An exploration of "Race" in ancient Egypt

I've noticed a few of the prior discussions on this forum so I felt it helpful to post this essay that I posted to my blog some time ago, basically synthesizing my own research relavent to the specified thread topic.

...................................................................................................................

An exploration of "Race" in ancient Egypt:

One of the most contentious as well as avoided issues in African studies discourse is the examination of "race" and its role on the African continent. No where is this more prevalent than within the discussion of ancient Egypt and the geographical origins of its primary inhabitants. As stated in a previous post, early European researchers found solace in carefully crafted diffusion hypotheses relating to the supposed migration of Hamites into Northern Africa. Such ideas ironically were formed in contrast to the initial conclusion of Napoleon's exhibition into Egypt, that literally jump-started the field of Egyptology. Upon scientific examination of numerous artifacts, written records, and cultural information, among other sources of data, Napoleon's team of scientists concluded that ancient Egypt was a civilization fully established and maintained by "Negroes". This was echoed by the French philosopher Constantine-Francois de-Chasseboeuf de Volney, who noted early Greco-Roman descriptions of the ancient Egyptians, as well as the apparent "Negro" countenance of the Sphinx. This view however, changed rapidly with the increased need to justify colonialism in Africa, as well as segregation in America. An expanded or more concentrated part of the "Hamitic race" hypothesis was the theory of the "Dynastic Race". A main proponent of this theory was the renowned Egyptologist, sir. William Flinders Petrie. Based on the peculiarity and rapid change in pottery styles found at the Naqada center in pre-dynastic southern Egypt, it was suggested that a group of invaders, namely from Mesopotamia likely entered Egypt and established civilization just prior to the 1rst Dynasty, at the expense of any aboriginal African populations already present. This was reinforced by cranial trends observed under typological racial models, and reports that the Egyptian population tended to affiliate by cluster analysis with populations extant from Africa, and closer to Europe and Southwest Asia. One of the first vocally active opponents of such views was the Senegalese scholar, Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop. Diop drew from a multi-disciplinary approach, using evidence from skin-melanin samples, cranial measurements, blood groups, limb-ratio, language, culture, eye-witness accounts, etc, in order to ascertain the ethno-geographic identity of these ancients. His work seen its apex during the 1974 UNESCO conference of Egyptologists, who gathered in a landmark discussion on the origins of the ancient Egyptian state. Diop, along with his colleague, Theophille Obenga presented painstakingly their research to a non-receptive audience of hostile scientists. At its closing, no direct consensus was arrived at, though the impression was that Diop and his colleague were well prepared and presented much information that was yet to be contradicted (much, that isn't contradicted to this day). The years subsequent sparked several political communities within Africa and the diaspora, including an intellectual undertaking and social endeavor of taking back African history. The most widely cited example is that of "Afrocentrism", which unfortunately has most recently become a pejorative label within academic mainstream discourse. Diop himself, while never describing himself as an "Afrocentric", is continuously labeled as such as a sort of ad hominem approach to discredit his work. This isn't to ignore the fact however, that Diop was not immune to making mistakes. In fact, he specifically challenged African and Africanist scholars to investigate further and advance upon the work already done in the field, while exploring further the truth that is detectable given the rigorous research and procedures required.

The debate exploded with the work of a professor from Cornell University by the name of Martin Bernal, who proposed that Greek civilization (the progenitor to western civilization) was in fact, greatly influenced and inspired by African Egyptians and Asiatic Semites, as outlined in his book, "Black Athena". Despite the fact that Bernal was of European background, his research sparked outrage within the white academic community. On one hand, it was argued that his reliance on ancient Greek interpretations themselves were naive and that Greece developed all of its unique traits in isolation, while at the same time arguing that people such as the Egyptians, were not "Black" (and therefore authentically "African") anyways. This covered their bases on both fronts, so just in case they were wrong about the former, they still wouldn't have to concede any "Negroid" origin to the development of civilization in Europe, and can still claim an affiliation based on a "Caucasoid" proxy. One persistent critic was Mary Lefkowitz, who denied out of hand any Afro-Asiatic contribution to ancient Greece, and there was also the misguided early work of C Loring Brace, an anthropologist who in placing ancient Egypt's cranial variation within the context of European metric patterns, effectively excluded other groups from Africa, such as Ethiopians, Somalis, and Nubians. Ironically, Lefkowitz herself, after reviewing much of the raw data and comparisons indeed came to the conclusion that the ancient Egyptian's origins lay some where south of the Sahara, while Brace' later corrections generally contradict his initial works that were part of his formal contribution to the debate. A relatively young African anthropologist by the name of Shomarka Omar Keita, answering the earlier calls of Diop, made his own interjections. His 1993 paper on "The Biological Relationships of the ancient Egyptians", exposed many gross contradictions and biases of the past. A false adherence to fixed racial terminology to describe ancient human remains, lack of comparative samples, and basic distortion of data lead to many inconsistent results. Keita found that the variability in modern as well as ancient Africa, is high, while the southern Egyptians, who were noted as the founders of Egyptian civilization, generally possessed cranio-facial patterns well within the range of tropical African diversity, while the Northern Egyptian remains were more variable, and seemingly intermediate between various Northern European and West African facial morphologies. Keita addressed directly the claims made by Brace, finding that limited comparative models and flawed terminology were the main errors in his study. Brace's study compared a predynastic sample in southern Egypt with a late dynastic sample from Northern Egypt [Gizeh E], finding them to be similar, and when combined, associating closest with Europeans out of all other "World population groups" examined. This, according to Keita is a flawed method and generally advocates a racial approach to population biology under the guise of "world population clusters". For example, Keita noted that in Brace's primary cluster with the Egyptians, were groups from modern and ancient Sudan, as well as Modern Somalia. These groups have been demonstrated per genetics, to be overwhelmingly indigenous to Africa, having little in common with Europeans, lending little support to any European/ancient Egyptian genetic-based affinity. In addition, per Howell's database on Egyptian remains compared to previous samples, the Gizeh E series used by Brace, is generally believed not to be representative of the core baseline population of ancient Egypt through out the dynastic period. The Gizeh E series has a morphometric pattern that is similar to specimens in the Aegean and may have been contaminated by foreigners, while the pre-dynastic southern Egyptian series was found to be most similar to ancient Sudanese (Kerma Nubian samples) with whom they were contiguous.

Hair form is also a physical attribute that has been traditionally connected to "race". Given the obscurity of research on the issue, many Africanist scholars have been intimidated by the prospects of confronting what many Eurocentric scholars deemed to be "Caucasian-type" hair, still attached to the skulls of mummified remains, including the infamous case of the "red-haired" Ramses II. For those familiar with the mummification process, as well as the populations index means for hair cross sections, won't find difficulty in explaining these seeming peculiarities. It is actually quite simple to understand. Firstly, to suggest that such hair attached to any decomposed body has lasting biological inference is misleading. According to Rogers (1987), "two years years was found to be the maximum duration of Caucasian hair buried underground", while as early as 1877, Dr. Pruner-Bey concluded that hair alone is insufficient in determining "race". This is equally apparent of Egyptian mummies considering the embalming materials used in mummification. When hair is exposed over prolonged periods under unfavorable conditions, with the increased effect of chemicals used that lead to bond breakage and oxidation, hair generally becomes straightened and discolored. Brothwell and Spearman found evidence of cortex kertain oxidation within ancient Egyptian hair, attributing such effects to the mumification process. Also notable is that population means of cross-sections, indicative of 'straight, wavy, to whoolly hair. sub-Saharan (this obviously excludes supra-Saharan populations) African populations are found to average out to around 60 µm, aboriginal Australians/Tasmanians from 64-68 µm, while Europeans had an average of 71. Strouhal, in analyzing pre-dynastic remains at El-Badari, Egypt, found an average ranging from around 35-65 µm. Strouhal also reported a predominance in hair color that generally varied from dark brown to Black for the whole of dynastic Egyptians. Other studies found similar variation that seems to consistently hover around the area of 60-66 µm. Indeed, this is well removed from the range of European hair form, while the color and indices do not exclude African and Australians/Tasmanian populations of noted tropical adaptation. Once the unlikely scenario of Australians/Tasmanian contribution to the Egyptian gene pool is ruled out, and indigenous African diversity is appreciated (Northern and Southern), the African context of ancient Egyptian hair form is apparent. Indeed, Keita directly addresses this issue, citing that early hair as was described by Strouhal, was drastically no different from that of the Fulani, Kanuri, and Somali populations of East, West, and Central Africa. Individuals have also been the point of contention concerning this particular area of inference. For example, in direct response to Diop's assertions, it was suggested by the French Egyptologist Lionel Balout, that Ramses II was a "red headed, wavy-haired Leucoderm", as was gathered by microscopic analysis of the hair shaft and the presence of Phaeomelanin (red color). On closer inspection however, the red color in the hair was manifestly weak, and can actually be described as auburn. This is a condition seen visibly in contemporary populations of the Sudan (including the Beja). Equally telling is the little known fact that the active MC1R gene responsible for red hair actually originates in and is widely visible though out Africa. In addition, actual studies have found evidence of similar manifestation in modern Southern Sudanese who have shown cases of Blondism, generally at an early age. All of these populations are of indigenous African derivation. One of Balout's biggest mistakes was also publishing the results of the trichometric measurements that found Ramses II's hair averaged at around 60-70 (a median which is 65) µm; completely within the range of indigenous African diversity, non-indicative of any European or "Leucoderm" ancestry. This, not mentioning Harris and Weeks' X-Ray analysis of Ramses' cranio-facial structure, again showing him as an individual to fit well within the range of African variation. Though his obscure origins are still a matter of debate, given certain peculiarities surrounding his parentage among other things, the biological data alone doesn't seem to support Eurocentric claims that Ramses II was definitely of European or Asiatic extraction.

Dental studies are sometimes brought up in a discussion on the biological origins of the ancient Nile valley populations. Joel Irish, who has done extensive work in this field, suggested broad continuity between Egyptians groups of various locales and time periods. The affinities of Egyptian dental morphology (as well as Nubian) were described as characterizing what is generally seen through out Northern Africa and to a lesser extent, Southwest Asia [meaning they weren't very "bucked toothed"]. Irish also asserted that the Egyptian and Nubian samples were drastically different from previous, Neolithic samples, thus theorizing on a possible demic diffusion of non-African Asians into the Nile valley. As Keita points out, such ignores heavily, previous studies finding the presence of fourth molars and fourth molar variants, which are believed to be genetically based and attributable to more southernly African populations. In addition, Irish has ignored the widely accepted post-pleistocene hypothesis of dental reduction and simplification based on dietary change and adaptive/selection strategies coinciding with increasingly novel social and climatic conditions, as proposed by Carlson and Van Gerven (1979). It is also of note that regardless of the circumstances, Nubians still fit within the same context, as suggested as well by Greene (1972) who found extensive overlap between the two populations. One would effectively need to turn the debate away from one about the origins of Egypt to that of both Egypt AND Nubia. Not surprisingly as I've seen it done before, though it's quite hypocritical to compartmentalize by on one hand, looking to differentiate between Egyptians and Nubians as the assumption has been that the latter is "undeniably" Black, though when they are inextricably connected, the goal then becomes to differentiate both from the rest of Africa. An endless game of circular reasoning that I advice most not to even entertain. The facts are clear and outlined above.

Other sources of data, which are usually disregarded or under emphasized, though shown to be genetically reinforced and highly dependent on geographical adaptation, is that of limb-ratio and stature. High limb to trunk ratio is seen as an indication of tropical adaptation and in the context of Africa, "sub-Saharan" ancestry. Diop early on noted the African character of ancient Egyptian body proportions. Robins (1983) examined various pre-dynastic remains, reporting the specimens as having a "super-Negroid" body plan, or limbs proportionate to stature that were even higher than that seen in west Africans, who in turn have ratios much higher than Europeans. A simplistic interpretation would lead one to conclude that the ancient Egyptians were even more "Negroid" than modern "Negroids" are. Which is why such goofy racial terms are inherently irresponsible, though the reality and its implications are striking. Keita (1996) confirmed these data, as did Zakrzewski (2003) who reports general continuity through out the dynastic period. As noted earlier, Keita found dynastic Northern Egyptians to possess a cranio-facial diversity that is generally intermediate between Northern European and various West African phenotypes. However, one of Keita's shortcomings was an absence of material from pre-dynastic Northern Egypt, or of the baseline population preceding unification that was present there. Pondering on their starting orientation, many assumptions were made. Kemp (2005) however, reviewed such studies pertaining to Northern Egyptian body proportions in relation to material from neighboring Palestine and the neighboring African regions to the south. What was found was a south-north cline of variation that did not move smoothly into Palestine, excluding any relationship with Asiatics directly north of the delta region, while placing pre-dynastic Northern Egyptians within the context of more southernly Africans, with whom they shared closer affinity in terms of body proportions. Kemp hypothesized that a change in demographics, specifically in Egypt's northern region, may be a cause of some of the contrasts seen from North to South coinciding with the documented migration of foreigners in the region and the passage of time. As of now, I've yet to have seen any Eurocentric obsfucation or rebuttal to the ancient Egyptian body plan. In fact, it is generally avoided by Eurocentrists all together.

Studies of melanin content in mummies are relatively rare. Diop's initial attempts were scrutinized due to what was deemed to be an outdated methodology and claims made that the embalming materials rendered the epidermis of Egyptian mummies unseceptible for analysis. Diop countered that while this may be true, the boundary between the derm and epidermis, indeed showed melanin levels that were inconsistent of European and Asiatic populations of relatively lighter complexion. A more recent 2005 study of various 18th dynasty remains, conducted by the university of Munich, found similar results using more reliable methods. The mummies were described as being "packed with melanin as expected from specimens of "Negroid" origin. Skin color its self is an extremely adaptable trait that is generally independent of genetic lineage, and more dependent on geographic adaptation strategies. The skin charts courtesy of Biasutti, which correlate with geographic location predict that the populations of extreme Northeast Africa should show gradients generally identical to populations of extreme Southwest Africa, which lies at an equal distance away from the equator, while Northern Europeans are outliners in this regard. Other factors such as Vitamin D absorption and recent migrations/genetic interaction are also important when interpreting such diversity.

Another matter of contention is that of descriptive accounts from ancient travelers whom were contemporary with the ancient Nile valley populations. One angle, often used by Eurocentrists is to emphasize a seeming distinction described between "Ethiopians" and the Egyptians. Indeed, the populations in Africa south of Egypt were generically referred to as "Aethiops" by the ancient Greek authors. Such is used as evidence that the ancient Greeks did not describe the ancient Egyptians as "Black", despite actual accounts of the Aethiopians of southern Egypt. Also despite the fact that the word Aethipos is not a working Greek translation for the English word "Black". It meant literally, "burnt face". The word bearing closest similarity to the term "Black" was "Melas", which was indeed used to describe the ancient Egyptians as well as the Ethiopians, but not the Greeks themselves. Herodotus is one of the most famous and 'disputed' examples within the so-called "debate". He writes rather revealingly that: "several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchidians were descended from soldiers of Sesostris. I had conjectured as much myself from two pointers, firstly because they have black skins and kinky hair". Such a statement caused so much panic within the hearts and minds of racialist detractors that the best at the time they could come up with in response was via Champollion-Figeac, that Black skin and whoolly hair [in AFRICA!] doesn't qualify membership into the "Black race". I assume that it took a few decades later to contrive some nefarious scheme to discredit a man whom they've previously referred to as the "father of history". Suddenly, because the afro-mentioned Colchidians were a distinct and mysterious group of residents in western Eurasia (outside of Africa), that somehow this means that by calling them "Black" and "curly haired", that somehow he must have been speaking in "relative" terms, apparently relative to the Greeks (?). Curious considering that Greeks are "relatively" dark in comparison to a lot of Eurocentric writers (excluding the late Frank Snowden) who conjure up such absurdities. As if Greeks don't contain the highest percentage of African lineages among all other European and even many Mid-Eastern populations. Who was this relative to? Ironically, a Greek poet named Pindar also described a dark-skinned population in Colchis and so did Saint Jerome, who actually called Colchis the "second Ethiopia". Nothing however, will satisfy certain critics as there are even inquiries being made in published journals as to whether or not Herodotus even visited Colchis. An example of the bi-polar tendencies within certain schools of thought that would lead a person and/or people to describe a man as "the father of history", while in the same breath refer to him as the "father of lies". Ironically, they don't address whether or not Herodotus was "lying" again when in an attempt to prove that the Nile was not flooded by snow, he contended that this was unlikely since per his own observations, the residents of Egypt were "Black from the heat". Another important and even more revealing source is Aristotle. In his book, Physiognomics, he describes the "Aethiopians" and Egyptians within the same context, writing: “Too black (Melas) a hue marks the coward as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians and so does also too white a complexion as you may see from women, the complexion of courage is between the two.” Again, within the same book he writes about the Egyptians and "Aethiopians" within the same context, this time reiterating what Herodotus already indicated; that the Egyptians had Whoolly hair: "Why are the Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because the bodies of living creatures become distorted by heat, like logs of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair supports this theory; for it is curlier than that of other nations, and curliness is as it were crookedness of the hair." The said "bandy-leggedness" may also be an allusion to the tropical body plan, described above. These, being the earliest descriptions of Egyptian morphology and skin complexion should serve accurately as a realistic description of the population's indigenous inhabitants, though such are challenged by seeming contradictions, that are otherwise explained by those seeking explanation. Opponents often cite quotes from Strabo and Arrian who gave descriptions seemingly comparing Egyptians to Northern Indians and attributing to them a "medium" complexion. It is of relevance to make note of the fact that these kind of descriptions were not made until the Roman period. Susan Walker explains the apparent confusion of elites in identifying exactly who and who wasn't an "Egyptian" being that many people in Egypt identified as Greeks and the present miscegenation within the populace blurred the distinction. Walker makes note of a large Greek population left behind by the armies of Alexander, many men of whom likely had taken Egyptian wives. By this period various ethic groups had effectively penetrated Northern Egypt, intermingling with the core populations. Indeed, this is the later periods covered by Kemp (2005) who is noted above, and other contemporary Greco-Roman descriptions seem to support his explanations of demographic influences from foreign sources, as Archilles Tatius of the same era describes the herdsmen of the delta as "half-castes". However, this was evidently not true for ALL of Egypt (notably in the south), as Ammianus Marcellinus confirms in the 4th century A.D., :"the Egyptians were "mostly brown and black" with a "skinny and desiccated look". Al Jahiz (781-869 A.D.), in his book "Superiority of the Blacks to the Whites" also counted the Copts and native [non-Arab] Egyptians among "the Blacks".

There is also the matter of art pieces. I can't seem to focus much attention on this area since it's a very subjective side of the so-called "debate", though a few claims or angles seem persistent. Many Eurocentric writers harp on the issue that Egyptians distinguished themselves physically, namely in skin complexion, from the Nubians, therefore from "Black Africans". This is hilarious since it seems to suggest that "Nubians" were the only kind of "Black" African, as to truly play with semantics. Conveniently, these people don't readily point out the fact that the ancients also distinguished themselves from Lybian Leucoderms, and Asiatic Semites, while NOT at all distinguishing themselves from the people of Punt, who lived in what today is modern Ethiopia. Also notable are depictions of Nubians whom are equally as indistinguishable, with the tomb of Huey being a prime example. Some additionally like to emphasize so-called "Caucasoid" features, which goes back to Hiernaux's observations. Drake (1987), even using the stereotyped approach found what he claimed were "many Negroids', after reviewing thousands of Egyptian art pieces and portraiture. Petrie (1939) even pondered the same for various dynasties, including some of the most important ones, like the 3rd, 12th, 18th, etc. Keita addresses this briefly as well after reviewing numerous art depictions, finding the same kind of narrow faced morphology in most figures and artworks that can also be seen in the horn of Africa, which has nothing to do with admixture with non-Africans.

Ironically, genetics is often not very definitive in determining the ethnic composition of the ancient Egyptians. Mainly due to the fact that populations aren't static and the modern Egyptian (as well as ancient) population has seen noted contacts with foreigners from various sources. It has been suggested that a steady foreign migration of about 1% per generation can alter significantly the aboriginal gene frequencies of a population over several thousand years. As a consequence, it shouldn't be surprising that many autosomal DNA studies find modern Egyptians to be "mixed". Material from mummies are also deemed relatively unreliable. A 2002 study on the rate of decay of DNA in the Papyri plant, found complete deterioration, even in the most recent sample from the 8th Century A.D. It was concluded that this evidence is supportive of any arguments against claims of a reliable recovery of DNA in Egyptian mummies. This is contrary to a weird claim made by a team of "scientists" at the University of Cairo, asserting that the DNA of the Pyramid workers "matched" those of modern Egyptians. As if modern Egyptians aren't variable. Also weird, is the utter failure to publish any of these results and comparative data or their materials and methodology, etc. Relevant as well are the more obscure studies. Paabo and Di Rienzo (1993) found "sub-Saharan" DNA in Egyptian mummies and apparently so did another 1999 study from the University of Turin. Only tentative conclusions can be made, however, the inferences to be made from living populations have still been significant. A 2004 study on the mtDNA of the Gurna population (who are relatively more isolated from the urban centers) in southern Egypt found an ancestral link to east Africa, as Kivisild did in his 2004 Ethiopian study of mtDNA. Y-Chromosome data, courtesy of Lucotte (2003) show that Modern Egyptians are overwhelmingly of PN2 derivation, which is a clade that emerged in Africa sometime proceeding the migration of humans out of Africa, but before the end of the last ice age. This is defined ultimately as E3 which diverged into various haplotypes all related through out Africa, which reveals ancient ancestral ties between Africans north to south, well before the former or the latter shares ancestry with non-Africans who lack in substantial frequencies, these African genes. A most recent 2008 Y-Chromosome study conducted in conjunction by Standford and the University of Khartoum, found relatively high frequencies of the haplogroup B-M60 in modern Copts, suggesting the population to represent a historical narrative for the peopling of Southern Egypt by Nilotic migrants from tropical Africa, during and preceding the period of state formation. These data are expected given numerous archaeological and historical findings that are overwhelmingly supportive of this scenario.

In conclusion... The Ancient Egyptians were a primarily Black [native African] people, as our data reflects. Future research into the relevant fields of study are greatly anticipated and will be discussed upon retrieval.

Hey "Sundiata". This old stuff of "black" Egypt is boring, particularly for this site.

Originally posted by Sundiata No ancient population "fits well with any modern political identity", yet contextually for practicality sake, such modern identities are universally imposed on such groups.

In a history forum we shouldn't accept this popularist notion.
People identify themselves in numerous ways, even people in the same group can hardly decide where the group starts and ends. Given for example, that if a black American immigrated to Australia, he'd probably be considered white* what the genetics of ancient egyptians was is a meaningless question.

*Because they are english speaking, christian, have the same food, and 'blacks' are already aborigines.

Originally posted by edgewaters Practicality would mean there was some pragmatic reason to indulge in such an exercise, which there is not. Ancient Egyptians can be understood as ... ancient Egyptians. There's no need to try and relate them to modern populations. Introducing modern contexts debases history.

This is ironic since you strip all practicality out of the picture while using practical terms like "ancient Egyptian" which to you has a fixed definition even though these ancient north east African people never referred to themselves as Egyptian. This is merely obsfucation via a game of semantics. If it's your point of contention that we should not apply labels to them like "Black", then I agree that they may have never referred to themselves with socio-ethnic labels that we use today (including "ancient Egyptian") but according to our standards, it is a REALITY that by definition, they fit into the framework of our socio-ethnic/geographic classification system in the sense that we have pre-defined notions of what signifies what. They were dark-skinned native Africans. To me that means Black according to today's standards as I see no biological dichotomy between them and many people whom we call "Black" in Northeast Africa today. But as to seek common ground with the literalists, I'll simply refer to them as ancient Africans. Going back to your initial statement, I'm not sure what "exercise" you're referring to either. That was sort of a non-sequitur.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Originally posted by Sundiata No ancient population "fits well with any modern political identity", yet contextually for practicality sake, such modern identities are universally imposed on such groups. In a history forum we shouldn't accept this popularist notion. People identify themselves in numerous ways, even people in the same group can hardly decide where the group starts and ends. Given for example, that if a black American immigrated to Australia, he'd probably be considered white* what the genetics of ancient egyptians was is a meaningless question. *Because they are english speaking, christian, have the same food, and 'blacks' are already aborigines.

We shouldn't accept what in a history forum? I shouldn't accept that such "modern identities are universally applied to ancient populations"? Not sure who said that I did. Matter of fact, I don't even accept the concept of race at all. I can agree with the position that ethnicity as a static entity is non-existent but such doesn't negate the realities of biogeographic ancestry as my essay outlines. If you have a group A and a group B, the latter of which we universally consider "Black", yet there is no clear biological or ethnic distinction/demarcation between group A and group B and in fact they have the same origin, critical thinkers will begin to question what the basis is for group A having special designated status of being unclassified or left alone. It is a liberal philosophy to be all inclusive. The thinking that ancient Egypt belongs to "everybody" as opposed to eastern African (from whence they originated according to their own testimony, language, and biological inference).  When these same liberals constantly and unapolegetically refer to Ethiopians, Somalis, Nubians and others as Black/African, yet refrain from such labels when confronted with the prospects of ancient Egypt, they begin to lose credibility. But believe me, I do agree with you. I'm of the position of S.O.Y. Keita, who wrote:

"The process of seeking a new terminology to describe the biological relations of the ancient Egyptians will require that 'the terms "Negro" and "Black African" be dropped from the biological lexicon in favor of "Saharo-tropical variant" which subsumes the range of morphologies of great time depth found in Africa'. No serious arguments can be made to the position that Egypt was a 'Nilotic-African' culture 'on all levels'."

Though I do still at times use modern social rhetoric (as Keita does) in order to convey a point or clarify a conclusion. Doesn't mean that such terms are definitive. The fact that they were African, meaning quite literally that they were of recent (as opposed to ancient, like non-Africans) African origin is the only point being conveyed, which surprisingly is hard to swallow for some people I take from reading some of the past postings on this message board.


Edited by Sundiata - 25-Jan-2009 at 19:34

Originally posted by pinguin Who are your masters in afrocentrism, Sundiata?

Ad Hominem - An ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument

In other words, I'm not Afrocentic, Eurocentric, Egyptocentric, etc and if I was, you still have no point pertaining to the thread topic's conclusions. I'm just a student of history presenting and discussing historical facts with legitimate, non-ethnocentric historical sources. Who's YOUR master?


Edited by Sundiata - 25-Jan-2009 at 20:21

Originally posted by Sundiata In other words, I'm not Afrocentic, Eurocentric, Egyptocentric, etc and if I was, you still have no point pertaining to the thread topic's conclusions.

Yes, I think he does. Given your obviously apparent political agenda in this and other threads, it is safe for a reasonable person to conclude that a degree of caution and skepticism is warranted in reading your posts. Seeking justification for a political agenda, such as identity politics, is not a proper historical activity as it sets out with a fixed conclusion in mind, before the evidence is in, and then seeks to support that conclusion. And not for the purpose of providing historical clarity, but for the purpose of advancing an agenda.

Skepticism is indeed warranted.

This is ironic since you strip all practicality out of the picture while using practical terms like "ancient Egyptian" which to you has a fixed definition even though these ancient north east African people never referred to themselves as Egyptian

"Ancient Egyptian" is merely the English version of a term rendered in our alphabet as "Rm.t km.t". This means "men of Kemet", Kemet being an approximation of the word for Egypt ("km.t").

So they did refer to themselves as "Egyptians" ... they just used a different sound to do it. 

Edited by edgewaters - 25-Jan-2009 at 21:17

Originally posted by edgewaters Originally posted by Sundiata In other words, I'm not Afrocentic, Eurocentric, Egyptocentric, etc and if I was, you still have no point pertaining to the thread topic's conclusions. Yes, I think he does. Given your obviously apparent political agenda in this and other threads, it is safe for a reasonable person to conclude that a degree of caution and skepticism is warranted in reading your posts. Seeking justification for a political agenda, such as identity politics, is not a proper historical activity as it sets out with a fixed conclusion in mind, before the evidence is in, and then seeks to support that conclusion. And not for the purpose of providing historical clarity, but for the purpose of advancing an agenda. Skepticism is indeed warranted.

With that said, refer back to my recount on the definition of an ad hominem and you'd understand why what you are stating above is criticism of me (someone who you do not know) as opposed to what I have said or claimed. It's a logical fallacy and not a basis for healthy skepticism. Skeptical of me, or the facts? Being skeptical of something that you're able to verify or disprove is lazy historical scholarship. It does nothing to answer questions. Btw, my only agenda is to tell the truth. The said coclusions are grounded on evidence, not predetermined philosophy as lazy scholars would like to use as a way to shun.

"Ancient Egyptian" is merely the English version of a term rendered in our alphabet as "Rm.t km.t". This means "men of Kemet", Kemet being an approximation of the word for Egypt. So they did refer to themselves as "Egyptians" ... they just used a different sound to do it.

