Heth is mentioned in the bible for the first time in verse 15 of the genealogy listed in Genesis 10:1-32 that is popularly called the Table of Nations, as one of the offspring of Canaan. The next mention is as the family called Hittites and curiously as distinct from the Canaanites (the Table of Nations is dubious as this list). It is again mentioned in Genesis 23, a description of the acquisition by Abraham of a burial place – for Sarah his wife who had just passed away – from the sons of Heth who are called Hittites for the first time in the bible. Later, they are mentioned as a people allegedly to be destroyed and later still as living among the Israelites. Also, a grandson of Abraham named Esau married two Hittite women who were exceedingly troublesome (Genesis 26:34-35; 27:46). King David married the widow of a Hittite (2 Samuel 11; actually Oosa Oke). Were these people Canaanites? If yes, then how? Or were they never offspring of Canaan who happened to have settled in Canaan?
Yet oyinbo protagonists have been asserting that around the period of the arrival of Abraham in Canaan in the early 2nd millennium BCE there existed in Anatolia a people of Indo-European origin likewise called Hittites who are the same as the biblical Hittites. This weak historiography has been propagated in the academia and the pulpits of bible-based religions like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism, etc., as fact. The purpose of this essay is to expose this fraud and show that Heth is Ota of the Aku people (aka Omo Oduduwa) of the former Slave Coast of West Africa whose daughters are known for witchcraft and depredation and have been a grief of mind to the entire Aku people.
The Negro Hittites of Ota versus the oyinbo-Turkic Hittites of Hattusas
According to oyinbo historians, in the 18th century BCE, a certain Indo-European people invaded a region of central Anatolia and this place would become known as Hattusa (now Boğazkӧy). Prior to the invasion, it was allegedly called Hattus, the inhabitants known as the people of the Land of Hatti and oyinbo scholars call their language Hattusa. Then the invaders copied their name but with a re-lexification to suit their tongue by adding the vowel a to form Hattusa (the nominative case is Hattusas), and oyinbo scholars call their language Hittite.
A certain King Anittas of Kussara is said to have led the invasion, conquering King Piyusti of Hattus (after 1800), and in the 17th century BCE Labarnas, another king of Kussara made that place his capital and he was then known as Hattusilis I, “The one from Hattusa.” Hattusilis I who reigned from c. 1650 – c. 1620 BCE extended the dominating influence to most parts of Anatolia and northern Syria, and his grandson Mursilis I carried out a raid down the Euphrates River to Babylon which ended there the Amorite (Roman) dynasty c. 1590 BCE.
But, these Hittites were Indo-European and adopted the identity of those before them while it is mentioned in the bible that Heth the father of the biblical Hittites was a son of Canaan who was a son of Ham the alleged father of all black Africans and therefore not Indo-European. Yet, oyinbo scholars and bible exegetes have been claiming that they are the same, glossing over this very obvious discrepancy, perhaps with mischievous intent or a schizoid delusion or both. Given the extent of the empire of the Hittites of Anatolia, reaching into the Levant, that lasted till c.1190 BCE when Hattusas was destroyed, it is possible that some of these Hittites settled in the land of Canaan and coexisted there with the black Hittites and that these Indo-European Hittites were destroyed by Eshu Laalu (the biblical Joshua) and his people.
Joshua 12:7 And these are the kings of the country which Eshu and the Omo Oduduwa conquered on this side of the Jordan, on the west, from Baal Had in the Valley of Lebanon as far as Mount Halak and the ascent to Seir, which Eshu gave to the tribes of Aku as a possession according to their divisions,8 in the mountain country, in the lowlands, in the Jordan plain, in the slopes, in the wilderness, and in the South – the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.
Note that in this bible passage verse 7 and the first half of verse 8 constitute the first part of a statement that gives the list of kings that Eshu Laalu conquered which is provided in verses 9 to 24, but the second half of verse 8 appears to be a dubious insertion meant to portray them as Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites even though there is no indication in verses 9 to 24 that these kings originated therefrom. Also, the sentence is perfectly fine if this list of peoples is removed. Note also that the Amorites who invaded Sumer and called themselves Babylonians were also Indo-Europeans who raided all the way to Canaan and Egypt which they colonized more than once, e.g. during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. One such raid was carried out earlier by a king of Babylon called Hammurabi who is mischievously mentioned in Genesis 14:19 as “Amraphel of Shinar (Sumer)” instead of “Amraphel of Babylon” and is not a name as it is a metathesis of Oba Roma/Emori (king of Roma/Emori). Their presence in the Levant is also recorded in the Tell-el-Armana letters.
Now, Abraham (actually Oduduwa) met with the people of Heth to purchase from them a place for him to use as burial ground for Sarah (Osara) who had just passed away (Genesis 23), himself (Genesis 25:7-9) and his posterity (Genesis 50:12-14). I’ve argued severally on this blog that the biblical Canaanites and Israelites are one people who are the Aku (Omo Oduduwa) whose land in the present 6th age is the region named Guinea (Canaan) in precolonial maps of West Africa and also formerly known as the Slave Coast. One of the Aku families there is called Ife Oodaye (also Owodaye, the biblical Judah) in whose inheritance the coronation city called Ile-Ife is situated. The Awori are a subfamily who founded several kingdoms c. 16th to 17th century CE and their progenitor is Olofin Odundun Asolu d’ero who had twenty-three brothers and one sister. After a particular consultation, he and his people left Ile-Ife in search of their inheritance southwards. He also had many sons who founded Awori kingdoms along the way, from Olokemeji near Ibadan to Idumota in modern Lagos (biblical Galilee?). One of such is called Ota which was founded by two of his sons Eleibi Atalabi and Osolo (the younger of the two). Adenrele their eldest brother later joined them at their request and Osolo was selected as the first king of Ota. But, due to his old age, he crowned his son Akinsewa (Akin-Sese-wa) instead in 1621. Olofin Anikan Je’gba Igbin was the father of Olofin Odundun.
The origin of the name Ota is not available in two books about Ota which I consulted for the historical piece above: “Ota – Biography of the foremost Awori town” by Ajibola Salako, and “Alani Oyede: The People’s Monarch” by ’Deji Kosebinu. But it is also known as the “land of witches” as that is their worldwide headquarters according to the odu Ifa called Eji Ogbe. Since Ota can also be called “land of Ota,” perhaps it can be speculated that Ota is a coded and/or esoteric appellation for witches. In the Ife Oodaye tongue, witch is the female Iyami Eshoronga who are the fallen/expelled aje aka egungun oru, eleye, etc. That is, all Iyami are Aje but not all Aje are Iyami.
The daughters of Ota are witches and have a most notorious reputation for seeking, inducing and causing ceaseless grief. It is so bad that other Aku families use them as a reference for wickedness which gave rise to the saying o buru ju aje Ota lo (you/he/she is more malevolent than the witches of Ota). In the odu of Ifa called Irete Owonrin aka Irete Olota, Ota is described explicitly as ibi ogun eleye gbe n di won mole pin piin pin (the locus of eleye warfare that holds them (i.e. their victims) in firm captivity) and that eni o ba si sawo de ode Ota ogun ni awon eleye e gbe ti oluwa e (whoever goes to Ota to practice Ifa will be confronted by witches with a fight-to-death warfare). In this same odu is a record of how much they tested the patience of Orunmila (biblical Moses) and tried to kill him without repenting that they eventually killed one of his wives and one of his students. As a result, he left for orun but soon returned and used all the weapons of Ifa to kill them. Only then did they fear and begin to flee but they never and have never repented till date, an incorrigible habit attested in the odus Iwori Odi and , and in Revelations . My family and I have been victims of their open evil. Presently, they have been able to penetrate the whole land of the Akus by various means. An example is through marriage which can be carried out thus. A non-Ota man e.g. a man from Ekiti can marry one of them who’ll then bear for him daughters of her kind who will bear their father’s name and consequently be regarded as natives of Ekiti. Marriage to a man from Ota also yields the same result.
This description of the “daughters of Ota” fits perfectly with that of the “daughters of Heth” who were causing grief for Isaac (Ajaka, a son of Oduduwa) and his wife Rebekah (alleged by somebody to actually be Abeke; I can’t recall the source) in Genesis 26:34-35 and 27:46, and they are blacks like the people of ancient Canaan. So Heth must actually be Ota:
- Ot(a) > (H)eth;
and their father is not Canaan but they are one of the peoples of Canaan. This seems to suggest that Canaan is not the name of a person but a place – the authenticity of the Table of Nations has long been debated by scholars.
Similar co-location of Ado/Odo and Sidon
Sidon is mentioned in Genesis 10:15 as a sibling of Heth, and it turns out there has been in this age a neighbouring settlement of Ota called Ado/Odo with both along with Igbesa constituting the Ado/Odo – Ota Local Government Area that has its headquarters in Ota. Thus, it is quite probable that the name Sidon was derived from Ado/Odo:
- Ado > (S)ido(n).
