The Levant an Extension of Africa? Let's take a look shall we?

[Bawon Samedi]

I've been itching to make this thread for a while now. But before I begin I want to note that this is just speculation on my part. This is not a confirmed opinion of mines, but something I am recently starting to research in. Again this is just speculation, basically a theory; though I will be posting some sources that back up some of my claims. Sources that some of you may have never seen before. I'll be arguing whether the area of the Levant or at least the southern part which was an area where the Ancient Canaanites and Hebrews lived is an extension of Africa. I've always held this view. But not about the Canaanites and Hebrews.

But before I get started, lets talk about the Sons of Ham and the roots of the Hamitic theory. Anyone who has paid attention in Bible school knows that Ham had four sons.

Part 1: Origins of the Hamitic theory

Kush(Sudan), the oldest:

Mizraim(Kemet):

Phut(Libya)

And finally Canaan(Levant):

Going by the Bible/Hebrew definition the sons of Ham were of the black race. And were apart of the Land of Ham:

From what I can see "The Land of Ham" was mostly Northeast Africa, but also extending into the Levant and some small parts of Arabia. Again from what I can see. The things of the Sons of Ham all have in common is that they were not only described as being "black" according to the bible and were mostly Northeast African, but also they had a big influence in the bible and the Sons of Ham are known for the great civilizations they had produced. Egypt being a good example. Though like I have said many times, Egypt is just a small slice in a larger pie.

From what I've seen Eurocentrics have a big obsession with the Northeast part of Africa:

Not only did Northeast Africans have a very strong presence in the bible, but also one can argue that modern world religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam has ancestry in Africa. Which is kinda a shock to Eurocentrics/racist. Not only that but Afro-Asiatic which is said to have originated in modern Ethiopia, which people Hebrew/Arab is a branch of. Further supporting that modern religion may have ancestry in Northeast Africa. This is a BIG reason why Eurocentrics so desperately want to claim the entire Afro-Asiatic language family. I personally compare it to the Nazi's and Indo-Europeans. The Nazi's tried to claim Germanic people were the original/first Indo-European speakers and that the language originated in Germany; thus they are the "master race". Though we know Indo-European doesn't even originate in Germany or Europe for that matter, but outside Europe. IIRC probably India, Iran or somewhere near those locations. To me Eurocentric's use this same tactic with Afro-Asiatic with their Nostratic theory. Instead of AA originating in Africa, it originated among "Caucasoid" in Eurasia and thus the original speakers of AA were not Africans but them and by that they can claim Northeast African civilization and people.

Not only that but if we accept that Canaan was the son of Ham and thus black; wouldn't that mean the Phoenicians were maybe black!???? IIRC it is said that the Phoenicians were descendants from Caanites. The same Phoenicians who had direct/strong influence on the western world. Especially when it came to writing(who they in term got their writing from the Egyptians). Again this is a shock to Eurocentrics. And again is the reason why Egypt is a small slice in a larger pie.

This is why Eurocentrics want to claim all of Northeast Africans. Its the reason why they not only stopped saying blacks are cursed Hamites(but Canaan was only cursed), but also why they reversed/twisted the definition of Hamitic to no longer meaning black but non-black Caucasoid in general during the 19/20th century. After they only discovered the greatness of the children of Ham and their strong influence on the world. And because of that, they could no longer be black. Its a reason why Northeast Africans who look like this are considered Caucasoid:

But during the days of slavery blacks were considered Hamites. BUT they were cursed, due to the myth of the curse of Ham. Funny how they twist definitions to only fit their agenda. This guys is the Eurocentric Hamitic race theory in a nutshell.

But lets continue....

Part 2 in next post...

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Part 2: Levant an extension of Africa? And were the Ancient Canaanite's black?

Like I said I've always held the view that at least Southern Canaan(Levent) was an extension of African until at least the period of the Romans and Christianity. To me the Levant was an extension of Northeast Africa going as far back to the Neolithic with the Natufians. This is just my personal opinion. Though the Levant is just a hopscotch away from Africa. Not only that , but Southern Canaan(Levant) is ACTUALLY apart of Africa if you like at their tectonic plates. So where does Africa really end?

The Levant was always a crossroad, but from the studies I read it seems the migrations were mostly coming from Africa and into the Middle East. The most known were the Natufians. Who were said to spread the AA language, but also spread agriculture to the middle east and Europe. The Natufians basically were one of the earliest colonizers of the area. African culture pre-dominated the area, even for the pre-dynastic culure of Egypt.

"Approximately 14 kya, climatic changes associated with the end of the Last Glacial Maximum resulted in regions around the world becoming more favorable to human exploitation. Northern Africa is one such region, and ~13 kya, novel technologies (“Natufian”) thought to be the immediate precursor to agricultural technologies emerged and were associated with semisedentary subsistence and population expansions in northeastern Africa (35). Moreover, before the emergence of the Natufian styled artifacts, the archaeological record includes two artifact styles, the “Geometric Kebaran” and the “Mushabian” associated with Middle Eastern and Northern African populations, respectively (35).The archaeological evidence suggests the peoples using these assemblages interacted for well over 1,000 years, and linguistic evidence suggests that the peoples using these assemblages may have spoken some form of proto-Afroasiatic (35, 36). Although the origins of the Afroasiatic language family remain contentious, linguistic data generally support a model in which the Afroasiatic language family arose in Northern Africa >10 kya (36). Moreover, analyses of the Cushytic branch of the Afroasiatic language family suggest that proto-Cushytic arose and diversified at least 7 kya, and this likely took place in Ethiopia (37).

Intriguingly, the origin and diversification of proto-Afroasiatic is consistent with the spread of intensive plant collection in the archaeological record, and some interpret this pattern to represent a model in which proto-Afroasiatic speakers developed the novel subsistence technology resulting in the expansion and spread of their Afroasiatic descendants in the region (37). Some examples of the relevant linguistic data include reconstructed Chadic root words for “porridge” and “sorghum” and the Cushytic root words for “grain” and “wheat” (37). Because these and other root words are present in many of the Chadic and Cushytic languages, it is assumed that they were present in the proto-Chadic and proto-Cushytic languages and therefore must be as old as those proto-languages (37).

The genetic data appear to be consistent with the archaeological and linguistic data indicative of extensive population interactions between North African and Middle Eastern populations. A recent NRY study explores the distribution of haplogroups in a sample of African, Middle Eastern, and European males (38). Whereas a subclade of haplogroup E (M35) appears to have arisen in eastern Africa over 20 kya and subsequently spread to the Middle East and Europe, haplogroup J (M267) appears to have arisen in the Middle East over 20 kya and subsequently spread into northern Africa (38). A recent study of genomewide autosomal microsatellite markers reports that Middle Eastern and African samples share the highest number of alleles that are also absent in other non-African samples, consistent with bidirectional gene flow(1). In addition, a recent study of domestic goat mtDNA and NRY variation reports similar findings as well as evidence of trade along the Strait of Gibraltar (39). The combined archaeological, linguistic, and genetic data, therefore, suggest bidirectional migration of peoples between northern Africa and the Levant for at least the past ~14 ky."

Source:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/Supplement_2/8931.full

^^^From what I read from above proto-Semitic most likely originated in the Levant among the Natufians during the period of the bronze age. So the early Semitic speakers could have just been migrating Africans.

Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/1/242.short

Cranio wise the Natufians cluster with Niger-Congo like people:

I am aware that this is well before the Ancient Canaanites and Phoenicians, but again African culture pre-dominated the area. These are the people who made up part of the later Phoenicians long before there was a Phoenicia. And before the colonization of the area by the Egyptians.

But lets talk about the Ancient Canaanites and Phoenicians themselves.

With the Phoenicians I get the sense because southern Canaan was so heavily influenced by North East Africans, since at least the Neolithic, the Phoenicians were maybe a distant branch of Africans..


This makes sense because Ta-Seti established relations with Byblos even before the unification of Egypt. Egypt would come to have an overwhelming cultural and economic influence over Byblos. And one must note that Southern Canaan was Egypt's oldest colony.

Now I am aware that there were Ancient Canaanites who did not look black, but white(keeping it real), but after doing some research around the web, I found that the white looking Canaanites/Syrians were differentiated from the majority black looking Canaanites by the Greeks. IIRC Canaan and Syria received large immigrants north from the Caucasus. The Greeks called the new non-black Syrians "Leucosyrian" meanng white and the black ones "Melanosyrians" meaning burnt. It's interesting because the Phoenicians ere said to belong to the 'black' - Melanosyrian branch along with many other Southern Canannites.

Lets see how the Greeks themselves described the two:

Leucosyri, to distinguish them from the people from beyond Taurus, which bear also the name of Syrians, but who, compared to the cistauric populations, are to have the dye browned by the heat of the sun, while those do not have it, difference which gave place to the denomination of Leucosyri.

Strabo
Geography 12:3:

.. the populations of the one and other Cappadoce, Cappadoce Taurique and Cappadoce Pontique, even nowadays, are often called Leucosyri or Syrian white, by opposition apparently to other Syrians known as Melanosyri or Black Syrians, who can be only the Syrians established across Taurus, and, when I say Taurus, I give to this name his greater extension, I prolong the chain until Amanus.[Antioch]."

Strabo
Geography 16:1:2

The Cha'ab Arabs, the
present possessors of the more southern parts of Babylonia, are nearly
black; and the "black Syrians," of whom Strabo speaks, seem intended to
represent the Babylonians.

George Rawlinson
The Seven Great Monarchies Of The Ancient Eastern World, Vol 4

Sayce has identified the Hittites with the "White Syrians" of Strabo as contrasted with "the Black Syrians or Semitic Aramaeans, east of the Amanus"

Henry George Tomkins
Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petrie's Collection of Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt
The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 18.

LEUCOSYRI, the ancient name of the Syrians inhabiting Cappadocia, by which they were distinguished from the more southern Syrians, who were of a darker complexion.
(Herod. i.72, vii.72;
Strabo, xvi. p.737;
Pliny, H.N. vi.3;
Eustath. ad Dionys. 772,970.)

A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, Volume II, Pages 171-172




Now lets look at how some of these "Melanosyrians" of southern Levant/Canaan were depicted:

Face of a Canaanite man (fragment) from Beth Shan Painting on a jar (about 1300 BCE)

A supply ship. On deck, the captain is haranguing a crew of Canaanites. Painted wood, 12th Dynasty (2000-1785 BCE), Middle Kingdom, Egypt.

Canaanite God Reshef



More...

So one could conclude that the Canaan was inhabited by blacks and it had a close relationship with Northeast Africa, though there were later migration from non-blacks to the area. Just my opinion. As for the Phoenicians, this thread really wasn't about them, but the area they are from but if one was to take in account of Canaanites being Ham's descendants and Phoenicians being descendants of Canaanites, then shouldn't one conclude that the Phoenicians may have been black?


Part 3 in next post...

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Part 3: Were the Ancient Jews black like other Southern Canaanites?



I always held the idea of the Ancient Jews being black as nonsense due to the nonsense by radicals like the Black Hebrew Israelite's. But after doing some research around the web, I'm starting to really entertain that the early Jews were just migrating Egyptians/Ethiopians. I'm going to try and post sources that support this theory.



In part 2 we already know about Africans migrating into the Levant since the Neolithic. And also how the people of Southern Canaan, (which Israel is apart of) were described. Again Southern Canaan was Egypt's oldest colony. Even during pre-dynastic times. A number of Israeli archaeologists claim ethnic Egyptians dominated some important Jewish territories which is interesting to me. Some people still believe the Jews were enslaved in Ancient Egypt, but we know from Zahi Hawass article that was not the case. But touching base on the known exodus hypothesis, Manetho and others wrote of a leprosy outbreak around 1400 BCE (Armana period) where high numbers of Egyptians and Ethiopians were forced to leave the country. I wouldn't doubt these same exiles going into Canaan and eventually taking over. Perhaps later they were seen as the Hebrew? Again Southern Canaan was Egypt's oldest colony and the Hebrew retain certain customs that were once familiar to Egyptians and Ethiopians (for instance, circumcision).



But getting back on track of the early Jews being migrating Egyptians/Ethiopians, lets look at what some Greek/Roman writers state:

One of the customs most zealously observed among the Aegyptians is this, that they rear every child that is born, and circumcise the males, and excise the females, as is also customary among the Judaeans, who also are Aegyptian in origin, as I have already stated in my account of them.

Strabo

The majority of people say the Judaeans were those Ethiopians whom fear and hatred obliged to change their habitations, in the reign of king Cepheus.

Tacitus -- The Histories Book V


But more importantly Upper-Egyptians had a very long presence in one of the largest Hebrew cities such as Lachish, making up the majority of the population as late as the 6th century.

"The excavation uncovered a mass of human bones, which was estimated to form the remains of fifteen hundred individuals [...] Remains of 695 skulls were brought to London by the British expedition [...] Curiously, the crania indicate a close resemblance to the population of Egypt at this time [...] 'the relationships found suggests that the population of the town in 700 B.C. was entirely, or almost entirely, of Egyptian origin...' They show further, that the population of Lakish was probably derived from Upper Egypt [...] If so, this indeed is a conclusion of far-reaching implications."

(David Ussiskhin: "The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib"; Tel Aviv University, The Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv, 1982: p.56-57)



Gezer and Megiddo showed similar affinities with Upper-Middle Egyptian-related populations. Judah and Egypt had strong ties during the Kush*te period. It is not a stretch to suggest they assisted Judah against the Assyrians because had close ties, going back to Neolithic times, when overpopulation along the upper Nile led to rather large scale migrations to the Levant. Also here's an interesting quote though I can not find the source, IIRC its by a Roman:

That Syria was once the domain of Cepheus, an Ethiopian king,Tacitus wrote that the Romans believed that the Jews originated in Ethiopia but fled the persecutions of the King. Strabo, even earlier,stressed that people of Western Judea was Africiod: But although the inhibatance are mixed up thus,the most accredited reports in regards to the people of Jerusalem represents the ancestors of the present Judeans as they are called Egyptians.

Here is something that agree's with that Lachish find:

D. L. Risdon in BIOMETRIKA 1939 31:99-166 reports
the Lachish cranial series has its closest resemblance
to the 4th dynasty series from Deshasheh and Medum
in Lower Egypt and the 18th dynasty samples from Thebes
and Abydos in Upper Egypt. Cranial samples from other
Palestinian sites (Gezer, Megiddo) agree with the Lachish
cranium. Thus we have a clear African "racial" continuum
in the Hebrews and Egyptians.

The phrase "black and beautiful" ( sh*hhora w*nawa )
originates from a Hebrew document, Song of Songs 1:5,
where an Israelite woman from Shunem exclaims her sun
enhanced ebon beauty to some color and class struck
dusky members of the royal household who kept themselves
behind palace walls out of sunlight. For the Shulammite to
have tanned black she must have already been very brown.

In the midrash (Hebrew legendary lore) Shem teamed up with
Hham in the war against Yapheth, progenitor of the northern
people of pallour. The PIRQE DE RIBBI ELI`EZER 28a classes
Shem with people of colour. It says that Shem was especially
blessed black and beautiful, Hham was blessed black like the
raven, and Yapheth was blessed white all over.

Shem who is belived to be parent of the Jews, iirc.

Tacitus, a younger contemporary of Josephus, lists
common Roman opinions on Jewish origins. He wrote
that many were assured Judahites were descendents
of Kush*tes (The Histories V.2). Is this a view lurking
within Amos 9:7?

