In Twelfth Planet (1976), Zecharia Sitchin first proposed his theory that there was a wandering planet named Nibiru. He seems to have based this entirely on a pair of weird misconceptions. The first was the translation of the word nibir or nibiru, which meant either "wandering stars" or "planets," not "wandering planet." This is because the ancients did not understand that the planets were distinct in substance from the stars, only that they were lights in the sky like the stars but which moved differently (i.e. wandered). George Smith understood this distinction as far back as 1876 in his Chaldean Account of Genesis:
Sitchin, reviewing the very same passage of the Enuma Elish that George Smith worked on and understood a century earlier, instead argued that "The Sumerians called the planet NIBIRU, the 'planet of crossing,' and the Babylonian version of the epic retained ... astronomical information."
It sure looks like Sitchin purposely distorted the original meaning to make his theory work, and it looks very much like he used George Smith's explanation of his early translation of the Enuma Elish to do so, something that seems clear when we see that Sitchin calls it the "Epic of Creation" most of the time rather than its scholarly name, implying that he used a source like Smith. Or, let's be more direct. Sitchin actually cites Smith's Chaldean Account of Genesis as a source in Twelfth Planet and takes from it everything he knows about the Greco-Roman discussion of Babylonian myth. I wonder if Smith's explanation of nibir doesn't lay behind Sitchin's wandering Nibiru.
Sitchin takes the fact that we know what planets are and projects it into the past, and he purposely conflates Smith's "wandering stars," which is actually a Classical Greek way of describing planets, with planets to invent the idea that the Babylonians and Sumerians viewed Nibiru as a wandering planet (i.e. chunk of rock) rather than a "wanderer," i.e. a light in the sky that does not follow the path of the fixed stars.
To make this work, Sitchin has to do another piece of fancy footwork. He has to discount the clear evidence that the Babylonian Nibiru (capitalized) was identified with Jupiter, not a wandering alien planet. His arguments are utterly juvenile and deserve no elaboration here. Suffice it to say that Nibiru is clearly meant to be Jupiter in the MUL.APIN astronomical compendium, set down around the time of the Enuma Elish (except, of course, when it is sometimes Mercury--but never a wandering planet):
As the text indicates, Marduk was identified with Jupiter and Nibiru. That Marduk and Jupiter were identified is quite clear to everyone except Zecharia Sitchin and the sources he critiques, which were out of date even in 1976. But if this weren't clear enough for Sitchin, the ancients themselves understood the connection. Alexander Polyhistor, citing the Babylonian priest Berossus, had written of Marduk (under his title of Bel, the Lord): "This Belus, by whom they signify Jupiter..." (he meant the god), thus again reaffirming a connection.
Everything else you've ever wanted to know about "nibiru" in Mesopotamian texts can be found in Michael Heiser's extensive discussion of it here.
I am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter, The Skeptical Xenoarchaeologist, for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Terms & Conditions
Please read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.