Chapter 1: Questionable Patriarchal Historiography
Questionable Patriarchal Historiography
What is concealed by Historians
From the contents:
- What do we really know?
- What do we know about the genesis of Egypt’s Dynastic culture?
- The Elimination of Woman from Historiography
- The Turning Point in Human History:
The Age of Metals when War comes into World
- The conquest of Egypt in the early Bronze Age
- A sudden Break: Indo-Europeans and Indo-Aryans in Egypt
- Fascism in Egyptology – A long concealed story
- Fascist Egyptology goes West – hat to the USA
- Fascism and the Sanctification of Despotism
What do we really know?
Beyond doubt Egyptian history has a fascinating power of attraction. The worldwide interest of its historians, the Egyptologists, is generally focused on the famous Dynastic Egyptian. How the sudden transfer from prehistory into the so called ›High Culture‹ had happened does not interest many scholars and fans. For, we were taught, only ›High Culture‹ should have brought us cultural achievements – such as scripture, order, culture, civilization and progress; before that there was sheer chaos. Bu this is a patriarchal lie; it was not like that. The form of society was matriarchal, matriarchal queens and wise women presided over clans and countries. The succession was matrilineal, all children lived in the mother’s blood clan for life. There was no marriage, fathers were unknown. People lived equally in peace and in prosperity.
Indigene Women and Men were Extraordinarily Creative
and Innovative and Cultivated the Symbolism
In the millennia before the pharaohs the arts and crafts took up a lot of space. Impressive quantities of artistically high-quality, painted and decorated pottery, form-perfect cultic vessels, date back to the 7th millennium. The potter’s wheel and the faience technique were invented. And as can be seen from the numerous jewelries and the extremely refined and precious objects for cosmetics, beauty, and personal care had a high priority.
Swiss-German psychologist and researcher Carola Meier-Seethaler shows that »the traditional symbols of patriarchal cultures as they appear in religion and art, invariably draw on the treasure of symbols of pre-patriarchal spirituality. And this applies to Christian cultures as well as to all other patriarchal high-cultures and tribe-cultures« (1993, p. 9). It can be assumed that the advanced culture, the high intellectual level, the artisanship and creativity of the matriarchal inhabitants of the world at the time from the 7th to the end of the 4th millennium is also due to the invention of writing. But writing did not create a ›High Culture‹ (›Hochkultur‹). »Scripture didn’t create Civilization«, archeologist James Mellaart stated. Writing was useful, but it was by no means necessary or decisive for the creation of culture or the civilization of peoples (Mellaart 1975, p. 271).
»To let the history of the ancient Orient begin with the appearance of writing
would be equivalent to a representation of modern times, that only begins
with the appearance of the computer. « (Hans J. Nissen)
The highly developed matriarchal societies lived happily without writing over millennia; however, they used the symbolism. The masterful creativity of the matriarchal period created a comprehensive symbol system. From this, the archaic script and the first alphabets developed in the Neolithic. Since inscriptions can only be found on religious objects, we can assume that they were read as sacred characters. « (Gimbuta’s 1996, pp. 307–321 passim). »The first characters of scripture resembled the symbols of early pottery made by women.
Characters on an anthropomorphic ceramic vessel from the Tisza culture according to Marija Gimbutas 1996, p. 312)
Gerda Weiler writes: »If we commit ourselves to the fact that a writing should be fixed on plates, papyrus or paper, that the texts should be arranged linearly and should show content-related consequences – then the ›invention of the writing‹ is an event, which occurs only relatively late in the History of humanity. Scripture – in the patriarchal understanding – is often defined by its ›utility value‹ … But if we choose the more obvious definition that scripture is based on agreed signs with which people can communicate, then Scripture is as old as human consciousness. « (Weiler 1994, p. 141)
Scripture of the Tisza culture (approx. 5300-5000, Kökenydomb, Hungary, after Marija Gimbutas 1996, p. 312)
»The ornaments on clay were the forerunners of the oldest picture-writing.
Soon the first scripture characters originated from this. « (Carel J. Du Ry 1977, p. 289)
What do we know about the genesis of Egypt’s Dynastic culture?
As good as nothing! Egyptologists have little interest in this time of change from matriarchy to patriarchy. They claim that the transition from prehistory to the dynastic period is a matter of course of inner development. Dynastic Egypt developed miraculously and rose from close to scratch, from prehistory »like the chick from the egg, provided with all potencies«, writes the known Egyptologist Emma Brunner-Traut (1987, p. 10). Teachers and learners researched, wrote and most often just copied treatises that primarily focused on the famous New Kingdom respectively the 18th/19th dynasty, while the research of the formation of the sudden appearance of the Dynastic culture was neglected and disregarded. Something alike happened in other segments of history. The interest of most antiquarian is stuck with the Greeks and the Romans, because they are said to be ›the cradle of our culture‹. The 3000 years before, the time of the so-called advanced civilizations (›High-Cultures‹), from which these younger civilizations emerged, are rarely mentioned and their influence not considered to them. This is left to the specialists, the archaeologists, the Ancient-Orientalists, the Sumerologists, Egyptologists, Iranologists and the Theologians of the Old Testament. In turn these specialists do not bother about the preceding time. But Human History does not begin with the so-called ›High-Cultures‹ and not with the Greeks or the Romans.
We have evidence of human life that attests to our existence as homo sapiens for at least two to three hundred thousand years, and in one way or the other, human life started about 2 million years ago or even earlier. But we don’t know much about the life in the Stone Age and hardly anything from everyday life in the Neolithic. From the Prehistory, the preliterate time before the so-called High Cultures, we could know much more, but regrettably it does not interest patriarchal scholars. So do Egyptologists, they prefer to leave Egyptian Prehistory in the dark; including the important time of transition, which changed obviously the world 5000 years ago.
»How should we understand the end if the beginning remains a secret?« (Bachofen)
The question is asked by Johann Jakob Bachofen (1815–1887) a Swiss antiquarian, jurist, philologist, anthropologist and professor for Roman law at the University of Basel. »He was the first one who held the position that there had been a phase in history of mankind when women were the predominating gender. He named this phase ›Mother Right‹ today we use the term ›Matriarchy‹ or ›Matriarchate‹. « (›Das Mutterrecht‹ 1961 www.myrine.at/Bachofen/bachofen_e.html)
The opus today applies rightly as the basis of modern matriarchy research. Bachofen brought to light what, neither then nor today, patriarchal men and women want to accept: The time before the so-called ›high‹ civilizations of the world was female: A form of society determined by mother law. In other words, women played the central role in society at that time. Matriarchs were the highest authority. They cared for the people as a mother cares for their children. The religious ideas went back to the veneration of the Primal mother or Great Goddess. People believed in rebirth through a mother of the blood-related matriarchal clan.
Bachofen and his work was subjected to violent challenges, rejected and misinterpreted. But he »fought for the acceptance of the matriarchy as historical fact. Like Don Quixote fighting windmills he struggled his whole life against the contemporary attitude that his theory of the Mother Right was nonsense. A critic of his time called his research ›higher rubbish‹. Unfounded criticism, lack of understanding and mockery hurt him very much but it didn’t stop him going his way consequently. He didn’t get any acknowledgment for his work during his lifetime, only some decades after his death has he got a partial rehabilitation following the discovery of remote cultures whose society was matriarchal. « (ibd.)
Bachofen’s assessment of the time of the matriarchy, which he calls ›gynecocracy‹, is peaceful and absolutely positive. He clearly differs and distances himself from the scientists of antiquity, who associated women with violence and unrest and therefore regarded the oppression and slavery of women as legitimate and rightful. However, his work later received positive attention from, among others, Friedrich Engels, Lewis Henry Morgan, August Bebel, Erich Fromm and C.G. Young.
Today, German-speaking science is still deeply steeped in patriarchal thinking, in fascist and Judeo-Christian ideology. The reason lies in the brutal past of fascism, war and the murder of Jews. In Germany »the experience of a cultural science instrumentalized by the National Socialists left its mark. The fear of statements that could have a political character led, especially in prehistoric and early historical disciplin, to a withdrawal to the mere collection of data. Theory became an avoided terrain. Accordingly, theoretical developments that have steered the archeology of English-speaking countries in completely new directions are received in this country with the greatest reluctance, if not even with blanket rejection. « (Reinhard Bernbeck ›Theorien in der Archäologie‹ 1997, p. 33 f) In addition, »the university structures in Germany are an obstacle to theoretical openness. « (ibid. p. 34)
Egyptology is a thoroughly patriarchal science:
The Elimination of Woman from Historiography
»How and why do the conventional definitions of power
(or knowledge, competence and authority) that we carry
around in our heads exclude women?« (Mary Beard)
Patriarchal male historians have eliminated women from historiography. Patriarchal historians like Yuval Noah Harari explain their view of human history to women, in which women do not appear (›A Brief History of Humankind‹). Female historians repeatedly point to the absence of the female sex in history books. Hilde Schmoelzer reports: »That the rich mother-centered cultural heritage, which had shaped the worldview of humankind for many thousands of years, has disappeared completely from our historical consciousness. The mother-centered cultural heritage is only rudimentarily detected in old fairy tales and myths and proves one thing above all: It was consciously and radically repressed by the male-patriarchal historiography because it stood in the way of their own claim to power. Therefore, the beginning of history is still placed in the time of the invention of the Scriptures, although numerous archaeological finds now prove that the history of man does not begin foremost with its writing. « (Schmoelzer 1990, p. 37) As the researcher Gerda Weiler stated: »Unfortunately, historiography does not offer us – as historian’s claim – a picture of reality. Even historians are people who look at the world from a certain point of view and thereby select the tradition, conceal facts, idealize or drag them into the dirt. Some history books may give the impression that on this globe there are only men, whose only purpose in life is war, men who mysteriously reproduce themselves in their sons, who again only live for power, war and conquest. Women do not appear in these books, which therefore tell less than half of reality. This raises the question of what distinguishes historiography from myth. « (Weiler 1989, p. 105)
»Women have been ignored as carriers of human history. «
(Julia Katharina Koch, archaeologist)
The French historian Michelle Perrot stated: »Since history has existed as a ›scientific‹ discipline, this means, about since the l9th century, the position the women took in it, was quite differing. It depended on the ideas of men who until yesterday were, so to speak, the only historians. In the second half of the l9th century, the theme of Matriarchy stipulated the anthropological discussion in Europe. Engels discussed the theses of Bachofen ›The Mother Right‹ and Lewis H. Morgan wrote the ›Origin of the Family‹ and subordinated the liberation of the woman to the change of ownership. « (1989, p.16) The peace researcher Riane Eisler quotes the American historian and philosopher of history, Henry Adams: »A historiography ›without understanding of the moving element of sex‹ is ›pure pedantry‹. To American historiography, he accused it of ›scarcely mentioning the name of a woman. « (Eisler 1987, p. 239) The researches of Carola Meier-Seethaler too paint a completely different picture of prehistory and early history than that which male historians constructed in the 19th and 20th centuries. She concludes: »As soon as the early historic periods are taken into consideration, patriarchy can no longer be regarded as the self-evident basis of human society. On the contrary, there are constantly augmenting clues of a coherent, matricentric cultural tradition spanning many millennia, from the Ice Age culture to the early civilization, which means nothing less than a profound change at the beginning of our present cultural base. « (1988, p. 21)
»Who controls the past controls the future. « (George Orwell)
Our history is the painful story of patriarchy. The first historians in Europe were Christian monks in the monasteries. They explored and wrote the history of patriarchy – how could it be otherwise – from a convinced Christian-male point of view. They interpreted the past accordingly, omitted the undesirable, redesigned and rewrote what did not fit into their picture. This interpretation of our history has been dogmatized and has been taught in churches at universities and in schools to this day. Patriarchal historians, especially clerics, determined not only our past, but also our present and our future. The manipulative intervention of the church and science becomes particularly clear when it comes to the history of women, the matriarchy and thus also the history of religion before the invention of the first male gods. History becomes brainwashed.
In 1976, Art Historian Merlin Stone, who explored the history of religion from a female perspective, wrote that her search for facts was incredibly complicated. She complains: »In the difficulties, I encountered gathering material; I could not help thinking of the ancient writing and statuary that must have been intentionally destroyed. Accounts of the antagonistic attitudes of Judaism, Christianity and Islam toward the sacred artifacts of the religions that preceded them revealed that this was so, especially in the case of the Goddess worshiped in Canaan (Palestine). The bloody massacres, the demolition of statuettes (i.e. pagan idols) and sanctuaries are recorded in the pages of the Bible following this command of Yahweh: ›You must destroy all the places where the nations you dispossess have served their gods, on high mountains, on hills, under any spreading tree. You must tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred poles, set fire to the carved images of their gods and wipe out their name from that place.‹ (Deut.12:2,3)« Following an equally hateful order, which Mohammed attributed to Allah,, in our time crazy, uncultivated barbarians, followers of IS, destroyed irretrievable treasures of antiquity; and thus our common heritage. Her book ›When God was a woman‹ hit a nerve, which thoroughly shook up the historiography and religious history.
We owe the Lithuanian-American archaeologist Marija Gimbutas the largest and most important contribution to enlightening the history of Eastern Europe before Patriarchy. With her interdisciplinary research, she opened our mind for the fascinating world of matriarchy. Her works ›The Language of the Goddess‹ (1989) and ›The Civilization of the Goddess‹ (1992) bear witness to the matriarchal cultures and their associated religion of the Goddess in Old Europe. Like Bachofen, she encounters great resistance and rejection of her work.
The Turning Point in Human History:
The Age of Metals when War comes into World
The end of the Neolithic – the early Bronze Age – brought a tremendous turn in world history; the beginning of the age of warlike patriarchy. It destroyed most of the thoroughly acquired cultural achievements of the prosperous, peaceful matriarchal era that spanned many thousand years. Archaeological excavations in the north of the Iranian highlands and in the Caucasus prove that the earliest extraction and processing of metal (e.g. copper and tin into bronze) began here. As early as the 6th millennium, copper ore was industrially smelted and forged into ingots, tools and the first weapons. A horde of cattle-breeder nomadic Indo-Europeans in the southern Russian steppes who had domesticated the horse and now began with the newly produced weapons and riding their horses to carry out the first raids on their neighbors. Successively, they moved forward and ended the peaceful era of agriculture from the Persian gulf (the Fertile Crescent) to Egypt. They were the cause of ›the first war in world history‹ (s. https://www.doriswolf.com/wp/neu-teil-3-der-erste-krieg-der-weltgeschichte/ )
Erich Fromm described the war as the most crucial experience in his life. »When the war ended in 1918, I was a deeply troubled young man who was obsessed by the question of how war was possible, by the wish to understand the irrationality of human mass behavior, by a passionate desire for peace and international understanding. « The claim that war was due to an innate aggression of men [the male] was sufficiently refuted by him and various other scientists. Also the presumption lacks any basis, that: »If civilized man is already afflicted by so many wars and such destructiveness, how much worse must the ›primitive› man have been, who was so far behind in his development towards progress?« (Fromm 1974, p. 193) The psychologist Erich Fromm corrects this untenable prejudice and clarifies it: »Prehistoric research has proved that the earliest humans were less de-constructive than the so-called further-evolved and the prototype man, as he appeared 50’000 years ago, was not the killer, which we encounter in the more advanced stages of evolution. « (Fromm 1974, p. 135).
»How did it happen that war itself became an integral part of civilization,
praised as the supreme expression of ›sovereign power‹?
As an institution, it destroyed the patient diligence of Neolithic culture«?
(Lewis Mumford, American historian and sociologist 1974, p. 249)
Based on her work, archaeologist Marija Gimbutas confirms: »Warfare and the construction of fortifications have indeed been part of the life of our ancestors from the Bronze Age to the present day. But not before, in the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods. « (›Die Zivilisation der Göttin‹ 1996, p. VIII) There is no single evidence for the repeated claim that armed conflicts were widespread even in the Neolithic or ›prehistoric› times.
Isn’t it absurd to call this epoch, which began 5500 years ago with the first wars in world history a ›high culture‹? Wars that have been going on ever since and become more and more cruel and perfidiously industrialized. Is it not completely crazy when we consider that during 98% of human history – before these last 5500 years – there had been no wars, as archaeologists have now unequivocally realized (see Doris Wolf 2019, p. 283) At the beginning of the so-called (Egyptian and Mesopotamian) ›High Cultures‹ whole populaces were exterminated, countries destroyed and the democratic coexistence was replaced by the despotic patriarchal rule, the kings of Dynastic Egypt.
Egyptology lacks a female view of history – not only concerning the historical, the written time – particularly striking is the lack of interest in the matriarchal; the non-written prehistory. It is regrettable that so far there are only traditional female Egyptologists, women who were educated and indoctrinated with the conservative patriarchal historiography of the patriarchal universities. As far as I know, there are no free thinking, independent, non-patriarchal Egyptologists. This affects the reception of women and the perception of their meaning and importance in ancient Egypt and Egyptology today. The importance of the role of women in Prehistory and throughout the time of Dynastic Egypt is even by women treated with caution, mostly denied, passed over or does not interest them at all.
Women and Prehistory seem to have not taken place for Egyptologists or – in their opinion – is neglectable, insignificant, or had no appreciable influence on later times and thus on the world today. Even feminine scholars contest the fact of the ruling matriarchal queens, or ignore their power who guaranteed peace and general prosperity before and partly in the dynastic period like Hatschepsut. The history of women is hardly researched and analyzed, not considered worth being mentioned. On the contrary, ignorant Egyptologists arrogantly suppose that the culture before the Pharaohs had been underdeveloped, chaotic, barbaric and primitive. The barefaced lies has repeatedly been conjured by patriarchal scientists and clerics. But: »Good legal order, prudence and peace formed the outstanding character trait of the states ruled by women«, writes J.J. Bachofen 1861. More than 150 years later, the jurist and historian Uwe Wesel confirms the legal order of the matriarchal primeval cultures:
»Age-old matriarchal cultures are anarchically ordered, segmental societies, without rule and without state, which in the true sense of the word were egalitarian, in which equality meant not only men but also women. In them women were even at the center of social order, through matrilinearity and matrifocality. « (Wesel 1990, p. 144)
The research of Egypt’s history essentially began with Napoleon’s campaign (1798–1801). The accompanying scientists and later Jean-François Champollion, who succeeded in deciphering the hieroglyphs in 1822, laid the foundation for scientific Egyptology. With that, the upper middle class of Europe became interested in the land on the Nile. A wave of enthusiasm for everything ancient Egyptian, Egyptomania, flourished. It was good manners to finance an excavation, to participate in it, or at least go on a trip to Egypt and bring home some art objects. Among the travel souvenirs were often mummies, which as a highlight at an evening party were unwrapped. Egyptology became an ›exotic orchid discipline‹ for upper-class sons. For most of them, it was just an amusement, a pastime to boast with. It was considered chic as ›gentlemen archaeologists‹ to undertake amateurish excavations. Belonging to the upper class they were used to servants and ›subordinates and it was a matter of course that hierarchy of the patriarchal type was normal; that there were people of higher and lower levels. The conceit of belonging to the ›elite‹ restricted the perception of the daily life of the Egyptian folk.
Modern research into the history of Egypt
Serious archeological research began with Flinders Petrie (1853–1942). As a boy he was taught mathematics and astronomical knowledge by his father, an industrial engineer, who laid the foundation for him as archaeologist and Egyptologist. Petrie started his work in 1880 and subsequently excavated many of the most important archaeological sites in Egypt in conjunction with his wife, Hilda Petrie, a geologist. Accurate, conscientious and thoroughly organized he trained women and men in scientific archeology – many of them became of the best archaeologists like Margaret Murray, Elise J. Baumgartel, Gertrude Caton-Thompson, Walter B. Emery, Howard Carter, etc. But what he needed were significant financial resources for the excavations. Fortunately, he met Amelia Edwards, founder of the Egypt Exploration Fund (EEF) in London in 1882. She promoted Petrie and became the financial sponsor for him and his crew: for the expenses of travels, accommodations and meals, payment of workers, photographers and draftsmen, for packaging and transport and finally for the publication of the results. The team was absolutely enthusiastic about the work, serious, pragmatic, believable, careful in documenting their findings and the preservation of artefacts. In addition, all of them were sober in assessing and interpreting and remained on the ground of the facts. Women, obviously were an enrichment for the scientific work. They broadened the perspective and contributed to an adequate, realistic and comprehensive worldview. Perhaps it was due to their presence why chauvinism, racism and sexism did not arise during this period. What utmost amazed them, they did not find any trace of war or violence in prehistoric time. But then, by excavating tombs of the later fourth millennium, in the period of Nagada II, the first depictions of massacres, human and animal sacrifices came to light.
The conquest of Egypt in the early Bronze Age
The scientists around Petrie agreed that this must have been the result of a martial assault of foreign people and they assumed that warlike hordes had come from an unknown area in the north, possibly the Transcaucasia or the Trans-Caspian regions and appeared in Egypt as the so called ›Shemsu-Hor‹. When Petrie found in small tombs complete skeletons in a crouched position, lying on their left side, and without grave goods and in the big mastabas outstretched skeletons, with ample equipment, he deduced a fundamental difference of tradition and belief, and postulated the arrival of a ›dynastic race‹ imposing their rule on the indigenous population and became the founders of Dynastic Egypt. (s. Margaret S. Drower 1985, p. 181) The prehistoric Egyptians, black African indigenes, were defeated, subjugated, enslaved, persecuted, overthrown and colonized by them. (see ›Black Natives – White Upper Class‹ Doris Wolf 1994, p. 87 f). Petrie’s theory was strongly supported in the first half of the 20th century, but with the emergence of fascism in Europe he lost mainstream support. (See below). Petrie’s theory was no longer supported, on the contrary, the Isolationists among the Egyptologists fiercely opposed the theory of the Diffusionists that the rulers of Egyptian dynastic might have been of foreign origin and that the social changes in Egypt were due to an invasion. (see Chapter 4 ›The hidden Tragedy of an Invasion from Eurasia‹) For example, the French archaeologist Beatrix Midant-Reynes held the opinion in 2013: »As strong as the Middle Eastern influences were in the Naqada II period, most Egyptologists agree that the emergence of the Egyptian state and culture can be seen as the result of internal developments. « (Spektrum.de 12/13/2013) Midant-Reynes goes on to say: »There is no archaeological evidence that this [the drastic upheaval that the author sees as inner development], was violent. « But the Narmer Palet proves the massace and Petrie’s convincing thesis could never be invalidated.
Even though Isolationists have no explication for the sudden upheaval, Egyptologists deny – until today – the conquest of Egypt 5000 years ago by white invaders. This invasion is – amongst many other indications – proved by the statues of the early ruling class and the brutality of the Narmer Palette.
An enlightening scientific work on the violent upheaval in the second half of the fourth millennium has been avoided, embellished or extenuated to this day or simply denied – the problem seems to be cleared out of the way. No one has yet dared to tackle this topic, which seems to be the most delicate and difficult to accept for Egyptologists. The denial of the facts leads to a forgery of Egyptian history, which caused all further adulteration. The magnificent glossy books they produced seduced and convinced themselves and misled the reader. Few authors had the perception or the courage to express themselves critically at least here and there in a cautious sentence. It seems, that heretics, free and independent, keen and critical thinkers are not tolerated in Egyptology.
The French prehistorian, Egyptologist, geologist and Near Eastern archaeologist Jacques de Morgan (1857–1924) had already 1926 drawn attention to the fact that the original Egyptians were African and spoke an African language, (Morgan: ›La préhistoire orientale – L’Egypte et l’Afrique du Nord‹; Volume II 1926, p. 337).
US Egxptologiyt J.H. Breasted (1865-1935) noted that the language structure in dynastic Egypt was »essentially ›Semitic‹ but still colored by the originally African language ›« (Breasted 1954 ›Geschichte Ägyptens‹ (History of Egypt), p, 28). E.A. Wallis Budge (1857-1934) found that a large number of monosyllabic words in the Egyptian language stem from one of the oldest African peoples in the Nile Valley. »These are words that express deep relationships, feelings and beliefs that are specifically African and foreign to any Semitic people. The original home of these people who invented these words lies far to the south of Egypt, and everything we know about predynastic Egypt indicates that it was in the Great Lakes region. « (Budge – ›Hieroglyphic Dictionary‹, 1978, 1, p. xviii)
A sudden Break: Indo-Europeans and Indo-Aryans in Egypt?
Flinder Petri’s thesis about the ›Dynastic Race‹, was supplemented by my own research about foreigners in Egypt (Indo-Europeans and Aryans) already in my first book (1994, pp 98–101) inter alia with Arian names and titles of the early upper class, which clearly indicate their origin and ethnicity. The topic from back then, I take up here again. In the encyclopedia of Egyptology (1975–1992), there is no contribution to the Aryans in Egypt, nothing. When I pointed out my finds in 1994, Thomas Schneider, a student of Eric Hornung at the University of Basel reacted – probably as ›his master’s voice‹ – with a defamatory campaign, a concentrated load of criticism and hatred in the press. »It is all charlatanism and fibs« he writes; ›just dreck‹! meant his master (Hornung). Schneider sneered: »Wherever the sequence ari (modernly mostly circumscribed iri) appears in the Egyptian vocabulary, Wolf sees (regardless of the Egyptian meaning) the word ›Aryan‹ and is surprised that no Egyptologist noticed this fact. So, ›ari/Aryans‹ is in Nefertari, the name of the wife of Ramses II., In the title Iri-pat ›prince‹, in the place name Auaris, in the divine name Osiris etc. With this ›method‹, in fact it would now be possible to determine explosive things. … Aryan relics would then also be found in words such as aria, Arisdorf, baritone, Catharine, malaria, stradivarius. « However, Schneider’s ridicule was completely inappropriate. William Foxwell Albright American archaeologists and T.O Lambdin philologist of ancient Near Eastern languages write:
»The analysis of personal names has proved to be a powerful tool for identifying various ethnic elements that constitute an otherwise homogeneous population. One of the most striking examples of this is the detection of Indo-Aryans in Syria and Palestine during the late Bronze Age. « (Albright) And he continues:
»Indoaryan personal names, reflecting a language closely akin to Vedic Sanskrit show up clearly in the fifteenth-century documents form Alalah IV and are attested in the south for approximately the same period in the Tanach Letters. The continued presence of these Indo-Europeans is well documented in the Amarna Letters of the fourteenth century, where they actually make up a majority of the non-Semitic rulers mentioned. « (W. F. Albright and T.O Lambdin ›The Cambridge Ancient History I‹ 1970, I, p. 128) Albright and Lambdin did not consider the possibility that Indo-Europeans and Aryans had invaded Egypt much earlier. Nobody did ever so far.
By expanding my own research I returned to the topic in the second book (see 2009 p. 103–107: ›Indo-Europeans in Egypt?). Again, I had found amazing issues. The Iranian linguist and researcher of Ancient Aryans, Jahanshah Derakhshani, contributed the most essential part among modern linguists. I quoted his findings in detail. He is a reliable scholar for my thesis. Language and Aryan research are important topics in order to shed light on the origins of the first white kings in connection with the transition from matriarchy to patriarchy. These facts run like a red thread through all my books and the articles on my homepage. It wasn’t until 2013 that Egyptologist Peter Raulwing touched on the Aryans in Egypt by writing an article on the death of the Indo-Europeanist Manfred Mayrhofer. (›Manfred Mayrhofer’s Studies on Indo-Aryan and the Indo-Aryans in the Ancient Near East: A Retrospective and Outlook on Future Research‹ 2013, p. 248–285) I mentioned Manfred Mayrhofer and Annelies Kammenhuber, to whom Raulwing refers, in 2009. Surprisingly, Raulwing does not know the work of Derakhshani, although he is of great importance for the research of the Aryan in Egypt. Incidentally, Manfred Mayrhofer had also paid attention to the Horites/Hurrians. They too are unknown to Egyptologists, although their presence is known as ›Shemsu-Hor‹ in Egypt, but have not yet been recognized by the Egyptologists as Horites/Hurrians.
Fascism in Egyptology – A long concealed part of history
In his book ›The Aryan Myth‹, French Historian Léon Poliakov describes the history of the inglorious mania of European scholars of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. These deluded scientists wanted to see in the early Aryans, the old-world civilizers, an Aryan military aristocracy of dominion men, who led the natives of the conquered territories into civilization through their ›enlightened dominance‹. The racist glorification of the Aryans by science ideologically prepared Hitler’s seizure of power. Himmler’s pathological esoteric delusion of seeing himself as the descendant of an Aryan master race made the N.S. pendants blind with respect to the atrocities that white conquerors had caused in the last 5500 years all over the world. Alike it was clear to the fascist sympathizer that -ö the ›greatest race‹ in world history was the Northern European or Aryan.
National Socialism in Germany had a tremendous impact on scholars of Egyptology from 1933 to 1945, but this topic had not been addressed until I wrote in 2009 about the hidden issue of the entanglement of Egyptology and the fate of Jewish Egyptologists (›Der Kampf gegen Weisheit und Macht der matriarchalen Urkultur Ägyptens‹ 2009, p. 177–181 ›Pharaonische Schreckensherrschaft und Faschismus‹ / Pharaonic Reign of Terror and Fascism). I mentioned there the Baltic Egyptologist Sergei Stadnikow, who published in 2007 his work where he gave numerous examples of like-minded German of the Hitler regime in Egyptology and ancient Near Eastern studies – but nobody noticed his work, Egyptologist preferred to stay silent about the subject.
The glorification of fascist, pharaonic despotism is unmistakable among many German Egyptologists of the 20th century. There were many enthusiastic followers of Hitler among them. The fact was well known to insiders; but talking about it was taboo. The cult of personality around the highly acclaimed exalted leader may have been an accurate model for fascist Egyptologists to consider and glorify the megalomaniac pharaohs as ideal; even to mystify the idolized dictators. »For the first time in their history, people saw the high notion of an outstanding personality and a personal bearer of power embodied in Pharaoh, and so this thought became an active force. First among thinking men of small circles and finally among all people«, writes J. H. Breasted, a friend of Hitlers fascism, in his book ›The Birth of Conscience‹ (1933, p. 56), which should rather be called ›The End of Cconscience‹.
At the beginning of the Egyptian dynasties, one of the most important propaganda campaigns of the conquerors was the invention of the divinity of the Egyptian king. Patriarchal ideology excessively raised the king to a God.
Toby Wilkinson confirms: »Perhaps the most powerful and pervasive ideology in the ancient Egyptian culture was the ideology of divine kingship: the belief that the king was the earthly incarnation of the supreme deity, a channel of communication between the divine and human spheres and the unifying force that held Egypt together, without whom chaos would ensue. Such an ideology obviously suited the system of government since it ensured strong support for the status quo and made any return to the political fragmentation of the Predynastic period unthinkable. « (Wilkinson (1999, p. xiv).
The Aryan priesthoods of the various centers began to invent myths to propagate and spread the claim to power of the ‚chieftain‘ conquerors. The propaganda is enthusiastically adopted by the Egyptologist Hellmut Brunner, an ardent supporter of National Socialism, he writes :
»The King as the Son of God is in charge of the proper implementation of the cult,
as well as the adequate supply of the people, for a just jurisdiction,
such as the ›extension of the borders. « (H. Brunner 1989, p. 67)
Brunner claims: »Here only to an European of the 20th century words like ›imperialism‹ or even ›colonialism‹ come to mind. But in Egypt, which was excluded from the chaos by God at the creation and provided with the fertile Nile, ›created‹ for the sake of the people, every act which wrests another piece from the chaos and adds to the order, is a continuation of the creation. « (›Altägyptische Religion‹ 1989, p. 67) ›Pharaoh‹ and ›Leader‹ (Führer) became interchangeable sizes. Both appear with the claim to divinity; Pharaoh is the ›Son of God‹ and Hitler the ›Anointed‹, the ›Messiah‹ and their common attribute is their lust for power and merciless brutality, racism, and their disdain of women. A tricky chapter.
Among Egyptologists was and still is a remarkable number of religious men, Catholic and Protestant theologians and their successors, including fascists. They were fascinated and attracted to the new religion that Indo-Germanic/Aryan priests created in the 3000 years of Dynastic Egypt. One of them was the Egyptologist, Theologian and Religious historian, Siegfried Morenz (1914–1970). He was part of the Nazi effort for the ›De-Judaizing‹ of the New Testament and Christianity‹ … and he was known for his »hostility to Hebrew Scripture and Rabbinic Judaism« (Edmund S. Meltzer ›Egyptologists, Nazism and Racial ›Science‹ 2013, p. 7). Theologians and historians of religion find the actually impressive parallels between the then and the present-day patriarchal religions. The priests of the conquerors invented the first male gods and first only for the king, an eternal life in a mysterious ›hereafter‹. Of course, not a devout Christian and not the patriarchal church is interested in revealing the primeval existence of a Great Goddess and the absence of any male god 5000 years ago The unveiling of this historical fact had to be avoided under all circumstances. The universities dominated by the Christian churches are still vigilant to ensure that this fact does not appear in any curriculum and that no ›unbeliever‹, who rejects Christian teaching is given a chair. What would become of the believers of the patriarchal religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam if they had to learn that this important truth had been withheld from them, that they had been betrayed all the time?
The German Nazi Christians wanted to ›cleanse‹ Germany from the hated German Jews; so leading Jewish Egyptologists fell victim to the brutal ›extermination policy‹. Jewish scholars were deposed, persecuted and forced to flee abroad. In the ›Reich‹, all important posts at German universities, got occupied by National Socialists. For example, Günther Roeder, known for his patriarchal-fascist stance, was director of the reopened Egyptian Museum Berlin from 1940 to 1945 under the responsibility of Hermann Göring. Bernhard von Bothmer, who worked at the Egyptian Museum in Berlin from 1932 to 1939, paid for his anti-fascist stance against National Socialism by losing his job and his homeland. In his obituary we read: »His open opposition to National Socialism, which also gained a foothold at the Egyptian Museum, prompted him to leave his homeland in 1939« (ZÄS 1994). The Jewish Egyptologist Georg Steindorff emigrated to America in 1939 after losing his professorship in Leipzig already 1934. He complained that only a few had opposed the fascist trend and had proven themselves to be »men of honor«. Hans Bonnet and Alexander Scharff survived their courageous attitude against fascism unscathed and without negative consequences.
Nazi Egyptologists, before and then, especially during the Nazi dictatorship, have rewritten, falsified and embellished the 3000 years of the dynastic dictatorship of Egypt, in the spirit of the fascist ideology. A lie story of deliberate delusions, of romanticizing irrationalities, of racist romanticism and pathos was written. The tight Nazis applauded the brutal conquests of the leader, justifying the atrocities of the SS and proceeding equally with the history of the Egyptian kingship. After World War II many old Nazis and their descendants remained in office and dignity and continued – without shame and without being prevented – to pass the poisoned ideology, to the next generation. Egyptologist Walter Wolf (1900-1973) »who had signed the ›Confession of German Professors to Adolf Hitler‹ in November 1933, was appointed associate professor when Georg Steindorff retired in 1934. When he lectured at the university, he appeared in SS uniform. After the war »in 1949 he became a visiting professor in Muenster, where he set up an Egyptological seminar. There he was from 1959 to 1969 full professor. (Wikipedia ›Walter Wolf‹) Keith C. Seele (Chicago) wrote to Georg Steindorff in a letter in January 1950: It is known to everyone »that almost all Nazis today act as if nothing had happened and even pretend to be innocent choirboys. « (Schneider 2013, p.181 f)
Little had changed in the minds of new generations of Egyptologists since. The denial, veiling, falsification, trivialization, glossing over and justification of fascism in Egyptologie went on. Until the publication of my second book in 2009 which included some research of these theme. Nobody no mayor (and no minor) Egyptologist had been interested in this awful fascist issue, nobody had ever mentioned or published anything about this disgraceful matter. In 2013 US-Egyptologist Edmund S. Meltzer confirmed: »Egyptologists have only recently begun to reflect in a focused, systematic and coherent way on the consequences and implications of ideology for the study of ancient Egypt and the understanding of our own discipline. That in itself is the result of a Kuhnian Shift (value change). This has gone along with an approach in which inquiry in Egyptology (or any analogous field) has become more integrated with the social sciences and critical theory. A beginning has been made in pursuing analyses using perspectives as feminist scholarship and gender studies, class analysis, multidisciplinary social-scientific approaches, and queer theory. « (Meltzer 2013, p. 2) In his article E. S. Meltzer praises of what Schneider had accused me as charlatanism in 1994: the feminist scholarship. So far and after more than 30 years of researching Egyptology, I have been unable to find a single critical or feminist study of either male or female Egyptologist. To uncover the dark side of Egyptology, most men lack the courage, dismay and empathy for human suffering, whether for the peoples under the Pharaohs, or the Jews under the Nazi regime nor the black people in the US.
As E. S. Meltzer had pointed out, it was only in 2013, that the unpopular topic was, at last, for the first time, approached by Thomas Schneider and Peter Raulwing co-authors and co-editors of ›Egyptology from the First World War to the Third Reich‹. Never before Schneider had shown any interest in this delicate side of German history. He and everyone else was afraid that the research and publication of this criminal part of history could damage the reputation of German Egyptology and – could be denounced as nest pollution. Nobody wanted to risk damaging his or her own career by acting as a ›whistle blower‹. Caution was advised! In addition, there are probably still some living Old-Nazis among teachers with whom their students are loyal or indebted. And there are still followers among the younger generations who sympathize with the Nazi ideology. Therefore, neither Schneider nor anyone else saw any compelling reason to reopen the ›old story‹.
Schneider gathered and published authors and material on the topic, surprisingly under an English book title but without translation of his part. His contribution: ›Ägyptologen im Dritten Reich: Biografische Notizen anhand der sogenannten ›Steindorff Liste‹ (‹Egyptologists in the Third Reich; Biographical notes based on the so-called ›Steindorff List‹).
It is, as he says, a stocktaking, ›an inventory‹ of archived material, i.e. just a collection of data, the work of a clerk. He, himself, abstains from any analysis of the social and political effects that Nazi Ideology had on the Egyptology in Germany until this day. In the preface with Petr Raulwing they write: »The publication of this book comes at a propitious time when research in the history of Egyptology in the first half of the twentieth century, long neglected, receives for the first time the attention it deserves. « ›Steindorff List‹. Schneider cannot be proud of his late interest, nor of attacking me and my work in 2009. (The present book is the translation of the major part of my book published in 2009). Why didn’t he deal with the subject already then? In these past years he has contributed nothing to the clarification of the history of Egyptology in the Third Reich. Nonetheless, at the end, he obviously hopes for leniency, if not for applause, with the words: »I hope with this first biographical inventory of German-speaking Egyptology during National Socialism to have shown, how important biographical research is for understanding specialist and institutional developments in Egyptology. Moreover, how conversely Egyptology can contribute to the debate about the humanities during the Third Reich. In addition to reviewing other archives, the further biographical research especially the discovery of legacies is significant in which there are involved correspondences between the scientists. At the same time, a comprehensive assessment of the extent of reception or rejection of within the specialist discourse, but also beyond the university discipline, the ambivalent examine the position of ancient Egypt within the National Socialist world view. « (Prologue Thomas Schneider, Peter Raulwing). Pious wishes! Thomas Schneider himself does not meet this requirement. The approach of Schneider and Raulwing was selective and scary. It is particularly offensive that the German historian and Head of the Research Department of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC, Jürgen Matthäus, had to point out that in fact, Schneider did not mention – whether by ignorance or on purpose, is not known – Otto Rössler, one of the worst Nazi. Rössler (1907–1991 was an Egyptologist, ancient Orientalist and Africanist. His work was »organizationally and conceptually directly related to the National Socialist extermination policy« (Jürgen Matthäus). In 1940 Rössler was at the University of Tuebingen where in 1941 was habilitated. »Until the end of the war, he worked mostly for the ›SS-Genealogy‹, the Nazi propaganda ministry and the security service of the SS-Reich-leader. In 1941/42, he was listed in the ›Reich Security Main Office‹, in which the ›Jews research‹ had to support the ›executive solution‹ of the Jewish question ›through in-depth knowledge‹. « (›Otto Rössler‹ Wikipedia) »After his release from captivity and his denazification (sic!), he became an extraordinary professor at the University of Tuebingen in 1954. In 1964 he was appointed full professor at the newly founded seminary for the University of Marburg, where he stayed until his retirement in 1975. « (Wikipedia) Thanks to his position he had the opportunity to spread his contaminated views to the young Generation of Egyptologist. At the University of Tuebingen he is apparently almost concealed today.
Schneider does not bother about the influence of the Nazi Egyptologists on later Egyptology and how the fascist virus of antisemitism, sexism and racism and how romanticizing the nationalist transfiguration of the pharaohs subsequently distorted the history of Egyptology.
Schneider and Raulwing seek recognition for their work by writing: »The editors and authors of this volume express their hope that their studies help to understand the interplay of academe and politics and the profile of scholarly biographies between 1914 and 1945. « The two authors do not meet their own requirement »to reflect in a focused, systematic and coherent way in the consequences and implications of ideology for the study of ancient Egypt and the understanding of their own discipline.
The influence of enthusiasm for European fascism in the 20th century on the historiography of ancient Egypt can only be surmised for the time being; it has never been worked up; also not by Schneider at all. The work of many modern Egyptologists their glorification of the greatness of the pharaohs and the approval of their despotism cannot be overlooked. The highly acclaimed leader of the National Socialist world view, the hubris and personality cult, the warmongering, the centralized totalitarian government, the ideology of a master race, the religious bigotry, the glorified policy of domination and of war, the brutal oppression of the folk, the aggressive conquest and robbery of foreign territory, the devaluation of woman, the persecution and extermination of different-believers (the venerators of the Goddess) in Egypt may have been models for scholars to regard the pharaohs as an ideal and to glorify them.
Fascist Egyptology goes West – to the USA
The American Egyptologist and Historian James Henry Breasted (1865-1935) had completed his studies in Egyptology in Berlin and by returning to the University of Chicago spread his fascist and racist convictions as a teacher and in many books, some of them became Bestsellers. Breasted raved about the superiority of the white race, conducted, among other things also ›Racial Studies‹ and had a huge impact on racism in the United States. He was proud to state that the upper class of Egypt belonged to the »Great White Race« (sic!). When Breasted’s Fascist ideology spilled over into the the United States, American racists were all too happy to find a well-known and famous scientist in Breasted who, with his fascist ideology, propagated the correctness and justification of their racial hatred against the blacks and acquitted them of all ethical responsibility and morality. Thereby, the crime against humanity became socially acceptable.
Racial hatred destroys people and land
and not only affects the black population, but also the whites.
Banksys’ work after the murdering of George Floyd of. 25.5.2020
For Breasted, the Egyptian despotism among the pharaohs was the model of a ›civilized‹ state. He claimed that the »Great White Race« brought the »uncivilized« people, the »blessing of civilization«. He »was a prolific writer of popularizing books on the ancient Near East«, says Egyptologist Lindsay J. Ambridge, the courageous analyst and author of ›Imperialism and Racial Geography‹ in James Henry Breasted: ›Ancient Time, a History of the Early World‹. Her observation about his books is crucial, she writes:
»Particularly those written for a popular audience, have found little critical examination in the Egyptological literature, yet they are of essential importance to understanding the dissemination of historical knowledge into the public consciousness. « (Lindsay J. Ambridge 1994/2013, p. 12,13)
In the high school textbook ›Ancient Times, A History of the Early World‹ appearing in 1916 and revised in 1935 »delineating the racial categories of ancient peoples, Breasted puts forward conclusions about race and the origins of civilized society that are tremendously discordant with modern discourse – views that have since been declared as deeply ethnocentric at best … It is argued that in order to grasp the implications of his racial categorizations, they must be understood in conjunction with his perception of warfare and imperialism…« What is the meaning of: »sometimes justification for, colonial expansion; militarism; industrialization; and the perceived cultural superiority of those cultures which possess and transmit the hallmarks of ›civilization‹. « (Ambridge 1994, p. 13,14) With fascist racial teaching, Breasted not only justified imperialism and colonization of foreign territories by western governments but also anti-Semitism and racism. Egyptologist Lindsay J. Ambridge and her critical analysis of the American Egyptologist and Historian James Henry Breasted and the consequences of his racist thinking is the best contribution for the enlightening of Egyptology and its harmful effect on racism in the US. Breasted raved about the superiority of the white race, conducted, among other things also ›Racial Studies‹ and had a huge impact on racism in the United States. Thereby, the megalomania and racial madness was scientifically supported and justified. His »pseudo-scientific« prejudices supported the impact, acceptance and institutionalization of racism in USA.
Fascism and the Sanctification of Despotism
It is a fatal mistake to take the literary phrases, that glorify the despotic pharaohs and to declare them as sacrosanct. The artistic representations of the idealized rulers seduced to see them as civilized aesthetes. But they simply exploited the extraordinary artistry of the indigenous people in order to put themselves and their ›heroic deeds‹ – in the best light and to perpetuate themselves. »Characteristic of the ruling caste of the various heroic ages – according to the English historian H. Munro Chadwick – ›essentially barbaric periods‹ – is that it thirsted for fame, glorified the heroic deeds of individuals, depicted their bodily forces excessively and exaggeratedly and super-elevated them to ›god-like beings‹. « (Sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer (1959, p. 153)
»One of the most significant features of scientific literature in the era of National Socialism was the strong preference for exaggerated words and hollow phrases …, which were deprived from sharpness and clarity«, (Alfred Hueck, German jurist, SBAW 1947, p. 3).
Egyptologist and curator of the British Museum T. G. H. James (1923–2009) assures that the Egyptologist always cautiously responds to the verbiage and boasting of the royal inscriptions, but he concludes that one must »nevertheless grant them some credibility, otherwise the entire building of Egyptian history would have to be considered as a sophisticated lie, which was passed on for centuries by master swindlers. « (James 1988, p. 23 f.) Unfortunately, many historians prone to even exagerate and glorify the mesh of lies and deceptions.
Wilfried Seipel describes pharaoh as a »divine-human double being« – a bit like Jesus. Pharaoh is hyped up to an epitome of the ›God-man‹ even if one of his titles was ›the butcher‹ (Sethe, ZÄS 1911, p. 33). Pierre Montet claims that one knows many cases »in which the king behaved to his subjects like a fellowman gifted with reason and sensitivity«. When the »king, for the sake of a priest, overruled the law, which punished the one with death, who touched royal insignia, or that an old courtier was allowed to kiss the foot of the king during the audience, although ceremonial otherwise required that one touches the ground with the lips in front of the king«. (Montet 1975, p. 114) Art historian Henri Stierlin enthuses: »The Old Kingdom embodies something like the youthful phase of Egyptian culture: A phase of exuberance and enthusiasm, in which the unused forces foam over and discover ever more grandiose possibilities through the use of the entire Nile valley population to realize colossal works. « (1988, p. 29). At Bonhême and Forgeau it is said: »Even the king’s striding spreads waves of sacred energy, so that the hymn that welcomes his appearance warns against this magical aura: Watch out, earth, the king is coming«. (Marie-Ange Bonhême / Annie Forgeau 1991, p. 281) Waves of this ›charisma‹ may well have caught the author of the jubilation propaganda badly, who writes: »The poetic overture of the early days of the Old Kingdom is followed by a poignant, at first passionate, and then earnestly serious, but then rejoicing in limitless enjoyment of life. Finally music of the greatest period of Egyptian history, which, according to the tombs of its kings, we call ›the pyramidal period‹. « (H. Ranke, epilogue in James Henry Breasted 1954, p. 355). Emma Brunner-Traut fantasizes: »He must have been of supernatural origin. Celestial geniuses are said to have already surrounded the newborn, and even in his crown should have dwelled heavenly life, the royal beard was for itself a deity«. (1987, p. 17) At Brunner-Traut’s »subtly thought out doctrine« it is additionally outdone: »This is what the king’s dogma wants, so myths and legends eulogize the high-born head, and hymns extoll the king’s magnificence. « (Brunner-Traut, 1987, p. 17) It seems that neither the pharaohs themselves nor the Egyptologists endured the idea of the ordinary and earthly origin of the king. The Egyptologist Pierre Montet enthuses that a »being as extraordinary as the pharaoh was not allowed to see the light of day like any other child. This is how the elaborate theological doctrine of the divine birth of the king emerged« (Montet 1975, p. 66). Christian theologians adopted the idea for the legend of the ›virgin‹ birth of Jesus.
»The fact that modern historians ignore all evidence shows how necessary civilized man
had to suppress the evil memory in order to preserve his self-esteem as a rational being,
this life-saving illusion. « (Lewis Mumford)
Adolf Erman, however, sees reality quite differently. He pointed out, »that the cheerless state conditions in ancient Egypt have existed at all times. The inscriptions try to convey to us the image of a ›true ideal empire‹ in which a ›divine› ruler ›fatherly cared for his country‹, who therefore had been loved and praised by his subjects. Nevertheless, appearances are deceiving, for hidden behind the beautiful words were fatal circumstances. « (Erman 1923/1984, p. 57). But, this kind of critical distance is extremely rare.
Egyptologist Peter Kaplony once remarked scoffingly in front of his auditorium in Zurich that »most of what the Egyptologists said was pure speculation; the scholars were trying to mask the nakedness of ignorance by pretending that they knew much more. Sometimes the authority of a scholar is so great that one believes him, even though he only speculates!« Here it proves true, what Marcus Tullius Cicero once said: »Teacher’s authority often harms those who want to learn. « On the occasion of the International Egyptologists Conference in 1997, it was complained that the reputation of Egyptology was drastically dwindling. Who wonders? From one generation to the other, the once established, glossed over theories are assumed and made into untouchable, well-known ›facts› through constant repetition. In addition, the acceptance of disciplinary boundaries and persons entitled to define seems to be common among scientists. There is a tacit agreement not to get in each other’s way.
This practice is particularly hindering scientific progress and promotes the cementing of popular errors. In addition, there is actually a censorship. Outsiders, who discover deceptions and drag rotten pillars under beautiful theoretical buildings, must reckon with evil attacks, malice and above all the charge of being ›unscientific‹. Many scientists are only concerned with knowledge control and knowledge regulation.
»The abundance of pseudo arguments seldom gives readers and viewers
the opportunity to make their own judgments. « (Walter Torbrügge)
Is Patriarchy an Advancement in Humanity?
»History is generally understood as an evolutionary advancement from the backwardness of Stone Age humans to the sophistication of the moderns. The anthropologist Marshall Sahlins (Stone Age Economics, 1972) challenges this view, arguing that Stone Age communities were, in fact, the ›original affluent society‹, in that they had more than sufficient means to meet their modest needs. So-called primitive societies should not be understood as failed attempts at being civilized; rather they should be understood for their incredible adaptive abilities to learn how best to prevail, in any given place and time, through the co-creation of a cultural way of being. Based on how fruitfully primitives lived, civilized societies have much to learn from them about the importance of nurturing community culture in preference over individualism and economic advancement. « (Cormac Russell, author of ›Looking back to look forward‹ 2015)
Although historians may have endeavored to provide unprejudiced information on all aspects of world affairs, the historiography is largely based on very one-sided hagiographies. All too often, the historians’ desire is noticeable, to uphold the dogmatic patriarchal ›ever-so-myths›, to oversee and downplay aggressive expansionism, narcissistic self-exaggeration, delusions of grandeur, sadism, thirst for power and glory, brutality, corruption, unscrupulousness and court them by pathetic phrases.
This kind of patriarchal historiography overrides the pathological inhumanity of the powerful rulers and states that tyranny is lawful. The legitimacy for this is that the historians and religious authorities refer to a patriarchal god created by them, who is said to have given orders to men, – to subdue ›the world‹ – everything that is not male, white and powerful, the women, children, the weak, the ›Not-Whites‹, the animals and nature. In addition, of course, they put their god to the beginning of all times, and he ›always had been‹ there.
Because of our ignorance, respectively our lack or wrong education, we feel helpless in front of this kind of written scientific history. We cannot recognize distortions and deformations, the lies, the exploitation of people and nature and the manipulations as such and with this how can we change anything in this world plagued by war, misery, distress, poverty and injustice? The majority of people still believe in this faked ›history‹. How can we know that it was completely different?
»The increasing archaeological evidence of the matriarchal origin of our society
calls for a drastic rewriting of the history of humankind. « (Elizabeth Gould Davis)
To be followed soon