IMO this is why the Romans stated the Jews are from Ethiopia/Kush:

And to elaborate more...Note the hair depicted on David (dreadlocks) is consistent with the depictions of Egyptians, Ethiopians and Berbers in Greco-Roman art:

Joseph being sold to Ishmaelites.

Peter weeping after denying Christ three times, and the cock crowing; a deep pit represented by large jar with a mir of clay.









David and Goliath, each accompanied by a personification: David by Might and Goliath by Pride.




The capture of David by Philistines in Gath.




David in the cave of Adullam.







David being crowned king of Israel.



Again this is just my personal theory that the early Jews were a subset of Egyptians/Ethiopians. But I think damn good one. The origins of the early Jews is really anyone's guess. But imo the Jews being black is more possible than them being white.


Conclusion:



Again all of this was just speculation on my part. Though the argument for Ancient Canaanites/Jews being black is not Afrocentric at all, but a very, very high possibility. Since the Levant was a crossroad and a hopscotch away from Northeast Africa. The race on the Jews/Canaanites is anyone's argument really. The root of my argument is based off Canaan being a son of Ham which is the black race in the bible. Though I still hold on that the Levant is an extension of Africa and don't think it is speculation. But what is for sure is that Eurocentrics have an obession with the children of Ham and areas surrounding their location.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

@Poitier

Here is is...

 

[Poitier]

sub

 

[JahFocus CS]

good post breh.

Sitting at the intersection of 3 continents, I think the region has long been very mixed. There are people who deny an African/Black presence in the Levant and Middle East in antiquity, and they're just completely wrong. The earliest inhabitants of the region were African/Black.

It just gets tricky when we project modern identities onto the distant past like this. Like, what are we defining as being African/Black? We'll have to start falling into thinking along the lines of "pure types" and stuff. All I know is that the region was Black and Brown with significant white settlement over the millennia (Sea Peoples, etc.).

 

[Poitier]

Another thing I read was Dravidian like people were in the Levant?

 

[Marvel]

Good post, but the map is off, where Iran is and east of that is also Shem. Iranians and East Indians are from Elam, a descendant of Shem.

 

[Poitier]

ranians and East Indians are from Elam, a descendant of Shem.

Yeah this is what I was talking about with the Dravidians

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Another thing I read was Dravidian like people were in the Levant?

I only heard of Dravidians in the area of Mesopotamia, not as far as the Levant.

 

[Poitier]

I only heard of Dravidians in the area of Mesopotamia, not as far as the Levant.

What do you think of the albino Dravidian theory

 

[Bawon Samedi]

What do you think of the albino Dravidian theory

Please lets not go there...

I dont do pseudo-science. And I know about that guy who holds that theory.

 

[Marvel]

Again....good topic

The concept of Africa as a place came from the defeat of Hannibal during the Punic Wars when the area got its name, Africa named after Roman general, Scipio Africanus. The map for Ham (green) is on point. So YES....Levant was part of the original land of Ham...it was known as the Land of Canaan, who was one of the sons of Ham. Some of the descendants of Cush, another son of Ham, settled in Ancient Babylon (descendants of Nimrod, son of Cush) while the rest of the descendants of Cush settled in what is now known as East Africa. During the reign of Ramses the Great is when the Israelites left and took over parts of the Land of Canaan which they shared with the Canaanites. The Neo-Babylonian Empire centered in modern-day Babylon, Iraq was a Hamitic empire of the sons of Cush. The rise of the Persian-Medes Empire lead to the Ancient Babylonians fleeing to East Africa as they left their capital, Babylon and Persians completely took over it at that time.


