Sub Saharan origins for pharaohs (new DNA studies)

Status
Not open for further replies.
They would say the exact same thing

No actually they can't. The evidence that supports the ancient Egyptians being of ancient Saharan/Sub Saharan origin is supported by consistent biological research, linguistics, archaeology and cultural similarities and all of this evidence comes together to form one narrative which is why within the last 5 years academia has been coming to grips with this fact (check Keita's lectures at Cambridge and Manchester):

Using primarily linguistic evidence, and taking into account recent archaeology at sites such as Hierakonpolis/Nekhen, as well as the symbolic meaning of objects such as sceptres and headrests in Ancient Egyptian and contemporary African cultures, this paper traces the geographical location and movements of early peoples in and around the Nile Valley. It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cuhorsehockeyic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt or, earlier, in the Sahara. The marked grammatical and lexicographic affinities of Ancient Egyptian with Chadic are well-known, and consistent Nilotic cultural, religious and political patterns are detectable in the formation of the first Egyptian kingships. The question these data raise is the articulation between the languages and the cultural patterns of this pool of ancient African societies from which emerged Predynastic Egypt.

"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cuhorsehockeyic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cuhorsehockeyics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006).

The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)."--Anselin (2009)

--Dr. Alain Anselin (University of Antilles-Guyane) Some notes about an early African pool of cultures from which emerged Egyptian civilization.
In: Egypt in its African Context. 2009. Proceedings of the conference held at the Manchester Museum, University of Manchester, ENgland. Karen Exell (ed). BAR International Series 2204 2011 Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports

Their argument on the other hand doesn't even know where to start a narrative. Their argument instead seems to be more focused on derailing what they consider "Afrocentrism".

and how does the average person who doesn't really care that much know who to believe?

Believe me when I tell you that watching a debate between the two sides it's obvious who has the more credible argument.
 
It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cuhorsehockeyic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt or, earlier, in the Sahara.

This is nothing new.

However, the conclusion that "ancient Egyptians were black" does not follow from this at all, and is certainly not warranted by such evidence.
 
I'm early-twenties. I'm from Queensland though, which any Australian will tell you is quite a bit backwards. Not just on racial issues. The union my father was briefly a member of actually negotiated pay based on a person's race. Whites got the most, then Maoris, Negroes and Aborigines, then Eastern And Southern Europeans, then Arabs and finally Indians. Polynesians weren't accepted as members. Being of Anglo-Palestinian extraction, they had no idea how to classify him.

"Hey this doesn't make sense!" the union member exclaimed as the realization dawned upon them that they had been foolishly racist. They resolved to better themselves and their union and ceased their discrimination immediately.


Wishful thinking?
 
This is nothing new.

However, the conclusion that "ancient Egyptians were black" does not follow from this at all, and is certainly not warranted by such evidence.

You're right! The source just presented was not pertaining to biology but another indicator of their origins which is linguistics. The study proved that the ancient Egyptian language was essentially a mosaic of inner African languages as a result of the migration of populations of the ancient Sahara (best considered as Africa's old living room) onto the Nile Valley. It proves that the language that they spoke while fundamentally put in place by migrants from the Horn thousands of years prior to unification was later heavily influenced by the predominantly Nilotic migrants from the drying Sahara. So essentially it was a mixture of various languages spoken by black Africans.

Now as far as what they looked like, it's been consistently proven that they were biologically identical to Sudanese Nubians and other local northeast African populations. They were described as having "Negroid" cranio-metric patterns and tropical limb proportions. I don't know what else to call a population with "Negroid" skeletal morphologies and who practiced a culture and spoke a language stemming from black Africans if not black Africans.
 
For me, the interesting question is "How much of Egypt's Old Kingdom culture was sub Saharan?

Here is an exert from a popular book on the subject:

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. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
 
"Hey this doesn't make sense!" the union member exclaimed as the realization dawned upon them that they had been foolishly racist. They resolved to better themselves and their union and ceased their discrimination immediately.


Wishful thinking?
Yep. Though eventually they were forced to change, but only because there are so many Asians entering the banking sector that they couldn't survive without letting them in. So, progress, I guess?

You're right! The source just presented was not pertaining to biology but another indicator of their origins which is linguistics. The study proved that the ancient Egyptian language was essentially a mosaic of inner African languages as a result of the migration of populations of the ancient Sahara (best considered as Africa's old living room) onto the Nile Valley. It proves that the language that they spoke while fundamentally put in place by migrants from the Horn thousands of years prior to unification was later heavily influenced by the predominantly Nilotic migrants from the drying Sahara. So essentially it was a mixture of various languages spoken by black Africans.

Now as far as what they looked like, it's been consistently proven that they were biologically identical to Sudanese Nubians and other local northeast African populations. They were described as having "Negroid" cranio-metric patterns and tropical limb proportions. I don't know what else to call a population with "Negroid" skeletal morphologies and who practiced a culture and spoke a language stemming from black Africans if not black Africans.
There is no such thing as "Negroid." that term is literally five decades out of use, everywhere except in Afrocentrist literature. I have Semitic features, but speak maybe five words of any Semitic language. Linguistics is not a good argument for biological affinities, and using pseudo-scientific practices such as phrenology to determine ethnicity sure as hell isn't either.
 
I'm early-twenties.
Oh, so you are. Dunno why I didn't look at your profile to start come to think of it. I guess I just tend to assume that anybody who talks sense 80%+ of the time is older than me until informed otherwise. (Mebbe something that works better at 19 than 24. :hmm:)

I'm from Queensland though, which any Australian will tell you is quite a bit backwards. Not just on racial issues. The union my father was briefly a member of actually negotiated pay based on a person's race. Whites got the most, then Maoris, Negroes and Aborigines, then Eastern And Southern Europeans, then Arabs and finally Indians. Polynesians weren't accepted as members. Being of Anglo-Palestinian extraction, they had no idea how to classify him.
Wow, when was this? I'm guessing(hoping?) some time ago- not that it makes it any less surprising to hear about this after like 1970.
 
Meh, I consider studies like the one mentioned by the OP to be good at debunking racist nonsense. The trouble is when you go beyond that and start reinforcing the same assumptions.
 
Oh, so you are. Dunno why I didn't look at your profile to start come to think of it. I guess I just tend to assume that anybody who talks sense 80%+ of the time is older than me until informed otherwise. (Mebbe something that works better at 19 than 24. :hmm:)


Wow, when was this? I'm guessing(hoping?) some time ago- not that it makes it any less surprising to hear about this after like 1970.
Early 90s. Welcome to Queensland.

That's not true. I see Nazis use it all the time.
:goodjob:

Meh, I consider studies like the one mentioned by the OP to be good at debunking racist nonsense. The trouble is when you go beyond that and start reinforcing the same assumptions.
True.
 
There is no such thing as "Negroid." that term is literally five decades out of use, everywhere except in Afrocentrist literature.

Well actually the reference of this term was simply a description of it's use to detail early Egyptian crania in those multiple 50 year old study, and no they did not come from "Afrocentric literature" but rather peer reviewed studies often on the opposite front as you can see in the citations. Notice that I and my source put parenthesis around the word as we were simply using it to describe what the works of older research concluded. Now take away the terminology and erroneous categorizations of those older studies and what you are left with is simply data showing that the early ancient Egyptians cluster primarily with Sudanese Nubians and other black Africans. The data also consistently shows a stark distinction between early Egyptians and late/modern Egyptians. What does that indicate about the phenotype of the ancient Egyptians in relation to their neighbors.

Linguistics is not a good argument for biological affinities,

I explained the purpose of presenting that linguistic data in detail in the very post that you are quoting. If you want biological evidence then there is more than enough in opening post.
 
Meh, I consider studies like the one mentioned by the OP to be good at debunking racist nonsense. The trouble is when you go beyond that and start reinforcing the same assumptions.

Which is what and who is going there exactly?
 
That biologically discrete races exist, and that constructing historical narratives around them does anyone any good, which seem to be exactly the assumptions you're working with.
 
That biologically discrete races exist, and that constructing historical narratives around them does anyone any good, which seem to be exactly the assumptions you're working with.

In what post have I advocated for the biological existence of race? In arguing that the ancient Egyptians would be considered "black" I referenced the findings of contemporary studies, which cite older research labeling their morphological pattern as "Negroid".

Why is it only an issue when the ancient Egyptians are labeled "black" but never an issue when Nubians are given the same label?

blackphar3.jpg


If Nubians and Egyptians skeletal remains were biologically identical and the ancient Egyptians are not proven to have descended from the older Nubian civilization then why is it an issue to also label them black? A recent Nytimes article discussed this issue":

More recently, our own Western prejudices — namely the idea that geographic Egypt was not a part of “black” Africa — have contributed to the dearth of knowledge about Nubia. The early-20th-century archaeologist George Reisner, for instance, identified large burial mounds at the site of Kerma as the remains of high Egyptian officials instead of those of Nubian kings. (Several of Reisner’s finds are in the show, reattributed to the Nubians.)

In one of his catalog essays the archaeologist Geoff Emberling, who conceived the show along with Jennifer Chi of the institute, examines some of these historical errors.

“We now recognize that populations of Nubia and Egypt form a continuum rather than clearly distinct groups,” Mr. Emberling writes, “and that it is impossible to draw a line between Egypt and Nubia that would indicate where ‘black’ begins.”

link
 
Who said referring to Nubians as "black" wasn't equally stupid? Arguing about the ethnicity of ancient peoples is just flat-out stupidity.
 
You're right! The source just presented was not pertaining to biology

Niology does not concern itself with race, but with species.

Why is it only an issue when the ancient Egyptians are labeled "black" but never an issue when Nubians are given the same label?

Odd question. But it may interest you to know that ancient Egyptians had a specific term for "Nubians" to the effect that they were termed "black people". Kind of strange for a civilization whose members you claim to have been black themselves.

But to answer your question, it's not an "issue", it's a myth - comparable to the "Black Athena" myth. Neither are being taken serious by historians.
 
Odd question. But it may interest you to know that ancient Egyptians had a specific term for "Nubians" to the effect that they were termed "black people".

It may interest you to know that this is a myth...a Eurocentric myth which propagated alleged "racial" differences or "racial wars" between Egypt and Nubia (which were touched on in the NYtimes article presented in my last post and late classicist Egyptologist Frank Yurco). Donald Redford authored a book about the "black experience" in ancient Egypt based entirely on the mistranslation of the word "Nehesi" which lead to considerable criticism by other Egyptologist:

meaningofnehesi.png


Along with his clear avoidance of actually answering the question of what "race" the ancient Egyptians were. Notice how the modern term black being applied to ancient peoples is not a problem in this instance, or could that be because in this instance there is a subliminal and misleading insinuation that Egypt and "black" are mutually exclusive?

Egyptologist Mario Beatty does an hour long lecture on this misinformation and takes considerable aim at Donald Redford's book from a decade ago.


Link to video.

He presented these same points in the Egyptology conference held in Athens which he was invited to last year.

Kind of strange for a civilization whose members you claim to have been black themselves.

Kind of strange for you to ignore the anthropological and recent genetic evidence presented on page one of this thread proving that the ancient Egyptians were in fact biologically indistinguishable from those "black" Sudanese Nubians just to make moot counter points about a tacky mistranslation of the word "Nehesi" ;)

But to answer your question, it's not an "issue", it's a myth - comparable to the "Black Athena" myth. Neither are being taken serious by historians.

If it wasn't a real issue then it would not have garnered so much debate and dialogue over the last two centuries. If it was a "myth" then why does the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt validate that they were "black"?

"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons..."

"Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization."

"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....."

"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28 "

As far as "Black Athena" is concerned, the fact that some of the leading classicist scholars felt the need to write books and even participate in public debates on the subject indicates that they took the claims of those "Afrocentrics" seriously. None the less let's just stick with Egypt :lol:
 
Who said referring to Nubians as "black" wasn't equally stupid? Arguing about the ethnicity of ancient peoples is just flat-out stupidity.

In my opinion trying to pretend that race doesn't even have a place in a societal context (which is where I'm coming from) is not only "stupidity" but denial as well. Here S.O.Y. Keita explains the concept of race and it's relation to science and society:

Box1Summary.jpg


Notice the acknowledgement that in society the concept of race and it's affects are very real.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom