We were not talking about Chaldea but Babylonia in reference to "7 great mon". Babylon is found on pg 34: "To the traditions and traces here enumerated must be added, as of primary importance, the biblical tradition, which is delivered to us very simple and plainly in that precious document the “Toldoth Beni Noah” or “Book of the Generations of the Sons of Noah” which well deserves to be called “the most authentic record that we possess for the affiliation of nations” “The sons of Ham” we are told “were Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan…And Cush begat Nimrod…. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar” It is the simplest and the best interpretation of this passage to understand it as asserting that the four races- the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans, and Canaanites- were ethnically connected, being all descended from Ham; and further, that the primitive people of Babylon were a subdivision of one of these races, namely the Cushites or Ethiopians, connected in some degree with the Canaanites, Egyptians, and Libyans, but still more closely with the people which dwelt anciently upon the Upper Nile". But that's biblical and you feel that biblical people probably didn't exist.  

 John D. Baldwin: "Prehistoric Nations" contends that the ancient Phoenicians were of Cushite of Hamite origin. Speaking of their stupendous architectural remains, he says:- "The Cushite origin of these cities is so plain that those most influenced by the strange monomania which transforms the Phoenicians into Semites now admit that the Cushites were the civilizers of Phoenicia". This is visual the same as an everlasting statue of George Washington. 

 Bunsen concludes, "Cushite colonies were all along the southern shores of Asia and Africa and by the archaeological remains, along the southern and eastern coasts of Arabia. The name Cush was given to four great areas, Media, Persia, Susiana and Aria, or the whole territory between the Indus and Tigris in prehistoric times. In Africa the Ethiopians, the Egyptians, the Libyans, the Canaanites and Phoenicians were all descendants of Ham. They were a black or dark colored race and the pioneers of our civilization. They were emphatically the monument builders on the plains of Shinar and the valley of the Nile from Meroe to Memphis. In southern Arabia they erected wonderful edifices (visual). They were responsible for the monuments that dot southern Siberia and in America along the valley of the Mississippi down to Mexico and in Peru their images and monuments stand a "voiceless witnesses." This was the ancient Cushite Empire of Ethiopians that covered three worlds. Some of our later books recognizing their indisputable influence in primitive culture, speak of them as a brunet brown race representing a mysterious Heliolithic culture. Again this is visual. 

 "In the oldest recorded traditions, Cushite colonies were established in the valley of the Nile, Barabra and Chaldea. This beginning must have been not later than 7000 or 8000 B. C. or perhaps earlier. (Rawlinson was citing Chaldea much later) They brought to development astronomy and the other sciences, which have come down to us. The vast commercial system by which they joined together the "ends of the earth" was created and manufacturing skill established. The great period of Cushite control had closed many ages prior to Homer, although separate communities remained not only in Egypt but in southern Arabia, Phoenicia and elsewhere." (Prehistoric Nations, pp. 95, 96.)  

 Back to pg 28 in "7 Great Mon" Speaking of Chaldea. "Scripture places the original occupation at a time when language had not yet broken up into its different forms, and when, consequently, races as we now understand the term, can scarcely have existed". Which means they were of simular ethnicity. Whether they were Semetic or not is not what's relevant. Whether they were African or European in appearance is what's relevant. I make one assumption here; that at the time that blacks and whites appear vastly different, that our languages were vastly different also.  

 In your paragraph earlier you mentioned that Rawlinsons research has been outdated by later archaeological discoveries (plural). So let's see some. On Jul,9th. you said "And please tell me where I can find the articles about this sensational new discoveries". I now ask this of you. Cite these sensational new discoveries that make what's presented here to now be outdated. And please include written observation of period monuments and artifacts. And please don't respond by saying that you are above having to prove what you say. Unless by discrimitory practice the burden of proof only applies to me. Unless WP has separate rules for you than they do for me. Tom 07/11/08