by Andy Lloyd
The ‘12th Planet’
An alternative approach to the study of Mesopotamian myth was made in the 1970s by Zecharia Sitchin, who made a personal study of Middle Eastern languages and archeology whilst working as a journalist in Israel.6 Sitchin read the ancient texts and came to a rather different conclusion about the origins of Sumerian civilization. He proposed that the Sumerians weren’t alluding to mythical allegory when they spoke of their gods; they were literally describing flesh and blood characters who were historically contemporary with them. Their service to their gods was less religious, more day-to-day work to support an infrastructure that centred upon these powerful beings.
After some study, Sitchin had in his mind a complex and far-reaching exposé of the historical development of civilization, one that turned the tables on the standard versions of events. He set about collating this magnum opus in a series of popular books known as the ‘Earth Chronicles’.7The running theme of the books was based on the conceptual framework of the 12th Planet, the home world of the gods. Sitchin wrote that this new planet was known to the Sumerians as ‘Nibiru’, and to the later Babylonians as ‘Marduk’.
Sitchin’s rather unique way of thinking is based upon a rather literal interpretation of the texts, particularly the Babylonian “Epic of Creation”, the "Enuma Elish”. Many critics voice their disquiet with Sitchin’s mode of interpretation, and he is utterly dismissed by mainstream Sumerologists. To some theorists, there may be some good reason to be cautious about some of Zecharia Sitchin’s claims. But, it is undeniably true that there are clear references in ancient Mesopotamian texts which mention this enigmatic Nibiru as a red star that moves through the heavens.
In their classic book ‘Hamlet’s Mill’, Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend explored the mysterious nature of ‘Nibiru’ in 1969, and showed that, at that time, no scholarly theory adequately explained its celestial nature:
“The plain meaning of “nibiru” is “ferry, ferryman, ford” – “mikis nibiri” is the toll one has to pay for crossing the river – from eberu “to cross”. Alfred Jeremias insisted that Nibiru “in all star-texts of later times” indicated Canopus, taking this star for the provider of the meridian of the city of Babylon. There have been other identifications– the summer solstice, or the celestial North Pole; the opinions and verdicts collected by Gossmann show clearly that Nibiru remains an unknown factor for the time being.”8
Most scholars now believe that Nibiru is simply the planet Jupiter, but that rather simple explanation is cast into doubt by the mention of Nibiru’s color: Red. Jupiter is a rather boring looking white color. There is still a real mystery here, 36 years after ‘Hamlet’s Mill’. The focus of this mystery is the name ‘Ferry’. We shall return to this at a later point.
Sitchin claims that the ancient Sumerians were aware of all of the planets circling the sun, both observable ones and those detectable only by use of a modern telescope. He maintains that the Sumerians counted the planets from outside in. The Earth was thus the 7th planet. This is said to reflect the appearance of the solar system from the perspective of travelers from outside, in other words, the space-faring race of Anunnaki.
Only the five planets nearest to the sun are visible to the naked eye. Uranus is observable under extremely good conditions if one knows exactly where to look. Neptune and Pluto are both non-starters.
Is it possible that these ancient peoples, barely out of the Stone Age, were able to detect distant, invisible planets? Robert Temple has shown that many ancient peoples possessed lens technology, and were thus theoretically capable of creating rudimentary telescopes.9 But, even so, it is surely beyond the realm of possibility to imagine that Neptune could have been discovered by Mesopotamian astronomers in the 3rd Millennium B.C.E.!
Well, indeed. Except that Zecharia Sitchin is not claiming that the Sumerians independently discovered these far-flung worlds. He argues that the knowledge was handed down to them by their gods, becoming an astronomical science, and that it was later corrupted into astrology by the later civilizations. We now understand that early science as pure myth and dismiss the possibility that the Sumerians understood our solar system as well as us. Or perhaps even better!
The concept that the planets should share the names of the gods is not a new one. After all, the ‘English’ names for the planets and other heavenly bodies are derived from the pantheons of Greek and Roman gods and goddesses. This follows an age-old tradition, and it is certainly not that strange a claim to associate the gods of ancient Mesopotamia with astronomy. The difference with Sitchin’s work is that he has taken things to their logical conclusion and has seen the Enuma Elish to be an accurate representation of the physical creation of the solar system.
