Nubia, Kom Ombo (the city of gold) in Ta Seti

Those of us who study archaeology performed in Africa should know the term  “Naqada” refers to Egyptian burial excavations. On the other hand Nubian burial sites were classified by A-group through X-group by George Reisner. We must know that archaeological and political borders are different. If we adhere to modern political borders and old archaeology, yes, some may find the location Kom Ombo to be in Egypt. But if one sticks to the rule of using multiple disciplines to substantiate such a claim, also new information as well as the information of our elders and ancestors, we would have to consider such a claim insufficient to answer the perplex question of whether Kom Ombo or /nybt/ originally fell under Egyptian borders or if it was a region of Ta Nehesi, which we know as Nubia.

With the evidence provided in Maria C. Gatto’s reassessment of the A-group culture, also in her “Cultural entanglement at the dawn of the Egyptian history: a view from the Nile First Cataract region”, and primarily the work done in “Nubians in Egypt: Survey in the Aswan-Kom Ombo Region”,  we find the latest archaeological evidence to substantiate the claims of the Late Great Dr.Ben, that Ta Seti, or Nubia, was the mother of Egypt.

The Egyptian name for Kom Ombo is /nwbt/ “gold”. For simplicity’s sake let’s throw “Kom Ombo” out for a minute and establish that Ancient Egyptians called this region /nwbt/ “gold”. It has been argued in earlier research that the abundance of gold and gold mines in the regions of Kom Ombo in Ta Seti could indeed be related to the Greek use of the term Nubia. Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop wrote “...the etymology of Nubia is said to signify ‘gold’. Historically, Nubia was the country from which Egypt acquired all of her gold.”(1987: 105). Rosemarie Klemm & Dietrich Klemm discussed the etymology of Nubia being related to the Egyptian term “nub” (2012). Here we find a reference to Alfred Grimm’s citation of the primary source of a phrase/term “/tA nbw/ “The land of Gold”, coming from the 5th dynasty fragment list of Djedkare where exotic goods brought back from “Ta Nebu” were accounted. In Madjai-A Handbook for the Conscious Community I produced a term /smr-nbw/ “gold friends” which was associated with a particular people of Ta Seti. Fergus Sharman is another scholar who offers work on the etymology of Nubia and its relation to gold from the Bantu perspective. Sharman points to the quite plausible pronunciation of the Egyptian /nwb/ “gold” as NU-BWE by demonstrating its relation to the Bantu term M-BWE; precious stone. Sharman goes on to demonstrate the interchangeability of the N- and M- between the Ancient Egyptian and Bantu languages to substantiate a theory that the Ancient Egyptian term /nwb/ is etymologically related to Nubia. The evidence that Nybt is the etymon to Nubia is not overwhelming but it prevails over the lack of evidence to the contrary so much so that it causes its opponents to inadvertently switch their stance from what Nubia means to where Nubia is. If you go look over my previous articles address the meaning and etymology of Nubia  you will see the former argument concerned the meaning of the name “Nubia”. This document concerns the borders of Egypt against Nubia and whether or not Kom Ombo is in what we call Nubia.

The current argument for scholars who disagree is now “Kom Ombo, or Nybt is within the ancient and Modern borders of Egypt, not in Nubia”.  This definitive statement is subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny performed under the control of primary sources to see if the aloof nature of such a claim is qualified by one’s own research. Like; “Where you get that from?” or, can you please cite the primary source, i.e. ancient map or manuscript that one is using to definitive establish the “ancient borders” of Egypt?

In the first two parts of this Nubia Trilogy (two chapters can be found in Madjai-A Handbook for the Conscious Community) I presented primary accounts of the “borders of Egypt” which were left to us by Remetch (Egyptians). To Remetch the city /nwbt/ was in the first Sepat (nome).

 nomemap1Map provided by Tour

Another map below show all the nomes of upper and lower Egypt. Sites 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d are all in Ta Seti. Notice 1c in the list below. See more at;

Ta setiFirst Nome: Ta Seti: Land of the arch or Ta Khentit : the frontier

  • 1a– Pawareq (p-jw-rq ; Coptic Pilak, Greek Philae): Island, Isis temple complex (3rd cent. BCE). Temples of Hathor, and of the Nubian gods Mandulis and Arensnuphis
  • 1b– Swentet (swn.w ; Greek Syene, modern Aswan) : Temple of Isis
  • 1c Nebeet, Nubyt (Greek Ombi-Kom, modern Ombo): Capital of the nome during the Ptolemaic period. Temples of Sobek and Horus (2nd cent. BCE)
  • 1d– Abu (Abw ; Greek Elephantine): Capital of the nome. Frontier and garrison town, built on an island in the Nile. Temples of Khnum and Satet (since predynastic at least) and of Amenhotep III which was destroyed in the 19th century, Nilometer
  • Kheny (modern Gebel)


This sepat on the first cataract was called Ta Seti. As Dr. Ben taught us, we all know Ta Seti existed as what we today call Nubia before an “Egypt” ever had sepats or even existed. The archaeology tells us this also. It is because the pottery of the Nubian A-group seems to blend seamlessly with the Tazain and Badarian cultures that preceded the Naqada cultures of Kemet (Gatto: 2005). Yet the contemporary Naqada culture (Naqada I) started in Abydos then moved southward leaving some grave sites retaining close to 20% Nubian materials. Abydos is not in Ta Seti and if Egyptian culture is first found around Abydos then it stands to argue that the original inhabitants of Ta Seti were not culturally Egyptians. Nubians were in Ta Seti before the concept of Egypt arose. It was the Naqada culture that descended on the areas of Kom Ombo and therefore the original natural “border” would lie between the original Egyptians and Nubian burial sites in the area.  Also Kom Ombo /nwbt/ is not to be confused with Naqada /nwbt/ then by default erroneously lumped in with Naqada culture. Naqada (a different /nwbt/) is its own city located north of Edfu, Karnak and Luxor in the third sepat (nome) while Naqada Culture is an archaeological classification of burial sites in the area named after Naqada. The only extraction sites actually in Naqada is Naqada III, which is dated from 3200-3000 BCE and is contemporaneous with the decline of A-Group culture and the unification of Egypt. This means exactly what is stated, that Nubian Culture in the regions of Ta Seti was in decline at the same time Egypt is being formed.  This makes it hard for one to argue Kom Ombo was originally in Egypt unless the subject’s uses an “ancient map” from the time where Egypt dominated and then enveloped the areas of Ta Seti. There is no primary source map extant from these time periods for one to draw such a conclusion about Ta Seti. If one is searching for ancient borders it would be an unfair assessment for one to not consider the political structure of the dominating empire that envelopes smaller or less powerful towns, villages or even nations into their own culture under the auspices of unification. Before the Unification of Egypt and the structuring of Egyptian political power no ancient Borders of Egypt could have existed or being enforced and Ta Seti. Ta Nehesi and Nybt stood independently in times when Egypt was not. At this time Kom Ombo was in Ta Seti (Nubia). Nubia did not move or go anywhere but its lower portions were engulfed by Egypt. As cited before, Nubian A-group archaeology resembles the Tazian and Badarian culture that preceded Egyptian culture in the area. Ta Seti was /tA sty/ before Egypt existed and Kom Ombo is still in Ta Seti. Now Ta Seti is a nome of Egypt but originally is was what we call Nubia today.

It was Ta Seti, the areas of Edfu south to Kom Ombo, Aswan on to the second cataract (before they were enveloped into the Egyptian sepat system) which Dr. Yosef Ben Jochannan calls “The Mother of Egypt”. In “Cultural entanglement at the dawn of the Egyptian history: a view from the Nile First Cataract region” Gatto reveals the debt of field research that has caused her to question whether the borders of Egypt enveloped Nybt (Kom Ombo) or not. Regardless archaeologist in 2015 place the borders of the classical Nubia north of Kom Ombo, in Jebel es-Silsila.


Gatto; Nubians in Egypt: A Study of the Aswan-Kom Ombo region. The Sudan Archaeological Research Society, p.74

I hope I have begun to detail why conducting a survey of this type by only using linguistic tools would cause one to form error riddled conclusions about the borders of Egypt. This has been one of my mistakes. The manifestation of an A-group Tumulus just east of Kom Ombo and Roman (Nubian) Tumuli just to the north of Wadi Kubbaniya are new developments in the research of Ta Seti that caused scholars to question  ancient borders. As we see above Gatto discussed the border being more northward towards Gebel es-Silsila, between the modern towns of Kom Ombo and Edfu. this work is never done but I hope we can see that there is enough source material available beyond these three articles for us to research and begin to conclude that Kom Ombo was in Ta Seti.



  • Alfred Grimm: tA-nbw “Goldland” und “Nubien”. Zu den Inschriften auf dem Listenfragment aus dem Totentempel des Djedkare. In: Göttinger Miszellen (GM). Band 106, 1988, S. 23–28.
  • Diop, Cheikh Anta. Precolonial Black Africa: A Comparative Study of the Political and Social Systems of Europe and Black Africa, from Antiquity to the Formation of Modern States. Westport, CT: L. Hill, 1987. Print.
  • Klemm, Rosemarie, and Dietrich D. Klemm. Gold and Gold Mining in Ancient Egypt and Nubia: Geoarchaeology of the Ancient Gold Mining Sites in the Egyptian and Sudanese Eastern Deserts. Heidelberg: Springer, 2013. 380. Print.
  • M.C. Gatto. Nubians in Egypt: Survey in the Aswan-Kom Ombo Region. Sudan & Nubia, No 9, published by The Sudan Archaeological Research Society, 2005
  • M.C. Gatto. The Nubian A-Group: a reassessment.
  • M.C. Gatto. The most ancient evidence of the “A-Groups” culture in Lower Nubia.Studies in African Archaeology 7, Poznan Archaeological Museum 2000.
Posted in African Studies | Leave a comment

Shakka Ahmose-The Codex Game Over Revisited-56 Ahau em Pedjet em Madjai-(Osiris) who comes (Again)-Day 3

One thing people will know after this, whether we consider the author of  the Codex-Game Over, Shakka Ahmose a scholar or not, the work he has produced in The Codex-Game Over is not worthy of being taught to our youth. The Codex is riddled with unchecked source material, bad analogies and politically motivated assertions to substantiate Shakka’s claims of plagiarism. Over and over again we see comparisons made in the Codex that A. do not match the words of the primary text in question, B.  are sourced incorrectly (meaning the Pyramid Text numbers are incorrect), or C. appear like homonyms; like comparing “Flower” and “flour” then saying the latter plagiarized the ideas of the former even though the two terms express different ideas.

In this examination we will learn at least 1 of the 2 parenthetically injected terms in Shakka’s version of Utterance 390 684b is unfounded interpolation. Both “Osiris” and “again” were parenthetical additions to Mercer’s outdated version of the Utterance 390 684b, but we will focus on the term Shakka’s theory hinges on, “(again)”.

Before we begin to examine the third excerpt, I want to point out an ideological error in The Codex that is noticeable only 3 excerpts into the text. Excerpt #2, “Horus is RISEN” compared with “Now Christ is risen” suggest ideological plagiarism involving a rise, yet as noted before, Jesus the Christ rose from the dead, which is a resurrection. On the other hand, Heru was never killed or crucified and his rise was the rise of an ascending falcon. Heru was never resurrected from the dead.  So now at excerpt #3 we have the same biblical deity Jesus the Christ being compared to another Kemety netcher, Osiris. Here Shakka’s switches from Heru who has “RISEN” excerpt #2, to “(Osiris) who comes (again) in excerpt #3.  These are two different netchers who experienced different types of rises. Osiris rose from the dead, Heru rose into the sky like a Falcon, yet they are both used in the Codex to be compared to Jesus’ resurrection.

Of the two tales the story of Asar’s (Osiris’)  resurrection would be a better match for comparison with the story of Jesus’ resurrection. This work has been done before by various authors including Asar Imhotep’s “The Passion of the Christ or Passion of Osiris: The Kongo Origins of the Jesus Myth”. 

Utterance 390 (PT 390)

Pyramid of Teti, PT 390
Bibliography K. Sethe, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Leipzig 1908-1922 [H]; 
JP Allen, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Writings from the Ancient World 23, Atlanta 2005 T 265 [OB]
lineCount According To MAFS and Maspero / Sethe; 
s. J. Leclant / C. Berger, in: OrMonsp 9, 1997, the 275th
provenance Saqqara
date Teti
type of object King grave complex
script regular Hieroglyphics

Utterance 390 684b from The Codex

“(Osiris) who comes (again)”

is compared to;

I Thessalonians 3:13

“Jesus comes again”.

A theme that runs consistent in Skakka’s work is a failure to verify if a term or phrase is actually written in the primary text. Shakka had to rely on translators which is not the worst thing for a scholar to do but in most cases students have learned to cross check references to ensure the source work they are standing on is not a rouge, erroneous or outdated view. In The Codex-Game Over that process was omitted.

If we look at a facsimile of Utterance 390 684b we will learn two things, 1. the term Osiris is not in sentence 684b. It was the final word in 684a but Mercer’s understanding of Egyptian Grammar caused him to place the name Osiris in 684b where is does not belong. Again many translations have come since Mercer but we have learned not to rely on translations and to examine the primary text for ourselves before forming conclusions.

You do not have to know Medu Netcher to see what I am about to show you. All you have to do is identify the number 684, then find a. and b. The word Asar is in yellow.

Now tell me if 684b has Asar (Osiris) in it? It is because 684a was talking about Asar that Mercer entered the parenthetical (Osiris) in his translation of 684b.

390 684b Osiris

Here is a dictionary entry for Osiris( Mark Vygus Dictionary);

wsir 2

In forming the name of Asar (transliterated as /wsir/) placement of the above phonograms Q1 and D4 follow a rule of Egyptian Grammar that many will not know.  I can say it does not matter where these phonograms are placed in constructing the name ‘wsir” (Ausar)/Osiris. The “eye” can be behind the throne, above or below the throne and it still says /wsir/ Ausar/Asar/usar/, and Osiris in Greek. SO is Osiris in 684b above? No.

Here are Mercer’s outdated translations of 684a-b that Shakka used;

“684a. It is N. who stretched the cord (of a bow) as Horus, who draw the string as Osiris.

684b. It is that one (the dead) who has gone; it is this one (Osiris) who comes (again).”

Here is an updated version of the text by J.P.Allen. This text is label T265 in Allen’s work. Notice Allen did not add (again) into his translation;

“Teti is one who fires the bow as Horus, who draws the bowstring as
Osiris: that one has gone, this one has come”

Here is a third translation by Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae;

§ 684a (cartridge | TTJ | cartridge) pw pD RWD m Hr, w STA wn, t m (w) SR (W) Teti is one that spans the bowstring as Horus and the cord pulls as Osiris.
§ 684b z (i, j) pf j: Sm z (i, j) pn jwi.j That is gone, this has come.

As we see Allen has 684a as “Teti is one who fires the bow as Horus, who draws the bowstring as Osiris”. This is because the term Osiris is only in the text one time so Allen simply left the term in its rightful place. The parenthetical Osiris entry by Mercer was an interpolation injected into the text to explain to the reader that he considered 684b to be about Osiris also. Regardless, the primary text does not say “Osiris has come”.  Below I will isolate and parse the phrase “this one has come” so we can all see what it says;

390 684b This one has come

/s pn iwi/

s=(noun) man/(pronoun) “one”

s man

pn (demonstrative) this

pn this

iwi=(verb) Come

iwi come

Entries are from Mark Vygus Online Ancient Egyptian Dictionary

Now we all can see the section of 684b we are discussion says “this one comes” not (Osiris) has come (again). Furthermore we can see the parenthetical (again) was an unfounded interpolation of Mercer’s because of his presumed understanding of the text.  If one reads the entire recitation one may side with Mercer on adding (Osiris) to the translation of 684b but one would not know where Mercer got this (again) from. The text falls under “Conjuration and Charms, Utterances” in Mercer’s work, “Resurrection” in Faulkner’s and “SPELLS FOR THE SPIRIT’S REBIRTH” in Allen’s work because or the reconstructive nature of the text.  I would side with Allen, As you will read the text below appears to deal with Spiritual aspects of regeneration and not an actual resurrection. The first line says “Teti is clean, his ka (spirit) is clean”.  The entire recitation is below. You tell me why (again) was added;

“265 RECITATION. Teti is clean, his ka is clean.
Teti is sound. How sound is Teti!—Horus is sound because of his
body. Teti is sound. [How sound] is Teti!—Seth is sound because of his
body. Teti is sound because of his body between you, (Horus and Seth).39
Teti is one who fires the bow as Horus, who draws the bowstring as
Osiris: that one has gone, this one has come.40
“Are you Horus?” (asks the snake). On your face! Be overturned!
“Are you Seth?” On your face! Be dragged off!
This foot of Teti [that he puts on you] is the foot of Mafdet; this hand
of Teti that he lays on you is the hand of Mafdet in the midst of the
House of Life. When Teti strikes you on your face, your venom will
go and it [will fetch the blood] of your jaw (instead).
Severed snake, lie down! Plait-snake, crawl away!”

From J.P. Allen’s Writings of the Ancient World-The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts 2005
To make it simple, The deceased Teti’s spirit is clean. He is 100.  He is surrounded by Heru and Sutekh (the good set) and this recitation, PT 390, is said to shun the evil snake/serpent, who is normally called Apep but here it is just called a serpent /srjw/. So yes, the evil serpent of the pyramid text predates the evil serpent of the Bible, but that is not the analogy being made in excerpt #3 of The Codex.

About using translators, first, the Amen Ra Squad translation team provide our own translations by comparing text, using dictionaries, etymology, comparative linguistics and other research methods to secure accurate translations. We review various sources for Pyramid & Coffin text translations and facsimiles to compare different versions of the text. Faulkner’s 1969 version is considered the standard academic version of the pyramid text used in American academic institutions.  J.P. Allen’s 2005 version of the text is refreshing and up to date for the most part. It is currently used in Egyptological institutions for “up to date” translations.

“In 2005, Allen published The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, containing the texts found in 10 tombs (besides the canonical five, he also includes Ankhesenpepi II, Neith, Iput II, Wedjebetni & Ibi). This clear translation of the Unas text is in many ways remarkable and most welcome, in particular regarding the use of verbal forms, as well as offering translations of passages beforehand deemed untranslatable, calling for revision. No doubt, this translation by Allen excells Faulkner’s and is a humbling experience for anyone studying these texts for years.” by Wim van den Dungen

Allen’s translation excels Faulkner’s but the one Shakka Ahmose used, Mercer’s,  is not even up for consideration in 2015 as source material. Its dated. It would be similar to using Martin Luther’s version of  The Bible today.

I used Kurt Sethe for the facsimiles from 1908 because a facsimile an exact copy of written or printed material, not a translation. Exact copies still must be verified so we check the recorded accuracy of any facsimile. I use many tools including Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae, photos and/or other sources. There is a long process to forming translations but one of the final steps is sharing our work with our colleagues in a peer review process. How ever so formal or casual that process is, the work must be checked by other students of the study.

So as we see Excerpt #3, Utterance 390 684b does not say (Osiris) who comes (again) anywhere in the Pyramid Text. That statement can only be found in a book called the Pyramid Text, written by Samuel A.B. Mercer in 1952.

In closing, to say “again” in medu netcher we say /wHm/ “wehem”-repeat. This is used in the pyramid of Unas at  PT 209 (line [186]) , PT 295 (line [548]). It is used in Sakkara, Teti Cemetery, Mastaba of Neferseskhemred, and in Deir el-Gabrawi, grave of Henqu II., east wall, middle register, large inscription (middle part) (line [20]).

Question #3 to ask Shakka Ahmose: What medu netcher term or phrase represents “again” in the phrase /s pn iwi/ or /s pf iSm s pn iwi/ ? His only answer can be to the effect of; “the term for “again” is not there”. Next mention that this same interpolation, injecting entries or passages that were not written in the Medu Netcher, was seen in excerpt #1 of The Codex, “Thou wilt be born (again)”. Throw him a bone by pointing out that if one examines Mercer’s work, one can say the injection of (again) in excerpt #1 is reasonably qualified translation.  Likewise for (Osiris) being injected into excerpt #3. But be sure to hold the bowstring next to your jawbone when aiming the last portion of this explanatory question; when reading the entire Utterance 390, where is the concept of “repeat”, “return” or “again” represented in the Utterance? This is checkmate for excerpt #3. The term, idea or concept that represent “repeat”, “return” or “again” is not a represented anywhere PT 390.

Three arrows out the golden quiver and the Nile Valley Movement scholarship Nysut is wounded.

Madjai Archers, We don’t Stop.


Posted in African Studies | Leave a comment

Shakka Ahmose “The Codex-Game Over- Revisited; 56 Arrows-Horus has RISEN-Day 2″

Greetings Shakka. I hope this message finds you in great health! This is day two of 56 Ahau em pedjet em Madjai.  Today 11/3/2015 I am up early looking over excerpt #2 from your work The Codex-Game Over, Utterance 388 681a.   I am delighted today because my examination of your second excerpt feels much like a minimum day in grade school! I do not have alot to write today because my analysis was cut short when I noticed that you are in great error (again) comparing Utterance 388 681a “Horus has Risen” to 1 Corinthians 15:20 “Now Christ has Risen”. It would take a person skilled in Medu Netcher, or maybe just a researcher armed with only the propensity to check an authors source material to find out that excerpt 2, “Horus is RISEN” IS NOT IN THE PYRAMID TEXT AT Utterance 388 681a. See the photo below Shakka (do not be confused by the 312, this is 388. Check the source material);

388 681a

TEXTS, PYRAMID, and Kurt Heinrich. SETHE. Die Altaegyptischen Pyramidentexte. Nach Den Papierabdrücken Und Photographien Des Berliner Museums Neu Herausgegeben Und Erläutert Von Kurt Sethe. 4 Bd. Leipzig: n.p., 1908. 381. Print.

 pyramid of Teti, PT 388
Bibliography K. Sethe, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Leipzig 1908-1922 [H]; 
JP Allen, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Writings from the Ancient World 23, Atlanta 2005 T 263 [OB]
lineCount According To MAFS and Maspero / Sethe; 
s. J. Leclant / C. Berger, in: OrMonsp 9, 1997, the 275th
provenance Saqqara
date Teti
type of object King grave complex
script regular Hieroglyphics

My transliteration and translation of the facsimile reads;

388 681a

/Dd-mdw Tn Hrw pri m SnT m.k <tti>/

Lit; “Words spoken; Where’s Horus came forth from the snake to me, Teti?”

Translation” “Recitation; Where is Heru who escaped the serpent?”

Shakka, Utterance 388 681a does not say “HORUS has RISEN” anywhere in the primary text. It simply is nothing there for me to compare to 1 Corinthians 15:20 “Now Christ has Risen”. Anyone who does not read medu netcher can refer to J.P. Allen’s work page 90, where this verse is labeled T 263. Please see Allen’s translation “Where is Horus, who escaped from the shunned snake?” for PT 388 681a which I must reiterate is classified as T 263 in Allen’s “Writing from the Ancient World, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Text”.

Now we know Horus rose many times, but the story of Christ resurrection would be a better comparison with the story of Asar’s resurrection. Students of medu netcher see the phrase “Heru has Risen” in various text but the fact is “Horus is Risen” is not used at PT 388 681a. Furthermore, when Heru is Risen, it is a rise into the sky, like a falcon, but normally it is in the form of Heru-Behutet, which means Horus of Edfu; a Ptolemaic Heru. The Ptolemaic period spans from 323 BC to 30BC so even if your pseudo comparison was valid, the Rising Horus /Hr wbn/ (that is) is a Greek idea of Ptolemaic Egypt.  Unas wished Heru to come from the Horizon in PT 217 [231] and does not use /Hr wbn/ “Horus is Risen”. This Story you were looking for that actually says “Horus is Risen” is in the temple of Edfu and the library of a temple in Elephantine, pBrooklyn 47.218.50 (“Confirmation du pouvoir royal au nouvel an”), 2. The ceremonies in praise of Horus, “which gives the inheritance”  [16.20] [16,20].

IT reads, /Hr wbn, Hrw wbn iw wrD w-ib xai m Hr.i-xAw.t mi-n.ti-r HAb.t/

“Horus has risen (as the Sun), Horus has risen (as the Sun), (and) the ‘heart Tired’ (Osiris) shines as ‘overseer of the altar’!” – In accordance with the fixed ritual.” Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae

This is still not a rise from the dead like 1 Corinthians 15:20;
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. KJV

Heru embarked on a “rise” into the sky as a metaphorical falcon which is not a comparable match to a man “rising” from the dead in resurrection.The only thing in common here is the upward direction of any rise.

Regardless of the secondary argument one may try to assume, remember this, Utterance 388 681a does not say a thing about “Horus is RISEN” unlike the second excerpt in the book The Codex-Game Over suggest.  I must reiterate that “Horus is RISEN” is from the library of a temple in Elephantine and it is on Papyrus, not PT (pyramid text).  The Edfu Rising Horus is Heru-Behudet “rising” through the sky also. When the deceased Unas was to summons Heru in PT 217, he was to say “May you rise on the horizon, the place of splendor, where are you Oh  Horus,“. This has nothing to do with a resurrection, “rising from the dead” like 1 Corinthians 15:20.

