The authors, Robert Bauval Bauval and Thomas Brophy apply state of the art scientific investigatory techniques to trace the prehistoric origins of the ancient Egyptians emanating from the Saharan region, far in the west of Southern Egypt at a time when the desert area was teeming with vegetation that supported a zoological horde of wildlife including cattle. This time was contemporary with freezing temperatures in the Caucasian region when the astronomical, architectural and artistic accomplishments of the desert dwellers could not have been duplicated in the South West Asia environment.
It is interesting how, when the architectural structure of Zimbabwe was first discovered by westerners, it was “Expertly” determined “Shipwrecked Chinese” or even “Phoenician sailors” found themselves in the heart of Southern Africa and built these architectural marvels. In the same way, origins of the Egyptians were ascribed to the Caucus region in South West Asia but the point of the entrance into Africa became a question of contention in the 19th Century because emerging new information made each theory obsolete. First, the Isthmus of Suez was thought as the point of entry, thence an ascent of the Nile River to the southern capital that emerged as the center of most prominence of the culture from the Middle Kingdom onward.
Another argument held, “for some unknown reason,” a migrating group left South West Asia, following a path during the Old Kingdom that brought them to the Horn of Africa, entering Egypt from the Red Sea, traversing the Wady Hammamat and arriving at the Nile in the region of Koptos. Once there, they sailed down the Nile conquering the indigenous peoples, who, incidentally had already built the foundations of a cultural civilization unheard of in the place of origin of these wanderers.
The significance of this contact is that though these individuals did not bring the units of culture then manifesting in the Nile Valley, they brought a “superior mental attitude” that gave an added impetus to the civilization they found. Unfortunately, this “superior” mentality never created the rudiments of any comparative Sir Gaston Maspero of “Negroid not Negro” fame, proposed people from the Sahara region migrated to the Nile Valley when that region had begun to desiccate. Unfortunately, he claimed these were Caucasians who had crossed over from Southern Europe and inhabited North Africa. Then they migrated into the Nile Valley. Notwithstanding, however, argument for a North-African entry into the Valley of the Nile differs from an entry from the Sahara.
We all know, researchers have a tendency to construct a theory and then set out to find data that supports such, irrespective of how off base it may be. Nevertheless, all arguments for a “Caucasian,” “European,” “Semitic,” “South West Asian” origin of the Egyptians is based on speculation whether through language borrowings or scant, if any at all, substantive information in support, more likely smoke and mirrors.
The notion of a cow, goddess of nourishment, is an integral part of the drama in the heavens as she is tended by these divinities. The question this raises is simply this – How dissimilar is this idea from that articulated by Brophy and Bauval in Black Genesis that the people of Nabta Playa were earliest astronomers who initiated the idea of the “Cow Goddess” or great mother who nourished mankind as pastoralists and that they were the precursors to the pharaohs!
For example, the Louvre Scribe, purportedly from the Old Kingdom, resides in a prominent position in that French Institution. One of its more prominent features is that it has blue eyes. As such, gullible yet ill-informed particularly European visitors buy into the theory: “See, the ancient Egyptians had blue eyes.” No one entertains the fact, ancient Egyptians utilized inlaid eyes of whatever color in their statuary. Another example is that of Wortham in The Genesis of British Egyptology wherein he states, Augustus Bozzi conducted an autopsy on a mummy in his London home in 1825 and correctly concluded the Egyptians were Caucasians. Both examples go from a specific to the general, using deductive rather than inductive logic, a sort of “one sparrow so its summer” syndrome. Nonetheless, all arguments for an alien origin of the Egyptians recognize the pivotal nature of Upper Egypt and circuitously seek to inculcate this region into their scheme but to no avail.
It is interesting how the obstinacy of White racial establishment intellectual arrogance can perpetuate, and, in defiance of credible evidence, cling to outdated and outmoded positions on the origins of the culture of ancient Egypt and the role of Africa and Africans in that African culture. Many people have commented on the statement by Zahi Hawass as he oversees the Supreme Council of Antiquities in its never ending work to rescue, recover and revitalize the culture of ancient Egypt.
He was quoted as saying the ancient Egyptians were not White, and were also not Black, Africans.
They certainly were not Arabs though Arabs claim ancient Egypt as their ancestral culture. We do know, however, the Arabs were a long line of invaders who conquered Egypt but generally added little to the culture complex that developed there. In fact, in their marauding through any territory, conquerors are too busy destroying rather than preserving and when they do settle down for the long haul, their efforts at preservation fall short having destroyed much. Still, it is interesting to read what Dr. Hawass has to say about Robert Bauval Bauval and Thomas Brophy’s Black Genesis: The Prehistoric Origins of Ancient Egypt (Vermont: Bear and Company, 2011) that not only provides evidence for the foundation of Egypt but also shatters much of the myths of a Caucasian Egypt.
Montesquieu, the French philosophe, admonished, acted, thought, wrote, as if your behavior can become a universal law. Universal laws are unalterable. Much of the conclusions about the ancient Egyptians, particularly of the 19th and 20th Centuries have now been proven not to be universal laws. For instance, Europeans on exploration love to name places and things and the proliferation of British heroes’ names in geographical features of Canada is a remarkable example of this.
Nevertheless, as Europeans began ascending the Nile, they began naming landmarks and other features. Using the “king and queen metaphor” they named the large room in the pyramid of Khufu, the “king’s chamber” and the next sized one, the “queen’s chamber.” At Amarna this was also repeated, only to find out the large room was in fact the queen’s not the king’s chamber! Equally too, at Aswan the cataract encountered there was described as the first and the sixth at the river’s source in Central Africa. Whereas, the river flowed south to north, the first cataract should be where the sixth is stated to be and the sixth is where the first has been identified in this scheme of reckoning. These disparities have not been corrected.
One incontrovertible fact no naming could tamper with is the situation of the Nomes. The first nome began at Elephantine Island in the Aswan vicinity and the 22 Nomes of the South stretched all the way towards the apex of the Delta. The 20 Nomes of the North began at Memphis and is numbered out towards the Mediterranean Sea. How the significance of the first nome this far towards inner Africa has escaped so many is a surprise among the many caveats that point to the “Black Genesis” of ancient Egypt!
While Bauval and Brophy mention Cheikh Anta Diop’s work, one of the recommendations the old master has insisted upon is group research or partnerships to which these scholars so wonderfully excel in this fascinating new book. The back cover description notes: “uncovering compelling new evidence Egyptologist Robert Bauval and astrophysicist Thomas Brophy present the anthropological, climatological, archaeological, geological and genetic research supporting this highly debated theory of the Black African origin of Egyptian civilization.”
This book should be read by as wide an audience as possible.