Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Why do almost no European textbooks mention the fact that many historically significant Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Monday, 20th August 2007
Despite its geographical location,the known influence of nubia/sudan,linguistic and cultural ties/artefacts(that demonstrate "blackness")with the rest of Africa, European and American texts/ consistently either downplay or outright deny the African elements or roots of Egyptian civilisation. Why?
-
Message 2
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 20th August 2007
There is no denying the cultural interplay that existed between the communities in and around the Nile Delta and those further south, and nor is there in the textbooks either, or at least the ones that I have read. The military tensions and sometime belligerence between these two areas' people are also factors that played an acknowledged role in the development of Egypt as a 'super state' of its time.
But if you are looking for reasons why a 'black' influence was underplayed or ignored in reports of Egypt's rise to prominence you might start with examining the Egyptians' own record in that department itself. Modern scholars can only extrapolate data from the source material available to them, and while modern sensibilities might encourage a more favouritist attitude towards identifying Egypt as an 'African' (by implication 'black') culture at heart, the truth is that this is not how the Egyptians, through various dynasties saw themselves primarily.
My own belief is that ancient Egyptians, rather than being culturally biased against blacks (as many later Egyptologists undoubtedly were) simply did not see a reason to stress any information with regard to origin, race or culture in the formation of what became the homogenous whole of their state in its prime. This ambivalence does not mean that blacks did not play a greater role than might otherwise have been presumed, but nor does it mean that they did so either, and the truth of the matter is that Egypt, once control had been established over potentially troublesome southern neighbours, aligned itself very much as a Mediterranean power - its trade and attention focused primarily on the area serviced by that body of water, and its subsequent cultural evolution what you would expect from a North African country occupied with its links in that specific area, even today.
I must also say that I see no great evidence that the cultural 'roots' of Egypt lay to its south either, but plenty of evidence that the civilization borrowed heavily in its seminal stage from Sumerian and other cultures to its east. The truth, I imagine, is that it was influenced by all its neighbours, and overplaying that of one particular neighbour is not a helpful exercise historically. -
Message 3
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 20th August 2007
Despite its geographical location,the known influence of nubia/sudan,linguistic and cultural ties/artefacts(that demonstrate "blackness")with the rest of Africa, European and American texts/ consistently either downplay or outright deny the African elements or roots of Egyptian civilisation. Why?Β
Probably because the issue is very controversial and usually says far more about the writers of the books than the people written about. Most books simply talk about Egyptians since it's a neutral term and probably reflects how Egyptians saw themselves. -
Message 4
Posted by OldKingCole2007 (U9190432) on Monday, 20th August 2007
It seems to me that the question of race or colour did not seem to pre-occupy the ancient mind as it does today, certainly not with regard to the idea of any racial supremacy.
Instead there was a kind of cultural bigotry; those who weren't culturally 'Egyptian' were despised in much the same way that Rome despised those who weren't Romanised.
Of course Egypt was much more introspective than Rome, but all levels of society were naturally represented by Africans, Asians and Europeans to a greater or lesser degree.
But herein lies the importance: the idea of 'Africa', 'Asia' and 'Europe' would mean nothing to an ancient Egyptian; the world consisted of that which was 'Egypt' and that which was not.
Therefore IMO to put a modern emphasis on racial differences within Ancient Egyptian culture would seem to miss the point. -
Message 5
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Wednesday, 22nd August 2007
Doesn't one of the paintings on the coffin of an Egyptian pharaoh, show him throwing his enemies to destruction.
And parts of the painting, show the enemies were of a certain colour.
But when photos of this painting are shown nowadays, the photos usually have these parts hidden.
