Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Hot_Mama

Ancient Sumerian's Planet Tablets

269 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mattshark
Wow! It could be nibiru, but i thought that they only found out about it a few years ago, so how could the ancients of been able to see it. We only found out pluto was the 9th plannet in 1930 didn't we?

They didn't. It is nonsense.

There is no Nibiru.

Get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
I have a question. has anybody else besides stitchen decyphered the sumerian writings. not like im saying stitchen has it right, i dont want an argument. but has, say, an archelogist worked them out an published his findings.

Several people, not including Sitchin.

Sitchin cannot read cuneiform.

So, no, he hasn't deciphered anything at all. His junk is based on translations by others. He robs them, changes a few words (like inserting the word "rocket ship") and then claims he's got a new, accurate translation.

That's his gig, that's how he takes your cash.

So give it to him, already.

ah but ancient art isn't just pretty adornment. The purpose of ancient art is to tell stories related to their reality . It always reflects what they believe. Cave paintings reveal the reality of the people who painted them and what they saw every day. later Painting transfers important information to people who couldn't read ( the 12 stations of the cross for example in catholic churches , or bas reliefs on doors like the Duomo . )

so I wonder what were they trying to say. Obviously it ment something and important since it isn't something visible to them like bulls or crocodiles .

Ripley,

The object in question is a cylinder seal.

Okay, you could call it art but that was not its main purpose.

Read what Legionromanes wrote about it. You'll see what they were trying to say.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
louie
Several people, not including Sitchin.

Sitchin cannot read cuneiform.

So, no, he hasn't deciphered anything at all. His junk is based on translations by others. He robs them, changes a few words (like inserting the word "rocket ship") and then claims he's got a new, accurate translation.

That's his gig, that's how he takes your cash.

So give it to him, already.

Ripley,

The object in question is a cylinder seal.

Okay, you could call it art but that was not its main purpose.

Read what Legionromanes wrote about it. You'll see what they were trying to say.

Harte

Thanks for the reply but its not what i asked,

a few responses back someone answered the question,

the question wasent about stitchen it was a question asking who has translated the tablets.

thanks again for the reply but not the tone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
legionromanes

if youre interested Louie, theres several books available, like this one

http://www.amazon.com/Assyrian-Inductive-L...s/dp/1409784274

there were no books available when Sitchin started making his claims in the late 70s meaning the only place you could learn was on a university degree course. this left a gap through which Sitchin drove his hypothesis. People who can read cuneiform still regard Sitchin as totally ridiculous so don't bother to correct him.........

if people want to believe extra terrestrials were in contact with ancient Sumer, then they probably already made their minds up anyway

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

A good question to me would be why, if Sumerians were in contact with extraterrestrials, aren't they significantly more advanced than their near contemporaries? Particularly Egypt. They built out of mud-brick, the Ancient Egyptians out of limestone and granite. Their writing utensils aren't any more advanced, nor their rivercraft, nor their weaponry, nor anything else I can think of. Even indirect contact should have left something. Where is it?

Note: Before anyone asks, no I don't believe in an ET/Sumerian connection, either.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
Thanks for the reply but its not what i asked,

a few responses back someone answered the question,

the question wasent about stitchen it was a question asking who has translated the tablets.

thanks again for the reply but not the tone.

didn't you know we are all idiots except Harte (and a select few others) around here... ;)

Being the "insipid and empty" person I am, I should know that.

Now, where do I buy that latest Sitchin book???????????? :rolleyes:

Personally I think he can read cuneform but just got it all mixed up because the story told in them is too in depth and too hard for us in this day and age to comprehend what they were on about......like the 4,273,487 interpretations we can all see in the Bible, make of it what you will, we can all read it but do we read the same thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
legionromanes

Cuneiform is a very basic language, you could learn it in about 6 months of study. Sitchin's had 30 years and hes still getting it wrong in a fashion that can only be deliberate.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
Cuneiform is a very basic language, you could learn it in about 6 months of study. Sitchin's had 30 years and hes still getting it wrong in a fashion that can only be deliberate.

;)

Could you translate the Bible and tell us exactly what it is telling? Does anyone ponder the fact the Bible is seen as fact AND/OR fiction, not proven in it's current form to be history as we know it but constantly proving itself to contain historic context? Could it be because we are reading it wrong, even though we are all reading it. We can read the language but can we understand the 'telling'?

It mentions a flood for instance, are we translating it correctly if we take it literally? As many who say no will say yes.........

Sitchin may be unable to back out now, but originally I think that is what happened, he read it right but got it wrong...from simply not knowing what the Sumerians were referencing when making the writings. I doubt he actually set out to scam everyone when being allowed original access to the cuneform tablets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resonance
Wow! It could be nibiru, but i thought that they only found out about it a few years ago, so how could the ancients of been able to see it. We only found out pluto was the 9th plannet in 1930 didn't we?

Well, at the 'supposed' orbital speed and path it's on, the Sumerians could have 'seen' it when it made it's pass..... But, 'if' it really 'did' pass by us, or the Sumerians at that, then how the hell did they paint pictures and make scripture about it, AFTER it 'should've' went by? ..... If something of that nature were to actually happen... I'm sure there wouldn't be anything left to talk about it..

300 mph winds, gravitational fluctuations...... it's not even fathomable, the catastrophes that would happen when it came by, would be too disastrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
legionromanes
Could you translate the Bible and tell us exactly what it is telling? Does anyone ponder the fact the Bible is seen as fact AND/OR fiction, not proven in it's current form to be history as we know it but constantly proving itself to contain historic context? Could it be because we are reading it wrong, even though we are all reading it. We can read the language but can we understand the 'telling'?

It mentions a flood for instance, are we translating it correctly if we take it literally? As many who say no will say yes.........

Sitchin may be unable to back out now, but originally I think that is what happened, he read it right but got it wrong...from simply not knowing what the Sumerians were referencing when making the writings. I doubt he actually set out to scam everyone when being allowed original access to the cuneform tablets.

hmmm you seem to be unaware that the vast majority of Biblical stories are copies of earlier stories from Mesopotamia, including most famously the flood

one of these passages is from the epic of gilgamesh which dates to 2300bce, the other is from Genesis which dates to 750bce, can you tell which is which ?

When a seventh day arrived, I sent forth a dove and released it. The dove went off, but came back to me; no perch was visible so it circled back to me.

I sent forth a raven and released it. The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back. It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me.

And he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground. But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him to the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth

And he sent forth a raven, and it went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth

see now heres the thing, the original text the one that appears in Gilgamesh is written in cuneiform which is a language that doesn't allow for abstract ideas, so what you are reading is what it is telling you 100%

that answer your question Puzz

for those who are interested the older version is the second one.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
Cuneiform is a very basic language, you could learn it in about 6 months of study. Sitchin's had 30 years and hes still getting it wrong in a fashion that can only be deliberate.

;)

I'm also in the camp that would have to say Sitchin's falsifications are deliberate. The only other alternative is that his translation skills are so abominable that he's misled even himself through the years. I'd have to say the former is the case, however.

I can't claim to be able to read cuneiform--something to which Sitchin ought to confess, methinks. However, anyone can review Michael Heiser's website for a clear and thorough explanation of how transparent Sitchin's deceptions are. Heiser is an expert in Semitic tongues, so I'd tend to trust him first. It's not that I outright dismiss the work of amateurs, some of whom are extremely knowledgeable and capable, but one must stay within the bounds of fact and evidence. Sitchin strays far beyond this line.