However, the tale that emerges from this important Babylonian creation myth is somewhat different from our own understanding of the solar system. This epic tale speaks of events on a cosmic scale, with a fierce battle between two great planets, or Gods, that presumably occurred 4 billion years ago. But neither of the two combatants are known to us. We can recognize many of the planets, but not the two key players known as Marduk, and a ‘watery monster’ called ‘Tiamat’. Both do battle on a catastrophic level. It is this difference between the account in the Enuma Elish and what we now scientifically know about the solar system that lies at the heart of the Sitchin’s 12th Planet Theory.
Son of the Sun
According to Sitchin’s interpretation of the Babylonian ‘Enuma Elish’, there was no planet between Venus and Mars in the early, primordial solar system, where the Earth now resides. In the beginning, Earth was absent from the orbital position we currently take for granted; the classical ‘habitation zone’.
Also, Pluto was a moon (or ‘counselor’ and ‘emissary’) of Saturn, and there was a ‘watery monster’ of a world called ‘Tiamat’, the “maiden who gave life” between Mars and Jupiter. It had a major moon called ‘Kingu’. This configuration was not stable, and the noise of the Gods implied erratic orbits. Then along came an outsider, a planet that was not born of Apsu, but one that attempted to join the throng of the celestial gods. In other words, a wandering ‘planet’ entered the solar system, with catastrophic results. It attacks the watery planet Tiamat and subdues her with terrible weapons. From this cosmic battle, Marduk becomes the centrally important god of Babylonian myth.
His birth is described in the Enuma Elish, and although he is described in anthropomorphic terms, like the other gods, his dominance of them is clear. This powerful description, when applied to a planet, gives the distinct impression of something massive and fiery:
“Greatly exalted was he (Marduk) above them, exceeding throughout.
Perfect were his members beyond comprehension, Unsuited for understanding, difficult to perceive. Four were his eyes, four were his ears; When he moved his lips, fire blazed forth. Large were all four hearing organs, And the eyes, in like number, scanned all things. He was the loftiest of the gods, surpassing was his stature; His members were enormous, he was exceeding tall. "My little son, my little son!" My son, the Sun! Sun of the heavens!" Clothed with the halo of ten gods, he was strong to the utmost, As their awesome flashes were heaped upon him.”
Tablet I, 92-105 (10).
Notice also the allusion to the little ‘Sun of the heavens’, another clue that leads us towards the Dark Star. Marduk is given 50 names, the 49th of which is ‘Nibiru’, or ‘Nebiru’. This name clearly indicates the appearance of an actual star in the heavens, one that is centrally important to the movements of the planets in the solar system:
“(49) NEBIRU shall hold the crossings of heaven and earth, So that the gods cannot cross above and below, They must wait upon him.
Nebiru is the star which in the skies is brilliant. Truly he holds the central position, they shall bow down to him, Saying: "He who the midst of the Sea restlessly crosses, Let `Crossing' be his name, who controls its midst. May they uphold the course of the stars of heaven; May he shepherd all the gods
like sheep.”
Tablet VII, 125-133 (10).
Marduk is instrumental in setting up the ‘stations of heaven’, possibly by influencing the Earth’s orbit and tilt. As part of this he creates the ‘station of Nebiru’:
“He founded the station of Nebiru to determine their heavenly bands,
That none might transgress or fall short.” Tablet V, 6-7.10
As planetary gods go, Marduk was a colossal specimen that seemed to breathe fire. It was red in color, and sparkled from his ‘eyes’. It had a tremendous ‘halo’ surrounding it, the equivalent of that of 10 gods. If Sitchin’s logic is followed, then the above descriptions of Marduk describe a fiery planet without equal. It is certainly self-evident that Marduk was strongly associated with the enigmatic phenomenon that is Nibiru, described in unmistakably astronomical terms in the Enuma Elish.
But, that association falls short of the two names being completely interchangeable. Where Marduk seems more strongly associated with a dominant and powerful god, Nibiru is evidently a celestial phenomenon observable from Earth. This complicates matters somewhat.