Why is that? -
Message 6
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Wednesday, 22nd August 2007
i take some of your points.However this is to ignore some of the words of Herodotus,the removal of the nose of the Sphinx and the work of scholars such as Van Sertima ,Cheikh Anta Diop.Much of the work carried out by these people was carried out from the 60s onwards and so are not coming from a "modern" or "pc" perspective. Have you ,or for that matter anyone else read anything by the authors I have mentioned.Most of the depictments of Egyptians presented to us come from very late in Egyptian history i.e after much racial admixture had occurred due to migrations and invasions by caucasoid/semitic peoples. Im not sure what the point about Egypt being a mediterranean superpower is supposed to signify. Africa has a considerable med coastline too!
-
Message 7
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Wednesday, 22nd August 2007
My whole point in effect is that ,that by including European and Asian influences and omitting ANY African influence in these texts then they are actually placing a modern hierarchical view of race out of context,and giving the impression that Africa cintributed nithing to this civilisation.
-
Message 8
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 23rd August 2007
Villmarce,
Perhaps it would help if you were more specific.
If you want to make a positive assertion about any historic period you have to present your evidence. Where do you find evidence of specifically black influence in Egypt ? -
Message 9
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Monday, 3rd September 2007
I believe the evidence that i refer to can be found in African Origin of Civilisation Myth or Reality?Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Presence in Early Europe/Asia The Golden Age of The Moor,Ivan Van Sertima.
One might also consider the Ancient History of Sudan as a point of influence.Pyramids of Sudan predate those of Egypt.
Il make an obvious point also.Egypt is in Africa. -
Message 10
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 4th September 2007
As discussed in the other related thread, one has to clarify that historic Egypt had only one sub-saharan relation and that was anything that was close to the Nile. It had also relations with Libya (Nubia) at that time scarcely populated by Nubians supposed to be of some % of sub-saharan ancestry. Of course historic Nubians had little or no contact with sub-saharans anyway. Now around the area of the south Nile (upper Nile for Egyptians), lived mostly the Ethiopians who are of course day-and-night different to populations from West Africa. If anything Africa is several times bigger than Europe and certainly has much more variations: now if I find impossible to term Europeans as "white" under the same umbrella then guess how much willing I am to brand all
Africans together.
If you want my view on the specific "worries" of US half-caste people then it is straightforward: what is the relation between West and central Africa with Egypt? A nice round, big 0. Zero. Nul, Miden how else to say it? Also there is little to zero relation between Ethiopians and West Africans - we are talking about prehistoric Greeks being culturally related to prehistoric Chinese just because they lived in the same landmass and had "white" skin colour. Impossible.
All that till now of course. Now if someone has some evidence that proposes the opposite let him bring it to us to study it. However, just relating the West Africans to East Africans and since east Africans had relations with Egypt is simply no argument at all.
As much as I am aware not many have ever tried to relate Egypt directly the Semitics or Europeans (mediterraneans) as it is obvious Egyptians were a case of their own. It is actually the Greeks that most tried to relate to. Hence, I cannot see why people are shouting in the case of Egypt about "hiding the truth and such". However, I do not see the reason why people of semi-western African origins would be interested to do so, don't they understand it is actually embarassing (as if saying the local cultures in W.Africa are not enough, and we have to find something bigger. Well that is exactly what several Europeans where on in the 19th century using the Greeks when they tried to explain in a pseudo-darwinian fashion why most of western-northern Europe remauned largely backwards in relation to much of the central-south of Eurasia. However, nor culture nor anthropology goes around the modern notion of continents. What is Africa and what is Europe and what is Asia was of little difference to Egyptians who drew teir wealth from the river Nile and had mostly outside contacts with Ethiopians, Semitics and Mediterraneans. Their whole empire had been a multicultural as well as multiracial one and fo course influeced out of all these elements. As simple as that. -
Message 11
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Tuesday, 4th September 2007
I think your argument is undermined by factual inaccurracy. Libya in any terms has never been cosidered sub saharan Africa. You also assert that Libya ( ancient or otherwise)can be equated with Nubia. Again this is incorrect as Nubia would be located ,if anything in parts of modern day Sudan.The Sudanese certainly would have had contact with the rest of Africa . Sudan is and has been a multi ethnic region for long time comprised of Arabic and various other black African groups. There has also been much miscegenation has taken place. The same is true of Ethiopia.It is fallacy to assert that all of Ethiopia is "night and day" in relation to the rest of Africa.