This is why it's necessary for me to create threads like this since you don't know what you're talking about. "Egypt" isn't a word in the "ancient Egyptian" language, it is a Greek word (Aegyptos) meaning "the two lands". Egyptians referred to themselves as R'mt as you indicated which means "the people" and k'mt is in reference to their nation which translates to "the Black nation", an allusion many scholars think referring to the Black silt of the Nile. It is identified in Hieroglyphs with a peice of burned wood. R'mt Km't literally means "people of the Black nation".. There is no "Egyptian" sound or reference in the ancient African language spoken at that time in the lower Nile valley. WOW.


Edited by Sundiata - 25-Jan-2009 at 21:47

Edited by Akolouthos - 25-Jan-2009 at 21:56

Originally posted by Akolouthos     Oh, and Sundiata: I'm as fond of Herodotus as the next guy, but I feel obligated to provide an example to illustrate the caution we should us when citing him. The following passage is from the second book of his history:   [Hippopotamuses]* are sacred in the province of Papremis, but not elsewhere in Egypt. For their outward form, they are four-footed, with cloven hoofs like oxen; their noses are blunt; they are maned like horses, with tusks showing, and have a horse's tail and a horse's neigh. [Herodotus 2.71]   We call him the "father of history" because he makes an attempt at scientific historical inquiry, not because he always succeeds. You will see a disclaimer several chapters later that he doesn't quite believe everything he has heard about the phoenix, but a similar disclaimer is absent in his account of the hippo, which demonstrates rather convincingly that he never actually saw one himself.   The reason I brought this up is because my chief problem with the Afrocentrist movement is their seeming inability to deal with sources in their proper context. In their revisionistic zeal, they seize anything that could possibly serve their ideology, twist it into their preferred context, and cry conspiracy when they are accused, quite justly, of abandoning the proper historical method. Food for thought.   -Akolouthos   *Hippopotamus simply means "river horse", which is the term used in the translation that I have provided.

I hear you but one isolated example of what is clearly hyperbole from Herodotus does nothing to obscure the said context, whether this was presented by an Afrocentrist, Eurocentrist, or otherwise (the labels are getting old btw). People from Aristotle to Al-Jahiz were cited, in context. To convey about why the Nile doesn't come from the downslope of melting snow, Herodotus made the practical observation that this is impossible since the Egyptians were Black from the heat. This is context in its purest form as the skin color of the Egyptians was not his main point of emphasis, as he only used this observation to support another point. This is exactly why he is admired due to his keen observations and logical conclusions. To discount everything presented by irresponsibly calling anyone with such positions an "Afrocentric" is a logical fallacy and the height of hypocrisy. Obviously those who resort to such have agendas and pre-conceived notions themselves. They are not critical.


Edited by Sundiata - 25-Jan-2009 at 22:51

Originally posted by Akolouthos   I clicked on this thread because it sounded interesting. I was -- perhaps a bit too optimistically -- expecting an essay on the role race played in social hierarchy, culture, etc. It's sad to be disappointed.   Oh, and Sundiata: I'm as fond of Herodotus as the next guy, but I feel obligated to provide an example to illustrate the caution we should us when citing him. The following passage is from the second book of his history:   [Hippopotamuses]* are sacred in the province of Papremis, but not elsewhere in Egypt. For their outward form, they are four-footed, with cloven hoofs like oxen; their noses are blunt; they are maned like horses, with tusks showing, and have a horse's tail and a horse's neigh. [Herodotus 2.71]   We call him the "father of history" because he makes an attempt at scientific historical inquiry, not because he always succeeds. You will see a disclaimer several chapters later that he doesn't quite believe everything he has heard about the phoenix, but a similar disclaimer is absent in his account of the hippo, which demonstrates rather convincingly that he never actually saw one himself.   The reason I brought this up is because my chief problem with the Afrocentrist movement is their seeming inability to deal with sources in their proper context. In their revisionistic zeal, they seize anything that could possibly serve their ideology, twist it into their preferred context, and cry conspiracy when they are accused, quite justly, of abandoning the proper historical method. Food for thought.   -Akolouthos   *Hippopotamus simply means "river horse", which is the term used in the translation that I have provided.

We did a long study on Herodotus and a seminar, in which we concluded the same. That he was well read in everything that was available to him at the time, but that he did not travel as much as he claimed (not even half as much).