Race of ancient Egyptians
There is considerable controversy revolving around the race of Ancient Egyptians. The tradional Western view holds that Ancient Egypt was a multi-racial society, with many historians reluctant to make hard claims about the skin color of Ancient Egyptians. Many Afrocentrists insist that ancient Egyptians were black African peoples, often emphasising that this black identity was strongest in early Egyptian history, but waxed and waned over time. The situation and evidence is complex and political. Firm conclusions are difficult to come by.
Obstacles in ascertaining race
Deciding the race of Ancient Egyptians is rife with difficulties. Race itself is an unscientific concept; skin color varies over a continuous spectrum of shades, rather than the handful listed on government census forms. No genetic test can classify an individual as black or white, and, likewise, using genetic markers, the world population can be divided into as many "races" as desired, be it five or five-hundred. For historical reasons, blackness and whiteness are particularly difficult concepts to concretely describe in western societies. Racist remnants of earlier times, such as the one-drop theory still influence the racial categorization of mixed-race individuals, and the question over whether non-African dark-skinned individuals are "black" is answered differently in different circumstances. See Black (people).
But, assuming that any given individual alive today could be placed into one racial category, the problems in assigning race to Ancient Egyptians still remain. The few Ancient Egyptian corpses available are thousands of years old and do not permit the sort of I'll-know-it-when-I-see-it racial categorizations common in everyday experience. Their bones and skin have often deteriorated and their bodies have been subjected extensive embalming. Physiological tests provide some clues, but none conclusive. Forensic reconstructions have produced images and castings of what King Tutankhamun might have looked like, but critics charge that some of these efforts have been politically influenced and have produced politically affected representations. Lost in the noise was the determination of the lead American scientist on the project that that any racial assignment to Tut was "equivocal".
Even if researchers could conclusively determine the ethnicity of a single Pharoah -- and there is significant agreement that several are black and that several are not -- determinations about the remainder of Egyptian society under his rule would remain speculative, to say nothing of the rules and subjects that lived in the thousands of years outside his reign. Much of the importance of Egypt lies in the contributions of its philosophers, artists, scientists, priests, farmers, merchants, local leaders, engineers, and artisans, their skin color is perhaps more informative than that of a handful of royalty. Though non-royal remains have been unearthed, researchers stand little chance of unearthing a true cross-section of Egyptian society, but in any case, most high-profile bickering has centered around the most logical icons of Ancient Egypt -- the Pharoahs.
Geographical and linguistic evidence hold some clues, but Egypt being on the border of Africa and the Middle-East diminishes their power, which would be more powerful were Egypt surrounded by peoples of a single race.
Objects of art depicting Ancient Egyptians would seem to hold tremendous promise. Paintings from many other eras serve as near-photographs. Unfortunately for the question of race in Ancient Egypt, the Egyptians seem to have been rather unconstrained in their use of color for skin tones. As with modern marble and bronze statues, Egyptian artists often seem to have valued the nature of the base media over the color of the subject. Many renditions of skin tone are a red ochre, which does little but frustrate any hypothesis. Additionally, color was often used in clearly symbolic fashion, as in the guardian statues in Tutankhamun's tomb. However, in some recovered objects, artists seem to have depicted skin tones in a lifelike manner. Compounding problems is the elite and religious nature of much art in ancient Egypt. Expensive carvings in temples and crypts may not reflect the reality of the majority of the Ancient Egyptian populace.
Beyond the scientific difficulties are the political roadblocks. Different factions have various motivations, some wholesome, some not, for claiming Ancient Egyptian heritage as either solely their own, or as the result of a multi-ethnic society. As illustrated in the uproar over the recent reconstruction of Tuankhamun, these forces can tinge debate and research.
Kemet -- "black land"
Among Afrocentrist authors, it is common to refer to Egypt as "Kemet," the indigenous term for the country, which means "black land." Traditionally, mainstream scholars contend this term refers to the dark, fertile soil beside the Nile, in contrast to the desert beyond it, labelled the "red land" by Egyptians. Afrocentrists, however, associate the term with Egyptian racial identity, pointing out that ancient Egyptians also called themselves "Kmemeu," or "the black people" and their subjects "Kemetu," or "the blacks' people." They also cite the archaeological evidence, particularly that of temple statuary, and the writings of Herodotus and other ancient authors, who refer to the dark skin and woolly hair of Egyptians.