ON page 155 of the book “Mad for Muffins, 70 amazing Muffins Recipes from Savory to Sweet” author Jean Anderson used the phrase “Muffins have RISEN”! She stole that from Kemet!!……This is the type work Shakka Ahmose is serving the community, well it is not that bad, but still.

So Mr. Super Shenanigans-Scholar Shakka, one with no humility; you have let two days pass without doing anything to save the face of your work The Codex. In Seven Days from the Second Day of 56 Ahau em Pedjet em Madjai, I Will purchase another copy of your work, just so that I can kindly amend articles to the Codex Amazon comments with a suitable rating and direct links to contact me if you or anyone of your Nile Valley Counterparts are prepared to dialog about this work in a public forum. I do not want an apology from you, I want you to apologeisthai.

I am Imey Er Madjai, A Self Initiated Master; except the type who would build a scholastic dam high in Ta Seti just to impede the Nile Valley Movement’s water source if I feel in the least bit slighted over My Tribute.  You are in no way prepared to dialog with me on the subject of The Codex-Game Over. You are beginning to look like a charlatan.  Amen Ra Squad is the Hapi Valley’s strongest army and Madjai Archers are some of our fiercest warrior-scholars we have. Your best defense now is to Pay Tribute to Madjai Archers or forever have to explain this one away Shakka.

Question #2 of 56 questions for a Hebrew Israelite to ask Shakka Ahmose; “You relied on Samuel Mercer’s erroneous translation of PT 388 681a as if it was accurate source material to argue excerpt #2 in The Codex, “HORUS IS RISEN”, was copied by biblical authors.  Updated versions of the text show “Horus is RISEN” was a mistranslation of Samuel Mercer’s. If Nile Valley Movement Scholars can  rely 100% on Mercer’s outdated translation to write The Codex how come we Hebrew Israelites cannot rely 100% on King James’ translators? What is the difference?

And do not forget; Utterance 388 681a does not say “HORUS has RISEN” anywhere in the primary text.





Posted in African Studies | 4 Comments

Shakka Ahmose “The Codex-Game Over- Revisited; “56 Ahau em Pedjet em Madjai-Thou Wilt Be Born Again”

Greetings Shakka, I hope this message reaches you in good spirits. This is a formal public address /Dd mdw in imy r mDAy ink rdi-in ntr anx-xprw imn-htp mAat-ra nb hka km/. If you do not know the language of the ancestors Shakka please excuse me. You can refer to me as Madjai.

I had a chance to witness the disrespectful slander presented on Sa Neter TV, which was directed toward my comrades, my organization and against myself, personally. Such an offensive display of vulgarity defies the laws and morals of kemety culture, one that you profess to promulgate and espouse. I cannot waste my time now, because Shakka Ahmose, I feel I must show you how you have produced the most horrendous work, yet you have submitted it to the community with such a pompous, aloof attitude as to self-proclaim to be the leading researcher and scholar in the conscious community. You are well past due for the scholastic humiliation that I am overjoyed to present you with Shakka.

You do not have page numbers in your book The Codex. Instead you have 56 poorly sources entries. You now have 56 days from November 1st to rectify this situation with the Madjai Archers. You have the option to sit around, be bold and stubborn and watch the walls of your kingdom crumble around you, as I will release one new analysis of your Codex entries, each day, until 56 days of examination are completed. The documents will then be compiled into a manuscript called ” 56 Questions for a Hebrew Israelite to ask Shakka Ahmose-A Gift from the Madjai”.

My Brother we all make errors and you do have options. Shakka must now pay great tribute to the Madjai Archers to withhold this oncoming work. I am a reasonable person Shakka, and I have compassion for everyone I intend to exile. If you pay great tribute to my organization, Madjai Archers, you have little to worry about. If not, you should simply drink your poison and save yourself the pain. Exile yourself Shakka. I will appoint a new Nysut and have the entire Nile Valley Movement label pseudo by the merits of your work, Shakka.  You have done yourself a great disservice by extending disrespect to me.  Below please find Ahau number 1. #ArrowsUp

“The Codex-Game Over- Revisited; “56 Ahau from the pedjet of the Madjai

Entry 1. 412 732b

“Thou wilt be born (again)” from the pyramid text compared with “for you have been born again” from 1 Peter 1:23, and with “Ye must be born again” from John 3:3.

412 732b;

From:Pyramid of Neith, Pyramid of Teti (T228)

Bibliography G. Jéquier, Les pyramides of pure Neith et Apouit, Fouilles à Saqqarah, Cairo 1933, pl. XVIII, XVII [* F];

JP Allen, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Writings from the Ancient World 23, Atlanta 2005 Nt 43 [OB]

provenance Saqqara
date Pepi II.
script Medu Netcher

Shakka argues PT 412 732b from Mercer’s translation of the Pyramid Text  “Thou wilt be born again” was the source of 1 Peter 1:23, “for you have been born again”, and John 3:3 “Except a man be born again”, also John 3:7 “Ye must be born again”.

1 Peter 1:23 was written in Greek. The statement “for you have been born again” is represented in one Greek word, “ἀναγεγεννημένοι-(anagegennēmenoi)”(Strong’s 313).

John 3:3 is also written in Greek but for some reason we do not find the same term “ἀναγεγεννημένοι” employed in John. Instead John uses two terms which suggest similar meaning, Strong’s 1080 “γεννάω-(gennao)-birth” and Strongs 509 “ἄνωθεν-(anothen)-”on high””. The Greek for John 3:3; is

GRK: τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν οὐ δύναται

NAS: one is born again he cannot see

KJV: a man be born again, he cannot see

INT: anyone be born anew not he is able

If we refer to Strong’s we find “313 /anagennáō (“born again, from above”) is used twice in the NT (1 Pet 1:3,23) – both times referring to God regenerating a believer (giving a supernatural, new birth).” We can qualify this statement by looking into the etymology of the term ἀναγεγεννημένοι where we find the prefix ἀνα (Strong’s 303) to be related to the term used by John,“ἄνωθεν-(anothen)-”on high”. In our analysis we will begin to identify the meaning of “born again, rebirth” that Peter and John intended to relay to the reader was a spiritual rebirth for a man or woman to endure while living. Since Shakka’s analysis lack the required information for a reader to understand the details of his standpoint, one is left to wonder whether the author meant the comparison of the verses in question will expose idea/concept plagiarism of “resurrection”, or if he is arguing that Peter and John stole the concept of “spiritual rebirth”, which both terms/phrases ἀναγεγεννημένοι  and γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν imply.   Since the author was unclear, we will probe both sides of the question.

If it is Shakka’s intent to say Peter and Jesus stole the idea of “Spiritual rebirth” from PT 412 732b, we would first have to analyze the primary text to see if PT 412 pertains to the concept of Spiritual Rebirth, or spiritual regeneration of a man while living like 1 Peter 1:23 and John 3:3 does. PT 412 732b comes from the Pyramid of Neith in Saqqara. It dates to the time of Pepi II as Neith was Pepi’s Great Royal Wife and one of the only women with Medu Netcher lithographed in a pyramid.

This text can also be found in the Teti’s pyramid listed in J.P Allen’s work as T228.

The translation used by Shakka Ahmose is outdated. It is this 1952 Samuel Mercer translation that Shakka’s scholastic career is now hinged on. The assumed infallibility of Shakka’s authoritative European sources was banked on to the point the author felt no need to check his source’s work before presenting it to the people. When we look beyond Egyptological translations at the primary account of PT 412 we begin to notice a few things. Primarily, Shakka’s premise rest on two things; In Mercer’s outdated translation a parenthetical term (again) is injected into the text.  This means the term “again” is not in the medu netcher. This is qualified by looking at an updated translation of PT 412 732b provided by J.P. Allen. Allen’s translation reads; “You shall be born at your months like the moon;”. As we see the term “again” is not in the updated version of the text. You will also see, the term “again” is not in the primary text. The primary text addresses the deceased Nysut or the Great Royal Wife taking their place among the Netcheru, from Nysut to Netcher.  This is a birth into the Afterlife. On the contrary Peter and Jesus never referred to the afterlife with these terms. Their phrase “born again” was similar to the use of the term “born again christian” used in the baptist church in America. This refers to a spiritual rebirth in the carnate. This would have been  easy for the author to extract if the The Codex at least analyzed complete sentences, or better yet entire paragraphs, utterances or stories they quotes come from;

“1 Peter 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” KJV

Greek Orthodox Church 1904

1:22 Τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν ἡγνικότες ἐν τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθείας διὰ Πνεύματος εἰς φιλαδελφίαν ἀνυπόκριτον, ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας ἀλλήλους ἀγαπήσατε ἐκτενῶς, :23 ἀναγεγεννημένοι οὐκ ἐκ σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς, ἀλλὰ ἀφθάρτου, διὰ λόγου ζῶντος Θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα·

John 3:3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

Greek Orthodox Church 1904

3:3 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.

The above statements denote a spiritual rebirth. Unlike PT 412. I will post 732a,732b and 732c so we can get a better context of the verse;

“For you belong to the enduring ones who surround the Sun and precede the morning god. You shall be born at your months like the moon; the Sun shall lean on you in the Akhet, Teti; the Imperishable Stars shall follow you.” T 228 J.P. Allen

412 732 ABC

TEXTS, PYRAMID, and Kurt Heinrich. SETHE. “Spruch 412 732a, 732b, 732c.” Die Altaegyptischen Pyramidentexte. Nach Den Papierabdrücken Und Photographien Des Berliner Museums Neu Herausgegeben Und Erläutert Von Kurt Sethe. 4 Bd. Leipzig: n.p., 1908. 401. Print.

First, these are two different type of rebirths. Peter and Johns being a Regeneration in the faith of God, Teti and Neith’s being death, or the spirit becoming a Netcher. Secondly, I would not credit Peter or John with knowing the ancient Egyptian language Medu Netcher to be able to plagiarize anything from Pyramid Text. Thirdly, as those of us who read medu netcher can see, there is no word AGAIN in this text. Egyptologist Mercer added the parenthetical (again) to signify this verse was not talking about Teti or Neith’s original entry into existence. Instead is was a birth into the afterlife, what we would call a death. These are funerary text that belong to the decrease. This concept is nothing like a spiritual rebirth by being “regenerated in faith” as John 3:3 and 1 Peter 1:23 suggested. Teti or Neith will take “their place among the stars” because they are dead.

There is no correlation between PT 412 732b and 1 Peter 1:23, John 3:3.  Shakka’s failure to analyze the text in it’s primary language has revealed major holes in the only work Nile Valley Movement researchers have produced. Madjai Archers have determined that in this case, the Hebrews are Not Guilty of this sloppy, error riddled, pseudo claim of plagiarism presented as the 1st charge in the “infallible work” The Codex-Game Over. The point of emphasis, and the question for a Hebrew to ask Shakka is, Did you scrutinize any primary account when performing your analysis? The answer will be no. If you do primary research yourself, this first question is a strong opening inquiry that will expose Shakka as a Africana Scholar who relies solely on unchecked incorrect European source work. There is no word Again on PT 412 732b.

htp m SqkA nn



Posted in African Studies | Leave a comment

DIY- How to make a Hebrew Dance – “The Hebrew Shuffle”, Theme Song; “Another one Bites the Dust”

Nedj Kheret! 

Hope all is well. On December 23, 2014 a member of the Hebrew War Machine, “Zion Lexx” attempted refute my teachings on El Shaddai, being The Mother Goddess. Below is a documented case of “avoidance”, “running from sources”, “buck dancing”; or what the conscious community has deemed as doing “The Hebrew Shuffle”.


The Hebrew Shuffle is defined as “the failure to acknowledge archeology or primary evidence concerning the non-existence of Israelites”.

In this dialog Lexx plays the position of “teacher”, that is until he was presented with archeology and primary evidence, then he starts dancing and says “He doesn’t even get a rebuttal after that…. “. As you will see, it was primary sources and archeology that caused Zion lexx to go into a state of withdrawal.

This guy is also promoted as one of the “Stronger debaters” on the Hebrew Dance Machine.

Please read this dialog and ask yourself three questions;

1. What was Zion Lexx’s intention by entering a public dialog with a person he is scheduled to debate in the future, then not responding to my sources?

2. When I present Zoin Lexx with extra-biblical sources, WHY DOES HE REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE CITATION???

3. What state of psychosis must a person suffer from to go through a dialog like the one you will read below, and then claim a “pseudo-victory” without ever once addressing the refutation to their initial claim? Where they do that at?

Zion Lexx is clearly out of his league.

Please witness this guy and his pseudo-interpetation of Elohim and El Shaddai. Watch him run from #MadjaiArrows;

Zion Lexx Class is in Session!!

THE Biblical title El Shaddai אל שדי, signifies an “Attribute” of the creator, as the sustainer and nourisher of All life. As the milk of a mother sustains the life of her young, so is the Creator said to be a source of sustenance both physically and spiritually to man. Those ignorant of the Creator’s many attributes and what they genuinely delineate, foolishly reason that since the designation El Shaddai has feminine connotation, then El Shaddai must be independent of the G-d of the Bible and hence must be His female counterpart. While none of these Assumptions are founded upon scholarship in the Hebrew language or doctrine of the Torah. The Torah emphatically states that implicit in the term or designation Elohim, is a Male and Female energy, hence the Hebrew word Elohim אלוהים, literally means Energy or Power in Hebrew and in particular, positive and negative energy, which in the language of biological gender differences are termed, Male or Female, hence the Torah says: and G-d formed man in His image בצלמו, Male and Female He created them. Hence, the Divine attribute Elohim אלוהים, which in Hebrew means Power or Energy is implicit of both the positive (male) and negative (female) polarities of Energy. Yet, the Torah still says: שמע ישראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד, Here O’ Israel, YHVH our Power, YHVH is one….

So please, sit All the way down with the Ghetto scholarship!

December 23 at 10:00pm · Edited · Like · 1

Zion Lexx This is too Easy! Clean Win.

December 23 at 10:07pm · Like · 1

Jonathan Owens NOT so fast “Mr. Teacher”. If you are not using extra-biblical sources you are not doing “scholarship”. Secondly, there was also a group of local goddess in Shaddai called the Shaddayin. But you would not know that because they are not in the bible, or they are amalgamated with El there. You need to address the fact that there was a city called Shaddai, You know that don’t cha? Shaddai was also an Amorite city today called tel-eth thadyen, that means the “ruin site of the two breast”. There is a man in the bible named Balaam of Beor. The (Ammonite) Balaam Texts from Deir ‘Alla ca. 750-700BC mention Balaam or Beor being a “seer of God[El], Just like Numbers 22–24 except a few things, 1. there is no mention of YHWH in Deir Alla text, Yet, there is a mention of the Shaddayin, and El, as separate entities. Shaddayin are goddess like the Elohim are gods except the Shaddayin to be local deities from Shaddai. Zion Lexx one would not know this only reading the bible. P.S. the /-in/ on Shaddayin is because this was Ugartic, not hebrew. This is were yall got that from. Lastly, please cite your sources. Thanks!

December 23 at 10:11pm · Like

  • Jonathan Owens I see you ain’t gone address my source, nor will you provide any, lol. You are delusional. Address at least ONE of my sources. How about this one; ” tel-eth thadyen, that means the “ruin site of the two breast”, that is the extraction site of the city Shaddai. #Mute
  • December 23 at 10:20pm · Like · 1
  • Jonathan Owens NOW everyone can watch as the #Madjai dismantles these other hecklers. THEY will NOT address or discredit my sources. And I want to see someone address this; ” tel-eth thadyen, that means the “ruin site of the two breast”, that is the extraction cite of the city Shaddai.
  • December 23 at 10:24pm · Like · 1

Zoin Lexx continues to ignore the facts;

  • Jonathan Owens That is why they call me #MuteGod #AmenRASquadUP See how they silent about the sources?!! ….with no extra-biblical scholarship on the topic? I was feeling sorry for y’all. I am going to destroy you… This will be wonderful. I will look you deep in your eye and laugh at your soul burning Feb 8. Mark my words.
  • December 23 at 10:31pm · Edited · Like · 1


He had no reply so I posted it a third time, and tagged him;

  • Jonathan Owens Zion Lexx ” tel-eth thadyen, that means the “ruin site of the two breast”, that is the extraction cite of the city Shaddai.”

As we see, Zion lexx could not answer to archeology that attest to El Shaddai being The Mother Goddess, or The God with Breast.

This is DIY how to make a Hebrew dance… Watch’em get down!!!


Disclaimer – this is not an attack on the people in the photograph. This is a direct address the The Hebrew War Dance Machine. Madjai Defends.

Posted in African Studies | Leave a comment

Madjai – A Handbook for the Conscious Community

Order Madjai – A Handbook for the Conscious Community. Release Date Feb 8th.

Donate to the Madjai Research Fund;

Support by purchasing the only Official Madjai T Shirt;

About the book;
Madjai – A Handbook for the Conscious Community is a collection of published articles written by Independent Researcher and self-trained Egyptian Grammarian, Jonathan H. Owens. Owens displays his prowess in deciphering ancient text diligently through out this work. Articles of critical research pertaining to ancient veneration of the Mother Goddess, Egyptian sexuality, Ta-Meri, Kemet, Black Hittites, Nubia, Egyptian grammar and more comprise this first edition of Madjai – A Handbook for the Conscious Community. A member of the Amen-Ra Squad Research Team, Overseer of the Madjai – Vanguards of Kemet, not to mention a co-founding member of legendary music group, “Hieroglyphics”, Owens has a showcased his proficiency in offering sound perspective to the fields of Kemetology, Biblical Studies and Moorish History. Some interpretation in this volume appear irrefutable. This work is a solid contribution to the Egyptological world. Support the Madjai and pre-order today!

Madjai by Jonathan Owens 318 pages.

Posted in African Studies | 2 Comments

Support The Madjai – Vanguards of Kemet live in debate February 8th, 2015!! Arrows UP!

 In preparation for the upcoming debate hosted by The House of Konsciousness and Nu Covenant Plus, I beseech your support in delivering very important information as well as highly specialize research in my presentation regarding;

“”Israelites vs. Kemet – Nile Valley Consciousness or Bible Teachings, Which are Best for our People?”


Location; 2116 Adan Clayton Power, Jr, 6th Floor, 126th St & 7th Ave, Ny, Ny, 10027

Date: Feb 8th, 2015

Support the Madjai!!

The #1 way to support The Madjai is to show up in New York at the debate on February 8th, 2015, in good health & spirits, adorned in the Official Madjai T-Shirt!

madjai shirt

We intend to book the same hotel or shared/close proximity Airbnb houses for all RBG, Madjai and Amen Ra Squad supporters. We will travel to the event together and enter the building in unison.  If you want to lodge and travel with the Madjai entourage email for more information.

For those who cannot make the event but want to support our win, I am requesting donations that will cover transportation & lodging for The Amen Ra Squad research team. Donations will also cover highly specialized research and much needed presentational tools.

To donate just one cent towards my research, a nickle or a dime, please go to Madjai Research at Go and donate! (Click Madjai Research or click here;

If you wish to donate and receive physical commemoration for you donation you can support by buying the only Official Madjai – Vanguards of Kemet t-shirt by clicking this link now! (

madjai shirt

The donation amount of $50 will get you an Official Madjai shirt as a token or our appreciation!

Whether you can support with your presence, with monetary, or in spirit, I will NEED your support when stepping on this battlefield as a warrior scholar who represent us all.

Thank you,




Posted in African Studies | Leave a comment

Three Kemetic Words are Worth a Thousand Vignettes

Ostracon with supposed scene of male-male relations

AN00231692_001                                                                       Courtesy of British Museum EA50714

Some enthusiast of Egyptian history do no more than read online encyclopedias to collect information on Egypt. We must keep in mind the information made easily accessible to the enthusiast is not always the most accurate information. In this case, it is completely unsubstantiated that the imagery on this ostracon is of a male-male relationship. There seems to be no grounds for this claim, but we still find this submitted as male-male relations in certain questionable source work. If we refer to the proper sources however, we find that these are considered to be heterosexual relations. This ostracon is in the British Museum collection. The museum citation reads;

“Ostracon with a scene of sex: limestone ostracon with black-painted scene showing a man having sexual intercourse with a woman. There is a hieroglyphic caption in front of the woman.British Museum EA50714 citation, also in R.B. Parkinson’s Cracking Codes, pp. 171

Our ability to read the ancient text aids us in understanding scenes like this. Although we only have a fragmented piece of the ostracon, there is a textual inscription in front of the woman that many do not address. The legible portion to the left reads /hr ib ind/ “her-ab aned”.

The term “her” can mean many things but written this way “Her-ab” means to ‘satisfy, to be satisfied”. /hr-ib/ lit. “pleasured heart” (Faulkner, p 159 /hrw/).  /ind/ aned means “barren”, “childless:, “sad” or “distressed”(Vygus, 2012, /ind/).  Following Ancient Egyptian word order in what appears to be a descriptive of the ostracon scene, we can translate the following, “Pleasuring the childless”, or “Pleasing the barren”.

Those who cite this ostracon as evidence of sexual deviance never attempt to address the text that is next to the image. Parkinson translated  “The calming next to my skin”, which makes little sense, but since /ind/ also means “skin” in Ancient Egyptian, Parkinson submitted a translations that seems a bit off. /hr-ib/ contains the term /hr/ which means “to be pleasing” in some instances, but written using O4 and D21 and combined with F34, as seen on this ostracon, it means “pleasure, pleasing, satisfaction, gentle, contentedness”. It could be that Parkinson thought another definition of /hr/, “upon”, to represent the term “next” in his translation, but as we see /hr-ib/ is “the calming” in Parkinson’s work. This means the last term he had to translate was /ind/, and for some reason, maybe it is the fault of Parkinson’s source material JJ Hess, Parkinson concluded that /ind/ should be defined as “skin”, rendering “[The] calming [next to the] skin”. The words within brackets are his ideological injections into the translation. Even using Parkinson’s definitions the text still only says  /hr-ib/ “calming”, and /ind/ “skin”. What I suggest ultimately, /hr-ib/ “pleasing”, and /ind/ “childless” seems to describe the scene and should be appropriated to the iconography after further scrutiny. This textual attestation that accompanies the vignette, “Pleasing the barren” suggest that this was nothing more than a heterosexual relationship.

Some argue the lack of an obvious feminine physique combined with the posture of the sexual position is evidence of male-male relations. Here we can display why one’s knowledge of other aspects of Kemetic life are key to know. Primarily, this position of intercourse is found in numerous Egyptian accounts of male-female intercourse ranging from the Turin Papyrus, Senmut’s graffiti at Deir El-Bahari, the Graffiti at Wadi el-Hammamat and others (Graves-Brown, 2010). This was addressed by Lise Manniche her 1997 work. Manniche also notes;

“one is strongly reminded of representations of Nut bending over Geb, who is occasionally shown with an erect phallus.”  Manniche

Indeed this bending over position by no way indicated sodomy as some profess. She concluded that judging by the extant number of representations (“dog-fashion”) must have been a popular position in Kemet. As Manniche stated most vignettes contained in mythological tales of creation depict the goddess Nut in this position. Therefore a scribe would need not give the viewer further indications to the femininity of the woman represented in this iconography. R.B. Parkinson “Standing position” and Manniche’s “dog-fashion” are two different position of intercourse, however regardless of the popularity of the former, judging the posture alone by extant evidence, whether popular or not, suggest the poser was female;

“The standing position of intercourse is the one most frequently represented in art, but this need not suggest that it was particularly popular; the woman’s figure is slightly androgynous – presumably there was no need to indicate the sex strongly, since it would be assumed from the posture.” (Parkinson, 1999, 82, speaking about EA50714)

This short analysis serves as more evidence to prove reading the language is important when deciphering the meaning of certain “inscriptions” that have been left to us.  As we see we can conclude what various other scholars have concluded, nothing on this ostracon suggest it is evidence of male-male relations.

Here we see these three Kemetic words,  “her-ab aned”,  are worth a thousand vignettes.


Carolyn Graves-Brown, “Dancing for Hathor: Women in Ancient Egypt”, (A&C Black, Jul 7, 2010), 150

C.Johns, ‘Erotica’, British Museum Pocket Treasury (London, 1997), 12-13””

Dollinger, ‘Drink, Drugs and Sex’

Lise Manniche,’Some aspects of ancient Egyptian sexual life’, in ‘Acta Orientalia’ 28 (1977), 10-23, fig. 3;

Mark Vygus, “Hieroglyph dictionary” (2012 edition)

Parkinson, R. B., Whitfield Diffie, M. Fischer, and R. S. Simpson. Cracking Codes: The Rosetta Stone and Decipherment. Berkeley: U of California, 1999. Print.

Raymond Faulkner, Griffith Institute “A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian”, (Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, 1988)

Rune Nyord, ‘Breathing Flesh: Conceptions of the Body in the Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts’ (Museum Tusculanum Press, 2009), 291-300”

W.H. Peck, ‘Drawings from Ancient Egypt’ (London, 1978), no. 83;

Posted in African Studies | Leave a comment

Kemetology is not Egyptology – The First European Egyptologists used Arab Works

Hieroglyphs in medieval Arabic work;

"Symbols in medieval Arabic alchemy inspired by Egyptian hieroglyphs: Kitab al-Aqalim by Abu ‘l-Qasim al-‘Iraqi "

“Symbols in medieval Arabic alchemy inspired by Egyptian hieroglyphs: Kitab al-Aqalim by Abu ‘l-Qasim al-‘Iraqi “

(British Library in London, MS Add 25724, folio 11a). Source : El Daly 2005, figure 12.

 Europeans were not the first Kemetologist

There is a misconception that European Scholars deciphered Hieroglyphs first. One must recall the nature and spirit of Hellenization to truly understand how and why in European historiographers  claim they had done every thing “first”. All they way down to Christopher Columbus discovering an already inhabited land that after which European historiographers claimed he was the “first” to find.  Similarly, Europeans did not decipher Hieroglyphs first, they just contributed a great body of work and created a field of study called Egyptology, for their own institutions.

Hellenzation was not just the spread of Greek culture and language, it was actually the practice of making cultures that existed before Greeks, assimilate to Greek culture, all while making the former cultures appear to have been originally Greek anyway. This started when Greek Sages would come to Africa to learn. After they fulfilled their intellectual desires they would return to Greece and translate the information for their students. These concepts that they learned in Egypt were “Hellenized” and regarded as the work of Greeks.

In a sense the non European work done on Egyptology has been “hellenized” by European Egyptology.  Using the work of Osaka El Daly and others I will note many non-European Egyptologist for us to look over.

I cited Horapollo on Sa Neter TV and contended he was Libyan. He may not have been Libyan, but he was an Egyptian Priest who worked on Medu Neter about the 5th century.

In 1666 a book of Egyptian monuments written by an Arab Egyptian Scholar named Mourtadi was used by Gaston Maspero in one of the first European works on Egyptology. [1]

Arabs were working on Kemetology long before the science of Egyptology came out. [2]

Let’s also see the 1806 book “Kitab Shawq al-Mustaham”- “Ancient Alphabets and Hieroglyphic Characters Explained; with an Account of the Egyptian Priests, their Classes, Initiation, and Sacrifices in the Arabic Language” by Ahmad Bin Abubekr Bin Wahishih. Champollion was a child when this work was done. [3]

Egyptian historian al-Maqrizi said the Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma’mun broke into the pyramid of Khufu in 832 AD.  Michael Cooperson says the entrance we see is actually a ramp built in the First Intermediate Period used by tomb robbers to break into Khufu’s pyramid.[4]  Actually the first European archaeologist in Egypt were also considered “tomb robbers” by some. Dr. Peter Lacovara has this to say about the treatment of the Pyramids by early archeologist as they disguised their quest for riches in a science called archeology;

“The first and probably the most spectacular discovery made in Nubia was the treasure found by Giuseppe Ferlini (1800-1876), an Italian physician,who was appointed Surgeon Major to the Egyptian army. In 1830, he was posted with a detachment to the Sudan, and he soon became intrigued by the rumors of great riches hidden in the ancient ruins. So he requested permission from the local authorities to conduct excavations at a number of sites near Khartoum and despite warnings against bandits in the desert, who might hear of any discoveries he might make, he decided to go ahead and explore these sites and engaged Antonio Saffani, an Albanian merchant living in Khartoum to act as his partner.Together they hired men, purchased camels and food, and in August of 1834 they set out for the site of Naga. After a few days of digging with few results along with the death of five camels from heat and a lack of water, they decided to give that up and journeyed northward, and eventually wound up at the village of Begrawiya, the site of the fabled ancient city of Meroë. There, Ferlini set his sights on the Pyramid tombs, located on the desert scarp.The first few tombs that Ferlini opened, contained little more than stripped bones left by the ancient robbers. But finally he decided, one last try, and he set his sights on one of the biggest pyramids in the Northern Cemetery. This pyramid known as Begrawiya north 6, measured 88 feet high and 61 feet square at the base. Fortunately it had already impressed the French traveler Frédérick Cailliaud who had made a careful sketch of it during his visit to the site in 1821. But as a treasure hunter rather than an archeologist, Ferlini had his men climb to the top of the pyramid and tear it apart stone by stone, hurling them down the sides of the pyramid. Ferlini recounted: we made the men remove that largest of the stones which covered up the upper part, and then we were able to see that the chamber was rectangular in shape, and that its walls were formed of flat stones.The first object that met our gaze was a large mass covered over with a white piece of linen cloth; however as soon as we touched it, it fell into dust. Under this was a rectangular funerary couch, or bier of wood. Under this bier I found a vase, which contained objects wrapped in a piece of linen similar to that which I have just mentioned. Close to the vase, on the floor of the chamber, were arranged, symmetrically by means of threads ,necklaces formed by beads made of glass paste and colored stones, a number of amulets, figures of gods, an eye-paint case, round boxes, a saw and a chisel and several other objects.”

As we see these Early European archaeologist were more concerned with tomb robbing than learning Hieroglyphs.  As the field of Egyptology developed the discipline of archeology began to show more respect for these ancient grave sites. They also became more concerned with the language of the Egyptian.

In 1879 Martin Delany attempted to translate medu neter in his publication “Principia of Ethnology: The Origins of Races and Color, with an Archaeological Compendium of Ethiopian and Egyptian Civilization from Years of Careful Examination and Enquiry”. Martin Delany was a “Black Nationalist” Brother from Charles Town, West Virginia. [5] Mario Beatty details the efforts undergone by Delany in his work ” Philological and Historical Examination of Martin Delany’s Use of Egyptian Hieroglyphs in The Origin of Races and Color”.

European Egyptologist Athanasius Kircher used the work of Ibn Wahshiyya who worked on Medu neter in the 10 century AD. [6] Before him Ayub Ibn Maslama wrote a book containing hieroglyphics translations called Al-Talismat Al-KahinAliya.[7]

Dhu’l Nun al-Misri is “credited with an insight into the meaning of the Egyptian hieroglyphs”. – Kevin (R. D.) Shepherd.

Ahmed Kamal Bey was one of the first native Egyptians in modern Egyptology. His 22 volume unpublished works were stifled by Europeans who controlled Egyptology in his time.[8]

Nowadays Kemetologist use the work of Cheikh Anta Diop, Theophile Obenga, Dr. Asa G. Hilliard, III, Dr. Rkhty Amen, Molefi Asante, Mario Beatty, Dr. Yosef Ben Jochannan, Ashra Kwesi, Anthony Browder, Prof. Manu Ampim, just to name a few who check the work of others like Sir Alan Gardiner, Raymond Faulkner, E.A. Wallis Budge, James Henry Breasted etc.

I personally take information from any unbiased source. It is a childish politically motivated rebuttal to say ‘you got that from white people” when in actuality Europeans learned the majority of what they know about Egypt originally from Africans in Egypt (as Herodotus describes). Later they turned to Arab sources. It would be a sad world today if when Greeks had returned home from Africa to Greece with their newly acquired teachings and knowledge and their family and peers all replied “but you got that from Africans”.



  1. See Okasha El Daly’s Article “Deciphering Egyptian Hieroglyphs in Muslim Heritage”. Also see Gaston Maspero’s Dawn of Civilization  pp 8, 387.
  2. See Okasha El Daly.
  3. El Daly notes this work came out 16 years before Champollion.
  4. In al-Ma’mun, the Pyramids, and the Hieroglyphs Cooperson details the historicity to the accounts of Al-Ma’mun in Khufu’s Pyramid, p 165
  5. .See Mario Beatty’s document in the Bibliography. He details Delany’s attempt to translate hieroglyphs in 1879. Few know about this Brothers efforts in making black people aware of Egypt and Egyptology.
  6. Read El Daly’s Article on Hieroglyphic decipherment in Muslim Heritage.
  7. Osaka El Daly’s work details the many more muslim contributors to the field of Egyptology besides Ibn Wahshiyya and Ayub Ibn Maslam. Many Arabs have contributed to our knowledge of medu neter.
  8. Okasha El Daly, p 6.


Beatty, M. “A Philological and Historical Examination of Martin Delany’s Use of Egyptian Hieroglyphs in The Origin of Races and Color” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of African American Life and History, Hyatt Regency, Buffalo, New York USA <Not Available>. 2013-12-17 from

Cooperson, M, “al-Ma’mun, the Pyramids, and the Hieroglyphs”, (ABBASID STUDIES II edited by JOHN NAWAS, Occasional Papers of the School of ‘Abbasid Studies Leuven 28 June – 1 July 2004)

El Daly, O, Egyptology: “The Missing Millennium. Ancient Egypt in Medieval Arabic Writings” (London, 2005).

Horapollo, Hieroglyphics of Horapollo Nilous, 1811

Ibn-Waḥšīya, Aḥmad Ibn-ʻAlī; Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph von (1806). “Ancient alphabets and hieroglyphic characters explained: with an account of the Egyptian priests, their classes, initiation, and sacrifices.”

Lacovara, P, “The Art and Archeology of Nubia” – Transcripts week 1-8.

Maspero, G, “The Dawn of Civilization: Egypt and Chaldaea, Volume 1”, (D. Appleton & Company, 1894)

El Daly, O, Deciphering Egyptian Hieroglyphs in Muslim Heritage,, accessed 11/05/14

Posted in African Studies | Leave a comment

Biblical Monolatry – Bene Elohim -The Sons of God are the same as Bene Israel “sons of Israel”

Replying to a question about Bene Elohim “sons of Elohim” and “Bene Israel” “sons of Israel” for my Pastor friend.  Commentary Below

Pastor Mann; “Deuteronomy 32_8-9

“When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bny ‘l[hym]). For Yahweh’s portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance”.

“When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God (aggelón theou). And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance”.

“When Elyon gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel (bny yshr’l). For Yahweh’s portion was his people, Jacob was the lot of his inheritance”.
Which one is the correct one?

Why the differences?

Notice that bny el is similar to bny yshr’l. However, how does that become aggelon theou (angels of god)? This seems to be quite far-fetched.

Another version talks about sons of Bull El instead of sons of El:

When Elyon gave the nations an inheritance, when he divided humankind, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of Bull El’s children, and Yahweh’s portion was his people, Jacob, the lot of his inheritance. John 10:30-36King James Version (KJV)

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Yeshua answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Yeshua answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”

Bro Jonathan:

This is a classic biblical studies discussion. Work by scholars like Michael Hieser, Kerry Shirts  Even William F Albright have postulated the meaning of בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵֽל “Beni Israel” and בני האלהים “beni h’elohim”. Most prevalent scholastic research weights in the favor of Beni Israel and Beni Elohim being the same Divine Council mention throughout the bible (Psalm 82:1).  They are also the “Host of Heaven” that we are instructed not to follow throughout the Bible.

1Ki 22:19 “And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.”

The Host of Heaven, The Queen of Heaven, Beni Elohim, The Divine Assembly and Beni Israel WERE all deities before monotheist tried to replace its true roots in henotheism then monolatry. Nothing is wrong with monolatrism. It is almost impossible to be monotheistic in 2014 because we know some people on earth worship other deities besides which ever ones we have chosen personally. For instance, IF I ask a christian “who is Allah” they will normally say “he is the god of the muslims” OR I will ask “Is Allah the same as Jehovah/Yahweh?” They may say yes but if I say “Is Amen-Ra the same as Jehovah” they will say no. But these other deities do exist, and in our acknowledgement of those deities we deny monotheism but promote our own sense of monolatry, that is; Yes other people worship other gods, but MY God is GOD. That is monolatrism.

As for Deu 32:8

בְּהַנְחֵל עֶלְיֹון גֹּויִם בְּהַפְרִידֹו בְּנֵי אָדָם יַצֵּב גְּבֻלֹת עַמִּים לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

“When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

First, let’s notice in the hebrew the word for “sons” and “children” are the same term בְּנֵי beni.

It says “when he separated the sons of Adam,”בְּהַפְרִידֹו בְּנֵי אָדָם “b’haprido beni adam”. The sons of Adam are Mankind. Human beings. They are the corporal being in this verse. The non-corporal entities in this verse are the בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵֽל “beni israel”.  These are NOT humans, they are the Sons of God. I can also offer where it may say Israel is god’s name in the bible (Dan 19:9, there is not city of Yahweh or people called Yahweh). Also the “sons of God” came to “the daughters of Man” in Gen 6:4. Surely they were not coming on to their OWN daughters.  The Sons of God were not mankind. Bene Israel is translated as the “heavenly court” in the New Living Translation, and “heavenly assembly” in the New English Translation.  The Greeks turn them into Angels when writing the Septuagint.  The English Standard Version makes it clear and comments with a footnote;

Deuteronomy 32:8  ESV

8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders[a] of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.[b]


  1. Deuteronomy 32:8 Compare Dead Sea Scroll, Septuagint; Masoretic Text sons of Israel

This shows the beni Elohim and Beni Israel are the same. In Ugartic text Elyon had 70 sons. This is where there are 70 nations in the table of Nations. Michael Heiser has done the work to show irrefutably;

Michael Heiser states;

“Literary and conceptual parallels discovered in the literature of Ugarit, however, have provided a more coherent explanation for the number seventy in Deuteronomy 32:8 and have furnished support for textual scholars who argue against the “sons of Israel” reading. Ugaritic mythology plainly states that the head of its pan-theon, El (who, like the God of the Bible, is also referred to as El Elyon, the “Most High”) fathered seventy sons,10 thereby specifying the number of the “sons of El” (Ugaritic, bn il). An unmistakable linguistic parallel with the Hebrew text underlying the Septuagint reading was thus discovered, one that prompted many scholars to accept the Septuagintal reading on logical and philological grounds–God (El Elyon in Deut. 32:8) divided the earth according to the number of heavenly beings who existed from before the time of creation.11 The coherence of this explanation notwithstanding, some commentators resist the reading of the Septuagint, at least in part because they fear that an acceptance of the Myhlx ynb or Mylx ynb readings (both of which may be translated “sons of gods”) somehow means that Yahweh is the author of polytheism. This apprehension has prompted some text-critical defenses of the Masoretic text in Deuteronomy 32:812 based on a misunderstanding of both the textual history of the Hebrew Bible and text-critical methodology, a prejudiced evaluation of non-Masoretic texts, and an unfounded concern that departure from, the Masoretic reading results in “Israelite polytheism.” The goal of this article is to show that viewing “sons of God” as the correct reading in Deuteronomy 32:8 in no way requires one to view Israelite religion as polytheistic.” Michael S. Heiser

And it is not polytheistic like I have stated before. It developed from polytheism to henothesim onto a monolatry, which some consider monotheism.
It also appears Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:” is a statement of mono-Yahwism, that Yahweh is One, not that there aren’t other gods.
The statement and the literature speaks to the contrary of monotheism. Yes, Yahweh is the God of Israel, and he is the One, not many but Duet 6: 4-6 does not speak to monotheism. Monothesim means only One God Exist. Do not get me wrong, the bible does have a monotheistic position, but I argue it was superimposed on the literature by translators and kohanim of the latter priestly tradition. There was a progression in the religiosity of Israel that went from polytheistic to monotheistic to monolatristic (as stated before). Even Paul confirms this;

“1 Corinthians 8:4-6 (KJV)

4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

Clearly Paul’s words are his own religious propaganda to the Corinthians, in his statement his says “we know that an Idol is nothing in the world”. He is saying that Idols are not godly, but he goes on to address other “the heavenly host” as well as idol worship by acknowledging them, buy saying HIS PEOPLE only follow One God.

“6 But to us there is but one God,the Father…..”

This is just Paul putting Deut 10:17 into his own words. Anyone can see in Deut 10:17 that monotheism was not early Israelite concept. They are establishing Yahweh’s allegiance to Israel, vis versa.

Deut 10:17 “For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:”

I wrote an article on how to understand the capitalization in the KJV. I will attach it here;

If we know the Master Keys to Reading the Bible with Monolatrist Understanding, we know LORD all caps of Deut 10:17 means Yahweh. We also know God, with one capital means Elohim.

“כִּי יְהוָה אֱלֹֽהֵיכֶם הוּא אֱלֹהֵי הָֽאֱלֹהִים וַאֲדֹנֵי הָאֲדֹנִים הָאֵל הַגָּדֹל הַגִּבֹּר וְהַנֹּורָא אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִשָּׂא פָנִים וְלֹא יִקַּח שֹֽׁחַד׃”

kiy YHWH elohikem hu elohi h’elohim v’adoni h’adonim h’el h’gadol h’gabor v’hanyara aser lo-yasa panim v’lo yiqakh sokhad”
The term “הוּא אֱלֹהֵי הָֽאֱלֹהִים” ‘hu elohi ha elohim’ says “He my god (of) the gods”. The /i/ on the end of “eloh” is a first-person singular personal pronoun used as possessor, so eloh-i means MY God. Next we have ‘h’elohim’ which means The Gods. The -im suffix makes the root plural. So we have “He’s my God (of) the Gods.” This clearly show monolatristic views amongst early believers.

Posted in African Studies | Leave a comment