I've studied Egyptian hieroglyphs for around a decade now, and so awhile back I thought I'd give cuneiform a try. LOL It's a hell of a lot harder than I thought. I put it aside long before the six months it took legionromanes. For one thing, hieroglyphs represent one language--ancient Egyptian, even though they reflect an archaic mode of speech even by the late Old Kingdom (which is why the Egyptians employed a different script for every-day purposes). Cuneiform, on the other hand, was used by numerous different cultures speaking different languages. I tried to study the best-understood form, that of Assyrian Akkadian, but cuneiform was also used for Sumerian, Hittite, Hurrian, Urartian, Elamite, and other languages which I can't recall. Even the Egyptian scribes learned cuneiform so they could correspond with their vassal states in Syro-Palestine and other contacts of the region.

Damn complicated stuff, but I intend to attempt it again. I wish I had more free time! Still, were I interested in learning the translation of a certain text, I am invariably going to turn to an expert, not a Sitchin. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kidchaos

hi kmt sesh sir, i have a question. Which one is older, Egyptian writing or Cuneiform? Are they somehow related?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
hi kmt sesh sir, i have a question. Which one is older, Egyptian writing or Cuneiform? Are they somehow related?

I believe Egyptian hieroglyphs are older, originating in the 32nd or 33rd bce.

As far as I can tell, they evolved seperately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kidchaos
I believe Egyptian hieroglyphs are older, originating in the 32nd or 33rd bce.

As far as I can tell, they evolved seperately.

Hey thanks sir, if it's things about egypt then kmt_sesh would know it, he is a DOCENT.. something of a scientist about egyptian history and culture and study. He knows so much about egyptian things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
legionromanes
I believe Egyptian hieroglyphs are older, originating in the 32nd or 33rd bce.

As far as I can tell, they evolved seperately.

when it comes to facts belief often falls short

The cuneiform script (pronounced is one of the earliest known forms of written expression. Emerging in Sumer around the 30th century BC, with predecessors reaching into the late 4th millennium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform_script

in 1998 a German archaeological team under Günter Dreyer excavating at Abydos uncovered tomb U-j of a Predynastic ruler, and recovered three hundred clay labels inscribed with proto-hieroglyphs, dating to the Naqada IIIA period of the 33rd century BC

A direct link between the Mesopotamian script and hieroglyphics is unlikely due to the differences in the written language, however it is possible that the Egyptians simply decided to develop their own system when they saw how useful the invention was. There is some evidence of a Mesopotamian influence on pre-dynastic Egyptian culture (such as the use of cylindrical seals and the mythical beast depicted on the Narmer palette.), but no evidence of an Egyptian influence in Mesopotamia at that time. It is also possible that the development of each script was relatively independent and that it was the increase in trade and the growth of stable settlements which prompted the development of each script.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kidchaos

Woah! cool, thanks legionromanes sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh

It's interesting how close in time the earliest evidence for the two scripts is. As legionromanes explained, the earliest evidence for Egyptian hieroglyphs comes from the Naqada III tomb known as U-j. The glyphs were on labels or dockets, some of which have led some scholars to suggest that the tomb owner was named Scorpion--not to be confused with the more famous late prehistoric ruler by that same name. This tomb has been dated to about 3,200 BCE.

Over in Iraq, the earliest evidence for Sumerian cuneiform comes from the temple complex of E-Anna, in Uruk. It was a pictographic form of cuneiform dating to about 3,300 BCE, in the prehistoric cultural stage known as the Uruk period. Using this dating, then, the length of time between the earliest evidence for both scripts is only around 100 years.

Although both forms of the scripts are archaic in nature, what's interesting is that both seem already to have been quite fully developed for their purposes. This suggests that both had already been around for an unknown length of time. Earlier writing in Egypt and Mesopotamia may have been performed on perishable materials that have not survived the ages, or more evidence remains out there for archaeologists to find.

So for now cuneiform does seem to predate hieroglyphs, but the margin is slim. A discovery tomorrow could rewrite our understanding of these scripts and how far back in time they go. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
It's interesting how close in time the earliest evidence for the two scripts is. As legionromanes explained, the earliest evidence for Egyptian hieroglyphs comes from the Naqada III tomb known as U-j. The glyphs were on labels or dockets, some of which have led some scholars to suggest that the tomb owner was named Scorpion--not to be confused with the more famous late prehistoric ruler by that same name. This tomb has been dated to about 3,200 BCE.