As for the assertion that Egypt has never been "europeanised" again I think you are at odds with history, as it is well documented that European "Egyptologists" did their utmost to make this link,despite the evidence they encountered.
I find it slightly disengenuous to state that you cant equate Europe with white. Their isnt a single European nation that doesnt consider itself ,even define itself as "white".
I have no idea of what you mean by worries of "half caste" Americans,but many will find the usage of the term highly offensive.
One example,and there are thousands , where you can find evidence would be Cheikh Anta Diop's African Origins of Civilisation , Myth or Reality -
Message 12
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 5th September 2007
Well you got one right only, yes in my above message I wrote Nubians instead of Numidians (a tribe that habitated North Africa, neighbours of Carthage). Numidians were mentioned as "black" by Romans but then that title was very generic back in those days and it was not yet directly linked with W.African tribes but mainly to skin colour. It is natural though to imagine that those NUmidians had some scarce contact with Sub-saharan populations and of course with Nubians.
Now on the matter of Nubians in Sudan, well yes they indeed would have contact with other groups around Africa but then the question is: 1) how often? 2) where these contacts extended? Cos see cowboys in the wild west had contacts with native indians but there was little contribution of natives to the US culture. Ok, bad example? Take the exaple of Greeks, we know they had contact with central Europe since Germanic tribes took from them directly/indirectly the alphabet (futhark, runes etc.), it is natural to imagine that Greek ships sailed up to Scandinavia long before Pytheas but then we have no records of all that and at the end of the day it is more than certain that proto-Vickings, proto-Celts and proto-Slavs played a zero role in the development of the Greek civilisation. Builders of Stonehedge are not linked in any way with builders of pre-Mycenean fortifications in the Greek area and have no relation to the later developments in Greece. Yet Greece is much nearer to Scandinavia than Sudan is to West Africa.
How can you imagine one Africa being culturally united when a much smaller Europe with 10 times better geography for communications being so culturally fragmented, it really escapes my fantasy! You have really to put that in your mind: culture and civilisations are not developing on the basis of the continents on which the people where living!!! The Egyptians would feel much more close to Semitics both in anthropological and cultural terms than to West Africans just as Greeks would feel much more close to Phoenicians (living in Asia) than Danish (living in Europe).
Egyptians could see as far as Ethiopians/Nubians and the latter could not see much further either! These people lived around the Nile moving up and down from it and went really far from it as often as Greeks went to Scandinavia. For one simple reason: there was not much to trade. You want proof of that? Well guess how much of Egypt's imported products where from Sub-saharan Africa? More proof? Well, though I am often criticising the wrong use of languages in such issues I cannot remain blind to the fact that the variations of languages in East-to central-to west Africa are so extensive that in front of them Greek and Danish seem to be one language (which is not of course!). People in Africa talked different languages from village to village and that shows among others 1 basic thing: there was not much interraction in most cases. The first lingua franca of the area were the Swuahili (spread by muslim merchants all over the east coast) which is of course basically Arabic.
And tell me what interaction could there be? There was no sea (like Mediterranean) to ease traffic, no river (like Danube) crossing the continent. You had dessets, jungles, lakes and mountains that largely hindered interraction and commerce between the groups. Asking why there was no international commerce around all Africa is like asking why there was no international commerce via Siberia.
In all the above discussion I only argue about how Egypt was a special case in Africa and was not a part of a wider African culture. The only two other african cultures it shared things were the Numidians in the north-west (at that time presumably nomads) and the Ethiopians/Nubians (who in turn had contacts with the Arabic peninsula and as far as India) the south with which it had relations ranging from enemies to trade partners. However Ethiopians/Nubians also were a special case and shared moer things with their eastern neighbours than with their western neighbours or their southern ones (in those times these were San-related people, Bantus were still in the central part of the continent).
