THE history of Babylonia is made up of the histories of the Akkadians, the Sumerians, the Chaldeans, the Assyrians, the Medes and the Persians; only one of which exists today as a distinctive people.


The recorded history such as has been found, referring to what historians have called "the old Oriental Empires" and recorded by our scientists, consists of the reading of a few tablets and inscriptions written in cuneiform and then matching up their translations with the Biblical Legends. The furthest any of these go back is less than 5000 years ago.


The commencement of Babylonia dates back 18,000 years or more when a settlement on the river Euphrates was made by a company of Naga-Mayas from India. In after times they met the end of the Eastern Line from Mu.


The people they met were Semitics.



The first Akkadians were a company of Naga-Mayas from India who came through the Persian Gulf and made their first settlement at the mouth of the Euphrates River. They called the place Akkad.


Akkad is a Naga-Maya word meaning "soft and marshy ground" which today is the character of the ground on the Euphrates Delta. When the settlement was formed the people adopted the name they had given to their settlement and thus became known as the Akkadians. Temple records in India speak of this settlement but give no date.


Contemporary records have dates of about 18,000 years ago, so I think it permissible to assume that the Akkad settlement was made about 18,000 years ago.


After the Akkad settlement was firmly established, the Akkadians worked inland up the Euphrates River and became known as:



Sumer is another Naga-Maya word meaning "flat lands or plains."


From this they took or were given the name Sumerians, plainsmen or men of the plains. It is thus seen that the Sumerians and Akkadians were one and the same people; the difference being that one set lived inland, countrymen, and the other set lived on the seashore, shoremen. Historians, however, have written as if the Akkadians and Sumerians were two different peoples, which is erroneous.

Valmiki, the Hindu sage-historian, in his works written 1300 B.C., tells us that,

"these colonists... of the Euphrates settlement" (the Akkadians and Sumerians) "called their settlement Babylonia and their chief city, Babylon."

Babylon was also called "Ka Ra" which is Naga-Maya meaning "the city of the Sun."


Valmiki also states,

"that the Naacals left India and went to Babylonia, there to teach the religion and the sciences of the Motherland."

The Akkadians and Sumerians, the real and ancient Babylonians, were far in advance of a Semitic people living to the north of them, as regards both civilization and learning.


Surrounding the settlement at Akkad, and at various places along the river, there were large areas of tall reeds, the homes of vicious animals. To protect themselves against these marauding beasts the settlers built stockades around their homes and villages. These stockades they called Chaldi. All of their colleges and temples of learning were within an enclosure. This enclosure was also called Chaldi.


Later, Chaldi was the name given to the learned class and their colleges,

"the Chaldi Temples of Learning."

These colleges were open to all people who wished to learn, regardless of their nationality.


The students were taught the ancient Naga-Maya language, the sacred mysteries, arts and sciences. Many of the Israelites, when they were in captivity in Babylonia later on, availed themselves of this privilege and some reached the highest degree, that of master and adept.


Daniel was one of them.

"The handwriting on the wall" was written in Naga-Maya.

Daniel understood it and read it to the King.


At the court of Nebuchadnezzar when he was King of the Babylonian Empire, the Chaldi were classed with the astrologers and the magicians.



After a time the Sumerians and Akkadians were attacked and conquered by a Semitic people coming down from the North.


I can find no records giving the name of these people before they settled in Babylonia. Historians say they were the Chaldeans, but the name of Chaldeans was adopted by them after their settlement in Babylonia. These Semitics finding the civilization of the Akkadians and Sumerians so far in advance of their own, instead of putting them to the sword or enslaving them, assimilated them, that is, they were placed on an equality with their conquerors and intermarried.


Their scientists were given the greatest honors. So successfully did this work that in the absorption the Akkadians and Sumerians were never known again as a separate people. They disappeared from history.

History relates:

"There was an earlier civilization in Babylonia than that of the Chaldeans which was that of the Akkadians and Sumerians. These races were conquered by the Chaldeans and disappeared from history."

Can anything more erroneous and misleading than the foregoing be penned? The Chaldeans were not a nation or a people, but a sect, men of great learning and advanced civilization.

Herodotus, Lib. 1-181, says:

"Berosus, who was an Early Babylonian priest-historian, wrote, 'the first inhabitants of Babylonia were foreigners of another race.' Berosus then proceeds to establish distinctions between the foreigners and the Babylonians, and between the Babylonians and Assyrians, and follows by saying, 'Civilization was brought to Mesopotamia by Cannes and six other beings, half man and half fish who came up the river from the Persian Gulf.' "

Cannes or Hoa-ana is Naga-Maya: na - water, a - thy, and na - house.