Over in Iraq, the earliest evidence for Sumerian cuneiform comes from the temple complex of E-Anna, in Uruk. It was a pictographic form of cuneiform dating to about 3,300 BCE, in the prehistoric cultural stage known as the Uruk period. Using this dating, then, the length of time between the earliest evidence for both scripts is only around 100 years.

Although both forms of the scripts are archaic in nature, what's interesting is that both seem already to have been quite fully developed for their purposes. This suggests that both had already been around for an unknown length of time. Earlier writing in Egypt and Mesopotamia may have been performed on perishable materials that have not survived the ages, or more evidence remains out there for archaeologists to find.

So for now cuneiform does seem to predate hieroglyphs, but the margin is slim. A discovery tomorrow could rewrite our understanding of these scripts and how far back in time they go. ^_^

Kmt_Sesh,

I have heard that the earliest cuneiform ever found exhibits things like sentence structure and grammar, and that (as stated) the earliest "proto" hieroglyphs are mere pictograms on tag labels, likely used to keep track of tribute payments.

My understanding was that the more developed cuneiform is an indication of that form of writing developing far earlier than we have actual evidence for.

Is this position incorrect, or outdated, or am I just imaginiting this?

Harte

Edited by Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kratos
No. Nibiru doesn't exist. Sitchin has been proven to have faked his translations, and it is physically impossible for Planet X to exist and us not know about it.

I don't think its impossible for such a plantery body to exist, on what basis do you say it can not. There are many things we dont know about own planet, the depths of the oceans, never mind our own solar system. As far as I am aware modern science does show that there is some mass out there which is pulling on the outer planets, whether it's Niburu remains to be seen. Yet we are so quick to dismiss something which as not yet been substantiated by science, to me that does not mean it does not exist, it's yet to be discovered, like many other scientific phenomena.

Kratos.

Edited by Kratos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
I don't think its impossible for such a plantery body to exist, on what basis do you say it can not. There are many things we dont know about own planet, the depths of the oceans, never mind our own solar system. As far as I am aware modern science does show that there is some mass out there which is pulling on the outer planets, whether it's Niburu remains to be seen. Yet we are so quick to dismiss something which as not yet been substantiated by science, to me that does not mean it does not exist, it's yet to be discovered, like many other scientific phenomena.

Kratos.

No. It is impossible. A planet of that size, with that orbit, would have completely wrecked the orbits of the other planets. This is a fact.

We know this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
No. It is impossible. A planet of that size, with that orbit, would have completely wrecked the orbits of the other planets. This is a fact.

We know this.

Quite right. Just because Kratos isn't aware of the slew of bad things that would happen with Doctor Who-style magic rogue flying planets in a solar system doesn't mean they're not perfectly well known to others.

Or, indeed, posted here dozens of time for the unending army of people who insist on believing such silliness.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kmt_sesh
Kmt_Sesh,

I have heard that the earliest cuneiform ever found exhibits things like sentence structure and grammar, and that (as stated) the earliest "proto" hieroglyphs are mere pictograms on tag labels, likely used to keep track of tribute payments.

My understanding was that the more developed cuneiform is an indication of that form of writing developing far earlier than we have actual evidence for.

Is this position incorrect, or outdated, or am I just imaginiting this?

Harte

I am not as well versed on the history of cuneiform as I am the history of hieroglyphs, but it's my understanding the earliest cuneiform script, from the Uruk period, is similar in nature to the earliest hieroglyphs. That is, the cuneiform was not used to express full concepts but was economic in nature--used to keep track of goods belonging to the temples of Uruk. These comprise mostly clay tablets on which appear lists and basic accounting.

The earliest hieroglyphs are pretty basic in nature, too. You're right about that. Most of the inscribed dockets, I believe, appear on bone or ivory, and are thought to record goods and produce as well as the estates from which these things came.

I would say, however, that cuneiform advanced in usage quicker than hieroglyphs did. They rather quickly grew from pictographic forms to the wedge shapes with which we're all familiar. In Egypt, on the other hand, hieroglyphic inscriptions dating to the Early Dynastic Period are not as plentiful as their cuneiform counterpart in Mesopotamia; nor are hieroglyphs in the earliest period regimented and standardized like they would be by, say, Dynasty 4 in the Old Kingdom. Hieroglyphic usage blossomed by the middle of the Old Kingdom, but I'd say cuneiform in Mesopotamia had been used more abundantly by that time. I could be mistaken, so perhaps legionromanes can shed some light on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
I am not as well versed on the history of cuneiform as I am the history of hieroglyphs, but it's my understanding the earliest cuneiform script, from the Uruk period, is similar in nature to the earliest hieroglyphs. That is, the cuneiform was not used to express full concepts but was economic in nature--used to keep track of goods belonging to the temples of Uruk. These comprise mostly clay tablets on which appear lists and basic accounting.

The earliest hieroglyphs are pretty basic in nature, too. You're right about that. Most of the inscribed dockets, I believe, appear on bone or ivory, and are thought to record goods and produce as well as the estates from which these things came.

Here's a pic of one of these tags, from Narmer 1:

post-39895-1229696469_thumb.jpg

Kmt_sesh,

Do you have access to this book "Archaic Egypt" by W.B. Emery, (Penguin 1963) ?

Here's why I ask:

However, let me throw my own small stone into this lake of speculation. Suppose the Sphinx does pre- date Khafre and the pyramids; suppose it was once a couchant lion, complete with lion’s head, - and was known as such by the earliest dynastic Egyptians; and suppose further, that it was largely covered by sand, so that only the head and the forepaws could be seen; would not the Egyptians, even in their earliest inscriptions have left a picture of it? There are no such pictures, no records, no mention of such a huge lion picture. Or are there? I have seen, in Archaic Egypt by W.B. Emery, (Penguin 1963), no less than five examples of a lion’s head and forepaws, included in brief inscriptions of the earliest dynasties, that made me wonder. An ivory label from the tomb of Queen Nihotep at Nagadeh (p.50) A wooden label from Abydos (p.52) An ivory label of Zer from Abydos (p.59) An inscribed palette of Zer from Sakkara (p.60) A wooden label of Udimu from Abydos (p.76)

In all of these crude inscriptions the lion “forepart” is very large, even the largest single element in them. The forepart of a lion in later hieroglyphics is no larger than any other symbols, and means “front”, “before”, “beginning”, or “breast”, et cetera. Why is it so large, so very prominent, in these earliest versions? I am not attempting to out-Hancock Hancock with nudging questions, - but maybe the Egyptians of the earliest dynasties really did have a huge lion carving looking down from the Giza Plateau?

My emphasis.

Source

Scroll down near the bottom of the page to the short article entitled "The Sphinx Enigma."

According to this author, these tags depict the "forepart" of a couchant lion. He speculates that they might represent the sphinx as it appeared then, which was centuries before the currently accepted date for the carving of the sphinx (in Kaphre's time.)

I'd like to look into this further. The antiquity of the sphinx is what got me started on examining ancient Egyptian history in the first place.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enigmatic Annasawzi
Quite right. Just because Kratos isn't aware of the slew of bad things that would happen with Doctor Who-style magic rogue flying planets in a solar system doesn't mean they're not perfectly well known to others.

Or, indeed, posted here dozens of time for the unending army of people who insist on believing such silliness.

--Jaylemurph

Hey, hey hey, Doctor is no Dalek, I take offense for him, for you saying that.....

I'm with the rest, it'd just be too silly, and inconceivable, the math on this is conclusive to the fact, that it would of already knocked Mars off balance, and made it collide with either us, Venus, or the Sun God Ra, also called Sol.

EA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.