Black Genesis: The Prehistoric Origins of Ancient Egypt

are not now capable of this perception; (3) through receiving the knowledge from some outside source. These possible
methods stimulated thought and questioning, as we had intended, but they also generatad some hysterical responses
from both ends of the spectrum of thought. We did not, as Malville et al. claim in their 2007 report, “propose that the
nomads had contact with extra-galactic aliens.” 24 Further, they go on to say, “Brophy proposes that the stones of the
cromlech represent maps of the stars of Orion as early as 16,500 BC. These extremely early dates . . . are inconsistent
with the archaeological record.” 25 Yet we did not propose the cromlech (Calendar Circle) was built in 16,500 BCE.
We suggested, however, that it represented the long-term precessional motion of the sky and was built and used circa
5000 BCE. Generally science is advanced by the exercise of imaginative problem-solving applied to accurate data and
calculations, even if some speculations may not be upheld by more extensive data collection, and science is hindered by
applying only conventional reasoning, especially to flawed data and incorrect calculations.
*30. X-1 is indicated in a low-resolution version of the Quickbird image in Brophy and Rosen, “Satellite Imagery
Measured of the Astronomically Aligned Megaliths at Nabta Playa,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry
5, no. 1 ( June 2005): 15–24.
*31. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listofhieroglyphs/german-Gardiner-list-translated#S-Crowns
*32. In the article about his expedition published in Geographical Journal, Bagnold supplied only a rough mark on a
map with a scale of 1:10 million units of scale. Due to the extreme remoteness of the area combined with the paucity
of information about the circle’s location, it was visited little or not at all at least until the 1990s, when four-wheeldrive
jeep desert travel became readily available in Egypt. The first known visit was in 1998 by a small group calling
themselves Zarzoora Expeditions of Wael T. Abed. We are lucky to have the very good black-and-white photograph
taken by Ralph Bagnold when he discovered the site in 1930 and from which we can determine the original state of the
stone circle.
*33. Both Bagnold in 1930 and the FJE in 2001–2002 say that no implements or artifacts were found in or near the
circle. According to the FJE: “We could confirm Bagnold’s observation that no stone implements were to be found in
the vicinity. A kilometer (about 3.280 feet) away, near our campsite, a broken aterian biface [ sic] and some crude flake
tools were noted, but no concentration of artifacts that would indicate any larger permanent settlement.” In April 2008,
however, we did, in fact, find a rather beautifully worked stone implement, a knife or perhaps the tip of a lance, at a
place only 150 meters or so (about 492 feet) west of the circle, among numerous other man-made stone artifacts. In
addition, to the south of the basin there is a gently sloping area, possibly the shore of the ancient playa, with adjacent
lines and rows of small rectangular-shaped parcels divided by bits of stones and small upright slates that are still
embedded in the sand. (These uprights could be the outlines of small agricultural plots near a prehistoric village,
evidence of which was found in a circular gathering of stones that seemed to be the outline of a primitive habitation.)
In light of finding the numerous man-made stone artifacts lying on the surface, similar to the initial finds at Nabta
Playa, we considered other general similarities between Bagnold Circle and Nabta.
†34. Some kilometers to the west, as we later headed toward the northern edge of Gilf Kebir, we came across the remains
of a prehistoric settlement, probably from the late Neolithic, where we found several circles of stones marking the
outline of habitations, as well as many stone implements. There can be little doubt, in view of these findings, that there
was much human activity in the area, some sedentary, some nomadic, and some perhaps even pastoralist (though no
evidence of cattle or other bovine has been found yet near Bagnold Circle). We must be privy to further explortions to
confirm this, and the site clearly seems suitable for an extensive survey by field archaeologists. Unfortunately, given
that no traditional professional Egyptologists have even managed to visit Bagnold’s site because of its remoteness
from the Nile, it may continue to suffer from obscurity. Due to the flat, dry, playa sediment–like conditions of the
terrain, however, the site may be a good candidate for study by the new generations of high-resolution synthetic
aperture satellite radar with remote sensing, which can see beneath the surface layers of sediment.
*35. We also verified the north–south (meridian) alignment at night by aiming at the Pole Star and in the daytime with a
simple gnomon’s noon shadow. In addition, in the distance directly north of the circle there is visible a lone mountain
peak that could have been ritually significant to the placement of the circle.
†36. We don’t list the precise coordinates here because important sites in the Egyptian Western Desert have been left
essentially unprotected. Even the extremely important and relatively accessible Nabta Playa is left unguarded, with
nothing to protect it from damage but (we hope) the good sense of any visitors. The much more distant and remote
Bagnold Circle is very unlikely to be protected.
*37. The text simply says that Ham “. . . saw the nakedness of his father . . .” in private and implies that he did something