 |
| Detail of the Nineveh planisphere, King 1912, pl. 10 |
My blog posts are usually an organic process to write.
A not so subtle blend of exposure to online media, my level of irritation and how easy it is to access the information required to debunk a factoid. Sometimes they are fuelled by pure spleen, but once in a while they are also stimulated by an academic messaging me and saying -
'Hey, have you seen this bullshit'.
Today's post is the outcome of the latter with a healthy dose of spleen.
 |
| Ancient Origins Facebook, August 2022 |
Because I had seen this meme online, from a never-ending variety of sources, but until now the third issue (access) had been the reason for my restraint: I did not have a copy of the source text, and I like to know what I am dealing with before I wax lyrical.
On top of which I was misled by the assumption that while the clickbait memes were bullshit, the original claim might have had some merit, and was simply misrepresented in the media.
This viewpoint changed drastically after I acquired a copy of the book in question:
A Sumerian Observation of the Köfels' Impact Event: A Monograph
By Alan Bond and Mark Hempsell (2008).
Self-published with WritersPrintShop as Alcuin Academics.
This book may be described in reviews as skirting the line between pseudoscience and legitimate research, and it has a veneer of legitimacy, as it was written by an astro-physicist and a mechanical engineer, both CEOs of aerospace companies.
On publication the book was endorsed by the University of Bristol in a press release:
'A cuneiform clay tablet that has puzzled scholars for over 150 years has been translated
for the first time. The tablet is now known to be a contemporary Sumerian observation
of an asteroid impact at Köfels, Austria ...'
However, neither author is qualified to pontificate on the topic of ancient Mesopotamia, and the book is in fact a perfect example of flawed research done with the intention of promoting a theory that has no evidence to support it.
If anything, there is an over-abundance of negative evidence. In fact, this book represents a discrete selection of pseudoscience methodologies in relation to ancient Mesopotamia, no line skirting, or subtlety at all.
 |
| Ancient Pages, April 2019 |
The plot
Bond and Hempsell argued that the cuneiform on the Nineveh planisphere documents an Aten asteroid strike that caused a massive landslide in Tyrol, Austria, at 1.23 am on the 29th of June 3123 BCE (Julian calendar).
Because even a basic understanding of geography may raise an eyebrow it should be added that they argue a Sumerian astronomer at Kish (in Iraq) saw the asteroid trail as it approached and later the impact plume, and this person meticulously documented the event.
Then this document was supposedly kept and copied for another 2473 years in the archives of various Mesopotamian cultures, incidentally changing from Sumerian to Akkadian in this process. Ending up on the Neo-Assyrian planisphere from Nineveh.
The astonishing survival of this document is explained by the event having acquired religious significance, serving as the basis for catastrophic myths in Mesopotamia and in other cultures. As their example they cite it as the source of the myth of the god Enlil supplanting the god Anu as supreme god in the creation.
Bond and Hempsell argued that the cuneiform on the Nineveh planisphere documents an Aten asteroid strike that caused a massive landslide in Tyrol, Austria, at 1.23 am on the 29th of June 3123 BCE (Julian calendar).
Because even a basic understanding of geography may raise an eyebrow it should be added that they argue a Sumerian astronomer at Kish (in Iraq) saw the asteroid trail as it approached and later the impact plume, and this person meticulously documented the event.
Then this document was supposedly kept and copied for another 2473 years in the archives of various Mesopotamian cultures, incidentally changing from Sumerian to Akkadian in this process. Ending up on the Neo-Assyrian planisphere from Nineveh.
The astonishing survival of this document is explained by the event having acquired religious significance, serving as the basis for catastrophic myths in Mesopotamia and in other cultures. As their example they cite it as the source of the myth of the god Enlil supplanting the god Anu as supreme god in the creation.
Their book was immediately the object of criticism from academics representing a variety of disciplines on the basis of faulty reasoning, lack of evidence and errors in the data. And this situation has not changed in the 15 years since the book was published.
So why is this trope still hanging around, and where are the problems with it?
The first question is easy to answer:
It is not still around within academia, flawed science does not make a ripple there, but the book is nonetheless still published and available to purchase. In addition, the story itself has all the hallmarks of good clickbait, where words like mysterious, controversial, star map and Sumerians can be mix-and-matched with ease.
 |
| Bored Panda May 2023 |
The second question 'where are the problems' is more complicated to answer:
The Köfels event
Their date of 3123 is wrong
According to radiocarbon dating methods from various academic studies the Köfels landslide event(s) took place between around 7800 to 7327 BCE, approximately 9800-9350 years ago, not 5150 years ago.
That is a super big error in the date of this event, it is also a few thousand years before the Sumerians developed complex urban society in southern Mesopotamia and about 4000 years before the development of written records of any kind in the entire Near East.
That is a super big error in the date of this event, it is also a few thousand years before the Sumerians developed complex urban society in southern Mesopotamia and about 4000 years before the development of written records of any kind in the entire Near East.
4000 years is incidentally the time distance between us and the approximate end of Sumerian culture.
See:
Nicolussi et al 2015, ‘Precise Radiocarbon Dating of the Giant Köfels Landslide (Eastern Alps, Austria),’ Geomorphology 243: 87-91.
Nicolussi et al 2015, ‘Precise Radiocarbon Dating of the Giant Köfels Landslide (Eastern Alps, Austria),’ Geomorphology 243: 87-91.
 |
| MysteriesrUnsolved, Aug. 2023 |
There is no evidence of an asteroid “impact” at Köfels
The theory that this landslide was caused by an asteroid or meteoric impact is one of two proposals that were raised in the early 20th century to explain the landslide. The other proposal was volcanic activity.
Both proposals have since been rejected in academia in favour of terrestrial causes, due to extensive further research resulting in a better understanding of geological conditions and the glaring absence of any form of impact crater from an asteroid.
Also, it turns out that the landslide was not one event, we now know it was a sequence of landslides over a period of time.
Both proposals have since been rejected in academia in favour of terrestrial causes, due to extensive further research resulting in a better understanding of geological conditions and the glaring absence of any form of impact crater from an asteroid.
Also, it turns out that the landslide was not one event, we now know it was a sequence of landslides over a period of time.
Bond and Hemsell explain the lack of impact crater by arguing the asteroid clipped a mountain peak causing the landslide. Where their asteroid landed is anyone's guess.
See:
Hermanns et al 2006, ‘Examples of Multiple Rock-Slope Collapses from Köfels (Ötz valley, Austria) and Western Norway.’ Engineering Geology 83(1-3): 94-108.
Hermanns et al 2006, ‘Examples of Multiple Rock-Slope Collapses from Köfels (Ötz valley, Austria) and Western Norway.’ Engineering Geology 83(1-3): 94-108.
From Sumer to Babylon and Neo-Assyria
Their date for Sumerian astronomy is wrong
Their date for Sumerian astronomy is wrong
3123 BCE is towards the end of the Uruk period in Iraq, at this time the Sumerian writing system was in its infancy and consisted of lists related to administration, recording foodstuffs, harvest yields, rations and job allocations.
Written language begins everywhere with the stuff necessary for organising large groups of people.
Therefore, there are no documents recording narrative events from this time, not scientific nor mythological, and there is currently no evidence they existed. Complex writing and recording took at least about another 300-500 years to be fully developed in Sumer.
Written language begins everywhere with the stuff necessary for organising large groups of people.
Therefore, there are no documents recording narrative events from this time, not scientific nor mythological, and there is currently no evidence they existed. Complex writing and recording took at least about another 300-500 years to be fully developed in Sumer.
The authors rationalise this tricky problem by suggesting two alternatives:
1) That Assyriological thinking is wrong and Sumerian was already a sophisticated writing system in 3123 BCE.
2) That the existence of no evidence does not mean that evidence never existed.
2) That the existence of no evidence does not mean that evidence never existed.
This is classic pseudo bullshit.
No evidence is no foundation for a sound argument.
 |
| How AND Whys website, via Reddit, Oct. 2022 |
'Almost nothing is known about Sumerian astronomy.' Bond and Hempsell 2008
This is actually correct, but 'almost nothing known' is not a licence to make stuff up.
Mesopotamian astronomy was a late phenomenon
There is currently no evidence from the Sumerian period of a system of astronomical documentation. In the mid to late 3rd millennium, 600-1000 years after 3123 BCE, there is evidence for recording lunar and solar movements, but little or no evidence of an interest in tracking other celestial phenomena (Sallaberger 2021).
It isn’t until the Old Babylonian period, in the early 2nd millennium, that evidence of documentation of celestial phenomena appears, e.g. the earliest record of the movement of a planet is from the 17th century (Venus) (Koch-Westenholz 1995, Ossendrijver 2013).
It isn’t until the Old Babylonian period, in the early 2nd millennium, that evidence of documentation of celestial phenomena appears, e.g. the earliest record of the movement of a planet is from the 17th century (Venus) (Koch-Westenholz 1995, Ossendrijver 2013).
From the appearance of astronomical records in around 1700 BCE to the Neo-Assyrian period 1000 years later there is not one copy of anything resembling this so-called asteroid impact master document.
Instead most early astronomical studies appear to date from the Middle Babylonian to Neo-Assyrian periods, from about 1200-600 BCE, of these, the earliest pair of documents listing constellations is the Mul Apin (7th century) (Hoffmann & Krebernik 2023).
Mesopotamia introduced the Zodiac that we know in the 5th century BCE, during the Persian empire. Similarly the mathematical astronomical tablets that Babylon is famous for all date to this time and later, over 150 years after the date of the planisphere (de Jong 2007, Ossendrijver 2013, 2020, Sallaberger 2021, Koch-Westenholz 1995).
Instead most early astronomical studies appear to date from the Middle Babylonian to Neo-Assyrian periods, from about 1200-600 BCE, of these, the earliest pair of documents listing constellations is the Mul Apin (7th century) (Hoffmann & Krebernik 2023).
Mesopotamia introduced the Zodiac that we know in the 5th century BCE, during the Persian empire. Similarly the mathematical astronomical tablets that Babylon is famous for all date to this time and later, over 150 years after the date of the planisphere (de Jong 2007, Ossendrijver 2013, 2020, Sallaberger 2021, Koch-Westenholz 1995).
 |
| Planisphere at Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative: P397674 |
The planisphere
The real planisphere is an irregular clay lentoid disk that has indentations, incisions and cuneiform inscriptions on the flat face, the whole surface being divided into 8 sections. The back is uninscribed and ovoid.
It is in the British Museum in London (k.8538, CDLI P397674).
I say 'real planisphere' because there are many good, bad and ugly replicas in circulation online, yours to buy for truly astonishing amounts of undeserved money... With the result that most clickbait sites show images of a copy and not the real artefact.
 |
| The replicas are fairly easy to recognise |
'Celestial planisphere; in this stylised map the sky has been divided into eight sections.
It represents parts of the constellations as they were visible in the night sky over Nineveh
on the 3-4th of January 650 BC.' British Museum
The planisphere was found (context was not documented) during Austen Layard’s excavations at Nineveh in Iraq in 1849, in the “library of Assurbanipal”, which is used to describe two groups of literary texts from separate Assyrian palaces. It is either from a group of tablets dating to king Sennacherib or to Assurbanipal (7th century BCE).
The cuneiform information on the sphere is currently attributed a date of 3rd of January 650 BCE from calculations of the position of constellations above the horizon over Nineveh made by Assyriologist Johannes Koch in 1989.
Bond and Hempsell briefly cite this book in their introduction under - conclusions reached by other researchers - but either did not read it or simply chose to ignore this research.
The cuneiform information on the sphere is currently attributed a date of 3rd of January 650 BCE from calculations of the position of constellations above the horizon over Nineveh made by Assyriologist Johannes Koch in 1989.
Bond and Hempsell briefly cite this book in their introduction under - conclusions reached by other researchers - but either did not read it or simply chose to ignore this research.
 | ||
| Left: King 1912, plate 10... Right: The planisphere, British Museum K.8538. |
'A cuneiform clay tablet that has puzzled scholars for over 150 years
has been translated for the first time.'
Bond and Hempsell 2008
Bond and Hempsell 2008
Their translation is a dog’s breakfast
(trigger warning for Assyriologists)
Bond and Hempsell are astro-engineers, they have not studied Akkadian, or Sumerian. Which naturally makes it pretty cheeky to claim they translated this text, and this sentence alone ought to be a warning of incoming pseudoscience.
In fact, their claim is hyperbole intended for media promotion, as in the book they state that they used King’s 1912 copy of the planisphere (above left) in combination with two academic dictionaries (Labat 1976, Borger 1978) and one by an amateur (Halloren 2006).
They also cite Weidner 1915, who attempted the first identification of the constellations, but how much attention they gave his conclusions is debatable. For much of the book it appears they only adopted his identification of a few star groups and then relied on the King diagram and the dictionaries.
In fact, their claim is hyperbole intended for media promotion, as in the book they state that they used King’s 1912 copy of the planisphere (above left) in combination with two academic dictionaries (Labat 1976, Borger 1978) and one by an amateur (Halloren 2006).
They also cite Weidner 1915, who attempted the first identification of the constellations, but how much attention they gave his conclusions is debatable. For much of the book it appears they only adopted his identification of a few star groups and then relied on the King diagram and the dictionaries.
So, in actual fact they did not translate the text, rather they used early research and intuition, and then simply muddled through, not unlike other better known pseudos. The result is unsurprisingly very hit-and-miss.
So, while they did provide a translation of the planisphere, it is farcical, biased and intended to prove their theory. It is also not the first.
They make umpteen errors translating Sumerian
I probably don't need to say this, but 3 dictionaries (1 Sumerian and 2 Akkadian) are not sufficient for a fluent translation of an ancient text. You can't even do this with a living language, let alone one that has been dead 4000 years.
Therefore, translations in this book contain multiple errors or willful changes of sign or meaning to suit the authors' theories. I might add that while they acknowledge that the disk is written in Akkadian they always translate the signs in Sumerian values.
However, for this I will only provide one example of their methods:
The sign they call 'ŠAR'.
Therefore, translations in this book contain multiple errors or willful changes of sign or meaning to suit the authors' theories. I might add that while they acknowledge that the disk is written in Akkadian they always translate the signs in Sumerian values.
However, for this I will only provide one example of their methods:
The sign they call 'ŠAR'.
In addition, signs can have superficially similar written forms (in English), yet these may otherwise be unrelated. For example, the value 'ŠAR' (shar) has 7 separate cuneiform signs that are differentiated by a numbering system. All cuneiform signs are ordered in this way.
 |
| Labat 1976 |
In their book, B & H give ŠAR for the signs (shown above in red) when the sign is ḪI. While the two signs can appear the same, they are distinct.