Others argue that indigenous Egyptian terminology is best translated as "people of the black land," and that Western classical writers usually described Egyptians as a mid-tone between black Ethiopians and pale Europeans. Herodotus himself is clear that Egyptians look different from Ethiopians. Marcus Manilius states that "the Ethiopians stain the world and depict a race of men steeped in darkness. Less sun-burnt are the natives of India. The land of Egypt, flooded by the Nile, darkens bodies more mildly owing to the inundation of its fields: it is a country nearer to us and its moderate climate imparts a medium tone."
Linguistic arguments
Both Afrocentrists and mainstream scholars typically connect the ancient Egyptian language with those of various other African peoples. However, most linguists consider Egyptian a typical example of an Afro-Asiatic (otherwise called "Hamito-Semitic") language - a language group, most probably native to Africa, that covers North Africa, the Horn of Africa, much of Chad and Nigeria, and most of the Middle East. As a result, speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages are multi-ethnic and possess a wide range of skin colors.
In contrast, Afrocentrists commonly link ancient Egyptian with languages of the Niger-Congo family, virtually all the speakers of which are blacks. For example, Diop claims that the ancient Egyptian language has vocabulary in common with Wolof, while Théophile Obenga links it with Mbochi. However, mainstream scholars contend it is inadequate to list similar-sounding or possibly related terms in different languages; only a rigorous investigation using the methodology of historical linguistics, in particular the comparative method, suffices.
In either case, sharing a language does not prove that members of different societies had the same skin color or culture. For example, Spanish is spoken widely throughout South America, yet Spanish and American culture evolved in isolation and remain fairly distinct.
Geographic arguments
Opponents of Afrocentrism often argue that Egyptians belong among the Semitic peoples of the Middle-East, pointing to the fact that Egypt is at the extreme north eastern edge of the African continent, close to both Israel and Arabia. However, rather than being comprised of a singular people, Egypt also extends south into areas occupied by undeniably black-skinned people. Complicating the discussion, "Semitic" also defines a language group that also includes many black African peoples.
It is commonly accepted that the population of Egypt was, at least in later dynasties, a mixture of black African; Mediterranean; Semitic; and, even later, European peoples. However, these very categories are disputable and indeterminate.
However, skin color among various populations of indigenous Africans differs naturally. Today, a brown-skinned Fula is generally considered no less a black African than a very dark-skinned Nubian. Afrocentrists argue that the same can be said of Nubians and Egyptians. In fact, prognathism— a forward-slanting facial profile— is a key indicator used by forensic experts today to determine racial identity. It is important to note, however, that all aspects of the standard Africoid phenotype of coarse, curly hair; broad, flat noses and full lips do not apply to all black peoples, many of whom have relatively straight hair and narrower facial features. Paradoxically, while these peoples posses a range of skin tones and some diverge from the classically Africoid phenotype, they are considered no less "Negro," no less black, than other autochthonous peoples of the African continent— many of the Nilotic and Cushitic peoples of northeast and East Africa being examples. Further, these indigenous, black, African peoples of the Nile Valley all comprised in part—and Afrocentrists believe in predominant part—the ethnically diverse kingdoms of ancient dynastic Egypt.
Artistic arguments
In typical portrayals of Egyptians in their own art, from the Old Kingdom onwards they appear as brown-skinned (using a red ochre pigment). The tomb of Tutankhamun contained a box on which the king was depicted riding a chariot over black-skinned people, presumably representing Nubia. There were also walking sticks, the handles of which depicted both black-skinned and pale-skinned conquered adversaries, representing defeated Nubian and Asiatic enemies. Sometimes, such depictions of skin tones were symbolic, and the details of this imagery have yet to be fully explained.
There are numerous representations in Egyptian sculpture and murals spanning more than three millennia of individuals with dark skin, of faces which are broad across the cheekbones, with full lips and pronounced prognathisms. Such features are characteristic of a "Negroid", or Africoid, phenotype. The Great Sphinx of Giza may have these same characteristics, but the statue is in considerable disrepair after over four thousand years of erosion and at least one instance of vandalism.
Ethnographic murals
There are numerous images in which Egyptians are contrasted with non-Egyptian peoples. Like other peoples throughout history, the Egyptians seem to have identified themselves as an ideal or norm of sorts among other populations. Further, there is evidence the ancient Egyptians thought in terms of national identity and ethnicity; the modern Western concept of "race" was alien to them. During the New Kingdom, Egyptian suzerainty extended to the north as far as the Hittite empire and into Nubia to the south. At this time, Egyptian sacred literature and imagery commented systematically on differences based on these two criteria. This is evident in Akhenaton's "Great Hymn to the Aten", in which it is said that the peoples of the world are differented by God: "Their tongues are separate in speech/And their natures as well;/ Their skins are distinguished./The countries of Syria and Nubia, the land of Egypt,/ You set every man in his place."
This differentiation of peoples is later refined in the Book of Gates, a sacred text that describes the passage of the soul though the underworld. This contains a description of the distinct peoples known to the Egyptians: Egyptians themselves, plus Asiatics, Nubians and Libyans. These peoples are illustrated in several tomb decorations, in which they are differentiated by skin-color and clothing. These depict Egyptians ("Ret," or "men," often used as "ret na romé," meaning "we men above mankind"); Asiatics/Semites ("AAMW" or "Namu,": "travelers" or "wanderers," often used as "namu sho," or "people who travel the sands," meaning nomads or Bedu/Bedouin); other Africans ("Nahasu," or "strangers"); and, finally, Libyans, ("TMHHW", or Tamhu," a term for which several etymologies have been proposed). In all but one cases, the Egyptians are depicted as red-brown, wearing loincloths. Uniquely, in the tomb of Ramesses III a label identifies a figure identical to Nubians as Egyptian, the image of the Ret and the Nahasu are identical in every way, including dress. Afrocentrists use this as evidence that Egyptians were identical to other Africans. Other Egyptologists take the view that the artists mislabelled the images because the labels are reversed for TMHHW (Libyans) and AAMW (Asiatics/Semites) as well.
Analysis of mummified remains
Melanin tests
Afrocentrists also cite the results of Diop's forensic tests of melanin content in Egyptian mummies and of forensic reconstruction of skulls to prove their contention that the early dynastic Egyptians were black Africans and remained so in predominant part for millennia. Supporters of Diop's claims assert that similar tests for determining the melanin content in bones have been used by police departments in the gathering of forensic evidence around the world, albeit using remains thousands of years younger.
The importance of Diop's work cannot be dismissed, yet as with other evidence, melanin content alone is not definitive evidence of ethnicity. Ancient dark-skinned populations exist around the globe in non-African locales such as New Guinea, Central America and Australia and more modern populations exist on all continents. Scientific knowledge of melanin content of world populatioins three thousand years ago is miniscule, as few well-preserved remains exist and melanin degradation over time and in the presence of ancient embalming fluids is a phenomenon that has not been widely studied.
Cranial analysis and forensic reconstruction
The ancient Egyptians themselves traced their origin to a land they called "Punt," [1], or "Ta Nteru" ("Land of the Gods"). Punt is thought to have been in either southern Sudan or Eritrea. The ancient Puntites commonly were described as black peoples with "Negroid" features and elongated, or dolichocephalic, heads. In fact, an elongated skull is considered a racial trait of the black African populations of the region, and of certain Africoid populations, generally. In the classic "Negroid" phenotype, the skull is typically significantly longer than that of the Caucasian phenotype. Long heads are not unique to Africans, as some Nordic populations also are known to have long heads; but they do provide a significant clue in determining the ethnicity of skeletal remains.
Wrote historian Drusilla Houston in her 1926 work The Wonderful Ethiopians of the Ancient Cushite Empire:
In the inscriptions relative to the campaigns of Pepi I, Negroes are represented as immediately adjoining the Egyptian frontier. This seems to perplex some authors. They had always been there. This was the Old Race of predynastic Egypt—the primitive Cushite type. This was the aboriginal race of Abyssinia. It was symbolized by the Great Sphinx and the marvelous face of Cheops. Take any book of Egyptian history containing authentic cuts and examine the faces of the first pharaohs, they are distinctively Ethiopian. The "Agu" of the monuments represented this aboriginal race. They were the ancestors of the Nubians. and were the ruling race of Egypt. Petrie in 1892 exhibited before the British Association, some skulls of the Third and Fourth Dynasties, showing distinct Negroid characteristics. They were dolichocephalic or long skulled. The findings of archaeology more and more reveal that Egypt was Cushite in her beginning and that Ethiopians were not a branch of the Japheth race in the sense that they are so represented in the average ethnological classifications of today.[2]
Comparison to modern-day Africans
An interesting aspect of the recent reconstructions is their somewhat bucktoothed appearance. This form of facial projection, called an alveolar prognathism, with large incisors, is a trademark physical characteristic of many Sudanese, Somalis and other indigenous peoples of the region.
Scientific examination and analysis of skulls of royal Egyptian mummies across several dynasties confirm a predominance over time of sloping and dolichocephalic cranial structures and/or significant alveolar prognathisms and receding chins. Further, these characteristics, common to "mesolithic Nubians" as well as modern-day Nubians,[3] were prominent features in royal mummies of the late 17th and 18th Dynasties: Queen Ahmes-Nefertari, Amenhotep I, Queen Meryetamon, Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Tjuya (Queen Tiye's mother), and an "Elder Lady" thought likely to be Queen Tiye among them.[4] The controversial fair skin and hazel eyes of the French team's reconstruction of King Tutankhamun notwithstanding, Tutankhamun's prominent alveolar prognathism, large front teeth, receding chin and dolichocephalic cranium [5],[6] evidence extremely strong Nilotic— that is to say, black African— characteristics. [7] In fact, according to facio-cranial analysis, King Tutankhamun shared precisely the same distinctive racial characteristics specific to the Nilotic and Cushitic blacks of the region as his fellow royals of the 17th and 18th Dynasties noted above.
Genetic and Cladistic Analyses of ancient and modern day Egyptians
Recent studies have compared the DNA sequences of modern day Egyptians with that extracted from thousand year-old mummies uncovered in Egypt. More than 98.5% of the sequences match, meaning that the many alleles of genes found in the mummies actually persisted to this day to the modern Egyptians unchanged, despite that the fact that mutation rate of a gene under normal circumstances, migration rate, and also miscegnation rate would have lower the percentage of sequence homology to lower than the abovementioned percentage. This suggests that the genetic background of modern Egyptians are similar to that of ancient Egyptians. This result, at first glance, is a harsh blow to Afrocentrists who clearly see the difference between modern Egyptians and sub-Saharan Africans.
However, upon closer examination, the scientists then focused on that 1.5% allelic difference. Based on sequence homology and hypothetical cladograms constructed with sub-Saharan Africans at the base, with diverging points protruding out from the origin, scientists believe that the 1.5% allelic difference represent genes that are racial modifiers (note, this is used in a phenotypic sense, with no connotation to race as a social construct). Three dominant allelic forms of two genes were identified. Alleles mat1 and mat2 of keratinization gene, and allele bta2 of neural junction formation gene. It was found out that ancient Egyptians lacked mat1 and bta2 allels altogether, while highly expressed mat2 gene. On the other hand, modern Egyptians specifically contained bta2 and mat1 allele in their genome, but lacked mat2.
The function of bta2 is neural junction formation, and the bta2 allele form of the gene helps define the neural-muscular junctions and also junctions in between neuron cells. It is actaully a receptor for neurotransmitters. Bta2, surprisingly, is found only in higher primates, with highest genetic expression in Homo sapiens, and lower (about 15%) in lower primates such as chimpanzees and New-World monkeys. This in part explains higher neural activity of higher primates with higher level of bat2 in the brain and also in the peripheral nervous system.
Mat genes are keratinization genes which function in the formation of coarse body hair and also hair of the perineum area. Genetic overexpression of mat2 allele causes predominantly thick, dense black hair in the perineum area and also the formation of appendage-like structure near the base of the pelvic bone. On the other hand, mat1 allele causes the epilation of hair around the perineum area and also loss of the appendage-like body struture. By cladisitc studies and molecular clocking, it is found that Old and New-world monkeys, lemurs, highly expressed mat2 gene, with little mat1 expression. This is the opposite of chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans, which have high mat1 expression but low mat2 expression.
Considering all the genetic, molecular, and cladistic anaylsis, scientists grouped the ancient Egyptians with closer affinity to lower primates, while modern Egyptians to higher primates (note, higher and lower refer to evolutionary and genetic distance, with no social or any other connotation implied).