As simple as that. Now I any case avoid to accuse me of racism or such, racists are those who try to label everyone else black. Also how can I be racist by calling people in USA of half-caste? Or is there anyone there claiming "true-blood" Hitler-style? Or are we blind? Or is it that I try to belittle African cultures? Quite the opposite. It is me that I am insisting that there were certain kingdoms in Africa since ancient times that at times got control of vast areas, built monuments of spectacular size like the long wall in modern-day Nigeria (said to encircle a vast area, some claim perhaps up to incircle an area comparable to modern France). However, these cultures did not develop an alphabet that aids commerce, bureaucracy and propaganda, they had complex structures but relied heavily on oral communication thus inheerently more prone to fall to looser structures soon after the death of a charismatic leader while interaction with the outside world that could stimulate further progress was minimum (even in the days of the Arabic conquests, muslims passed from certain routed but leaved the rest of the vast areas largely untouched). Above all, Africa was a huge continent and was habitated by relatively a very small population, exactly like Siberia or pre-columbian USA. Well that is why the first civilisations begun in areas were populations concentrated like in the rivers of China, India, Mesopotamia and Egypt (farming and cultivation brought commerce to international levels), in the thin peninsulas of Mexico (there production of obsidian formed the cultures) and the stripes of land and islands of Greece* (it was mainly the +3000 islands that pushed them to make ships and ships bruoght progress).
*by Greece of course I mean the Greek area. Greek state there never existed anything like that. Even in 1821 Greeks revolted to reinstall the Roman Empire (what we know now as Byzantine) but then Europeans (at the height of romantisism and dislike against "eastern roman empire") told them to better use the name "Greece" (obviously not for romantic but for political reasons). What else can I use? Balkan is a stupid name accidentaly given by irrelevant people that does not mean anythign to anyone. S.E. Europe includes lands up to the danube so it is not correct. Greek peninsula is a more precise hence in our discussion "Greece" means simply that.
So... how exactly can you relate any other culture of Africa to that of Egyptians? Perhaps African animism to Egyptian theology? The pyramids of Sudan? Well pyramids existed from Americas to China, yes even in Greece (not studied yet and of unknown chronologies, certainly dating in neolithic times). So where is the argument? We need many more facts and even so there are so many facts showing equal if not more interaction of Egypt with east and north that I do not think anyone could ever establish an "African-only" origin of Egyptian culture just to please some people with complexes of inferiority.
"""I find it slightly disengenuous to state that you cant equate Europe with white. Their isnt a single European nation that doesnt consider itself ,even define itself as "white"."""
That comment of yours I did not really understand. Fellow Greeks would never think of themselves as "white". They think themselves European only when alone, when they are around northern Europeans they find it hard to relate to them either anthropologically or culturally. Hence, Greeks do not think of themselves as part of anything called "white". Bulgarians also or Serbians rarely think themselves as being "white" if you call them so they will think it for some time and say "aaaa yes, you mean I am not gipsy or something well ok then I am white if you say so". People who thought of them as white where mostly those who had colonies, that means mostly English, French, Spanish and Portuguese then Dutch and Germans. I am sure that the first African people who thought of them as "black" were those who traded slaves with Europeans and of course those who fell prey to those who traded with Europeans. Tribes that had little or no contact never thought about being "black".
It is funny because "black" in the past was used to say that this tribe is of a bit darker skin than ours. E.g. medieval Greeks would call gipsies as "black" while African tribes of brown colour would call the darker ones as "black".
