British Museum catalogue number: [britishmuseum.org]
Rather complete breakdown/overview: [members.westnet.com.au]
See Sitchin: 12th Planet, chapter 9. LANDING ON PLANET EARTH
![]()
This neo-Assyrian Astrolabe was recovered from the library of King Assurbanipal [Ashurbanipal] in Nineveh (current day Kouyunjik) and dated to circa 650-800 BCE by early investigators. Unfortunately, approximately 40% of the planisphere is missing, but even the well-preserved parts are hard to understand.
Though the script is clear, its contents are laconic and repetitive, more poesie concrète than narrative. Professional cuneiform scholars agree that the tablet has something to do with astronomy, but hardly anyone believes that any detailed meaning is recoverable.
In 1989, Johannes Koch finally made the point that K 8538 is an instrument rather than an image and that the constellations depicted would most likely be the principal constellations.
Sitchin builds upon this assertion. His groundbreaking interpretation was based on reading the assumed Assyrian cuneiform as Sumerian cuneiform for the reason he doesn't doubt that the tablet represents an Assyrian copy of an earlier Sumerian original. The slip-up Sitchin made, was calling this a planisphere instead of a Astrolabe or a flight manual since this isn't a tool.
Describing this object as a planisphere needs so much imagination and assuming, it's not the right foundation to start interpreting this object.
I think a more correct way of describing this object is: a story around a flight manual, containing drawings of a space map with Sumerian Cuneiform trip-info like flight preparations and landing instructions also with drawing. I think it's meant to read as a story with the center as destination. The first segments should than contain preparations and the last segment should contain landing details.
But I think Sitchin is right about claiming that 1 quadrant shows a space voyage as made by Enlil himself. All quadrants are meant to read inward, towards the destination in the final quadrant. For this, it also makes sense that quadrant 2 and 3 would have lots of Cuneiform preparation instructions.
New research by Alan Bond, Managing Director of Reaction Engines Ltd and Mark Hempsell, Senior Lecturer in Astronautics at Bristol University, brings the Köfels impact theory, which I think is nonsense. However, their astronomical and mathematical interpretation might be of interest.
The 2 formulas might be related to the 2 iternities; i.e. the speed/distant/time to and from Pluto.
Sumerian astrology is represented in various expressions in texts such as the astrolabes, Enūma Anu Enlil, Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa, THE OBSERVATIONS OF BEL and mul.APIN. I took some interpretations around "astrological time" (and still looking for Cuneiform dealing with distance-related terminology) from those sources and I think I already can depict a more clear interpretation than Sitchin gave. Besides, Sitchin's translations aren't complete.
My questions:
I couldn't find latest full Köfel research (behind paywall). Anyone a link to this? Also, Sitchin wrote that Dr. J. Oelsner, custodian of the Hilprecht Collection at Jena, claimed to know more about this but I've never seen those comments.
Another question I have to research, is where this object was exactly found. Which room and what where the surrounding documents? Was it found in a room with myths and epics or was it found in a room with astrology?
Ofc, if someone want to add to this topic, you are more than welcome.
Rather complete breakdown/overview: [members.westnet.com.au]
See Sitchin: 12th Planet, chapter 9. LANDING ON PLANET EARTH
This neo-Assyrian Astrolabe was recovered from the library of King Assurbanipal [Ashurbanipal] in Nineveh (current day Kouyunjik) and dated to circa 650-800 BCE by early investigators. Unfortunately, approximately 40% of the planisphere is missing, but even the well-preserved parts are hard to understand.
Though the script is clear, its contents are laconic and repetitive, more poesie concrète than narrative. Professional cuneiform scholars agree that the tablet has something to do with astronomy, but hardly anyone believes that any detailed meaning is recoverable.
In 1989, Johannes Koch finally made the point that K 8538 is an instrument rather than an image and that the constellations depicted would most likely be the principal constellations.
Sitchin builds upon this assertion. His groundbreaking interpretation was based on reading the assumed Assyrian cuneiform as Sumerian cuneiform for the reason he doesn't doubt that the tablet represents an Assyrian copy of an earlier Sumerian original. The slip-up Sitchin made, was calling this a planisphere instead of a Astrolabe or a flight manual since this isn't a tool.
Describing this object as a planisphere needs so much imagination and assuming, it's not the right foundation to start interpreting this object.
I think a more correct way of describing this object is: a story around a flight manual, containing drawings of a space map with Sumerian Cuneiform trip-info like flight preparations and landing instructions also with drawing. I think it's meant to read as a story with the center as destination. The first segments should than contain preparations and the last segment should contain landing details.
But I think Sitchin is right about claiming that 1 quadrant shows a space voyage as made by Enlil himself. All quadrants are meant to read inward, towards the destination in the final quadrant. For this, it also makes sense that quadrant 2 and 3 would have lots of Cuneiform preparation instructions.
New research by Alan Bond, Managing Director of Reaction Engines Ltd and Mark Hempsell, Senior Lecturer in Astronautics at Bristol University, brings the Köfels impact theory, which I think is nonsense. However, their astronomical and mathematical interpretation might be of interest.
The 2 formulas might be related to the 2 iternities; i.e. the speed/distant/time to and from Pluto.
Sumerian astrology is represented in various expressions in texts such as the astrolabes, Enūma Anu Enlil, Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa, THE OBSERVATIONS OF BEL and mul.APIN. I took some interpretations around "astrological time" (and still looking for Cuneiform dealing with distance-related terminology) from those sources and I think I already can depict a more clear interpretation than Sitchin gave. Besides, Sitchin's translations aren't complete.
My questions:
I couldn't find latest full Köfel research (behind paywall). Anyone a link to this? Also, Sitchin wrote that Dr. J. Oelsner, custodian of the Hilprecht Collection at Jena, claimed to know more about this but I've never seen those comments.
Another question I have to research, is where this object was exactly found. Which room and what where the surrounding documents? Was it found in a room with myths and epics or was it found in a room with astrology?
Ofc, if someone want to add to this topic, you are more than welcome.