The ancient Hebrews from the land beyond the Kush, today know as Africa, did have several interactions with Egyptians up through the centuries. The Book of Jasher (the remains anyways) chronicles their flight and endeavour in building up the great Egyptian civilisation, which mostly still lies covered deep in sand, from upper Egypt and way down into the Sudan, the so-called Nubians. Egypt did, after being aided by the Hebrews the first time, go on to enjoy the glorious heydays, categorised in different dynasties by archeologists guessing away at all kinds of time periods and frames. What is there for all to see, is that this area was indeed the land of all the gods, and Egypt was at her most glorious and breathtaking. However, all things comes must to an end.
If you happen agree with the timeline set by archeologists and egyptologists, you will quickly find yourself in fruitless arguments with atheists and agnostics alike about a vast array of timeframes, Sphinxes, historical monuments, or just arguing about other historical events. When they happened, where they happened... This is a problem because, short answer, the timeframes simply don't ad up. This leaves you to defend the Bible as historically accurate or inaccurate. Now, you are forced to defend it because it is used in this context, as a manuscript that (somehow) was collected over the years and originated in the middle east. Using the popular historical narrative way you will always come up short in these discussions. Logically and or geographically, whichever way you choose to go, it won't add up.
Now, the question that should be asked these same academics, is why on earth they are excavating ancient Israel some six thousand miles from where it actually was/is... If modern historians admit being wrong by a couple of hundred years in their calculations or even thousands, what else might have been overlooked? The rapid deterioration of organic material should be enough to raise questions on methods like Radio-carob dating. Close enough it seems is also good enough these days... Oh, did I mention that people doesn't really wanna know anyway?
Just to prove a a point of how easy history is manipulated or how fast the human mind forgets and refuses to see something hidden in plain sight. Consider the example of the evolution Sphinx and her nose. Yes I said her, which was the original intent of the Egyptian creators, the concept of goddesses was born in Egypt. Its only to strange to see that she has now become a dude, and goes by the name Pharaoh or The Sphinx. The nose, or should I say, HER nose - has a unique history and has taken several shapes over the years. A sort of evolution has indeed taken place, where the obvious conqerors have all taken artistic licenses in portraying the old monument, with their face in a way. Below you find the sketch (postcard), made by archeologist and artist Vivant Denon (1747-1825), who etched this image of the Sphinx around 1798. Now Denon makes no mention of ANY damages to the Nose or lips of the Sphinx, and writes in His own words (Denon, 1803):
"...Though its proportions are colossal, the outline is pure and graceful; the expression of the head is mild, gracious, and tranquil; the character is African, but the mouth, and lips of which are thick, has a softness and delicacy of execution truly admirable; it seems real life and flesh. Art must have been at a high pitch when this monument was executed; for, if the head wants what is called style, that is the say, the straight and bold lines which give expression to the figures under which the Greeks have designated their deities, yet sufficient justice has been rendered to the fine simplicity and character of nature which is displayed in this figure..."
Now, in case your eyesight (judgement) is somewhat afflicted, thats a Bantu nose with Bantu lips, clear Negroid features. Is it a woman though? Hard to tell from that angle. Rest assured, we are going to the bottom of that too. Lets move on to another observant Frenchman, Count Constantin de Volney (1757-1820), who seemed to know just a little bit about everything. This man embarked on a journey in 1782 where he actually spent nearly seven months in Egypt, all chronicled in his Travels through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784, and 1785 (1787). Volney did not have sympathies for people who where pro-slavery, and did go on to make several mentions in his writings that the Egyptians where in fact black Africans. During his Egyptian spell he made clear these facts - that one of the greatest civilisations where in fact not white. To utter amazement for all his European piers, who labeled him `strange` from that day on. It didn't exactly help that the man also tried to prove that Christ had no historical existence. Perhaps he was right in that, meaning if they was looking for historical and archeological evidence for Christ in the middle east, there wouldn't be any. Because it actually didn't happen there, it all happened in Africa. Anyways, beliefs such as these has made sure Volneys brief historical mention, though he did write interesting stuff on the Egyptian civilisation (Volney, 1787:80-83):
"All the Egyptians, have a bloated face, puffed-up eyes, flat nose, thick lips – in a word, the true face of the mulatto. I was tempted to attribute it to the climate, but when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says:
' As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair...
"When I visited the Sphinx, I could not help thinking that the figure of that monster furnished the true solution to the enigma (of how the modern Egyptians came to have their 'mulatto' appearance).
"In other words, the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native-born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood, mixed for several centuries with that of the Greeks and Romans, must have lost the intensity of its original colour, while retaining nonetheless the imprint of its original mold."
"Just think, that this race of Black men, today our slave and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of people who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery, and questioned whether Black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites!
"In other words the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same stock as all the autochthonous peoples of Africa and from the datum one sees how their race, after some centuries of mixing with the blood of Romans and Greeks, must have lost the full blackness of its original colour but retained the impress of its original mould."
The Evolution of the Sphinx Nose
Volneys words does seem to ring true, however history teaches otherwise nowadays, but there are increasing possibilities to keep going deeper and do some digging. Treasure are to be found, with earlier images of the Sphinx, giving even more food for thought. Below these images are presented chronologically, with the earliest known sketches, mostly by European travellers from the middle ages and up towards modern times. Enjoy :)
As we move along, I want you to (continually) ask two questions:
1. Is the nose still in the current image?
2. Does the Sphinx look more like a man or more like a woman?
One of the earliest, if not the earliest image, is from Hogenberg & Brauns map Cairus quae olim Babylon (1572), which exists in various editions (various authors) with a different looking Sphinx.
This drawing of Johannes Helferich who visited the Sphinx in 1565 shows a depiction of a woman. Helferich goes on to tell in is much quoted works, kinda tales from the campfire style, secret passages and nefarious Egyptian priests scaring the trespassers half to death. His detailed writings suggest he was either or had made the acquaintance of someone who was familiar with the sight. The woodcut above was published in 1579, and seems so imply the complete opposite. The Sphinx is female and the monument itself is shown as a pear of breasts buried in the sand. Interestingly the headpiece depicted does resemble a well know Egyptian hairstyle, and Helferich himself was under the strong impression that the Sphinx herself was an image of Isis.
Jan Sommer made this unpublished image for the Voyages en Egypte des annees (1589). Sphinx, to the left of pyramid, looks female, head slightly tilted backwards and seems to have some sort of ornament on her head.
Here is the sketch made by the English poet and traveler George Sandys (1577-1644), with his engraved image of the Giza plateau. The illustrator of George Sandys travels made a better job in depicting the Sphinx. Perhaps even Sandys himself made the actual sketch in the field as the woodcut in his book is detailed enough to show erosion on the neck, with knobbly protuberances, the damage to the head-dress (hair), along with grooves and notches. Sandys illustration also avoids the classical style which in later times have gone on to ruin the many contemporary renditions of Egyptian art. The nose does seem to be there, resembling Bantu but features are fading - how about the gender, still a woman?
A drawing of the Giza Sphinx by the French aristocrat François de La Boullaye-Le Gouz (1623-68) gathered from Les Voyages et Observations (1653). Hopefully you see a woman with a flat bantu nose, and a rounded hairdo and bulky collar, which perhaps could be there attempt to render the protruding and weathered layer of the neck or quite simply it used to look more like an afro.
A drawing of the Giza Sphinx by doctor, magistrate and French aristocrat Balthasar de Monconys (1611-65) from his Journal des voyages (1665). Nose intact, it seems, with Monconys interpretation of the headdress as kind of a hairnet.
An image of the Sphinx by `African Authority` Olfert Dapper (1636-89) from his Description de l'Afrique (1665), note the two different displays of the Sphinx. Now, is the image on the left between the pyramids an image of a man or a woman?
As things progress and as they being to get ridiculous, Dutch artist and traveler Cornelis de Bruijn (1652-1727) did his engraving, found in Reizen van Cornelis de Bruyn door de vermaardste Deelen van Klein Asia (1698). So, I guess something happened here or de Bruijn was working under commission, filled in the nose or this quite possibly is simple satire... Anyways, nose is still there only, well you know...clearly the Sphinx is some white dude now...?
This image of the Sphinx is by the German geographer Johanne Baptista Homann (1664-1724), from the map Aegyptus hodierna (1724). Difficult to see, but there is a slightly feminine tint to the Sphinx (hair) and something that looks like a nose, perhaps not Bantu anymore, but there seems to still be a nose.
An engraving of the Sphinx by anthropologist (believe it or not) Richard Pocoke (1704-65) a rendering from A Description of the East and Some other Countries, Vol. I: Observations on Egypt (1743). Is the nose intact? It seems to be intact, although I would say it has deviated from the original altogether. Its now clearly a white dude, and not many feminine features are left. Pocokes account are free for all to be reading his Egyptian travels, in the 1700s, and could very easily be seen as a mimic of de Bruijns work from 1698, even the people standing beneath or sitting next to the Sphinx head. Erosion and damage seems fairly accurately record, the nose, although changed simnifically, is shown intact. So much for de Bruins satire theory. Makes you wonder if the anthropologist (specialist in human features) Pocoke actually spent more than a couple of days at the sight...makes you wonder.
Above are the two drawings of danish explorer and naval captain Frederic Louis Norden (1708-42), published in his travels in 1755, which included these two images of the Sphinx. Front view, is where the nose seems to have suddenly disappeared, and what gender is the depiction now? Hard to tell really..
Side view shows that the nose is definitely gone. Does any other historical engravings prior to 1800 reveal the loss, at this detail, of the nose? I haven't found any. This image if often exhibited when trying to prove other egyptological or archeological theories. Which often results in a leaving out this `inconvenient` image.
This painting of the Sphinx by sculptor, painter, architect and archeologist Louis-Francois Cassas (1756-1827) from about 1790, shows something remarkable... the nose is back again...! How? Have no idea. Sphinx does however look slight more female, although even less Bantu than before.
A side view of Denons etching of the Sphinx, from 1798, which shows the (Bantu) nose intact and something that resembles a female afro. Vivant Denon, who joined Napoleons expedition to Egypt as an archeologist and artist, published in 1802 his sketches of Egyptian monuments and artefacts in Voyage dans la basse et la haute Egypte (1802).
This interesting painting of the Sphinx by the Italian-German artist Luigi Mayer (1755-1803), shows the head of the Sphinx (left 1st. Ed) and to the right (2nd. Ed). In the collection Views from Egypt (1801), from the actual original drawings of Sir Robert Ainslie (1730-1812), taken during his embassy to Constantinople undertaken by Luigi Mayer, engraved under the direction of engraver Thomas Milton (1743-1827). This image is now in the Overstone Library, Reading University Library. So then, is the nose intact? Yes it appears so. Features are definitely female or, kinda Masai looking, slim face but long forehead with a powerful jawline. Beneath is Luigi Mayer image from an article. Now, from the year 1809 an onwards the Sphinx was to be depicted rather masculine and without a nose and no (visible) lips.
The Great Sphinx of Giza in the series of volumes called Description de l'Egypte (1809), Book 15 (1822), Volume V - Planches : Antiquités (1823). These columns where the extensive compilation of the field repots, sketches and descriptions made by members of Napoleons scientific team during the expeditions in Egypt. As you can see the nose is gone and features (cheeks) now look way more masculine than the previous image.
Another drawing from Description de l'Egypte (1809), Book 15 (1822), Volume V - Planches : Antiquités (1823), when the Sphinx was seen by Napoleons troops, largely buried in sand. In 1817 its chest was uncovered by egyptologist and explorer Giovanni Battista Cavaglia (1770-1845), it was going to take another 119 years before the famous French egyptologist Èmile Baraize (1874-1852) where to excavated the Sphinx completely in 1936. Nose looks to be gone and features are difficult to asses.
On the right is the Scottish painter David Roberts (1796-1864) famous work of the Sphinx from 1839. And the nose is definitely gone, also partially excavated. Feminine features now seem gone as well, and looking more like the face of a man. Below are rare views, by same painter, also a dust-storm painting.
The Sphinx at Giza rear view Dust-storm at the Sphinx at Giza
From the photographic collection of the New York Library, from 1849. taken by colonel Howard Vyse (1784-1853) shows the Sphinx, under excavation lead by Cavaglia. In the sand dune around the Sphinx has opened up in front of the chest (breasts) and around the left shoulder, revealing the front paws and the chapel between the forelegs.
English astronomer Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819-1900) took this photograph of the Sphinx in 1865, and conclusive photographic evidence correlates that the nose and lips have been damaged or altered somewhat. Features are anyones guess by now really. Although, if you know the outset and use Denons rendering as the starting point, it is still possible to see the original Bantu woman.
On the left is the painting of sculptor Jean-Léon Gérôme (1824-1904) with none other than Napoleon mounted on his horse standing in from of the Sphinx. The nose is still missing and gives little insight into its former glory.
A photo by an unknown author, taken of the Sphinx, with some dude standing inside the remains of the cape (afro) on the left side. Nose and lips either eroded or damaged for all to see.
A rather famous crowd sits in front of the ancient monument and the Giza Necropolis, a few of them being egyptologist Auguste Mariette (1821-81), politician Luís Pedreira do Couto Ferraz (1818-86), Don Teresa Cristina (1822-89) also nicknamed `Mother of the Brazilians`, Emperor Dom Pedro II (1825-91) the last ruler of Brazil. In M. Delie & E- Bechards De Volta a Luz (1871). Not much to note on this photo, other than the streak of celebrities, each one posing their very best old school selfie-style. No nose or lips.
Here you can see the Sphinx of Giza, partially excavated, with two pyramids in the background. From De l'Égypte et de la Nubie (1878).
A photo, probably by Beniamino Facchinelli (1839-96), dated between 1873 and 1895, from the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Albumen print of the Great Sphinx by the armenian Lékègian (1860-1890) from the 1880s. From this front view the nose is gone, however Bantu (or Negroid) lips can be discerned from this angle.
A photograph of the Sphinx by Henri Béchard and from Le Sphinx Armachis (1880). Don McCullin, a well known photographer, had this to say on the Sphinx and this particular photo:
"It's very difficult to talk about the Spinx because it is so well known.This is a very simple, almost postcard-like image, but nevertheless if you look into it you see more and more. It's extraordinary. This is a remarkable photograph and here it is in this album, hidden away. It deserves a better place in the world really."
Excavations had come a long way under Cavaglia, as can be seen in this photo. Its not uncommon to read about theories on the face actually being a lion first, then having been chiseled down to a Pharaohs face. Which Pharaoh it was, they still argue on.
In this recent photo (WMC9) make the comparison of the images below, the two side views of the Sphinx, one recent and one of the earlier images, Vivant Denons African rendering. What do you make of them?
Who was, historically speaking, in a position of being able to damage or change the face of the Sphinx? There are several possibilities. Arab conquerors did roam the area (possibly in 600s), and could be made a culprit, although the evidence is not conclusive. The same goes for the Asiatic Sufis, a people that could have made the efforts (possibly in 1070s), then came a wave of Turks, then Mamelukes, before the Frenchmen eventually made their way down. The nose seems to have been damaged, beyond all recognition before the British and German soldier arrived there. Who knows for sure..
However, we have all seen first hand the damage done, over time, either by culprits or weather (erosion). It is not an unknown fact thought that some of the noses and lips on the ancient Egyptian statues where knocked off solely for the purpose of destroying the predecessor in her/his afterlife. Once the statue had been defaced, the dead Pharaohs life was snuffed out. It was a common belief (as is in certain modern philosophies) that the spirit of a dead person could live beyond the grave, but only if some remembrance - a body, a statue, or even a name - of the dead person existed in the land o the living. Graves are a strange custom indeed..
Look at the example of Tuthmosis III that defaced many of Hatshepsut`s statues, images and titles after her death, and was effectively cursed with endless death, which statues noses and lips knocked off which off course would cause her to suffocate in the afterlife. Weird stuff, but they believed it so fervently back then.
Mark Lehrner wrote in The Complete Pyramids (1997):
"Examination of the Sphinx's face shows that long rods or chisels were hammered into the nose, one down from the bridge and one beneath the nostril, then used to pry the nose off towards the south..."
This means we could perhaps dismiss the obvious modern human culprits with cannonballs or gunfire used on the statues. In conclusion of the Sphinx Nose, and her deterioration - from either vandals or erosion (doesn't matter either way), the early images themselves do speak volumes. And perhaps, the next time you listen to some egyptologist or archeologist pontificate about times and dates or the certainties about sedimentary this or radio-carbon dating that, a thought should cross your mind. Perhaps they have no real foundation in placing these dates and classifications on matters that seems more like pure guess work than anything else. History is simply to complicated to understand as a whole and we forget how the conquerors keep on manipulating it. Heck, some of us struggle remembering what they did last week, let alone with figuring out exactly what happened a couple of hundred years ago, let alone thousands. This then makes most academic disciplines today nothing more than guess work, at best, built on a belief later on confirmed by experts (pier reviewed) opinions.
I remember reading somewhere, about not to put any trust in the wisdom of man, that its fleeting, flawed and insufficient. That the wisdom of man cannot understand the never ending depths of the creation we are a part of...
Its like looking at those patterns in nature... Did you know music makes patterns like that? In any matter uncertain or not, These old civilisations, Egyptians and Babylonian was darn sure they would last forever. Just as we are in the great heydays of so-called `space-exploration`. We are just as confident as the Greeks, that we are the end all be all greatest there ever was, and that our testimony and accomplishments will stand for all time... Hate to break it to ya`ll, but the Greeks, Romans or Babylonians didn't last and neither will we. And all we are left with from these early civilisations are scraps and a vast array of fanciful academic opinions. Which makes good battlegrounds for silly debates over things such as the age of an ancient monument.
But listen - what if we have forgotten way more important things than the shape of the Sphinx, the origins or colour of a people?? What if we have forgotten something basic, like what time it is. Time erodes and makes things seem like something they are not..
An Old Calendar
By now there are several posts on the subject matter on the page, about reading the heavens, which Its not hard or difficult, anyone can do it really. Even you :)
Reading the heavens`? Now whats this guy on about!? I still haven`t gotten over that Peacock feather or that music can make patterns like that... I should check up on that...
Perhaps you should, but now seriously, as I have alluded in other blogposts on my page, the calendar we live and die by in this day and age, has not been the only way to keep track of time. You see, they did not have clocks, sundials perhaps, but there where no oddities such as international datelines in dem good ol`days. Certainly they did not have a year that began again in the middle of winter? I mean come on, it makes way more sense it would start when the seeds and pants again are beginning to sprout and flourish, new life again after a cold and long winter. Such is the Hebrew calendar, in tune with nature. It has never know anything else. Ans almost all people back then went about their business relying on what they observed in nature, they had to as agriculture was central to almost all ancient civilisations. How did they observe the obvious changes such as seasons, tides or when a month beings and ends? Short answer, they used a big round disk, the moon.
If you do just a fractional bit of research you are bound to come across that the ancients: Babylonians, Egyptians and Greeks - though they all had different ways of calculating - primarily used the moon. Observing its cycles, waxing and waning to tell them such things as when a month started and ended. The ancient Hebrews in Southern Africa where, according to my and the beliefs of others, the first ones to use this original method. This heritage first started (probably by Ntu (The First African Human), later by Moses, the lawgiver from Mount Sinai in southern Africa. A reliable clock way more efficient and trustworthy than our Catholic `timesavings` calendar, which never made a lick sense to me anyhow, how can you save time?? Please explain how to...
Anyways, The Hebrew calendar was a sure way of keeping track of the months. This meant being able to tell when the `Appointed Times` (zezamaxesha) was to be observed.
What are The Appointed Times? Well, there are several celebratory and important (special) days, reflecting events in the Old and New Testament. Events and special times of the year meant to be enjoyed and observed in different ways. And from personal experience the days are indeed special and very often in tune with nature. One of these days, the day after the dreaded Day of Atonement (a day of fasting and prayer, a unique day of repenting), has a habit of becoming one of the clearest and most serene days of the years (with almost no wind) accompanied by a breathtaking sunset. Who controls time and sets Creation apart like that? Japp, but you know the answer to that ;-)
There are many such special days in a whole year, and without knowing it you might even have glanced up towards the clear blue sky.. thinking for yourself, or even saying out loud, what a beautiful day... Chances are that day was a Sabbath or quite possibly a feast day. A Sabbath day or a feast weeks, such as The Feast of the Temple a whole seven days of reflection and offerings (not sacrifices, but prayer and communion). There are several others, and the Apostle Paul talks specifically about letting no man judge you if you choose to observe these special times (Colossians 2,16).
What is a New Moon day and why does this have no apparent meaning to believers today? A long story, a New Moon day is essentially the first day of the New Month. I`ll explain more as we go along. Now, why Paul choose to write about this is because he knew all to well that persecution and editing (of times and Scripture both) - where bound to happen. Why? Short answer - people where inflamed with jealousy, which again was immediately directed towards the freedom spread by the first followers of Christ (Amanwele). I don`t think we can begin to imagine how much was destroyed or how many lives was shortened by Roman soldiers and perhaps even the Hebrew (Xhosa, Zulu) people themselves. I am not point fingers, only we don't know much more than what the Bible said would happen. And happen it did.
You know the saying by Manwele Himself (The Messiah):
`...not one stone will be left upon another`
(Matthew 24,2, Mark 13,2 & Luke 21,6).
This paints a messy but necessary picture of the fate of Jerusalem, a place that people believe was close to a city called `Beloved` (Umthatha) surrounded by the great mountains on the south-eastern coast in todays South-Africa, in the Eastern Cape.
Painted by Caesar Carl Hans Hekel (1837-1913). Heavy prices where payed so that you and I could several years later, sit and enjoy a Bible of collected truthlets. We can carelessly read the grand tales of things that happened so long ago. We are definitely blessed and fortunate enough to do this. Now, don't fret if this whole calendar bit gets confusing or difficult, you can visit:
and let Troy Miller teach how to observe the Sabbath using nature. Specifically The New Moon (first slider) to determine the start of the month. I do not condone everything or can speak for all the information on Troys site, but I can say that the calculation of the calendar is done according to Scripture.
Observing the Sabbath
If you are still reading I guess you won't mind reading a little more about the calendar, as it has, just like the Sphinx and the ancient Egyptian people, been largely overlooked and forgotten. Not to mention the true Hebrews (Bantus), but thats another article. Now, there are other ways of reading the heavens (which also uses the moon) and can give you (sporadically) the true day of rest although not every. If it gets confusing, try observing the Sabbath for a while and the many obstacles that comes along with it, rest assured there will be a few of those. Try this before eventually have a go at the feast dates. Transitioning into a new calendar is, needless to say, something that one needs to do slowly. However, it enables you to understand what the Scripture `....enter into my rest` actually means. This cannot be explain to another person, it must be experienced.
A fair warning - the internet is full of people claiming they have all the answers. The web (by now anyways) is filled to the brim with so-called true ancient `jewish calendars`. Nisan dis and nisan dat, all names from the Babylonian calendar... Not much in common with Xhosa (Bantu) names or African way of life. I will be first in line to admit that I dont have it all figured out. I do however know enough to tell you where not to look for answers. Knowing your foe makes it easier to spot the friend. Most of these foes (sadly) just want you to believe what they believe and have no interest in searching out or to ponder anything. As they (in most cases) have been told what to believe... But hey, if you still wanna go down to the middle east looking for answers, be my guest. Readers of this blog will know there is little of importance to be found there, other than a great deal of people looking to accuse you and curse you for not being like them, apparently. If your not careful you can just as easily catch their kabbalistic cold... becoming a dry tree.
Anyways, proceed with caution and pray that your right hand remains strong and you are guided towards The true worship days. Don`t stumble and get caught in peoples opinions along the way. Many do not have your best interests at heart.
Continuing with the Babylonians - who might have been, seen as they at some point in time had a number of ancient Hebrews (Bantus) in their midst (exile into Babylon and all that), one of the first ancient civilisations that copied the African Hebrews way of tracking time.
They used the first visible crescent (when the moon was as its `smallest`), to determine the start of the month. The Babylonians might initially have used the Full Moon (as the first day of the month) to begin with, but later went on to changed the calendar and copying the ways of the righteous Bantus. Not an unlikely scenario, as for when and where it happened, who knows and shouldn't be important. However, Babylonia does seem to have been somewheres around the place today called Israel, eery, I know. But there has been excavations with things pulled out of the ground. This makes the barren land of the middle east a likely candidate towards being the land of confusion (Babel).
It is also implied several places in Scripture that all this was a long long time a go in the land beyond the Kush - in a large and lush place toady called Africa.
"...From beyond the Rivers of Kush/Ethiopia/Africa I will bring my scattered people to be my offerings..."