Even though some of y'all are against it...the Bible is a true book and breakdown the lands and lineages of people. Ancient Israelites were very knowledgeable of the origins of other groups because they had the Book of Genesis that had all the forefathers. Another book that pairs well with the Bible is the Complete Works of Josephus, a Hebrew Israelite scholar during the Roman empire. Dude even tells you that white people, starting with the Greek Empire, changed the names of people and places to their own likeness and he even breaksdown what they called them then and who each really is. He even says that the so-called white man stating with the Greek Empire did iconoclasm and claims other people antiquity heritage. The funny thing is even Josphus was white washed after his death. This behavior of iconoclasm is also detailed in the Book of Maccabees (in the apocrypha) which is one of many reasons why the so-called white man (Esau) took it out of the King James bible right before slavery was abolished in the British Empire 1830. The Apocrypha basically shows you that the white man is the devil. It shows you that the so-called white man migrated to Macedonia through descendants of King Agag, an Edomite that the Prophet Samuel chopped into pieces. This is the reason why the book of Esther story doesn't end in most Bible. The rest of Esther is the Apocrypha and shows you that the Macedonians were Edomites, this is right before the rise of the Greek Empire. It further drives home that the so-called white man is the Devil.

I have many ancient maps that I use to gain deeper knowledge when I read the Bible. I filter all my info through the Bible, that is how I know where Esau is throwing out misinformation. That is how he controls the world through lies and misinformation. He has certain books that he publishes to keep the elites of his people informed, books we don't buy. He will sometimes give half truth to confuse you as well.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

@Marvel

Whats your opinion on the Greeks differentiating between the Canaanites and including the Phoenicians under the "black Syrians". That was really the thing that convinced me that at least southern Canaan was black.

 

[Czar]

Again....good topic

The concept of Africa as a place came from the defeat of Hannibal during the Punic Wars when the area got its name, Africa named after Roman general, Scipio Africanus.

Wrong.

This is why you stay getting cut with facts. It's bad enough that you're double-minded and are using this new "Hebrew-Israelite" gimmick to troll people (after you were a "Pan-Africanist" early this year).

First off, you put Josephus the complete works in your post. Ironically, Josephus does not AGREE with the nonsense you're uttering.

In fact, Rudolph Windsor (author of From Babylon to Timbuktu, which many HI's quote from) quotes Josephus, who claims the name Africa was derived from the descendants of Abraham And Keturah (Page 53, chapter 5)

http://books.google.com/books?id=sL...ived from the descendants of Abraham"&f=false

But the modern name of this continent is Africa. It is derived from the descendants of Abraham and Keturah. These descendants are Ophren (Or Aspher) and Japhran.
The black Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, wrote the following: Ophren, the grandson of Abraham through Keturah, led a military expedition against Libya and captured it.
When his grandchildren colonized that place, they called it (from his name) Africa.

And here is the direct link to the quote from The Complete Works of Josephus.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.ii.xv.html


Moreover, you do realize Publius Cornelius Scipio ADOPTED the agonome Africanus FROM Africa after his conquest, not the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scipio_Africanus

He was best known for defeating Hannibal at the final battle of the Second Punic War at Zama, a feat that earned him the agnomen Africanus,

More from Rudolph Windsor.

http://books.google.com/books?id=sL...language the word for Africa is Afer"&f=false

"In the Latin language, the word for Africa is Afer, which is similar to Ophren (or Apher). The "F" in the word Afer, and the "Ph" in the Apher are interchangeable in many languages. In North Africa, the Romans won a military victory (the period of the Third Punic War) Ostensibly, the Romans borrowed the word Afer from the ancient Libyans, who called their country Apher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa#Etymology

Afri was a Latin name used to refer to the Carthaginians, who dwelt in North Africa in modern-day Tunisia. This name seems to have originally referred to a native Libyan tribe; however, see Terence#Biography for discussion. The name is usually connected with Phoenician afar, "dust", but a 1981 hypothesis[8] has asserted that it stems from the Berber ifri (plural ifran) "cave", in reference to cave dwellers.[9] The same word[9] may be found in the name of the Banu Ifran from Algeria and Tripolitania, a Berber tribe originally from Yafran (also known as Ifrane) in northwestern Libya.[10]

From The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Roman Empire.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_E...age&q="And Scipio received the title"&f=false

Scipio defeated Hannibal in 202 B.C.E. Rome became master of the Western Mediterranean, and Scipio received the title "Africanus" the "Conqueror of Africa."

Step your knowledge up and stop being willfully ignorant.