Archive for the ‘THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE BLACK!’ Category


July 26, 2008




Jew Links of the Day
I had no internet yesterday and I’m in Madison today. So the Jew links have been stalled until I get back. Here’s an e-mail I got today that should suffice:

“If you’re going to state that the “unknown source” that is stated i suggest to stop being lazy and do some research. Becasue if you want to “quote” the bible then you must know where its faults lay. Also the stories of the Bible have been fabricated. all historical, scientific, and biblical facts lead to the conclusion that the true descendants of the original Jews of the bible are the so-called Blacks in America and through out the Caribbean islands. The Native American, Aztec, Taoino, Seminole, and Arawak Indians of North, South, and Central America comprise the rest of the twelve tribes of Israel. the centralized lie is that of The image of the man that most of the Christian world worships as Jesus Christ is actually the image of a man by the name of Ceasar Borgia of the Borgia family. Ceasar Borgia was the second son of Pope Alexander the sixth of Rome. Leonardi Divinci and Michaelangelo painted him as being Christ during the Renaissance period. But, when you read a book entitled “The Life and Times of Ceasar Borgia” by Sara Bradford, you will find out that the man who posed as Christ was a thief, murderer, a homosexual, and child molester. In fact, there is no evidence or scripture in the “bible” that describes Christ as having blue eyes, blond hair, and pale skin, and looking like some Charles Manson looking character. The true image of Jesus Christ is that of a dark skin Black man with woooly hair. Just read Revelation Chapter one verses 13, 14 to 15. It states that he had hair of wool and his feet were like fine brass as if they were burnt in a furnace. The bottom line is that Christ was a Jew and the true Jews are Black.If you have read the bible then you would know that when Christ was born, the angel told Joseph to hide the baby Jesus in Egypt, because Herod was seeking to destroy him. We all know by now that the original Egyptians were Black. So if Jesus were White, why would Joseph be instructed to hide a White baby among Black Egypt
ians? That would be like trying to hide Eminem in Harlem. It would not work. Why did they not want to hide the baby Jesus in Rome? The bottom line is that it was easier to hide Jesus among the Egyptians because Jesus was Black himself christianity does not want you know that. So the bottom line is that everyone lies! Everyone!”

LiveJournal Labs is a place for innovative features, applications, and ideas. Check out LJ Dashboard
Copyright © 1999-2008 LiveJournal, Inc. All rights reserved.


July 26, 2008




Jesus and Egyptian God Horus

The entire European system of belief has its roots in, one way or another, ancient African religion. If it were not for Africans, Europeans would not have the theosophical doctrine known as Christianity. They wouldn’t have a Jesus. They wouldn’t have a story of creation. There would be no figure to name Moses (a professed Eygptian high priest). They would not have monotheism: a doctrine first coined by the Pharoah Akhenaton (in his proper language “Akenten”).

The foundations of Christianity were built upon the Ancient Egyptian “Mysteries” System. Jesus’ story was stolen from the archives of Ancient Egypt.

Sounds ridiculous? Read on…

Jesus’ life story is almost identical to that of an Egyptian god named Horus.


-Horus was born of a virgin/Jesus was born of a virgin.

-Horus was born on December 25th/Jesus was born on December 25th.

-Horus mother was ‘Meri’/Jesus mother was ‘Mary’.

-Herut tried to have Horus murdered during infancy/Herod tried to have Jesus murdered during infancy.

-Horus had a ‘rite of passage’ ritual when he was 12/Jesus had a ‘rite of passage’ ritual when he was 12.

-Horus was baptized at the age of 30/Jesus was baptized at the age of 30.

-Anup the Baptiser baptized Horus, and was subsequently beheaded/John the Baptist baptized Jesus and was subsequently beheaded.

-There is no data on Horus between the ages of 12 and 30/There is not data on Jesus between the ages of 12 and 30.

-Horus was crucified/Jesus was crucified.

-After death, Horus descended into hell and was resurrected after 3 days/After death, Jesus descended into hell and was resurrected after 3 days.

It goes on and on…

Jesus existed, but he wasn’t the Son of God, or more than human in any way. He was a leader and revolutionary, but his story was changed to benefit the movement of Christianity.

Last edited by Juice. : Yesterday at 03:18 PM.

View Public Profile
Visit Juice.’s homepage!
Find More Posts by Juice.

— Beautiful Black —- AfroOpacity —- Power To The People —- AfroLiteness —- BlacknessnGold — testing Contact Us – AfroChat – Archive – Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 – 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0


July 17, 2008








If there were any validity to the notion that Europeans are or have ever been permanently and by nature superior to Afrikans — and that Afrikans are hopelessly inferior to them — we would see this played out in history. History is, after all, the record of a people’s accomplishments and failures. History would uphold the irrefutable record of European superiority over Afrikans since time immemorial.

That history would be able to do such a thing would be a miraculous feat indeed, especially when one considers that Europeans came into being 130,000 years after Afrikans had inhabited the entire planet and that they themselves are descendants of those Afrikans who found themselves trapped in Europe’s great ice age roughly 30,000 years ago.

In other words, if white supremacy were something that could pretend to be scientifically verified at all, we should be able to demonstrate in history that at no time were Europeans not superior to Afrikans by any measure we care to look at.

This is precisely the argument of the nineteenth century white supremacist scholars Josiah C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, who held that the “caucasian races … have always been the representatives of civilization.” Unlike all other peoples in the world, the Caucasian has never adopted any other peoples’ religions and has never been ruled by others, they boasted. The Caucasian can take credit for all the great sciences, invention, literature, poetry, religion and the most celebrated names in human history.

The white supremacist intellectual John Campbell, in his 1851 refutation, Negro-Mania: Being An Examination of the Falsely Assumed Equality of the Various Races of Man, rather hysterically agreed. “I take it for granted that no dark race of man has ever been equal to the white race.” Indeed, insisted Campbell, “never at any given time from the most infinitely remote antiquity until now, has there ever appeared a race of negroes, that is men with woolly heads, flat noses, thick and protruding lips, who has ever emerged from a state of savageism or barbarism, to even demi civilization.”

Real scholarship could not uphold that fiction and a few courageous European scholars broke ranks with the conspiracy of fabrication and acknowledged the historical realities. Constantin de Volney, a French scholar who visited Egypt between 1783-1785, remarked that the “ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native-born Africans. … Just think that this race of black men, today our slave and the object of our scorn, is the very same race to which we owe our arts, sciences and even the use of speech!”

Another French scholar during the earlier part of the twentieth century noted that “An African country, Egypt, thousands of years old, still presents, practically intact today, the most venerable monuments of antiquity. At a time when all Europe was only savagery, when Paris and London were swamps, when Rome and Athens uninhabited sites, Africa already possessed an antique civilization in the valley of the Nile; it had populous cities, the labor of generations on the same soil, great public works, sciences and arts; it had already produced gods.”

In a most surprising admission, the nineteenth century French scholar Jean-Francois Champollion, the reputed father of Egyptology, said of Europeans during the time of the Afrikan pharaohs: “what we call flesh-colored, a white skin of the most delicate shade, a nose straight or slightly arched, blue eyes, blond or reddish beard, tall stature and very slender, clad in hairy ox-skin, [was] a veritable savage tattooed on various parts of his body.”

Of the peoples known to Afrikans of the ancient world, Champollion said Europeans were the least advanced. “I am ashamed to say so, since our race is the last and most savage,” he admits. “Europeans … in those remote epochs did not cut too fine a figure in the world. In this category we must include all blonds and white-skinned people living not only in Europe, but Asia as well.”

One twentieth century Euro-American scholar made the rather remarkable statement in a text on western civilization that the chief accomplishment of Europeans prior to the Greeks was to leave mounds of garbage heaps as a legacy of European civilization. And as regards the ancient Greeks, even the nineteenth century French archaeologist Abbe Emile Amelineau objected to the false credit given to them as the creators of so-called western civilization. “I fail to see why ancient Greece should reap all the honor for ideas she borrowed from Egypt,” he said.

Europeans had more than one low point in their time during which they faced Afrikans who were more advanced. Muslim Afrikans, known as Moors, who conquered and ruled southern Spain for nearly 800 years beginning in 715 CE, helped pull Europe out of its period of ignorance, the so-called Dark Ages, which lasted from 500 to 1000 CE. “At a time when even European kings could not read or write and 99 percent of Christian Europe was illiterate, the Moors made education universal,” notes one scholar. “And in the 10th and 11th centuries when Europe had no public libraries and only two significant universities, the Moors gave Spain more than 70 public libraries, built Spain seventeen famous universities and established an observatory at Seville.”

The lesson here is that every one has fallen on hard times at one time or another — even Europeans. Based on the historical record, it would have been quite easy for someone to have argued that Europeans were hopelessly inferior to Afrikans. What we know to be true, however, is that all peoples have achieved greatness in their own ways. All have experienced their glorious highs and their embarrassing lows. This is simply the nature of the human experience.




Copyright © 1998 Runoko Rashidi. All rights reserved.
Revised: August 11, 2001.
Webpage design: Kenneth Ritchards


July 14, 2008


The Travelogues of a Traveler


Well, my first article to post was not a difficult choice. It’s an article that shaped my world and led men like Cedric J. Robinson, Troy Duster, Langston Hughes , W.E.B. Du Bois, men who many people tried to put them “conspiracy of silence” , but never succeeded.

Race & Class | Racism, Empire & Globalisation | 2003
By Aaron Kamugisha*
Humanities Department, York University (Canada)

The spectre of Egypt haunts debates on the historiography of ancient Africa. Egypt’s status as the oldest civilisation in antiquity, contemporaneous with Sumer, is uncontested. Its role in antiquity–whether its relationships with the rest of Africa or its influence on ancient Greece and on what is now referred to as ‘western civilisation’–has long been the subject of debate, with an intensification during the last few decades as a result of the rise of African-centred cultural movements from Paris to Los Angeles. At stake is the right to acknowledge Egypt as a black African culture, with a tremendous impact on the development of world civilisation. This article attempts to deal with one aspect of the long history of ideas associated with the debate on ancient Egypt–the resurrection of the importance of ancient Egypt and its Africanity to the black world by Cheikh Anta Diop, beginning with his book Nations Negres et Culture (1954), in relation to contemporary understandings of Egypt in the Anglophone world. Its main focus will be on tracing the understanding of the relationship between ancient Egypt and the rest of Africa from Nations Negres et Culture to the present, as highlighted in a few major debates, notably on Diop’s work, the explosion of debate on these issues surrounding Martin Bernal’s Black Athena, and Celenko’s recent edited text Egypt in Africa.

In attempting to contextualise Diop’s contribution, it is necessary to cite some of the racists and scholarly rogues whose views he was battling against and which formed the accepted historiography of Egypt and Nubia at the time. For G. Eliot Smith, ‘the smallest infusion of Negro blood immediately manifests itself in a dulling of initiative and a “drag” on the further development of the arts of civilization’. (1) Such was the scholarly objectivity surrounding the preservation of some of the ancient Egyptian mummies that W. G. Browne would claim that their presence provided proof of the ‘prescience of that people concerning errors into which posterity might fall, exhibit[ing] irrefragable proof of their features and of the colour of their skin’. In other words, as Edith Sanders interprets this wonderful passage, since ‘the ancient Egyptians knew they could be mistaken for Negroes . . . [they] left their bodies in evidence to refute such an allegation’. (2) The tyranny of the Hamitic hypothesis, which sought to explain all civilisation in Africa as the result of a resident population of Caucasians, led R. Gates to conclude that Bantu speakers were Hamites with a ’slight admixture of Negro blood’. (3) Perhaps the best example of this scholarship comes in C. G. Seligman’s Races of Africa. Justice to Seligman can only be done by quoting him in full:

“Apart from relatively late Semitic influence . . . the civilizations of Africa are the civilizations of the Hamites, its history the record of these peoples and of their interaction with the two other African stocks, the Negro and the Bushman, whether this influence was exerted by highly civilized Egyptians or by such wider pastoralists as are represented at the present day by the Beja and Somali . . . The incoming Hamites were pastoral ‘Europeans’–arriving wave after wave–better armed as well as quicker witted than the dark agricultural Negroes.” (4)

Races of Africa, according to Sanders, went through several editions and was reprinted until 1966 virtually unchanged. Much of the more vulgar scholarship on the ‘racial’ ancestry of the ancient Nile valley Africans can be traced to the intensity of racism in Europe from the mid-nineteenth century onwards. Its decline after the second world war has been similarly convoluted, as the following survey of some of the more important scholarly positions taken illustrates.

Diop’s Nations Negres et Culture

Cheikh Anta Diop’s 1954 work Nations Negres et Culture stands out as perhaps the most brilliant condemnation of Eurocentric historiography in the anticolonial literature of the black world. (5) Conceptualised at a time when ‘the political problem dominated all others’, (6) it remains a landmark work in the struggle against the western hegemonic worldview and the distortion and caricaturing of the history of colonised people. Restoring a sense of historical consciousness to a people in the process of emerging from colonialism required, for Diop, a look at the three formative characteristics of a people’s ‘collective personality’; the psychic, historical and linguistic factors. Diop’s approach to the historical and linguistic factors–the two he saw as capable of scientific apprehension–led him to the recovery of ancient Egypt as a black African civilisation, a link without which the history of Africa cannot be meaningfully reconstructed.

After a scathing attack on the premises of previous western scholarship on Egypt, Diop made his main claim for Egypt’s Africanity in his chapter ‘Arguments supporting a Negro origin’. The evidence presented by Diop focused on the similarity of cultural traits between sub-Saharan Africans and Egyptians, including totemism, circumcision, kingship, cosmogony, social organisation, matriarchy, linguistic affiliations and the relationship between the Meroitic Sudan and Egypt. It is, however, Diop’s position on the vexed question of the ‘blackness’ of the Egyptians that has resulted in the greatest controversy, which is unfortunate since the more interesting question concerns the African nature of the ancient Egyptian civilisation. An early essay by Diop gives us a critical insight into his stance, as his views on the ‘race’ of the ancient Egyptians do not appear to have altered appreciably between its publication and his death. In an essay entitled ‘Evolution of the Negro world’ in Presence Africaine (1964), Diop provides a relentless critique of European scholars involved in their own ’separate evolution of mankind’ theories of human development, which denied the African origin of homo sapiens. Berating the persistent quest of some western scholars to separate the populations of Egypt from the rest of Africa, Diop states:

“But it is only the most gratuitous theory which considers the Dinka, the Nouer and the Masai, among others, to be Caucasoids. What if an African ethnologist were to persist in recognising as white only the blond, blue-eyed Scandinavians, and systematically refused membership to the remaining Europeans, and Mediterraneans in particular–the French, Italians, Greek, Spanish, and Portuguese? Just as the inhabitants of Scandinavia and the Mediterranean countries must be considered as two extreme poles of the same anthropological reality, so should the Negroes of East and West Africa be considered as the two extremes in the reality of the Negro world. To say that a Shillouk, a Dinka, or a Nouer is a Caucasoid is for an African as devoid of sense and scientific interest as would be, to a European, an attitude which maintained that a Greek or a Latin were not of the same race.” (7)

This last passage points to what may be one of Diop’s most significant contributions–his repudiation of the ‘platonic ideal’ of races, a contribution that has been cited approvingly by MacGaffey and Trigger. It also suggests an understanding by Diop that not all Africans are alike, while remaining African rather than members of another ‘race’ or a ‘mixture’ of races. This perspective is of critical importance for analysing the subsequent scholarly controversy on the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians.

The shift in the perception of ancient Egypt, from Diop to Bernal

It is perhaps unnecessary to observe that Diop’s conception of Egypt as an African civilisation was met with almost universal rejection by the western academy, particularly in the Anglophone world. Major historical projects on Africa like the Cambridge History of Africa series and its editors Roland Oliver and J. D. Fage pass over Diop’s contribution without engagement. However, what is of primary interest here is the shift in the perception of ancient Egypt from 1960 to the mid-1980s. In 1960, Diop’s doctoral work was finally accepted by the Sorbonne; in the same year, the Journal of African History began publication. It thus makes an interesting starting point from which to look at the shift in perceptions of ancient Egypt, since it also marked the advent of the discipline of African history at British universities.

A close look at a few central articles and books published during this period will make the shift clear. Wyatt MacGaffey’s ‘Concepts of race in the historiography of northeast Africa’ (1966) is a landmark article that clearly illustrates the new climate of scholarly opinion on the issue of ‘race’ after the second world war. MacGaffey notes that contemporary historians of Africa have begun to incorporate a number of new sources of information into their conceptual schemata, including work on physical anthropology. ( This resulted in a deserved abandonment of the concept of race and of the Hamitic hypothesis which ‘is to be rejected as a racial label not . . . because it is properly a linguistic label, but because the racial category which it designates, and the entire theory of race with which it is associated, is inadequate’. (9) MacGaffey approvingly cites Livingstone’s view that the idea of race should be ‘dispensed with entirely’, since: ‘Idealistic racial classification has now been displaced in physical anthropology by the genetic concept, which emphasizes adaptation and variability and studies the genetic structures of particular places and periods with little or no reference to racial taxonomy.’ (10) He sees Diop’s work as an important refutation of the concept of the ‘brown race’ hypothesis, but then incorporates Diop into the same tradition as Junker and Seligman. Diop’s methodology is dismissed as one best left behind in the 1950s and as utterly irreconcilable with current techniques of archaeology and historical investigation. The importance of MacGaffey’s essay lies in his uncompromising refutation of the race concept, which he uses to attack understandings of physical variety and skull measurements. Explaining human variety as the result of a mixture between ‘historically discrete types or races’ is incorrect according to genetic understandings, as are skull measurements, and distorts our understanding of the populations of ancient Africa.

Edith R. Sanders’ often-quoted piece, also in the Journal of African History, three years later, signalled the end of the Hamitic hypothesis as an explanatory paradigm for population groups in Africa. (11) Sanders’ reading reveals the presence of two Hamitic hypotheses, generated at different times to serve the ideological needs of the societies that created them. The shifting, dubious nature of the meaning of ‘Hamite’ over time and its hegemony over the academic discourse on African civilisations is, for Sanders, a ‘problem of epistemology’.

The original Hamitic myth grew out of the Babylonian Talmud of the sixth century AD, and it is generally accepted that it was an ideological justification for Israelite suzerainty over Canaan, incorporated into Jewish mythology as the curse of Noah. The Hamite at this time was seen as unquestionably black. The myth proved to have remarkable longevity, lasting well into the 1700s, as it provided a ready justification for slavery in the Americas. The birth of the Enlightenment, with its move towards a polygenetic understanding of humanity, created a tension within the Hamitic myth, which had previously allowed Christians to see Africans as their fellow men–albeit accursed.

At the end of the eighteenth century, Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt took place. This event was of considerable significance, since it alerted Europe to a fact that it had lost from its historical memory–that civilisations older than Greece and Rome had existed in antiquity. This led, Sanders points out, not only towards a fundamental rethinking of history, but also to the construction of a new Hamitic myth. A reexamination of the Book of Genesis led scholars to conclude that Canaan alone of the sons of Ham was cursed and that the Egyptians were actually the descendants of Mizraim, another son of Ham, whose progeny were spared God’s wrath. The black race could then be seen as descended from Canaan, while the Egyptians were Caucasoid Hamites of the racial stock required to create a great civilisation. Even this distinction was not enough for the nineteenth-century scientific racists, who made it clear that a hierarchy existed within the Caucasian race, with the Hamites filling the position at the bottom just below the Slavs. By 1969, Sanders could see the end in sight for the Hamitic hypothesis, but acknowledged that ‘the word still exists, endowed with a mythical meaning; it endures through time and history, and, like a chameleon, changes its colour to reflect the changing light’. (12) Two decades later, Basil Davidson, in his review of Black Athena, could exult that ‘the Hamites and their Caucasoid quick wits have in any case vanished from the scientific scene . . . The scholarship of the last thirty years and more has simply tipped them into the dustbin of exploded fantasies . . . It may even be claimed that this achievement is among the most significant intellectual advances of the twentieth century.’ (13) The question becomes whether the full extent of the critiques launched at the Hamitic hypothesis with respect to its racialised understanding of population groups has been fully internalised in the scholarly–and popular–understandings of ancient North African civilisations.

The impact of the attack on the Hamitic myth by Greenberg, MacGaffey, Sanders et al. seems to have first seriously affected the scholarly approach and popular understanding of the other great African civilisation that shared North Africa with Egypt, ancient Nubia. The Egyptologist Bruce Trigger’s article for the 1978 exhibition ‘Africa in antiquity: the arts of Nubia and the Sudan’, held in Brooklyn, captures this point well. (14) Trigger caustically cites the ‘bizarre and dangerous myths’ associated with previous racist scholarship on northeast Africa. These studies were quite simply ‘marred by a confusion of race, language, and culture and by an accompanying racism’. (15) In his comment on the ‘racial’ affinities of the people of northeast Africa, Trigger declares that ‘all of these people are Africans. To proceed further and divide them into Caucasoid and Negroid stocks is to perform an act that is arbitrary and wholly devoid of historical or biological significance.’ Trigger’s disavowal of the ‘race’ concept leads him to conclude:

“The people of Nubia are an indigenous African population, whose physical characteristics are part of a continuum of physical variation in the Nile Valley. This population has occupied the middle portion of the Nile Valley throughout recorded history and probably for much longer. There is no evidence to suggest that it is as a result of a mixing of different racial stocks.” (16)

The significant shift that this view of Nubia entailed cannot be overestimated, since at one time every element of ‘civilisation’ in Nubia was seen as the result of an invasion of Caucasoids, with its decline beginning upon intermarriage with the local inhabitants. The term ‘Nubia’ now enjoys an immense popularity in black popular culture in the United States and conservative publications like the Washington Post run full-length pullout features on Nubia, which is readily referred to as a civilisation of black-skinned Africans. (17) Egypt’s African status has not been so easily reconciled, however. In the period under scrutiny, pre-Black Athena, the confusion over whether Egypt’s geographical position meant it warranted the description of an African civilisation continued, as can be seen in the work of the prominent historian J. D. Fage. Fage’s (197 A History of Africa is an important transition point in the conventional opinion of Egyptian civilisation. (1 For Fage, ‘One of the earliest great civilizations, that of Pharaonic Egypt, was itself based in Africa’. After making brief references to Mediterranean civilisations like Phoenicia, Carthage, Greece and Rome, he announces his aim as ‘consider[ing] the influence which these civilizations on the fringes of Africa may have had on the development of human society in the continent as a whole’ (my italics). Although Egypt ‘was of course founded on African soil’, it was ‘quite unlike any other part of Africa’. (19) As Davidson puts it, this represents a view that ‘the land of Ancient Egypt appears to have detached itself from the delta of the Nile, some five and a half thousand years ago, and sailed off into the Mediterranean on a course veering broadly towards the coasts of Syria’. (20) Egypt appears in Fage’s analysis to be little more than a geographical absurdity–in Africa, but not of it.

The UNESCO symposium on ‘The peopling of ancient Egypt and the deciphering of the Meroitic script’, held in Cairo from 28 January–3 February 1974, was perhaps the largest assemblage of Egyptologists and Africanists to examine the populations of Africa in antiquity. The conference’s focus was on attempting to ascertain the ‘ethnic origin and . . . anthropological relationships’ of the ancient Egyptians as part of UNESCO’s larger General History of Africa project. (21) This conference, and indeed the whole UNESCO project, elicited considerable controversy. The rapporteur’s comment that ‘the overall results of the symposium will be very differently assessed by the various participants’ appears an understatement given the reviews of the UNESCO series that have since appeared. (22) Moreover, as the rapporteur carefully concluded, ‘not all participants had prepared communications comparable with the painstakingly researched contributions of Professors Cheikh Anta Diop and Obenga. There was consequently a real lack of balance in the discussions.’ (23)

But, while Diop and Obenga undoubtedly made a great contribution to the Cairo conference, its importance for the debate on Egypt’s Africanity lies in the adherence on the part of almost all the participants to a concept of ‘race’ that was both shifting and problematic. Jean Vercoutter’s paper, commissioned by UNESCO beforehand, epitomised the lingering confusion over the concepts used in the past to describe the ancient Egyptians:

“Whilst acknowledging that the ancient Egyptian population was ‘mixed’, a fact confirmed by all the anthropological analyses, writers nevertheless speak of an Egyptian ‘race’, linking it to a well defined human type, the white, ‘Hamitic’ branch, also called ‘Caucasoid’, ‘Mediterranean’, ‘Europid’ or ‘Eurafricanid’. There is a contradiction here: all the anthropologists agree in stressing the sizeable proportion of the Negroid element–almost a third and sometimes more–in the ethnic [i.e. biological] mixture of the ancient Egyptian ‘population’, but nobody has yet defined what is meant by the term ‘Negroid’, nor has any explanation been proffered as to how this Negroid element, by mingling with a ‘Mediterranean’ component often present in smaller proportions, could be assimilated into a purely Caucasoid race.” (24)

Vercoutter further distinguished the most ‘extreme’ versions of the two opposing theories on Egypt’s population as one which saw the Egyptians as ‘white’ though their pigmentation was dark (to be blunt, black-skinned whites) or a second, which viewed ancient Egyptians as black Africans. The conference report suggests that the first theory had been discarded: ‘None of the participants explicitly voiced support for the earlier theory concerning a population which was “white” with a dark, even black, pigmentation. There was no more than tacit agreement to abandon this old theory.’ (25)

However, this did not mean that the alternative, championed by Diop, was accepted either. Diop presented evidence from anthropology, blood groups, iconography, ancient written sources, melanin tests and the significance of the word KMT. (26) The conclusions of his evidence, and particularly his translation of KMT, were fiercely challenged by some participants. But it was the question of the ethnic origin of the ancient Egyptians–which quickly became simply a question of their ‘race’–that caused much of the conference to dissolve into a series of ’successive and mutually contradicting monologues’. (27) Ghallab claimed that, during the Palaeolithic era, Egypt had been inhabited by Caucasoids; Vercoutter was unequivocal that Egypt had always had a ‘mixed’ population; and Abu Bakr, adopting a position similar to Vercoutter’s, said that Egypt had never been sealed off from other populations; it was a ‘mingling of men from the west and east’. In countering these positions, Diop suggested that the Egyptians were from two black races, one with straight and one with crinkly hair. Diop and Obenga’s proposition of a homogenous population met with ‘total disagreement’ from the majority of scholars, who proposed a mixed population. The summary positions were described as follows:

“The conclusion of the experts who did not accept the theory, put forward by Professors Cheikh Anta Diop and Obenga, that the Nile Valley population had been homogenous from the earliest times until the Persian invasion, was that the basic population of Egypt settled there in Neolithic times, that it originated largely in the Sahara and that it comprised people from the north and from the south of the Sahara who were differentiated by their colour. In opposition to this theory, Professors Diop and Obenga submitted their own theory to the effect that the valley was peopled uniformly by black people and that the movement had been from south to north.” (2

The confusion over the conceptual category of ‘race’ haunted the Cairo conference. The inability of the participants on both sides of the divide to take scientifically-based positions beyond it led Obenga to state (as recounted by the rapporteur) that ‘the notion of race [is] recognized as valid by scientific research and . . . the study of races . . . [does] . . . not necessarily involve racialism’. (29) The recommendations from the conference asked UNESCO to organise an international inquiry, geared towards ‘establishing very precise standards on the strictest possible scientific principles for defining races and for identifying the racial type of exhumed skeletons’. (30) Lost amid the confusion was Obenga and Diop’s linguistic evidence, regarded by the participants as ‘very constructive’, and a crucial link in the chain between Egypt and Africa. The tragedy of this aspect of the locus on race at the conference was the loss of the opportunity to settle once and for all the African nature of Egyptian civilisation, especially since the dynastic race theory had, by this time, been largely discredited.

The Black Athena ‘explosion’

To what ‘race’, then, did the Ancient Egyptians belong? I am very dubious of the utility of the concept ‘race’ in general because it is impossible to achieve any anatomical precision on the subject. Moreover, even if one accepts it for the sake of argument, I am even more skeptical about the possibility of finding an answer in this particular case. Research on the question usually reveals far more about the predisposition of the researcher than about the question itself. Nevertheless I am convinced that, at least for the last 7,000 years, the population of Egypt has contained African, South-West Asian and Mediterranean types. It is also clear that the further south, or up the Nile, one goes, the blacker and more Negroid the population becomes, and that this has been the case for the same length of time. As I stated in the Introduction, I believe that Egyptian civilization was fundamentally African and that the African element was stronger in the Old and Middle Kingdoms, before the Hyksos invasion, than it later became. Furthermore, I am convinced that many of the most powerful Egyptian dynasties which were based in Upper Egypt–the 1st, 11th, 12th and 18th–were made up of pharaohs whom one can usefully call black. (31)

Despite Bernal’s wearily testy claim that the only word in the title of his proposed tetralogy that has not been critiqued is ‘the’, it is fair to claim that ‘Black Athena‘ has been the most contested part of that title. The above paragraph has been obsessively picked apart for its inconsistencies by a number of commentators on the Black Athena debate. Bernal’s claim that Egyptian civilisation was ‘fundamentally African’ and made up of pharaohs that one ‘can usefully call black’ has been rightly critiqued as sounding more like a ‘value judgement . . . than a statement of fact’. (32) His subsequent equivocations have hardly helped his cause, no better seen than in his response to Frank Snowden at the presidential panel of the American Philological Association. In his response, Bernal astonishingly states that he ‘make[s] no claim that the Egyptians were black’. (33) In an effort to develop a consensus with Snowden, he moves to a position that describes the Egyptians as a ‘mixed’ people–’we both agree that the Egyptian population was mixed and that there were “black elements in it”‘–but then contradicts this position by critiquing the idea of a single ‘African type’ in Africa. Contesting his own title, Bernal first admits that it was his idea, then reveals that he wished to change it to a more palatable ‘African Athena’, but his publisher insisted on the original title, arguing that ‘Blacks no longer sell. Women no longer sell. But black women still sell!’

The Black Athena debate has produced a variety of critical perspectives on the nature of the relationship between Greece and Egypt in antiquity. Its contribution to the central purpose of this paper–ascertaining whether we can finally speak, without qualifications, of ancient Egypt as an African culture and civilisation–has been, in many ways, not an intentional result of Bernal’s scholarship, but an indirect and, I hope to show, major consequence of the explosion of debate on the nature of ancient Egyptian civilisation. Black Athena may be, for some, an ‘arresting but grossly misleading title’, (34) but Egypt as an African civilisation is tangential to Bernal’s main concerns. Bernal goes on to point out, immediately after his famous paragraph above, that ‘the actual African nature of Egyptian civilisation . . . is not relevant to our present discussion, which is concerned with the ambiguities in the perceived “racial” position of the Egyptians’, (35) All Bernal really needs to demonstrate his historical argument sufficiently is to show that a tension may have existed in the minds of certain racist European scholars on the question of the racial composition of Egypt, which he does with aplomb. His shifting position on the African nature of the Egyptian population has been critiqued by a number of commentators in the Black Athena debate, and this has been responsible for the intensity of the discussion of this issue post-Black Athena. One of Black Athena’s most significant effects in relation to Africa was to force into open debate the perspectives and prejudices of modern scholars on the issue of the ‘race’ of the ancient Egyptians. It also indirectly led to the intervention of the scholar who was to provide its solution.

The temper of most of the discussion about the African nature of Egyptian civilisation immediately after Black Athena, much of it conducted through reviews of volumes I and II, shows little evidence that the hard fought gains of physical anthropology or Egyptology had sunk into the perspectives of the scholarly community. David Kelley’s paper in The Classical Outlook, entitled ‘Egyptians and Ethiopians: color, race and racism’, is one of the few pieces that directly deal with the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians, and is typical of the ahistorical, uninformed approach. Kelley is willing to concede Egyptian influence on Greece, but denies that ‘the Egyptians were members of the Negroid race’. (36) Kelley sneers at what he terms Diop’s ‘desperation’ in the claim that black people could have both curly and straight hair, and claims that ‘race’ is an ‘intrinsic[ally] useless’ concept. He then immediately follows this disavowal of race by quoting Yurco’s research on Egyptian mummies, concluding that certain features noted by Yurco are ‘obviously . . . somatic features regularly associated with Caucasoids’. This disturbing attribution of certain features as the heritage of the ‘Caucasian race’ brings Kelley close to Seligman’s ‘true Negro’ hypothesis, a distinction that he then corroborates by following Snowden in claiming that the Greeks used the term Ethiopian to refer only to Africans living to the south of Egypt, a perspective that has been critiqued by Bernal and Keita. (37) Kelley’s paper adds nothing to the debate except to generate further confusion, particularly in his constant references to the Egyptian population as a ‘mixed’ race. Only the most slippery logic can accept the idea of a population group as a ‘mixed race’ while claiming as one’s objective the deconstruction of the concept of race.

A survey of a number of scholars, most writing in response to Black Athena, reveals a similarly problematic approach to the African nature of Egypt. John Baines, professor of Egyptology at Oxford, in his attack on Black Athena II in the New York Times, is similarly a victim of the confused approach seen in Kelley. For Baines, ancient Egypt ‘was an African society of diverse ethnic origins’. (3 He further seems to believe that Egyptians’ representations of themselves in paintings as reddish-brown (men), yellow (women) and of the people to the south as black is of importance in determining their actual physical characteristics–surely one of the more astounding statements made recently on the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians. (39) Peter Young, editor-in-chief of Archaeology magazine, in an editorial in its special issue Egypt and the Rise of Greece, states that ‘the suggestion that ancient Egypt was a black civilization because it was situated geographically in Africa holds little merit’ (emphasis added). (40) The status and nature of ‘blackness’ here are important, as this is little more than another way of saying that ancient Egypt is not an African civilisation, despite its location in Africa. In much the same way as there was a ‘true Negro’ for Seligman, there are ‘true Africans’ for Young. He further approvingly quotes his Egyptian advisor Robert S. Bianchi that ‘to call it [ancient Egypt] a black society is like calling the United States a black society’. An approach that claims that the Egyptians were ‘black’ is thus a ’serious misreading of the historical and archaeological record’. (41)

While these reviews of Black Athena were not specifically written to respond to the issue of Egyptian ethnicity, the three essays included in the ‘Race’ section of Black Athena Revisited hardly resolve the issue, posed in each essay, as to whether the ancient Egyptians were ‘black’ or not. Echoing Fage, Kathryn A. Bard opens her essay with the comment that, since Egypt ‘was located on the African continent, ancient Egypt was an African civilization’. (42) Bard suggests that Egypt was ‘the recipient of earlier technological developments in southwestern Asia, especially agriculture’, a popular but hardly universally held view, since some think there may have been a separate agricultural hearth in Ethiopia. (43) To her credit, however, she is quite clear that Egyptian civilisation was an indigenous development. Commenting on the ‘race’ of the Egyptians, Bard makes the following statement:

“Ancient Egyptians were Mediterranean peoples, neither Sub-Saharan blacks nor Caucasian whites but peoples whose skin was adapted for life in a subtropical desert environment. Ancient Egypt was a melting pot; peoples of different ethnic identities migrated into the Nile Valley at different times in its prehistory and history.” (44)

Bard’s formulation of ’subtropical desert environment’-adapted people has merit, but calling Egypt a ‘melting pot’ seems strange, since the first large-scale attested entry into ancient Egypt by the Hyksos took place well over a millennium after the first dynasty. It obscures the idea that the population was fully African, which emerges more clearly in Bard’s other comments. While discussing Egyptian artistic representations of the people of Punt, Bard says the ‘Puntites’ facial features look more Egyptian than “black” ‘. Since Punt is generally believed to be in the area of Somalia, Bard’s vision of authentic ‘blackness’ seems related to her view of ’sub-Saharan blacks’. Are the people of Somalia (both in ancient times and contemporaneously), who live on the same latitude as Nigerians, less African than they are? Bard’s conclusion, that ‘to state categorically that ancient Egypt was either a black–or a white–civilization is to promote a misconception with racist undertones that appeals to those who would like to increase rather than decrease the racial tensions that exist in modern society’, is more a construction of her conservative fantasies than anything else. (45)

The centrepiece of the scholarship on ‘race’ in Black Athena Revisited comes from a team of physical anthropologists led by C. Loring Brace. (46) Brace takes issue not with Bernal’s doubts about the utility of ‘race’, but with ‘his claim that “it is impossible to achieve any anatomical precision on the subject” of the biological relationships of the ancient Egyptians’. (47) For Brace, the question of ‘who the ancient Egyptians were’ is fascinating, but ‘completely unrelated’ to the issue of their biological relationships. This point is important, as it suggests that the answer to this vexed question can be solved by the correct application of science and a critical assessment of the evidence. Turning directly to the hard science he intends to employ, Brace notes the inadequacies of past attempts at finding solutions to this problem through craniometry, but insists that it is ‘a matter of adjusting our theoretical expectations, asking the right questions, and then applying the increasingly powerful arsenal of methods that are at our disposal’. (4 The wrong questions, of course, are ones built upon the teleological assumption of the existence of ‘race’. The poverty of an analysis based on groupings into discrete ‘races’ becomes obvious when multivariate analysis is used, as it refutes such assumptions. The use of ‘clusters’ which can then be used to create dendrograms showing the closest resemblance of one cluster to another produces a model which, for Brace, gives us the most accurate description of the biological relationships of one population group to another.

Given this theoretical framework, what results does Brace achieve relevant to the discussion of the ethnicity of the Egyptians? His samples indicate that ‘Predynastic and the Late Dynastic Egyptians are more closely related to the European cluster than they are to any of the major regional clusters in the world’. His data thus ‘provide no support for the claim that there was a “strong negroid element” in Predynastic Egypt’. (49)

Understanding this conclusion demands that one takes a closer look at Brace’s and his team’s concept of Africa. (50) Their mention of the ‘true Negro’ hypothesis is instructive here:

“The category in the minds of the users of those various names is the same as the ‘true Negro’ of traditional ‘racial’ anthropology. We do not deny that such a configuration exists and is identifiable, and that people who exemplify it can be found in known areas of Sub-Saharan Africa. The problem lies in the assumption that those separate elements are invariably linked together so that the presence of one can inevitably be taken to indicate the presence of the others.” (51)

This comes as part of a denunciation of the pundits of a ‘black presence’ in ancient Egypt, which, in Brace’s view, equates to ‘the old-fashioned typological essentialism of the “race” concept’. But such essentialising is exactly what Brace and his colleagues do. ‘Africa’ in their dendrograms represents sub-Saharan Africa exclusively. Again we must ask, are Somalians and Sudanese Africans? Does the average Sudanese living on what some have called the ‘western front’ encounter racism to the same degree as an African-American of mainly ‘West-African’ descent? (52) Brace’s statement that the ‘Somalis, on their part, never tie in with any of the other populations of Sub-Saharan Africa’ perfectly corroborates recent evidence that this may have been the region from which homo sapiens left the continent to people the world. (53) It is to be expected that they would show some of the greatest genetic variance of any population in Africa, and might not tie in neatly with the rest of the continent.

There should be little surprise that Brace views statements made by Diop and Bernal on the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians as ‘hopelessly simplistic, misleading and basically wrong’, as he does Bernal’s characterisation of ancient Egypt as ‘fundamentally African’. In a truly remarkable argument, Blumenbach is considered preferable to Diop, and his considerations are ‘more sophisticated than the crude, categorical “either/or” treatment of his nineteenth- and twentieth-century successors’. (54) Blumenbach (who incidentally was convinced that the Egyptians were white) is the scholar who popularised the concept of the ‘Caucasian race’ and who believed that the other races came about as a result of degeneration from the perfected ideal of the Caucasian. (55) Perhaps the difference between Blumenbach and Diop might be that Diop was trying to undo the distortions the race concept had introduced, while Blumenbach was heavily involved in its institutionalisation. Why this means that Blumenbach should be privileged over Diop can only be adequately explained by the author’s ideological or sociopolitical agenda. Ending with a flourish, Brace provides an epitaph for ‘race’: ‘Because it has neither biological nor social justification, we should strive to see that it is eliminated from both public and private usage. Its absence will be missed by no one, and we shall all be better off without it. R.I.P.’ But this remains little more than rhetoric.

The conservative nature of the response on ‘race’ in Black Athena Revisited finds its zenith in Frank Snowden’s ‘Bernal’s “Blacks” and the Afrocentrists’. Snowden’s contribution is mainly a restatement of his major criticisms of Diop and Bernal, along with some of the issues previously covered in his book Before Colour Prejudice. (56) His ill-concealed wrath at Bernal is doubtless related to Bernal’s comment in Black Athena I that ‘most blacks will not be able to accept the conformity to white scholarship of men and women like Professor Snowden’. (57) The substance of Snowden’s attack on Bernal and subsequent debate with Keita will be dealt with later, but two comments deserve mention. Snowden believes that the evidence from the Nile valley does not allow us to estimate ‘the extent of Nubian-Egyptian racial mixture’. (5 So the ancient Egyptians were a separate ‘race’ from the Nubians! Perhaps Snowden thinks that the majority of people in Egypt were white, as in the US, with a black admixture. His following comment seems to corroborate this; citing the contemporary US as an example, he states that:

“Even on the basis of the substantial documentation relevant to the size of the black population in the United States and to the existence of racial mixture from slavery onward, it would be inaccurate to describe the United States as either a black or a predominantly black nation. It would be equally inaccurate to describe ancient Egypt as either black or predominantly black when much less is known about the Nubian element in the population.” (59)

Worse yet in the link between ancient history and contemporary understandings are the comments of Emily Vermeule, an emeritus professor of classics from Harvard University. Such devastation has been wrought by Bernal’s ‘turning of the world upside down’ that normal historical understandings have been cast aside. As a result:

“Bernal also believes that Egypt was essentially African, and therefore black. But he does not say what we are to make of historical accounts of Egyptian pharaohs campaigning against black neighbours in the south, in the Land of Kush, as when Thutmosis I of Egypt, around 1510 B.C., annihilated a black Kushite army at the Third Cataract and came home with the body of a black Kushite prince hanging upside down from the prow of his ship. Perhaps Bernal thinks of this as African tribal warfare.” (60)

Students who follow Vermeule’s historical methodology in centuries to come will surely have grave difficulty in understanding twentieth-century history. Could France and Germany really have been part of the same economic union, after three wars in seventy years? The extent of a hostility that resulted in three generations of young men losing their lives on the battlefield must be the result of a deeper animosity between the two peoples; perhaps they were of different ‘races’ to begin with. (61) Shomarka Keita’s dry commentary on this bizarre statement by Vermeule says it all. ‘Excusing the pejorative “tribal warfare” (in Europe it is called ethnic conflict), it is clear that she is saying that this must have been a racial war . . . [However] the antagonisms between Kush and Egypt were political and not racial’ (emphasis in original). (62)

In the entire debate on the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians, a debate which has been given far more coverage than the vastly more interesting issue of Egypt as an African civilisation, few have asked why there is a need to project the question of whether the Egyptians were black, rather than whether they were African. Robert Young has suggested that ‘if the Egyptians were not African, if they were not black, then the wider cultural consequences of the whole argument of Black Athena for our own contemporary cultural politics would collapse’. (63) This may well be so, but in an even more convoluted manner than Young imagines. The problem posed by Bernal’s stance on Egypt and Africa is that the African or non-African nature of Egyptian society becomes reduced to whether Egypt was ‘black’ in our contemporary understandings of that term–or not. If Bernal’s comments had been on the African nature of Egyptian civilisation and he had referred to cultural similarities/continuities rather than race, much of the polemical storm over his comments might have subsided. The question that arises, of course, is how much this would have reduced his objective of ‘lessen[ing] European cultural arrogance’. For many of Bernal’s opponents, it seems enough to cast doubt on the ‘blackness’ of the Egyptians, in order circuitously to call into question whether they were indeed ‘African’, and hence the legitimacy of Afrocentric appropriations of ancient Egypt. And, one might ask, whose conception of black? Though the main furore over Black Athena has been in the US, certainly America’s ‘one-drop’ criterion is not being used. The absurdity of race becomes compounded by using the terminology arising from modern social constructions to discuss an ancient society, but not even applying that terminology to its logical conclusion. A number of African-Americans rightly accused the scholarly establishment of hypocrisy, since few seriously doubt that the ancient Egyptians resembled them more closely than whites, whether northern or Mediterranean Europeans.

The fact remains that the ancient Egyptians simply did not have our conceptions of ‘race’, a point that has been made by those on both sides of the debate. In a second and widely quoted attempt to deal with this question, the Egyptologist Frank Yurco correctly states:

“The whole matter of black or white Egyptians is a chimera, cultural baggage from our own society that can only be artificially imposed on ancient Egyptian society. The ancient Egyptians, like their modern descendants, were of varying complexions of color, from the light Mediterranean type (like Nefertiti) to the light brown of Middle Egypt, to the darker brown of Upper Egypt, to the darkest shade around Aswan and the first Cataract region, where even today, the population shifts to Nubian.” (64)

Yurco’s attempt to deal with the ethnicity of the Egyptians in a balanced manner is certainly one of the more progressive articles on this subject in print. Yurco’s sensitivity to the dynamics of the political rivalry between Egypt and Nubia results in far more nuanced explanations of periods in Egypt’s history during which it shut its borders to Nubians than Vermeule’s distasteful approach. He also makes the legitimate plea that the achievements of Egyptian society lie in their lack of race consciousness and the provision of legal and social equality for women, which are of greater interest than the ‘race’ they belonged to. Buried in Yurco’s essay is one puzzling statement on the Nubian people that is, however, a shortcoming of the article. To quote Yurco: ‘Among the foreigners, the Nubians were closest ethnically to the Egyptians. In the late predynastic period (c. 3700-3150 BCE), the Nubians shared the same culture as the Egyptians and even evolved the same pharaonic political structure’ (emphasis added). The use of ‘even’ here seems strange, given the growing research that suggests that the roots of the Egyptian state and culture lie in Nubia, as attested by Bruce Williams’s discovery of the Qustul incense burner and of a city at Kerma dating back to 4,500 BCE. (65) Nowhere in this article is the simple fact asserted: the ancient Egyptians were a fully African culture, society and population group. MacGaffey’s comment that ‘the transition to the new logic required by modern theory has been imperfectly accomplished in physical anthropology and still less adequately in disciplines which draw upon its conclusions’ remained unfortunately a feature of the scholarly and semi-scholarly writing on ancient Egypt into the 1990s.

The intervention of Shomarka Keita

Shomarka Keita, an African-American bio-anthropologist, made his first intervention into the Black Athena debate in the communications pages of the American Historical Review. (66) In a response to Robert Pounder’s dismissal of Black Athena II, Keita made a number of significant points on the nature of the ancient Nile valley population. (67) The attempt to categorise the ancient Egyptians as ‘black’ or ‘white’ is incorrect since ‘a population that consists of individuals who have ancestry from multiple biologically defined groups is a hybrid population and should not be labeled by either group’s designation’. The ‘role of the blacks’ in ancient Egypt is ‘nothing less than having been a part of the original Nile Valley population. There is no one authentic African phenotype.’ Sounding a warning to the polemicists who refuse to acknowledge Egypt’s African nature (a group that for Keita includes Pounder) Keita states that ‘Ancient Egypt’s culture clearly reflects a Saharo-Nilotic base, and this African foundation never changed. Is there some special definition of African rooted in certain scholarly traditions?’ (6

Pounder in his response totally missed the thrust of Keita’s argument and resorted to claiming that all the evidence showed that the ‘population of ancient Egypt was not predominantly black’, relying primarily on D. O’Connor and Frank Snowden. (69) While Pounder insists that ‘ancient Egypt was obviously African’, he claims, citing Snowden, that ‘blacks were not the predominant physical type in Lower Egypt and could not have defined the course of Egyptian civilization, much less an early Greek civilization spawned by Egyptians, as Bernal would have it’. Again we see the trend that suggests that Bernal’s argument has little relevance unless he can claim the contribution of Seligman’s ‘true Negro’ to western civilisation. Egypt is still sufficiently divorced from Africa in the minds of some members of the academy for it, even when acknowledged as African, to be a different African from ‘the rest’.