The Cosmic Battle
According to Zecharia Sitchin, Marduk rampaged through the planetary solar system, pummeling the watery planet Tiamat with one of its moons (called the ‘North Wind’), and later cleaving Tiamat into two. This may have been a direct hit, or it may mean that much of the waters of the primordial Earth were shed as a result of the encounter with the Dark Star. The ‘North Wind’ is presumably also lost. In the description of Marduk above, we learn that he had four eyes and four ears, perhaps indicating 8 moons initially. This is speculation, of course, but it seems as though the Dark Star ended up with seven ‘moons’, the eighth having been lost in this traumatic encounter.
The major remaining part of Tiamat became the Earth, the smaller debris was flung out to form the celestial bracelet that is now known as the asteroid belt. Most of this debris was water from Tiamat’s great oceans. Hence the ‘division of Heaven and Earth’ in the Bible, as the ‘Lord’ passed over the waters of the Primordial World.
The wounded Tiamat migrated into a new orbit as a result of this encounter, that of the ‘habitation zone’. Tiamat becomes the Earth. It somehow managed to retain its major moon, now over-sized compared to the host planet ‘Earth’. The Moon was thus denied the possibility of becoming a planet in its own right.
Marduk itself migrated into a new orbit as a result of this melee with Tiamat, flung into an eccentric orbit that carried it into the comet clouds. Many of the comets were formed as a result of these events, themselves debris from Tiamat’s oceans. During the ‘battle’, Nibiru also caused a moon of Saturn, Pluto, to be swung away from its host planet and take on its eccentric orbit at the boundary of the realm of the planets.
The Enuma Elish describes Nibiru as an enormous, fiery world. However, Sitchin also claims that Nibiru was the home-world of the Anunnaki. The implication is that the Anunnaki came from a massive, fiery world which is described as the ‘son’ of the Primordial Father, the sun. How could a terrestrial home-world be an enormous, fiery planet?
A Stellar Character?
An Akkadian description of the visit of the god Anu to Earth, thought to have occurred in 3760BC, describes the appearance of the ‘sun disks’ in the plural, a point emphasized by Sitchin himself:
“Enlil and Enki were waiting Anu at the 'golden support', standing by or holding several objects; the Akkadian terms, whose precise meaning remains elusive, are best translated as ‘that which opens up the secrets’, ‘the sun discs’ [plural!] and ‘the splendid/shining posts’. Anu then came into the courtyard accompanied by gods in procession.”11
Does this mean that Anu came from another ‘sun’ appearing in the skies? I have argued that this additional sun is the Dark Star. I used to think that this massive fiery planet became visible in the skies during perihelion, therefore fitting the description of Nibiru.
But now, I think that the observable phenomenon of Nibiru is merely associated with the Dark Star, which may itself remain unseen during its distant perihelion passage. Nevertheless, the indication of 2 suns in the sky indicates to me the perihelion transit of the Dark Star, and it makes sense that this event is associated with the return of the gods to Earth; in this case the visit of the god Anu. This description also gives us one date for Nibiru's visible presence in our solar system; 3760BC.
A Homeworld Amongst the Comets
One of the central criticisms leveled at Zecharia Sitchin was aimed at his claim that the gods are ‘flesh and blood’ and live on a planet, Nibiru, that moves among the comets. This seems quite impossible. There is not enough heat in that part of space to warm a planet sufficiently to support any kind of life at all.
Consider the outer rocky planets. They are so far away from the sun that their atmospheres, if they are able to retain them at all, are desperately cold. Rocky planets do not have significant internal heating due to their relative small size. So their outer mantles are frigid. Most gases precipitate out as ices.
Triton, for instance, the largest moon around Neptune, seems to have a surface laden with dark organic materials and nitrogen ices, some of which appear to have been snowfall at the equator. Triton’s atmosphere is very thin, entirely due to its great distance from the sun. If it were to be moved closer to the sun, say around Saturn, then these ices would evaporate and form a rich atmosphere, similar to Titan.
Triton shows us what happens to the atmosphere of a rocky world that is extremely distant from the sun; its atmosphere becomes surface ice. At this distance the sun’s warmth is so diminished that it is singularly incapable of warming Triton sufficiently for it to retain an atmosphere. Instead all of the atmospheric gases become locked onto the surface of this Neptunian moon in the form of volatile ices. If the Earth was suddenly moved to Neptune it would suffer the same fate; not only would the oceans freeze, but the air would freeze also, precipitating out to create a layer of nitrogen and oxygen snow ten metres thick across the entire surface of the planet. Our atmosphere would be gone, exposing the surface of our world to the intense cold of space.12
Which begs the question, how could Nibiru retain an atmosphere out in the comet clouds? The warmth from the sun would be practically nil. Which means that Nibiru would have to be generating its own heat. Yet, a rocky world generates insufficient warmth in its core to retain an atmosphere without an external heat source such as the sun.
The gas-giants generate plenty of internal heat, however, at least all of them but Uranus. But their massive atmospheres create severe pressure problems for potential life-forms. These planets also lack surfaces to speak of. At the cores of Jupiter and Saturn, the pressures are so intense that the very air, consisting mostly of hydrogen and helium, becomes metallic.
In contrast, Uranus does not appear to exhibit the same outflow of heat from its interior, despite being very similar to Neptune. Uranus is also anomalous in that it has been turned on its side, but this does not necessarily explain why its internal heat supply has been turned off. In some ways, this air of mystery prevents planetary scientists from claiming that they understand the mechanisms that are at play in the interiors of the gas-giants, and this leaves a little lee-way for Sitchin.
Could not a terrestrial-sized planet have some internal heat source that is currently not well understood? Might its atmosphere be self-luminous in some way, allowing the evolution of complex life forms? This conjecture is what 12th Planet theorists put forward to extricate themselves from the various difficulties discussed above. However, we move into the realm of science fiction with these ideas, not science fact. Not only that, but there is a better solution.
When Is A Star Not A Star?
The size of Marduk was described as greater than all the other gods, which we interpret as planets, yet Sitchin’s Nibiru had to be a world that was itself habitable. A planet large enough to create its own heat would end up with atmospheric pressures that would destroy terrestrial-based life. Yet, i
f Nibiru was to be understood as a far smaller planet, then the lack of internal heat would cause its atmosphere to precipitate out as ice, only to re-evaporate once every 3600 years as Nibiru achieved perihelion around the sun. Like a planet-sized comet.
Marduk’s appearance was said to be fiery; his ‘halo’ the equivalent of ten gods. Yet that self-same atmosphere had to be capable of supporting oxygen-breathing humanoids; the Anunnaki. Nibiru would have to be a strange world indeed, self-heating, self-luminous, yet terrestrial. Is it any wonder that so many consider the concept of a cometary planet supporting life ridiculous?
Let us go back to those accounts and start afresh. Let us try to unravel the mysteries of Marduk and Nibiru.
The Sumerian word ‘MUL’, meaning ‘celestial body’, could be used to describe both a planet and a star. The equivalent word in Akkadian, ‘Kakkab’, has the same dual meaning.13 Either this means the Sumerians weren’t sophisticated enough to differentiate between stars and planets, which seems highly unlikely given the general level of their knowledge, or else they were more insightful about the nature of ‘celestial bodies’ than we give them credit for.
Red Star Nibiru
Sitchin’s astronomical interpretation of the creation myth in the Enuma Elish is supported by corroborating evidence found in a Babylonian astrolabe, as cited by Van der Waerden:
“The red star, which when the stars of the night are finished, bisects the heavens and stands there whence the south wind comes, this star is the god Nibiru-Marduk”.14
This is an explicit Babylonian record denoting Nibiru/Marduk as a red star, a description that clearly differentiates it from white Jupiter. The reference implies that this star is seen as a bright early morning object in the south. This is important because it differentiates this object from a reddened heliacally rising planet such as Venus or Jupiter, which would naturally be seen in the east. The Babylonians included it in a star list, as can be gleaned from the “12 stars of Elam, Akkad and Amurru” in APIN, BM 86378 col. 1, 36-38:
