RESPONSE: Building Bridges to Afrocentrism by Ann Macy Roth
King Merenptah
By Ann Macy Roth
The original letter was first published publicly in January 1995, and submitted
for publication in the newsletter of the American Research Center in Egypt. At
the time, Ann Macy Roth was a Visiting Assistant Professor of Egyptology at
Howard University.
"Building Bridges to Afrocentrism" deserves a rebuttal to the misconceptions in
regards to the subject of Egyptology and the Afrocentric viewpoints.
Ms. Roth starts her letter by asking an important and frequently asked
question: "What color were the ancient Egyptians?" She admits this question
strikes fear into the hearts of most American Egyptologists and stresses the
discomfort many of them have about Afrocentrism.
Ms. Roth points out four areas of concern brought about by Afrocentric scholars
which are as follows:
1. That the ancient Egyptians were Black.
2. Ancient Egypt was superior to other ancient civilizations (especially
that of the ancient Greeks).
3. Egyptian culture had tremendous influence on the later cultures of
Africa and Europe.
4. That there has been a vast racist conspiracy to prevent the
dissemination of the evidence for the assertions.
Roth admits that most traditional Egyptologists recognize these contentions,
but do not understand the motives behind them, and so deal with them in a
counter-productive way.
The premise of this response will only deal with the question of "what color
were the ancient Egyptians?"
In the twenty-first century, it is important to first note that as a scholar on
the subject of Egyptology, it's repugnant that people of African descent or an
African world-view are being segregated into a category called "Afrocentric
Egyptology" and not inclusive of the main field. In order to build bridges, we
must deal with this major problem.
"Afrocentric Egyptology" has an International scholarly literature behind it
Roth states, but in America is less a scholarly field than a political and
educational movement. The aim is to increase the self-esteem and confidence of
African Americans by stressing the achievements of African civilizations,
principally ancient Egypt.
Ms. Roth states this kind of Egyptology has little to do with the Egyptology we
professional Egyptologists practice, and many of us currently regard its
incursions upon our field as a nuisance. Ann Roth further states: "by making
our classes more hospitable to those with Afrocentric views, we take the first
steps towards training a new generation of Afrocentric scholars in the
traditional methods of our field."
In her opinion, this will be able to correct and improve the argumentation of
Afrocentric scholarship so that the content of their movement benefits from
traditional Egyptology's decades of research and hard-won conclusions.
Ms. Roth addresses the issue of race and color of the ancient Egyptians by
first admitting that it had never occurred to her or most traditional
Egyptologists that the ancient Egyptians were any color in particular. Neither
black nor white seemed an appropriate category - they were simply Egyptian. She
states: "this view, in fact, is probably the one held by most Egyptians
themselves, both ancient and modern."
Ms. Roth contends the ancient Egyptians saw themselves as darker than Asiatics
and Libyans, but lighter than the Nubians and with different facial features
and body types than any of these groups. She bases her opinion on discussions
with modern Egyptians who admitted if they had to use the categories of the
modern Western world, they would describe themselves as white. There are some
exceptions, but few would describe themselves as black.
The question is: If the question of the race of the ancient Egyptians is
entirely subjective and political, then, why does it bother Egyptologists at
all? Why would we rather Afrocentrists "use Nubia?" She answers this question
by stating she thinks the reasons are largely related to the tenuous place our
field holds in academia.
She goes on to say: "There is no place for us in African studies departments,
which generally tend to address questions related to modern history and current
political and social problems. While anthropologists working in Africa may
offer us insights and models, the methods and concerns of our field require
more, rather than less, contact with scholars studying other ancient
Mediterranean and Near Eastern cultures. We have been too isolated for too long
as it is."
Overall, Ann Macy Roth admits it is impossible to build bridges if we
discourage discussion.
RESPONSE:
The frequently asked question: "what color were the ancient Egyptians" should
not strike fear into the hearts of "traditional and professional Egyptologists"
after decades of research and hard-won conclusions Ms. Roth asserts.
The question of race or color of the ancient Egyptians should be easily
explained without fear and discomfort, unless the motives of traditional
Egyptologists are based on political motives rather than scholarly and
educational reasons.