But then to a Greek like me all that is irrelevant. I have no particular complexes of being ""white"" no particular complexes against ""black"" or any other race, I am as much racist as my dog (it f* with any b* around, hehe!) and above all I have no syndrome of "guilty for slavery" since our nation had been a slave nation for the very same period and underwent only in the 2Γ th century a whole racial cleaning effort that oosted the lives of millions. -
Message 13
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 5th September 2007
Re: Message 12.
Nikolaos,
thank you for this.
Cheers, Paul. -
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 7th September 2007
Graag Paul, do not be harsh on my style, just try to put some passion in it, always good meant. People should not be vexed and should feel free to hit hard. Honestly in this debate I only fight for the view that wants Egypt a culture that balanced between Africa, Asia and a bit of Europe like Greeks balanced for example between Europe, Asia and a bit of Africa while Phoenicians balanced between Asia, Africa and a bit of Europe. Out of it one though may still get amazed to the extend that cultivation, production and international trade decided on the historic path of people isn't it?
-
Message 15
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Monday, 10th September 2007
The way in you inform me that YOU dont have any hang ups about slavery tells me everything i need to know about you and your established "intellectual " position. I find it incredibly arrogant that you assume that the only people that can consider the evidence of Egypts African influence would have to be descendants of slaves. In other words you think that people question the types of things that you have written because what? a few hundred years ago the west began the process of African exploitation?.There is no logic in your argument whatsoever and reveals your contempt for Africa and Africans. . From your arguments, which are staggeringly eurocentric, it becomes obvious you know nothing of the evidence to which i have referred.You should try to read the evidence that you are trying to criticise first and write something valid.You present no evidence,no consistent argument and offer up a whole load of esssentiallly racially biased conjecture. as such i cant be bothered to write any more. Anyone out there got something, considered,intelligent,or something based on evidence to say.
It is well documented that Nubians had trade contact with other parts of Africa including Egypt.. Meroe?
Greece is NOT so much closer to scandinavia as a matter of fact...but that was an irrelevant argument.
I never made a statement that Africa was culturally united . I made a point that Eyptian culture was influenced by other African cultures including what white westerners term Black Africa.
Oh so you are greek not white/What a load of rubbish. Any white person in Europe will treat you as a first class citizen and any Greek will treat a white person as more equal than they will soemone who is black i.e white compared to other "ethnic" groups be they asian or african. Indeed this is the precise reason for the glorification of Ancient Greece in the west( conveniently ignoring the fact that so much greek knowledge was stolen from Egypt)because without it europe had no seat of Ancient civilisation and no justification to go "civilising " the rest of the none white world under colonialism.When one understands that in actuality Europe was one of the last places to develop "civilisation" then the self projected veil of European superiority is removed. -
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 10th September 2007
Currently in the world the least racist people are Europeans and you have my word on that. The most racist ones are Arabs followed by African people, then by Chinese, Japanese and the rest. So just do not bother us with all that "blst" for poor "blacks" (what a racist title isn't it? it is you that refer to African people like that not me!). So I am now Eurocentric? People here that have read a bit more of my messages will instantly disagree with your statement. As I told you being a Greek gives me the opportunity to talk freely on such issues since I have no stupid "self-condamning complexes" about ""black"" slavery and such. Go learn history, if "blacks" became slaves it was because themselves were selling each other to the bitter end.... unless you do not admit that bitter truth and you really believe that 1 ship of 200 "whites" sailors armed with muskets (that fired 1 bullet per 2 minutes) was capable of going inland Africa and capturing from villages 1000-2000 slaves just like going inside a stable milking a cow - thus if you think so then you really believe in the overall superiority of ""whites over blacks"" then it is you the racist. Sit down, think and above all read a bit more on who were the slave merchants (I think cities like Benin means nothing to your selective memory/knowledge).
So going back to our issue, please how do you establish that Egypt had cultural exchanges with West Africa? -
Message 17
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 10th September 2007
So what about the """stolen""" knowledge of Africa? What means stolen exactly? Please enlighten us (and make us laugh more, ehhehehe).
Me racist? Or you? Tell us also your national affinities. I am Greek so what are you exactly?
DO not worry, I take it easy and enjoy the discussion I would like though to hear your views on how on earth did Greeks "stole" their knowledge. I had heard in the past that Aristotle had stolen the knowledge of the African library of Alexandria - which had me down on the floor laughing since all that took place in a US university and when a young student asked "how on earth can the teacher of a young boy steal the knowledge of a library from the city that was built much later on by this boy, a library that anyway was built much later by his successor!!! The student of course was accused simply as a racist. Nice argument it seems that this is your argumentation also here dear friend. Take care! -
Message 18
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 10th September 2007
I find it incredibly arrogant that you assume that the only people that can consider the evidence of Egypts African influence would have to be descendants of slaves.Β
But the truth is that a fair chunk of this theory does come from African-American historians whose views are framed by their experiences of the aftermath of slavery in the US. Just as white Victorian historians looked at Africa and saw it as backward because the people hadn't invented steam trains and then decided that black Africa couldn't have had a hand in the development of complex civilizations.
You should try to read the evidence that you are trying to criticise first and write something valid.Β
Villamarce, please don't take this the wrong way, but not all of us have the chance to read the books you've cited. When asked for evidence, it's generally considered acceptable to paraphrase part of the books and to present some evidence yourself. Message boards simply won't work if you expect all correspondants to go and read the same books as you've read. I've found comments on this thread interesting, but truth be told, I already have 5 history books on the go at once so won't be reading the books you suggest. In absence of evidence in your threads, Nik makes a lot of sense to me reading the thread.
because without it europe had no seat of Ancient civilisation and no justification to go "civilising " the rest of the none white world under colonialism.When one understands that in actuality Europe was one of the last places to develop "civilisation" then the self projected veil of European superiority is removed.Β
With respect, I think you're wrong there. Europe's civilizing mission was based on the fact that in at least one way, Europe was superior: European countries were militarily capable of fiorcing tehmselves onto African societies. Yes, they may have looked back to see the path to why this was the case, but European societies in the colonial period looked at their societies there and then and saw them better than African ones. It mattered little whether ancient France or ancient Ghana were great civilizations. -
Message 19
Posted by mrvillamarce (U9090930) on Thursday, 25th October 2007
You raise some interesting points and in future i will try to display quotes of the evidence I refer to.
However this debate in a way has proved my point.Most of the people in this country ,America and Europe find it almost mentally impossible to associate one of the cradles of civilisation with Africanness or Blackness..because they have been educated to believe that Europe is and always has been more "advanced" than Africa. In socio political terms this was most definitely not true in terms of the initial contacts between Europe and West Africa.
It is also a FACT that many of Egypts Pharonic Dynasties were indeed Black,blue-black,Nubian, Negroes including pyramid builders. These fact have been consistently written out of nearly all European education and history. Famously Count Volney witnessed the Great Sphinx pre vandalism, and described it as being obviously Negro and pondered what a travesty it was that the very people being brutalised by Europeans in the slave trade were the very originators of the sciences and arts that define "civilisation".The wipe out of Black civilisation as a concept was created to maintain the image of a Black man as an object not capable of culture or civilisation.i.e ideal for slavery.This is reflected in the replies on this thread where despite the evidence most Caucasian/Caucasian educated people cannot accept that 1Egypt is,WAS in particular ,African,2 had black rulers.
It is known that Egypt contributed vastly to the development of Greek ,hence western civilisation. The logical conclusion from here is that Black Africans ,(from an egyptian power base) have made massively significant contributions to Western development,knowledge,civilisation. The westerner has a great deal of difficulty accepting this because of beingeducated into a belief that civilisation somehow is the property of the west and by default caucasians.This is despite the fact that there were civilisations in Africa,China ,Indonesia and South America for thousands of years before Europe could make any such claim.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.