To answer the question whether ancient Egyptians are blacks, scientists then looked at the expression of these alleles. Based on genetic complementation tests and cross-breeding between homozygous recessive individuals and heterozygous genetic knockouts, they found out that mat2 homo or heterozygous complemented with mat1 and bta2 knockouts produced a striking phenotype of coarse body hair and tail-like appendage in newborn P35 (postnatal 35 days), while heterozygous bta2 or mat1 complementation produced fine or nude haired and tail-less individual (with 2% newborn showing defect in caudal development). In conclusion, these experiments suggest that ancient Egyptians were more primitive in evolutionary terms and phenotypically resemble greater apes from the sub-Saharan tropical zones. These also suggest that modern Egyptians are more akin to their Mediterannean counterparts in Southern and Northern Europe.
However, scientists were unable to determine the exact racial makeup of ancient Egyptians. However, based on the aforementioned analyses, they conclude that ancient Egyptians were genetically and phenotypically close to lower primates, which included Sub-Saharan Africans based on DNA complementation and CHIP assays (chromosomal hybridization immunoprecipitaion tests), and also evolutionary molecular clocking. Therefore, they suggested that ancient Egyptians were very likely to be grouped into the black category, and not the Mediterranean/European racial class.
Reconstruction of King Tutankhamun likeness
1500 years after the founding of the first dynasty and after centuries of miscegenation of the population of Egypt among various ethnic groups, Tutankhamun's father and others of the 18th dynasty show facio-cranial characteristics which are in conformity with an Africoid phenotype (see image of Queen Tiye above). Documentaries in 2002 and 2003 aired on the Discovery Channel in the U.S. provided strikingly Africoid images of both Tutankhamun[8] and Nefertiti[9] based on forensic reconstruction of mummified remains.
In the most recent attempt to put a face on the long-dead monarch, three separate teams of Egyptian, French and American investigators each produced a reconstruction of what they determined to be an accurate likeness of King Tutankhamun. The Egyptian and French teams knew the identity of the subject whose face they were reconstructing, the Egyptians working from CT scans of the skull itself, the French and American teams working from identical plastic reproductions. The American team, however, did not know the identity of the specimen.
According to a widely publicized press release dated May 10 2005, Zahi Hawass of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA), announced that "Based on this skull, the American and French teams both concluded that the subject was Caucasoid (the type of human typically found, for example, in North Africa, Europe, and the Middle East)." [10]
In a telephone interview with the Washington Post, Susan Antón, a member of the American team, described the specimen as "somewhat equivocal" and, contrary to Hawass' pronouncement, did not use the term "Caucasoid", or any other racial term, to describe the skull of King Tutankhamun. An image of the American reconstruction is available here [11]
![[11]](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41131000/jpg/_41131803_afp203bodywhite.jpg){kind=link}
"The decidedly masculine jaw was the giveaway, she said, although the rounded forehead, the sharp brow and the prominent eyes suggested a woman. Age was easy, she said. The third molars were in the process of coming in, something that happens between the ages of 18 and 20. Race was "the hardest call." The shape of the cranial cavity indicated an African, while the nose opening suggested narrow nostrils — a European characteristic. The skull was a North African." [12]
The French team's reconstruction has sparked considerable criticism. Detractors criticize the French team's decision to arbitrarily assign skin and eye color to the young king based on characteristics of present-day, somewhat Arabic, Egyptians. They contend these features do not properly reflect the eye or skin color of the average citizen of ancient dynastic Egypt, or of today's rural Egypt. Arabs did not occupy Egypt until the 7th century AD. Critics further contend that most, if not all, Egyptian artifacts which portray the Tutankhamun depict him with considerably darker skin, fuller lips, dark eyes, and a broader nose, and that foreknowledge of their subjects identity biased the French towards lighter skin tones.
Afrocentrists long have charged Hawass and the Arab Egyptian government with mounting a campaign to destroy and appropriate black African Egyptian culture.
The highly pronounced expressions of the classic Nilotic phenotype exhibited by the skull of Tutankhamun and the complete absence of any physical incongruity which might indicate the presence of another ethnic bloodline—such as a flattening or rounding of the skull (extremely dolichocephalic in the case of King Tutankhamun), which is evident in some royal mummies across the millennia— are strong indicators that the dark brown pigments used in most of the contemporaneous renderings of the young king likely closely approximated the monarch's natural skin tone.