Sidon is also mentioned in verse 19 as close to Gerar at the border of Canaan. In the present land of the Omo Oduduwa which stretches west to east from just beyond the Volta River in Ghana to southwest Nigeria, Ota is located in the eastern section and east of Ota is Ire, also known as Ire-Ekiti, where the orisha called Ajaka (whose enikeji is the irunmole called Ogun) did settle for a while and rule. The biblical transliteration of the names Ajaka and Ire are Isaac and Gerar, and Isaac did settle in Gerar for a while (Genesis 26:1-33). Perhaps this biblical Gerar is actually this Ire. However, there are other Aku kingdoms in this region with similar names like Ado in Shagamu, Ado of Ekiti (aka Ado-Ekiti) which was ruled by Orunmila (biblical Moses) and is quite close to Ire, Ondo which is located beside Ekiti (transliterated in Genesis 4:16 as Nod, the bible fabricators might have altered the name to mischievously dissociate it from the biblical Israelites as they did with Accad of Genesis 10:10 which is actually the hilly region of Ekiti and likely instead of Moab to be the region of Moses’ transition mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:48-52; 34:5-6).
Coupled with the accumulating exposé on this blog about Aku and world historiography, these elucidations about Ota/Heth can now be used to reconstruct the biblical story of Heth.
At the beginning of the 4th age when the Aku people were to migrate to a new homeland, Ogun led the first wave of migrants from Sumer to the biblical Promised Land called Canaan (perhaps named after him: (O)gun > Can(aan)). A region therein was divinely chosen as the locus and coronation city and thus named Ile-Ife (home/origin of the land of their inheritance), just like Ur of Sumer which some Assyriologists render as Uri and the oyinbo Arabized Arabs transliterate as Urfa. Sometime later Obatala led the second wave which was followed by a final wave that was led by Oduduwa who met in Ile-Ife his kin including the Awori peoples of Ota. After a while, the Aworis left Ile-Ife for their inheritance which explains why one of them named Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 11) was a member of the army of Canaan aka Israel during the reign of Daodu (the biblical David; aka Orisha Aganju) despite the alleged labelling in various bible passages of the Hittites as a people to be exterminated. And it was not counted to Daodu as an ese (sin).
Since Oduduwa is regarded by the Aku as the king of all the land and in that fourth age his authority was passed on to Ajaka (Ogun) and then Aku (aka Oranmiyan whose enikeji is the irunmole Oshoosi), it is likely that they accompanied Aku and his household gradually or at once to Ejigbo (Egypt) where their offspring were later enslaved by the Oshika (aka Ashkenazi, Hyksos, Ogiso) . And when they returned to Canaan after their divine exodus from Ejigbo during the leadership of Eshu Laalu they completely drove away the copycat Indo-European Hittites and fellow expelled Aje among the Negroes who had until then colonized the Levant – the Hyksos who also colonized Egypt were Romans (anti-Remo aka Americans, Marduk, Babylon) who enslaved the Aku people and other Negroes.
But, is Hatti of Anatolia the same as Ota of the Aku people?
- Ota > Hatti
Investigating this possibility might not be a waste of effort, especially upon considering te case of the Amazons of the Mediterranean and the Amazons of the Gulf of Guinea. The ancient Greeks acknowledged that before taking over the region of the Aegean Sea and the surrounding lands there had been living there those they refer to as the Sea Peoples who had a fearsome army of women who would cauterize their right breasts to make for better use of their left hands during battles. Along the coast of the Gulf of Guinea are the Ogu (also Egun) people, who are neighbours of the Aku families of Dan aka (Dahomey, Dan-homey) and Ife Oodaye, and had an exactly similar army and were similarly called Amazons by the invading Romans of Europe. Onomastic evidence from the names Egun and Aegean suggest that they are the same people:
- Egun > Aegean or Ogu > Aegea(n).
Therefore, if the Egun are the Sea Peoples of an earlier age who later relocated to the coast of the Levant where, according to the bible, they ae called Philistines which was within Canaan, it is quite possible that Hatti of the neighbouring Anatolia is actually Ota. Given that the Hattians had relocated from Anatolia at about the time the Aku emigrated from Sumer, perhaps their settlement and that of the Egun were transient, existing only during the transition from the 3rd age to the 4th.
As the biblical Hittites of Heth were blacks, it follows that the claim by the Indo-Europeans that they were the same as the Hittites of Hattusas was intended by oyinbo protagonists to aid their schizoid white-washing of the so-called Near East. I hope this shows truth-seekers where to look (Luke 4:1-11; John 21:1-6) into doing more efficient, including academic, research.