Sachs, Velikovsky, and Sitchin
Posted by DrHeiser | Apr 11, 2013 | Ancient Astronauts, Fringe History & Archaeology, Paleobabble, PanBabylonianism, Sitchin |
A short time ago I blogged about the work of C. Leroy Ellenberger, at one time a first-tier defender of Immanuel Velikovsky who later came to doubt and then refute that brand of catastrophism, sent me a link I thought I'd share with readers.
Leroy's link was to a brief address by Abraham Sachs, a well-known 20th century Assyriologist (i.e., a scholar of Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform). The address was a refutation of Velikovsky's use of cuneiform material to support his catastrophist theories. Here's an excerpt:
"In searching for mathematical and astronomical texts, I myself have had the opportunity of sifting about 125,000 tablets in this country and the British Isles. As one looks back, with the advantage of hindsight, over the progress of cuneiform studies in the last century, it is evident that in the early decades, two steps forward were accompanied by one step back, in recent decades, the proportion is more like 300 to 1. In 1896, an excellent dictionary of Akkadian contained 790 pages; today, the latest torso of an Akkadian dictionary– with only one-third of the dictionary published in 8 volumes– already runs to more than 2500 pages. I mention all this only to underline the sad fact that anyone who, like Dr. Velikovsky, is not a student of cuneiform, runs the very high risk of finding non-existent facts, false translations, and abandoned theories that have foundered on the rocks of new textual material when he relies, as Dr. Velikovsky does, on books and articles that are 80, 50, 40, and in some cases, even 20 years old. . . . In Worlds in Collision, p. 161, Dr. Velikovsky says that Babylonian astronomy at one time had a four-planet system, with Venus missing. For this, he refers to a book, [quite correctly,] written in 1915. Not being a cuneiformist, Dr. Velikovsky cannot inspect the original text referred to in his 1915 source. I have read the text and I can report that it is quite true that Venus is missing in the text– but so are the other four planets. . . . Wherever one turns in Dr. Velikovsky's works, one finds a wasteland strewn with uncritically accepted evidence that turns to dust at the slightest probe. . . . [I]it's advisable to be [a cuneiformist] if you're going to write about cuneiform texts. . . ."
While the address was directed at Velikovsky, the verbal spanking is also useful for directing attention to the bankrupt scholarship of Zecharia Sitchin, part of whose imaginative ancient astronaut theorizing includes catastrophism elements associated with the alleged astro-physical effects of Nibiru, wrongly identified by Sitchin as a 12th planet. This short speech (less than fifteen minutes) was given at Brown University in 1965, just a few short years before Zecharia Sitchin would pretend to know something about cuneiform tablets. Why is it that Sitchin, presumably an expert in cuneiform, was somehow ignorant of this material when Sachs was not? The answer is simple. Sitchin was no expert in this material. He was contriving a theory.
PreviousCitizen Hearing on UFO Disclosure
NextTouring Israel Via Google Street View
DrHeiser
More Jesus Tomb Nonsense — Just in Time for Easter
GAIAM TV Interview with Mike about the Biblical Prophets and Prophecy
Ahmed Osman: No Stranger to Revisionist PaleoBabble
Is the Pseudo-Archaeological Belief That Aliens, Nephilim, Or Descendants of Atlantis Were Responsible for Pyramids, Mounds, Megalithic Architecture, Etc. Racist?
René O'Deay	on April 13, 2013 at 1:54 pm
the problem Velikovsky had, was that he was relying on the current published translations of cuniform scholars of the time. it's easy to criticize in hindsight. and since he passed away in 1979, he had no way to review his findings.
other than that, Velikovsky lost me when he published his book on Akhenaten and Oedipus.
David Yandell	on May 6, 2013 at 4:31 am
We laymen depend on secondary sources, the scholar should get the spanking.
Garreth Boland	on October 9, 2017 at 12:08 pm
Just discovered Velikovsky a couple of days ago through a 1996 documentary titled, Remembering the End of the world, featuring researcher David Talbott. It's now on YouTube. Figured I'd run a search of Velikovsky on your website and not to my astonishment, found some info. Thanks! Talbott in the documentary seems very honest and genuine and I guess he's still around talking about this stuff, but the assertions made sounded like Sitchen nonsense to me. There's another guy out there named Wallace Thornhill who talks about the electromagnetic universe, lending credence to the theory that Earth, Mars, Venus, Saturn and Jupiter were once all within throwing distance of each other. But who knows? Maybe they're all right.