"Afrocentric Egyptology" is nothing more than a guise to avoid issues raised by
people with an African-centered viewpoint. Also, it does not excuse the
segregation or "Jim Crow" methods placed on Egyptologists with an African
viewpoint by placing them into a separate category from mainstream Egyptology.
Ann Macy Roth attempts to "build a bridge" with Afrocentrists by appealing to
traditional Egyptologists and making their classes more "hospitable" to those
with Afrocentric viewpoints. She suggests the first steps should be towards
"training" a new generation of Afrocentric scholars in the traditional methods
of our field.
I'd like to submit that the field of Egyptology does not belong to anyone in
particular which makes it hard to understand what Ms. Roth means by her
statement "our field." I'd also like to know what she means by consistently
referring to "traditional" methods of teaching Egyptology. Traditional is
rarely synonymous with objectivity.
Ms. Roth surprisingly admits that it had never occurred to most traditional
Egyptologists that the ancient Egyptians were any color in particular, not
black nor white, despite the numerous representations the ancient Egyptians
left behind in most every tomb excavated. Her opinion is the ancient Egyptians
are simply, Egyptians.
Her claims are based on a few discussions with modern-day Egyptians she claims
would classify themselves as being "white." It's important to note however, the
ancient Egyptians and the modern-day Egyptians are entirely two distinct and
very different peoples. After centuries of invasions and migrations into North
Africa, it's rather suspect to assume the two are one and the same.
Not only that, Ann Roth admits the ancient Egyptians saw themselves as darker
than Asiatics and Libyans, but lighter than the Nubians and with different
facial features and body types than any of these groups. The question is: how
is it the modern-day Egyptians see themselves as "white" if the ancient
Egyptians saw themselves as darker than both Asians and Libyans? Furthermore,
most human-beings have the same facial features (eyes, nose, mouth) and body
types (arms, legs, etc.), and to say differently is also questionable.
The Afrocentric viewpoints vary from one to the other, but many of us would
like traditional Egyptologists to address some of the cultural traits like the
braided hairstyles most ancient Egyptians wore, including the foreign rulers
who wore braided wigs, in relation to the Africans on the rest of the
continent. Roth mentions the few Egyptians with curly hair, but neglects to
mention the majority of ancient Egyptians who wore the braided hairstyle.
Ms. Roth claims the Afrocentrists motives is less a scholarly field than a
political and educational movement, and that our aim is to increase the
self-esteem and confidence of African Americans by stressing the achievements
of African civilizations, principally Egypt.
I'd suggest to Ms. Roth and other Egyptologists that our aim is no different in
this regards than most Europeans who assert the Greeks and Roman achievements.
Although Africans created other great kingdoms like Kush, Meroe, Napata, Kerma,
Axum, Nubia, Ghana, Mali, Songhay, Timbuktu and others, the great civilization
of ancient Egypt is also a part of Africa and rightfully belongs to the history
of Africans.
Not only that, Ms. Roth seems to be void of knowledge concerning the many
different scholars in the field of Egyptology who assert the ancient Egyptians
to be from an African substratum. To say our contributions are less scholarly
is not very truthful in my opinion, at all.
Author: kingme...@aol.com
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
soc.history.ancient, wrote the following:
>Building Bridges to Afrocentrism: A Letter to My Egyptological Colleagues
>By Ann Macy Roth
It would have been better, IMO, to merely post in full what Dr.l Roth
wrote than merely paraphrase her (badly) and misrepresent what she said.
Here is a quote from her original article on the issue of "Egyptians as
black," for example:
"Race, then, is essentially a social concept, native to the society in
which one lives. It is anachronistic to argue that the ancient Egyptians
belonged to one race or another based on our own contemporary social
categories, and it is equally unjustifiable to apply the social
categories of modern Egypt or of ancient Greece or any other society,
although all of these questions are interesting and worthy of study on
their own. The results tell us nothing about Egyptian society, culture
and history, which is after all, what we are interested in.
This is not, however, what the Afrocentrist Egyptologists are interested
in. They want to show that according to modern Western categories, the
ancient Egyptians would have been regarded as black. This approach is
not invalidated by the cultural limitations of racial designations just
outlined, because it is an attempt to combat a distinct modern, Western
tradition of racist argument, a tradition which has the effect of
limiting the aspirations of young African-Americans and deprecating the
achievements of their ancestors. This argument contends that black
peoples (that is, peoples that we would describe as black) have never
achieved, on their own, a satisfactory civilization, and by extension
can never achieve anything of much value. 'Look at Africa today,' argue
the adherents of this notion, ignoring the added burdens imposed by
economic exploitation, cultural imperialism, and a colonial past on most
African nations, and ignoring the African states which do not appear
regularly in the newspapers. 'Look at history,' they add, discounting
Egypt as part of the Near East and ignoring (generally through
ignorance) the other great African cultures."
Herr full article can be found at
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Articles_Gen/afrocent_roth.html
>I'd like to submit that the field of Egyptology does not belong to anyone in
>particular which makes it hard to understand what Ms. Roth means by her
>statement "our field." I'd also like to know what she means by consistently
>referring to "traditional" methods of teaching Egyptology. Traditional is
>rarely synonymous with objectivity.
Egyptology is a discipline just as archaeology, sociology, anthropology,
etc. It has specific methods of investigation and research, topical
specializations, etc. which are required of its students to master
before being recognised as trained Egyptologists. If a chosen
profession from the baccalaureate level, the discipline requires well
over 10-15 years' educational training before one is able to secure the
highest degree level in the topic, which almost always includes some
field work in Egypt for the doctoral level.
It also means learning in cross-disciplines as well - archaeology,
anthropology, biology, forensics, linguistics, art history, philosophy,
religion, museology, etc. One rarely can master in all
cross-disciplines, but one must be continuously cognizant of the work in
all of these fields as it relates to Egyptological studies.
>It's important to note however, the
>ancient Egyptians and the modern-day Egyptians are entirely two distinct and
>very different peoples. After centuries of invasions and migrations into North
>Africa, it's rather suspect to assume the two are one and the same.
Not according to genetic and biological studies. The best known
articles on the issue are:
Borgognini-Tarli, S. M., and G. Paoli, 1982. Survey on Paleoserological
studies. Homo 33(2), 69-85 (Serological studies of ancient and modern
Egyptians indicating they are the same population).
El-Batrawi, A. D., 1946. The Racial History of Egypt and Nubia, Part II:
The Racial Relationships of the Ancient and Modern Populations of Egypt
and Nubia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great
Britain and Ireland 76: 131-56. [Noting the modern Egyptian population
when compared to ancient population as a whole are the same
population].
Keita, S. O. Y. 1996. The Diversity of Indigenous Africans. In Theodore
Celenko, (ed.) _Egypt in Africa_: 103-104. Indianapolis Museum of Art:
Indianapolis. (genetic studies)
who noted:
"...Admixture with non-Africans probably does not explain the bulk of
variation from Algeria to South Africa, although Northern Africa was
more affected in this regard. At the DNA level great African
continent-wide diversity preceded the minor European and Near Eastern
migrations of later Holocene times...Even 'new' 'non-African' genes
would be subject to the human and physical environment of Africa and
hence would become reworked, thereby becoming part of the African
biohistory, just as recent tropical African genes have been processed in
Greece, Sicily and Portugal. In any case, it is important to reiterate
that Africa equals diversity. Evolutionary theory predicts and
extrapolations from molecular analyses and skeletal remains all indicate
an early and ongoing diversity in the indigenous populations of Africa.
The implication of this is the terms like 'Negro,' 'Caucasian,'
'Hamite,' etc. are misleading and unscientific as applied to Africa."
A position supported by Krings' work in
Krings M, et al. 1999. mtDNA Analysis of Nile River Valley Populations:
A Genetic Corridor or a Barrier to Migration? American Journal of Human
Genetics 64(4):1166-1176.
Quote:
"Another advantage of studying the Nile River Valley populations is that
the long and comprehensive written record of Egyptian history, going
back 15,000 years, affords the rare opportunity to compare migrations
inferred from genetic evidence with documented events. Moreover, the
existence of large quantities of ancient skeletal and mummified remains
from the Nile River Valley offers the potential, via ancient-DNA
analysis, for investigation of temporal variation in migration patterns.
