QuoteReplyTopic: An exploration of "Race" in ancient Egypt Posted: 24-Jan-2009 at 22:23
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.
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.
Hey "pinguin". I'm not looking to entertain more than I am to share legitimate information. If you have no dispute of the above facts presented or any useful commentary, then I can only suggest that you participate in a different thread unrelated to African histoy.
Why don't you tell us about the "Sundiata", instead. The classic of Mali. I bet that would call the attention of a lot more people.
I'll do that next time.:)
Originally posted by edgewaters
The ancient Egyptians do not fit well with any modern political identity movement or racialist notions.
They
did not concern themselves much with racialist theories based on skin
colour, and displayed little ethnic uniformity themselves.
Indeed,
although this is of course irrelevant to the muti-faceted study of
bio-geographic origins as it relates to modern "racialist" conceptions.
No ancient population "fits well with any modern political identity",
yet contextually for practicality sake, such modern identities are
universally imposed on such groups.
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.
No ancient population "fits well with any modern political identity",
yet contextually for practicality sake, such modern identities are
universally imposed on such groups.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"Egypt" isn't a word in the "ancient Egyptian" language, it is a Greek word (Aegyptos) meaning "the two lands".
A feeble strawman. I didn't claim it was.
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 doesn't translate to "nation". Which syllable do you suppose means nation, km or t?
It may be a reference to the rich soils deposited by the Nile. In which case, either km or t may mean "black" and the other may mean "soil" or "earth" or like that.
At most, then, you've got a name that literally translated would mean something like "People of the Black Soil" not "People of the Black Nation". There was also a similar term for the desert lands beyond the river valley, which meant "Red Soil" but the people who lived there were not red-skinned. The term does not refer to skin colour, but to the colour of the soil.
This is typical example of how and why political agendas distort history, and pollute understanding with deliberate misinterpretation designed to serve and advance political goals, rather than truth.
Skeptical of me, or the facts?
I am saying a reasonable person would be well-advised to double-check what you present for misrepresentations meant to advance an Afrocentric agenda.
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.
"Ancient Egyptian" is merely the English version of a term rendered in our alphabet as "Rm.t km.t".
^^This is not true since [rm't] km't or "Egyptians" did not use an English/Phonecian-based alphabetic system to spell out the word "Egypt" since it is literally an invention of the Greeks. The meaning isn't even the same.
It doesn't translate to "nation". Which syllable do you suppose means nation, km or t? It may be a reference to the rich soils deposited by the Nile. In which case, either km or t may mean "black" and the other may mean "soil" or "earth" or like that.
t isn't just a "syllable". The km in Km't signifies "Black" while the t is
determinate depending on context which references a nation, settlement,
or place of residence. It doesn't mean soil/earth or land as that isn't what
the determinative indicates and there were words for that, examples
being"ta-seti" meaning "land of the bow", or "ta-meri", meaning the
"beautiful land". Your isolated speculation is no replacement for those who can read heiroglyphs nor what is commonly known.
At most, then, you've got a name that literally translated would mean something like "People of the Black Soil" not "People of the Black Nation".
That makes no sense and even IF you were right I don't see how that helps you. Neither refernce means "the two lands", or "Egypt".
is There was also a similar term for the desert lands beyond the river valley, which meant "Red Soil" but the people who lived there were not red-skinned. The term does not refer to skin colour, but to the colour of the soil.
huh? Talk about an irrelevant straw man. Who said anything about skin color? And yes, the word they used for the Lybian desert was de'shret which meant the same thing, yet signified "red" as opposed to Black.
This is typical example of how and why political agendas distort history, and pollute understanding with deliberate misinterpretation designed to serve and advance political goals, rather than truth.
Speak for yourself. You haven't corrected me on one thing which is the blatantly sad narrative of what passive minded Eurocentrism has become. Just attack, attack, attack with blank accusations devoid or rebuttal and substance. Just rants and complaints about why your pre-conceived notions are being shattered.
I am saying a reasonable person would be well-advised to double-check what you present for misrepresentations meant to advance an Afrocentric agenda.
Then double-check it and get back to me. I don't care what your "political" disposition is, as long as you give me facts and logical arguments as to your position. Otherwise, you seem like a person who is just bitter towards Afrocentrists (which I am not but who cares what you think) as opposed to a calm and balanced neutral student of history.
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.
This is not true since [rm't] km't or "Egyptians" did not use an English/Phonecian-based alphabetic system to spell out the word "Egypt"
Of course not, that's why I said Egypt is an "English version" of Kemet; the closest approximation available in the English language, as I stated.
"Ancient Africans" is not even vaguely a close approximation of what they called themselves.
It isn't just a "syllable". The km in Km't signifies "Black" while the t is
determinate depending on context which references a nation, settlement,
or place of residence. It doesn't mean soil/earth or land as that isn't what
the determinative indicates
You seem to be just making this up as you go along. Earlier you claimed it referred to the "black silt of the Nile". Now, apparently because it is inconvenient to you, it cannot mean silt or soil.
huh? Talk about an irrelevant straw man. Who said anything about skin color?
Disingenious. You made a claim that Kemet means the "Black Nation" in defence of your theory that Egyptians were blacks. The implication isn't exactly rocket science, here.
Otherwise, you seem like a person who is just bitter towards Afrocentrists
I find all attempts to politicize history distasteful and error-prone. Afrocentrists etc aren't special; I categorize them with all other fringe revisionists such as ufologists, varying breeds of nationalists, other forms of identity politics, etc. The League of Extraordinary Crackpots.
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).
Of course not, that's why I said Egypt is an "English version" of Kemet.
But it's not.. Egypt is an English version of the Greek word "Aegyptos" and the Greeks never adhered to the ancient Egyptian's own name for their country. This is where you're wrong and confused. Funny how you blame Afrocentrists for the destruction of history yet you don't even know your history enough to even know what they are destroying. LOL!!
You seem to be just making this up as you go along. Earlier you claimed it referred to the "black silt of the Nile". Now, apparently because it is inconvenient to you, it cannot mean silt or soil.
Don't misquote me. "Black stood for divinity as indicated by the moniker of Osiris, "Kemwer", or "the Great Black (divine) one". I said "many believe this to be an allusion to the Black silt of the Nile". It is clear that I dispute this notion and you can "double check" what I just said including my example/reference to Kemwer.
Disingenious. You made a claim that Kemet means the "Black Nation" in defence of your theory that Egyptians were blacks. The implication isn't exactly rocket science, here.
Your Euro-quack paranoia has nothing to do with me. I've explained above why Egyptians referred to their country as the Black nation. I stated before that post that they didn't use our ethnic labels which is evident since they didn't use km't to describe other Africans. Writing me off as non-objective only alludes to your prejudice aginst my views. Yet still, you have no rebuttal.
I find all attempts to politicize history distasteful and error-prone. Afrocentrists etc aren't special; I categorize them with all other fringe revisionists such as ufologists, varying breeds of nationalists, other forms of identity politics, etc. The League of Extraordinary Crackpots.
That's your baggage not mine. Still, no rebuttal though. In a round table debate based on the soundness of the argument, I'd have won a long time ago (if this WERE a debate). But obviously it isn't a debate since you've offered nothing to oppose my claims. You just keep going off on a tangent about why you hate Afrocentrists. I hate long movies. So what? Has nothing to do with the facts.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum