© Ian Lawton 2000

I have already explained that the reason I have devoted a not insubstantial amount of time and effort to refuting the theories of Zecharia Sitchin is because I believe that, over a number of years, they have misled a great many people about matters of great significance.[i] To the extent that, like his former supporter Alan Alford, I was introduced to the enigmas of Ancient Mesopotamia by his work, I do owe him some debt of gratitude. Nevertheless it seems to me a great shame that his ideas are so misplaced that such massive effort is required to correct the balance of opinion in the alternative history community. Were his vivid reconstructions presented in novel form, we could perhaps enjoy them as harmless entertainment. But they are not.

What is my own view of the Mesopotamian texts? I believe that very little, if any, of Sitchin's work deserves to be salvaged. I believe, as I have already hinted on many occasions, that there are certain texts or passages which deserve close scrutiny from an esoteric standpoint; perhaps none more so than the multiple references to the 'creation of mankind'. Although I do not believe the 'gods' were flesh and blood visitors who genetically created man in their own image, nevertheless there are enigmas in these and other aspects of the Mesopotamian texts which are mirrored around the world. However the process of arriving at the most appropriate interpretation thereof is a difficult and lengthy one, not to be undertaken lightly.

However, lest I be accused of continually refuting the theories of others without substituting something positive in return, I can assure my readers that I am currently working on just such a project. I sincerely hope it will be worth the wait...

Source References

[i] Readers should also be aware that I fundamentally disagree with Sitchin over the age of the Giza Pyramids. In order to support his revised chronology of mankind, and his contention that these pyramids were built as "ground markers" for the Anunnaki's incoming space flights, it was Sitchin who first suggested that Colonel Richard Howard Vyse faked the "Khufu quarry marks" in the Relieving Chambers in the Great Pyramid, some of which include the name Khufu. On proper investigation this proves to be one of the most appalling and distorted attacks on Vyse's character and integrity imaginable, and a full and highly detailed rebuttal of this nonsense can be found in Giza: The Truth, Chapter 2, pp. 94-113. Bearing in mind that it was this original attack by Sitchin which prompted so many other 'alternative Egyptologists' to repeat his accusations without question - although fortunately now most of them have seen the light - this saga perhaps more than any other tells us a very great deal about Sitchin and his work.