A DIFFUSIONIST VIEW ON THE ORIGINS OF UPPER AND LOWER EGYPT AND ON THE GENESIS OF CIVILIZATION GENERALLY

In total contradistinction the isolationist scenario presented by our contemporary ethno-linguistic Neo-Scholasticism lacks all convincing logic. Why should a people - having been content for centuries with a simpler, rather unsophisticated way of life - suddenly feel the urge to construct an advanced civilization? It seems a rather unrealistic scenario. Especially in view of the fact that they, in all probability, liked that way of life and, therefore, abhorred certain typical elements of advanced civilizations (cities, god-kings, centralization of power, social stratification, temples/priesthoods). If on the other hand, these were imposed on them by a more powerful superstratum, they had to acquiesce.

And indeed, when one studies - uninfluenced by neo-scholastic ethno-linguistic doctrine - the accompanying table (admittedly the present author's version), the substratum(s)/superstratum(s) and amalgamation character of all advanced civilizations on this planet becomes obvious.

The fact will not have eluded the reader's notice that the civilization of ancient Egypt is missing in this synopsis. This was intentional. The author wanted the reader first to ponder on this revealing listing. In view of this synopsis it will have become clear that the current Egyptological scenario of an autochthonous origin of Egyptian civilization is highly improbable. On the contrary we have to reckon, with near-zero uncertainty, with its origin having also been due - besides of an African substratum - to transfusions, in all probability maritime transfusions from afar.

The objection might be raised to this proposition that the civilization of ancient Egypt - fully developed, compared to other advanced civilizations - may seem to have been of a rather unique, even eccentric character. To this it might be answered that this special character is probably attributable to a tyrannic, perhaps indeed a bit eccentric Pharaonic theocracy. On the other hand this impression may partly also be only an erroneous implication of ours, because we may be unable to vividly visualize the comparable civilizations of Ancient America and Chaldea.

When we take as a point of departure the thesis that ancient Egypt's civilization, too, had been initiated by an impetus from abroad, we have by necessity to reckon with a twofold impetus. Because according to reliable Egyptological tradition as well as inscriptions left by the ancient Egyptians themselves, Egypt originally has been regarded as two separate countries or kingdoms: Upper Egypt (around Thebes) and Lower Egypt (with the Delta). We have thus to reckon with two separate ethno-linguistic and cultural transfusions of which one - apparently the more ancient one - aimed at Upper Egypt, the other at the Delta.

Synopsis of Multiple Origins of Advanced Civilizations "Western" (Occidental-European) civilization Atlanto-Iberian / Megalithic culture, Celtic superstratum, then rather rustic Germanic culture, Hellenistic-Mediterranean superstratum (Imperium Romanum), Judaeo-Christianity from Near East Islamic civilization Perhaps a special case (Islam not imported), also elements of palaeo-Semitic/palaeo-Iberian renaissance, but clear amalgamation in dominant regions (Andalusia, Chorassan) Ottoman empire A clear case of an ethno-linguistic superstratum, superimposed on a multi-cultural amalgam Aztec empire Evident parallel to Ottoman empire Chinese civilization Amalgam of ancient Oceanic substratum and divers Asiatic superstrata, also "Caucasian" transfusion from north of the Pontust Maya (and Toltec/Olmec) civilization clear case of amalgam/superstrata civilization, with transfusions from South East Asia and ancient Mediterranean/Iberian civilization Ancient Mediterranean civilizations (from Iberia to Assyria) Clear case of ethno-linguistic and cultural superstrata, originating from palaeo-Hamito-Semitic civilization of ancient Iberia, of which the Imperium Romanum is a late renaissance, with Indo-European superstratum Civilizations of ancient Peru (Inca, Chimu, Chavin, Tihuanaco, etc) Amalgam of local cultures with superstrata from Mexico/Central America, South East Asia, Polynesia, also "European" element "Sumero"-Chaldean civilization Clear case of ethno-linguistic and because of our uncertain-chaotic chronology as yet unclear amalgam of divers sub/superstrata, with interconnections to Iberian West and India Indian civilization As yet unclear multi-cultural amalgam with many transfusions, eg, Mediterranean Superstratum on Australoid substratum, Indus Civilization obviously imported The fact will not have eluded the reader's notice that the civilization of ancient Egypt is missing in this synopsis. This was intentional. The author wanted the reader first to ponder on this revealing listing. In view of this synopsis it will have become clear that the current Egyptological scenario of an autochthonous origin of Egyptian civilization is highly improbable. On the contrary we have to reckon, with near-zero uncertainty, with its origin having also been due - besides of an African substratum - to transfusions, in all probability maritime transfusions from afar. The objection might be raised to this proposition that the civilization of ancient Egypt - fully developed, compared to other advanced civilizations - may seem to have been of a rather unique, even eccentric character. To this it might be answered that this special character is probably attributable to a tyrannic, perhaps indeed a bit eccentric Pharaonic theocracy. On the other hand this impression may partly also be only an erroneous implication of ours, because we may be unable to vividly visualize the comparable civilizations of Ancient America and Chaldea. When we take as a point of departure the thesis that ancient Egypt's civilization, too, had been initiated by an impetus from abroad, we have by necessity to reckon with a twofold impetus. Because according to reliable Egyptological tradition as well as inscriptions left by the ancient Egyptians themselves, Egypt originally has been regarded as two separate countries or kingdoms: Upper Egypt (around Thebes) and Lower Egypt (with the Delta). We have thus to reckon with two separate ethno-linguistic and cultural transfusions of which one - apparently the more ancient one - aimed at Upper Egypt, the other at the Delta. The accompanying map shows the author's favorite - though of course tentative - scenario for these two transfusions. Of these the more recent one, aiming at the Delta, has doubtless to be seen interconnected with those contemporaneous movements of peoples, ideas - especially the alphabet 1 - and technologies from the Iberian West to the Mediterranean and the Near East.2,3 Certainly it is not by chance that there exist megalithic harbors at Lixus on the Atlantic coast of Morocco4 as well as near Alexandria on the Mediterranean coast of Egypt.5 The author suspects that these have been the terminals of a maritime highway, over which transfusions from the Atlanto-European Megalithic culture as well as from a "Madeira-Atlantis"6 - submerged during the last cataclysms around 700 BC - reached Egypt, nota bene the Delta. In view of the Megalithic harbor at Lixus and possibly a "Madeira-Atlantis" which still existed as recently as 700 BC, certain affinities between Egyptian civilization and Ancient America are to be expected. The Ankh-shaped altar of Calixtlahuaca in Mexico7 is a fine example. This apparently more recent transfusion, when arriving in Lower Egypt, seems to have superimposed itself on a substratum, which - possessing only a minor truly African component - was already an amalgam of mainly Hamito-Semitic peoples, having arrived earlier during those above-mentioned West-East movements. In this scenario, then, we have to expect, for Lower Egypt, a civilization with characteristic elements of its Iberian, Megalithic and possibly "Madeira-Atlantean" heritage, plus certain affinities with civilizations of Ancient America. The tantalizing uncertainty in this scenario is the fact that as yet we have no proof that such a "Madeira-Atlantis" did indeed exist, and which characteristic traits of civilization it might have possessed. The other transfusion, aiming at Upper Egypt, is quite another story. Here we have to expect a much more African substratum. The distance from Thebes to the Mediterranean ("as the crow flies") is over 600 km, but to the Red Sea only 150 km, and in addition it has, by way of the Wadi Hammamat, an easy and natural connection to the Red Sea harbor of El-Kusêr. This then, obviously, has been Upper Egypt's natural connection with the sea: not with the Mediterranean, but with the Red Sea, which is part of the Indian Ocean! A bit farther to the South, Thor Heyerdahl 8 has discovered in the Wadi Abu Subeira - in the Nubian Desert between Aswan and the Red Sea - petroglyphs of crocodiles, swamp antelopes and giraffes together with pre-dynastic sailing vessels, which shows that in ancient times river navigation has been possible, by way of this canyon, between the Nile and the Red Sea. In view of this ancient riverine connection to the Sea we will have to postulate, for Upper Egypt, a transfusion from some region belonging to what may be called "Ethiopian Civilization" (Southern Arabia/Ethiopia/Southern India) as the most promising option. A "Sumero"-Chaldean transfusion cannot be totally excluded, neither for Lower Egypt, which it might conceivably have reached by the land route. We will touch on this detail later on when discussing the rôle of Chaldea in our puzzle. In view of the obviously totally unreliable and chaotic character of our conventional chronology9 the present author would not even dare to exclude the rather adventurous thesis that the Meroitic civilization of Cush might also have had its origin in a similar transfusion, and that it may even be older than the civilization of Egypt. Upper Egypt would then have its origins in Cush, not contrariwise. The influence of Cush would then have been even greater than that great expert on Ancient Africa, Basil Davidson10 has suspected. The tentative considerations presented here find strong support in a work by EJ Baumgartel11 about predynastic Egypt. This most competent author states that the first impetus for the civilization of ancient Egypt - arriving by way of the Wadi Hammamat - aimed indeed at Upper Egypt, and that this earliest Egyptian civilization had, as yet, no connection whatsoever with the Mediterranean. But from where, from which country did this transfusion, this superstratum arrive? From Southern Arabia? From India? From Chaldea? LA Waddell, a remarkable nonconformist, had already in 1930 presented the thesis that Egyptian civilization had been founded as a colony of the Indus civilization, which again he saw as part of a great Sumerian World Empire, the pre-dynastic pharaohs being none other than alter egos of Sumerian emperors12. In view of Heinsohn's13,14 identification of the "Sumerians of the 3rd millennium" as the Chaldeans of the 1st millennium, Waddell's work could doubtless contribute thought-provoking versions of our puzzle! But after all that ever-present arch-diffusionist Thor Heyerdahl15 has also published a most remarkable book pertinent to this puzzle. He seems totally convinced that the "cradle" of "Sumero"Chaldean civilization has been Dilmun = India, not contrariwise as Waddell thinks. This would fit Baumgartel's16 remark that the origins of the Nakada-II civilization of (pre-dynastic) Upper Egypt lay in a country adjacent to the original home of the Sumerians. This could easily mean that Dilmun = India has also been the origin of Upper Egyptian civilization. Speculations about India being the real source of Egyptian civilization are not new. However, there has as yet not been adduced hard evidence for this thesis. The same state of affairs prevails with respect to the thesis that Cush had been culturally influenced from India.17 Is it somehow possible to overcome this deadlock with respect to the question, if a maritime transfusion via the Indian Ocean could indeed have been the impetus for the birth of Upper Egyptian civilization? The present author is convinced that comparative studies about the religions and pantheons of India and (Upper) Egypt cannot be of help here. Because the origins of the "Religion of India", of what today we call Hinduism - Woodroffe's "Bharata Dharma"18 - are fast disappearing in the mists of prehistory exactly at that point in time, where it becomes interesting for us. We would have to know something about the pre-Hinduistic / pre-Buddhistic religions of India and Ceylon, to be able to compare with ancient Egypt. But such knowledge is - most tantalizingly - missing! With our glaring ignorance in this respect another adventurous thesis cannot be rejected a priori: had the adherents of an earlier religion of India/Ceylon to flee their country because of incompatibility towards Hinduism, and were they that foreign transfusion arriving in Upper Egypt? Heyerdahl19 has - most meritoriously! - unearthed the quite unsuspected ancient civilization of the Maldives with its innumerable pyramids (later transformed into Hinduistic temples and Buddhist stupas) and has summarized the little we know of the most astounding advanced pre-Buddhist civilizations of ancient Ceylon. All of this seems more or less contemporary with the beginnings of ancient Egyptian civilization. And those enigmatic "Redin"/"Long Ears", which Heyerdahl mentions so often in his works, may very easily be a key ingredient of our puzzle. Were they a kind of proto-Phoenicians, a "nation" (?) of worldwide active maritime traders or colonizers, which were needed for maritime transfusions to faraway countries? In view of the little knowledge we have as yet in these important respects it seems we will still have to wait a little longer before we will be able to unravel the enigmatic genesis of Egyptian civilization! REFERNCES According to the famous WMF Petrie ("The Formation of the Alphabet", in British School of Archaeology in Egypt Studies Series, Vol III, London, 1912), one version of the alphabet, related to the Iberian version, has been the first script of ancient Egypt. The hieroglyphs have been a later invention. Cf. John Dayton, Minerals Metals Glazing and Man, London, 1978. Cf. Horst Friedrich, Velikovsky, Spanuth and the Sea Peoples Discussion, 2nd edition, Wörthsee, Germany, 1990. Cf. Thor Heyerdahl, Early Man and the Ocean, Garden City, NY, 1979 Cf. G Jondet, "Les ports submergés de l'ancienne île de Pharos", in Mémoires présentés à Institut Êgyptien, Le Caire, 1916. In 1882 the JESMOND, in the open Atlantic southwest of Madeira, discovered a (later on again submerged) volcanic island on which were discovered remains of an advanced Bronze Age civilization which were brought to London, where, during World War II, they were allegedly destroyed by an impact of a German V weapon. Cf. D Robson, "Charles Berlitz, An Inquiry into Journalistic Credibility", Pursuit 19(1), 1986. In 1882 the JESMOND, in the open Atlantic southwest of Madeira, discovered a (later on again submerged) volcanic island on which were discovered remains of an advanced Bronze Age civilization which were brought to London, where, during World War II, they were allegedly destroyed by an impact of a German V weapon. Cf. D Robson, "Charles Berlitz, An Inquiry into Journalistic Credibility", Pursuit 19(1), 1986. Heyerdahl, op cit, p 8. Cf. Gunnar Heinsohn and Heribert Illig, Wann lebten die Pharaonen?, Frankfurt, 1990, pp 108-111, 113, 133. Basil Davidson, Urzeit und Geschichte Afrikas, Reinbeck, Hamburg, 1961. When Davidson wrote his book, however, nobody - besides the great "heretic" Velikovsky - had ever suspected that the orthodox chronology might be a "house of cards" and a "trap for the unwary". Elise J Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, London, 1955. LA Waddell, Egyptian Civilization, Its Sumerian Origin (etc.), London, 1930. Gunnar Heinsohn, Die Sumerer gab es nicht, Frankfurt, 1988. Gunnar Heinsohn, Wer herrschte im Industal , Graefelfing, 1993. Thor Heyerdahl, The Maldive Mystery, Bethesda, Maryland, 1986. Baumgartel, op cit, p 49. Cf. Steffen Wenig, "Nochmals zu den Elefantengott-Darstellungen in der meroitischen Kunst", in Festschrift Elmar Edel, Bamberg, 1979. Cf. Steffen Wenig, "Nochmals zu den Elefantengott-Darstellungen in der meroitischen Kunst", in Festschrift Elmar Edel, Bamberg, 1979. Heyerdahl, op cit 1986, passim, with respect to the pre-Buddhist civilizations of Ceylon: Chapter 11.