Conventional history contends that the Ethiopian kings of the 25th Dynasty had been "Egyptianized Kushites (Nubians)" who’d been exposed to pharaonic culture through the Egyptian occupation of Nubia by the pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty (the dynasty of the famous Ramses II - the Great). Theban priests of Amun, sent to Gebel Barkal (in modern Sudan) during the New Kingdom (1,559 BC - 1069 BC), are believed to have introduced the Nubians to the worship of the god Amun. Later on, those same Ethiopians allegedly managed to conquer their Egyptian tutors’ homeland and, somehow, were received in Thebes as genuine pharaohs in the mid-eighth century BC. But that's the story as told by European scholars. The ancient Nubian kings themselves, and even the early Greek historians of that time, like Herodotus and Diodorus of Sicily, had an entirely different story to tell.

King Taharqa (690-664 BC) one of the Nubian rulers during the 25th dynasty in Egypt

When those Nubian pharaohs, hailing from their southern capital at Napata, took over the reigns of power in the Theban capital, they legitimized their rule to the native Egyptian populace by claiming that they were descendants of ancient kings. They were in fact received in Egypt as rightful and legitimate kings. If, according to Western Egyptologists, the 25th Dynasty was the Nubians' first and only ascension to the Egyptian throne, then what was this "ancient legacy" that the Napatan pharaohs, and the early Greek historians, were talking about?

Historians think that after the Ethiopian kings' reign over Egypt ended in 656 BC, they left Thebes and remained in Napata for a few centuries. Then, they ultimately moved further south to a new capital called Meroe in around 295 BC. From Meroe, they supposedly continued a so-called pseudo-pharaonic civilization until the year 300 of the common era. Although pharaonic Egypt was terminated by the Roman Empire around the year 30 AD, somehow ancient historians believe that the Nubians of Meroe went on "pretending and posing" as a pharaonic culture well into the third century AD.

But what if historians have had it wrong all those centuries? What if the Nubians ruled in Meroe "before" and not after they ruled Egypt from Napata? That would explain the strong pharaonic iconography in Meroe. It would also go a long way in explaining the 25th Dynasty Nubian pharaohs' claim to a long history of kingship. Granted, this is a radical hypothesis. What concrete proof is there to support moving the kings of Meroe back in time by a thousand years earlier than generally accepted? The late dates for Meroe's pharaohs have been accepted by even the staunchest Afrocentrists themselves. Everyone has just accepted this chronological sequence without questioning it.

But a crucial carved mural from the temple-walls of the Meroitic temple of Naqa built by the Nubian King Natakamani and his wife, Queen Amanitere, which has been conveniently ignored by archaeologists, may just be the key to prove my revolutionary thesis. Historians currently believe that the temple of Naqa was constructed sometime between the years 2 and 23 AD. But there's a strange anomaly. The temple-wall shows the Meroitic rulers having captured a Philistine! Problem is, the Philistines (or Peoples of the Sea), the same Philistines referred to in the Old Testament, came into the picture in the ancient world in the 12th century BC, and soon afterward dissolved into the local Canaanite and Aegean populations. As the comparative drawings to the right show, the Nubians of Meroe depict the same Philistines which were likewise carved on the temple-walls of the Egyptian king Ramses III's temple at Medinet Habu in the 12th century BC. Why would the Nubians in Meroe bother to depict a scene on their temple from over a thousand years earlier and claim it as contemporary? Strangely enough, Nubiologists have absolutely no problem assuming that King Natakamani was just pointlessly imitating a scene from a time long-gone and boastfully claiming a deceptive victory.

(Left): Philistine captive represented on the Nubian temple of Naqa. (Right): Relief of Philistine soldiers from Ramses III’s temple at Medinet Habu - 12th century BC.

The fact is, accepting that the Temple of Naqa carving is real would mean nothing less than the destruction of Egyptology as we know it today. It would mean that the Nubians didn't acquire pharaonic culture from a colonial campaign from dynastic Egypt. If that is accepted, then the next question would be: "Is pharaonic culture indigenous to Nubia?" The answer to that question is, I believe, a resounding "yes". As I argue in Planet of the Greeks, the pharaonic roots of the Meroitic and Napatan dynasties run as deep as the 5th millennium BC -- back to the culture depicted in the Qustul incense burner as seen earlier. This culture was known as the A-Group Nubians. It's always been thought that the Nubian "Kushites" which the Egyptians have lorded over for millennia, known as the C-Group, were one and the same as the earlier A-Group Nubians. But I believe it can be proven the Afroasiatic C-Group Kushites were an entirely different group which never adopted full pharaonic culture. Believing this deception, many Afrocentric scholars have preferred to concentrate on the greatness of dynastic Egypt and entirely missed the boat on liberating Nubian history from the shackles of the faulty Western historiography.

Since Planet of the Greeks has been available online, the debate has erupted in several parts of the world. I've received e-mails from historians and archaeologists from the U.S. to as far a Poland who are intrigued by this radical theory. The debate has begun and there are people on both sides. I have even been labelled a heretic by a scientific website. But science and physical evidence speak for themselves. Old ideas die hard, but new ideas always find their way.

Comment on this article

©AfroToronto.com2006