For cuneiform signs identification is dependant on context and accumulated knowledge, particularly for signs that may overlap in use at different times. While Labat and Borger merge these signs under one heading in their studies from the 70s, Borger revised this in 2004.
 |
| Halloren 2006. |
Bond and Hempsell cherry-pick one meaning for ŠAR from Halloren 2006 (neither Labat nor Borger give this meaning), and they state it means 'horizon', essentially ignoring the other translations from the texts they cite in their bibliography.
Then they conclude that it marks the horizon, ignoring the signs preceding and following.
But this sign is not the standard writing for horizon, rather this could be written išdu šame - 'the base of the sky' - (Sumerian AN.UR2/DUBUR), anzag - 'border of heaven' - (AN.ZAG), or kiššatu - 'whole earth' - (KI.ŠAR2) (see Black, George and Postgate 2000 or ePSD).
The planisphere has not 'puzzled scholars for over 150 years.'
Here’s the deal.
Here’s the deal.
Scholars have been able to read cuneiform more or less competently since the late 19th century. Many, but definitely not all, of the various Mesopotamian stars, planets and constellations were identified over 100 years ago. Today there is a bit of quibbling about fiddly details of identification.
What has puzzled people is the inconsistent mapping of identifiable star groups, and the strange use of sign repetition on the sphere, like AN AN AN AN, EN EN EN or ME ME ME.
What has puzzled people is the inconsistent mapping of identifiable star groups, and the strange use of sign repetition on the sphere, like AN AN AN AN, EN EN EN or ME ME ME.
 |
| Reduplication of the sign AN 'sky' / dingir 'god' |
There are many instances of lines of reduplicated signs on the planisphere.
Bond and Hempsell concluded that the repetition was used to indicate whether the sky was clear (AN, BAD), dark (ME) or cloudy (EN, NA) in different parts of the sphere. Or, as already stated, by claiming this denotes the horizon. They did this by selecting loose translations of signs and then modifying these to suit their theory.
Rather than say looking up the correct cuneiform terms for these phenomena.
Sometimes this involves changing signs entirely, on the basis of the sounds-a-bit-like method, like changing ME ('being') to ME2 ('dark/black/night'), again because these sound similar in English. They dress this up to look legitimate by calling it homophony. However, the signs themselves are different (see ePSD).
Bond and Hempsell concluded that the repetition was used to indicate whether the sky was clear (AN, BAD), dark (ME) or cloudy (EN, NA) in different parts of the sphere. Or, as already stated, by claiming this denotes the horizon. They did this by selecting loose translations of signs and then modifying these to suit their theory.
Rather than say looking up the correct cuneiform terms for these phenomena.
Sometimes this involves changing signs entirely, on the basis of the sounds-a-bit-like method, like changing ME ('being') to ME2 ('dark/black/night'), again because these sound similar in English. They dress this up to look legitimate by calling it homophony. However, the signs themselves are different (see ePSD).
 |
| 'assumed' |
Then they simply ignore the sign repetition that does not suit their argument.
This is classic pseudoscience, by forcing evidence to fit your theory in the belief that it is possible to intuitively decipher a dead language armed with a dictionary, without the need for any understanding, and to ignore the stuff you don’t like.
Oh and inventing connections that do not exist.
While sign repetition is fairly unique for this artefact, the general consensus since Weidner (1915) is that this object is magical rather than scientific. Repetition of words is a common feature of ancient Babylonian magical invocations and divination.
The sphere is not an astrolabe, or in fact a planisphere in the correct sense of these words, it is an astro-magical or astro-mystical document (Monroe 2022).
The sphere is not an astrolabe, or in fact a planisphere in the correct sense of these words, it is an astro-magical or astro-mystical document (Monroe 2022).
 |
| Note the casual misspelling of dingir 'god' that occurs throughout the book. |
They add celestial bodies that aren't there: Planets
In Mesopotamia stars and planets were defined by the same word – MUL which is an elaboration on the plural of the sign AN ('god'/'sky'). For individual stars and constellations on the planisphere that term is expressed by the sign kakkabu (Sumerian MUL).
Mesopotamian astronomy knew 7 planets (incl. Sun and Moon) that were regarded as gods and therefore could be preceded by the sign for god (AN/dingir) or star (MUL) in astronomical texts. All celestial bodies, stars, constellations and planets had specific names and divine titles.
Mesopotamian astronomy knew 7 planets (incl. Sun and Moon) that were regarded as gods and therefore could be preceded by the sign for god (AN/dingir) or star (MUL) in astronomical texts. All celestial bodies, stars, constellations and planets had specific names and divine titles.
Assyriologists have documented these for over a century (see Horowitz 1998, Brown 2000, Reiner 1995, Hoffmann & Krebernik 2023).
 |
| The sign kakkabu (MUL) for stars on the planisphere. |
However, while there are quite a few stars and constellations named on the planisphere, there are no planets, which is awkward as they were of more interest to early Babylonian scholars than the stars themselves. The moon was particularly important, due to the lunar calendar.
I would have thought this might be a singular handicap to finding a date to fit your astronomical model. Undeterred by such trivialities Bond and Hempsell proposed two solutions:
I would have thought this might be a singular handicap to finding a date to fit your astronomical model. Undeterred by such trivialities Bond and Hempsell proposed two solutions:
1) That the Sumerian astronomer (for whom there is no evidence) was so familiar with planetary cycles that there was no need to mark the positions of planets and Moon.
2) No-evidence-doesn’t-mean-evidence-didn’t-exist – so they suggest the planets might have been on the missing sections.
2) No-evidence-doesn’t-mean-evidence-didn’t-exist – so they suggest the planets might have been on the missing sections.
 |
| 'speculated' |
Having established doubt? in their reader’s minds, they propose that the Moon and 4 planets were situated in the 3 sections containing the constellations they identify as Taurus, Cancer and Gemini, because this best fits their hypothetical date.
At one point speculating that the repetition of the sign EN (actually 'ruler', 'master' or 'lord') could indicate 4 planets on the sphere. Then over the page they argue that this line of ENs means a wall of cloud in a clear sky, because the Sumerian sign EN was based on a wall, due to rulers building walls (also their speculation).
At one point speculating that the repetition of the sign EN (actually 'ruler', 'master' or 'lord') could indicate 4 planets on the sphere. Then over the page they argue that this line of ENs means a wall of cloud in a clear sky, because the Sumerian sign EN was based on a wall, due to rulers building walls (also their speculation).
They go on to argue that two unidentified dots in this section must be Mercury and Jupiter.
Speculation is an understatement, because there isn't any evidence…
They misrepresent Mesopotamian astronomy
 |
| This image is appears to place constellations inverse to the other charts (below), B & H 2008. |
In ancient Mesopotamia in the late 2nd to early 1st millennium the stars in the night sky were arranged into star groups that do not match the constellations as we know them today, nor do they match the Babylonian Zodiac which only appeared in Achaemenid Persia in the 5th century BCE along with astrology (Ossendrijver 2013, 2020).
Nonetheless, the names on the planisphere have enough matches to the Mul Apin lists (named after a constellation) that it has been possible for Assyriologists to identify stars and constellations. For example, these represent parts of our Taurus, Gemini, Orion, Canis Major, Pegasus, Libra, Virgo, Pisces, Cassiopeia and Andromeda, with stars like Sirius, Bellatrix and Betelgeuse (Koch 1989).
Nonetheless, the names on the planisphere have enough matches to the Mul Apin lists (named after a constellation) that it has been possible for Assyriologists to identify stars and constellations. For example, these represent parts of our Taurus, Gemini, Orion, Canis Major, Pegasus, Libra, Virgo, Pisces, Cassiopeia and Andromeda, with stars like Sirius, Bellatrix and Betelgeuse (Koch 1989).
 |
| The star group Mul Apin (Plough) is incidentally on the planisphere. |
It is considered part of Cassiopeia. B & H argue this grouping is Pisces
Similarities with the star names from the Mul Apin texts also argue that the planisphere was written at around the same time. These texts are dated to the 7th century, but may be copies of earlier Babylonian documents dating from the 12th to 9th century BCE.
NOT the 32nd century BCE.
But it needs to be emphasised that this is not an accurate star chart, as there is no evidence that Neo-Assyrian astronomers envisioned the sky as a celestial sphere (Rochberg 2004). Instead, the shape of the planisphere may be arbitrary, just as the shape of other astrolabes is also deceptive, because we see a circular model and assume we are viewing a star chart.
Koch (1989) argued convincingly that the eight segments of the planisphere were meant to be rotated by the holder to align with the direction of the cuneiform signs and designs, and therefore were viewed individually.
Koch (1989) argued convincingly that the eight segments of the planisphere were meant to be rotated by the holder to align with the direction of the cuneiform signs and designs, and therefore were viewed individually.
 |
| Note the sections containing the asteroid's path and debris plume (lower right) |
They shuffle around stars and constellations to suit their theory
Nonetheless, Bond and Hempsell use the few Assyriological sources at their leisure more as loose guidelines than rules to abide by. With yet more cherry picking of star identifications and creative translations of the cuneiform to force their square peg into a round planisphere.
Which has the result that they often identify different constellations in their reconstruction in order to make the planisphere an accurate representation of the night sky on the date that they have chosen, inclusive of both an asteroid pass over and a post impact debris plume.
This also involves such innovations as claiming details about whether the sky was clear or cloudy over different parts of the sphere. Something that if it were true would be unique for Mesopotamian astronomical spheres.
Which has the result that they often identify different constellations in their reconstruction in order to make the planisphere an accurate representation of the night sky on the date that they have chosen, inclusive of both an asteroid pass over and a post impact debris plume.