Although the potential of the Nile River Valley to serve as a corridor
for human migration seems obvious, some archeological evidence suggests,
instead, that there was a significant and long-standing frontier zone
between the northern and southern states in Lower Nubia (Alexander
1988). Moreover, the human populations distributed along the length of
the Nile River Valley do exhibit cultural and linguistic differences
(Grimes 1996). Egypt, at the northern end of the Nile, is one of the
oldest known centralized states in the world; both ancient Egyptian
and Arabic (spoken today in Egypt) are Afro-Asiatic languages.
<...>
In addition, comparison with the large amount of existing data on human
mtDNA variation enables us to confidently assign mtDNA types in Nile
River Valley populations to northern (Eurasian) or southern (sub-Saharan
African) affiliation and to use this information to infer migrations.
Given the cultural and linguistic differences that exist between
Egyptian, Nubian, and southern Sudanese populations, the question that
we address here is whether the Nile River Valley has been a corridor or
a cul-de-sac for human migrations.
The spatial autocorrelation analysis thus indicates that at least one
migration has occurred along the Nile River Valley, although this
analysis does not indicate the direction(s) of the migration(s).
However, the overall trends in mtDNA diversity in particular, the
finding of(1) both northern and southern mtDNA types in all three
Nile River Valley populations and (2) both the highest diversity of
northern mtDNA types at the northern end of the Nile River Valley and
the highest diversity of southern mtDNA types at the southern end of the
Nile River Valley suggest that migrations have occurred both from north
to south and from south to north along the Nile River Valley.
<...>
Nonetheless, we can infer that the migration of northern mtDNA types to
the south is older than the migration of southern mtDNA types to the
north (or that there has been less gene flow from north to south than
from south to north along the Nile River Valley) and that Egypt and
Nubia have had more genetic contact than either has had with the
southern Sudan. Moreover, we can tentatively infer that these migrations
occurred recently enough to fall within the period of the documented
historical record of human populations in the Nile River Valley. Thus,
it is tempting to try to relate these migrations to specific historical
events (Shaw and Nicholson 1995). For example, the migration from
north to south may coincide with the Pharaonic colonization of Nubia,
which occurred initially during the Middle Kingdom (12th Dynasty,
1991-1785 B.C.) and more permanently during the New Kingdom, from the
reign of Thotmosis III (1490-1437 B.C.). The migration from south to
north may coincide with the 25th Dynasty (730-655 B.C.), when kings from
Napata in Nubia conquered Egypt. Of course, additional migrations docu-
mented during the Ptolemaic, Roman, and Arabic times are also likely to
have contributed to the current distribution of mtDNA types along the
Nile River Valley."
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon)
Member, International Association of Egyptologists
American Research Center in Egypt, ASOR, EES, SSEA
Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom
tahar...@gmail.com
The problem is that in documentaries involving re-enactments and reconstructions they always try to show the ancient Egyptians as some sort of "exotic" tanned white race. Why not accept the Ancient Egyptians and Nubians were physically similar being that they are biologically related? Also, their are depictions where Egyptians and Nubians are shown with the same physical features and skin complexion. Egyptologists often try to use Nubia as a 'true black' opposition of ancient Egypt, which is disturbing.
Modern 'racial' terms are not biologically valid, no arguement there. However, Egyptian portrayals of themselves that were physical (not symbolic) are very similar to the various shades embraced by African-Americans and others in the African diaspora (i.e. the Caribbean). However, I find Egyptologists are afraid to draw such parallels and would rather treat Egyptians as 'Egyptians' to avoid saying that they were 'non black'. It is not too far fetched to suggest the Egyptian portrayals of themselves - in terms of physical appearance - are related, best, to people who are labelled 'black'. Also, in Greek and Roman perceptions the Egyptians were often described as 'black' and 'brown' and 'dark'. Therefore, Egyptians should not be depicted as an 'exotic tanned white people'. Egyptologists must emphasize its Africaness and documentaries and reconstructions should not use light complexioned figures, but dark skin complexions only (dark is variant). For a better idea, Michael Jackson's "remember the time" video is a perfect example of how the ancient Egyptians should be portrayed in documentaries.
I think a more nuanced and superior approach is taken by Egyptologist Sally Ann Ashton because she engages the Afrocentric community.