In plain English it reads, "he who lives in a boat."

From the foregoing it is seen that Berosus used the Naga-Maya language which was natural seeing that he was a Chaldi or Chaldean. Berosus shows that the earliest Babylonian settlers came up the Euphrates River in a boat from the Persian Gulf, and Valmiki and Hindu temple records show that these men came to the Persian Gulf from India, thus forming a perfect, unbroken chain of evidence showing that the first Babylonians were Maya colonists from India.


Yet a point still remains: Berosus says that civilization was brought to Babylonia by those who came in their boats, thus confirming the other writings which say that the civilization of Sumeria and Akkadia was far in advance of the civilization of the Semitics who conquered the country.

An old Greek manuscript was loaned to me by a Greek professor in Athens, who knew I was interested in the ancient.


It relates the first meeting between the Sumerians and the Semitics in an amusing manner:

"A small company of Semitics were prospecting along the banks of the river. They were soldiers in armor. On their way they met a boat coming up the river with seven men in it - they were Akkadians. When the Akkadians saw these soldiers on the bank glittering in their armor they became so frightened they all jumped overboard, dived and swam a long distance down the river under water.


When they came up for breath they looked back; seeing these uncanny glittering men still standing there the Akkadians took another dive and before they came up again they were out of/sight of the soldiers. The Semitics returned with-the report that on the river further down there was a new form of creation, a thing which was half fish and half man."

I showed my translation to my Greek friend and asked him if I had translated it correctly.


He laughed, saying,

"It's not bad, you've done pretty well, so we must let it go at that."

Again I will quote history:

"The beginning of the civilization of Babylonia is held to date back 7000 B. C."

This is absurd; Hindu records and temple records at that, which are always the most accurate, speak of the Babylonian colony over 15,000 years ago, and Brunsen shows that 14,000 years ago it was in existence.


Babylonia is older than Egypt, and Egypt is 16,000 years old. It may be, however, that the historian that gives 7000 B.C. came across some record that referred to the date when the Semitics conquered the Akkadians and Sumerians and absorbed them.

For thousands of years the Sumerians and Akkadians formed the literate people of Babylonia. It was they who followed the arts and sciences; they wrote many books and were the inventors of the cuneiform form of writing. Their Semitic conquerors to a great extent adopted their Maya language, which ancient language only began to fall into disuse in Babylonia about the 13th Century B.C.


The Naga-Maya tongue remained the language of science down to about the 6th or yth Century B.C. When the Country was finally settled the Semitics adopted the name Chaldi or Chaldeans taken from the many prominent institutions of science and learning; so, to be exact, there never was a people or nation called Chaldeans, for Chaldi or the Chaldeans were a sect only.

To confirm what I have written about the Maya tongue being adopted by the Semitics, I will call attention to the following Babylonian and Akkadian translations of a series of words authenticated by high authorities:

The foregoing Babylonian and Akkadian words are the decipherings of Dr. Hinks, Sir Henry Rawlinson, Dr. Appert, M. Grivel and Professor Sayce of the tablets that composed King Asurbanipal's library.


M. Lenormant has published an elementary grammar and vocabulary from the findings of the foregoing authorities. Out of this vocabulary the foregoing Babylonian and Akkadian words are taken. In a central column against each of these words I have put the Hindu Naga-Maya corresponding words.


This clearly proves my findings regarding the use of the Naga-Maya tongue in Babylonia.



History is not quite as bashful as Dame Science for although Dame Science will never permit herself to be interviewed, always leaving interviews in the hands of her office boys, Dame History is totally different.


She boldly parades before the eyes of everyone and may be met with and interviewed in all good bookshops.

History asserts that the first or Early Babylonian Empire,

"was formed by an invading race of Semitics coming to Babylon from the north whose origin is mysterious."

History is partially right and partially wrong.

  • First: there is no mystery about the origin of the Semitic race which came from the north. They left Jie Motherland, Mu, and first made a settlement in Yucatan calling their city Zahia, the remains of which are to be found a few miles from Uxmal. From there a company migrated to the east, forming a settlement on the Caucasian Plains and around the foot of the Caspian Sea.


    This is the hinterland of Asia Minor and where we find the Biblical historical mountain, Mt. Ararat, raising its imposing head some 15,000 or 16,000 feet above the level of the plain.


    The Egyptians called this country Zahia after the Yucatan name. As they grew in numbers they extended their holdings in a southerly direction. The Semitics who overpowered the Akkadians and Sumerians came from the Caucasian Semitic Settlements.


  • Second: the Early Babylonian Empire was not composed entirely of these Semitics, for the Akkadians and Sumerians were associated with them, having been absorbed by them.




The Assyrians were also a Semitic race, originating from the Caucasian or Zahian Colony.


They take their distinctive name Assyrians from the land which they occupied. Assyria lay between the Upper Tigris River and the Zagros Mountains. During the early period of Assyrian history they were a vassal state of Babylonia. The Assyrian warlike spirit first enabled them to cast off the yoke of Babylonia and to become independent. Then they effected conquests among their neighbors.


Eventually they gained the ascendancy over Babylonia.

The rise of the powerful Assyrian Empire brought about the-downfall of the Babylonian Empire, although the Babylonians were enabled to maintain their independence down to the 9th Century B.C.


Warlike, splendid, proud Assyria was conqueror but a short time, for she fell before the assaults of the Medes in the year 625 B. C.



The remnants of the Uighurs which had been marooned in the mountains that were raised along the southwestern parts of the Uighur Empire, come prominently forward upon the historical stage about 8000 or 10,000 years after the destruction of the Uighur Empire.


During this eon of time the several little communities grew and waxed strong; when the bleak valleys of the mountains could no longer sustain their growing numbers, they had to find new homes. Then a general exodus took place from the mountains to lower lands where the conditions were favorable to growth and development.


This exodus took place from about 2000 B. C. down to about 1500 B. C.

They left their mountain homes in four streams following the available passes to the lower lands. Apparently the first to leave the mountains were those who were living in the neighborhood of the Hindu Koosh. They went to India by two routes - one set went down via Afghan-istan anp1 the Khyber Pass, the other set traveled down through Kashmir into the Punjab.


The commencement of their migration was about 2000 B.C. to 1800 B.C. The migration ended about 1500 B.C.

About the same time, their neighbors to the north of them descended through available passes to a country lying between the Desert of Iran and the northeastern shores of the Persian Gulf. These became known as the Persians. This district is mountainous with large plateaus and broad valleys, but not of so high an elevation as their mountain home which they had left.

The third left the mountains by available passes and settled on a large tableland lying to the south of the Caspian Sea and to the east of Armenia and the Zagros Mountains. This was Media and from the time they became masters of the land they were known as the Medes. When they came down from the mountains they found a people called Scythians occupying the land. These they drove out and took possession of the country.

Both Medes and Persians were Aryans coming out of the Ah ra ya tribes of the Motherland through the Uighurs. Both Medes and Persians developed into empires from small communities of Uighurs that had been marooned in the mountains. These were survivors of that great Colonial Empire which had stretched her embracing arms from the Pacific Ocean across Asia and into Eastern Europe. In race, language and religion these two peoples were closely allied.


How could it be otherwise, for originally they were the same?

About 600 B.C. we find the Medes grown into a powerful mountain empire. During the early known history of Persia we find her subject to the Medes. Cyrus was the founder of the Persian Empire. He defeated and dethroned Astyages, King of Media, 558 B.C. Then Media in turn passed under the control of Persia.

The Medes and Persians were the last to occupy Babylonia as an Empire. Their appearance in Babylonia gave the death knell to the Semitics there who had been masters of that country for so many thousands of years. Babylon was defeated and embodied into the Persian Empire 538 B. c. The Persian Empire ended 331 B. c. after having been in existence only 227 years.


During this time the Persians were on one big jamboree of conquest with a view of subduing the whole world. They had absorbed the western and southwestern parts of Asia, carried their conquests into Egypt and into a small portion of Europe, when their triumphant march was stopped by the Greeks under Alexander the Great.


This was the second time in the history of nations that the Greeks stopped empires which attempted to enslave the world. The first was the overthrow of Atlantis 9500 B. C., and the second the overthrow of the Persian aspirations 331 B. c. The Persian flag today carries the emblem of a colonial empire - an emerging Sun on the horizon with rays - thus connecting themselves with the Uighurs and Mu, the Motherland.

Babylonia is one of the greatest of historical spots on the earth. In this land one of the greatest connections between the eastern and western lines of colonization from the Motherland met, thus forming a complete girdle of man around the earth.


In the Akkadians and Sumerians we find an end of one of the western lines of colonization from Mu, in the Medes and Persians we find an end of another western line, and in the Semitics we find one of the ends of the main eastern line of colonization. Nowhere else on earth did so many ends meet. In Egypt there were only two and in western Europe two.

It must/be remembered that I am not attempting to write a history of the old Oriental Empires.


I am simply endeavoring to show that the various peoples who from time to time have controlled Babylonia, all originally came from Mu and were, in fact, Mu's children.

Return to Contents