This also involves such innovations as claiming details about whether the sky was clear or cloudy over different parts of the sphere. Something that if it were true would be unique for Mesopotamian astronomical spheres.
I was at a loss to understand what the source of this idea might have been, because it is not suggested in any of the studies they cite, until I accidentally discovered that this was proposed by Sitchin in The 12th Planet (1976), the example above being translated by him as 'vapor-clouds' / 'no vapor-clouds'.... coincidence?
Sitchin, the go to source for premium pseudo-Assyriology, only his argument has slightly more aliens and a lot less asteroid.
One final example: Their flexibility with translating the sign AN - 'sky'.
Within this book AN/dingir ('sky'/'god') is initially mentioned as meaning 'heaven' or 'sky', which is the basic value of the sign. But later they extrapolate from this to argue that a sequence of repeated ANs should be interpreted as indicating a 'clear sky', or 'starry clime'.
The sign is also mistakenly called AN2 at one point citing Borger's number for AN proper (B13). When these are two different signs.
In addition, they conflate AN 'sky' with MUL 'star', arguing that a solitary AN could also be read as MUL, because the original Sumerian value was a star and the silly Assyrian copyist has mistaken a star for stars.... oops.
In addition, they conflate AN 'sky' with MUL 'star', arguing that a solitary AN could also be read as MUL, because the original Sumerian value was a star and the silly Assyrian copyist has mistaken a star for stars.... oops.
But I am particularly fond of their rationalisation for the identification of the Milky Way:
B & H state that AN.NA is built from a combination of AN ('sky') + NA ('incense/smoke'), therefore it must in fact be the Milky Way… genius… mad genius admittedly... They translate this as Milky Way in the name of the constellation Orion by replacing the sky god Anu with 'Milky Way'.
Orion was called SIPA.ZI.AN.NA, 'the True Shepherd of Anu' in Assyro-Babylonia in the early 1st millennium.
Basically, AN has whatever value they consider fits their argument: sky, star, clear sky, Milky Way etc.
Orion was called SIPA.ZI.AN.NA, 'the True Shepherd of Anu' in Assyro-Babylonia in the early 1st millennium.
Basically, AN has whatever value they consider fits their argument: sky, star, clear sky, Milky Way etc.
.jpg) |
| AN/dingir in Dumuzi and 'great god', the tail end of Ishtar is far left. |
Except dingir 'god', or 'Anu'
The sign An was also used in cuneiform to identify god names (this is called a determinative).
But Bond and Hempsell reject AN's value as a god determinative completely, or the word 'god' in fact, even though gods are named on the sphere according to the accepted conventions of translation.
Dumuzi, Enlil, Ishtar, Lulal, Latarak, Ilabrat, Papsukkal and Anu, for example.
They do not acknowledge these, instead translating the signs into other words and phrases judiciously selected from the dictionaries and strung together like misshapen pearls.
1) Like for - dingirDUMU.ZI / ilu rabu (AN GAL) - 'Dumuzi' / 'great god'
They incorrectly translate as - AN BANDA SI2 / AN GAL - 'star vigorously swept along' / 'large star', which naturally fits their choice for their fictional asteroid and its path of entry. 
The most impressive aspect of this is that B & H looked up the sign IŠ in Borger and Labat then ignored that it is part of the name Ishtar when combined with the exact signs that are preceding (dingir -'god') and following (TAR), and instead they chose 'dust', 'sand' or 'dirt' (SAḪAR).
2) For the star Bellatrix (Orion constellation) B & H give - %%%SUKKAL AN NA // AN SAKKAR SILA - and translate this as 'envoy of the Milky Way which divides the sky dust'.
The signs actually read - [dingirPAP.SUKKAL] SUKKAL AN.NA dingirIŠ.TAR.
You can probably see where this one is going already.
Bellatrix was called [Papsukkal] 'the vizier of Anu and Ishtar' and this name is incidentally written adjacent to the name of Orion along with the god Ilabrat who was also associated with both gods.
Bellatrix was called [Papsukkal] 'the vizier of Anu and Ishtar' and this name is incidentally written adjacent to the name of Orion along with the god Ilabrat who was also associated with both gods.
 |
| Borger 1978 |
The most impressive aspect of this is that B & H looked up the sign IŠ in Borger and Labat then ignored that it is part of the name Ishtar when combined with the exact signs that are preceding (dingir -'god') and following (TAR), and instead they chose 'dust', 'sand' or 'dirt' (SAḪAR).
I mean wtf... really.
 |
| Labat 1976 |
From their translation they conclude this refers to the Pleiades in Taurus. Which is awkward because the Pleiades are also there on the sphere, and they are usually called Sebettu, 'the seven' or MUL MUL / MUL zappu, 'the stars' (Reiner 1995, Koch 1989, Horowitz 1998, Hoffmann & Krebernik 2023, ePSD, ORACC).
3) Lastly, for their text given below - LUGAL LU2 MUL LA TA SAL - they have altered the sign AN to MUL and included an error from King 1912 (LUGAL), which aptly demonstrates their indifference to later translations, as Weidner corrected this misreading in 1915, as did Koch in 1989.
3) Lastly, for their text given below - LUGAL LU2 MUL LA TA SAL - they have altered the sign AN to MUL and included an error from King 1912 (LUGAL), which aptly demonstrates their indifference to later translations, as Weidner corrected this misreading in 1915, as did Koch in 1989.
 |
| wtf ... really |
The signs actually read - [dingir] LU2.LAL3 dingirLA.TA.RAK - and name the gods Lulal and Latarak, rather than the incoherent nonsense B & H have provided. These are gods associated with stars in the region of Gemini, which is also named in this section of the sphere 'The twins who stand before Sipazianna'.
(There really ought to be a face-desk emoji)
This gleefully cavalier approach is applied consistently throughout to the translation of individual cuneiform signs, the names of stars and constellations... What I have provided here is just grotesque highlights... therefore the entire argument is driven by their beliefs and not by evidence, nor by any understanding of cuneiform.
Basically, if you accept that the translation of a language is somehow authorative, you cannot just pick and choose what of that authority you like, ignore the rest and then claim you have created a new translation.
Either you accept that authority or you need to provide a completely new translation model... good luck with that.
 |
| This example sums up their questionable methods for me. |
Conclusion
As I mentioned at the beginning, I really had not planned to critique this internet factoid, as I assumed that two astro-engineers might have known what they were talking about if they went so far as to publish their theories.
Although I had my doubts when it came to the claims circulated in bullshit memes on the internet. But I assumed much of this was hyperbole. I also assumed that the many people providing links online to the Museum information about the sphere would kill this myth in time.
Although I had my doubts when it came to the claims circulated in bullshit memes on the internet. But I assumed much of this was hyperbole. I also assumed that the many people providing links online to the Museum information about the sphere would kill this myth in time.
I was wrong on both counts.
The book A Sumerian Observation of the Köfels Impact Event is a solid example of crank research dressed up to look like legitimate science. The authors pick and choose information that supports their argument, they cite out of date research, when they use legitimate research they butcher it beyond recognition.
Their translations of Sumerian are a mixture of copying out early Assyriological studies of the sphere, combined with playing Pin-the-Tail-on-the-Donkey in dictionary searches, and are textbook examples of amateurish arrogance. Context and experience are crucial in understanding ancient languages.
Their translations of Sumerian are a mixture of copying out early Assyriological studies of the sphere, combined with playing Pin-the-Tail-on-the-Donkey in dictionary searches, and are textbook examples of amateurish arrogance. Context and experience are crucial in understanding ancient languages.
Knowledge of cultural background and the specific subject area are really important too. They did not do this, instead they cite publications from 60 years ago (Kramer 1961, 1963, Roaf 1966). But old general studies are not a good foundation for a broader understanding.
Checklist for recognising pseudoscience:
- Little or no evidence disguised in speculative proposals
- Vague language: 'it is speculated', 'assumed', 'suggested', 'presumably', 'could be'
- Use of the no-evidence-doesn't-mean-the-evidence-doesn't-exist rationalisation
- Hyperbolic claims of groundbreaking research or translations
- Cherry picking data to fit theory
- Altering or inventing data to fit theory
- Selective use of academic authority while also dismissing academic authority
- Using out of date academic literature and/or not enough literature
- Citing pseudoscience as literature
To sum up: Pseudoscience boxes ticked
None of Bond and Hempsell's claims stand up to scrutiny:
There is no scientific evidence of an asteroid impact at Köfels in Austria and their date of 3123 BCE for these multiple landslide events is simply incorrect.
There is no evidence the Sumerians were interested in documenting the heavens in 3023 BCE, no evidence it was passed on over many generations for 2573 years (!!!) and absolutely no evidence that the Nineveh planisphere from the British Museum is a Sumerian star chart.
Andrea Sinclair
January 2024
A word of thanks to Dr Janine Wende of the Assyriology institute in Leipzig for providing constructive input about the Assyriological content.
January 2024
A word of thanks to Dr Janine Wende of the Assyriology institute in Leipzig for providing constructive input about the Assyriological content.
But don't trust me: Read further
Sciency stuff: Köfels event
Bressan D. 2011. ‘The Landslide at Köfels: Geology between Pseudoscience and Pseudotachylite,’ @ History of Geology blog - http://historyofgeology.fieldofscience.com/2011/04/landslide-of-kofels-geology-between.html
Hermanns, R.L., L.H. Blikra, M. Naumann, B. Nilsen, K.K. Panthi, D. Stromeyer, & O. Longva 2006. ‘Examples of Multiple Rock-Slope Collapses from Köfels (Ötz Valley, Austria) and Western Norway.’ Engineering Geology 83 (1-3): 94-108 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013795205002243
Medkleff, J., & M. Rundkvist 2009. ‘Fire in the Sky: Review of A Sumerian Observation of the Köfels Impact Event,’ @ Skepticality Blog - https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-04/#feature
Nicolussi, K., C. Spötl, A.
Thurner & P.J. Reimer 2015. ‘Precise Radiocarbon Dating of the Giant
Köfels Landslide (Eastern Alps, Austria),’ Geomorphology 243: 87-91 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169555X15002548
Assyriology
Websites
Websites
The Zodiac Glossary - digital research project led by M. Ossendrijver and C. Casey - https://zodiac.fly.dev/353
ePSD2 signlist - http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/epsd2/signlist/
ORACC - Celestial Names - http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/qpn-x-celest
CDLI: Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative - https://cdli.ucla.edu/P397674EBL: Electronic Babylonian Library - https://www.ebl.lmu.de/fragmentarium/K.8538
Texts: The lexica they cite
Borger, R., 1978. Assyrisch-Babylonische Zeichenliste. AOAT 33.
Halloren, J.A. 2006. Sumerian Lexicon - https://www.sumerian.org/sumerlex.htm
Halloren, J.A. 2006. Sumerian Lexicon - https://www.sumerian.org/sumerlex.htm
Labat, R. 1976. Manuel d'epigraphie Akkadienne. Paul Geuthner.
More lexica that I cite
Black, J., A. George and N. Postgate 2000. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. Harrassowitz.
Borger, R., 2004. Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon. Ugarit Verlag.
ePSD - http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/epsd2/
Texts cited in this blog and general reading on Meso astronomy
Brown, D., 2000. Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology. Sytx.
Hoffmann, S.M. and M. Krebernik 2023. 'What Do Deities Tell Us about the Celestial Positioning System?' Enthalten in the Intellectual Heritage of the Ancient Near East, ÖAW 924, R. Rollinger, I. Madreiter, M. Lang & C. Pappi (eds.). Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 539-78.
Horowitz, W. 1998. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Eisenbrauns.
de Jong, T. 2007. 'Astronomical Dating of the Rising Star List in MUL.APIN.' Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes: 107-120.
King, L. W. 1912. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 33. British Museum.
Koch, J. 1989. Neue Untersuchungen zur Topographie des babylonischen Fixsternhimmels. Harrassowitz.
Koch-Westenholz, U. 1995. Mesopotamian Astrology: An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian Celestial Divination. Museum Tusculanem Press.
Monroe, M.W. 2022. 'Astronomical and Astrological Diagrams from Cuneiform Sources.' Journal for the History of Astronomy 53(3): 338-61.
Ossendrijver, M. 2013. 'Science, Mesopotamian.' The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, R.S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C.B. Champion, A. Erskine and S.B. Hübner, 6070-2.
Ossendrijver, M. 2020. 'The Moon and Planets in Ancient Mesopotamia.' Oxford Research Encyclopedia: Planetary Science. Oxford.
Reiner, E. 1995. 'The Uses of Astronomy.' JAOS 105(4): 589-95.
Rochberg, F. 2004. The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture. Cambridge.
Sallaberger, W. 2021. 'The Emergence of Calendars in the Third Millennium BC.' Calendars and Festivals in Mesopotamia in the Third and Second Millennia BC, D. Shibata & S. Yamada (eds). Harrasowitz.
Weidner, E.F. 1915. Handbuch der babylonischen Astronomie: Der babylonische Fixsternhimmel. Hinrichs.
Horowitz, W. 1998. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Eisenbrauns.
de Jong, T. 2007. 'Astronomical Dating of the Rising Star List in MUL.APIN.' Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes: 107-120.
King, L. W. 1912. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 33. British Museum.
Koch, J. 1989. Neue Untersuchungen zur Topographie des babylonischen Fixsternhimmels. Harrassowitz.
Koch-Westenholz, U. 1995. Mesopotamian Astrology: An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian Celestial Divination. Museum Tusculanem Press.
Monroe, M.W. 2022. 'Astronomical and Astrological Diagrams from Cuneiform Sources.' Journal for the History of Astronomy 53(3): 338-61.
Ossendrijver, M. 2013. 'Science, Mesopotamian.' The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, R.S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C.B. Champion, A. Erskine and S.B. Hübner, 6070-2.
Ossendrijver, M. 2020. 'The Moon and Planets in Ancient Mesopotamia.' Oxford Research Encyclopedia: Planetary Science. Oxford.
Reiner, E. 1995. 'The Uses of Astronomy.' JAOS 105(4): 589-95.
Rochberg, F. 2004. The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture. Cambridge.
Sallaberger, W. 2021. 'The Emergence of Calendars in the Third Millennium BC.' Calendars and Festivals in Mesopotamia in the Third and Second Millennia BC, D. Shibata & S. Yamada (eds). Harrasowitz.
Weidner, E.F. 1915. Handbuch der babylonischen Astronomie: Der babylonische Fixsternhimmel. Hinrichs.
