CHAPTER 1 Outrageous Patriarchal historiography: This is what Historians are Concealing
From the content:
– Questionable Patriarchal Historiography –
What is concealed by Historians and 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
– Modern research into the history of Egypt
– The conquest of Egypt in the Early Bronze Age
– A sudden Break: Indo-Europeans and Indo-Aryans in Egypt?
– The Influence of Fascism on Egyptology in Germany and the U.S.
A long concealed Part of History
– Fascist Egyptology goes West
– Fascism and the Sanctification of Despotism
– Patriarchy does not represent an Advancement in Humanity
Questionable Patriarchal Historiography:
What is concealed by Historians and What do we Really Know?
Beyond doubt Egyptian history has a fascinating power of attraction. 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 flourished, leading to Egyptomania. 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 served as a highlight at an evening party, when they 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 their perception of the daily life of the Egyptian folk.
The worldwide interest of its historians, the egyptologists, generally focuses on the famous Dynastic Egyptian. How the amazing, sudden change from prehistory into this so-called High Culture actually took place is of no interest to scholars and enthusiasts.
Reasons for this could be the fact that pre-historic times were matriarchal and that knowledge of this form of social life is of no interest or considered irrelavant by scholars of today’s patriarchal times, Only very few are knowledgeable about this long period when matriarchal queens and wise women presided over clans and countries. During these times people lived in peace and in prosperity. The succession was matrilineal, all children lived in the mother’s blood clan for life. There was no ›marriage‹, which means women did not live together in the same house with their lovers; fathers were ›unknown‹, not important and not relevant for/of the system. During millennia before the pharaohs, the arts and crafts were flourishing, much time and space was dedicated to their practice. Indigenous women and men were extraordinarily creative and innovative, they developed and cultivated a high form of symbolism.
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). Archaeological finds from between the 7th millennium to the end of the 4th millennium give evidence of an advanced culture, a high intellectual level and a rich artisanship and creativity of matriarchal people including also the invention of writing. But: »Scripture didn’t create civilization«, archaeologist 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 symbolism. The masterful creativity of the matriarchal period created a comprehensive symbol system. From this, the archaic script and the first alphabets developed in Neolithic times. 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 ›The civilization of the Goddess‹ 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 script‹ is an event, which occurs only relatively late in the history of humanity. Script – in the patriarchal understanding – is often defined by its ›utility value‹ … But if we choose the more obvious definition that script is based on agreed signs with which people can communicate, then writing is as old as human consciousness. « (Weiler 1994, p. 141)
»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?
Close to 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 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 egyptologist Emma Brunner-Traut (1987, p. 10). Teachers and learners researched, wrote and most often just copied treaties that primarily focused on the famous New Kingdom, respectively the 18th/19th dynasty, while research on the formation of the sudden appearance of dynastic culture was neglected and disregarded. Something similar happened in other segments of history. The interest of most antiquarians remains within 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 is not worth any consideration by them. This is left to the specialists, the archaeologists, the ancient-orientalists, the sumerologists, egyptologists, iranologists and the theologians of the Old and the New Testament. In turn, these specialists do not bother about the preceding time. But human history does not begin with so-called ›High-Cultures‹, nor with the Greeks or the Romans.
We have evidence of human life that attests to our existence as homo sapiens for at least three hundred thousand years, and in one way or the other, human life started about two 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 prehistory, the preliterate time, before so-called High Cultures, we could know much more, but regrettably, this earlier time period does not interest patriarchal scholars. This applies also to egyptologists, they prefer to leave Egyptian prehistory in the dark; including the important time of transition, which obviously changed the world 5000 years ago.
»How should we understand the end if the beginning remains a secret? « (J. J. Bachofen)
The question is asked by Johann Jakob Bachofen (1815–1887), an open-minded 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 in German language) ›Matriarchat‹. « (see ›Das Mutterrecht‹ The mother law 1861). Patriarchy, especially patriarchal religions, have very successfully erased the memory of this long-gone era from our minds; we have been brainwashed into believing false stories. However, the fight against memory flares up time and again in the Bible, patriarchy’s book of history and legends, e.g. in the fight against Yahweh’s early wife, the goddess Astarte (s. ›Das Matriarchat in Israel‹ The Matriarchy in Israel)
Since Bachofen, no historian, no prehistorian and no cleric has made matriarchy and the once venerated Great Goddess a topic; this is conspicuously and deliberately avoided. Today, Bachofen’s opus may rightfully be considered to be the basis of modern matriarchy research. Bachofen brought to light what, neither back then nor today, patriarchal men and women want to accept: During the times before the so-called ›high‹ civilizations, the world was female: , in form of a society determined by the mother law. In other words, women played the central role in society at that time. Matriarchs were the highest authority. They cared in maternal ways for their people, much as a mother cares for her children. Their religious ideas went back to the veneration of the Primal Mother or the Great Goddess. People believed in rebirth, probably through a mother of the blood-related matriarchal clan.
Bachofen and his work was subjected to violent challenges, it was rejected and misinterpreted. But he »fought for the acceptance of the matriarchy as a 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 from going his way consequently. He didn’t get any acknowledgment for his work during his lifetime, only some decades after his death he got a partial rehabilitation following the discovery of remote cultures whose society were matriarchal. « (ibid.)
Bachofen’s assessment of the time of 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 who therefore regarded oppression and slavery of women as legitimate and rightful. However, later on, his work received positive attention from, among others, Friedrich Engels, Lewis Henry Morgan, August Bebel, Erich Fromm and C.G. Jung.
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 Cultural Studies was instrumentalized by the National Socialists and left its mark. The fear of statements that could have a political character led, especially in prehistoric and early historical disciplines, to a withdrawal, and to the mere collection of data. Theory became an avoided terrain. Accordingly, theoretical developments that have steered the archaeology of English-speaking countries in completely new directions are received in this country with the greatest reluctance, if not even with blank rejection. « (Reinhard Bernbeck ›Theorien in der Archäologie‹ 1997, p. 33 f Theories in Archaeology) In addition, »the university structures in Germany are an obstacle to theoretical openness. « (ibid. p. 34)
The Elimination of Women 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, like Yuval Noah Harari, explain their view of human history, in which women do not appear. (›A Brief History of Humankind‹) Harari appears not to have had a mother. He dedicates his book not to his parents, but to his father.
Patriarchal historians have eliminated women from historiography. Female historians repeatedly point to the absence of the female sex in their historical works. As 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; therefore these books only tell us less than half of reality. This raises the question of what distinguishes historiography from myth. « (Weiler 1989, p. 105) Hilde Schmoelzer reports: » (…) 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)
»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, i.e. approximately since the l9th century, women’s position in it varied. It depended on the ideas of men who were until yesterday, so to speak, the only historians. In the second half of the l9th century, the theme of matriarchy dominated the anthropological discussion in Europe. Engels discussed the theses of Bachofen ›The Mother Right/Law‹, Lewis H. Morgan wrote the ›Origin of the Family‹ and subordinated the liberation of women to the change of ownership. « (Perrot 1989, p.16) The peace researcher Riane Eisler quotes american historian and philosopher of history, Henry Adams: »A historiography ›without an understanding of the moving element of gender is ›pure pedantry‹. He accused American historiography, of ›scarcely mentioning the name of a woman. « (Eisler 1987, p. 239) The research of Carola Meier-Seethaler also paints a completely different picture of prehistory and early history from the ones male historians constructed in the 19th and 20th centuries. She concludes: »As soon as the early, prehistoric periods are taken into consideration, patriarchy can no longer be regarded as the self-evident basis of human society. On the contrary, there is steadily increasing evidence of a coherent, matricentric cultural tradition spanning many millennia, from the Ice Age culture to the early civilizations, which means nothing less than a profound change at the beginning of our present culture. « (1988, p. 21
»Who controls the past controls the future. « (George Orwell)
Our history is the painful narrative of patriarchy. The first historians in Europe were Christian monks in monasteries. They explored and wrote the history of– how could it be otherwise – from a firm Christian and male point of view. They interpreted the past accordingly, censored and 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 very 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, and matriarchy and especially, when we consider the history of religion before the invention of the first male gods. Our original history was profoundly altered and religious- minded people were brainwashed without their knowledge.
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. Stone’s book ›When God was a woman – The landmark exploration of the ancient worship of the Great Goddess and the eventual suppression of women’s rites‹ hit a nerve, which thoroughly shook up historiography and religious history.
We owe 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 minds to the fascinating world of matriarchy. Her works ›The Language of the Goddess – Unearthing the Hidden Symbols of Western Civilization‹ (1989) and ›The Civilization of the Goddess – The world of Old Europe‹ 1991) bear witness to the matriarchal cultures and their associated religion of the Goddess in Old Europe. Like Bachofen, she encountered great resistance and rejection of her work.
The Turning Point in Human History:
With the Age of Metals War comes into the 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 thousands of 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-breeders, nomadic Indo-Europeans from the southern Russian steppes who had domesticated the horse began, with the newly produced weapons, to carry out the first raids, on their neighbors, riding their horses. Successively, they moved forward, from the Persian Gulf (the Fertile Crescent) to Egypt thus, the peaceful era of agriculture came to an end. They were the cause of ›the first war in world history‹ (s. Wolf ›Der erste Krieg der Weltgeschichte‹ The first war in world history). Erich Fromm described war as the most crucial experience of 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 following presumption lacks any basis: »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) 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. «
This effectively means, wars will exist as long as patriarchy exists. However, this also means: We first have to overcome patriarchy and its ideology of brutal warrior mentality; only then peace will return to the world. There is no need to invent a new ’system of peace‘. Since humanity lived for 98% of its history in peace, we do in fact have a long experience with it. What we have to do is, to remember peace and practice it.
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, The Civilization of the Goddess – The world of Old Europe 1991) 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 5500–5000 years ago, with the first wars in world history, a ›high culture‹? Wars have been going on since then and they become increasingly cruel and perfidiously industrialized. Is this not completely crazy, especially in light of the fact 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 annihilated, countries destroyed and the previous democratic coexistence was replaced by 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 at patriarchal universities, where they are inculcated with the conservative, patriarchal historiography. As far as I know, there are no free thinking, independent, non-patriarchal egyptologists. This unfortunate situation affects the reception of women and the perception of their significance in ancient Egypt and Egyptology today. The importance of the role of women in prehistory and throughout the time of Dynastic Egypt is treated with caution, even amongst women, it is mostly denied, passed over or of no interest to 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 ruling matriarchal queens, ignore their power, although they were the ones who guaranteed peace and general prosperity, before and partly during the dynastic period as the example of the often disavowed queen Hatschepsut shows. 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 have repeatedly been conjured up by patriarchal scientists and clerics. This, however, is contrary to the early insights of J.J, Bachofen, who in 1861, wrote »Good legal order, prudence and peace formed the outstanding character trait of the states ruled by women. « More than 150 years later, the jurist and historian Uwe Wesel confirms the legal order of matriarchal primeval cultures. He writes:
»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. « (Uwe Wesel)
Modern Research into the History of Egypt
Serious archaeological 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 archaeology – many of them became the finest archaeologists we know, like Elise J. Baumgartel, Gertrude Caton-Thompson, Margaret Murray, Walter B. Emery, Howard Carter, etc. Petrie needed 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, covering travel expenses, accommodations and meals, payment of workers, photographers and draftsmen, packaging and transport and finally, the costs for 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, sticking strictly to the facts. Women, obviously were an asset and 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 that chauvinism, racism and sexism did not arise during this period. To their utmost amazement these researchers did not find any traces of war or violence in prehistoric time. But then, during the period of Nagada II, while excavating tombs of the later fourth millennium, 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, without any grave goods, and in the big mastabas outstretched skeletons, with ample equipment, he deduced a fundamental difference of tradition and belief, postulating the arrival of a ›dynastic race‹ imposing their rule on the indigenous population, who eventually became the founders of dynastic Egypt. (s. Margaret S. Drower ›Flinders Petrie A Life in Archaeology‹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‹ D. 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 ›Annex‹). 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 Dynastic Egypt 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‹) In 2013, French archaeologist Beatrix Midant-Reynes held the opinion: »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 Palette proves the massacre 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. A fact, which is a scientific scandal! This invasion is – amongst many other indications – evidenced by the statues – with images of European, white members of the ruling foreigners who made up the early ruling class and shows their brutality on the Narmer Palette. To this day, an enlightening scientific work on the violent upheaval in the second half of the fourth millennium has been avoided, embellished or extenuated, or is simply denied. Thus, 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 one to accept for egyptologists. The denial of the facts leads to a forgery of Egyptian history, which caused all further adulteration. With the magnificent glossy books, they produced, they seduced and convinced themselves, and to this day these mislead the readers. 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.
A clear indication for the presence of foreigners can also be found in the language. In 1926, French prehistorian, egyptologist, geologist and Near Eastern archaeologist, Jacques de Morgan, had already drawn attention to the fact that the original Egyptians were African and had spoken an African language (Morgan ›La préhistoire orientale – L’Egypte et l’Afrique du Nord‹, 1926).
US egyptologist 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?
In my first book (›Was war vor den Pharaonen – Die Entdeckung der Urmütter Ägyptens‹ 1994 What Was Before the Pharaohs – The Discovery of the Primal Mothers of Egypt) I already mentioned Flinder Petrie’s thesis about the ›dynastic race‹, pointing to my own research about foreigners in Egypt, Indo-Europeans and Aryans: Arian names and titles of the early upper class clearly indicate their origins and ethnicity. In the encyclopedia of Egyptology (1975–1992) no contribution to the Aryans in Egypt can be found, none. When I pointed out my findings in 1994, Thomas Schneider, a student of Eric Hornung at the University of Basel, reacted with a defamatory campaign, a concentrated load of criticism and hatred against my work in the press. »It is all charlatanism and fibs« he wrote. ›Just dreck / dirt‹ his master (Hornung) wrote in a private letter. 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, 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 continues: »Indoaryan personal names, reflecting a language closely akin to Vedic Sanskrit show up clearly in the fifteenth-century documents from Alalakh 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 this topic in my second book (see 2009 p. 103–107: ›Indo-Europäer in Ägypten? 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. 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) Surprisingly, Raulwing does not know the work of Derakhshani, although he is of great importance for the research of Aryans in Egypt. Incidentally, Manfred Mayrhofer had also paid attention to the Horites/Hurrians. They too are unknown to egyptologists, although their presence in Egypt is known as ›Shemsu-Hor‹, but they have not yet been recognized by egyptologists as Horites/Hurrians.
»The abundance of pseudo arguments seldom gives readers and viewers
the opportunity to make their own judgments. « (Walter Torbrügge)
Patriarchy does not represent 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, ›Looking back to look forward‹ 2015)
Although historians may have endeavored to provide unprejudiced information on all aspects of world affairs, 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 with pathetic phrases.
This kind of patriarchal historiography overrides the pathological inhumanity of the powerful rulers and pretend that tyranny is lawful. The legitimacy for this is that 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‹ – and everything that is not male, white and powerful, i.e. women, children, the weak, the ›non-whites‹, animals and nature. In addition, they place their god at the beginning of all times to give the impression that he, of course, ›always has been‹ there. (see Chapter 3) However, my own research findings point to the fact that the first male god was invented at the same time patriarchy was invented.
Because of our ignorance, respectively due to our demonstrably false education and fake information most of us feel helpless vis-à-vis this kind of written ’scientific‘ history. It is difficult to recognize distortions and deformations, to identify the lies, to acknowledge the exploitation of people and nature, and the manipulations as such. And in light of all 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)
The aim of this book is to follow this call and to present a critical investigation of the time of the dramatic overthrow from a peaceful prehistoric matriarchal era into the warlike patriarchal time in which we live today from the perspective of a woman, pointing to new findings and interpretations, addressing these in the light of research from the field of Matriarchal- and Pre-pharaonic-time Studies.