Editor's Note: I am taking today off to work on projects other than my blog. Please enjoy a repeat of a classic blog post from my archive. This piece originally ran in July 2012.
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:
I have translated one of these names nibir, “wandering stars” or “planets,” but this is not the usual word for planet, and there is a star called Nibir near the place where the sun crossed the boundary between the old and new years, and this star was one of twelve supposed to be favourable to Babylonia.
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):
When the stars of Enlil have been finished, one big star – although its light is dim – divides the sky in half and stands there: that is, the star of Marduk (MUL dAMAR.UD), Nibiru (né-bé-ru), Jupiter (MULSAG.ME.GAR); it keeps changing its position and crosses the sky.
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.
8/23/2018 08:40:31 am
It's hard to take Colavito seriously if all the time he is talking about Sitchin and Daniken. Where were you in the last 300 years? We are living in 2018, not in 1988. Stop making these ridiculous posts about Sitchin and Sumer, because nobody cares about these topics nowadays. If you want new, scientific material then read books made by molecular biologist Pietro Buffa who made several scientific publications on topic of Ancient Aliens, including Directed Panspermia and Intervention Theory. He has written in astonishing way, number of operations which was necessary to transform hominids in Homo Sapiens Sapiens. He is respected scientist, he made valid points about our genes, chromosomes, DNA etc. He showed dozens of articles from Science magazine, matching this with knowledge about molecular biology. But yeah, it's better non stop to talk about Sitchin. Disappointing.
Science or pseudo-science
8/23/2018 09:54:06 am
>>He showed dozens of articles from Science magazine<<
8/23/2018 01:28:10 pm
It looks like he's a legitimate credentialed peer-review published researcher who does crackpot stuff on the side which he confines to crackpot publications such as Science & Inexpliqué which you mentioned and Nexus magazine.
8/23/2018 12:04:54 pm
Yeah and stop talking about ancient astronauts and nephilim and stuff like that there because there ain't no History Channel or anything.
An Over-Educated Grunt
8/23/2018 02:18:38 pm
It's hard to take you seriously when you're bitching about a repeat blog post from 2012 and can't tell the difference between 30 and 300.
An Anonymous Nerd
8/24/2018 09:53:08 pm
[It's hard to take Colavito seriously if all the time he is talking about Sitchin and Daniken.]
8/23/2018 09:41:28 am
Hello, I am a respected scientist. That does not stop me believing in rubbish. It's the consensus of agreement among all respected scientists that counts.
8/23/2018 11:59:22 am
Nibiru doesn't mean wandering star in any sense and George Smith doesn't appear to be claiming that it does, rather that he's admitting that his translation is non-literal.
8/23/2018 01:12:16 pm
Singing " I Was Born Under A Wandering Star " certainly sounds a lot better than " I Was Born Under A Wandering Planet " or worse " I Was Born Under A Nibiru " !!
8/23/2018 04:12:50 pm
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
I am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter 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.