An exploration of "Race" in ancient Egypt

"Ancient Egyptians" is just the English phrase referring to the people who lived in what is now called Egypt under the rulers we now call Pharaohs, and gods like the one we now call Osiris. In English. Just like we call the people who live in New York 'New Yorkers'. Assuming, again, we speak English.

No offense whatsoever, but what's your point?. lol.. My point being, there is no English counter part to the word that the Egyptians used to refer to their country other than its literal translation (km't-"the Black nation/settlement"). "Aegyptus is a term coined by the Greeks (and the name of a demi-God) and "Egypt" is a derivative of that in English form. These ancient Nile valley African people never referred to their country as Egypt, period. No way around that. Calling them Egyptian is as wrong as using any other modern label to describe them if we're to be technical. It infinitely regresses the more technical you get which is why sometimes you just have to be practical in assuming people know what you mean.

 

 

As long as you don't use that to imply they have anyething much in common, except basic humanity, with, say, the Zulu. Which of course is the English name given to the people who live largely around what we now in English call Natal, and who were famously led by the warrior king we in English generally call Chaka.

This is a straw since when you speak of having something in common, it's always going to be relative. I'd say they had most in common with Nubians who were contiguous, as opposed to seeking some far flung relationship with the Zulu people who reside in Southern Africa. I will say however, that this is an overstatement since what they do have in common is ancestry via the Pn2 clade. In other words, they are united by genetics, specifically the E haplogroup which is the dominant male lineage of 73% of Africans, including the Egyptians and Nubians (not to mention Egyptian ties on the female MtDNA side to Eritrea). That means that they descend from a common male ancestor who lived in Africa sometime after humans left Africa. This obviously means the ancestors of Egyptians never left Africa, while Europeans and Asians' ancestors did. Of course we can deduce from that that the Zulu had more in common with them as a consequence of shared African ancestry then Northern Nordic Europeans did.

 

And so on. Labels are for convenience. The fact that you stick a label on something doesn't necessarily tell anything about the thing being labelled.

Which is also true for a label like "ancient Egyptian". The only label I agree that has scientific meaning in a taxonomic sense is "African". Same as how you have African killer bees, African genes, etc, you have African people as this is a result of the unification of two sciences/disciplines, that of biology and geography, hence their bio-geographic ancestry was African. This can't be obscured either especially considering the fact that everyone comes from Africa, thus their relationship can fit within no other context. Others who left Africa developed unique traits exclusive to non-Africans. This is not evident with the "ancient Egyptians"..

So we should group the Chinese and the Arabs in the same racial basket because they live in the same continent? And, for that matter, since 'Europe' and 'Asia' are arbitrary labels simply used for linguistic convenience, Danes and Chinese should be in the same basket too?

Of course not since "human race" is a misnomer. It isn't a legitimate concept. Chinese and Arabs both derive from Africa. What I am pointing out is that which is African exclusive. Arabs and Chinese don't share a common genetic or cultural trait that will bind them together as coherently "Asian", not to mention that Arabs likely partially descend from ancient Indo-Europeans and Africans as well. They'd likely share more in common if the latter weren't mixed (though that's speculation). Linguistically, Danes don't speak a similar language as Chinese, though the ancient Egyptians spoke a similar language to the Beja, Somali, Ethiopians, etc.. Professor Christopher Ehret points out that their language can be traced back 10-15,000 years to the areas spanning Sudan and Somalia. Semitic was even adopted via African migrants likely coinciding with the Nautufians, who Brace confirmed were African migrants. Ehret also points out the presence of loan words from Nilo-Saharan in the ancient Egyptian language, indicative of sustained contact with their neighbors. There are however, no Semetic or European loan words.

 

The desert divides 'Africa' into two just as thoroughly as the Urals divide 'Asia' from 'Europe' or the Mediterranean divides 'Europe' from 'Asia'. In fact more so, since the Mediterranean in much of history has been a sea that unites the peoples into one culture around it rather than divides them.

This is a weak argument since there is no barrier along the Nile valley from whence Africans migrated. People like Bruce Trigger have confirmed a south-north pattern of migration. The earliest remains in Egypt which are 35,000 years old were described as "sub-Saharan". There is a problem with terminology here as the Sahara only recently turned into a desert some 5,000 years ago, just prior to Egyptian state formation. There are clearly depictions of stereotypical African people in Saharan rock art and customs identified that can be traced back to people like the Fulani. There's also desert extending all the way into Arabia so based on your own logic you're arguing that the Egyptians sprouted from the ground some 5,000 years ago. Then why were the same group of languages spoken all the way from "sub-Saharan" Somalia, even extending outside of Africa to Northern Arabia (see Ehret, 1996)? Where was the so-called "divide" and why are you parroting outdated assumptions as opposed to being critical?

Well, of course the Nile runs through it, and we arbitrarily label the northern and southern parts of 'Africa' with the same label, so of course it was 'Nilotic-African'. But sheer geography says nothing about culture or race or ethnicity.

So first Africa is divided in two parts, then you are forced to acknowledge that the Nile erases any so-called "barrier" for human migration.  We're making progress. Now we must relieve ourselves from using straw man arguments and buzz words like 'race". As for ethnicity and culture, they shared the exact same culture as the A-group people from Nubia just prior to state formation. In fact, Egypt was unified from the south and the kingdom of the A-group (ta-seti) was incorporated into the empire once Egypt was formed and it was actually considered the most southern nome of Egypt. Everything started in the south as there was affinity towards the south.

Quoting Joseph Vogel:

"The period when "sub-Saharan" Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. ---Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472-

We would find it just as difficult to swallow if someone tried to classify all 'Asian' cultures and peoples together, just because they were/are 'Asian'.

I agree, which is why I didn't base it exclusively on them being African, though as stated, we all come from Africa and share African ancestry, it is just that some of us have more recent African ancestry than others. Meaning that native Africans, not being isolated or separated as long from each other as they have been from those who left and were trapped in the ice age for thousands of years, converge to form closer, more recent relationships as Africans.

 

I could think of a couple of other examples but they are minefield topics.

That's the problem. This shouldn't be a "minefield" topic. The facts are there and can't be disputed, it's just what some people either don't want to accept, are conditioned not to accept, or won't admit to, that makes a problem out of it. I genuinely don't see these questions as minefield topics. The question of race and how it should be interpreted is a question of social science, not history and biology. People have different conceptions "Black and White" depending on where you are, but I do sense the hypocrisy. Label the Nubians "Black" but don't label their closest neighbors (the Egyptians) at all. Doesn't make any sense especially when they were clearly related according to anthropological examination of early remains and culture. Putting myself above the fray, I will always however insist, that they, the Nubians, Ethiopians, Somali, and the like, were African and the same kind of "African". May be hypocritical that these groups are referred to as Black by the masses, but whatever. It's trivial. Thanx for your thoughtful reply and I appreciate that you didn't attack me personally.


Edited by Sundiata - 26-Jan-2009 at 18:01