Chapter 4 The Hidden Tragedy of an Invasion from North-Western Asia
In the Footsteps of the Indo-Europeans
At the turn of the Neolithic into Bronze Age, between 3500 and 3100, Western Asia, the near and Middle East, is a melting pot of many different peoples who keep the whole area in motion. Groups of warlike Indo-Europeans begin to successively invade and dominate far-reaching parts of the then known world from East to West and from North to South. Extreme changes are apparent in Mesopotamia and in Egypt. Excavations of early researchers at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century pleaded the scientifically founded thesis that Indo-European invaders from the North then subjugated Egypt. Flinders Petrie was convinced that they originally emigrated from Eurasia and must have had their origins in the highland north of the Iranian state of Elam.
»Map showing the area of the Elamite Empire (in orange) and the neighboring areas.
The approximate Bronze Age extension of the Persian Gulf. « (Malek National Library
and Museum and Wikipedia)
After the Indo-Europeans had conquered the matriarchal state of Elam with its capital Susa they invaded Mesopotamia and Egypt. In Mesopotamia, they were called Sumerians, in Egypt they were identified as the Hawks-tribe named ›Shemsu-Hor‹. Archeologist Leonard Woolley, expert of Middle East and excavator of the cities of Ur and Uruk assumes that the invaders who raided and colonized southern Mesopotamia at about the same time like Egypt had their origin in this same area of the highland of Iran. (Woolley 1961, p. 15) He writes:
»It seems that in an epoch we call the Uruk period, an infiltration of people
took place from the mountains north of Elam, who finally made themselves
to rulers of that, what was now the Sumerian state. « (L.Woolley)
Woolley noted as an undeniable fact, that style, technique and sometimes even the motives of the slate pallets (e.g. the Narmer Palette) which appeared all at once in Egypt came from Mesopotamia. Today we know, that they were the products of Aratta (s. Chapter 2) Egyptologist Walter B. Emery confirms: »The correlation of the early chronology of Egypt and Mesopotamia is of value in estimating the approximate date of the commencement of the First Dynasty. Four cylinder seals of undoubted Mesopotamian origin, dated to the Uruk-Jemdet Nasr period (approximately 3500–2900 B.C.) have been found. From objects discovered with them, they may be dated to the Late Predynastic period immediately prior to the First Dynasty. « (Emery 1961, p. 30) »Scholars hold widely divergent views of the existence of Petrie’s so-called ›Dynastic Race‹ – contrary to the theory expressed in the present work. « Emery writes, »the rapid advance of civilization in the Nile Valley immediately prior to the ›Unification‹ was due to the advent of the ›dynastic race‹. Some scholars believe that outside influence was limited and that the cause was primarily a natural development of the native culture of the Predynastic period. Other authorities, while accepting the belief that external influence was responsible for the development of the new order, do not consider that it took the form of a horde invasion. They favor the few of a limited infiltration, taking place over a considerable period. Again, even among scholars who accept the theory of a dynastic race who brought Pharaonic civilization to the Nile Valley as proved, opinions are divided as to who these people were and whence thy came. « (Emery 1961, p. 30 f)
Nonetheless, in the opinion of most today Egyptologists, the scantly probative thesis of the Isolationists prevails, although the arguments speak clearly in favor of the Diffusionists. The controversies over the kind of outside influence extend from trade relations, peaceful infiltrations, harmless small battles unto the conquest and colonization of Egypt and the establishment of the first royal dynasty by ethnically different groups of people. However, there is no reason to rule out that the warlike expansionist conquerors, who had taken over the Near East, did not turn their eyes to the rich Nile Valley; yes, it would be amazing if they had just stopped at the borders of Egypt. The rich goods from Africa and the wealthy cities like Hierakonpolis situated on the trade route were utmost attractive for predator pray. »From early on it was the ambition of powerful groups to get hold of decisive trading places. This begins with the occupation of the places along the Euphrates-Tigris-estuary by the Sumerians, wherever they may have come from. « (Helck 1979, p. 4) This behaving continued in Egypt as well.
»The cultural connection between the Nile and the Euphrates at this early
period is beyond dispute and generally accepted. « (Emery 1961, p. 31)
British Egyptologist Toby Wilkinson swarms from increasing acts of creating hierarchy, of an ›Elite Class‹ and subordinates: »As Egypt progressed on the path of statehood, social distinctions became greater and this became increasingly explicit in the mortuary record. By the end of the Predynastic period, local élites – now royal families in every sense – had successfully monopolized the economic resources in their territories to such an extent that they were able to command sufficient labor to construct monumental tombs. Moreover, they could call upon the services of professional administrators to obtain prestige goods from abroad by long-distance trade and employed skilled craftsmen to manufacture further elaborate grave goods. The birth of the Egyptian state with its rigid hierarchies can therefore be charted in the growing differentiation and elaboration of mortuary provision … At the end of Naqada I period (c. 3500 BC) we have the first indications that an ideology of power was being formulated by the ruling lineages of Upper Egypt. « (Wilkinson ›Early Dynastic Egypt‹, 1999, p. 31) Who besides the ruling class could be happy about that?
»Whether this incursion took the form of gradual infiltration or horde invasion is uncertain, but the balance of evidence, principally supplied by the carvings on an ivory knife-handle from Gebel el-Arak and by the paintings on the walls of a late predynastic tomb at Hierakonpolis (see Chapter 5), strongly suggests the latter. On the knife-handle, we see a style of art which some think may be Mesopotamian, or even Syrian in origin, and a scene, which may represent a battle at sea against invaders, a theme that is crudely depicted in the Hierakonpolis tomb. In both representations we have typical native ships of Egypt and strange vessels with high prow and stem of unmistakable Mesopotamian origin. « (Emery ›Archaic Egypt‹ 1961, p. 39)
Evidence of a foreign assault: The knife of Gebel el-Arak
Scientists are noticeably reticent when it comes to describing the fighting scenes on the knife handle, which are obviously fought by men of two different ethnicities. Clearly, any indication that fighting broke out at the beginning of the Dynastic Period should preferably be avoided. Toby Wilkinson mentions the strenuous and riotous details, but as a precaution leaves out the knife with its unpopular scenes in his books.
Ivory handle of the silex knife of Gebel el-Arak, found in Egypt
(after Emery 1961)
The handle of the knife is carved on both sides with finely executed figures arranged in five horizontal registers. On one side, we see the ›Master of Animals‹ motif, which is very common in Mesopotamian art. The figure is wearing Mesopotamian clothing… Modern scholarship generally attributes the back reliefs to Mesopotamian influence, and more specifically attribute the design of the clothed wrestler to the Mesopotamian ›priest-king‹ images of the Late Uruk period. « (https://worddisk.com/wiki/Gebel_el-Arak_Knife/)
Egyptologist Alan Gardiner recognized the struggle between two different ethnic groups and the strangeness of the bearded man, the so-called ›Master of Animals‹. He allowed the appearance on the knife of Gebel el-Arak to be one of the ›possible evidence‹. The time of the upheaval in Egypt not only resulted from internal struggles, but invaders could have been involved.
The Bearded Man
The first appearance of the strange ›bearded man‹ is one of the most revealing representations of the events of the time. He is dressed in a hat and coat, which might indicate his origin from a northern highland, and obviously played an important role in the conquests as the leader of an aggressive horde of men. In Mesopotamia, the bearded man, because of his importance in taking power, is noticeably often documented. Archaeologist Reinhard Bernbeck writes: »The depiction of a stereotypical figure with a beard and a round headgear is conspicuously frequent in the artistic expressions of the Uruk period. It is depicted on various objects such as seals, reliefs, still images or knife handles. The figure is – apart from depictions of gods – always larger than other people are«. (Bernbeck ›Theorien in der Archäologie‹ 1997 (Theories in archaeology).
It is a tragic fact that scientists do not want to perceive the significance of the sudden appearance of this menacing, bearded man not as a stranger and not as an aggressor. On the contrary, although he appears almost exclusively in brutal, violence scenes, he is idealized and exaggerated; he is made the ›Master of Animals‹, the prince and the ›priest-king‹. The ancient orientalist Gernot Wilhelm (* 1945) praises him as the ruler of the legendary 1st Dynasty of Uruk, as a »guardian and giver of life«, as a »victorious fighter against threatening powers«, which identifies him as »a representative of the ›sacred kingship‹. « (Wilhelm 2001, p. 478)
The bearded hunter. Lion hunting stele from Uruk. (today still in Iraq Museum, Baghdad?)
For the first time in human history the distinctive image of a hunter appears. The bearded one is the first hunter who is armed with a bow and arrow and thus among other things killed the lion, one of the symbolic animals of the goddess. In Egypt, we know the motif not only as a hunt for lions, but on a hunting chest of Tutankhamun, we also see a hunt for black people (see Chapter 6). Hunting is and will remain an exclusive sport of kings for a long time and only later becomes a ›popular sport‹ of the privileged class. The bearded man does not meet us on the lion-hunted stele as a ›keeper and guardian‹ but as a persecutor and murderer of people and animals.
The archaeologists of Mesopotamia and Iran provide
the Evidence for the Brutal Invasion
The bearded man pays homage to the goddess Inanna in her sanctuary in Uruk.
Early Sumerian seal cylinder from the Eanna Temple (after J.C. Margueron)
As ›man in a Netzrock‹, the bearded man stands apparently modest, in front of the emblem of the goddess Inanna. However, he seeks power; he wants to be king. As we shall soon see, he is not the ›fighter against threatening powers‹ but the threat itself. The danger of his appearance is completely misunderstood by the ancient orientalists and archaeologists. As evidence of the conquest of Mesopotamia, the pictures are revealing. The scenes show the power taking of the temple precinct of Uruk, the queen’s residence and the state administration.
The ›bearded‹ conqueror in front of the niche facade of the queen’s administrative seat
and temple of the goddess Inanna (cylinder seal from Uruk, 2nd half of the 4th millennium, fig. after Moortgat)
The situation initially seems peaceful. That is changing quickly. The conqueror is concerned with the predatory appropriation of the residence, the disempowerment of the priest queen and thus with the usurpation of political power. In addition, that happens, as we can see in the figure below, unmistakably through violence against women. Furthermore, we see something more frightening; the bearded hunter from above now uses a bow and arrow and shoots at people.
The bearded leader personally murders the women who were dragged out of the administrative complex and the temple. (Cylinder seal from the Iranian-Elamite Susa, 2nd half of the 4th millennium after M. P. Amiet ‹1980, Fig. 659)
Obviously it is women who belong to the temple complex of the goddess Inanna who are dragged out, undressed (above they are still dressed up!), tortured and personally killed with a bow and arrow by the bearded leader. The cylinder seal is one of the earliest depictions of a massacre and the use of a bow and arrow. It’s not about ›fighting scenes‹ or ›prisoners‹, as Roaf belittles in his description of the picture, but about the murder of unarmed, naked women.
Shackled, naked prisoners are mistreated and beaten to death. In front of the ›bearded man‹
who is armed with a lance, a probably female person asks for mercy.
(Uruk, 2nd half of the 4th mill. After Amiet 1980, fig. 661)
In all the aggressive scenes, the bearded man is the leader. Moortgat surprisingly turns this figure into a religious and military head. He writes: »The same figure that depicts the high priest in some scenes, he appears in another group of motifs as a warlord, the spear in his right hand. Before him lie shackled, defeated [alleged!] enemies, others beg for mercy. In its motifs, the visual art is thus for the first time seizing state and religious [sic] life. « (Moortgat 1945, p. 72)
»Thanks to systematic research, With the conquest, the balance of power in Mesopotamia changed fundamentally. The invaders, with the ›bearded man‹ at their head, take over the official seat, the administrative and temple district of the matriarchal queen. The ›Bearded‹ becomes king of the conquered Mesopotamian city of Uruk. Margueron writes: written documents and images from the first Mesopotamian writing give us an insight into the organization of the Sumerian temple city. Its highest representative was the prince. « (Margueron 1970, p. 174)
»Portrait of a probable Uruk King-Priest with a brimmed
round hat and large beard, excavated in Uruk
and dated to 3300 BC. « (Louvre Museum)
Capture of the Queen of Susa and The White Crown of Egypt
The design shows a woman, fixed on a canopied palanquin carried away in a crowd.
(Glyptic from Elam-Iranian Susa by P. Amiet 1980, Fig. 282)
The captured woman who seems to be pleading for help can only be an important person, probably the queen. It is striking that we also see a man here, wearing a headgear that later becomes the White Crown of Egypt. (see Chapter 7)
»Did People from the East Really Conquer the Nile Valley? «
What happened in Egypt during that time? In the same time when groups of the notorious and dreaded Indo-Europeans conquered Elam and Mesopotamia a group of them started to infiltrate Egypt via the known trade routes until it ended in an invasion and conquest. The changes in the time of upheaval were so striking that historiography described it as a new epoch – the Naqada II era.
»Were the early urban societies of the Iranian Plateau and Mesopotamia connected to the earliest kingdom on the Nile – and if so, how?« asks archaeologist and prehistorian Michael A. Hoffman (1979, p. 129). Jacques de Morgan, who profoundly knew the Mesopotamian, Caucasian, and Iranian cultures, compiled a whole catalog of proofs about the origin of the goods from the Near East; including that certain plant, cereal varieties and agricultural implements were brought from Mesopotamia to Egypt, which also applies to the paneled niche brick architecture and the sewer construction. It is also certain that metallurgy was introduced from Asia [see Jacques de Morgan 1926 and the mention of ›Kupfer‹ (copper) by Jahanshah Derakhshani on the Internet]. The Indo-European hordes were not interested in cultural progress, but in power, robbery and violence. This is confirmed by Wolfgang Helck, he writes: »After completing the subjugation and the constitution of an expanse chiefdom it was the crucial task of the ruling class to retain power, they were not only numerically smaller but also certainly culturally inferior. There was the danger of a rapid dissolution of power« (Helck, Nofret 1985, p. 9 f) Helck continues:
»We can see how on the one hand violent suppression of the subjugated
and ritual demarcation, and on the other taboos and certain privileges
were used to preserve power. «
The Overthrow in the Naqada-II-Era
»Physically the Badarians were of the type, which we have come to recognize as characteristically Upper Egyptian: lean, lightly built, men of medium height. With long narrow heads, brown skins, dark wavy hair, and exceedingly sparse beards. An agricultural and pastoral people, their unwarlike nature is attested by the complete absence from their graves and settlements of any save hunting weapon. « (William C. Hayes 1953, p. 14)
»The Invaders of Egypt is entirely different to any known
among native Egyptians. « (Petrie 1895/1996, p. vii)
»At any rate, towards the close of the forth millennium B.C. «, Emery writes, »we find the people known traditionally as the ›Followers of Horus‹ apparently forming a civilized aristocracy or master race ruling over the whole Egypt. The theory of the existence of this master race is supported by the discovery that graves of the late predynastic period in the northern part of Upper Egypt were found to contain the anatomical remains of a people whose skulls are of greater size and whose bodies were larger than those pf the natives. « (Emery 1961, p. 39 f) The skeletons, according to the analyzes of anatomist D. E. Derry point to »stockily built people, who probably came from Asia, since they can be identified with the armenoid type« (Trigger 1983, p. 13)
The anatomical remains of humans, whose skull size, body and skin color differed from those of the finely membered, slim, dark Egyptians, confirm definitely the presence of strangers. »The difference being so marked that any suggestion that these people derived from the earlier stock is impossible … The racial origin of these invaders is not known and the route they took in their penetration of Egypt is equally obscure. Similarities in decorative art, the common use of the cylinder seal, and above all the recessed paneling of their monumental architecture point unmistakably to a connexion with contemporary cultures in Mesopotamia. « (Emery 1961, p. 39 and 40)
Derry stated: »For the past sixty years the systematic examination, by anthropologists of the human remains, which are an almost invariable concomitant of excavations in Egypt, has provided important racial evidence, the influence of which on the interpretation of many facts in Egyptian history is far-reaching. The object of the present paper is to put on record a general account of the facts which led to the conclusion that another race in addition to that represented by the remains found in all reliably dated Predynastic graves occupied Egypt in Early Dynastic times. The earliest inhabitants of Egypt of which we have any knowledge are the so-called Predynastic people, numbers of whose cemeteries have been excavated in Upper Egypt … All the bodies were in the contracted position. « (Derry JEA 42, 1956, see Chapter 2) After having evaluated the various skeletal finds, reports on the skull-measurements, he carried out, he asserts: »Even those who are not familiar with craniometrics must be baffled at the differences in the measurements of the two groups of prehistoric inhabitants and invaders«. Derry emphasizes with firmness that in addition to the race found in the remains of all reliably dated prehistoric tombs, another race inhabited Egypt, in the early dynastic period. The research results of the anthropologists, who point out the intrusion of a foreign ethnic group in Egypt, were not necessarily appreciated. Egyptologist John Romer claims: »Modern-day anthropologists greatly bemoan this obsession with skull measuring at the expense of studying the other numerous human remains, for much information about diet, health and other areas of human activity has been irrevocably lost. « (Romer 1982, p. 52). However, the contribution of anthropologists for the clarification of Egypt’s history – the question of whether Egypt was oppressed and enslaved by members of its own people or by foreign invaders – is likely to be immensely more important for the history of Egypt than what people had in their stomach when they died.
All luck is gone;
the world has fallen into misery
by those who fatten,
the Asians, who run through the land.
Revolt arises in the East.
The Asians came to Egypt.
(Songs from the Nile)
The Invaders – Armorer from Western Asia
A. Wallis Budge assumes that the metal weapons of the conquerors, in particular, led to the subjugation of the native Egyptians. Jacques de Morgan, a mining engineer, geologist and archaeologist who had studied the origin and metalworking in the area of extraction, including the Caucasus and Iran and their appearance in Egypt. He found that the invaders used bronze weapons that allowed them to conquer the Neolithic population, and that in the Old Kingdom not only copper (with a share of arsenic) but also bronze (copper with a proportion of tin) was used for the great works. There is no doubt for him: The knowledge of metallurgy came to Egypt with the conquerors from Asia (Morgan 1926, p. 216, 219). He suggests: The Shemsu-Hor, who invaded Egypt in the Naqada-II-period, are commonly referred to as ›followers‹, ›entourage, ›escort‹, ›servants‹, or ›worshipers of Horus‹, but according to Budge, they were smiths and identical with the blacksmiths of Edfu. They were the first to know the method of producing bronze and used it to fabricate industrially weapons in sheer enormity. They literally worshiped arms. The incredible fascination for deadly weapons is of Indo-European origin and »the sacred character of the weapon is proven for all Indo-European religions« (Eisler 1989, p. 105). E.A. Wallis Budge writes about them: »It is, of course, impossible to say who were the blacksmiths that swept over Egypt from south to north, or where they came from, but the writer believes that they represent the invaders in predynastic times. They made their way into Egypt from a country in the East, by way of the red Sea, and by some road across the eastern desert, e.g. that through the Wadi Hammamat. They brought with them the knowledge of working in metals and having conquered the indigenous peoples in the south, i.e., those round about Edfu (and El-Kab/Hieraconpolis), they made that city the center of their civilization, and then proceeded to conquer and occupy other sites, and to establish sanctuaries for their god or gods. (Budge 1904/1969, I, p. 485). In later times, the blacksmiths were deified, and to their honor, the holy of holies of the temple of Edfu was called ›forge‹ and was equipped with a ›holy boat‹. Concerning the god of this martial conqueror-clan, it is about the Asian war-god Hor/Hara, whom the Greeks called Horus. It is noteworthy that the Horus smithes – probably because of their ›magical‹ ability to turn ore into weapons, were also priests. This sheds a light on how religion was understood by the Horite invaders. Gordon Rattray Taylor explains what the aim of this sort of ›priests‹ was:
»The first step in restricting the female status was to take over
the monopoly of religious functions from them. « (G.R. Taylor)
Left: Hem-On, a European-looking relative of Cheops.
Right: An-Chaef, a ›chief‹ (boss) and younger brother of Cheops.
The Statues Reveal Their European Origin
Both men, Hem-On and An-Chief are definitely of white ethnic origin. The figure of Hem-On »shows a man of completely Un-Egyptian type, and yet this man was a royal prince, and probably even a nephew of the great Cheops. His enormous body marked by obesity bears an almost too small head on a bull’s neck. But his narrow, curved nose, his compressed lips, and his energetic chin must be the inheritance of an ancestor from eastern lands … An-Chaef, another ›Great One‹, is different from the purely Egyptian type … The similarity with Sumerian statues from this time astonishes, and some women who evidently accompanied the invaders also look strikingly European. « (Montet 1975, p. 59).
The first Egyptian kings Hor-Narmer, Hor-Aha, Hor-Djer/Zer, Hor-Den (Udimu) and Hor-Semerchet prove themselves through their names as Horites (Hurrians). About Hor-Aha (the warrior), it is known that he is ›the chief commander of the ships that travel west to the land of the sunset‹ (Egypt). It seems, that Horites [Hurrians] had migrated from northwestern Persia to Syria and Upper Mesopotamia and settled since the fifth millennium in the Caucasus area between the Black Sea, Lake Van and the Caspian Sea. »Although the Hurrians are still ›one of the most mysterious peoples of the Near East‹ (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archeology), it is considered proven that significant warlike achievements go back to them, such as the horse-drawn light chariots with two spoked wheels, the armor-horses, charioteers, and archers, as well as the composite bow. « (Eva Eggebrecht 1984, p. 81) The Horites represented a constant threat to other peoples. Wolfgang Helck recognizes Horitian personal names in Egypt, but he believes that the otherwise observable strong influence of the Horites on the religious beliefs of other peoples is as unrecognizable as Horitic linguistic remnants in Egypt. (LÄ, III, p. 87) However, as we will see, this should be a fallacy.
The new potentates on the Nile liked to be immortalized in stone; their apparently idealized images bear witness to their presence even after millennia – and their origin cannot be denied. The ideal representation was European. Above all, it is the large number of sculptures from the Old Kingdom that testifies to the foreign upper class in Egypt. Egyptologist Pierre Montet notes that we often »find clearly foreign features in statues – and especially in the most important ones« (Montet 1975, p. 58).
Left: Khaf-ra (Khef-Re). Right: Sennui, the wife of an Egyptian governor in Sudan.
Black Natives – White Upper Class
For E. A. Wallis Budge, the invaders, unlike the dark-colored natives, were clearly white-skinned. »There is no doubt about the race of those Egyptians known to us through mummies and statues, and their characteristics: they were Caucasians, and it seems that they came to Egypt from their original home in Asia« (Budge 1925/1989, p. 1 f). French Egyptologist Jean Leclant writes that the Egyptians had never considered themselves black, but on the contrary noted with some satisfaction the strangeness and exotic peculiarity of the southerners, first of the Nubians, then later of the Blacks, in the New Kingdom (Leclant LÄ, I, p. 86 f). Nevertheless, it seems somewhat strange that indigene Egyptians should have regarded the linguistically and ethnically related Nubians as exotics. Leclant’s error is that the ›Egyptians‹ he mentions are members of the white upper class belonging to the conquerors. He starts out from texts of the early ruling class of dynastic Egypt. Written testimonials are about the upper class and this layer was obviously really proud to consider itself as a notable race, what it, in Black-African-Egypt presumably also was; white and racist.
The Appearance Confirm: Blue-Eyed, Red-blond and White
However, not only the facial features, the skin color is also different from that of the Egyptian indigenous people. The Egyptologist von Bissing stated that the pink skin color was not uncommon in the Old Kingdom (ZÄS 1937, p. 124). Herodotus suspected that the »hatred from the Egyptians against Cheops resulted from the provenance of the kings of the fourth dynasty. »Nordic bronze swords in the soil of Egyptian prehistory and oddly shaped skulls in certain fields of the deads seem to justify the view that the pharaohs of the early dynasties were partly alien rulers. Yes, it has even been said that the whole upper class of the developing state should have to come from a distinctly white ethnic group. « (Zehren 1980, p. 359).
Queen Hetepheres (fourth Dynasty), the mother of Cheops, had blond hair and bright eyes and was dressed in a strange manner in her grave. »Cheops daughter Hetepheres II was yellow-blond, his granddaughter Meresankh red-blond, as it appears on the reliefs in their graves. Otto Muck concluded from this finding that Cheops had an Old-European (secondary) wife. « (Quoted by Heinsohn/Illig 1990, p. 167) Alexander Scharff concluded that Hetepheres was a ›blond Libyan‹ woman. Georg Möller writes on the Libyan question: »We can assume that the whole of North Africa was once inhabited by a fairly homogeneous Hamitian population, which has significantly differentiated in the course of the third millennium, in that the Libyans have ingested blonde, white-skinned immigrants. « (Möller 1924, p. 43)
In his article on the ›Yellow-skinned depictions of humans in the Old Kingdom‹, Henry G. Fischer presents some of the strikingly bright, usually fat, grave-owners or overseers, who clearly stand out from the deep-brown, slender field workers. However, he attributes this peculiarity to the fact that the different classes of the people were exposed to different degrees of the sun or that the different colors represented different ages (JARCE 1963, p. 17 ff). Christiane Desroches Noblecourt wants to attribute the blond hair of many women of the Egyptian upper class to a ›fashion-apparition‹, »because the princesses loved to wear fair wigs« (1986, p. 108). Should the women of the ›Dynastic Race‹ really have worn blond wigs and how can be explained the pink skin and the blue eyes? Were these people not simply blue-eyed, red-blond and white? Manetho, the Egyptian priest of the 3rd century tells about Neith-iqret, Nitocris the last Queen of the VI. Dynasty: »There was a woman, Nitocris, who ruled: she was braver than all the men of her time were, and she was the most beautiful of all women; she had the features of a blonde-haired person with a pink complexion. «
In a grave of Beni Hasan are representations of people with fair skin, blond hair, and blue eyes. The glorious and warlike Ramses II was red-blond, fair-skinned and Nordic – not of Mediterranean – origin (Mahieu 1989, p. 8 f). The mummy of Yuya, a courtier of the 18th Dynasty and married to an Egyptian noblewoman, had straw-colored hair. They were the parents of Tiye, who became the wife of Amenhotep III and the mother of Akhenaten. Yuya’s foreign appearance made some Egyptologists think that he was of foreign origin, possibly from Mitanni.
The capture of the ruling queens
For the analysis of the period of power seizure after the conquest, we have several testimonials available, for example the great mace of Narmer. A limestone memorial stone made as a public reminder of the king’s victory and triumph. Narmer, one of the most famous figures in Egypt, made himself the first king of the first dynasty as the leader of the conquerors.
The mace-head of Narmer (after Emery 1961, p. 46)
Emery writes: »There can be no doubt, that Narmer inflicted military disasters on Lower Egypt and, as a conqueror would assume the emblems of rule of his defeated opponent: but this would not necessarily make him the legal ruler of the Delta« (Emery 1961, p. 33). In a ceremonial scene on the Narmer mace-head from Hieraconpolis, Narmer is depicted as seated on his throne waring the Red crown of the conquered North; enthroned and protected by the vulture goddess Nekhet of Hieraconpolis. In front of him are the standard-bearers of his army, a seated figure on a canopied palanquin; figures of captives, and numerals and signs representing 120,000 men, 400,000 oxen, and 1,422,000 goats captured in war. Some authorities interpret the seated figure as that of a man, but a comparison with similar figures on a wooden label from Saqqara shows that this is improbable and that it almost certainly represents a women. It has been suggested that the figure is that of a captured Northern princess whom perhaps the victorious king would take in marriage. Although this is pure hypothesis, it is not entirely improbable and perhaps we have here a representation of the union of Neithhotep (Neith-Hotep) and Narmer, for there is strong evidence to show that the conqueror of the North attempted to legitimize his position by taking the Northern princess as his consort. « (Emery 1961, p. 44 ff)
Emery is convinced; only by marrying the captured female heir to the throne, Narmer was able to legitimize his position as king. The kings after Narmer, too, had to marry Egyptian queens to legalize their claim to the throne. Flinders Petrie says: »It is very doubtful if a king could reign except as the husband of the heiress of the kingdom, the right to which descended in the female line. « (Petrie 1896/1991, II, p. 183). Therefore, it is clearly about a forced marriage, about rape of the reigning queen by the conqueror – not about her young daughter, the heir to the throne. Only the queen can make the man king by marriage. However, Egyptologists do not dwell on ›unimportant‹ details, as ordered by women – even a queen.
In the case of the two successors of Narmer, Hor-Aha and Djer / Zer, we must also assume that they captured the ruling queens and forced them to marry in order to get into the coveted position of king. They probably killed the queen’s companion. A wooden label of Hor-Djer/Zer seems to represent the narrative of an important event. We see the capture of two high-ranking women who are carried away in a kind of palanquin. They are probably the queen and her daughter, the heir to the throne. Heavily laden porters who carry away the loot, the household effects of the royal residence, follow them. It should be about the capture of the queen, who is kidnapped and forced to marry the man from the foreign conqueror dynasty who wants to power, in order to make him king. Women were the kingmakers. In the upper right corner we see the murder of a man.
Wooden label from Egyptian Saqqara. A scene of a mans sacrifice shown in the top right-hand corner. (after Emery 1961, p. 59, fig. 21)
We can assume that the queens were in a relationship, with a partner, the king with whom they lived! He had to be moved out of the way to make way for the aspiring king. We know whoever married the queen became king. That is what the successors of Narmer, in whose graves the tablets were found, wanted. Since the patriarchy does not allow women to have multiple (spouses) partners, in contrast to the men, the kings of the matriarchal queens were murdered. We know from Urukagina, the last king of the 1st Dynasty of Sumer, that around 2300 he passed his misogynistic laws ›at the behest of the city god Ningirsu of Lagash›. From then on, women who took two men were stoned to death and those who said words to a man, that they should not have said, their teeth were knocked out (Samuel N. Kramer 1963, p. 83). Researchers shied away from the conclusion that women once had more than one husband; »they suspected that reference was only made to the remarriage of a widow, but the wording of the Sumerian text does not support this view. « (H. F. W. Saggs 1968)
The glossing over of the murders as ›human sacrifices‹ can be found everywhere: Emery believes: »The Sakkara label apparently records some important religious festivals at which human sacrifice was performed. « (1961, p. 59) The murder of unwanted people is religiously cloaked as ›human sacrifice‹, embellished, justified, ignored, dismissed as insignificant, interpreted as ›cultic ritual from› prehistoric‹ times‹ or as originally ›African‹ (= uncivilized). Wilkinson writes: »The first human sacrifice may represent a survival of prehistoric practice or alternatively an experiment in absolute power conducted by the first kings of a united Egypt …. There is a limited amount of evidence to suggest that human sacrifice in a cultic setting, was practiced in the Predynastic period and at the very beginning of the Early period, albeit, perhaps, on a small scale. In common with other unusual aspects of Early Dynastic religion – most notably the reverence shown for – the possible deification of the royal placenta … Human sacrifice may have belonged to an ancient African substratum of Egyptian Culture. « (Wilkinson 1999, p. 265 f) Even if it is often claimed that human sacrifices had already occurred in prehistoric times, the religious scholar Ina Wunn confirms what archaeologists had established: »It is certain that bloody human sacrifices in particular can only be verified in the front-Eurasian region in the Bronze Age. « (2005)
Wilkinson never tires of glossing over the murders as religious, justifying them as punishment or interpreting them in a racist way. He claims later again: »Victims were offered to the gods; and the later occurrence, which seem to involve the ceremonial execution of criminals or enemy captives. These latter were apparently carried out in a sacred setting to invoke the supernatural [!] powers in countering the forces of chaos. « (Wilkinson 1999, p. 266).
The murder of humans is religiously whitewashed and thus legitimized. What Egyptologists do not want to see: Not the gods, but the rulers are responsible for the crimes. The murderers simply mask their sadistic lust for murder with the bigoted fraud of religiosity. The Egyptian historian Manetho reports that in the Upper Egyptian Eileithyaspolis (Elkab) at a certain time of the year humans were burnt alive, whom they called typhonic, devilish. Manetho confirms that the burning of typhonic humans goes back to the time of the penetration of the Horus worshipers in Hieraconpolis and the first dynasties. Although it is often stated that the barbaric custom could scarcely have been maintained beyond the early days, there is no lack of clues in later times. Thus in the New Kingdom, according to the testimony of a private grave, Nubians were strangled with ropes at the funeral, performed in accordance with the ancient royal ritual. As justification for the slaughter of human beings served the embodiment of ›hostile powers‹, ascribed to them. On the walls of the late temples of Edfu, Dendera and Philae, several human murders are depicted. »In Edfu, even the remains of an altar were found, which was designed, according to the image decoration, for human sacrifices. Nevertheless, the killing clothes itself in the form of a sacrifice, and with it, one followed certainly the old custom«, Bonnet appeases. (Bonnet 1971, pp. 452–55) How deprecatingly the issue of human sacrifice is treated, which clearly is derived from the patriarchal era, is shown in the ›Encyclopedia of Egyptology‹. The inglorious theme is addressed only briefly, whereby the author tries above all to doubt the fact, to present it as »symbolic«, or to attribute it to »foreign influence«, which is correct, indeed (s. Griffiths LÄ, IV, p. 64 f), but not of African, but of Indo-European/Aryan influence. The assertions based on pure guesses that human sacrifices had already taken place in the Neolithic could never be proven. These hypotheses are based on conclusions from later, already patriarchal superimposed epochs of the metals. Meanwhile, it is considered certain that human sacrifices occur for the first time in the early Bronze Age with the conquests of Indo-Europeans; not only in Egypt and Mesopotamia but also at the Early Bronze Age when Indo-European Kurgan hordes reached India and Western China. »In the patriarchal ritual-literature of the [Indo-Aryan] Vedas are given precise instructions on how to carry out the complicated ceremonies of a human sacrifice. « (Heydecker 1994, p. 286) Certainly, these teachings how to sacrifice people would not have been necessary if it had already been common in pre-patriarchal times.
No servants, but the members of the matriarchal clan, the entire religious and state leadership, was «sacrificed» or murdered during the 1st Dynasty. In Abydos there are around 1,000 murdered people. (see ›The brutal end: Sati – the murder of the queen, her relatives and her court at the death of the king‹ in Chapter 7) To justify the cruelty of the murders, they are repeatedly interpreted as sacred religious rituals. However, there is not a single solid evidence for this. The taboo on seeing reality as such blinds the authors to the terrible truth.
Hurrian Goddesses and Gods in Egypt
The Horites brought along the totem animal of the falcon clan, Hor, which they deified as their war god and the Goddess Hat-Hor, mother of Hor; both can be seen on the Narmer pallet. The Goddess of the Sun, the Celestial Mother-Goddess, Hepat, was the supreme Goddess of the Horites/Hurrites. She is already mentioned in the pyramid texts of Pepi I in the Old Kingdom (Sethe 1969 and Budge 1969, I, p. 81). Later she became the Heba or Eve of the Bible. When the Indo-Europeans and Aryans came to power, they provided the great matriarchal goddess with a husband named Teshup, Ari-Teshub exactly. This makes it clear that our biblical myths go back to the warlike Hurrians. Their brutality and violence appear particularly pronounced in the Old Testament. The myths about Jesus in the New Testament moderate and soften their violence, but with his Father God, they are thoroughly patriarchal and misogynistic. The history of Christianity is full of violence, for example the crusades, the wars of religion, the burnings of witches, conquests that destroy culture, proselytizing and the symbols of violence; the cross, the devil, hell etc. The designation ›Ari‹ for the Indo-European Aryan is a part of Hurrian names of persons and gods. Teshub is worshiped in the form of a bull and became in Egypt the Apis bull, who embodies the fathergod Ptah and the king. As a ›strong bull‹ we already meet him on the Narmer palette, trampling on an Egyptian. A ›scene of destruction‹ (Günter Dreyer) is seen on the Bulls palette and the Libyan palette; here the bull tears down the city fortifications of the overpowered Egyptians. It dates from the Protodynastic Period. Like the Hurrian bull-couple ›Hurri‹ and ›Cheri‹, the Egyptian Apis bull had to be chosen for its specific characteristics. They were strikingly the same: a blaze in the shape of a triangle on the forehead, a crescent moon on the side, a flying vulture on his back and a black swelling under his tongue, »these conditions had to exist at least in parts« (Petrie 1932, p. 10)
The sudden appearing of male gods in the early Pharaonic period is striking. They stem from the Middle East; Asar/Osiris is originally a West Asian vegetation god. His name was related to ›Asaru‹ (Asselberghs 1961, p. 262) Asaru was also brought to Mesopotamia and became a god of the Sumerians. For Egyptologists the original homeland of Osiris is ›uncertain‹. Hornung writes: »Like the ›origin‹ of Osiris, Seth or Ptah, the meaning of their names remains a mystery to us« (1983, p. 58). E.g., the Indo-European origin of the patriarchal Father God ›Ptah‹ corresponds to the name pater (Latin), father, and that of the Mother-Goddess ›Mut‹ to the German ›Mutter‹ und the English ›mother‹. The origin of the god Amun is also ›highly controversial‹, although ›Amu‹ is the designation given to ›Asians‹. However, the Iranian linguist Jahanshah Derakhshani proves that the name is Aryan; in Old Iranian, he was called Amur. Amun the ram god was introduced, like the Amun sheep, in the time of the upheaval from Asia to Egypt (Boessneck 1988, p. 72 f). Budge realized that the priests had problems to explain many parts of the history of their gods. So they »endeavoured to get out of their difficulties by the fabrication of foolish etymologies and puns, whereby they sought to elucidate events and names. « (Budge 1904, p. 485)
Indo-European Horites/Hurrians and Aryans in Egypt
»Evidently, the Hurrians [Horites] accompanied the Indo-Aryans in their advance westward and southward. It would seem that the Hurrians, who tended to be strongly Armenoid in physical type, had long been occupying the northern mountain ranges, but details escape us completely. « (Albright/Lambdin 1970, I, p. 153) There must have been a close cultural connection between Hurrians and Aryans. From 1995–2000 Jahanshah Derakhshani published his research on Iranian history and culture since the fifth millennium. He noted that traces of Iranian peoples spread very early to Egypt. The last Persian emperor, Reza Pahlavi, the Shah-in-Shah, was not only called ›Son of the Sun‹ – as, by the way, the pharaohs too – but also the ›Sun of the Aryans‹.
»The title Ara, Arya or ›Aryan‹ is found as a designation of rulers or masters to run throughout the whole familily of the Aryan languages, including the Egyptian, presumably because the early rulers and masters were of this race. Thus, it is in aspirated form the Her, Hera, Hearra, ›lord or master‹ of the Goths, Scandinavians, Germans and Anglo-Saxons, the Aire ›chieftain‹ of the Irish Scots and Gaels and so on. It is the Arios, Harios or Harri of the Medes and Arya and Airya (also Haraiva) of the ancient Persias in a similar exalted and racial sense; and it is thus proudly used by Darius-the-Great on his tomb where he calls himself ›An Arya of Arya(n) descent‹, and Xerxes called himself a ›Harry‹. « (Waddell ›The makers of Civilization in Race and History‹, 1929, p. 6) They are also the Arya of India and the Hara of the Sumerians. In different geographical areas, different languages, and their dialects, they are also called Ar, Aar, Ara, Ari, Arij, Ariya or Har. The ancient Persian Ariya became the Middle Persian Eran and the New Persian Iran.
Already E. A. Wallis Budge drew attention to an Aryan share in the ancient Egyptian language. In 1902, he wrote that some scholars described the origin of the language of the early dynastic Egyptians as Aryan (Budge 1902, p. 3). Annelies Kammenhuber was extremely important as a linguist. Her research focused on the Indo-European languages, on Hittite and Hurrite. She confirmed Waddell’s and Budge’s findings 60 years later, she writes: »Testimonies of the ancient presence of the Aryans in the Near East are to be found in the linguistic remnants of the ancient cultures, such as the Sumerian, Akkadian, and Ancient-Egyptian. ›Aryan‹ was the own-designation of Indo-Iranian tribes; Vedic-Ancient-Indian Aria or Arya, Old-Persian Ariya, Avestan A’rya (Kammenhuber 1968, p. 177). However, the frequent mentioning of ›Ari‹ in the names of the earliest conquerors of Egypt have been ›overlooked‹ to this day. Ari occurs already in the first king’s names, e.g. Ari-Hor. Then at Semerchet-Ari-Nebti (first dynasty); Djoser (= Zeser/Caesar) is also called Net-Ari-khe (third dynasty); User-kef-Ari-Maat is a king of the fifth dynasty. In addition, the syllable occurs in official titles and names of gods; so Ari terms approximately the creative god or creator god Ra (the anagram of Ar). The Creator of heaven and earth is Ari-pait-ta. Ari-enab-f is a blue-eyed god (Horus)! Ari-ta is a title of the father god Ptah; Ari-hetch-f is called the creator of his light; Ari-khet is the creator and a title of various gods and kings, Ari-maat a name of the Asian A-sar/As-Ari/Osiris. Ari is also the Great God, the King and the chief. Ari means both friend and foe as in Old Iranian, where the term Ari originally meant stranger, guest, in later periods also enemy. Ari-aaut means authority and dignity, holding honorary posts, Ari-aui is a priestly title, Ari-u-aakhut is translated as a resident in the horizon (Achet) or foreigners from the East. Ari-aru is the title of a high priest, Ari-ast the throne pretender, Ari-hat the title of a priest or a leader, Ari-heb the director of the feast, Ari-henbiu the overseer of the peasants, etc., etc. The list could be extended with dozens of examples. The striking thing about this collection of Ari-syllables is that they refer to gods, titles, activities and general terms that are typical of authoritarianism, patriarchal hierarchy and the upper class (priests, chief priests, leaders, overseers, directors, etc.) The term only became relevant with the establishment of a command structure and a bureaucratic administration of the country. In the Old Kingdom, there were 2000 official titles, a large part of them with the Ari-syllable.
In the 18th and 19th dynasties, we find Ari even more frequently in royal names. For example, Queen Ahmose-Nefert-Ari, wife of the 1st King of the 18th Dynasty, and Queen Nefert-Ari, who is probably her daughter; Thutmose I is entitled Ari-n-Ra and Thutmose II Ari-Amon; Thutmose III and his successor Amenhotep II, the ancestors of Akhenaten, describe themselves as ›Hyksos‹ (Haxa). They are those Aryan invaders – who were obviously nomadic patriarchal people – for Egyptologists ›of unknown origin‹. They ruled Egypt for a century (about 1650–1540. At first they established the center of their rule in the northeastern Delta to which they gave the name Au-Aris. Then they conquered Memphis. »The taking of Memphis is also mentioned in Africanus and Eusebius. ›After overpowering the rulers [probably the matriarchal queens!] they ruthlessly burned our cities and treated the locals with cruel hostility … Finally, they appointed one from among them to the king with the name Salitis. He was headquartered in Memphis, took tribute from Upper and Lower Egypt, and set up garrisons in the most current places. ‹ (Manfred Bietak LÄ, III, p. 94 ff) According to Bietak, their relationship with the Hurrians has not yet been clarified (see the detailed contribution to the Indo-European Hurrians in my book 2019, p. 171–178)
Amenhotep III, the father of Akhenaten, married Gilukhipa, the daughter of the Aryan Mitanni King Shuttarna and later also the daughter of the successor of Shuttarna, Tushratta, Princess Tadukhipa, probably the later Nefertiti. He also completed other marriages with princesses of the royal families of Babylon and the Hittite Arzawa. It is striking that he corresponded with the latter in Indo-Aryan-Hittite language (Amarna Letters 31/32). Budge deciphered the addressee Amenhotep III on the largest and most clearly written cuneiform tablet of the Amarna letters as Nibmu-Ariya (Reeves 2002, p. 73). Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) is addressed in the Amarna Letters with Nibmu-Ariya and Nap-Hurria, »but Egyptologists prefer to reproduce the hieroglyphic nomenclatures in their usual pronunciation as ›Nebmaatre‹ and ›Nefercheprure‹. « (Rohl 1996, p. 193). Eje/Aja, Heperu-Ari-Maat, is vizier at the court of Akhenaten and high-aged successor of Tutankhamun. Horemheb, Eje’s successor, describes how he is appointed by the king to become an Ari-Pait. (LÄ, III, p. 817). In general, the relationships between the kings of the 18th dynasty and Indo-Aryan royal families in the north are surprisingly close. Amenhotep III. let himself perpetuated in Asian robes, in an attitude »reminiscent of the contemporary Elamite or better of Babylonian statues« (Bresciani 1990, p. 279). Seti I calls himself Min-mu-Aria; the red-blond Ramses II has the name Wasmu-Aria in his title and his wife is Nefert-Ari: the ›beautiful Aryan‹; she was a Hittite princess (Helck LÄ, I, p. 455). Akhenaten’s second wife also has an Aryan name: Kiya. It also should not be forgotten that the Indo-European Aryans introduced the horses and chariots so beloved by Akhenaten.
The Ari-designations can be found in large numbers in the ›Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary‹ of the Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge from 1920. Surprisingly, a new vocalization was done on newer translations for unknown reasons: an I replaced The A so that the syllable is no longer Ari but Iry. However, the affinity between the transcript Iripat and Aripait cannot be denied. In fact, the ancient-historian Eduard Meyer, a connoisseur of hieroglyphic writing, points out that although the vowel written by a reed-leaf is in many cases an I, in many other cases it must be treated as Aleph (A) as it is secured in the names Atum, Amun, Anubis, Aton, etc., which are written with the same sign (Meyer 1909, XV). Ari/Ary is also written with the reed-leaf-hieroglyph. Due to the vowel transformation, the Aryan component was made invisible, but linguists confirm that e.g., both the Ugaritic Ary and the Egyptian Iry are called ›comrade, friend‹ (Gamkrelidze/Ivanov 1995, p. 658). The linguist Derakhshani suspects that despite this vowel change the word is a name for an ›Aryan prince‹. (1999, p. 24) It would be difficult to deny the Aryan kinship here and in a number of other word-comparisons.
The Ruling Class: Indo-European ›Ari-Pait‹
»The composition of the rhyt is fairly clear from the contexts in which the word is used; it refers to the general population. The significance of the term p’t is less obvious, though it must refer to the élite, the members of the king’s entourage. A high-ranking title borne by officials from the First Dynasty onwards is iri-p’t, which seems to indicate a ›member of the p’t‹. Although it later became merely an honorific title, marking an individual’s illustrious rank within the royal administration, in origin the title seems to have had a more specific sense, designating a member of the ruling class. It is quite likely that the p’t originally comprised the royal kinsman, who by virtue of his blood ties to the king, however distant, shared something of the supernatural authority vested in the ruler (Frankfort). The evidence suggests that in early times all the high officials of the central government were royal relations (Malek). This system seems to have broken down during the Old Kingdom when persons of non-royal birth were appointed to important positions within the administration. « (Wilkinson ibid. 1999, 186) Wilkinson sees in it an enhancement and an emphasis of »its supernatural remoteness from the general populace. «
The Aryan researcher and linguistJahanshah Derakshani explains: In Old Iranian, pati means ›noble one‹, a ruler and master. In addition to the many ari-apellatives that are always described in the Aryan languages as ›the noblest‹, the ›lord‹, ›strong‹, ›brave‹, ›sublime‹, etc., there are also to mention the cuneiform-Luwian arji ›lift/raise‹, ariyatti ›hill‹, ›mountains‹ and ›Iranian highlands‹, as well as Hittite ariya and lyk. erije ›to raise‹. (Derakhshani ›Die Arier in den nahöstlichen Quellen des 3. und 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr.‹ (The Aryans in the Near Eastern sources of the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC: 1999, p. 181).
It can hardly be a happenstance that the highest social-political level of the new ruling class in Egypt calls itself p’t/pat/Pait. The son of a king is entitled jrj-pat – Ari-Pait. Kaplony sounds a bit whimsical if not racist, saying that Pait would describe »above all divine beings« and stands »in contrast to the obsolete but clearly vulgar Kiebitz people. Despite later devaluation of the title, ruling queens or hereditary queens are considered female Iritpat« [Ari-t-Pait] (LÄ, III, p. 177 f). »In the Old Kingdom, the title Pait is often given to royal princes, provincial leaders, and other high officials. « (Montet 1975, p. 53) King Djoser’s master builder, Imhotep, was called ›a real pait‹. He is also called the son of Ptah, the father god of the Pait. Pait, Ptah have the same word-root or mirror-root: pt, tp; and both are portrayed – Imhotep and Ptah – also in the same manner: with the blue cap of the armorer and blacksmiths of the Horus-entourage. The highest social level at the Aryans is the Lord, ›pot‹ or ›dompoti‹. The leader, overseer and guide of the family is woyk-poti, Aryan-avestian: vis-paitis, Old-Persian paiti, Old-Indian pati. The correspondences – in the basic a patriarchal vocabulary – cannot be overlooked: The Father, German Vater, Latin and Greek pater, Gothic fadar, Old Indian pita, Sanskrit pitar is Dies-pitar is the Indo-Aryan name for God-Father. In Sanskrit, pitar means father, »but pati has different meanings, from whose connection the position of men becomes clear. Pati can be translated as lord, ruler, master, owner and spouse« (Stone 1988, p. 111). The Egyptian Ptah with the same root-consonants means a father god. In Aryan Sanskrit, the lord and master is called as in the Ancient-Indoiranian ›Pati‹; the Sumerians use the term Pate and Patesi (ruler). Also in Assyria, Babylon and Susa, the rulers were called Patesi before they had kings (C.H.W. Johns ›A new Patesi of Asur‹ 1902, p. 174).
Montet refers to the conquerors of Egypt as Pait, the Henmemet are the true natives of the Nile Valley, the Rechit or ›Lapwing‹-people, the inhabitants of the Mediterranean coast in the Delta, who are closely related to the Libyan tribes in the eastern part of the Delta. The Rechit are called ›underlings‹, by the ruling class, ordinary people. Rehi is also the Indo-European signification for people, quantity, and number of everyday people, for the wide mass (Haudry 1986, p. 140).
According to Montet, under the leadership of their god of war, Har, the Horus-Hawk, the Pait defeated the locals and remained the strongest support of the Pharaoh. »Even in the pyramid texts, the Pait appear as followers of Horus, whose earthly incarnation the king is. On his coronation, the king receives the Pait as if they belonged to him, his death plunges them into deep sorrow, while the Henmemet and the Rechit remain indifferent. One Stele reports that the authorities were instructed not to put Pait and Rechit on the same level. « (Montet 1975, p. 50)
Another Indo-European interesting idiom is ›Zuin/Zu-en/Suen‹. »The name was later contracted and the sibilant shifted until the name became Sin, the name of the Sumerian Lunar God. He is the son of the primordial Babylonian Goddess Tiamat (s. Albright/Lambdin, 1970, p. 147). It is hardly surprising that the most common name for the early ›God Kings‹ in Egypt was ›Ne-Zu/Nesu‹, corresponding to Albright/Lambdin »EN-ZU should be read Zuen/Suen«. »The title appears at about the same time as the Horus blacksmiths, the Shemsu-Hor« (Kaiser ZÄS 1961, p. 40). Zu-en corresponds to the Old High German word for God: Ziu/Tiu.
They had a ›Chief‹
As we have already seen, the frequency of Indo-European names, titles and designations in Egypt is striking; however, Egyptologists have not noticed this yet. We know from Henry Frankfort, that in the thousands of prehistoric tombs found in Egypt, there was not a single sign pointing to a ›great chief‹; that means, no one was buried with weapons. Even more striking is that many rulers of the Old Kingdom called themselves ›chief‹. The title ›Chief‹ was common; Cheops name was simply Chief/Chufu/Chaef, others are called Min-Chaef, Chef-Ra, Chaef-Snofru, An-Chaf, Shepses-Chef, User-Kaf, etc. (The various and often confusing spellings are transcriptions of individual authors of different languages.) The word Chief/Chef comes from the Indo-European root Kopf/chop, which is used for head, chief and boss. The title Chef is characteristic of nomadic tribes; they do not know a king; they have a chef, a chief. The ancient Egyptian Chef-au is a name for conquerors and enemies.
Who was Menes?
Was Menes ›Founder of the Egyptian Empire and of the First Dynasty‹? Was he a king, or a mythical figure? Wolfgang Helck thinks Menes was king Hor-Aha. Other Egyptologists believe that Menes was Narmer. However, is that so? At Wikipedia, under the keyword ›Menes‹ (accessed on March 1, 2013), we find an unbelievable number of articles by various authors on Menes, who is a big problem for Egyptologists; a riddle, that so far had not been solved. »One of the most heated and protracted debates in Egyptology has raged over the identification of Menes: Narmer, Aha, a conflation of the two or a mythical figure representing several rulers involved in the process of state formation«, asks Wilkinson (1999, p. 68)
Let us approach the problem from another side, however, from one side that the Egyptologists do not want to confront to this day: the conquest of Egypt by warlike hordes, Indo-European Hor-ites, the Shemsu-Hor. Here we find the solution in the language of Indo-European Sanskrit. The linguist Laurence Austin Waddell (1854–1938) writes about it: »The trilingual equation of Menes’ name is Egyptian Man or Manj = Sumerian Manis or Manisi = Sanskrit (India) Manasyu and Manja …. The title Aha derived from the Sumerian root Aha or Akha and means in Egyptian ›warrior‹, ›fight, strike down‹, and runs in the same word-form throughout the whole family of (Indo-european) Aryan language. The fuller form of Menes‘ name as Manj, strikingly confirms the literal identity of the Egyptian with the Sanskrit Manja (or Asa-Manja) and is usually disguised by many English Egyptologists as Mena« (Waddel 1929, p. 8) So we are dealing with a title not with personal names. Variants of ›Menes‹ are known from many regions and different languages where the patriarchal upheaval had taken place. After the successful conquest of a large part of the peaceful matriarchal world of that time, the Indo-European warriors presented themselves in the »picture of a proud warrior nobility, who appreciating life, the vast spaces, the earthly goods and above all the fame that prevails in peacetimes, and who dedicate themselves to cattle breeding, riding and hunting …. There is an aristocracy among Indo-Europeans, whose main occupation is war; this aristocracy significantly shaped the subsequent forms of government … Tacitus‘ ›Germania‹ provides us with the image of a ›nation in arms‹ … For these men the character‹, the urge for action (ménos) is the main attribute of men [the man!] and fame (kléwos) the highest aim in life. Sung by the poets, the victory helps the warrior to ›unfading glory‹. ›Menos‹ is the ideally typical character image for an aggressive urge for action (ambition), pathological striving for power and megalomania. Whoever has this traits should have the character of a Lord (nar-menes). « (Jean Haudry (1986, pp. 25, 131). When Menes is associated with Nar-mer or Hor-Aha, it means that these conqueror kings have been given the character of daredevil and glory-addicted Indo-European warriors. As we have already seen on the Narmer palette, this description applies to Narmer. Many Egyptologists celebrate the incredibly cruel power of this man and brutal murderer as a ›triumphator‹. Nevertheless, he is the conqueror-chief who persecutes indigenous Egyptians, massacres them, bleeds out, robbes the country and enslaves the people.
The Indo-European Class-System in Egypt
One of the most lasting consequences of the Indo-European conquests is the introduction of the hierarchical system that divides people into higher and lower classes. It was developed to secure an elitist position for the Indo-European conquerors and »was perhaps the most effective method of maintaining a hierarchical order that the human mind has ever devised« (Sprague de Camp, cited by Walker 1993, p. 524). In 1938, the French scholar Georges Dumézil recognized for the first time the inhuman ideology of the three-class system in primitive Indo-European society. »Dumézil stated that the ›three functions‹ distinguish Indo-European society from every other. « (Eliade and Couliano 1991, p. 138) Marija Gimbutas confirms this statement: »The patrilinear and patriarchal structure and the three-class system of dominion, warrior-nobility, and working people are proven to be Indo-European by the linguistic evidence derived from the comparison of languages. This class structure is also reflected in the mythologies of Indo-European peoples. « (Gimbutas 1992, p. 8) In Egypt it is affirmed by Emery: »Through the evidence obtained from their burial customs, we are able to distinguish three distinct social classes in during the period of the first two dynasties. These groups consist of the nobility, officials and artisans, and the peasantry. « (Emery 1961, p. 110)
Hierarchical class thinking meets us on the Narmer palette for the first time. It is manifested by the different sizes of the figures. In his description of the palette, Egyptologist Hermann Ranke underlines that the lined up over each other images »clearly arrange the processes depicted; the emphasis on the chief characters by their greatness lets the high officials jut out above the simple people of the populace, but the king himself far above his dignitaries« (Ranke, Epilogue to Breasted 1954, p. 354). And Pierre Montet writes: »Egyptian art always reveals the identification parade of a highly cultivated and an ordinary type. « (Montet 1975, p. 58)
Discrimination against the dark population because of the racist Indo-European caste system, is legitimized as ›divine‹. In the Egyptian ›wisdom, teachings‹ people are classified as superiors, peers, and underlings. For the theologian Siegfried Morenz this is not repugnant, he explains the despicable ideology while saying that »the creator god qualitatively differentiates the creatures according to his free and inscrutable will and makes them lower and the others higher« (ZÄS 1959, p. 79). But theologian Morenz does not know, that his creator god is of Indo-European origin too. So far I was persuaded, that it was not a god but men, male priests who invented the discriminatory class system.
According to the well-established principle of ›divide and rule‹, people were subdivided hierarchically, some being singled out for the benefit of the upper classes and used against their own people. These included, first, and foremost, officials, tax collectors, police and a myriad of invigilators. As a result, »the social pyramid that emerged in the pyramidal age in Egypt and Mesopotamia remains the model for any civilized society.… At its head was a minority inflated with pride and power, led by the king and his ministers, nobles, warlords, and priests … and a broad base of workers crushed by the burden on them« (Mumford 1974, p. 246).
The pickaxe and the basket are building cities,
The stable house, with the pickaxe it is built …
The house that rebels against the king,
The house that does not submit to its king,
Is subjected to the king by the pickaxe.
(Sumerian poem after S. N. Kramer)
A Perplexing new Funeral Culture
Alexander Scharff wrote about the ›graves in the hollowed-out limestone cliffs in Saqqara, which in terms of size and layout resembled apartment buildings with many rooms: »The entire tomb construction shows the character of residential buildings«. Scharff even speaks of subterranean ›palaces‹. »If the grave is really formed as a palace«, wrote Siegfried Morenz in his review of Scharff’s article, »then it has the character of an apartment building; the underground palace is his model. « (Morenz 1951, p. 207) »If you should still doubt that these underground grave rooms should really represent the dead man’s house, you should be convinced that in the largest of these plants even a bathroom (recognizable by the location for large water jugs) and a lavatory have been found. The dead man, who each was in the ›bedroom‹, a large room on the right at the end of the corridor, should obviously feel ›at home‹ here. It is clear that the grave’s design, which is highly perspicuous as a residential house that the supplies which were required by the deceased for his life in the hereafter, were also depicted. There were found numerous stone and clay vessels in the rooms. Especially the large storage vessels that were common at the time« (Scharff 1944, p. 18 f). Scharff assumed that the custom of burial in the residential house, as was customary from the Neolithic period among others in the under-Egyptian settlements of Merimde and El Omari was in the faith in the strong connection between grave and dwelling, simply would have been continued in the underground tombs in Saqqara. « (Scharff 1944, p. 20).
Ann Rosalie David also dealt with the peculiar burial culture. She reports, »the tombs were adapted to the dwellings of the rich from about the middle of the first dynasty … Some even had servant rooms, bathrooms, and toilets and were surrounded by gardens. These underground ›houses‹ usually had a reception hall flanked by guest rooms. The innermost room was the burial chamber, which represented the bedroom of the master of the house; a living room and the harem or women’s quarters, where the housework was done, bathroom and toilet, which were accessible from both sides, and storage (David 1986, p. 36 f). J. E. Quibell described the ›subterranean tombs‹ as »the exact reproduction of homes of the living«: »Right at the end of the stairwell, a large plug stone, wedged in as a stopper, prevents unauthorized persons from gaining further access; here and there such blocks can be found in other parts of the adjacent long corridor. « (Quoted by Scharff 1947, p. 18) The only sensitive entrance area, which was equipped with a wooden door, could be blocked in times of danger with one or more plug stones.
Underground ›grave houses‹ with extensive galleries and chambers were dug and used throughout the whole Old Kingdom. So e.g. also seen in the underground ›tomb‹ of Ti in Saqqara (fifth Dynasty). From the pillar yard of the entrance, a staircase leads to the underground burial chamber where the sarcophagus stands, with air ducts outwards. Not far away, the ›tomb‹ of Mereruka (6. Dynastie) consists of 32 rooms. The reliefs, with which these ›Tomb-Palaces‹ are decorated all over, belong to the most beautiful, which Egypt has ever produced. Siegfried Morenz claims, »The driving force is not the desire to live in the house, but to be with God« (Morenz 1951, p. 209). Nevertheless, and this is amazing, in rooms where Egyptologists have seen ›cult chapels‹ we do not find a single sacral image, not a single deity. After all, Scharff finds it strange that even in Giza »there are no religious representations and texts in the graves of the nobles, neither for the gods nor for the king«. But, he says, »this fact should by no means be dismissed with the – purely materialistic conception, as if the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom were hedonists, merely joyous pleasure-lover of this world who had no other wish than, pictorially – to take over as much as possible of the comfortable worldly life on earth into the hereafter. « (Scharff 1950, p. 65)
Were this really ›tombs‹, built like houses?
Or was it not rather the missing of secular dwellings of the
›higher classes‹, of the so-called Elites?
Surprisingly, private upper-class homes were never found; one probably never looked for it or seriously wondered how and where this upper class actually lived. Some scientists do this with the remark that they lived in ›loam brick palaces‹ that are no longer found because the transient material has left no lasting mark. Nevertheless, this is absurd.
Ever since we heard of Ceausescu’s secret underground living quarters of his palace, it is hard to see tombs in these huge villas. We should actually doubt that these subterranean or in rock-carved living complexes were tombs. They did not just represent residential buildings, they were their homes and had everything for living, and contained a bed/burial room too. Whatever is described here may be luxurious villas, palaces of foreigners in Egypt. This underground palace not only protected against high heat and cold but also provided protection.
Did Djoser barricade in his Subterranean Palace
It is easy to imagine that the enormous security precautions of the first conqueror chiefs were necessary because it is hard to belief that the indigenes would not have resisted the brutal horde of invaders. For security reasons the invaders and their ›chiefs‹ never lived outside protected areas. Therefore, Djoser had to bunker subterranean himself with his family and his helpers in his palace in troubled times with everything he had stolen and hoarded.
Blue-glazed tiles (after Cyril Aldred 1965, p. 77)
The Step Pyramid dating from the third dynasty in Saqqara is – so the belief of most Egyptologists – the impressive preliminary stage to the three Great Pyramids of Giza. However, what was found in the underground of the pyramid is at least as impressive and important for the history of Egypt as the whole superstructure. The Step Pyramid has the largest underground ›tomb‹ complex ever seen – archeologists speak even of a subterranean town. In a depth of 28 to 32 meters was the burial chamber in rose granite (4 m high, 3 m long and 2 m wide). But according to french architect and archaeologist Jean-Philippe Lauer, who spent his life working in the step-pyramid district, this underground complex, definitely included living quarters, some of them were decorated with beautiful faience tiles. »In the so-called South Tomb, blue-glazed tiles imitated the colored reed mattings that have adorned the walls of the king’s palace during his lifetime«, writes Egyptologist Cyril Aldred (1965, p. 77) who was obviously certain that this was the palace of the living not the dead Djoser. A logical consideration, where else should he have lived?
Everything indicates that this was the underground residential palace and the kings administrative residence; a huge underground palace of incredible dimensions. There was found a whole labyrinth of rooms, laid out on three floors with corridors and galleries in all directions, connected by passages with a total of at least 6000 meters. While researching this topic, I came across three trailers of a video game, filmed in the underground passages under the Step-Pyramid. Of course, the trailers were provided and alienated with many film-technical tricks. The short film passages are worth seeing, however, because the recordings were clearly made in the corridors of the huge labyrinth under the pyramid what has never been seen before: (https://www.ign.com/wikis/assassins-creed-origins/Tomb_of_Djoser / ›Assassin’s Creed‹)
Philippe Lauer writes about his finds in the galleries: »It is not exaggerated if I assure that in these corridors about 40,000 vessels of all shapes were buried: Bowls, cups, plate-like dishes with and without feet. Noteworthy in some of these vessels is not only the purity of their form and the perfected craftsmanship in the often very hard material, but also the originality of its decor« (Lauer 1988, p. 105). The most striking: »The numerous inscriptions found on these stone vessels belong to engravings that gave the title or name of the owner, the king or a noble, sometimes even mentioned the royal monument for which they were originally intended … besides, there were more than a thousand other vessels, all of which bore hundreds of very different inscriptions. The engraved vascular inscriptions are also important historically because they contain the names of almost all kings of the 1st and 2nd dynasties, and sometimes even short lists, showing who followed whom. « (Lauer 1988, p. 106).
But then Lauer observed something astonishing: He writes: »However, the name of Djoser never appeared, even though it was he who had created these complex … Only one big clay seal came to light, bearing on one side the name of the king in his Serekh [the palace symbol]. In contemporary inscriptions, he is called Netjerikhet, meaning ›divine of body‹. Later sources, confirmed that Netjerikhet and Djoser were the same person. »Inscriptions from the Djoser complex in Saqqara usually give the names of Djoser and his wives and daughters, but always begin with the words ›Chenti-ta-djeser-nisut‹ (›blessed is the land of the sublime king‹).
Could ›Djoser‹ be a title and not the individual name of this king, a peculiarity as can be assumed with Menes? While ›Menes‹ is the glorification of the caste of a proud warrior nobility, ›Djoser‹ is likely to be a dominion, top-level title of the upper-class system for the ruler, the leader of the state, the Tsar. It is worthwhile to look at the appellation Djoser. ›Djoser‹ is transcribed differently in various languages, although there is a lot of acquainted information: Djoser also spelled Djer, Djeser, Djéser, Djéserit, Zo-Sar, Zo-Ser, Zeser, Zéser, Zer, Sar. Sar or because of the uncertain vocalization Ser/Zer/Zar, designates in Egypt a prince or nobleman. Sar corresponds with the Indo-Aryan prince title Sar, Oldiranien: sare sovereignity, Iranian: Kay-sar (great king), Sumerian: Sar king, prince, Akkadian šàr: prince or king. Gothic: Kai-sar, Latin: Cae-Sar (emperor), German: Kaiser. The name is reminiscent of the Roman ›Caesars‹ and the Russian ›Tsars‹.
Let us have a look at the outside. Thanks to new technologies (laser measurement, drone photography), the scientists made interesting new discoveries. The 15-hectare Djoser complex included several small temples, palaces and an arcade. »A city without inhabitants and life«, archaeologists claim, and they rave about the magic of this place. The area was surrounded by a 1645-meter long and a probably about 10 meter high ring wall. Along this wall, there was a trench 28 meters deep and 40 meters wide, which had served as a quarry for the construction of the pyramid. The question of why this ›necropolis‹ had to be protected so incredibly is not asked. Describing this area as the ›Dead City‹ is quite an adventurous idea. (›Pyramids‹, a film by Marie Perrin and François Pomès 2019). The conquerors had every reason to be careful and to protect themselves, which is why burying oneself in underground residential complexes is more than understandable. Because:
They had killed the matriarchal queens, including their families and courtiers
and they overthrew the matriarchal administration, management and government. They oppressed and enslaved the Egyptian population, robbed them of their possessions, their houses, their animals, their rights and their freedom.
It is unlikely that people would not have resisted.