparative linguistic material from the
Amarna texts that shows the Akkadian language also uses the plural word for
"gods" to refer to a single
deity or person?(as demonstrated above)?
4.
Can you
explain how your interpretation of the word "nephilim" is at all
viable in light of its morphological impossibility?
5.
Can you
explain why you were unaware that Sumerian has no relative pronouns, thereby
making the alleged "SHU.MU" etymology for Hebrew "shem"
a totally bogus argument (as demonstrated above)? Why did you fabricate this form in light of
Sumerian grammar?
6.
Can you produce a single text
that says the Anunnaki come from the planet
Nibiru - or that Nibiru is a planet beyond Pluto?
7.
Can you explain why the alleged sun symbol on cylinder seal VA 243 is not
the normal sun symbol or the symbol for the sun god Shamash?
8.
Can you explain why your god=planet equivalencies do not match the listings
of such matching in cuneiform astronomical texts?
9.
Can you
explain why many of your critical word meanings / translations of Sumerian
and Mesopotamian words are not consistent with Mesopotamian cuneiform
bilingual dictionaries?
10.
Can you
provide a coherent rationale in response to the logical problems
presented
by your understanding of the technology of the Annunaki:
How is it
that the same gods who conquered deep space travel took several tries to
genetically create humans?
How is it
that these gods, with their fantastic space travel technology, gods who gave
mankind the technology to build the pyramids and other fantastic structures,
didn't have a better mechanism than MANUAL LABOR for mining the earth's
gold?
How is it
that the deep space travel capability of the Annunaki CONSISTED OF
COMBUSTION ENGINES (the "fiery rockets")?
How is it
that these gods who had mastered the forces of physics and biology could not
make a synthetic equivalent to gold?
Thank you for
taking the time to respond. I will of course post any responses on
this site.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Heiser
PhD candidate, Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies
University of
Wisconsin-Madison