Mankind: Nothing but Slaves of the Mother Ship

Jim Duyer

Well-known member
I thought I might share some of my research into the etymology of the Sumerian terms for the Annunaki and the ones that came down.

My sources, for you to examine and weigh, are from online dictionaries put out by the University of Pennsylvania: "," and by the Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford: "ETCSLhomepage." I also, from time to time, consult the text corpus of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Their Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus is more extensive and yields valuable data on earlier etymologies from the Babylonian area of influence. In one or more of these three fonts of information, produced by our professional linguistic talents, you will be able to locate absolutely all of the Sumerian translations that are found in this and other posts that I have authored.

The Annunaki are the senior sky-gods, said to be a group of seven, and they form a type of council of gods that makes decisions over the Igigi enforcers. Only when the Igigi revolt from their hard labors is humankind created as a substitute or slave labor force.

The traditional translation for the word Annunaki falls short of the true and complete story. This is done by using one of two methods: first they often spell it without the ki on the end, or they change the ki to ke, without explanation. (Although misspelling the suffix does lend support to their version.) The second way is by changing the word to read "Anunaki" which completely ignores the first syllables of an-nun. The meaning that they provide for us, "the gods as a whole," is therefore born of deception.

We are told that the Annunaki are the "children of An and Ki," or the children of the supreme sky-god An, and the earth. This not only makes no sense, because Enlil, and not An, was responsible for the creation of mankind, but it also flies in the face of their own explanation that the Anunnaki are the seven sky-god council leaders, and thus in no way are they connected with the planet earth. They had the Igigi to do their dirty work in enforcing the human populations.

How could the Annunake represent the children, when the word for children, hurum, is not part of their

hurum [CHILD] (11x: Old Babylonian) wr. hu-ru-um; hu-ru; a-hur-rum; hu-rum; huru "junior, social inferior; children" Akk. ahurrû; lillidu

Various sections of the term as defined in the Sumerian dictionary are:

An = the supreme sky-god An.
"An," which means "sky or heaven," in Sumerian

nun [FIGHT] wr. nun3 "fight, combat" Akk. anuntu
nun [OBJECT] wr. nun "a metal object" Akk. nunnu
nun [PRINCE] wr. nun "prince; (as attribute) foremost, best" Akk. rubû

nu [BIRD] wr. nu2mušen; gešnu2mušen "a night bird" Akk. sallalu
nu [CREATOR] wr. nu7 "creator, begetter" Akk. banû
nu [FLY] wr. nu "(small) fly, mosquito" Akk. baqqu
nu [GENITALIA] wr. nu "male genitalia; sperm; offspring" Akk. lipištu
nu [MAN] wr. nu "man" Akk. awilu
nu [NOT] wr. nu "(to be) not, no; without, un-" Akk. la;

na [CVNE] wr. na "(compound verb nominal element)"
na [MAN] wr. na "man" Akk. amelu
na [PESTLE] wr. na4na "pestle; a stone" Akk. na'u
na [STONE] wr. na4; na; na4na "stone; stone weight" Akk. abnu

Ki = earth, land, down-below, country

Let's examine both spellings of Annunaki and Anunaki, and see what the Sumerian dictionary provides for us as their correct meanings.
"An = sky or heaven," and "Nun = metal object or combat," with "a = strength or power," and "ki = the earth." This seems to tell us of a metal object from the sky, with power over the earth.

And "a = wing," with "nu = night bird," and "na = man," with "ki = down below."
Or a winged night bird above mankind down below.
Which is a fairly good description of a mother ship that circled the earth, that was home to the sky-god council known as the Annunaki. But our scholars never mentioned either of these alternative meanings in their literature. And why not? Because the majority of them do not and never have, given any serious credence to the existence of extraterrestrials during the days of the Sumerians and the biblical period. By providing us with "their" definitions for these terms, we see that open-minded and scientific research was not very evident.

Whenever you run across a noun or other word in the Sumerian language, be sure to do your own research to confirm the proper definition of the term, without having to depend upon the work of others, no matter how many initials they have after their name. Scientists, like religious scholars, tend to apply a meaning that fits their preconceived ideas, and are not shy about editing, modifying or discarding any proofs that point to a position contrary to theirs.

BTW - Sitchin used Akkadian terms, and defines them using a template from the Semitic Hebrew, with which he was very familiar, into the Akkadian language, which was also Semitic.

Sumerian is not part of the Semitic language group. I use the Sumerian language exclusively for my work.

I have not been able to agree with or follow Mr. Sitchin, simply because he does not provide the
sources for his translations. In other words, he does not show you, as I have, where these words
occur in the texts, and how they have been defined, even traditionally. But I am perfectly happy
to discuss anything related to his discoveries, and I salute him for being one of the first pioneers
to decide that the scholars that we pay to write our textbooks are not actually being honest with us.
Last edited:


New member
My question is: Did Sitchin fail to provide supporting documentation for everything he wrote or was it just for the fantastical other-worldly sci-fi stuff? The answer would be revealing as to his academic and professional character, and perhaps as to is mercantile interest in selling highly provocative and entertaining books (none of which I have ever read).
Jim Duyer

Jim Duyer

Well-known member
My question is: Did Sitchin fail to provide supporting documentation for everything he wrote or was it just for the fantastical other-worldly sci-fi stuff? The answer would be revealing as to his academic and professional character, and perhaps as to is mercantile interest in selling highly provocative and entertaining books (none of which I have ever read).
I have no axe to grind against him, and I celebrate his boldness in expressing this opinon that went against everything the mainstream professionals were attempting to set aside. However, he really never made it clear that his translations or transliterations I should say, were based upon the much later (as much as 1000 years) Akkadian, and not the Sumerian that his advertising told us about. Akkadian is very different. It uses the symbols from the Sumerian cuneiform, as do other languages, but it provides different spoken words to use, and more importantly, different meanings in many cases. That's the important part - because although the Akkadians adopted them, the gods were actually supposedly seen by the Sumerians at some point, and the stories related to them first hand from the mouths of said gods or semi-human demi-gods. So no, I have yet to see any sources pointed out, or any technical display of how he arrived at his answers. I myself have translated some of the original Sumerian and found references to "winged, brilliant, scythes and metal bowls" but never anything resembling the Chinese type rockets that Sitchin tells us about. I have not read anywhere near everything he has published - I have only skimmed through three of them - because frankly they are so off course that they present themselves as boring to me. As an example of the Akkadian influence, anytime you see Marduk - skip that part. Because Marduk was simply a way for the Akkadians to slip in one of their kings into the historical record, and later equate him with godhood. He had no connection whatsoever with the Annunaki or the council of seven Igigi.