Keita’s major statement on the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians came in an article in the Journal History in Africa (1993), entitled ‘Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships‘. This was an attempt to reconcile three issues that relate to biological relations in ancient Egypt: the location of Egypt in antiquity at a geographical crossroads, its relations with the rest of Africa, and the problematic understanding of ‘race’ that has been part of attempts to come to conclusions on this question in previous times. The questions that Keita poses are as follows:

“were the Egyptians in the main emigres to the Nile valley from outside of Africa in ‘Egypt’s’ earlier periods? Or were they merely another African population, differentiated from a common African ancestral group? Were the Egyptians natives of Africa with greater affinities to Nubians and other southerly peoples? Is there a difference between northern and southern Egyptians? Did this change? Do the early ‘Egyptians’ share biological traits with ‘tropical’ Africans which represent tropical adaptations, obtained via shared ancestry?’ ” (70)

Deconstructing the concept of ‘race’ is an important task that Keita takes on, rehearsing again the arguments well known to physical anthropologists, but not, apparently, to the general scholarly community. The idea of ‘race’ as an explanation of human variation is invalid, as ‘the assumption that variation could be partitioned into monotypic types is . . . [a] fundamental flaw’. (71) In contrast, ‘modern population biology has demonstrated that variation within geographically defined breeding populations, or those more related by ancestry, is the rule for human groups’. Keita is devastating in his dismissal of the ‘race’ theorists of the past, whose ’sophistry with the terms Negroid, African, and “true Negro”, rooted in a biased polygenism, can be ignored in this era of modern population biology’. The romance of racial thinking led to the belief that ‘true’ Africans did not possess the range of physical variations that ‘true’ Caucasians possessed, leading to ideas that ‘narrow-faced, narrow-nosed’ African populations must derive from mixture with another ‘race’, a non-African people. (72)

The time has come to dispense with the ‘authentic African’ as a paradigm, since ‘the concepts of variation and microevolution clearly allow better understanding of the early Saharan-Upper Egyptian peoples. They were tropical variants, not cold-adapted migrants.’ The spurious concept of the Nile valley populations as an invading population, seen in a number of ingenious theories like that of the ‘dynastic race’, is directly repudiated by the scientific evidence from metric analysis:

The southern affinities of the series are striking given that commonly held or stated classical ‘racial’ views of the Egyptians predict a notable distinction from ‘Africans’. Thus any scheme that labels Nubians and all Egyptians as a ‘Caucasian’ monotypic entity is seen to be a hypothesis which is easily falsified. Metric analysis in fact clearly suggest that at least southern ‘Egyptian’ groups were a part of indigenous holocene Saharo-tropical African variation. (73)

The process of seeking a new terminology to describe the biological relations of the ancient Egyptians will require that ‘the terms “Negro” and “Black African” be dropped from the biological lexicon in favor of “Saharo-tropical variant” which subsumes the range of morphologies of great time depth found in Africa’. No serious argument can be made to the position that Egypt was a ‘Nilotic-African’ culture ‘on all levels’. (74)

Armed with this understanding of ancient Egyptian biological relationships, Keita’s next target was Snowden, Bernal and the Black Athena debate in a special symposium later reprinted in the classics journal Arethusa. (75) In one of the most important articles of the Black Athena debate, Keita interrogated Black Athena and Snowden’s response for a number of inconsistencies in their approach to ancient Egyptian populations. Keita is dubious about the utility of ancient testimony for resolving the question of the biological relationships of ancient Egyptians, a technique adopted by both Bernal and Snowden. This approach is highly questionable as

“there is a problem of language or logic here since the ‘ancient authors’ did not have any race concepts, terms or theory synonymous with those ‘in twentieth century usage’ . . . It cannot be stated that the Graeco-Romans (or Egyptians) had no race concepts and then claim that their words or art depict ‘race’. Their words and art only depict the ethno-nationalities they knew, not ‘race,’ a more recent idea (emphasis in original).” (76)

A full appreciation of this renders Snowden’s perspective seriously outdated by contemporary anthropological understanding, while Bernal’s concern with perceived notions of race does him no credit, since it contributes to rather than clarifies the confusion surrounding the debate. These perspectives are based on an ignorance of contemporary population biology, the techniques of which are far more sophisticated in determining ethnicities than quarrels over what Herodotus did or did not say, or the artistic skill of the ancients in representing human variation.

In response, Bernal accepted Keita’s claim that the inconsistencies of his previous arguments were related in large part to ‘uncertainties over the semantic field of “black”‘. (77) Snowden, on the other hand, continued to disagree without seriously engaging with any of Keita’s main points. Keita’s perspective remained largely uncontested and accepted.

At another conference, hosted by the Society for the Preservation of the Greek Heritage and designed as a hostile condemnation of Afrocentrism, Keita’s contribution ‘Is studying Egypt in its African context “Afrocentric”?’ offered an important disruption to the generality of opinion. (7 In his presentation, Keita outlined four ways in which one can formulate an answer to the question of whether Egypt was an African culture, through evidence from geography, language, archaeology and biology. Geographical evidence suggests that ‘Nilotic flora and fauna are well integrated into the culture of the early Egyptians; this suggests that the people were indigenous, or at least that the culture developed locally and was not an import’. Ancient Egyptian is universally accepted as part of the Afro-Asiatic language family, the origins of which are in the Horn of Africa. The archaeological record shows that ‘the sequence of cultures which clearly leads to dynastic Egypt is found in southern Egypt’ and that pre-dynastic Egypt ‘arose most directly from a Saharo-Nilotic base’. Besides rehearsing his earlier arguments about biological relations, Keita adds two important points. In further exploding the paradigm of racialised thinking, Keita declares it ‘conceptually wrong to say that “Africans” split from “Caucasians”, “Mongoloids”, “Australoids” etc. ad nauseam, as has sometimes been done, or even the reverse, because these terms carry certain stereotyped physical trait associations’. An understanding of this concept shows us clearly that ‘there is no evidence that the region was empty and primarily colonised by non-African outsiders, who had differentiated outside and then returned to Africa’ (emphasis in original). Keita’s summary position is that ‘It is not a question of “African” “influence”; ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not “Afrocentric,” but simply correct’ (emphasis added). (79)

The unwarranted persistence of racial thinking and the idea of the ‘fissioning’ of one race from another was further developed by Keita in an article co-authored with Rick Kitties. Their attack centres not merely on the racial thinking still embodied in physical anthropology–despite the fact that this is the site where the idea of ‘race’ had been most thoroughly deconstructed in the past–but also, in a telling observation, on the use of racial categories in ’sampling strategies used in studies addressing the origin of modern humans’. In a direct attack on the study by Brace et al., ‘Clines and clusters versus “race”‘ (1993), Keita and Kittles accuse its authors of distorting the picture of the true genetic diversity of Africans and, as a result, of complicity with the very thinking they appear to denounce:

“Another example of the use of a socially constructed typological paradigm is in studies of the Nile Valley populations in which the concept of a biological African is restricted to those with a particular craniometric pattern (called in the past the ‘True Negro’ though no ‘True White’ was ever defined). Early Nubians, Egyptians, and even Somalians are viewed essentially as non-Africans, when in fact numerous lines of evidence and an evolutionary model make them a part of African biocultural/biogeographical history. The diversity of ‘authentic’ Africans is a reality. This diversity prevents biogeographical/biohistorical Africans from clustering into a single unit, no matter the kind of data (emphasis added).” (80)

Keita and Kittles conclude their essay by urging that ‘the ghosts of the pregenetic synthesis era must be exorcised’. Certainly Keita’s work has contributed significantly to that rethinking, and answers Diop’s call for scholars to test ideas that he had advanced. (81) His work points us towards the concluding position on Egypt seen in the collection of essays, Egypt in Africa.

Egypt in Africa

The fact that the first evidence of circumcision comes from the continent and is documented in ancient Egypt and in more recent African cultures; the fact that body art occurred in African rock art depictions that predate ancient Egypt, as well as in ancient Egypt, and still exist in Africa today; and the fact that the veneration of ancestors as intermediaries between the living and forces in the supernatural world has been important throughout the continent–all help us to think of Egypt as African. (82)

T. Celenko, Introduction to Egypt in Africa

Egypt in Africa came out of a exhibition held, under the same title, at the Indianapolis Museum of Art. It was the result of a deliberate attempt to reflect on the African nature of ancient Egypt, a relationship continuously distorted by the institutional arrangements governing scholarship on Egypt, as well as popular and scholarly prejudice. (83) In his introduction, Celenko acknowledges the contribution that African diasporic and Afrocentric scholars made in stimulating awareness of the need for the exhibition. Indeed, as the quotation shows, he sounds like a good Diopian himself. He notes that the ‘Africanisms’ highlighted in ‘Egypt in Africa‘ had been previously commented on (citing, among other works, Diop’s Nations Negres et Culture), and suggests, importantly, that ‘these “Africanisms” force us to see ancient Egypt within a broader African context without adhering to the concept of a unified African culture’ (emphasis added). (84) One significant feature of the collection is its willingness to allow scholars whose views at times contradict each other space to make their arguments. Its focus on culture, rather than colour, means that in Egypt in Africa, the cultural links between Egypt and Africa can finally be discussed without undue concern over the chimera of ‘race’.

In his essay, Christopher Ehret confirms that the earliest domestic cattle and pottery makers came from the south of Egypt, adding to the evidence that the main features of Egyptian civilisation came from the south. (85) Fekri A. Hassan declares, in his take on predynastic Egyptian civilisation, that the ‘cultural continuity with an African substratum and the strong historical cultural interactions between Egypt and other African societies clearly demonstrate that Africa was the cradle of Egyptian civilization’. (86) Martha Ehrlich finds similarities between mother and child figures in Egypt and the rest of Africa, while Lanny Bell and Chapurukha Kusimba concur on the question of ancestor worship and divine kingship. The section on body art reveals fascinating similarities in painting, scarring and tattooing, while the case over circumcision–a feature previously noted by authors from Herodotus to Diop–is again argued.

Egypt in Africa, to its scholarly credit, does not present a simplistic analysis without dissenting voices. Keita and Snowden present articles that restate their points of disagreement, Yurco shows the shortcomings of Ivan van Sertima’s use of the tomb paintings of Ramesses III, while Bianchi and Wolinski differ sharply on the case for ceremonial masking in ancient Egypt. The strangest point of discord comes between Yurco and Ray, with respect to the origins of ancient Egyptian writing. Ray’s desire to establish a Mesopotamian source leads him to conclude:

“Early Egypt soaked up ideas from Mesopotamia, in architecture and the arts, and imported Mesopotamian pottery was found at several Protodynastic sites in Egypt, especially Buto. This influence is so strong that at one point the idea was seriously entertained that an early Mesopotamian state had even conquered Egypt and turned it into a province. This theory has long been discredited, and a more convincing analogy is to liken early Egypt to a child learning to walk, looking around for a prop to help it to do so. This prop was the advanced city culture in Mesopotamia. When Egypt had found its confidence, it was able to throw away the prop, and many Mesopotamian motifs came to be discarded in favor of Egyptian ones. Writing, however, was an exception. It was too useful to be abandoned.” (87)

Despite his dismissal of the Dynastic Race theory, Ray’s patronising portrayal of ancient Egypt re-inscribes its fundamental ideology for another age. Yurco strongly disagrees with this stance, and only future debate between scholars will resolve this issue. (8 The quality of the scholars involved and their brief, precise and highly informative contributions make it clear that an analysis of cultural features overwhelmingly confirms the Africanity of ancient Egypt. Molefi Asante puts it simply: ‘Egypt in Africa is an affirmation of what has always been the truth.’ (89)

Since the publication of Egypt in Africa, further archaeological discoveries continue to legitimise the southern origin of Egyptian civilisation. After twenty years of hot debate over the archaeologist Bruce Williams’s claim that there were southern predecessors of the ancient Egyptian pharaohs, (90) one of the latest results of archaeological explorations in the northern Sahara should be noted:

“The Sahara west of the Nile in southern Egypt was hyperarid and unoccupied during most of the late Pleistocene epoch. About 11,000 years ago the summer monsoons of central Africa moved into Egypt, and temporary lakes or playas were formed. The Nabta Playa depression, which is one of the largest in southern Egypt, is a kidney shaped basin of roughly 10km by 7km in area. We report the discovery of megalithic alignments and stone circles next to locations of Middle and Late Neolithic communities at Nabta, which suggest the early development of a complex society. The southward shift of the monsoons in the Late Neolithic age rendered the area once again hyperarid and uninhabitable some 4,800 radiocarbon years before the present (years BP). This well-determined date establishes that the ceremonial complex of Nabta, which has alignments to cardinal and solstitial directions, was a very early megalithic expression of ideology and astronomy. Five megalithic alignments within the playa deposits radiate outwards from megalithic structures, which may have been funerary structures. The organization of the megaliths suggests a symbolic geometry that integrated death, water, and the Sun. An exodus from the Nubian Desert at ~4,800 years BP may have stimulated social differentiation and cultural complexity in pre-dynastic Upper Egypt (emphasis added).” (91)

In retrospect then, it is possible to look at Diop’s contribution on the question of the ‘race’ of the Egyptians as similar to that made by some women in excising race from the anthropological vocabulary. Leonard Lieberman in his review ‘Gender and the deconstruction of the race concept’ states that ‘the women identified here as antiracist did not reject the race concept; it was unthinkable to do so until racism had been reduced. But neither did they necessarily utilise the nineteenth-century idea of race as a fixed component of traits or as an essence.’ (92) So, too, with Cheikh Anta Diop, which explains his remark to Mauny that ‘We apologise for returning to notions of race, cultural heritage, linguistic relationship, historical connections between peoples, and so on. I attach no more importance to these questions than they actually deserve in modern twentieth-century societies.’ (93) Diop did not entirely unthink the ‘race’ concept. (94) Yet his schema of an African or black population that incorporated new elements over time, rather than a mixed-race population, is actually closer to the evidence now at our disposal from recent research in bio-anthropology. It takes no stretch of the imagination, nor partisan reading of Diop’s work, to see clear parallels between his and Keita’s understanding of Egyptian biological relationships. That Diop reached the same conclusion, forty years previously, as Keita (that–without resorting to the race signifier–Egypt is ‘biologically African’ (95)) is a major victory for him and the Afrocentric movement in general. Yet it is one for which the general academy has been unwilling to give any credit. While Diop may have got some of the specifics wrong, the movement of his historical project continues to be legitimised by new archaeological discoveries. A historical survey of thought on Egypt and Africa that minimises or distorts Diop’s contribution is refuted by the very ‘objective’ evidence claimed in the past to discredit him.

Finally in Africa?

While it would be too early to pronounce the substantial paradigm shift seen in Egypt in Africa as the uncontested new view of Egypt in and out of the academy, the presence of many major scholars within its pages will make it hard to refute. It is, however, worth noting that John Iliffe, in his recent one-volume history of Africa, finds it necessary to respond to Diop by stating that ‘Egypt was remarkably unsuccessful in transmitting its culture to the rest of the continent’. (96) It is, quite simply, no longer possible to title a scholarly article ‘Ancient Egypt and Black Africa–early contacts’ as David O’Connor did in 1971. (97) Nor is the line of reasoning that sees Egypt as ‘inconveniently placed on the African continent’ which we see in the scholarship of Fage and Bard, acceptable. (9 However, Michael Rice’s recent book on the origins of the Egyptian state accepts the evidence for pre-dynastic kingdoms to the South and makes the point that Egypt continually turned to the South ‘to refresh herself and to restore her institutions’ and views ancient Egypt as ‘profoundly African, not by any means wholly impervious to alien influence in the earliest times, though the character and extent of that influence is much debated still’. (99)

At the end of an essay entitled ‘Egypt, Africa and the ancient world’ delivered at the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Josep Cervello Autuori reached similar conclusions to those of Egypt in Africa:

“Since the 1960s, black Africans, firstly through the Senegalese writer Ch. A. Diop and then later by his followers, have claimed Egyptian civilization as the cradle of their own cultural tradition. Apart from some exceptions (J. Leclant, J. Vercoutter), the West has failed to consider its contributions, sometimes ignoring them completely, and sometimes considering them as the fruit of the socio-political excitement in the era of African independence. Irrespective of the debatable scientific value of Diop’s work (though not of that of some of his current followers), of the question of race at the centre of his interests (the ancient Egyptians as black Africans), and of diffusion taken to the extremes (black African cultures derive directly from Egyptian culture via migration), I believe that his work must be recognised, if not for its content at least for its significance, for what it entails as a new suggestion, and alternative view, a historical ’southern’ claim, a re-contextualisation and a rethinking of the Pharaonic civilization from an African perspective. After all, the parallels between Egypt and Africa continue to be there.” (100)

If it strikes you that this is a vulgar conceit that Diop’s legacy can now be re-appropriated by the mainstream academy after years of dismissal, I would entirely agree. Diop, however, foresaw the possibility of precisely this type of appropriation. In his defiant 1973 introduction to The African Origin of Civilization, he stated: ‘In fact, our conception of African history, as exposed here, has practically triumphed, and those who write on African history now, whether willingly or not, base themselves upon it.’ (101)

Kamugisha, Aaron. Finally in africa? Egypt, from Diop to Celenko. “Race & Class” 45 (2003): 31-60.

*Aaron Kamugisha is a doctoral candidate in social and political thought at York University. Toronto. He has previously studied at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus and the University of California, Berkeley.

[I’ll post an unedited version with references]

Posted in Archives | 4 Comments

4 Responses to “Finally in Africa? Egypt, from Diop to Celenko”
4 Responses to “Finally in Africa? Egypt, from Diop to Celenko”
on January 27, 2007 at 4:53 pm1 sonofisis
Lovely article!

on January 29, 2007 at 6:04 pm2 gess
To Sonofisis,

I’m glad to read, that you liked the article. Before I posted the article, I was very unsure if someone will find it interesting, and not to mention the amount of time it takes to read.


on July 15, 2007 at 2:59 am3 verily
Absolutely fascinating. Thank you for that marvelous contribution to the internet, Mr. Abdullah. When the human genome was mapped and then all the astounding, totally logical information, about the “variable” nature of African peoples’ genes compared to that of peoples on some other continents was revealed, I knew that the ancient Egyptian “question” would get answered to the satisfaction of every reasonable person interested in it. The findings so far are amazing. The ongoing research must be thrilling. I am literally beside myself with excitement. Thanks again, Hakim!

on July 15, 2007 at 3:07 am4 verily
Oops, I guess I should have been thanking, “Gess,” for placing the article here to the delight of people ( who are interested in truth) everywhere! We are MOST appreciative, Gess!


February 18, 2008


[Home] [Site Index] [Synopsis 1] [Synopsis 2] [Synopsis 3] [Synopsis 4] [Synopsis 5] [Synopsis 6] [Africans’ Bible] [Warren G. Harding] [High Tech Jesus] [DNA a M Fu#$%&] [New White Race] [ME Booksellers] [Beheaded] [Author’s Notes] [Feedback Form]


Author: MARSHA Stewart

(Self-Preservation is the first Law of Nature.)

The coon caricature

If you look closely at the picture on the cover, you will see a “coon caricature.” It is one of the most insulting of all anti-Black cartoon strips prevalent in the early 1900’s in America. The coon emerged during slavery as unreliable, crazy, lazy, and subhuman creature good for nothing.

Blacks were portrayed as Coons, Toms, Sambos, Mammies, Picaninnies, and other dehumanizing racial caricatures. Jim Crow was more than a series of “Whites Only” signs. It was a way of life that approximated a racial caste system.

Slavery portrayed Blacks as servants, males (Toms) and females (Mammies). They were contented, loyal servants. The Tom was presented as a smiling, wide-eyed, server: fieldworker, cook, butler, porter, or waiter. Unlike the Coon, the Tom was portrayed as a dependable worker, eager to serve–much like Tiger (Negrito) Woods, OJ Simpson and Clearance Thomas.

Chapter 1

If you can’t stand to read one more ridiculous thing you think is being said, you need to “check yourself” because you are in a state of denial. Your mind-set is such that you feel the foregoing information is threatening to you and your psyche, and you will probably end up blocking it from your conscious awareness anyway. Whether or not you accept any of the information given to you, you must realize that before you were humanized, you were categorized.

Chapter 2

Willie Lynch or George Bushlynch?
The intentions are not to categorize groups of people. The specified goal is to correct false historical records. Examples of physical features and ethnicity have been used to emphasize certain points and give readers a needed…..WAKE UP CALL!

Chapter 3

Just Bein’ Niggers
As children we all learned to play the game of “Simon Says.” We have turned into a nation of “Simon Sayers.” White Simon says: “You are Niggers.” “Simon Sayers” immediately react and utter: “Simon says: We’re Niggers–Therefore, you be my Nigger-Nigger.”

Chapter 4

Dracula & The Blood Sucker Concept
Retaliatory violence is not the answer. Mind cleansing and rebuking the bloodletting of the Count Leeches will answer all questions and provide all answers.

Chapter 5

White Women

She can shake her naked booty as a stripper or sell her wares on the street corner. . . But the White skin has made her superior to any Black woman. Some Black men need a White woman–this type or any type of White woman to boost their self-esteem. White women have become fascinated with the Black man because contact was forbidden just 20 years ago.

Chapter 6

Wagering Webster’s Warped Dictionary

A sense of pride + a rich tradition and history ^equals^ a White team spirit to falsify. Whites have succeeded to cup and cap Negroid beginnings. When pride is stripped, subservience exists.

Chapter 7

Albinos–Origin of the Caucasian Race?
Some theories equate Albinos with the origin of the Caucasian Race. This website has many validations for the origin of the Negroid Race, but what about the Caucasian Race? Certainly Frances Wesling hit the nail on the head with her book, The Isis Papers (1991). The White Race has the genetic inability and absence of melanin to produce the different skin pigments seen throughout the world.

Chapter 8

The Expulsion In Education (Affirmative Action & The Ignorant Stick)
During slavery Black people were the only laborers, skilled, and semi-skilled workers. In the Ante-Bellum South Black people were the manufacturing cartels and conglomerates of the day.

Chapter 9

White Want-A-Bees And Black Seditity

(The Promised Land–The Whiteland)
The US has cultivated and practiced the psychosocial fear of blackness and self-hatred; thus, creating a color social stratification. It has definitely resulted in the desire or aspiration for Blacks wanting to “whiten” themselves.

Chapter 10

The Blow Job of the Century: (Misdemeanors Synonymous with Monica)
Eighty-four percent of all Blacks supported the former President Clinton. Could this be the real reason for the President’s popularity demise? Clinton arouses hatred among the conservative media like no other president before him–not even the “hoe” John F. Kennedy or “nefarious Nixon.”


Negrophobia is a fear of Black people that persists in the minds of Whites and some Blacks when no realistic danger exists. Usually phobias are reactions to conditioned emotional responses. Negrophobia was initially indoctrinated and instilled by slave owners and currently by all forms of mass media.

M. Stewart.
Copyright © 2002 – 2008. All rights reserved.
Revised: 1/01/08.


January 28, 2008




»My Blog
« You cannot step in the same… | main | Pert em Hru erroneously kno… »
Etymology of Christ, Religious Misnomers, and other Plagiarisms. Fri, December 21, 2007 – 12:38 PM

i would like to apologize right now for anyone’s religion, your walk is a personal one and just because i point out the origins and opinions doesn’t mean your walk is in vain, nor the Spirit of God is not within your teachings, church, heart and spirit… you can find the divine anywhere

i feel lead to share this information, and for all of us to come together in world peace into ONE religion and that Religion is LOVE… these holy wars have to stop, and the mis-education of our true history – we can no longer suppress (or sit by and watch) these jewels and omissions of blatant racist sexist lies…what’s needed is a getting back to the origins of the feminine receptive side of life (Men and Women) which goes right along the same lines of our inner blackness (people of all colors-even dark skinned ones) is what’s needed and will help transform the world.

-metaphysics (God Star)

The entire story of “jesus” (and all other religions) is a deliberate perversion of the cosmology story of Ausar, Auset and Heru (Osiris, Isis, and Horus) “Osiris” is the Greek translation of the Kemetian name “Asar” (or Usar) or Ausar, Auset (Isis) son/sun child king named Heru (Horus)

The word Christ is from Krishna (Christna) from karast or krist, Egyptian for the annointed mummy,
the great black avatar (savior) in India 3000 years before Jesus.

The story of the resurrected God-King can be found among the Khoi and San peoples of southern Africa as early as 5,000BC. It is only in Africa that the story is this old. Often called, “the mouthpiece of Africa,” Egypt’s location gave it contact with the Near East. Not surprisingly, years later the story of the God-King and his divine son appear in many other cultures.

This includes Krishna of India (1200BC), Tammuz of Syria (1160BC), Iao of Nepal (622BC), Quetzalcoatl of Mexico (587BC), Mithra of Persia (600BC) and others. Jesus the Christ of Hebraic folklore would be the most recent addition to this pantheon.

Sirius (Dog Star) was Heru (Horus) it’s where the word Hero comes from and the Hero’s journey, who was the son/sun king
Who was also; Buddha, Orpheus, Dionysus, Mithra, Adonis, Tammuz, Hercules, Superman, Luke skywalker and so on.

Great Africa myth…001.htm

ALL Abrahamic Religions…

are plagiarized invention for the purpose of providing a religious justification for Imperialism.
The Arabs with Islam (Muslims) Jews with Judaism, and Christians with Christ
Israel (Is-Ra-El) Isis (Moon) Ra (Sun) El (Saturn)

Originally, there were 3 basic religions of astrology. The Lunar (Moon), the Solar(Sun) and the Stellar (Saturn).
The original Hebrew religion was based on the Lunar and the moon, but went back to the Stellar and the worship of El (Saturn). The Christians were bringing back elements of the Solar (of the Sun) That is why there is the ongoing dispute about the correct day of worship. The Hebrews worship on Saturday (Saturn) and the Christians worship on Sunday (Sun).

So to from KMT and this story are the origins of the tarot cards … astrology, numerology, hieroglyphs, math, science, geometry (the only secret of the Masons is that that learned all of their trade from black men)

NOTE: It is here also with Kemet and the story of Asar, Aset, and Heru that we find the true origins of the Kemetic Tree of Life,
Spheres 1 to 9, or the Ennead (the nine planets) in which the Jewish mysticism claimed as their own
but yet it’s rooted there in ancient Egypt, three different versions can be identified as Kabbalah, Cabala, and Qabalah.

The Tree of Life is a Cosmo gram which graphically depicts the order of the universe. It is a graphic compliment of the cosmology of the universe. The Tree is also a guide for creating any event and a guide for thinking and understanding the myriad things in the universe which illustrates the manner in which they all interrelate. The Tree highlights the steps a prospective initiate must take and the experiences he must undergo in order to achieve the apex of enlightenment…and immorality

African Cosmology

Tree of Life pics

click on tree pics


“Zionism is not Judaism, and the rejection of Israel is not anti-Semitic.”…6b30b8f33c

“The so called Jews we know of today are not even the real Jews – the real Jews are from Ethiopia,
a black race – the Black Hebrews. They stole their name, their history, their culture, and religion.

and as gods supposably chosen people, Zionist now, are stealing black gold and controlling world commerce with the
Federal Reserve not a Government agency, like most people think, It is a private bank.

Christianity is actually a hostile Pagan takeover religion of the Gnosis

Besotted in ignorance of ancient KMT philosophy and Scriptural symbolism already in the third century, ignorant religionists laid the monstrous hand of literal and historical gross-ness upon the precious volumes of cryptic literature and befouled all the meaning into senseless caricature.

It mistook allegory for history, dramatism for actual occurrence, myth for supposed veridical narrative. Ancient philosophers like Plutarch and Plotinus, Philo and Proclus, and even a few early Church Fathers like Clement of Alexandria and Origen, stood helplessly by and saw the horrendous despoliation and mutilation of the books of the great Mysteries of the Science of the Soul, as triumphant ignorance travestied them into weird and unintelligible “history”.

And in the wake of this great cultural catastrophe, and hard on the heels of the havoc and wreckage of the luminous esoteric spiritual systems of the Sages like Pythagoras and Plato, Orpheus and Hermes, there came crashing the inevitable debacle of spiritual culture, clinching its victory with, the closing of the Platonic Academies and the burning of priceless libraries. And over Europe descended the dismal murks of the Dark Ages.

Unintelligent religious fanaticism crushed out not only the springs of possible science, but fatally submerged for eighteen centuries the potential enlightenment that lay cryptically concealed under the surface literalism of the Sacred Scriptures, and that needed only the keys to its esoteric secrets to unlock its treasures of golden truth

if it helps

I’m assuming you all know the story of Ausar, Auset and Heru. But briefly, the God Ausar and the Goddess Auset were King and Queen in Kamit. Their brother, the God Set was jealous of Ausar and murdered Him. He took Ausar’s body and threw it in the river. Auset was then removed from power and Set took over the rule of the country, reigning as a tyrant. Auset searched tirelessly for the body of Her Husband. When She found Him She performed ritual (not what you think). Through ritual, the Spirit of the God Ausar came to Auset, and through Their Divine spiritual union Auset became pregnant with Heru (Khensu).

Of course, this is the origin of the story of Auset Merit (Mary) being impregnated by the Holy Spirit of God the Father (Ausar) and conceiving the Son of God (Khensu/Hesus/Jesus). Auset was told by Tehuti (the God of Wisdom) that Heru would grow strong and defeat the rule of Set. Tehuti then directed Auset to hide in the swamps of North Kamit to raise the child in secret. Set (the red-evil one) was corrupted by the whites into Set-an/Satan/Shaitan, the red devil. He sought to kill Khensu Heru, because he knew that of the prophecy that Heru would grow to defeat Him and restore the kingdom of His Father Ausar.

I.e., this is the origin of mary going to northern egypt with “jesus” to avoid the wrath of the evil king who sought to kill all newborn boys. It is also the origin of the ‘angel’ gabriel coming to mary and telling her that she would give birth to the sun/son of god.

Death and resurrection of Khensu Heru. (See the Metternich Stele) Auset comes to find Heru has been stabbed by one of Set’s associates. She embraces the body of Her Son and laments. Her Sister, the Goddess Nebt Het laments with Her. Another Goddess, Serqet, tells Auset to call on Ra in Heaven. Auset calls on Ra. Ra sends Tehuti down from Heaven to facilitate the resurrection of Heru. Heru goes on to defeat Set and take over the rule of the world. Heru, Auset, and Nebt Het then resurrect Ausar.

I.e., Khensu (Hesus) has been murdered. The two Marys (Auset Merit and Nebt Het Merit) are there to embrace the body of the dead Son of God. The “angel of the Lord” (NOT gabriel/TEHUTI) comes to tell the two Marys (as the song goes “mary(s) don’t you weep”. Khensu (Hesus) is resurrected.
Fri, December 21, 2007 – 12:38 PM – permalink – 27 Comments

27 Comments add a comment

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 1:33 PM

Let me begin with the proper etymology of the name jesus/hesus/yeshua. Many of us know the letter ‘j’ entered the english alphabet in the 1600s. The latin and so-called hebrew way of pronouncing the name is what’s relevant here, to wit “hesus/yeshua”. Of course, those who speak spanish say “hesus”.

The greeks and later romans took one of the forms of the God Heru from ancient Kamit and corrupted His name into ‘hesus’. The form of the hawk-headed Deity Heru that they corrupted was that of “Khensu”.

“Khensu” is often written “Khons” or “Khonsu”. This is as misleading as writing the name of God, ‘Amen’ as ‘Ammon’ or ‘Amon’. This was done by the white egyptologists and others in order to conceal the fact that ‘Amen/Amin’ in
christianity/hebrewism/islam comes from the God Amon (Amon Ra). The same goes for writing “Khensu” as “Khonsu”.

The ‘kh’ metut/hieroglyphic symbol in the name is often
interchangeable in the language of Kamit with the metut/symbol
for ‘sh’. In the Twi (Akan) language we have the same sound and it is written “hy”. In both languages (Kamit & AKan), the meaning is the same. The ‘kh’ in Khensu, is pronounced similarly. ‘Khensu’ thus becomes ‘Shensu’, ‘Tchensu’, ‘Jensu’, ‘Yeshu’, ‘Hesu-s’ in greek. The ‘n’ in the name is nasal, as it is in Twi.

“Khensu” is a hawk-headed Divinity, and as a form of Heru, He is the son of Auset and Ausar. Does His name indicate this? Yes. “Kh” or “Khi” in the language of Kamit means “child”. “Nsu” (nesu) means “Divine, royal, King, King of Southern Kamit”. ‘Nsu’ is the title of the King (Per aa, Pharoah). It is the first part of ‘Nesubat’ (nsubat), meaning “king of the south and north”. Kh-nsu, Khi-nsu, thus means “Divine royal child”. ‘Heru’ or ‘Khensu Heru’ is the Divine royal child born of Auset and Ausar. He was born to become King.

The whites and their offspring used the descriptive title of the God Heru (Khensu) and corrupted it into “Khensus, Shensus, Shesu, Yeshu, Hesus”, and in english ‘jesus’. You must hear the pronunciations of ‘Khensu’ (Tchensu–Tchay-nsoo) and ‘Yeshu’ (Jay/Yay-soo) and ‘Hesus’ (Hay-soos) together, and you will see the connection.

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 1:35 PM

THE WORD “GOD” ; – An English version word derived from the German word “Gott”, the word “Gott” means to the Germans ;- The supreme divine creator of the universe. An Alien word to the prophets in the “Islam’s Koran”, the Christian’s Bible”, the “Jewish Torah ” and certainly the Ancient Nubians who were the master mind of holy practices before all of the above.

Before European history, the ancient Nubians were using the name “NU” as the name and the address to the Supreme Divine Creator of the universe. Since this modern civilization, learners with the title ;- Archeologist, Egyptologist, Anthropologist etc. humiliated and changed the Hieroglyphic’s original translation of “NU-TEM, NU-TERU, TEM or NETERU to the English word ;- “God” or “gods”.

AMEN or AMON ;- A typical Ancient Divinity “Nubian”, who was once worshiped as the Redeemer of mankind and as the representative of the supreme divine creator of the universe ;- Numo, Nyumo or Noomo. Amon (Amen) name was and still being used after prayers by
Catholics and Christians

Amon is a synonym of Amen,

A Greek word meaning ; sacred carving, priestly carving or holy carving.
Hieroglyphic is not a Nubian tongue, its meaning speaks for it self of what the Ancient Nubians were practicing, which was “Holy Practices”. “The Greek did not write the Hieroglyphics, the Nubians wrote the Hieroglyphics”. The same Hieroglyphic writings on the fishing canoes of the “La-Asafo” ( La ) of the Ga-Adangbes, Ghana.

The name “Isis” is another Greek version name of a Nubian Divinity woman who was the original “Divine of Fertility”, she was a Black woman.

the name “Isis” is known to be pronounced as :- Essie, Ese, Esi, or Asi (Asar)

Her spiritual powers and her resourceful determinations which established the spiritual role of her creation of the resurrection of her husband “Osa”, “Osei”, “Asar”, or “Sa” ; the Greek version “Osiris”, earned her the Honor of Spiritual Excellency, believed to be among the closest being to the “SUPREME DIVINE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE”

*Mohammed, likewise, didn’t deny Abraham’s chosenness. He simply claimed that Abraham was a Muslim, and he traced Islam’s descent through the Jewish Patriarch.

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 1:57 PM

The Holy Bible

“Bible” comes from Byblos,Pyplus/Pyprus—Papyrus. “Holy” comes from Helios. Who is Helios? The greek corruption of “Ra”. Holy bible = “Helios Papyrus”. Or, Papers/Papyrus/Book of Ra. Plagiarisms.

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:01 PM

The Torah

The Torah is a corruption of “tua Ra”. This is the title of many compositions of ancient Kamit. For example, “tua” means “worship, adoration”. “Tua Ra” means the “Worship/Adoration of Ra”. Hence, Torah.

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:01 PM

The Quran/Koran

“Khu” is our ancient word for illumination, intelligence, wisdom, the intelligent aspect of the spirit. The Ancestral Spirits are thus called “Aakhu” or the “intelligent” or “shining/illuminated ones”. The bird that represents Divine wisdom and is a determinative for “khu” (intelligence, wisdom) is a bird connected with the God of Wisdom, Tehuti.

“Khu Ra” is thus the “Wisdom of Ra”. Now we know why the muslims call the “qu-ran/quran” (khu-ra) the “book of wisdom”. “Khu-ra” was corrupted in “qu-ran/quran”.

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:02 PM

Moses – Fictional Character

The name Moses/Moshe is not derivative of the ‘mes’ title in the language of Kamit. Moses/Moshe is a purely fictional character. The life story of this fictional character was patterned after the knowledge of the God Tehuti. The title/function/name “maakheru” is the origion of the corruption ‘moshe/moses’. Maakheru is very often written “maa kher”. We must also recognize that the ‘kh’ metut is often translated and pronounced ‘sh’. The ‘r’ is a rolling ‘r’ as in many of our Ancestral languages. Maa-kher thus becomes Maa-sher and later ‘moshe/moses’.

The term maakher (maa-she) in Kamit, meaning “true of voice”, one who “speaks/voices the divine law” exists in Twi as “mmarahye” (mmara-hye) pronounced (mmara or maa-sheh). In Twi, mmarahye is defined as “jurist” meaning “one who voices the law (mmara)”. The term is often used hyemmara (to legislate). Tehuti is the Divine Spokesperson of Ra. He is the original Maa-kher (true of voice and word) Who has the ability to make others “maakher” or true of voice and word. Hence the beginning of the prayer “Es Tehuti s-maakheru Ausar er khefta f” “Hail Tehuti who makes Ausar maakher against His enemies”

When George G.M. James states that the title moshe was a title given to initiates all over Kamit, the reality of that statement is rooted in the fact that when one achieved a certain level of development in this life (and after death) they were given the title “MAA KHER” (Maa-she). In the “Book of the Cow of Heaven” (The Destruction of Mankind) Ra asks Tehuti to “Come with me to the mountainous region” where men and women would not see them (Ra and Tehuti). Ra takes on the form of a God of Light and is thus called “Ra Aakhu”.

1. Tehuti (Maa Kher/Maa she/Moshe) goes on the mountain to see the God of Light (burning bush).

2. Ra directs Tehuti to “write down what is in the spirit-world”. Tehuti is givine the title An-Maat or “scribe of the Divine Law”.

3. Tehuti (Maa kher/Maashe/Moshe) is instructed to become the lawgiver (ten commandments inscribed in stone) Ra makes Tehuti His Deputy on Earth, and gives Tehuti an assistant. This assistant is the Divine baboon called “Anan”.

4. Tehuti (Maa kher/Maashe/Moshe) is given a helper. Anan (Ah- nahn) was corrupted into Aa-Rahn or Aaron, the fictional assistant to the fictional Moshe/moses. When you see the depiction of Tehuti sitting in a sacred barque with the baboon Anan next to Him, you are viewing Maakher and Anan (Moshe and Aaron/Moses and Aaron).

5. Ra calls for the Divine Field (Sekhet Hetep) to be created for the followers of Tehuti and calls for Divine food (Aaru) to be placed in the Divine Field. Hence the name Sekhet Aaru.

The promised land (sekhet hetep) is established for the followers of Moshe and the “food from heaven” (aaru) is placed therein. (Note: This is NOT Palestine)

There is much more to this story. When we understand that Tehuti governs the pineal gland and the substances secreted therefrom (serotonin, melatonin)—and that melatonin goes into the production of Melanin, we understand that Tehuti/Maakher/Pineal is stimulated by the light of the Sun (Governed by Ra and Rait). Because of the stimulation of Ra’s energy (solar light), the pineal gland can secrete divine food (serotonin, melatonin) for the body’s cells to feed off of. The body of melanin is the “sekhet aaru”.

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:02 PM

Yahweh – Fictional Character

Did you know that a major title of Tehuti (God of Wisdom) is Iah? He is called Iah-Tehuti. In this form He has the crescent moon (Iah) on His headress. Jah or Yah is corruption of this title Iah.

Did you know that the bird that represents Tehuti, usually called an ibis (crane-headed bird) is called “Habu” and “Habui” in the language? “Habui” is pronounced [Hah-bweh] Habui (Habweh) was corrupted into Haweh. Just as ‘h’, ‘y’, ‘j’ and ‘i’ have interchanged (hesus, jesus, yeshu, iesu, issa (arabic)) so is Habui (Habweh) corrupted into Yabweh/Yaweh. Those sounds are also interchageable in Afrikan languages.

There was a curious statement by the greeks, when they said that:

“The Ioudians (judeans/”jews”) don’t worship the Supreme Being—they worship the demiurge”.

Tehuti, Iah-Tehuti, Habui (Yaweh) is the origin of this statement, because much of the plagiarism in the bible deals with Tehuti—whether the greeks understood that or not.

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:03 PM

David – Fictional Character

While we’re on Tehuti, I might as well state the proper etymology of another biblical name. Tehuti (in the metutu it’s ‘Thuti’) is pronounced ‘Taut’ by some of our people in “phoenicia” and others. Tehuti was often written with the metut/symbol representing a soft ‘t’ or ‘d’. Tehuti (sounds like Dehuti) was thus ‘Dahuti’ and ‘Daut’ in some dialects. Daut was corrupted into Dawud.

Dawud still exists in arabic and is equivalent to Dawid (dwd) in “hebrew” and David in english.

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:03 PM

Abraham – Fictional Character

The mythical Abraham/Ibrahim is another fictional character manufactured by the whites and their offspring using the titles and functions of Tehuti.

Tehuti has the ancient title “Aprehui” meaning judge (ap/wp) of the two combatants (rehui–reh means combatant, rehui means two combatants). Aprehui was corrupted into Aprehuim, Abrahuim, Ibrahim, Abraham, by the whites and their offspring. The Two combatants are the Gods Heru and Set.

The etymology Ab-Ra-Hem was popularized by Gerald Massey and has been used by many scholars in our community. But, it is a misconception.

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:03 PM

Isaac & Ishmael – Fictional Characters

Heru, the son of Ausar was the rightful heir to the throne, which Set sought to usurp/take from Him. Heru (Spirit-Force operating through the core of the Sun, the solar core of Earth, the heart and cardiovascular system, the will) has the ancient title “Heq” meaning “ruler”, which He has been invoked with for thousands and thousands of years. “Heq” is pronounced “Sheq”. This was corrupted into “ishak” (arabic) and “isaac” (hebrew).

Set has the ancient title “Smai-Ur” meaning “smai” (evil associate or fiend; also to join, unite) “ur” (great). “Smai-Ur” in this instance means the “great fiend; evil one”. Smai-Ur was corrupted into “smai-ul”, “smai-il”, “ismaiil” (arabic) and “ishmael” (hebrew).

Set (Smai-Ur) is the Spirit-Force operating through the planet Mercury, the red-hot desert lands of Earth, the nervous system and gonads (testes and ovaries – seat of aggression from whence we get “fired” up), and He also governs the desire (whether guided/lawful or mis guided/lust).

The two combatants, Heru and Set (Heq and Smai-Ur, Ishak and Ismail) were adjudged by Tehuti under His title Aprehui (Aprehuim, Abraham, Ibrahim).

Isaac receiving the covenant and blessings as opposed to his elder Ishmael receiving the covenant and blessings is a perversion of the knowledge of the Gods, where Heru (Heq, Sheq) receives the rulership over certains aspects of Creation as opposed to His Elder Set receiving rulership over certain aspects of Creation.

Smai-Ur (Ismai-ul, ishmael) being a “rough man of the desert” is again a perversion of the knowledge of Set, as He is the God of the Desert. This includes the desert of your body (fiery regions) and your spirit (desire manifesting as strong attraction or sometimes lust).

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:04 PM

What is a Jew?

The title Jew is really a misnomer. Judah is a corruption of a title of Tehuti
(Djehuty/Djahuti/Jahuty/Jahuteh/Jahutah/Judah). It is this corruption that was used to create the title Judah, Judeans (greek: Ioudians) from which “jew” is derived.

The important thing is that the title of Tehuti that was corrupted from Aprehui or Uprehui into Ibrahuim/Ibrahim/Abraham was also corrupted by the whites and their offspring from Aprehu to Ebrehu, Ebreu, Hebreu, Hebrew. Of course, there was no person name “Eber” from whom the “Hebrews” are descendant. Eber is a fictional character, the name being a corruption of Aprehui.

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:04 PM

Solomon – Fictional Character

Solomon, Sheba, and Menelik are fictional characters. The basis of the story is taken from that of Ausar, Auset and Heru in their stellar aspect.

The abode of Ausar in the sky is called “Sah” in Kamit. This is the Orion constellation. Hence Ausar is called “Ausar-Sah”. Yet, Ausar also has a title, “Heri Meht”. (hri mht, in the metutu/glyphs). Heri means “he who is above; chief; leader; king”. Meht means “north; northern territory”. Heri Meht thus means “King or Chief of the Northern Territory”. North Kamit was sacred to Ausar as the place where He was resurrected and made His entrance into the Heavenly realm (Sah/Orion) to function as a God in Nature.

“Heri” (Hri) was corrupted into Hori, Holi, Sholi (the aspirated ‘h’ was sometimes corrupted from ‘h’ into ‘sh’), Soli, and Sol. (There was no ‘l’ in ancient Kamit, only a rolling ‘r’. The ‘l’ came later with the greeks). “Meht” was corrupted into Met, Meh, and Men. “Herimeht” was thus corrupted into Horimeht, Holimeht, Sholimeht, Sholimen and Solimen/Suliman/Solomon.

Sheba & Menelik – Fictional Characters

Auset takes up residence in the star system Sapadet (spd.t), often called ‘Sirius’. The root word “Sapad” (Spd) means ‘to provide’. Auset is thus called “The Great Provider”. She is the Queen of the star system Sapadet, and is therefore known as ‘the Queen of Sapad.t’, or Sapad, which was corrupted into Shabat, Shabad, Shaba, and Saba (Sheba).

Auset, as the Queen of Sapadet (Sheba) also has the title “Rekhit” meaning “wise one” in the language of Kamit. Rekhit was corrupted into “Lekhit” by the whites. The masculine form “Rekh” was corrupted into “Lekh”.

When the constellations Ausar-Sah (Osiris-Orion/Heri Meht/Solomon) and Auset Sapadet (Isis-Sirius/Queen of Sapadet/Shaba/Sheba) unite in the sky, they occasion the appearance of a star called Heru am Tuat or Heru am Spdt (Horus in Sothis). This is the stellar Heru, son of Ausar and Auset. As Auset is called “Rekhit” (Lekhit), this Heru is called the “son of Rekhit (Lekhit)—son of the wise one”.

The term “per” or “pera” means “product of, offspring of” in the
language of Kamit. “Pera Rekhit” thus means, “offspring of Rekhit—offspring of the Wise one”.

Also, “per and pera” meaning “offspring” were corrupted into “ben and bena and ibn” meaning “son/offspring” in hebrew and arabic. In the Kebra Negast, you’ll find that Menelik is defined as “son of the wise one”—“bayna lekhim”. This is a corruption of the Kamau “pera rekhit”. Hence the derivatives—pena lekhit, bena lekhit, bena lekhim, bena lekh, mena lik, menelik.

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:04 PM

Allah – Fictional Character

One of the titles of Ra is “Ra Ur”, meaning among other things “Ra, the Great One”. This title “Ur” as well as the female equivalent “Urt” was a title conferred upon many Deities and great Ancestresses and Ancestors in Kamit. E.g. Heru Ur, Amen Ur, Urt Hekau.

One of the most important linguistic perversions of the whites and their offspring was to translate the title “UR” into “UL” which also becomes “EL” and “AL” as well as “L”. This is the proper derivation of the so-called hebrew “El” and arabic “Al” or “L”.

“Ra Ur” or “Ur Ra” became “UL LA” and “AL LAH”. Rait* or Rat Urt and Urt Rat became “UL LAT” or “AL LAT”. Note that some muslims spell and pronounce Allah as ‘Ullah’.

[Rat or Rait is the “Creatress” while Ra is the “Creator”. Together, They function as one unit to Create the World.]

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:05 PM

Muhammad – Fictional Character

Muhammad is another fictional character created by the whites and their offspring.

The God of the Nile in Kamit is called Hap or Hapi. He is the masculine Spirit operating through that body of river water. Hap is the longest river in the world. The Deity Hap was recognized to have twin aspects. As Hap flows through the southern part of the country He is called “Hap Reset” meaning “Hap of the South”. As Hap flows through the northern part of the country He is called “Hap Meht” meaning “Hap of the North”. The word for water in Kamit is “mu”.

“Mu Hap Meht” is a title of Hap, meaning “waters” (Mu) of the “northern Nile” (Hap Meht). This is an ancient title of Hap, used for thousands of years by the people of Kamit. This title was corrupted by the whites into Muhapmed and Muhammad.

It very rarely rains in Kamit, therefore the people are dependent on the flood of the river (Hap) for their survival, and a life of tranquility/peace. The coming of the inundation of the nile (flood of Hap) was occassioned by a celebration every year. This celebration continues today and is called the “Night of the Drop”. It is said that from the Eye of Ra (the star Auset-Sapadet/Sirius) a Divine tear drop falls, which causes the swelling of the Nile/Hap every year.

This is why Hap Meht/Mu Hap Meht also has the ancient title “Sarem”. “Sa” means “shrine or sanctuary of a God or Goddess”. “Rem” means “tear”. “Sarem” is a title of Hap meaning the river Hap is a “shrine/sanctuary of the Divine tear (rem) of Auset-Sapadet”.

This title “sarem” was corrupted into salem, salm, isalm and islam by the whites and their offspring. (Understand that ‘r’ and ‘l’ are interchangeable linguistically. In Kamit as well as the derivative Akan language there is no ‘l’, just a rolling ‘r’. All words with ‘l’ in them are translated in both languages, and pronounced, as rolling ‘r’) This is why it is said that Mu Hap Meht (waters of the Northern nile/muhammad) brings Sarem (islam) to the people.

When the river floods its banks, It creates a tremendous lake about 600 miles long and 10-12 miles wide in certain areas. It appears from the ground that when Ra (God) sent MuHapMeht (muhammed) into the country, MuHapMeht and Sarem (muhammad and isalem/islam) overran the country (with water).

As Hap was sent at the end of the year, to start the beginning of a new year and new agricultural season, he was seen as the “last messenger of God” (Ra and also Rait–Rait is the Goddess/Creatress of the World—Ra is the Creator). Mu Hap Meht was the type and figure of a saviour and comforter in Kamit for thousands of years. Again, this info was co-opted by the whites and their offspring when manufacturing their fictional character.

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:07 PM

Bilal – Fictional Character

Bilal is none other than the ancient God Baal (Bel). In Kamit, Baal is a form of Set. He is called Bar. “Bar-Ur” (Bar the Great) became Bal-Ul, Bel-Ul and Bil-al.

Set is the God of the desert in Kamit amongst other things/functions. The deserts are just outside of the fertile plains of the nile valley. This is why when Muhapmeht (waters of the northern nile) floods the nile valley, the very first land that is flooded outside of the nile valley are the deserts. I.e., Bilal (Bar-Ur) the Ku te/Ethiopian/Black-Red individual/Desert was the first “convert” of Muhammad. Bilal being “burned” in the desert sands, etc., etc. is nothing more than an allusion to the fact that we are talking about Set (Bar) the God of the Desert.

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:07 PM

Yakub – Fictional Character

The divinity Qebh in Kamit was the basis of Iah-Qebh or Yakub. Qebh is one of the titles of the God Kunwem (Khnum; Khnemu) who is often shown as a ram-headed Deity fashioning the soul of the person on a potter’s wheel. The name is spelled Khnm in the metutu. Egyptologists didn’t understand how to pronounce it, so they often write in Khnum, Khnem, etc. In the Twi language of the Akan, the name for a potter is “okukunwem-fo”. The -fo is a suffix denoting plurality. Oku-kunwem, is the name Kunwem (Khunwem/Khnem) from Kamit meaning potter. All you have to do is look at the languages and trace their origins to the Metu Ntr (heiroglyphic) symbols and their meanings.

Again, Iah-Qebh/Iah-Qeb/Yah-Qeb/Yah-Qub/Yah-Kub/Ya-Kub is a fictional character. As you can see the title became distorted and the stories became corrupted over time by the Caucasians and Arabs. These people did not exist.

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:08 PM

The Ten Commandments actually come from our Black ancestors and are called

The 42 declarations Maat

Maiherpri, a Nubian prince educated at court with the royal princes,
one of which became Amenhotep II.

Book of the Dead of Maiherpri

“It is from these Principles, erroneously called the 42 Negative Confessions by European Egyptologists that the Christian religion got it’s 10 Commandments from. Unlike the Spook principle of Idols and exterior divinity our ancestors manifested the indwelling divinity and said “I have not” instead of being ordered “Thou Shalt not”

see all 42

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:14 PM

cosmology is allegory of the Christ in you

Myth of Religion; The Solar Messiahs God’s Sun Christ Horus

The Kemetian Great Year And Christianity

There can be no understanding of the major religions of the world unless one has a working knowledge and an unbiased appreciation of the way the ancient pre-Christian beliefs saw the spiritual world. An impossible task for some religious types given the extent to which man took away the brain the Almighty gave them. The late Dr. JH Clarke never tired of reminding us that Europeans not only colonised people but also colonised people’s understanding of history. Nowhere is that more evident than in religion.

In this essay, the second of a three-part glimpse at Western Xianity from an Africentric perspective, the Kemetic/Egyptian language and development of the calendar will be examined in relation to the formulation of Judaism and Xianity. This is as vital in reconstructing the history of Africa as the archaeological and the Classical Greco-Roman historical accounts.

Literal interpretations of the scripture are all but useless; most if not all sacred writings of that time were written in such a way that only the initiated could understand what the texts really meant. Often the texts did not speak of a particular time but were cleverly constructed moral teachings handed down from generation to generation.

In Africa, along the Nile Valley, teachings also corresponded to the zodiacal time period where celestial observers divided an imaginary heavenly circle into twelve arcs. Within each arc all teachings corresponded to a particular zootype. We shall first examine this form of time reckoning so that we can better understand why certain biblical texts were written they way they were.

Also, understanding the concept of the Kemetic/Egyptian Great Year and the Precession of the Equinoxes is crucial to understanding the history of the world and how we, like our ancestors, can traverse backwards and forwards through time in order to access knowledge.

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:16 PM


The transformations of the Pagan cult into the Christian, and of the Gnostic into the historical representation, were effected behind the veil identifiable as the “Discipline of the Secret,” the strictness of which was only relaxed after the fourth century, when the Truth had been hidden in a fog of falsehood; the inner mysteries turned to an outer mist, that made confusion cunningly complete.

The Gnostic Spiritualism was declared illegal and impious. The objective realities of the phenomenal Spiritualists, which had heretofore furnished the one bit of foothold in natural fact for a belief in the future life, were now discarded on behalf of the more subjective idealities derived from a faith that was founded by means of a fraudulent history mis-translated from a mystical fable.

The Gnostic doctrines of the pre-Historic religion were formulated as being those of knowledge, faith, and immortality. Knowledge was fundamental. On this their faith was founded by means of a first-hand acquaintanceship with those facts which gave them their faith for the present, and sustained it with something more than the hope or promise of continuity for the future. Knowledge, Faith, and Immortality!

Historic Christianity was based upon faith without that knowledge Gnosis

The Christ of the Gnostics was a mystical type continued from mythology to portray a spiritual reality of the interior life. Hence the Christ in this human phase could be female as well as male; Sophia as well as Jesus; the spirit of both sexes. It was impossible for such to become historical, or be made so, except by ignorantly mistaking a mythical Impersonation for a Hermaphrodite in Person!

What, for example, is the actual base of the “Great Renunciation” ascribed to the Buddha or the Christ in the doctrinal, mythical, or spiritual phase? It is this:–When the soul of man came to be considered as a divine principle of celestial origin, it was figured as being entirely opposed to the evil nature of matter; therefore, birth or manifestation in matter was a descent of the soul from the heaven of pristine condition into a lower state of impurity and impermanence; of disease, decay, and death, where it was bound to bear or struggle to get out of it again as soon as possible.

This soul, personified as the Divine Man in Buddha or the Christ is afterwards represented as being consciously able to renounce the pleasures of Paradise, and of its own free will and choice come down to earth as the Saviour of the World, by giving lessons in divinity and living a life so lowly that this life should be conquered by rejecting it on behalf of the other thus revealed to men! The mode of glorifying such a being is simply that of the infantile mind.

The proof of his supernatural character is shown through his power of suspending the known laws of nature by miraculous means, such as are humanly impossible. As the Lord of Life he raises the dead! The tree bends down and bows its acknowledgment to him in the womb of his mother; or the wild beasts grow tame in presence of the radiant child that lights the darkness of the cave when born. As a mere babe he becomes a teacher to the teachers.

The Gnostic Christ was the real founder of Christianity! This was the Christ of the first Christians, and this was their model man, the Ideal meek and lowly one, which the writers of the Gospels have sought to realise in the form of historic personality. This lunar, solar, mystical, or spiritual type could not be made historical in the creed of those who knew, i.e., the Gnostics.

But it was humanized; it was turned into a one person, who became the one Christ in this world, and the one spirit of all others, for those who did not know. For the earliest appeal of the new faith was made to men who were so ignorant, according to the record, that when they had just witnessed a rising from the dead of certain historic characters, they did not comprehend what this rising again from the dead should mean!

Historic Christianity abolished the Gnostic spiritualism for all who accepted the false belief! Henceforth there was but one spirit, that of the historic Bringer of Immortality to Light; and, if any apparition appeared to the abnormal or normal vision, it would be the historic Christ for ever after!

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:17 PM

Dogon and Zulu High Science: A survey of Dogon and Zulu Cosmology –
Overstanding History, Mystery, and Prophecy…34122b89a3

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 2:20 PM

Ancient Egyptians wrote the Holy Bible…-bible/

“And ye Shall know the Truth and the Truth Shall Make You Free.” Holy Bible, John 8:32.

According to Ghanian writer and researcher Nana Banchie Darkwah, “Black Afrikans of ancient Egypt wrote the Holy Bible and the Catholic Church is hiding and supressing this truth.”

In his book titled, The Africans who wrote the Bible-Ancient secrets Africa and Christianity Have Never Told, (2002), the author emphatically states that, “the worst lie and sin of the church was the premeditated transformation of the racial and ethnic identities of Jesus Christ, his mother and the entire people of the Bible from the Black people they were to White people, to satisfy emerging European racist sentiments against Black people.”

First of all, for one to understand the truth of the above statement and accept it as a fact, that Black Afrikans of Ancient Egypt wrote the Holy Bible, thus, one must dispel the erroneous notion and fabricated lies that Christian Europe, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, have done in painting the ancient Egyptians as pagans, devils, and heathens.

Also, one must understand that Christian Europe’s and the Catholic Church’s motives for attacking Ancient Egypt in such negative vein, is due to the fact that Ancient Egyptian High priests were the Scribes who wrote what we come to know today as the Holy Bible. As a master-teacher H.M. Maulana points out: “Ancient Egypt from its pre-dynastic period up to its Golden Age of Pyramid building was an unadulterated predominantly Black race of people (3500-2100 B.C.E.).

The descendants of these Ancient Egyptians are living throughout Sub-Saharan Afrika, today, particularly in the nations of Ghana, Nigeria, and Cote d’Ivoire.” The very first “Bible”, or “Scroll” on record produced by man, with regards to paying honour and divine respect to a “Creator of all Mankind” was that of the Afrikan people of the Nile Valley in Ancient Kemet (Egypt) and Great Lakes regions of Central, East, and Northern Afrika.

The book was called by its Afrikan Creators and developers, The Book of the Coming Forth by Day and Night. It was translated from its original Medu Netcher text into the English language by several Europeans since the latter part of the 19th century A.D. The easiest one to read is called, The Egyptian Book of the Dead. This work was translated by British Egyptologist, Sir Ernest A. Wallis Budge. This original Bible was produced by Black Afrikans approximately 3,400 years before the Old Testament and more than 4,200 years before the New Testament, and countless versions of it have been written and published. According to Darkwah, the “Ancient Egyptians cross is the earliest and most sacred symbol of religion.

Egyptologists who believe they have successfully deciphered Ancient Egyptian Medu Netcher say it is called the Ankh, which means ‘Life’.” The meaning is correct, however, that is not what the Ancient Egyptians called it. The language from which this word originated is Akan and it actually means Life. This symbol was the Ancient Egyptians’ sacred religious symbol that reinforced the cross on which Jesus was crucified,as a sacred Christian symbol. How did this happen?

The early Christian Church of Ancient Egypt adopted the Nkwa symbol as the symbol of their Church and called it Crux Ansata. From here, it was taken to Rome and there it became a Christian symbol with only a slight variation in design. The symbol of Nwka was excavated from the tomb of the Akan King Tutu Ankoma, the boy King of Ancient Egypt, whose name Europeans have corrupted to Tutankhamun or King Tut.

He ruled from 1336-1327B.C.E. Nana Darkwah suggests that the intelligentsia of Ancient Egypt was headed by such ethnic groups as the Akan, Ewe, Ga-Andangbe, Hausa, and Ibo. However, he asserts that the Akan was the main ruling class in Ancient Egypt sincethe majority of Ancient Egyptian Kings had Akan names. He also asserts that, “the early apostolic fathers of Christianity and the Church knew of many things they did not want the Christian masses to know about the background history, content, and people of the Bible.”

As a result, the very design of Christianity was based upon protecting the Holy Bible from the lay masses. Until the reformation in the 15th century A.D., therefore, the Holy Bible was secretly guarded and its content was known to only a few in the Church. Because of the perceived need to protect the Holy Bible from the masses, the earliest design and practice of Christianity was based upon placing a cadre of priests between the Holy Bible and the people.

The Afrikan origin of Christianity was common knowledge among western scholars and early apolistic fathers of the Church long before the European Renaissance. This was common knowledge known by the Aryan-Whites in the past and is still known, today.

There have been numerous European scholars who have known and written about the falsehoods, fabrications, and false assumptions in the foundations of Christianity. One such European-American researcher and writer was Gerald Massey, who in his book titled The Natural Genesis: A Book of the Beginnings(1883), called the story and practice of Euro-Christianity: “the legendary lying love.” Moreover, in The Aryan Myth:

A History of Racist and Nationalistic Ideasin Europe, Leon Poliakov revealed that, “knowledge of the people of the Bible as Black people was common in Europe and in early European scholarship. “James Cowles, by far the most popular anthropologists of the first half of the19th century, elaborated around 1810 implying that “Adam and Eve were Black.” And in 1836 a renowned British orientalist, Sir Godfrey Higgins, wrote, The Anaclypsis. Or an inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations, and Religions.

He pointed out that the people of the Bible were Black and that in all early Catholic Churches of Europe: “the God Christ, as well as His mother, are described in their old pictures to be Black (peoples). The infant God in the arms of His Black mother, his eyes and drapery white, is himself perfectly Black.” In 1875, Kersey Graves wrote a book titled The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors” in which he pointed out from clear evidence in Europe that” Jesus was Black and the people of the Bible were originally Black people.”

He wrote as follows: There is as much evidence that the Christian Savior was a Black man, or at least a dark man, as there is of him being the son of the Virgin Mary or that he once lived or moved upon the earth. And that evidence is the testimony of his disciples, who had nearly as good an opportunity of knowing what His complexion was as the evangelists who omit to say anything about it. In the pictures and portraits of Christ by early Christians, He is uniformly represented as being Black.” Furthermore, he continues: “The statue of St. Peter inside St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, Italy is a Black man. St. Peter was a Black man.

Thus, Jesus’ last words before His execution was that a Black man has the keys to Heaven.” According to H.M. Maulana, the aristocracy of Europe has always shown their hatred against the so-called Jewish people, since it was well known in their socio-political and economic circles that these people were of a Black Afrikan origin, who migrated out of Ancient Egypt up into Europe. Due to the negative anthropological ideas and theories of early European scholars against Black Afrikans, thus, the knowledge and reality that theosophy and philosophy, has surely been a major source of social-political embarrassment for Europeans.

The fact of the matter is that the racist and extremist European has always seen the so-called Jewish people with suspicion and contempt vis-à-vis their same contempt and ill-feelings they had towards Sub-Saharan Afrikans. That is to say, historically, the Europeans had no genesis of religion to claim as their own other than what came up “out of Afrika”, Christianity, which was brought to them by the so-called Jews. This fact has left the European (Aryan-Whites) with bitterness, enmity, and jealousy against the so-called Jewish people and Afrikans.

Also, this fermented ill-feelings among Europeans that the so-called Jewish people had deliberately deceived them so that the Jews would dominate Europe. According to Darkwah: “This is also the reason no credible reason has been given for the most atrocious massacre of Blacks and Jews in human history.”

In the final analysis, Afrikan people must know that the “Aryan-White (European) tradition, Apolistic fathers of the Church, theosophical teachings and writings, as well as the Arabs, have all laboured over the past 500years, trying to disconnect Black Afrikans from Ancient Egypt, in order to hide the true identity of the original authors of the Bible and the origin from whence the Bible originated, which was Ancient Egypt.”

In essence, then, and in the tradition of European supremacy, “what the Aryan-White race has attempted to do by high-jacking Ancient Egypt is as follows: Kill the Messenger (Black Ancient Egyptians), but save and embrace the ‘Message’ of the messenger for themselves”-that is, the Holy Bible. The main purpose of European scholarship supremacy is “to destroy the Black Afrikan genesis of Ancient Egypt and give the world a counterfeit analysis of this great civilization as being a creation of the Aryan-White race.”

However, the late Dr. Chekh Anta Diop (the modern-day Imhotep), capsulises the dire attempt by the Aryan-White race to “white-wash” Ancient Egypt as follows: “Mankind trying to destroy the Black Afrikan genesis of Ancient Egypt is like trying to drown a fish in the ocean.”

Shem Hotep (”I go in peace”).

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 3:05 PM

ALL Abrahamic Religions…

are plagiarized inventions for the purpose of providing a religious justification for Imperialism and/or
being created to save themselves from being overthrown by them Islam is one of such

The Arabs with Islam (Muslims) – to fight off the Christians

I’m sorry, i do love all my brothers and sister…Earths and Gods

but, the faith of Jews, Christians, and Muslims all spring from the false Abraham, and pagan Gods.

much more research is needed on my part but, based on search my perspective is the same for these pagan Muslims as it for those pagan Christians that hid and destroyed the Cosmic truth and Gnosis…

it was these same pagan Muslisms who pillaged, raped and enslaved our people of Africa it was these same pagan muslism who sold his own brothers and sisters for capitalistic profits with the white men

It is clear, from a historical point of view, that Muhammad and Muslims, At some point, were converted to the concept of monotheism through the influence and teachings of the Pagan Jews and Christians.

However, being a proud “nationalistic cultural Arab”, and to preserve their traditions, Muhammad, needed to “reform” these beliefs and make them black in order to preserve his peoples traditions, They decided to “reform” the native Arabian religion and Kabal, in order to with stand the white christian movement . So Muhammad took the Kabah in Mecca (called Hubal and/or Allah) and chose it to be his new monotheistic god.

THE RISE OF ISLAM (“all about the benjamins?”)

Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam

“Having unlearnt most of what we knew about Meccan trade, do we find ourselves deprived of our capacity to explain the rise of Islam? If we take it that trade is the crucial factor behind the appearance of a prophet in Arabia, the spread of his message there, and the Arab conquest of the Middle East, then the answer is evidently yes. But, in fact, Meccan trade cannot be said ever to have provided a convincing explanation for any of these events.

the Qurashi transition to a mercantile economy undermined the traditional order in Mecca, generating a social and moral malaise to which Muhammad’s preaching was the response.

Internet Islamic History Sourcebook…msbook.html

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 3:06 PM

“Islam in its origin and popular character is a composite faith, with Pagan, Jewish and Christian elements, is known to all students of comparative religion. Rabbi Geiger in his celebrated essay has shown how much of the warp and woof of the Koran was taken from Talmudic Judaism and how the entire ritual is simply that of the Pharisees translated into Arabic.”

the pagan elements that persist in the Moslem faith to this day and were taken over by Mohammed himself from the old Arabian idolatry. Christian teaching and life too had their influence on Mohammed and his doctrine, as is evident not only in the acknowledged place of honor given to Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, John the Baptist, and other New Testament characters, but in the spirit of universalism, of conquest and above all in the mystic beliefs and ascetic practices of later Islam.

“A three-fold cord is not easily broken.” The strength of Islam is its composite character. It entrenches itself everywhere and always in animistic and pagan superstition. It fights with all the fanatic devotion of Semitic Judaism with its exaggerated nationalism. It claims at once to include and supersede all that which Jesus Christ was and did and taught. It is a religion of compromise, of conservatism, and of conquest.”

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 3:07 PM

from article:

As an African I am also very puzzled at the lack of balanced historical research by Muslims concerning the African people.

In North Africa we know that the whole Saharan region of Morocco, Libya, Algeria and Egypt to the Sudan and Ethiopia used to be Christian, before Islam came and destroyed the local churches. Why do we not hear about it in Muslim literature?

And consider this: Africa produced great thinkers like Augustine of Hippo (Algeria), Clement and Athanasius of Egypt, and Tertullian of Carthage (Tunis), while Ethiopia had the first African church totally independent of Europe (Acts 8). In fact, I find it most interesting that an African church was planted first before there was ever a church in Britain, Canada, the USA or Spain, or any other European state.

So why do we not hear of this African church, and why do we not continue to see any remnants of it today?

Perhaps we need to go to the Qur’an again to find the clue. Consider this verse in Sura Tauba, 9:5:

“Fight and slay [those who associate another with God (Shirk)], and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.”

It fits the pattern of Islam which fights against all those who choose to follow their own beliefs, an idea we find well expressed in Sura Imran, 3:28:

Let not the believers take disbelievers [Christians and Jews] for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself.

The history of the Sudan is a case in point. Before the Muslim invasion of 1275 A.D. by the Islamic Mamluks of Egypt, the Sudan had three mini-Christian states called:

NOBATIA in the north, the capital of Qustul,
MAKURIA, the capital of old Dongola, and
ALODIA or ALWA, the capital of Soba.

These three Christian countries, from 300 A.D. to 1500 A.D. had their own written language, great centers of learning, international commerce with Egypt, Ethiopia and other Middle East states, and sent out missionaries to other African states

Even the Arab, ibn Selim al-Assuani, was impressed when he saw Soba, describing it as having, …fine buildings, roomy houses, churches, and the land is more fruitful than Makuria…[and it has] much meat, and good horses.

But all this was destroyed by Muslim invaders in 1275 A.D., not European colonialists!

The same type of massive destruction happened all over Africa, yet we never hear anyone holding the Muslims responsible! Why? Arab Muslim racism is just as obnoxious as that of the Europeans, so why is it allowed to continue?

For it is continuing. In the 1990’s Sudan in north-east Africa has been suffering a Muslim jihad-war, whereby thousands of Christians and unbelievers have died, many by crucifixion, or have suffered by having their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off. Is it only coincidental that we find in the Qur’an, Sura 5 (the Table Spread) verse 33, the sanction for this very practice?

“The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and his Messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off…”

While this is going on, Muslim states have never once told off the Islamic government of Khartoum. Why the silence? Yet there has always been a lot of noise about the apartheid of the old South Africa. Why the double standard?

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 3:08 PM


This then brings me to the question of slavery. Muslims say it is only a Christian phenomenon.

Yet while the British Empire was abolishing slavery under pressure from British Christians like David Livingstone and William Wilberforce, Arab Muslims were enslaving Africans (i.e. following the promise by Allah concerning the (captives) that your right hand possesses from Sura Nisaa, 4:3). Have you not read about the islands of Zanzibar and Pembe in East Africa, during the nineteenth century? Or have you not questioned why Muslim countries have never been involved in the movement for the abolition of slavery?

Let me set the record straight. While Europeans were involved with the slave trade for a few hundred years, the existence of the traffic of African slaves had been well established one-thousand years before.

The Muslim position which places the entire blame for the invention and practice of black slavery at the door of Christian Europe, is simply not historically tenable. Both the Grecian and Roman societies were slave states, yet most of their slaves were Caucasian. In fact, the word slave meant a person who was of Slavic origin.

“The African slave trade as such, the black traffic, was an Arab invention, developed by traders with the enthusiastic collaboration of Europeans, with the most unrelenting brutality, and continuing long after the slave market in North America was finally crushed… Nothing in the writings of the Prophet [Muhammad] forbids slavery, which is why it became such an Arab-dominated business. And the slave traffic could not have existed without the wholehearted cooperation of Muslum , built on the supply of captives generated by their relentless wars.

A marketing system had been in place for centuries, and its was the white man supplier. Nor did it simply vanish with Abolition. Slave markets, supplying the Arab Emirates, were still operating in Djibouti in the 1950’s; and since 1960, the slave trade has flourished in Mauritania and the Sudan. There are still reports of chattel slavery in northern Nigeria, Rwanda and Niger.”

The argument by punk Muslims is that slavery was God’s way of converting Africans to Islam, is much the same argument suggested by certain misguided Christians in the 19th century who said that, bringing Africans to America gave them the opportunity to hear the Gospel; an argument which holds no credibility in the Bible, and dishonours the character of God.

Unfortunately Islam still hasn’t learned, as today the slavery of foreign nationals still exists in the heartland of Islam: Saudi Arabia. (UN Report on Slavery, 1994)

God …
318 Fri, December 21, 2007 – 3:08 PM

KMT Cosmology wrote the Koran:

Muslim Fundamentalists are fond of claiming that the Koran miraculously predicted the findings of modern science, and that all of its factual scientific claims are flawless. There are two important objections to this claim that I will make, one pointing to a general problem, the other a specific example of the failure of the claim.

1. There is Nothing Miraculously New in the Koran

Much of the fundamentalist’s evidence for this alleged miracle is actually moot, since it represents scientific knowledge that had been known in both the Mediterranean and Middle East for centuries before the Koran was written. Things like this have proven hard to explain to fanatics who are more practiced at pious denials than in actual historical research. For what follows, I am repeating common knowledge in the field of medieval history, and I refer doubters to the bibliography at the end of my Ass 😀

The works of the Ancient Egypt (kmt) and the Greeks were known in the Arab and North African world for a thousand years before Islam, and Islam began translating Greek texts into Arabic within a century of its military conquests. Greek Hellenic culture had long since spread into and affected popular beliefs, even among illiterate peoples, throughout and beyond the Roman Empire, even down the East Coast of Africa, in many cases reinforced by the introduction of the new Romano-Hellenic philosophy of Christianity.

Jews and Christians were extensively Hellenized, and Islam sprung from these very same religious traditions. Even India knew about kmt’s astronomical works in the first century A.D., having partially translated them into royal languages.

Anyone who knows the history of the conquests of Alexander the Great and his successors knows that Greeks and their culture had been firmly rooted and spread throughout the world all the way to Afghanistan, the Ganges river, especially Syria and Persia, but even to Arabia itself.

20 Sat, December 22, 2007 – 2:53 AM
I know many people whop would benefit greatly from these revelations and many who would turn a blind eye to them!


January 18, 2008



var syndicate = new Object;

syndicate.title_fontbold = true;
syndicate.title_fontital = false;
syndicate.title_fontface = ‘arial,helvetica,sans-serif’;
syndicate.title_fontsize = ‘3’;
syndicate.title_fontcolor = ‘#000099’;

syndicate.date_fontbold = false;
syndicate.date_fontital = true;
syndicate.date_fontunder = false;
syndicate.date_fontface = ‘Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif’;
syndicate.date_fontsize = ‘1’;
syndicate.date_fontcolor = ‘#666666’;

syndicate.summary_fontbold = false;
syndicate.summary_fontital = false;
syndicate.summary_fontunder = false;
syndicate.summary_fontface = ‘arial,helvetica,sans-serif’;
syndicate.summary_fontsize = ‘2’;
syndicate.summary_fontcolor = ‘#000000’;

syndicate.bgcolor = ‘#FFFFFF’;
syndicate.max_articles = ‘5’;
syndicate.display_date = true;
syndicate.display_summaries = true;
syndicate.not_found_message = ‘Sorry, no articles were found.‘;

// –>

Front Page

This webpage uses Javascript to display some content.

Please enable Javascript in your browser and reload this page.


November 25, 2007


Ancient Egyptian ethnographic “mural of the races” found in the tomb of Rameses III – Monuments from Egypt and Ethiopia by Karl Richard Lepsius (German: “Denkmaler aus Agypten und Athiopian”). French Egyptologist Champollion found similar murals in other royal tombs.

Egyptian Semite Other Africans European


“One Picture is worth more than ten thousand words.” – Chinese Proverb

The hieroglyphics to the right of each figure labels each one:
(Ref: The Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Vols 1&2, E.A. Budge, Dover.)

Egyptian Ret (page 435a,b) = Men: We also have “ret na romé” or “We men above mankind.” This ideology allows us to understand that there are actually only three races represented here; Black, White, and Semitic since the Egyptians considered themselves in a class of their own, while still showing that they belonged to the Black racial group.

Semite Namu (page 373b) =Travelers or wanderers: We also have “Namu Sho” or “People who travel the sands”: Nomads or Bedu.

Other Africans Nahasu (pages 344a/386b) = Strangers or barbarians: In Wolof (Senegal), a language as close to the Ancient Egyptian language as modern Egyptian, “nahas” means “good for nothing; worthless.”

European Tamhu (page 855a) = Red people: Tamh = hematite; reddish iron ore; ochre or pale yellow to red.

The Black “Land” nonsense:

Catechism: “The Egyptians called their country Kemet or Black after the color of the soil.”

Western Egyptology contrived this deception from Herodotus, “Egypt is a land of black soil…We know that Libya is a redder earth.” (Herodotus, The History, book 2:12); conveniently ignoring the fact that he also mentioned that the Egyptian people were black as well. So, to anyone not familiar with the Ancient Egyptian language, this “Kemet = black soil” may seem plausible. It is not. Here’s what the Ancient Egyptian language has to say (Ref: EHD, page 787b.):

Note: words inside brackets are the determinatives or word classifiers along with their English meanings.

Kem, kame, kmi, kmem, kmom = to be black

Kememu = Black people (Ancient Egyptians) in both Ancient and modern Egyptian (Kmemou).

Kem [khet][wood] = extremely black, jet-black

Kemet = any black thing. Note: “t” is silent – pronounced Kemé

Kemet [nu][community, settlement, nation] = Black nation = Ancient Egypt.

Kemet [Romé][people] = Black people. Ancient Egyptians.

Kemit [Shoit][books] = Black books, Ancient Egyptian literature.

Kem wer [miri][large body of water] = The Great Black sea (The Red sea). This sea is neither black nor red, this is in reference to which nation, Black or Red, at a particular time, controlled this body of water.

Kemi fer = Black double house; seat of government. Note: by reference to Wolof again, we know that to make a plural of per or house, the “p” becomes an “f” or fer. Thus fero=great houses (double), it is not pero as Budge writes.

In Ancient Egyptian, the ordinary adjective always follows the noun it modifies, whereas a sanctified adjective usually comes before its noun. The sanctified adjectives are:

Kem — Black
Suten – Royal
Nter — Holy, Sacred


Kem ti = Black image, sacred image : ti oubash = white image

Kem ho = Black face/title of a god : ho oubash = white face

Kem ta = Black land, holy land : Ta deshret = Red land (also; Ta Sett)

This rule does not apply when Black is used as a noun-adjective of nationality:

Hompt Kemet = copper of Black; Egyptian copper : Hompt Sett = copper of the Red nations; Asiatic copper

Ro in Kemet (page 416a) = speech of Black; mute ro n Kemet = word of the mouth of Black; the Egyptian language

Kemet Deshret = Black and Red; good and evil; fertile and barren, etc.; Duality

Deshretu (page 554a,b) = red ones, red devils. Used also to refer to the Namu and Tamhu; not a complimentary label.

African Origins:

The following Ancient Egyptian words acknowledge the origins of Pharaonic Egyptian civilization;

Khentu Hon Nefer (page 554a) = founders of the Excellent Order. Budge: “peoples and tribes of Nubia and the Egyptian Sudan.” For “Hon” see page 586b.

Hon Nefer (page 1024b) = Excellent Order

Kenus (page1024b) = mighty; brave (from Kenu, page 772a)

Ta Khent (page 1051b/page 554b) = land of the beginning.

Eau (page 952b/page 17b) = the old country

Ancient Egyptian’s Worldview:

The Egyptian’s view of the world was the exact opposite of the current Western one. To the Egyptian, the top of the world was in the south (upper) towards the African interior, the bottom (lower) towards the north, hence upper and lower Egypt; upper and lower Syria.

How they looked in life “I see Black people…”
Where did they come from? “Only ten commandments, Moses?”
A Tutsi connection Rediscovering Ancient Egyptian
Just who IS this chick Nefertiti? Egyptian hues
White folks’ Egyptian madness Cool new sites!
The Story of Sinuhe The Origin of the Name, “Egypt”
The Ancient Chronicles Authentic Egyptian names

Egyptian song
Scoring the “Great Debate”
Discoveries and Inventions

New Forum on Nile Valley Civilization

In their own words

E-Mail this link to:

kem (t) + romé
Kemut = Black people
The Ancient Egyptians

Search this site | Link to us | Contact us

Copyright © 2003 Walter Moore. All rights reserved.


November 25, 2007



— In, lamar perryman

Shalom El Hetep and Greetings,
To The Mambos,
Queens and Princesses Of Traditional
Black Spirituality, To The Elders, Chiefs and Houngans Of Black
Spirituality, To All Group
Members United Here in Our Struggle and Quest For A Common Identity
and Union, and
To Bro Yao-Heru-Tehuti.

1. Semitic
2. The Anthropological and
Ethnological Evidence
3. Akan
4. The Habiru/Apiru
5. The Avrahamic Peoples
6. Kana Yisrael As A Pharoanic State
7. Israel’s Ontology
8. The Archaeological Evidence
9. Overview
10. The Conclusion

( foreword : Bro. Yao-Heru-Tehuti, It is my suggestion that you
read the evidentiary portions first and
then read Israel’s Ontology last. But Respecting
your sagacity that is only a suggestion. The
materials gathered here in our discussions and
elsewhere is to be the subject matter of a
larger volume entitled : The Egyptian And
Aramaic Origins Of West Africans And Black
Americans. )

In order to faciliate the interests of scholastic aptitude for
laypersons and academics alike I
shall set out what I believe to be The Philosophical Doctrine Of The
Base in the discussion between You and I seek to help the
understanding of all concerned.

I would like to start by addressing your present responses and also
some of the ones from
your earlier posts and highlight some issues that are of important
consideration even with
the present historical records and cast some light on the questions
(s) posed by scholars
as to Who Were The Canaanite/Israelite/Hyksos People instead of just
saying that it is not
known who they were. This, among some other things.
To get to the heart of your arguments again. In your first response
you state again that
“there is no historical archaeological evidence of an “Israel” that
matches up with the mythical writings found in religious text such
as the Bible. There is evidence of a people
that the Kemetic peoples called “ysri ri”….though the peoples of
Israel don’t have as many
interactions with any other people as they do with the Kemetic
peoples.” [Note: To High-
light Something, that is precisely my point in my response And I
might also add Sumer/
Chaldea as peoples that Ancient Canaan/Israel interacted with. End
Note]……You state
“There is absolutely no historical connection that can be shown
between any land or
people known as “Israel” and any people known as “Hebrew”
or “Habiru”. [Note: The words
Habiru/Apiru is still in serious contention among scholars and at
present simply means a
homeless person, a wanderer, a brigand, a street dweller or a
criminal of some sort without
regards to race.!!! End Note].
2. You hold to the view that all of the names given in the stele
and defeated by the Kemetics are foreign city-states ( meaning
foreign races to you, I suppose ) and that the
determinative for ‘Israel” is simply a foreign group of people (
also meaning a foreign race
or non-black peoples to you, I suppose ). You mention the punishment
of Yanoam in
comparison to Israel being just as severe… [Note: Yanoam and
Israel are Virtually Syn-
onomous as Canaanite People. End Note], and……The vast majority
of the inscriptions on
the stele is actually about invaders from Libya [ I Note that this
is True] ….They were the
most serious threat from the study of the inscriptions…[ Note:
With that last statement I
most fully disagree. These campaigns were not conducted at the same
time and Canaan’s
rebellion seems to have been put down first and still fresh/recent
in the minds of the
Kemetic inscribers from a reading of the inscriptions. End Note].
3&5. I have combined your responses in three and five for relation.
You disagree that the
Stele proves conclusively that “Israel” were native indigenous
Canaanites and that Israel/
Canaan as shown in the Stele is actually one single group of people
representing their
Country. You disagree that we can tell who they actually were or
are, to state: ……. we
cannot tell that they are an ethnic group from that one line….we
cannot tell if they are
Canaanites from that one line or a people who invaded and
assimulated Canaanite culture.
…. we cannot tell if they were black from that one line…..there
is not much at all in reality
that can be discerned from that one line as to who those peoples
were…… [ Note: All of
Canaan’s Towns and Peoples received a one liner from the Egyptian
inscribers of the
Stele. Also it has been noted and inferred by various scholars such
as Drs. J.J. Bimson,
M.G. Hasel, Sigmuend Freud, C.G. Jung and Profs. C.A. Diop,
Theophile Obenga, J.A.
Rogers, Frances Cress Welsing, Josef ben-Jochanan and others that it
takes a long, long
time to assimulate the language, science, art, technology and
customs of a foreign
superior culture and then make a appreciable contribution to it in
terms of mechanical
usage. End Note].
4. And No. 4, in response to my position about there being no
foreign racial groups that
were mentioned in regards to Canaan, period, You stated : “Actually
all of the people
mentioned, not only in “Canaan” but also in Libya are mentioned as
foreigners. Those
other city-states in Canaan that were mentioned all have the
determinative symbol indicating
foreign city-states and “ysri ri” has a determinative indicating a
foreign people…” [ Note:
WITH FOREIGN BY RACE!!! There were some White/Indo-Oriental
Foreigners mentioned
as Allies of Libya But No White/Indo-Oriental Foreigners SHOWN or
Mentioned in Canaan
on the Stele And That is Why The Kemetics REFERRED to Two Campaigns
in One Stele!
As I have said before, They KNEW who they were looking at and
Dealing With!!! More will
be said on this later, though.!!! End Note].

I have subsumed all of your responses and assertions into one so
that I may answer them all in toto.
My entire position on this matter is that The Black Peoples of
Canaan/Israel/Phoenicia were all One and the Same
and That it is These Black Peoples who were and are none other than
The Mysterious Hyksos that
have been called Semitics and Asiatics by Indocentric, Eurocentric
and some Afrocentric authors
and scholars.!!!
The first issue that I must address is the word Semitic.
Understanding this word and its usages is one
of the KEYS to understanding our subject matter. The Akkaddian
Inscriptions calls the Name of
Shem/Sem as Semu or Shu-Mu. it is the name of a Person, a Peoples
and a Country, Sumer.
We Have To Be Very Careful When We Use The Word “Semitic” because
it originally
applied to Black peoples in Mesopotamia, Sumeria and The Indus-
Valley of Asia. See The
Akkaddian Inscriptions,;
and This is for
your contention in an earlier
post that no historical person named “Shem” ever lived because of
the lack of a historical
inscription to that effect outside of the Bible. As to Sumer and
Shem, once again, from the
Mesopotamian view we look South. It is certain now that the peoples
of Mesopotamia called
themselves Sumerian because they descended from and venerated the
Person called SHU by the Egyptians. The very word means to derive
from, to proceed from,
without regards to politics or religion but RACE. It also means an
Act, An Event, A Social
Movement, such as the peopling of The Mesopotamia from Nile Valley
and Indus-Valley
populations. Going further as to originality we are told by Prof.
Amelineau and Prof. Cheikh
Anta Diop that the Orisha/Irunmole Ausar/Osiris was a True, Living
Person as well as the
other Orisha/Imoles and Prof. Diop notes that the “God’s” head and
other sacred parts were
found in four canopic jars at Abydos.!!! See The African Origin of
Civilization, Myth or Reality.
Among these Nile Valley groups were the Akan/Kanaan peoples whose
original home appears
to be Kenya as this Country still bears their ethnic name to this
day. The origination of these peoples
must then have been Southern and Western, Nubian and Dravidian,
which is to say South Africa
before many African/Asiatic Groups of Black Peoples assumed their
own Ethnic/Tribal
Identities, Lands and Regions.
I submit that the first group of Nile Valley and Indus Valley
peoples who settled the Mesopotamian
region ( Iraq, Canaan, Arabia ) were venerators of the Irumole,
Imole, Neter SHU and so
named the land, its peoples, language and culture after their Patron
Orisha. Even to this day
Black Hebrews refer to Black Jews as Shema Israel. The language of
Canaan is called Semitic
( meaning Sumerian, Akkaddic, Ugaritic, Hebrew and ARAMAIC ). It is
an Afro-Asiatic
language and is NOT Indo-Oriental or Nordic European. The language
system of Black Asia
( The Dravidian Indus-Valley ) is conclusively shown to be
Dravidian/Tamil/Kali/Dalit. The
Indo-Orientals/Indo-Aryans have no language system but that adopted
from the Tamil system
is Vedic, Sanscrit and Hindu. The Dravidian is the Original
Indigenous Asiatic Black Man and
Woman ( The South-East Asian Indian and Australian Aboriginal
Type! ).
The original language system of Caucasians is the Nordic,
Scandinavian, Teutonic, Celtic,
Germanic, Caucus and a corrupted bastardization of these tongues
called Slavic! We also
note that Semitic referred to the Blacks of Asia First and Their
Language and after that to
Japhetic Indo-Oriental and Caucasian peoples who adopted and spoke
the language afterwards
and that is the SOLE origin of the word, land and peoples called
See Semitic/Semitic Languages,
With this one single fact we can clearly begin to explain the times
of Canaan, its provincial
state periods under Egypt and Sumer, its Nationalistic periods of
Independence and Regional
Rule as Canaan, Israel, and Phoenicia, its rise and fall and the
reasons therefor. Also with this
one single fact we can begin to set straight the Confusion of the
Torah/Tanakh Records of
The Sumerian Hebrews and The Egyptian Yewes by the Western European
and American
State/Church Academic Establishments!

The Anthropological And Ethnological

For purposes of clarifications throughout this treatise ( and for
rebuttals, if any ) I will proceed
first to IDENTIFY the peoples now known to the World’s State and
Religious Academia as the
HAMITICS and the SHEMITICS. See Gen. 10: 6-32 ( The Western Torah,
miscalled The
Christian Holy Bible ). In the beginnings of Man’s Evolution on the
earth as the Human Life Form
we all know that there was only ONE Homogenous race of peoples. A
critical fact long over-
looked is that there was two (2) different groups of these peoples.
One group was dark-skinned
with Woolly-Hair and called Nubian. The other group was dark-skinned
with Straight-Hair and
called Dravidian! See An Authentic Anthropology, by Prof. Cheikh
Anta Diop, ;and Dravidian India, by Prof. T.R.
Sesha Iyengar, .
Both appear to have originated in Southern Africa. The Nubian is
The Biblical
Hamitic and The Dravidian is The Biblical Shemitic as well as The
Original Asiatic Black Man and
Woman. Eighty 80% percent of our Human History is the Story of These
Two (2) Groups of Black
INTERMIXTURES.!!! And now for The Paleontology of Ancient Israel.!!!

The Anthropological and Ethnic evidence will best be considered by
giving the four (4) Ethnic-Tribal
Groups and their societies which form the basis, origin,
developement and actual peoples called the
Canaanites, Hebrew Israelites and The Black Jews. They are:
1. The Sumerian Hebrews, The Igbo (Ibo)
2. The Egyptian Yewe, The Ewe
3. The Akan of Canaan, and
4. The Colchin of India, The Indus-Valley
Outside of biblical text the evidence shows that the Patriarch
Abraham and his Wife the Matriarch
Sarah were of Sumerian Dravidian descent. His Great-Great-Great
Grandfather is Eber. Eber is
nothing more or less than an Igbo/Ibo man. Whether Eber was a Nubian
Man or a Dravidian I
cannot tell but the record bears out the fact that there was much,
much intermixing between these
two black groups in the Middle East, Iraq and Arabian Peninsula for
long, long, long periods of
time before, during, and after Abraham’s migration. We ALL,
laypersons and scholars alike, appear
to forget sometimes that all of the groups mentioned in Nubia-Egypt
and Sumeria-India were ALL
Ethiopian Peoples. In other words and to be more specific, Nubians
and Dravidians.!!!
See ( Early Dynastic period, Dynasties I
and II; The “Ethiopians”
according to Diodorus Siculus; and a History of The Ancient Black
Races Including The Black
Hebrews, by Prof. Rudolph R. Windsor ,
Including/dp/0962088110 .
In all of my treatises in this Thesis I have presented the ONE VIEW
that the Canaanite Hebrew
Israelites and Black Jews were the product of the Intermixing of The
Nubian and Dravidian Black
Peoples, The Biblical Hamitics and Shemitics. As to the antiquity of
the four (4) tribes of peoples
in Sumeria, Egypt, Canaan, India and Mesopotamia See Chayah bayith
Elowahh,; and The Archaeology of The
Bible Lands, by Magnus
Magnusson, B.C.
Gods.htm; AND Ephramite
Forum-2, Other Peoples: Canaan, Ghana, Uganda. ; AND Igbo People,
The Egyptian Yewe, Ewe or IU are mentioned in Egyptian historical
texts and it is from this tribe
of Peoples that we get the very word JEW. It is well known now by
laypersons and scholars that
Hamitic and Shemitic language systems contain no letter “J”. The use
of the letter “j” came about
as a translation of hamitic and shemitic tongues into Caucasian
alphabet that uses the letter “J” such
as the English language. The word Iu, Iue, Yewe and EWE evolved into
the word Jew as a matter
of the translation of languages and That Alone is the Whole Matter
of the modern english word
Jew. It STILL MEANS the Yewe/Ewe peoples that the word describes and
comes from as these
peoples were and are the Original Jews to start with.!!! I also
submit that the very word HEBREW
is from the union of these peoples dialectical tongue from their
biological intermixture as a socio-
ethnic group. The word Ibo or Igbo as Eber and the word Iu, Yewe or
Ewe being conjoined to
form the Ethnic word : Hebrew as IBRI-EWE or IVRI-YEWE. I believe
this very, very, very strongly.
The Ewe/Yewe peoples as a whole describes their Origins as being
from the lands of EGYPT and
SAUDI ARABIA. I also Highly Note that Joseph I ( Yuyasof I of On )
was born in PADAN-ARAM
EWE.!!! He married ASENATH, the daughter of Potipherah, High Priest
of the fabled City of On,
later celebrated as the Greek Heliopolis. ON is the Fabled Egyptian
City of The Sun. The importance
of this will be seen later as we go on. He was buried in SHECHEM. I
believe the word Shechem has
hamitic and shemitic implication and derivation from the reasons
described herein. See The Ewe, ; The Africans Who Wrote The Bible, by Dr.
Nana Banchie Darwah, ; Ancient
Egyptians Wrote The
Holy Bible, by Dr. Kwame Nantambu,
bible ; Gerald Massey, Ancient Egypt, The Light of The World, pgs.
BUT SEE; in which Bro.
Keita presents the opposing


Because of its importance to our discussion here, the Land and
People of Canaan will be dealt with at
length. My point is that it is the Country that all four tribes
mentioned came into one as a Socio-Ethnic
Group and Nationality. I begin this by identifying the Geographical
Area of Ancient Canaaan from their
historical records and those of Egypt and Sumeria. To state: Modern
Day Israel, Jordan, Lebanon,
Syria and Saudi Arabia. This region was called the Retennu, Sirion
and later on the Levant by Egypt and
Sumeria. The importance of this description will become clearer as
we move on. See Canaan, ; ; and ; and
Bro.Yao, to elaborate on what I will present in this treatise I
submit that the Hurru, Mittani, Hatti etc.,
WERE ALL Black Peoples of The Societies of Nubia, Libya, Egypt,
Sumeria and India, The Indus-
Valley. Going further on what Profs. Cheikh A. Diop, Ivan Van
Sertima and Josef ben-Jochanan has
said, until we see the societies of Nubia, Egypt, Libya, Canaan,
Sumeria, and India as RELATED
Nations and NOT Isolated Societies we will continue to be as
CONFUSED abour OUR Origins and
Ancestors as Caucasian and Indo-Oriental scholars are about THEIRS
and OURS. This, My Brother is
The Philosophical Doctrine Of The Base in our discussions and
Debate. To further illustrate what I am
saying here let us view a map of the Ancient Near East during these
times. See ; and Maps of The
Ancient Near East,
tm ;( Especially Asia, The Indus-Valley Civilization ).
Bro. Yao, in one of my prior treatises in this thesis I told you
that the conflict between Canaan, Egypt
and Sumer was not just Political, Religious and Ethnic but also
Scientific! I will state a list of Canaan’s
accomplishments and then I will proceed to show just who the
Canaanites/Hyksos/Israelites truly were.
The Archaeological record from about 3000 B.C. shows that :
1. The Canaanites were the first mercantile nation in the world, the
very first to use coins and paper money
(papyrus) as currency !!!
2. Their Political units were the very first Federated City-States
in the world ( Ugarit, Aradus, Tripoli,
Ursalima (Jurusalem), Batrun, Byblos, Beirut, Sidon, Tyre, Raphia (
the first one ) and others ).
3. They recorded much (not all) of their history and system on
papyrus (paper) which they also used in
the schools and business system.
4. Among the first to have a Merchant Marines and a Regional Navy
with sophisticated warships.
5. Introduced the War Chariot into Egypt, Sumeria, Libya and
surrounding Countries. The Canaanite
Chariots were made of Iron and equipped with Shields.
6. The Mortuary Science was sophisticated in both cremation,
mummification and burial techniques.
7.Among the first to found a Agricultural based food, textile,
chemical, clothing, industrial and medical
system from the land.
8. The first in the Art of Air Travel by way of the Gas Air Ballon
which later gave way to our modern
Airships called Derrigables.
9. The first peoples to fuse Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Sumerian
Cuneiform into one language to create
a Phonetic Alphabet (Aleph-Beth) and Mathematical system called
ARAMAIC on which all other Modern languages have been based upon
since then. This language system appears to be much, much
older than 5000 years.!!!

The name Amurru, Amorites, Amar, Aamu and Amu is synonomous with
Canaanite. According to
biblical archaeology Genesis 10:16 indicates that the “Amorites were
descended from Canaan but they
must have intermarried with Semitics at a very early age because
they appear as a SEMITIC people in Near
Eastern references to them. Their origin is something of a mystery,
but they probably arose not too far
from the Syro-Palestine region, perhaps in the northern euphrates
area. We know that Amorite mercen-
aries were used in overthrowing the Akkaddian empire of Sargon I,
about 2200 B.C. Thereafter they
invaded Mesopotamia and established themselves there; the Hammurabi
Dynasty (1830-1550) was
Amoritic. From certain artistic representations we may conclude that
they were entering Egypt as traders
by 1900 b.c. The Amorites occupied an area in Trans-jordan as well
as in Canaan. Numbers 21:21
speaks of Sihon, King of the Amorites, and Joshua 10:5 lists the
towns of the Amorite league: Jerusalem,
Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish and Eglon. Probably they occupied the hill
country while the Canaanites lived
in the lowlands of Palestine. At one time the Amorites controlled an
extensive area in Mesopotamia, Syria
and Palestine”. Genesis and Archaeology, pgs. 88-89, by Dr. Howard
Frederic Vos.
Let us view some other matters that Dr. Vos comments on. On
Abraham’s Identity, Dr. Vos states that
recently the idea has been advanced that Abraham was not merely a
powerful Patriarch but a Merchant
Prince. In this Dr. Vos cites Cyrus Gordon who concludes ” the
patriarchal narratives, far from reflecting
Bedouin life, are highly international in their milieu, in a setting
where a world order enabled men to travel far and wide for business
enterprise…. Abraham comes from beyond the Euphrates, plies his
trade in Canaan, visits Egypt, deals with Hittites, makes treaties
with Philistines, forms military alliances with Amorites, fights
kinglets from as far off as Elam, marries the Egyptian Hagar, etc”
and simply admits that
this shows the Patriarch Abraham to be much more than the Bedouin
nomad that scholars a generation
ago thought him to be. pgs. 51-54. On the Garden of Eden, The Flood,
and their many similarities Dr. Vos states: ” That there was such a
place of perfection may be reflected in the Sumerian account of the
land of Dilmun. He cites both Pritchard, who believes Dilmun was the
Island of Bahrein in the Persian
Gulf, and Dr. Samuel Noah Kramer who locates Dilmun in the Indus-
Valley, p.19, as well as the view
that Sumeria’s Mesopotamia is the original home of the Hebrews”,
On Genesis 14 Dr. Vos writes : ” the assertion made formerly that
travel was not so extensive in the
patriarchal period and that Mesopotamian ( Sumerian ) Kings did not
control the area must now be
discarded. The expeditions of Kings of Elam and Babylonia appear in
different light when we learn, for
instance, that as early as 2300 b.c. Sargon of Akkad ( near
Babylon ) made raids on the Amorites of
Syria and Palestine. Hammurabi himself claimed that his empire
extended to the Mediterranean. Of
particular significance for the present study is the fact that prior
to Hammurabis’s rule in Babylon, Kudur-
Mabug, an Elamite King of Larsa ( north of Ur ), claimed to
be “prince of the land of Amurru” ( Palestine
and Syria ). Furthermore, a wagon contract found at Mari in the
Middle Euphrates region and dating to
the patriarchal period gives as one of its conditions of rental that
the wagon shall not be driven to the
Mediterranean coastlands, hundreds of miles away. Dr. Vos also
comments on the discovery by Albright
of a line of buried cities along the legendary Highway of Kings.
These cities dated to the Early Bronze
(3000-2000 B.C.) and Middle Bronze (2000-1500 b.c.) Ages. Also
identified was the town of eastern
Gilead, Ham, Ashteroth Karnaim in southern Syria, Kadesh-He ( along
with many others ) with Ain el
Qudeirat in the Sinai Peninsula. pgs. 66-73.
On Joseph ( Zaphnath-Paaneah; Yuyasof I of On ) as Prime Minister
or Pharoah Vizier of Egypt, Dr. Vos observes : ” First, it is clear
that the Egyptians did not consider the Hebrews to be part of the
movement. When the Egyptians drove out the foreign overlords in the
16th century b.c., the expulsion did
not involve the Hebrews”. Again : ” Critics used to doubt the
possibility of a Palestinian slave’s rising to
such high position in Egypt as scripture says Joseph did but
archaeological investigation has provided
several interesting parallels to this occurrence. A Canaanite, Meri-
Ra, became armor-bearer to Pharoah;
another Canaanite, Ben-Mat-Ana, was appointed to the high position
of interpreter; and a Semitic,
Yankhamu ( Jauhamu ), became deputy to Amonhotep III, with charge
over the granaries of the delta,…
In commenting on the position of Jauhamu, who some believe
officiated in the region of Goshen, Price
observes ” to him the Egyptian subjects in Canaan-Syria appealed in
case of necessity, as he was the
high official of the Egyptian Government for that foreign state. He
had all power to respond to the appeals
for grain in exchange for silver, wood, or even the sons and
daughters of the buyers. The position of
Joseph as Commissioner of graneries in Goshen ( Gen.47:13 ff ) and
his authority to retain the sons of
Jacob ( Yaa’kov ) as hostages remind one of the position of
Jauhamu”. pgs. 101-108. Genesis and
Archaeology, by Dr. Howard Frederic Vos, 1963.
Bro. Yao. I have reprinted some of the conclusions in this book to
Illustrate again the Truth and the
Modern Confusion on the subject here. Dr. Vos, a Caucasian scholar,
was at least truthful to what the
evidence showed and did not show and was sensitive in his comments
on race and religion in the book.
He also admitted the confusion of scholars on the Identity of The
Canaanites, Hyksos, Semitics and
Habiru!!! Of course Anthropology, Archaeological research and
Afrocentric Academia has shown and
proved much since then but to my knowledge has not said who the
groups mentioned truly were in a
definitive sense.
The Canaanites are SIMPLY the Akan Peoples of Egypt’s Nile Valley
and Sumeria’s Mesopotamia as
the many Tribal/Sub-Tribal groups throughout the region who
descended from them along with the Igbo
Colchin and Ewe as a common ethnic group and CALLED THEMSELVES and
their land KINAHHU.
The Hyksos and Semitics ( Amu, Aamu, Asiatics ) are SIMPLY The
Black Dravidian Peoples of Sumeria, India and Canaan among them The
Ibo ( Igbo), Ewe, Akan and Colchin.!!!


Because the meaning of the word Habiru is “still” in contention
among Scholars I will present my own
view of the Ethnicity and Race of the peoples called Hapiru. This
will digress from our earlier discussions
on the Hapiru. By all accounts it is certain now that the term
hapiru/apiru referred to peoples who were
homeless, outcasts and downtrodden at that time. In other words
street peoples. The same goes for
sag’gaz, a robber without regards to race.!!! The promblem is solved
in Sumeria and Egypt when we look
at where this underclass dwelt at. They erected large homeless camps
near the edges of forests, deserts,
lakes, streams and along the banks of The Rivers. It is certain now
that these peoples worshipped the Life
Giving Spirit of The Land, the River God HAPI. They, the lower class
of Hyksos, also dwelt at the Deltas and by the Red Sea, being
peasants, servants, prisoners and street peoples. This River, The
(Hapi) and its deltas also being the home of Apophys-Set-Typhon, the
Crocodile Gods, and Ipi. In
Sumeria the same is Enbil-Ulu. These peoples in the areas were no
Indo-Orientals or Caucasian foreigners
but the Egyptians and Sumerians OWN UNDERCLASS being mainly
Canaanites with poor Egyptians,
Libyans, Sumerians and Nubians included. It is also a known fact and
no secret that Egyptian/Sumerian
peoples and dynasties had many of these peoples as house servants
and field slaves. For all of the talk
about “crossing over the Rivers and Red Sea” these are the
Hapiru/Habiru so-called from their veneration
or worshipping at that time of the Spirit of The Nile, a favorite of
the oppressed and downtrodden, The
River God HAPI.


These are the peoples, the descendants of ABRAHAM, who produced
Isaac ( Yitzhak ), Jacob
( Yaa’Kov ), the 15th to 16th dynasties of Ancient Egypt, the Nation-
State of Kana Yisra’el, and its
connections to the 18th dynasty of Ancient Egypt. I also note the
fact that their native presence was
attested to in Ancient Egypt as early as the 13th Dynasty.!!! In
order to explain the 18th Dynasty of Ancient Egypt it is helpful if
we look at the 15th to 16th dynasties and the formation of Kana
as a socio-ethnic and political group. The names of the Hyksos Kings
are unquestionably Canaanitish.
As the Akan, Igbo, Yewe and Colchin groups began to coalease in the
region of Canaan, they all
originating from a common background and bond, along with the minor
substrata of other various small
tribal groups ( the mixed multitude of the Torah and Biblical
records ) we see the people of Canaan as
Israel finally take shape as a Nation. One of the reasons for this
is that the 15th to 16th Dynasties were
THESE CANAANITES themselves. It is important to note that the
timeline for Canaan/Egypt’s most
important events concerning Israel is from 1650 to 1150 b.c.e. It is
especially important to anaylyze the
time period for the 15-16th dynasties for this is when the Patriarch
Jacob ( Yaa’Kov, the Supplanter )
appears. Jacob is called Yaa’kov-Aru, Yaa’kov-Her and Yaa’kov-Baal.
The founder of the 15th Dynasty
was Salitis ( also called Shalik, Saites and May-Ebre Sheshi,
literally translated as MAH-IBRI-SHE-ISHI.!!!), and the last King
of this dynasty was Auserre Apophis I ( Ausar-Re Apophys I ). In
words these Canaanites were the Self-Styled Pharoahs of the Delta,
Canaanite and Arabian Peninsular
regions. It is said that Yaa’kov-Her had 12 sons by the Matriarchs
Rachel, Leah and the Matriarch
Mistresses Bilhah and Zilpah. It it also a fact that Canaan had 12
Tribes. The CONFUSION results from
modern scholars giving the family names of Each Son as the Tribal
names itself of each group. And these
were the 12 Sons of Yaa’kov that settled in each of the lands and
territories of the 12 Canaanite tribes.
The 12 Sons and their Wives were SIMPLY the heads of these 12
Canaanite families, clans, groups and
Tribes of peoples in Canaan. As time went on from the earliest
periods, their names and the Canaanite
tribal names became synonomous and identical. That is what happened
there. That is all.
On Joseph ( Zaphnath-Paaneah; Yuyasof I of On ) again, I believe
that Joseph was a Pharoah Vizier
under his Father Yaa’kov-Baal of the 16th Dynasty. When comparing
the historical records from the
ancient texts to modern theoretical interpretaions it is interesting
to note the similarities and differences as
told by academia of all schools. They make it so confusing,
perplexing and non-common sensical at times.
In my opinion it would seem to me that Joseph was not just “sold”
into slavery but was bartered, ransomed, captured and/or taken as a
political prisoner-of-war (after all, they were at war with the
southern dynasties and others in that day and time) and his release
was effected by BOTH Official
Diplomatic and Spiritual means. I also note that in the Book Joseph
And Asenath, Ase-Nath, his wife to
be, already a Queen Princess at this time looked MORE LIKE A
ISRAELITES ( Read : Canaanite/Hyksos/Israelite ) than any of the
other women belonging to the various
socio-ethnic tribes making up the population of Egypt in that day
and time. I submit that Joseph was a
Pharoah Vizier of the 16th Dynasty ( called Hyksos ) under his
Father Yaa’kov-Her and simply
ascended the throne after the death of the Partriarchal Pharoah.
Again, See Joseph and The Hyksos,, echoeing the
same conclusions reached by Dr. Vos
and others that the “expulsion of the foreign overlords” by the
Southern Theban Dynasty did not include
the Hebrews. However as Dr. Vos admits, western academic scholars
were labouring under the
“assumption” ( Academic Theory ) that the
Canaanites/Hyksos/Israelites were different ( non-black,
non-native ) groups of peoples or a foreign race of people
altogether which is the view that you presently
hold also Bro. Yao. Again I propound the fact that there is not a
shred of anthropological or archaeological evidence to support your
See Joseph In Egyptian Historical Records,; and
Jacob-Baal, ; and also
See Genesis, KJV : Chap. 44: 1-34 ; Chp. 45: 1-28 ; Chp. 47: 1-31 ;
andChp. 48: 1-22 ( Where The Land of Egypt and Canaan are VIRTUALLY
All of the anthropological, archaeological, ethnological and
linguistic evidence supports the fact that the four tribes mentioned
herein ARE the
peoples known as the Hebrew Israelites and Black Jews. After much
intermixing in the Nile Valley and Mesopotamia ( Egypt, Sumer,
Canaan )
Canaan is the land where these four groups, already ONE, merged into
a Nation as a Socio-Ethnic Group with a NATIONAL, INDEPENDENT,
NATION IS BORN!!! The evidence supports the fact that
these Indigenous Canaanites are indeed the peoples of the book.
Using this as our primary ideology here, let us approach the finding
identification of the Israelites from the Egyptians OWN words in
describing them and what they called them in the Middle Kingdom and
New Kingdom period and see just how easily we can find Israel in
Egypt again and again and at almost every single turn. They called
SYRIANS and referred to Canaan-Arabia as The RETENNU and LEVANT.
This as we can easily see was a RACIAL as well as a Geographical
Classification, Retennu meaning Blacks but not of Egypt but the
Akinahhu of The Land of Canaan. To put it plainly the Hyksos peoples
nothing but these peoples and the Rulers, Chieftains, Nobles and the
powers that be of Canaan ( along with the other small groups of
Sumerian, Nubian and Indus-Valley populations that were present
among them ) as evidenced and described by the SUMERIANS AND
EGYPTIANS THEMSELVES. !!! See Joseph, The Alignment of The
Chronological Records, .
They were also referred to as the WEARERS OF THE LOCKS ( you know,
as in plaits, braids, sidelocks, Dreadlocks ). The Merneptah
Stela clearly DEMYSTIFIES Ancient Israel rather than MYSTIFY them. (
I myself have always known that the Stele itself is the
Incontrovertible Proof of the Black Canaanites who were denoted as
Israel by none other than themselves and their Sister Nations,
Egypt and Sumer every since laypersons and scholars alike have tried
to use the Stele to Prove or Disprove the existence of Israel as a
Canaanite Ethnic Group for quite, quite, quite some time now !!!
heh, heh, heh, heh, heh ). See The Merneptah Stela,
Once again, for what a Native Canaanite looked like in the
fifteenth century b.c. to 70 A.D. to present, See Harpers Bible
Dictionary, pgs. 151-153, First Edition, 1985 ( Description :
Canaanite Dignitary
with arm raised in salute; Bronze Plaque from Hazor, Fifteenth
Century B.C. : The Canaanite Official in
this Stele is a very black person, extremely dark-complexioned. He
wears undergarments similar to our
modern day clothing over which there is a Robe. In the olden days
these Officials often wore a circular
ribbon about their upper body with Aramaic language and Adrinka
symbols inscribed thereon denoting the
rank, country, station and function of the dignitary. This clothing
is identical to West African Clothing today
called KENTE CLOTH. ), And, to further Drive The Point Home > See
Rabbi Mordecai Abi Serour,
History of The Jews of Bilad el-Sudan ( In Fact, Read The Whole
Article and The References in it ),
28West_Africa%29 ; and this one too, The
Igbo People :;
Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, pgs.
174-175, by Margaret Bunson. The Hyksos/Israelites were no “new race
and/or new people”. Egypt
called them SIRIONS, Sumerians called them ARAMEANS and Manetho
himself called them ARABS
and PHOENICIANS. These Canaanite peoples were indigenous to Canaan,
Sumer and Egypt. See
Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt, pgs. 87-89, by Rosalie David ;
Ancient Syria, ; And
Hyksos ; ;Hyksos, ; ; And Hyksos,

The 15th to 16th Israel dynasties were the basis, origin and
developement of the Canaanite State of
Israel as a Independent, Sovereign Pharoanic State. After their
expulsion from North Egypt in 1567 by
the Southern Pharoah Ahmose I ( Kamoses ) they withdrew again to
Canaan. Still Canaanites continued
to play a large role in the Egyptian dynasties and society. In
continuing the socio-political drama this leads
us up to the famous 18th dynasty of Pharoah Akenaton and his Vizier,
The Priest-King Osarseph ( The
Tetmoses Osarseph or Tetmosi Osar-Yuyasof II of On ) better known as
the biblical King Moses.
Yes, Bro. Yao. What I am saying is that the Chief Dynasties of The
Canaanites were the Amurru and
the 15th to 16th Dynasties of Egypt were the Proto-Israelite and
Israelite Dynasties who sat on the Thrones of Ancient Egypt as they
sat on the Thrones of Mesopotamia also.!!! To understand this better
See The Prophecy To The Avrahamic ( Abrahamic ) Peoples. Western
Torah, Gen. Chap. 17: 1-27 ;
Chaps. 16-17 ; and Chap. 25: 1-23.
However we are concerned now with the Administration of Akenaton (
Amonhotep IV ). It seems that
after the Theban southerners drove the Canaanites back into Canaan
they oppressed the Hebrews still in
Egypt and made frequent incursions into the Land of Kanaan. But
again, a Canaanite family rose to power
in the 18th dynasty of Egypt in the person of Pharoah Tetmoses
Osarseph. [ Note: To explain the Pharoah/Pharoah Vizier King
Tetmoses Osarseph ( also known as Yuyasof II of On, Damoses and
Tamoses ) the name SEPH or SOF MEANS descendant of Joseph, (
Yuyasof I of On, Zaphnath-Paaneah ), Ephraim, Manesseh, Benjamin and
Judah whom the Levites lived among and intermarried with in Goshen,
North Egypt. A practice which Pharoah Tetmoses discontinued as he
assigned the Levite-Zadoks a special status when he withdrew ALL
Hebrew Canaanites back into their own native land within their own
national borders, named it Kana Yisrael, and established himself as
the First and Founding Pharoah of Kana Yisra’el’s First Dynasty with
Joshua as the Pharoah Vizier or Prime Minister. This was The Second
Exodus. A voluntary one. The first dynasties were A COLONIZATION OF
expulsion of the last Kings of the Israelite 16th Dynasty in North
Egypt and the attempt by southern Kemetics to REMOVE ALL TRACES of
the CANAANITE presence WAS because that was the first and only time
in its native history that KEMET
had been COLONIZED, albeit an INTERNAL ONE.!!! Phr. Tetmoses, in
founding a Independent Canaanite State, had to deal with native
elements loyal to the southern dynasties, Sumeria, and selfish ones
out for their own power, resettle the 12 Canaanite Tribes, and write
The First Democratic Constitution.The Constitution of Man and Woman,
The Torah.!
This is the BASE of the stories about Phr. Tetmoses and Joshua’s
wars with the Egyptians and hostile
elements in native Canaan. He and Joshua oversaw all of this along
with the High Priest Aaron and Matriarch Queen Miriam. Pharoah
Tetmoses also lived for 120 years beginning his work at the age of
40 !!! End Note ]. He made the final break with the southern Theban
dynasties after Akenaten’s death,
re-established Canaan as a Independent State as Kana Yisrael and
begin Judaism according to the
Patriarchal Command as the Native Culture.This is the Whole Story of
the Exodus and The Mosaic-Joshua Dynasty of Ancient Kana Yisra’el in
Canaan, more or less. This is ALSO for the unleavened,
half-leavened, half-mixed, half-baked Hebrew Israelites in CERTAIN
GROUPS and Individuals with
street level, race-based so-called “Knowledge” who are teaching the
Lie that Judaism ( YAHUDAISM )
is a Japheth Russian/Caucasian Ashkenazi “invention”. There are
Hebrew Israelites, that just like other
Black peoples, are not prepared to accept and face the Facts of
Israel and its True History. Having been
De-Culturized for so long they do not understand the real and true
meaning of what it means to be the Hebrew Israelites. That will be
addressed in Israel’s Ontology. See The Moses Mystery, The African
Origins Of The Jewish People, by Gary Greenberg ,
Jewish/dp/customer-reviews/15597223 ( Go To: Look Inside Another
Edition Of This Book for an Academic Introduction ); Ahmed Osman, ; Moses In History,
Hyksos, ; ; Osarseph ; Breaking News: Man Named
Moses Declares “Set My People Free!” Leads Gang Of Hoodlums Into
Wilderness, ; The
Origin of the Jewish People and the Land of Canaan, by David
Storobin, ;
And, ; AND
Genetic Evidence : West African/SubSaharan Peoples Are The Original
Canaanites, Israelites And Arabs, ; And The Israelites
Were Pharoahs of Egypt, page1, Ralph Ellis,

Also See
The Original And Only Amorites Were Black Canaanites, The Mount Zion
Assembly Of Yah, ; And,

To begin with I will give the definition of Ontology : The branch
of metaphysics that deals with the nature
of being ; a particular theory about the nature of beings or the
kinds of existents. I have heard it said by modern Caucasian Greek
scholars, Indo-Arabs and Black Egyptologists the Hebrew
Israelites/Black Jews worship a Demiurge. Scholastic conjecture
COULD NOT be better than this. Let a layman person
enter the FRAY here. I will give you the old magical Hebrew formula
for determining “a God” and THE
GOD. Let us apply this formula Right Here! The first one is
Linguistics with its ETYMOLOGY ( Etymology MUST be applied because
languages can be corrupted, badly Translated and falsely
Transliterated ! ). The other two (2) are FUNCTION and PLACE.
YAH/YAA, the Sole and Supreme
Creator God has descended down to us as OM-YAH, AMYN-YAH, and EL YAH
from Nubia-Kush
( Nubi-Yah, Nabi-Yah ), Indus-Kish ( Indi-Yah, Indu-Yah ) and
Sumeria ( Semeri-Yah, Shemi-Yah )
from Time immemorial. YAH was known in Egypt ( Kemet, Kemi-Yah ) as
LAH ), in India as OYM/OM, YAA/YOM/YAM, Sumeria as ELYON ELYON EL,
meaning The God,
The God, The Great God, in Nubia as AMYN, AYM, AMN and AM, The AMEN,
and in Canaan as
EL YAH, The God who is Known but Unknown. This is why YAH was and
still is taught by word and
thought only, The Sacred Three/Four Letter Word of The Ancestors!!!
YAH is not Interchangeable and
Transliterable with Lah.!!! ( The “Y” is only transliterable as
O,A,U,I BUT is equivalent to the First Three
Only as “O”, the SYMBOL of the Cosmos, All in All, The ALL ONE ).
The LAH of Egypt directly
descends to us today as identically Lah, meaning the MOON and el-El
or al-Al, meaning “a God”,
literally translated as AL-LAH, The Moon God. Also See ALLAH, The
Moon God in the form of a
person as DUMUZI, The Sumerian Messiah, Shepherd King and Shepherd
of Men equal to the Egyptian
Tehuti ( All the Kings and Priests were called Shepherds of Men by
The Ancestral Nations, NOT just
Egyptians and Hebrews ! These Are Facts Without Emotion, Hate or
Sacrilege Also. Just THE FACTS ). .
No such translation exists for YAH and IAH is a corruption of LAH,
NOT YAH !!! If IAH is proposed
or theorized as a corruption of YAH it is a badly disconfigured
one.Now, even PTAH is a form of YAH
as PTYH, PTHY, and PTYAH.!!! YAH is the Hebrew Israelite word for
Supreme Being and Creator
God. That is All ! ( Compare Meroitic-Egyptian Hieroglyph, Tamil-
Sumerian Cuneiform and Aramaic
Ugaritic Hebrew !!! ) .
2. Place : YAH could not be a form of Tehuti or he a form of YAH
because YAH is First and Tehuti was
merely a messenger, teacher, guide and initiator into the various
Religio-Spiritual systems of that day and
time. Second of all, YAH is the Aramaic Hebrew word for Ideal,
Divine, Cosmic, Transcendental, The
Universal One. The same meaning as YAH has Today for YAH changes
not. Third of all, YAH can not
be a “Moon God” or “a Tehuti” for YAH has no Images or
Representations. It is said and taught that YAH
dwells in the Thick, Thick, Thick Darkness. A Ontological term for
The Melanated Essence of the Cosmos
and ALL. Even today Israelites have no artistic representations and
images of YAH and no else does either !!!
Fourth of All, YAH was known and worshipped in the Secret Societies
by the High Initiates Only and Only
By The 3 Letter and 4 Letter Sacred Secret Word of The Ancient
3. Function : The Supremacy of YAH as EL YAH in the Canaanite
Pantheon is well illustrated in several,
numerous instances where the Orishas, Neters, Anunaki, the BAALIM of
Israel , the “lesser Gods, Lords
Deities or SPIRITS” Have to go to YAH to get permission for to do
just about almost anything, whether it
be good, evil, or to bestow a favor, curse, or impreesion upon
someone especially if that person ( Man,
Woman, Child ) be loyal and beholden to YAH or be given a destiny by
YAH or Not bothered at all.!
I will give 3 instances from the Torah/Tanakh and bring this part
to a close about YAH’S Supremacy in
Hebrew and World Ontology !!! See Holy Tanakh/Bible, Book of Job (
Iyyob ), Chap. 1: 1-22 ; Numbers,
Chapters 22, 23 and 24 ; and I Kings, Chap. 22: 1-53.

And Now for the HARD Part. Hard because Indigenous Black
Spiritualists and those of Organized
Religions Do Not Want to Accept WHAT IS AND IS A FACT !!! Now, to
explain The ROOT AND
BASE of ANCESTRAL JUDAISM. In Israel, the word for Yoruba-Dogon-
Kemet and Dravidian Tamil
Indian Orishas, Anunakis, and Loas IS BAALIM AND ELOAS. The basis of
Judaism in its origins and
and developements is nothing but Traditional Black Spirituality of
Africa and Asia known as VODUN.!!!
And Black Evolutionary Science known as ANIMISM. Our Ancestors Have
Always Taught us that
this World Of Nature is Just AS Important, Alive and Diverse as is
The World of Spirit. This System of
FIRST. !!!
The Teaching of Judaism comes from The School of MELCHIZEDEK, THE
OF KANAAN BENE YISRAEL, Just as Osiris is The Ancestral Spirit of
Egypt/Kemet and Enlil The
Ancestral Spirit of Sumer, This MELCHIZEDEK, A CANAANITE KING AND
MOST HIGH GOD ( El Yah ; Yah The El; Elyon Elyon El ) whom Our
Patriarchal Father Abraham Met and gave Tithes, Supplication and
Ancestral Veneration to. This was before The Patriarchal Father
married his Matriarchal Mistress, Mother Hagar, Our Mother Also.
Matriarch Hagar is Agar, A Agaritic or Ugaritic Woman, A CANAANITE!
And that is Also why Patriarchal Father Abraham ( ABBA’ HAM ) is
ALSO called The Father Of Ham.!!! There also goes out the Door and
of Truth “The Lie of The Mythical Curse On Canaan” INSERTED into
Our Torah/Tanakh
Records by Roman, English, Indo-Arab and Russian Ashkenazi “White
Jews” Academia!!!
To Illustrate on BAALIM again : The Neter SHU in Egypt, The
Anunaki SHU in Sumeria, is
to the Canaanite Hebrew Israelites : The BAAL SHEM or BAAL SHU-MU. A
word that HEBREWS still use today to refer To Our Origins. He is the
Brother of Ham ( Who is OSIRIS ), Anu,
Enki, Enlil and others. The word Baal in Hebrew means a Lord of The
Land .
Because This Treatise is to Promote Unity, Love, Peace and Harmony
I will set out how Black Hebrewism and its Culture Judaism is to be
viewed and defined by. Judaism has No Law of Coercion
whether by Force or Guile!!! The Most Critical Fact, LONG OVERLOKED,
is That ALL Black
Spiritual Systems SHARE a Creator-God Concept surrounded by a host
of lesser Spirits. Judasim should be seen as ALL African Religions
and Spiritualities such as Egyptian Amenism, Sumerian Anuism, Indian
Brahmanism and Buddhism, Orisha-Ifa, Santeria, Candomble, Sectarian
Christianity and Sectarian
Theocratic Islam PURIFIED and STRIPPED of The Multiplicities. The
multiplicities that causes conflicts
and DIVISIONS. We believe that YAH, through Pharoah Tetmoses,
preserved YAH’S name through all
Hebrew Spirituality and Mystical Judaism should be viewed as a
UNITY system. In commenting above on the relation that we all SHARE
of a Creator-God and lesser Orishas, Loas, Deities and Spirits
Hebraic Spirituality and Mystical Judaism teaches that the SPIRITS,
if they be True and Real, are all a part of and function of God
(YAH) and not SEPARATE from YAH. Just as one Cannot separate a Ray
of Sunlight from its Source, The Sun. For this reason these
functions of God (YAH) are called ELOHEEM. This is the context that
Hebrew Spirituality and Mystical Judaism should be viewed in by
Traditional Spirituality and Orthodox Religions.
For Messianic Hebrew Israelites who look to a Messiah, the belief,
veneration and practice of a Divine
Virgin Mother who gives Birth to a Son who IS THE MESSIAH coming to
SAVE His People for Their
Asiatic Peoples in the World to this day. I am a practicing Mosaic
Messianic Hebrew Israelite because I KNOW that there is No DIVISION
in Our Scriptures and that BOTH Moses and Yashua lead to the same
For Hebrew Israelites in this Age of Increased Knowledge, The
Scientific Technological Age, when
beset on all sides by psychological and material coercions, made to
feel that Hebrewism and its Culture
is borrowed, or made to think that Judaism is a Inferior
Hebrewism and its Judaism is quite the contrary and its
Effectiveness has been Time-Tested through our
ANCESTORS and US! In The Darkest And Finest Hour That Is When YAH
is There.
And that, My Bro.Yao-Heru-Tehuti, and all others concerned is The
Ontology of Israel!
See Biblical Beginnings In Ancient Egypt, ( A Very, Very Good and
Interesting Site When One Knows How To Read It, Whether Black
Egyptologist, Sumerianist or Hebrew ; Scroll To Jehovah and
Read The Portion About HUHI=IHVH=YAH and then Go To RE HPRW NEB
translated as the GOD
OF ALL HEBREWS. The Text Never Gets Away From The ETERNITY and
HUHI=IHVH=:YAH No Matter how Many Persons, Moon Images and Human
Beings That YAH is
Associated With !!! In Fact Hebrews and All Others Should Read
This. As For Languages ALL of The
TAMIL SCRIPTS ….. !!!!!!!! . See : ; And The Names Of
God In Judaism,

Bro. Yao, When You Are Finished With That, NOW SEE : CHILDREN OF
FIRST !!!!!!!!
See ; ; ; ; ; Then See : Afrocentrism, 4.
African as a race, ; I Rest My Case on The
Universality of Hebrew Israelites and


Bro Yao, I also note that the crown jewels, diadems, signets,
rings, uraeuses, scarabs, ankhs, figurines,
architecture and insignia of the palace, crown authorities and
family households in Canaan are in their own
images and likenesses the same as those of Egypt and Mesopotamia and
are too numerous to mention in
this short treatise. The Archaeological Evidence is :

1. The Merneptah Stele
2. The Moabite Stone ( The Mesha
Stele ), showing the victories
of Kings Ahab and Omri against
Moab and Moab’s later defeat
of Israel and Judah in Canaan.
3. The Black Obelisk of King
Shalmaneser III : Shows the defeats of
Tyre, Sidon and Canaan under
Jehu, King of Israel, Son of Omri.
4. The Tel Dan Inscription : Shows
the Inscription of The House of David,
King of Judah, Israel and
5. The Shishak Relief : Shows
Egypt’s victory over King Rehoboam of
Israel in Canaan in circa 925
6. The Lachish Relief : Shows the
Assyrian deportation of Judahite
Captives by King Sennacherib of
7. Ancient Egyptian Chariots Found
In Red Sea : A Commemorative Inscription
erected by King Solomon, Son of
David, King of Judah, Israel and Canaan.
sea-crossing-05.htm .
8. The Ipuwer Papyrus : Raises even
more evidence of the presence of Israel
in Egypt as early as the late
12th dynasty through to the 13th dynasty of Egypt.
For further Archeological and Linguistic Evidence as to the
Antiqiuity of Modern Hebrew Israelites See
Evidence of African Tribal Names In The Bible, ;
The Ancient Jews Were Black
and Africans Wrote The Bible,
black/ ; and
Black Jews and Hebrews, By John R. Moore,

And finally Bro. Yao. I leave you with the Pictorial and
Archaeological evidence of The Hebrews at their
Main Camp, Tel El Yehudiyeh ( just down the River from On, The City
of The Sun in Ancient Egypt,
later on The Greek Heliopolis ). This should bring to an end the
debate between You, I and anyone else
as to Race and Ethnicity of The Hebrew Israelite Jews of Egypt’s
Nile Valley, Sumeria’s Mesopotamia,
and Canaan. See Tell El Yehudiyeh,
tes1.pdf ( Some of the pictures
showing the clear black-skinned features of the peoples during the
Hyksos Dynasties have been removed
but enough Iconography remains to clearly identify who they were
during The Hyksos Age! ).

The Ibo ( Igbo ), Colchin, Akan and Ewe of Egypt’s Nile Valley,
Sumeria’s Mesopotamia and The Land
of Canaan ARE The Hebrew Israelites of The Matriarch’s Sarah, Hagar
and Keturah. These are THE
Periods, The Igbo
being THE BASE and The Akan, Colchi, Ewe and other small groups that
they intermarried and intermixed with being the peoples. The
Children of The Children of The Peoples of Abraham known as
Kana Bene Yisrael from whom ALL of The other Hebrew Israelite Jews
descended from.


Promblem Number One is TIME : The records of the Ancestors (
Torah/Tanakh, Turin Papyrus, etc. ),
Historical have come down to us THOUSANDS OF YEARS AFTER THE
FACTS!!! The records are
incomplete due to being lost, missing, destroyed or even stolen for
some reasons or another. Add to this
the Internal Wars between Black Powers ( with no Whites or Indo-
Orientals around ! ) with destruction
of Tribal and Ethnic Records because of Ethnic Imperialism and the
loss of Civil Administration in the
regions mentioned by a Stable Black Power for many, many, many
centuries as a primary cause.
Promblem Number Two is SUPERIMPOSITIONS : The superimpositions made
over the original records by and for Political, Religious,
Scientific, Ethnic, Tribal and RACIAL groups and organizations
for their own purposes and reasons while still keeping the original
story as a outline, base or model for
their pretended submissions.!!! And then on Top of All the
distortions and misrepresentations Bro Yao,
MOST, Not All, of the stories and records of our Ancestors are Still
There. It is just that the front part is
in the back, the back part is in the middle and the middle part is
in the front!
Promblem Number three is RACIAL DISTORTIONS : The distortions to
the records that have been
made mainly and mostly by White and Indo-Arab Academia by inserting
and placing their names,
languages, barbaric warlike customs, savage tribal ways, Ancestors
and themselves into Lands, Countries,
and places that they know they do not belong and were not there in
the sense of originations and developements. This is further
compounded by inserting any non-black peoples into those same places
further confuse and conceal their own lack of evidence for their
racially based claims.!!! [ To illustrate
what I mean Bro. Yao, review this Website. Black History being re-
cast as Nordic Caucasian and this
is called “Indo-Aryan History”??? !!! Hittite Treaties, Annals and
other documents from Anatolia to Egypt,
relating to Indo-European rites, ].

Invitation To Bro. Kael
To Bro. Kael 1 of Moorish American Nationals, , in an earlier
exchange between You and I you told me that I did not know how to
prove that the Hebrew Israelites were Black Peoples and Canaanites.
I told you that as a purely Islamic Scholar you might be a “little
Bit” out of your league.
Forgive if you misunderstood the context of the matter. The entire
debate between Bro. Yao-Heru-Tehuti
and myself was to prove the existence of Israel and a Black Israel
TEXT such as The Holy Bible and Holy Koran by Anthropological and
Archaeological means only.
You told me to plug you in on this debate when I finished my
response to Bro. Yao so now I am plugging
you in. Go To Yoruba Spirituality, and see the Posts
Numbers 184,185,186,187,188,189,191,192,193,200,222 and the present
one and join in.
Also Bro. Kael, The Patriarchs of The Moabites are Father Abraham,
Lot and Ishmael. From all their
descendants we get Obed, Naomi, Ruth and Jesse, The Father of The
Canaanite King of Canaan Bene
Israel, King David. The Children of Abraham, The Black Ishmaelites
and Israelites have long since been
REUNITED in West Africa, Moorish Spain and Black America and many
don’t even know it! I will also
answer You, Bros. Tyrese, M. Bey, El Saadi and Sheik Nadir Bey on
Atlantis, The Moors and Islam
being Older Than Ancestral Judaism in much the same way as I have
answered Bro.Yao-Heru-Tehuti
of The Afurukaat Nation In North America. See Moab/Moabites, .


A Native TRANSLITERATION of Judaism is in order here. Hebrewism and
Judaism is NOT a
Religion but a CULTURE. This This Culture embraces ALL aspects of
Life. The Politics, The Sciences,
Industry, Economics, Gender, Education, Healthcare, Welfare,
Spirituality, Materialism and NATIONALISM. Judaism is NOT
Theocratic. Judaism is the Foundation of Democracy and embraces
Human Development and Self-Determination in its Highest Apect, the
upholding of YAH in doing so and
a CULTURE BASED upon such a system. Very, very plain, very, very
In identifying the Fourth Promblem Bro. Yao I state again as Profs.
Jochanan, I.V.Sertima, C.G. Woodson, J.H. Clarke, C.A. Diop, J.A.
Rogers, A.G. Hilliard and C. Williams have opined we have
Black Theologians who are laboring without a Black Theology be they
Christians, Judaism, Nation of
Islam, Moorish Islam, Mormon, Jehovah Witness, Methodist and a very,
very, very Incomplete one
where it is at.!!! The Same goes for Black Politicians, Scientists,
Industrialists and Capitalists too.!
See Black Seminarians and Black Clergy Without A Black Theology,
The Need For A Black Bible,
fthesel?dev-t= and
We The Black Jews: Witness to the :”White Jewish Race” Myth, by
Prof. Yosef Ben-Jochannan, .

The Pharoanic Origins and developments of Nubia, Libya, Egypt,
Sumeria, India and Canaan has been
glossed over for far too long now but it can no longer be denied by
anyone and for any reasons.!!!
As trua scholars have stated, In a World Order where the Office of
Pharoah wore nothing but the girdle of
the Blacks, THE WHOLE TRUTH and the stories told from it, ALL BOILS
that in a world order where The Office of The Pharoah was the
office of the day in Civil Administration
like the contemporary Presidencies and Prime Ministers of today for
the Political, State, Scientific,
Industrial, Economic and Religious Powers in Nubia, Egypt, Libya,
Sumeria, India and Canaan, the
Indigenous Canaanites, THE HEBREW ISRAELITES, simply Founded and
Established in the Kinnahu/
Canaan, Their own
Also See : Jesus, The Last Of The Pharoahs : The Tempest Stele, .

And that My Bro. Yao is the whole entire GIST of the matter. Once
again, Judaism, like its forebears,
is a Egyptian Nile Valley, Sumerian Mesopotamian and CANAANITE way
of Life, Culture and System
of Human and Social Development. That is all it was, is, and ever
shall be. Nothing is Ever going to change that Fact.!!!
And So, We see now why The Pharoah King Tetmoses Osarseph, the
Prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel and
others told The Hebrew Israelites that Thy Birth, Blood, and
Nativity is of The Land of Canaan.
See Deut.Chap. 26:5 : Thy Father was a Syrian, an Aramean about to
perish But the Hand of His God was Heavily upon Him.
See Book of Isaiah, Chap. 19 ; Book of Ezekiel, Chap. 16 ( Esp.
16:3 ).

As for those who are still Doubters at this point I can only give
the old Ancient Hebrew adage :
Hapi is The Nile River BUT DE-NIAL IS NOT A RIVER IN EGYPT. !!!

Shalom El Hetep!
Mr. Marion Lamar Perryman ; Bro. Hebrew-32-Kush ; Pharoah King Kamin
Yahuda Ur’Amoz
( Order Of The Light In The West ).

Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:10 pm

Send Email

Expand Messages Author Sort by Date
… wrote: Shalom El Hetep and Greetings, To The Mambos, Queens and Princesses Of Traditional Black Spirituality, To The Elders, Chiefs and… hebrew32kush
Nov 23, 2007
8:10 pm


November 24, 2007


Dr. Charles S. Finch, III, M.D.

Every year about this time one comes out of the wood work, a self-appointed “defender of the faith” of European cultural values, and both the popular and academic media dutifully supply maximum exposure. Last year we endured Charles Murray and The Bell Curve; this year it is Mary Lefkowitz of Wellesley College with her Not Out Of Africa. It seems that the surest way for an academic, seeking to break out of ivory tower obscurity, to get a manuscript accepted by a major publishing house is to write a book belittling the intelligence or integrity of some segment of the Black community. The phenomenon is so reliable that even non- white writers, covering the spectrum from Dinesh D’Souza to Henry Louis Gates, have adopted the ploy to obtain media exposure, enhance academic status and augment bank balances. Afrophobic books of every description represent an industry-within-an- industry and there always seems to be a ready market.

The anti-Afrocentric premises of Mary Lefkowitz are patently absurd. One does not even have to be a classicist to find abundant evidence that the influence of northeast Africa, i.e., Egypt and Ethiopia, on Greece was as formative as that of Greece on Europe. The number of Greeks who lived and learned in Egypt reads like a “Who’s Who” of Greek Philosophy. Solon, Thales, Pythagoras, Eudoxus, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Plato, Archimedes, Hipparchus, Ptolemy, Herophilus, Galen and others too numerous to mention pursued their higher studies in the Nile Valley. As a classicist, Lefkowitz has to know these historical facts because the Greeks themselves recorded them! If she doesn’t know, then her bona fides as a classicist is spurious. However, it is more reasonable to assume that she does, so her deep aversion to any kind of an African influence on early Greek culture has to spring from a fundamental Afrophobia that informs her whole thought.

It is possible to discredit Ms. Lefkowitz’s reasoning on numerous counts. Concerning Aristotle, to insist that Aristotle never visited Egypt nor was under any significant Egyptian intellectual influence suggests strongly that she heeds to refamiliarize herself with the literature in her own field. Theophile Obenga shows in an article entitled “Aristotle and Ancient Egypt” (ANKH, vol. 2, 1993) that Aristotle, in his Meteorology, describes the topology of the Nile in a manner that leaves little doubt that he had seen in person what he was describing. Moreover, in his Metaphysics, Aristotle states in a completely unambiguous manner that “Egypt was the cradle of the art of mathematics.” In his On The Heavens, Aristotle states furthermore that the Egyptians and Babylonians were the founders of the science of astronomy. In particular, Aristotle was admiring of the Egyptian’s exceptional knowledge of the planetary conjunctions and the nature of comets. Here we find the words of Aristotle himself baldly refuting the contention of Ms. Lefkowitz that Aristotle had never visited Egypt nor had been influenced by Egypt’s learning.

After about 600 B.C., when selected students such as Thales and Pythagoras began to trickle into Egypt thirsting for knowledge, the temple learning of the Nile Valley began to flow toward the northern Mediterranean in increasing volume. As Cheikh Anta Diop said, there is no Greek mathematics, philosophy, or science until after the prolonged contact with Egypt. Even the term “philosopher,” meaning “lover of wisdom,” was coined by Pythagoras as a consequence of the 22 years he spent studying in the Temple of Amon at Waset (Thebes). According to Theophile Obenga (Ancient Egypt and Black Africa, 1992), the term sophos, meaning “learning” or “wisdom” has no root in the Indoeuropean language family from which Greek sprang. But Pythagoras would have studied under learned men in Egypt called sbau, from the Egyptian sba meaning “to teach” or “to instruct.” The word sba became in Greek sophos, from which the term “philosophy” derives.

Of the 28 dialogues of Plato, 12 deal extensively with Egypt and Egyptian thought. Laws, Republic, and Timaecus, to name but three, all betray an incalculable debt to Egypt, an outgrowth of the 13 years Plato spent there. Plato’s “philosopher king” in Republic, for example, clearly derives from the Nilotic pharaonocracy, i.e., the sacred ruler who was, by definition, priest, king, and philosopher. Also, the concept of the logos or “creative word,” a central pillar of Platonic philosophy and one that would immeasurably influence Christianity, is taken bodily from Egyptian thought. The world came into being, according to the pre-Platonic priests of Egypt, by virtue of the “divine word” (Thoth) activating the forces of creation. It should be pointed out also that Plato’s original teacher, Socrates, also credited Egypt with inventing the mathematical and astronomical sciences (dialogue of Phaedrus).

Another facet of the profound Egyptian impact on the Greek world can be seen in the career of Alexander. Before embarking on his campaign of world conquest, Alexander first wrested Egypt away from the Persians. Having accomplished that, he then took an unprecedented step: he embarked on a perilous 10-day journey across the Libyan desert to the Oasis of Siwa, sacred to Amon, where he was invested with the crown and authority of pharaoh. Following that, he proceeded to build his imperial capital Alexandria not in Macedonia or Greece, but in Egypt. In effect, when Alexander launched his campaign of empire-building in the East, he did so as an Egyptian pharaoh.

The Greeks regularly and forthrightly acknowledged their debt both to Egypt and to Ethiopia. An Apocryphal story by Pseudo- Callisthenes has Alexander sailing up the Nile to do homage to Candace, Queen of Ethiopia (Meroe). The veracity of this story is not nearly so important as the manner in which it shows the profound Hellenic respect for Ethiopia. It only added to Alexander’s legend — whether true or not — that he had won an audience with the Candace of Ethiopia. Homer, in the Iliad, begins the epic by having the Olympian gods, led by Zeus, descend from their heavenly abode to feast among mortals, but not with Greek mortals, as would be expected, but “the blameless Ethiopians.” As we’ve already noted, in the realm of empirical knowledge, the major Greek thinkers, virtually to a man, deferred to Egypt (some to Ethiopia) as the original home of philosophy, geometry, medicine, astronomy and religion.

A careful investigation of Greek mythology and religion reveals a pronounced African presence. The goddesses Melainis, Libya, Artemis, Hera, Aphrodite, and Eos were unquestionably of African provenance. Mythic human figures such as Cepheus, Cassiopeia, Andromeda, Circe, Aeetes, Medea, Belos, Aegyptos, Phaeton, Delphos, and at least one of many Herculeses were also from Africa. The two most important oracle centers, Dodona, and Delphi, were founded by African priestesses and an African demi- god (Delphos) respectively. Zeus was considered to be a form of the Nilotic Amon, Dionysus a form of Osiris, Hermes a form of Djehuti (Thoth), ad Asclepios a form of Imhotep. No wonder Herodotus concluded that the Greeks received their gods from northeast Africa.

Greek traditions also speak consistently of early African emigrants to the Hellenic mainland. Perseus, considered a founding Greek ancestor, married the Ethiopian princess Andromeda, making her a Greek ancestress. Moreover, the myth of the 50 daughters of Danaus and the 50 sons of Aegyptus who emigrated to Greece from the Nile Valley clearly reveals an important African ethnocultural element in early Hellenic history.

There is simply no valid argument that can be brought forward to disclaim the influence of African civilization on ancient Greece. The transmigration controversy involving a statement of Herodotus is not credible because Greeks such as he, and later Plutarch, who visited and wrote about Egypt had access to information that did not necessarily survive in the documentary record of the Nile Valley. Much was communicated to certain Greeks that had not been written down and was not supposed to be discussed publicly. Time and again, in his chapter on Egypt, Herodotus refuses to continue his discourse on certain topics because it is about to touch on sacred things that demanded secrecy. Because the available Egyptian records do not specifically mention transmigration, i.e., the doctrine of reincarnation, doesn’t mean that the Egyptians didn’t believe in it. Indeed, everything points to the existence of this belief among them.

Lefkowitz employs an entirely specious mode of argument because she pins her critique on peripheral issues far away from the heart of the matter. The trivial controversy over the race of Cleopatra, for example, is a case in point. It is irrelevant whether Cleopatra was, wholly or in part, of Macedonian ancestry. The African civilization of Egypt that decisively impacted the growth and development of Greek culture long antedated her. Thus her “true” ethnicity has no relevance at all to the question of Egyptian influence on Greece.

In this short survey, sufficient evidence has been brought forward to show that the overarching thesis of Not Out Of Africa — that there was no significant Egyptian/African influence on the formation of Greek civilization — is simply groundless. What is striking is that there is so much evidence to the contrary that her thesis calls into question Ms. Lefkowitz’s qualifications as a classicist. Either she doesn’t know her job or she is engaging in deliberate falsification. Either way, it is the unseemly haste with which national publications and pundits have embraced her book that truly testifies to the polarized state of contemporary American race relations in a way the much vilified Million Man March never could. Not Out Of Africa, and the smug commentary it has inspired, is high-level race-baiting at its most insidious. From where African-Americans sit, there doesn’t seem to be any end to it in sight.

Dr, Charles F. Finch III, M.D.
Morehouse School of Medicine
Atlanta, GA
February 17, 1996

Copyright Dr. Charles S. Finch III, M.D., 1996. All rights reserved by the author.


* Legrand H. Clegg II is an attorney, historian and producer of the award-winning videotape, “When Black Men Ruled The World: Egypt During The Golden Age.”

(To order the videotape, please call 1-800-788-CLEGG)

© 1996, The Clegg Series. The use of graphics, text, source code, or any other information from this site in any way is prohibited without permission.

%d bloggers like this: