An A-Z Guide To The Search For Plato's Atlantis

NEWS


Joining The Dots


Joining The Dots

I have now published my new book, Joining The Dots, which offers a fresh look at the Atlantis mystery. I have addressed the critical questions of when, where and who, using Plato's own words, tempered with some critical thinking and a modicum of common sense.


Learn More


Search

Recent Updates

Archive 3643

Full text of “Ethiopia and the Origin of Civilization”

 

Ethiopia and the Origin of Civilization

 

A Critical Review of the Evidence of Archaeology, Anthropology, History

and Comparative Religion: According to the Most Reliable Sources and

Authorities

 

By John G. Jackson (1939)

 

“It is pretty well settled that the city is the Negro’s great contribution to civilization, for it was in

Africa where the first cities grew up.” E. Haldeman-Julius

 

“Those piles of ruins which you see in that narrow valley watered by the Nile, are the remains of

opulent cities, the pride of the ancient kingdom of Ethiopia. … There a people, now forgotten,

discovered while others were yet barbarians, the elements of the arts and sciences. A race of

men now rejected from society for their sable skin and frizzled hair, founded on the study of the

laws of nature, those civil and religious systems which still govern the universe.” Count Volney

 

“The accident of the predominance of white men in modern times should not give us supercilious

ideas about color or persuade us to listen to superficial theories about the innate superiority of the

white-skinned man. Four thousand years ago, when civilization was already one or two thousand

years old, white men were just a bunch of semi-savages on the outskirts of the civilized world. If

there had been anthropologists in Crete, Egypt, and Babylonia, they would have pronounced the

white race obviously inferior, and might have discoursed learnedly on the superior germ-plasm or

glands of colored folk.” Joseph McCabe

 

 

 

The late Professor George A. Dorsey noted that “H. G. Wells’ heart beats faster in nearly

every chapter of his Outline of History, because he cannot forget that he is Nordic, Aryan,

English British, white, civilized.” (Why We Behave Like Human Beings, p. 40.) This

patriotic zeal of Mr. Wells’ has, in truth, caused him to suppress certain facts that do not

fit into his pet theories. In the latest edition of his Outline of History, Mr. Wells ends his

chapter on The Early Empires with the following remarks: “No less an authority than Sir

Flinders Petrie gives countenance to the idea that there was some very early connection

between Colchis (the country to the south of the Caucasus) and prehistoric Egypt.

Herodotus remarked upon a series of resemblances between the Colchians and the

Egyptians.” (Wells’ New and Revised Outline of History, p. 184, Garden City, 1931.) It

would have been proper for Wells to have quoted the remarks of Herodotus, so as to give

us precise information on the series of resemblances between the Cholchians and the

Egyptians. Why he did not do so we shall now see. In Book II, Section- 104, of his

celebrated History, Herodotus states: “For my part I believe the Colchi to be a colony of

Egyptians, because like them they have black skins and frizzled hair.” (See any English

translation of The History of Herodotus. The translation by Professor George Rawlinson

is the best. See also W.E.B. DuBois, The Negro, p. 31, and Count Volney’s Travels in

Egypt and Syria, Vol. I. pp. 80-81.) After discussing the civilizations of Egypt,

 

 

 

Babylonia and India, Wells had already referred to them as a “triple system of white man

civilizations.” (Outline of History, Chap. XIII, Sect. 5, p. 175) On concluding that the

civilization of Egypt was a white man civilization, he naturally would be careful not to

quote the above passage from Herodotus.

 

Most history texts, especially the ones on ancient history, start off by telling us that there

are either three, four or five races of man, but that of those races only one has been

responsible for civilization, culture, progress and all other good things. The one race is of

course the white race, and particularly that branch of said race known as the Nordic or

Aryan. The reason for this is obvious; the writers of these textbooks are as a rule Nordics,

or so consider themselves. However, prejudice alone will not account for this sort of

thing. There is a confusion among historians and anthropologists concerning the proper

classification of races, and this confusion is used by biased writers to bolster up their

preconceptions. It is therefore necessary that we discuss the subject of race classification

in a rational manner before proceeding further.

 

The early scientific classifications of the varieties of the human species were

geographical in nature. The celebrated naturalist, Linneaus (1708-1778), for instance,

listed four races, according to continent, namely: (1) European (white), (2) African

(black), (3) Asiatic (yellow), and (4) American (red). Blumenback, in 1775, added a fifth

type, the Ocieanic or brown race. This classification is still used in some grammar school

Geographies, where the races of man are tabulated as: Ethiopian (black), Caucasian

(white), American (red), Mongolian (yellow) and Malayan (brown). During the year

1 800, the French naturalist, Cuvier, announced the hypothesis that all ethnic types were

traceable to Ham, Chem and Japhet, the three sons of Noah. After that date race

classification developed into an amazing contest; a struggle which still rages. By 1873,

Haeckel had found no less than twelve distinct races of mankind; and to show the

indefatigable nature of his researches, he annexed twenty-two more races a few years

later, bringing the grand total of human types up to thirty-four. Deniker, in 1900,

presented to the world a very imposing system of race classification. He conceived of the

human species existing in the form of six grand divisions, seventeen divisions and

twenty-nine races. And despite all this industry among anthropologists, ethnologists and

the like, there is yet no agreement on the classification of races. Where one

anthropologist finds three racial types, another can spot thirty-three without the least

difficulty.

 

The Classifiers of race, however, regardless of how abundantly they disagreed with each

other as to the correct groupings of human types, were of unanimous accord in the belief

that the white peoples of the world were far superior to the darker races. This opinion in

still very popular, but modern science is making it hard for intelligent people to accept

the fallacy. Many years ago the German philosopher, Schopenhauer, remarked that,

“there is no such thing as a white race, much as this is talked of, but every white man is a

faded or bleached one.” Schopenhauer possessed keen and sagacious foresight on this

point. For example, the English scholar, Joseph McCabe, expresses the following view as

the consensus of opinion among modern anthropologists: “There is strong reason to think

that man was at first very dark of skin, woolly-haired and flat-nosed, and, as he wandered

 

 

 

into different climates, the branches of the race diverged and developed their

characteristics.” (Key to Culture, No. 11, p. 10.)

 

Professor Franz Boas, the nestor of American anthropologists, has divided the whole

human race into only two divisions. This classification of Boas’ is admirably explained

by Professor George A. Dorsey:

 

Open your atlas to a map of the world. Look at the Indian Ocean: on the

west, Africa; on the north, the three great southern peninsulas of Asia: on

the east, a chain of great islands terminating in Australia. Wherever that

Indian Ocean touches land, it finds dark-skinned people with strongly

developed jaws, relatively long arms and kinky or frizzly hair. Call that

the Indian Ocean or Negroid division of the human race.

 

Now look at the Pacific Ocean: on one side, the two Americas; on the

other, Asia. (Geographically, Europe is a tail to the Asiatic kite.) The

aboriginal population of the Americas and of Asia north of its southern

peninsula was a light-skinned people with straight hair, relatively short

arms, and a face without prominent jaws. Call that the Pacific Ocean or

Mongoloid division. (Why We Behave Like Human Beings, pp. 44-45.)

 

Professors A. L. Kroeber and Fay-Cooper Cole are of the opinion that the peoples of

Europe have (been) bleached out enough to merit classification as a distinct race. This

would add a European or Caucasoid division to the Negroid and Mongoloid races of the

classification proposed by Professor Boas. If we accept this three-fold division of the

human species, our classification ought to read as follows: the races of man are three in

number; (1) the Negroid, or Ethiopian or black race; (2) the Mongoloid, or Mongolian or

yellow race; and (3) the Caucasoid or European or white race. This is the very latest

scheme of race classification.

 

Now that we have straightened out ourselves on the issue of the classification of races,

we may property turn to the main subject matter of this essay, i.e., the ancient Ethiopians

and their widespread influence on the early history of civilization. In discussing the origin

of civilization in the ancient Near East, Professor Charles Seignobos in his History of

Ancient Civilization, notes that the first civilized inhabitants of the Nile and Tigris-

Euphrates valleys, were a dark-skinned people with short hair and prominent lips; and

that they are referred to by some scholars as Cushites (Ethiopians), and as Hamites by

others. This ancient civilization of the Cushites, out of which the earliest cultures of

Egypt and Mesopotamia grew, was not confined to the Near East. Traces of it have been

found all over the world. Dr. W. J. Perry refers to it as the Archaic Civilization. Sir

Grafton Elliot Smith terms it the Neolithic Heliolithic Culture of the Brunet-Browns. Mr.

Wells alludes to this early civilization in his Outline of History, and dates its beginnings

as far back as 15,000 years B.C. “This peculiar development of the Neolithic culture,”

says Mr. Wells, “which Elliot Smith called the Heliolithic (sun-stone) culture, included

many or all of the following odd practices: (1) Circumcision, (2) the queer custom of

sending the father to bed when a child is born, known as Couvade, (3) the practice of

 

 

 

Massage, (4) the making of Mummies, (5) Megalithic monuments (i.e. Stonehenge), (6)

artificial deformation of the heads of the young by bandages, (7) Tattooing, (8) religious

association of the Sun and the Serpent, and (9) the use of the symbol known as the

Swastika for good luck. . . . Elliot Smith traces these associated practices in a sort of

constellation all over this great Mediterranean / Indian Ocean-Pacific area. Where one

occurs, most of the others occur. They link Brittany with Borneo and Peru. But this

constellation of practices does not crop up in the primitive home of Nordic or Mongolian

peoples, nor does it extend southward much beyond equatorial Africa. … The first

civilizations in Egypt and the Euphrates-Tigris valley probably developed directly out of

this widespread culture.” (Outline of History, pp. 141-143).

 

This ancient civilization is called NEOLITHIC by Wells. This is a mistake; for we have

overwhelming evidence that these ancient peoples had long passed out of the New Stone

Age stage of culture, and were erecting edifices which could only have been constructed

by means of hard metal tools. Iron is the very backbone of civilization, and the Iron Age

began very anciently in Africa. The researches of scholars like Boas, Torday and DuBois

would lead us to believe that the art of mining iron was first developed in the interior of

Africa, and that the knowledge of it passed through Egypt to the rest of the world. (See

W.E.B. DuBois, The Negro, pp. 114-116, Home University Library, New York and

London, 1915.)

 

In modern geography the name Ethiopia is confined to the country known as Abyssinia,

an extensive territory in East Africa. In ancient times Ethiopia extended over vast

domains in both Africa and Asia. “It seems certain,” declares Sir E. A. Wallis Budge,

“that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt,

both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all

the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of

Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and

the Westerners Africans.” (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis

Budge.) In addition Budge notes that, “Homer and Herodotus call all the peoples of the

Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Palestine and Western Asia and India Ethiopians.” (Ibid., p. 2.)

Herodotus wrote in his celebrated History that both the Western Ethiopians, who lived in

Africa, and the Eastern Ethiopians who dwelled in India, were black in complexion, but

that the Africans had curly hair, while the Indians were straight-haired. (The aboriginal

black inhabitants of India are generally referred to as the Dravidians, of whom more will

be said as we proceed.) Another classical historian who wrote about the Ethiopians was

Strabo, from whom we quote the following: “I assert that the ancient Greeks, in the same

way as they classed all the northern nations with which they were familiar as Scythians,

etc., so, I affirm, they designated as Ethiopia the whole of the southern countries toward

the ocean.” Strabo adds that “if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to

those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning

of the ancients.” Ephorus says that: “The Ethiopians were considered as occupying all the

south coasts of both Asia and Africa,” and adds that “this is an ancient opinion of the of

the Greeks.” Then we have the view of Stephanus of Byzantium, that: “Ethiopia was the

first established country on earth; and the Ethiopians were the first who introduced the

worship of the gods, and who established laws.” The vestiges of this early civilization

 

 

 

have been found in Nubia, the Egyptian Sudan, West Africa, Egypt, Mashonaland, India,

Persia, Mesopotamia, Arabia, South America, Central America, Mexico, and the United

States. Any student who doubts this will find ample evidence in such works as The Voice

of Africa, by Dr. Leo Froebenius; Prehistoric Nations, and Ancient America, by John D.

Baldwin; Rivers of Life, by Major-General J. G. R. Forlong; A Book of the Beginnings by

Gerald Massey; Children of the Sun and The Growth of Civilization, by W. J. Perry; The

Negro by Professor W.E.B. DuBois; The Anacalypsis, by Sir Godfrey Higgins; Isis

Unveiled by Madam H. P. Blavatsky; The Diffusion of Culture, by Sir Grafton Elliot

Smith; The Mediterranean Race, by Professor Sergi; The Ruins of Empires, by Count

Volney; The Races of Europe, by Professor William Z. Ripley; and last but not least, the

brilliant monographs of Mr. Maynard Shipley: New Light on Prehistoric Cultures and

Americans of a Million Years Age. (See also Shipley’s Sex and the Garden of Eden Myth,

a collection of essays, the best of the lot being one entitled: Christian Doctrines In Pre-

Christian America.) These productions of Mr. Shipley, have been issued in pamphlet

form in the Little Blue Book Series, published by Mr. E. Haldeman- Julius, of Girard,

Kansas.

 

The efforts of certain historians to classify these ancient Cushites as Caucasoids does not

deceive honest historical students any longer. This may well be illustrated by a passage

from the pen of our scholarly friend Bishop William Montgomery Brown: “For the first

two or three thousand years of civilization, there was not a civilized white man on the

earth. Civilization was founded and developed by the swarthy races of Mesopotamia,

Syria and Egypt, and the white race remained so barbaric that in those days an Egyptian

or a Babylonian priest would have said that the riffraff of white tribes a few hundred

miles to the north of their civilization were hopelessly incapable of acquiring the

knowledge requisite to progress. It was southern colored peoples everywhere, in China,

in Central America, in India, Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt and Crete who gave the

northern white peoples civilization.” (The Bankruptcy of Christian Supernaturalism, Vol.,

p. 192.)

 

Quite a few Egyptologists have defended the idea that the ancient Egyptians

originally came from Asia. There never was any evidence to back up this view; and the

only reason it was adopted, was because it was fashionable to believe that no African

people was capable of developing a great civilization. Geoffrey Parsons refers to

Egyptian civilization in his Stream of History, p. 154, New York & London, 1932, as

“genuinely African in its origin and development.” Herodotus came to the same

conclusion over 2,000 years ago, but he is not taken seriously by the majority of modern

historians, except where his facts agree with certain theories of said historians. Theories

are more precious to some scholars than facts, even when the facts flatly contradict their

theories. Dr. Froebenious, the great German anthropologist, has examined the ruins of

ancient cultures in southern, eastern and western Africa, of an antiquity rivaling those of

Egypt and Sumer. Sir John Marshall and Dr. E. Mackay have uncovered the remains of a

great Dravidian civilization in India, which rose to its peak over 5,000 years ago. The

newspaper generally report these discoveries as startling and unexpected. They tell us

that nobody ever dreamed that these ancient nations ever existed. This novelty, however,

does not exist for real students. Anyone familiar with the works of G. Elliot Smith, W. J.

 

 

 

Perry, Sir Godfrey Higgins, Dr. H.R. Hall, Sir Henry Rawlinson, John D. Baldwin,

Gerald Massey and General Forlong, will not be surprised at the very novel

archaeological discoveries announced by the press. Since we are dealing with historical

sources and authorities, a study of the researches of Sir Henry Rawlinson, the Father of

Assyriology, on the Ethiopians in the ancient East, is in order. The following extract is

condensed from an essay entitled: On the Early History of Babylonia:

 

1 . The system of writing which they brought with them has the closest

affinity with that of Egypt — in many cases indeed, there is an absolute

identity between the two alphabets.

 

2. In the Biblical genealogies, Cush (Ethiopia) and Mizraim (Egypt) are

brothers, while from the former sprang Nimrod (Babylonia.)

 

3. In regard to the language of the primitive Babylonians, the vocabulary is

undoubtedly Cushite or Ethiopian, belonging to that stock of tongues

which in the sequel were everywhere more or less mixed up with the

Semitic languages, but of which we have probably the purest modern

specimens in the Mahra of Southern Arabia and the Galla of Abyssinia.

 

4. All the traditions of Babylonia and Assyria point to a connection in very

early times between Ethiopia, Southern Arabia and the cities on the lower

Euphrates.

 

5. In further proof of the connection between Ethiopia and Chaldea, we must

remember the Greek tradition both of Cepheus and Memnon, which

sometimes applied to Africa, and sometimes to the countries at the mouth

of the Euphrates; and we must also consider the geographical names of

Cush and Phut, which, although of African origin, are applied to races

bordering on Chaldea, both in the Bible and in the Inscriptions of Darius.

(Essay- VI, Appendix, Book-I, History of Herodotus, translated by

Professor George Rawlinson, with essays and notes by Sir Henry

Rawlinson and Sir J. G. Wilkinson.)

 

The opinions of Sir Henry Rawlinson are reinforced by the researches of his equally

distinguished brother, Professor George Rawlinson, in his essay On the Ethnic Affinities

of the Races of Western Asia, which directs our attention to: “the uniform voice of

primitive antiquity, which spoke of the Ethiopians as a single race, dwelling along the

shores of the Southern Ocean from India to the Pillars of Hercules.” {Herodotus, Vol. I.,

Book. I., Appendix, Essay XL, Section-5.) Rawlinson adds an explanatory note to this

section of his essay, which we here reproduce: “Recent linguistic discovery tends to show

that a Cushite or Ethiopian race did in the earliest times extend itself along the shores of

the Southern Ocean from Abyssinia to India. The whole peninsula of India was peopled

by a race of their character before the influx of the Aryans; it extended from the Indus

along the seacoast through the modern Beluchistan and Kerman, which was the proper

country of the Asiatic Ethiopians; the cities on the northern shores of the Persian Gulf are

shown by the brick inscriptions found among their ruins to have belonged to this race; it

was dominant in Susiana and Babylonia, until overpowered in the one country by Aryan,

in the other by Semitic intrusion; it can be traced both by dialect and tradition throughout

the whole south coast of the Arabian peninsula.”

 

 

 

In the study of ancient affairs, folklore and tradition throw an invaluable light on

historical records. In Greek mythology we read of the great Ethiopian king, Cepheus,

whose fame was so great that he and his family were immortalized in the stars. The wife

of King Cepheus was Queen Cassiopeia, and his daughter, Princess Andromeda. The star

groups of the celestial sphere, which are named after them are called the ROYAL

family — (the constellations: cepheus, CASSIOPEIA and ANDROMEDA.) It may seem

strange that legendary rulers of ancient Ethiopia should still have their names graven on

our star maps, but the voice of history gives us a clue. A book on astrology attributed to

Lucian declares that: “The Ethiopians were the first who invented the science of stars,

and gave names to the planets, not at random and without meaning, but descriptive of the

qualities which they conceived them to possess; and it was from them that this art passed,

still in an imperfect state, to the Egyptians.” The Ethiopian origin of astronomy is

beautifully explained by Count Volney in a passage in his Ruins of Empires, which is one

of the glories of modern literature, and his argument is not based on guesses. He invokes

the weighty authority of Charles F. Dupuis, whose three monumental works, The Origin

of Constellations, The Origin of Worship and The Chronological Zodiac, are marvels of

meticulous research. Dupuis placed the origin of the zodiac as far back as 15,000 B.C.,

which would give the world’s oldest picture book an antiquity of 17,000 years. (This

estimate is not as excessive as it might at first appear, since the American ast5ronomer

and mathematician, Professor Arthur M. Harding, traces back the origin of the zodiac to

about 26,000 B.C) In discussing star worship and idolatry, Volney gives the following

glowing description of the scientific achievements of the ancient Ethiopians, and of how

they mapped out the signs of the zodiac on the star-spangled dome of the heavens:

 

Should it be asked at what epoch this system took its birth, we shall

answer on the testimony of the monuments of astronomy itself, that its

principles appear with certainty to have been established about seventeen

thousand years ago, and if it be asked to what people it is to be attributed,

we shall answer that the same monuments, supported by unanimous

traditions, attribute it to the first tribes of Egypt; and reason finds in that

country all the circumstances which could lead to such a system; when it

finds there a zone of sky, bordering on the tropic, equally free from the

rains of the equator and the fogs of the north; when it finds there a central

point of the sphere of the ancients, a salubrious climate, a great but

manageable river, a soil fertile without art or labor, inundated without

morbid exhalations, and placed between two seas which communicate

with the richest countries; it conceives that the inhabitant of the Nile,

addicted to agriculture from the facility of communications, to astronomy

from the state of his sky, always open to observation, must have been the

first to pass from the savage to the social state; and consequently to attain

the physical and moral sciences necessary to civilized life.

 

It was, then, on the borders of the upper Nile, among a black race of men,

that was organized the complicated system of the worship of the stars,

considered in relation to the productions of the earth and the labors of

agriculture. … Thus the Ethiopian of Thebes named stars of inundation, or

 

 

 

Aquarius, those stars under which the Nile began to overflow; stars of the

ox or bull, those under which they began to plow, stars of the lion, those

under which that animal, driven from the desert by thirst, appeared on the

banks of the Nile; stars of the sheaf, or of the harvest virgin, those of the

reaping season; stars of the lamb, stars of the two kids, those under which

these precious animals were brought forth. … Thus the same Ethiopian

having observed that the return of the inundation always corresponded

with the rising of a beautiful star which appeared towards the source of the

Nile, and seemed to warn the husbandman against the coming waters, he

compared this action to that of the animal who, by his barking, gives

notice of danger, and he called this star the dog, the barker (Sirius). In the

same manner he named the stars of the crab, those where the sun, having

arrived at the tropic, retreated by a slow retrograde motion like the crab of

Cancer. He named stars of the wild goat, or Capricorn, those where the

sun, having reached the highest point in his annuary tract, . . . imitates the

goat, who delights to climb to the summit of the rocks. He named stars of

the balance, or Libra, those where the days and nights being equal, seemed

in equilibrium, like that instrument; and stars of the scorpion, those where

certain periodical winds bring vapors, burning like the venom of the

scorpion. (Volney’s Ruins of Empires, pp. 120-122, New York, 1926)

 

The traditions concerning Memnon are interesting as well as instructive. He was claimed

as a king by the Ethiopians, and identified with the Pharaoh Amunoph or Amenhotep, by

the Egyptians. A fine statue of him is located in the British Museum, in London. Charles

Darwin makes a reference to this statue on his Descent of Man which is well worth

reproducing: “When I looked at the statue of Amunoph III, I agreed with two officers of

the establishment, both competent judges, that he had a strongly marked Negro type of

features.” The features of Akhnaton (Amennhotep IV), are even more Negroid than those

of his illustrious predecessor. That the earliest Egyptians were African Ethiopians

(Nilotic Negroes), is obvious to all unbiased students of oriental history. Breasted’s claim

that the early civilized inhabitants of the Nile Valley and Western Asia were members of

a Great White Race, is utterly false, and is supported by no facts whatsoever. A similar

racial bias is shown by Elliot Smith in his work, The Ancient Egyptians and Their

Influence Upon the Civilization of Europe, p. 30, New York & London, 1911. “Not a few

writers,” says he, “like the traveler Volney in the 18 th century, have expressed the belief

that the ancient Egyptians were Negroes, or at any rate strongly Negroid. In recent times

even a writer so discriminating as Ripley usually is has given his adhesion to this view.”

(The writers referred to here, are Count Volney, the French Orientalist and Professor

William Z. Ripley, of Harvard University, an eminent American Anthropologist.)

Professor Smith is convinced that these men are wrong, because he holds that there is a

“profound gap that separates the Negro from the rest of mankind, including the

Egyptian.” (Ancient Egyptians, p. 74.) Another English scholar, Philip Smith, is far more

rational in discussing this point:

 

No people have bequeathed to us so many memorials of its form

complexion and physiognomy as the Egyptians. … If we were left to form

 

 

 

an opinion on the subject by the description of the Egyptians left by the

Greek writers we should conclude that they were, if not Negroes, at least

closely akin to the Negro race. That they were much darker in coloring

than the neighboring Asiatics; that they had their frizzled either by nature

or art; that their lips were thick and projecting, and their limbs slender,

rests upon the authority of eye-witnesses who had traveled in the country

and who could have had no motive to deceive. . . . The fullness of the lips

seen in the Sphinx of the Pyramids and in the portraits of the kings is

characteristic of the Negro. (The Ancient History of the East, pp. 25-26,

London, 1881.)

 

We read of Memnon, King of Ethiopia, in Greek mythology, to be exact in Homer’s Iliad,

where he leads an army of Elamites and Ethiopians to the assistance of King Priam in the

Trojan War. His expedition is said to have started from the African Ethiopia and to have

passed through Egypt on the way to Troy. According to Herodotus, Memnon was the

founder of Susa, the chief city of the Elamites. “There were places called Memnonia,”

asserts Professor Rawlinson, “supposed to have been built by him both in Egypt and at

Susa; and there was a tribe called Memnones at Moroe. Memnon thus unites the eastern

with the western Ethiopians, and the less we regard him as an historical personage the

more must we view him as personifying the ethnic identity of the two races.” (Ancient

Monarchies, Vol. I, Chap. 3.) The ancient peoples of Mesopotamia are sometimes called

the Chaldeans, but this is inaccurate and confusing. Before the Chaldean rule in

Mesopotamia, there were the empires of the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians and

Assyrians. The earliest civilization of Mesopotamia was that of the Sumerians. They are

designated in the Assyrio-Babylonian inscriptions as the black-heads or black-faced

people, and they are shown on the monuments as beardless and with shaven heads. This

easily distinguishes them from the Semitic Babylonians, who are shown with beards and

long hair. From the myths and traditions of the Babylonians we learn that their culture

came originally from the south. Sir Henry Rawlinson concluded from this and other

evidence that the first civilized inhabitants of Sumer and Akkad were immigrants from

the African Ethiopia. John D. Baldwin, the American Orientalist, on the other hand,

claims that since ancient Arabia was also known as Ethiopia, they could have just as well

come from that country. These theories are rejected by Dr. II. R. Hall, of the Dept. Of

Egyptian & Assyrian Antiquities of the British Museum, who contends that Mesopotamia

was civilized by a migration from India. “The ethnic type of the Sumerians, so strongly

marked in their statues and reliefs,” says Dr. Hall, “was as different from those of the

races which surrounded them as was their language from those of the Semites, Aryans, or

others; they were decidedly Indian in type. The face-type of the average Indian of today

is no doubt much the same as that of his Dravidian race ancestors thousands of years ago.

. . . And it is to this Dravidian ethnic type of India that the ancient Sumerian bears most

resemblance, so far as we can judge from his monuments. … And it is by no means

improbable that the Sumerians were an Indian race which passed, certainly by land,

perhaps also by sea, through Persia to the valley of the Two Rivers. It was in the Indian

home (perhaps the Indus valley) that we suppose for them that their culture developed. . . .

On the way they left the seeds of their culture in Elam. . . . There is little doubt that India

must have been one of the earliest centers of human civilization, and it seems natural to

 

 

 

suppose that the strange un-Semitic, un-Aryan people who came from the East to civilize

the West were of Indian origin, especially when we see with our own eyes how very

Indian the Sumerians were in type.” {The Ancient History of the Near East, pp. 173-174,

London, 1916.) Hall is opposed in his theory of Sumerian origins by Dr. W. J. Perry, the

great anthropologist, of the University of London. “The Sumerian stories or origins

themselves tell a very different tale,” Perry points out, “for from their beginnings the

Sumerians seem to have been in touch with Egypt. Some of their early texts mention

Dilmun, Magan and Meluhha. . . . Dilmun was the first settlement that was made by the

god Enki, who was the founder of Sumerian civilization. … Magan was famous among

the Sumerians as a place whence they got diorite and copper, Meluhha as a place whence

they got gold. Dilmun has been identified with some place or other in the Persian Gulf,

perhaps the Bahrein Islands, perhaps a land on the eastern shore of the Gulf. … In a late

inscription of the Assyrians it is said that Magan and Meluhha were the archaic names for

Egypt and Ethiopia, the latter being the south-western part of Somaliand that lay

opposite.” {The Growth of Civilization, pp. 60-61, 2 nd Edition, Harmondsworth,

Middlesex, England, 1937, Published by Penguin Books, Ltd.)

 

Another great nation of Ethiopian origin was Elam, a country which stretched from the

Tigris River to the Zagros Mountains of Persia. Its capital was the famous city of Susa,

which was founded about 4,000 B.C., and flourished from that date to its destruction by

Moslem invaders about the year 650 C.E. (Christian Era). In speaking of the Elamites, H.

G. Wells H. H. Johnston, to have been Negroid in type. There is a strong Negroid strain

in the modern people of Elam.” {Outline of History, p. 166.) Archaeological evidence

favors this view. Reginald S. Poole, the English Egyptologist noted that: “There is one

portrait of an Elamite (Cushite) king on a vase found at Susa; he is painted black and thus

belongs to the Cushite race.” (Quoted by Professor Alfred C. Haddon, in his History of

Anthropology, p. 6, London, 1934. Thinker’s Library Edition, published by Watts & Co.,

5 & 6 Johnson’s Court, Fleet St., London, E. c-4, England.)

 

We cannot devote much space to the early inhabitants of India, though they were beyond

all doubt an Ethiopic ethnic type. They are described by Professor Lynn Thorndike as

“short black men with almost Negro noses.” {Short History of Civilization, p. 227, New

York, 1936.) Dr. Will Durant pictures these early Hindus as “a dark-skinned, broad-nosed

people whom, without knowing the origin or the word, we call Dravidians.” {Short

History of Civilization, Part I, p. 396, New York, 1935.) The student is advised to consult

pp. 650-666, of the new edition of Sir John A. Hammerton’s Wonders of the Past, in

which there is an instructive article, with fine illustrations, by S. G. Blaxland Stubbs,

entitled: Wonder Cities of Most Ancient India. That Mr. Stubbs is a candid writer may be

seen from the following excerpt:

 

The early Aryan literature of India, the Hymns of the Rigveda, which, it is

commonly agreed, date from about 1,000 B.C., speak of the people whom

the proud Aryan invaders found in India as black-skinned barbarians,

Dasas or slaves. But Aryan pride of race has received something of a

shock from archaeological investigations carried out by Sir John Marshall

and, more recently, by Dr. E. Mackay in the valley of the Indus. Here

 

 

 

ample evidence has been found of a race whose complex civilization and

high culture were equal, and in some respects superior to those of early

Mesopotamia and Egypt.

 

These Asiatic black men were not confined to the mainland, for we are informed by no

less an authority than Sir Harry H. Johnston, that:

 

In former times this Asiatic Negro spread, we can scarcely explain how,

unless the land connections of those days were more extended, through

Eastern Australia to Tasmania, and from the Solomon Island to New

Caledonia and even New Zealand, to Fiji and Hawaii. The Negroid

element in Burma and Annam is, therefore, easily to be explained by

supposing that in ancient times Southern Asia had a Negro population

ranging from the Persian Gulf to Indo-China and the Malay Archipelago.

(See An Introduction to African Civilizations, by Willis N. Huggins. Ph.D.

and John G. Jackson, pp. 188-190, New York, 1937.)

 

Most readers of history know about the Celts, ancient inhabitants of Europe, whose

priests were known as the Druids. It is generally thought that these Celts were

Caucasoids, but Sir Godfrey Higgins, after much study came to the conclusion that they

were a Negroid people. Higgins wrote a ponderous volume entitled The Celtic Druids. In

the following passage from his Anacalypsis he modestly refers to it as an essay: “In my

essay on the Celtic Druids, I have shown that a great nation called Celtae, of whom the

Druids were the priests, spread themselves almost over the whole earth, and are to be

traced in their rude gigantic monuments from India to the extremity of Britain. The

religion of Buddha of India is well known to have been very ancient.” (Higgins is here

referring to the first Buddha, who is supposed to have lived between 5,000 and 6,000

years ago, and not to Gautama Buddha who lived about 600 years B.C. There were at

least ten Buddhas mentioned in the sacred books of India.) “Who these can have been but

the early individuals of the black nation of whom we have been treating I know not, and

in this opinion I am not singular. The learned Maurice says Cuthies (Cushites), i.e. Celts,

built the great temples in India and Britain, and excavated the caves of the former; and

the learned mathematician, Reuben Burrow, has no hesitation in pronouncing Stonehenge

to be a temple of the black curly-headed Buddha.” {Anacalypsis, Vol. I, Book I, Chap.

IV, New York, 1927.)

 

Though it is generally believed that Columbus discovered America, it is now definitely

known to students of American archaeology that Columbus came late. Professor Leo

Weiner has written a three volume work, Africa and the Discovery of America, in which

he argues that the New World was discovered by Africans long before the time of

Columbus. Professor Weiner was led to this conclusion partly from the following

evidence:

 

1. African works in American Indian languages.

 

2. Vases and pipe-bowls found in the ruins of the Mound-Builders, showing

Negro faces on their surfaces.

 

 

 

3. The presence of African foods in America, such the peanut and the yam.

 

4. The totemic organization of the Amerindians tribes, very similar to

African totemism. (Totemism is a sort of primitive theory of evolution.

For instance, certain tribes are divided into clans, and each clan is, as a

rule named after some species of animal. Let us suppose a tribe is divided

into four clans, bearing the following names: (1) eagle, (2) Bear, (3) Crow

and (4) Wolf. A member of the Bear Clan will consider himself as

descended from bears, a member of the Wolf Clan will tell you that he is a

wolf and that all of his ancestors were wolves, and so on; this clan

ancestor being known as the Totem. There are numerous definitions of

totemism, the best I have come across being the following one by

Professor A. VB. Haddon: “Totemism, as Dr. Frazer and I understand it in

its fully developed condition, implies the division of a people into several

totem kins, or as they are usually termed, totem clans, each of which has

one or sometimes more that one totem. The totem is usually a species of

animal, sometimes a species of plant, occasionally a natural object or

phenomenon, very rarely a manufactured article. . . . The totems are

regarded as kinsfolk or protectors of the kinsmen, who respect them and

refrain from killing and eating them. There is thus a recognition of mutual

rights and obligations between the members of the kin and their totem.

The totem is the crest of symbol of the Kin.” We see vestiges of totemism

in our political organizations; for example, the Democratic DONKEY and

the republican ELEPHANT. Baseball clubs present an even better example

of totemistic atavism; for instance, who has not heard of baseball teams

bearing such names as: tigers, cardinals, bears, bees, bisons, etc.)

Weiner’s theories have not been kindly received by his colleagues.

Professor H. J. Spinden sneers sarcastically in the following condensed

extract from Culture, the Diffusion Controversy, pp. 53-54, New York,

1927:

 

“Professor Weiner solves the riddle of old American civilizations

with an Arabico-Mandingo lexicon and derives everything of

importance in the New World from the highly civilized coast of

Gambia and Sierra Leone. From brightest Africa came the

principal American food plants, the Mayan calendar and the

Mexican religion. It may be added that Professor Weiner swarms

his Negroes across the Atlantic in no less than fifty voyages before

Columbus.”

 

The Indian was not the original American. Professor Ales Hrdlicka of the Smithsonian

Institution, as authority on the Amerinds, contends that the ancestors of the Indians came

from Asia via Bering Strait 10,000 years ago. American civilization is older than that.

The ruins of Tiahuanaco, in Bolivia, according to Dr. Rudolph Muller, a noted German

astronomer, are between 10,000 and 14,000 years old. The remains of this ancient city

show that it was inhabited by a highly civilized people. (See an article entitled “The

Oldest City in the World,” by A. H. Verrill, in the N. Y. Herald-Tribune Magazine, July

 

 

 

31, 1932.) Excavations in Mexico have produced equally startling results. Dr. Maximus

Neumayer, a distinguished Brazilian archaeologist, in cooperation with a group of

Mexican archaeologists, has made a very thorough study of the pyramids and monuments

in the vicinity of Mexico City. He estimates the monument of Cuicuilco to be about

13,000 years old. An interesting feature of this structure is that it resembles the Assyrio-

Babylonian type of architecture, bearing a striking resemblance to the Tower of Babel as

it has been restored by the Assyriologists. Dr. Neumayer also examined the pyramids of

Teotihuacan, which he estimates to be 4,500 years of age. He thinks that these pyramids

were built by a people akin to the Egyptians; and from their arrangement, suggests that

they form a sort of model of the solar system, with a pedestal in the center, representing

the sun. We must also mention the discoveries of Professor Ramon Mena, Curator of the

Department of Archaeology of the Mexican Government. This scientist explored the

ruins of the great city of Palenque, and concluded that the ancient metropolis was built

over 10,000 years ago. He also found that the inhabitants of the city were familiar with

the manufacture and use of Stucco. The celebrated French archaeologist, Desiree

Charnay, unearthed statues around Mexico City, more than fifty years ago, with faces

showing Negroid features. Pictures of some of them may be seen in Ignatius Donelley’s

Atlantis, pp. 174-175. Donnelly also has illustrations of two similar statues, one from

Palenque and the other from Vera Cruz. Finding that the Indians show both Mongoloid

and Negroid ethnic traces, Charnay justly concluded that the Amerinds were a mixed race

of both Asiatic and African ancestry. (See The Ancient Cities of the New World, by

Desiree Charnay.) We have perfectly reliable proof of the presence of men of the

Ethiopian race in pre-Columbian America. Father Roman, one of he first Catholic

missionaries to arrive in the New World, records that a tribe of black men came from the

south and landed in Haiti, and that they were armed with darts of guanin (a composition

of gold, silver and copper), and were known as the black Guaninis. “These might have

been the Negroes of Quareca, mentioned by Peter Martyr d Angleria, or some other

American Negro nation,” asserts De Roo, “the like of which there were many, as we may

see in Rafinesque’s Account of the Ancient Black Nations of America. Such are the

Charruas of Brazil, the black Carabees of St. Vincent in the Gulf of Mexico, the Jamassi

of Florida, the dark complexioned Californians who are perhaps the dark men mentioned

in the Quiche traditions and by some old Spanish adventures. Such, again, is the tribe of

which Balboa saw some representatives in his passage of the Isthmus of Darien in the

year 1513. It would seem from the expressions made use of by Gomara, that these were

Negroes.” {History of America Before Columbus, pp. 306-307, by P. De Roo,

Philadelphia and London, 1900.) Spanish and Portugese explorers found colonies of

black men on the eastern coasts of South and Central America, and in Yucatan and

Nicaragua. De Roo quotes John T. Short, author of The North Americans of Antiquity,

New York, 1880, on the similarity of African and American languages, as follows — “It is

worthy of note that several eminent scholars have observed the remarkable similarity of

grammatical structure between the Central American and certain transatlantic languages,

especially the Basque and some of the languages of Western Africa.” {History of America

Before Columbus, pp. 164-165.)

 

Most of us are familiar with the Mayan civilization of Yucatan and Central America,

since American archaeologists have devoted many years of intensive research to these

 

 

 

territories. Among the speculations concerning the origin of this culture, those of

LePlongeon and Raquena are the most valuable. Professor Rafael Requena, a Venezuelan

archaeologist, holds that there was once an island in the Atlantic Ocean, of continental

dimensions, known to the ancients as Atlantis, that this island was settled by Egyptians,

who in turn established colonies in America before the submergence of Atlantis. The

findings of Professor Augustus LePlongeon are of great interest. This Franco-American

archaeologist discovered the ruins of a palace in Chichen Itza in 1 874. He found in this

structure, known as Prince Coh’s Palace, pictographs and inscriptions which he was able

to decipher. The story, as unraveled by LePlongeon, may be read by the student in Queen

Moo and the Egyptian Sphinx, where the professor gives his interpretation of the

inscriptions and reproductions of the pictographs. Mrs. LePlongeon’s work, Queen Moo’s

Talisman, might also be consulted. The story runs roughly as follows:

 

About 1 1,000 years ago, two brothers Princes of Yucatan, sought the hand

of the ruling monarch of the land, Queen Moo, in marriage. The brothers

were named Coh and Aac, respectively. Prince Coh was the successful

suitor; which so enraged Prince Aac that he stabbed his brother through

the heart with a stone knife, which, needless to say, caused his death. Then

Aac attempted to force Queen Moo to wed him. The Queen, rather than

submit, decided to flee to Atlantis. On reaching the coast she learned that

great earthquakes had submerged Atlantis beneath the sea; so she sailed

for Africa instead, and ended her journey in Egypt. There she was hailed

as Queen, and erected the Sphinx as a memorial to her slain husband.

 

The foregoing story sounds like a fable, but there is probably a core of fact in it. If the

Sphinx, with its Ethiopian face, is a memorial to an ancient Mayan prince, it shows that

the Mayas were of African origin.

 

Where flows the river Nile,

The queen found rest;

 

There once again her days

With peace were blessed.

 

Did Moo a giant Sphinx from

Out of the ground

 

Cause to arise, and

Thus Coh’s fame renew?

 

Did she immortalize

Her consort true?”

{Queen Moo’s Talisman, p. 65, by Alice D. LePlongeon.)

 

That Atlantis was connected with the history of ancient Ethiopia there can be little doubt.

The Greek philosopher, Proclus, stated in his works that he could present evidence that

Atlantis at one time actually existed. He cited as his authority The Ethiopian History of

Marcellus. In referring to Ethiopian history to prove the existence of Atlantis, Proclus

plainly infers that Atlantis was a part of Ethiopia. (See Cory’s Ancient Fragments of the

Phoenician, Carthaginian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Other Authors, London, 1876. See

 

 

 

also, Maynard Shipley’s New Light on Prehistoric Cultures and Bramwell’s Lost

Atlantis.) Although there is scientific evidence that an island of continental dimensions

once existed in what is now the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, many students of the

problem of Atlantis have located it in other parts of the globe, particularly in Central

America and Africa. Count deProrok ways that Atlantis, in the dimness of antiquity,

covered the region now occupied by the Sahara Desert. Kirchmaier placed it in South

Africa and Froebenius in West Africa. In reviewing James Bramwell’s Lost Atlantis, Mr.

Lewis Gannett states that: “The German anthropologist Frobenius definitely locates it in

Nigeria, whose ancient civilization he relates to that of the Etruscans and the Assyrians.”

{New York Herald-Tribune, Mar. 3, 1938.) Doctor Froebenius found ruins of palaces,

terra cotta fragments and beautiful statuary in Jorubaland, a district in Nigeria between

the Niger River and the Atlantic Ocean; and he heard among the Jorubians legends of an

ancient royal city and its palace with walls of gold, which in the long ago had sunk

beneath the waves. The German scholar, Eugen Georg, is a keen student of the Atlantis

question, and the following remarks of his are worthy of our attention:

 

The new age that began after the disappearance of Atlantis was marked at

first by the world-wide dominance of Ethiopian representatives of the

black race. They were supreme in Africa and Asia . . . and they even

infiltrated through Southern Europe. . . . During the present era — that is the

last 10,000 years — the white race… has come to possess the world.

According to the occult tradition, Semitic peoples developed wherever the

immigrating white colonists from the north were subjugated by the black

ruling class, and inter-mixture occurred, as in oldest Egypt, Chaldea,

Arabia and Phoenicia.” {The Adventure of Mankind, by Eugen Georg, pp.

121-122, New York, 1931.)

 

So far we have given little or no attention to the evidence of comparative religion. The

study of ancient religious history is important, for religion, like philosophy, changes but

slowly. Institutional religion, being conservative and static in its outlook, has preserved

much ancient lore that would have otherwise been lost to the modern student. The Greek

philosopher Xenophanes (572-480 B.C.), pointed out a profound truth when he observed

that the gods men worship very closely resemble the worshippers. In the words of this

ancient sage: “Each man represents the gods as he himself is. The Ethiopian as black and

flat-nosed the Thracian as red-haired and blue-eyed; and if horses and oxen could paint,

they would no doubt depict the gods as horses and oxen.” This being the case; when we

find the great nations of the world, both past and present, worshipping black gods, then

we logically conclude that these peoples are either members of the black race, or that they

originally received their religion in toto or in part from black people. The proofs are

abundant. The ancient gods of India are shown with Ethiopian crowns on their heads.

According to the Old Testament, Moses first met Jehovah during his sojourn among the

Midianites, who were an Ethiopian tribe. We learn from Hellenic tradition that Zeus, king

of the Grecian gods, so cherished the friendship of the Ethiopians that he traveled to their

country twice a year to attend banquets. “All the gods and goddesses of Greece were

black,” asserts Sir Godfrey Higgins, “at least this was the case with Jupiter, Baccus,

Hercules, Apollo, Ammon. The goddesses Benum, Isis, Hecate, Diana, Juno, Metis,

 

 

 

Ceres, Cybele were black.” (Anacalypsis, Vol. I, Book IV, Chap. I.) Even the Romans,

who received their religion mainly from the Greeks, admitted their debt to Egypt and

Ethiopia. This may be well illustrated by the following passage from The Golden Ass or

Metamorphosis, by Apuleius. The author, as an initiate of the Isis cult is represented as

being addressed by that goddess: “I am present; I who am Nature, the parent of things,

queen of all the elements . . . the primitive Phrygians called me Press imunitica, the mother

or the gods; the native Athenians, Ceropian Minerva; the floating Cyprians, Paphian

Venus … the inhabitants of Eleusis, the ancient goddess Ceres. Some again have invoked

me as Juno, others as Bellona, others as Hecate, and others Rhamnusia; and those who

are enlightened by the emerging rays of the rising sun, the Ethiopians, Ariians and

Egyptians, powerful in ancient learning, who reverence by divinity with ceremonies

perfectly proper, call me by my true appellation, Queen Isis.” (Doane’s Bible Myths,

Note, p. 478.)

 

A study of the images of ancient deities of both the Old and New Worlds reveal their

Ethiopic origin. This is noted by Kenneth R. H. Mackezie in T. A. Buckley’s Cities of the

Ancient World, p. 180: “From the wooly texture of the hair, I am inclined to assign to the

Buddha of India, the Fuhi of China, the Sommonacom of the Siamese, the Zaha of the

Japanese, and the Quetzalcoatl of the Mexicans, the same, and indeed an African, or

rather Nubian, origin.” Most of these black gods were regarded as crucified saviors who

died to save mankind by being nailed to a cross, or tied to a tree with arms outstretched as

if on a cross, or slain violently in some other manner. Of these crucified saviors, the most

prominent were Osiris and Horus of Egypt, Krishna of India, Mithra of Persia,

Quetazlcoatl of Mexico, Adonis of Babylonia and Attis of Phrygia. Nearly all of these

slain savior-gods have the following stories related about them: They are born of a virgin,

on or near Dec. 25 th (Christmas); their births are heralded by a star; they are born either in

a cave or stable; they are slain, commonly by crucifixion; they descend into hell, and rise

from the dead at the beginning of Spring (Easter), and finally ascend into heaven. The

parallels between the legendary lives of these pagan messiahs and the life of Jesus Christ

as recorded in the Bible are so similar that progressive Bible scholars now admit that

stories of these heathen Christs have been woven into the life-story of Jesus. (These

remarkable parallels are discussed and interpreted in a pamphlet, Christianity Before

Christ, by John G. Jackson, New York, 1938.)

 

The late Mr. Maynard Shipley, President of The Science League of America, made a very

scholarly study of the various mythologies and religions of the world, and in the

concluding passage of a brilliant essay, Christian Doctrines in Pre-Christian America, he

offers a profoundly thought-provoking statement:

 

That the ancient pagan creeds, legends and myths — part of the universal

mythos — should be found embodied in the religion of the ancient

Mexicans, and that all these again are found to be but the original sources

of the modern orthodox Christian religion, is by no means inexplicable,

and need not be attribute to the subtlety of the Ubiquitous Devil. The

explanation is that all religions and all languages of the civilized races of

men had a common origin in an older seat of civilization.

 

 

 

Where that original center of culture was is another story.

 

The evidence seems to show that the “original center of culture,” referred to by Mr.

Shipley, was that vast domain known to the classical geographers and historians as

Ethiopia. A study of religious images throws much light on this early civilization. The tau

(T-shaped) cross is thought by many Christians to be a unique emblem of their faith. The

fact is that this cross is of ancient Ethiopian origin. In the words of an outstanding student

of symbolism: “The Ethiopic form of the tau is an exact prototype of the conventional

Christian cross; or, to state the fact in its chronological relation, the Christian cross is

made in the exact image of the Ethiopian tau.” (Sex Symbolism. P. 9, by William J,

Fielding, Little Blue Book No. 904.) The cross was known to all the great ancient

nations, and was sometimes shown with the image of a man upon it. The Church Father,

Minucius Felix, writing in the early part of the third century, severely rebukes the Pagans

for their adoration of crosses: “I must tell you that we neither adore crosses nor desire

them; you it is ye Pagans … for what else are your ensigns, flags and standards, but

crosses gilt and beautiful. Your victorious trophies not only represent a cross, but a cross

with a man upon it.” Commenting on the preceding extract, the American scholar, T. W.

Doane, notes that:

 

It is very evident that this celebrated Christian Father alludes to some

Gentle mystery, of which the prudence of his successors has deprived us.

When we compare this with the fact that for centuries after the time

assigned for the birth of Jesus Christ, he was not represented as a man on a

cross, and that the Christians did not have such a thing as a crucifix, we

are inclined to think that the effigies of a black or dark-skinned crucified

man, which were to be seen in many places in Italy even during the last

century, may have had something to do with it. (Bible Myths, p. 197, 7 th

Edition.)

 

The same writer also refers to “the Mexican crucified god being sometimes represented

as black,” and that “crosses were also found in Yucatan, as well as Mexico, with a man

upon them.” (Ibid., p. 201.)

 

The numerous black madonnas and infants in European cathedrals are discussed in detail

by Sir Godfrey Higgins in The Anacalypsis, Vol. I, Book JV, Chap. I, to which the

interested student is referred. However, the remarks of Mr. Shipley on this point are

worthy of our attention:

 

Very suggestive is the fact that representations of the virgin mother and

infant savior are often black. This is true in the case of the paintings and

images of Isis and Horus, of Devaki and Krishna, and in many cases of

Mary and Jesus. The most ancient pictures and statues in Italy and other

parts of Europe, which are adored by the faithful as representations of the

Virgin Mary and the infant Jesus, reveal the infant draped in white, but

with face black and in the arms of a black mother. . . . How does it happen

that the Virgin Mother of the Mexican Savior-God so closely resembled

 

 

 

the Black Virgins of Egypt and Europe? Had they not all a common

origin?” (Sex and The Garden of Eden Myth, pp. 50-51, by Maynard

Shipley, Little Blue Book No. 1 188.) Mr. A. H. Verrill, an American

archaeologist, visited an Indian shrine in a small town in Guatemala a few

years ago, and found that on a special festival day Indians traveled to this

little church to bow down to the image of a Black Christ. From the

attendant ceremonies, Verrill judged the rite to be of Mayan origin, (see

Verrill’s Old Civilizations of the New World, New York, 1938.) The

Mayas possessed knowledge of the arts and sciences equivalent to that of

the ancients of the Old World, but upon that we cannot dwell, since

limitations of space forbid it. The reader is referred to Professor Paul

Radin’s fine book on the American Indians, where after surveying the

marvelous scientific achievements of the Mayas of Yucatan and Central

America , Dr. Radin admits that: “No excavations have ever revealed to us

any civilization of a simpler nature from which this very elaborate culture

could possibly have been developed.” (The Story of the American Indian,

p. 77, Garden City, 1937.) Egypt and Western Asia tell the same story. “In

each case we have a standard or measuring-rod of authentic historical

record,” declares Samuel Laing, “of certainly not less than 8,000 and more

probably 9,000 or 10,000 years, from the present time; and in each case

we find ourselves at this remote date, in the presence, not of rude

beginnings, but of a civilization already ancient and far advanced. We

have populous cities, celebrated temples, an organized priesthood, an

advanced state of agriculture and of the industrial and fine arts; writing

and books so long known that their origin is lost in myth; religions in

which advanced philosophical and moral ideas are already developed;

astronomical systems which imply a long course of accurate observations.

How long this prehistoric age may have lasted, and how many centuries it

may have taken to develop such a civilization, from the primitive

beginnings of Neolithic and Paleolithic origins, is a matter of conjecture.

All we can infer is, that it must have required an immense time, much

longer than that embraced by the subsequent period of historical record.”

(Human Origins, by Samuel Laing, p. 30, London, 1913.)

 

Much more could be said on this subject, but since this essay is addressed

mainly to readers who have little time for the study of history, it must be

made as concise as possible. The numerous citations from standard

scientific and historical works, it is hoped, will be of some benefit to

students who are out of reach of large public libraries, or who lack the

leisure time necessary for reading and research along these lines.