Thanks for your comments.
It has already been admitted by academics and scholars of the past that the ancient Egyptians were Africans: I think this is only SOME academics or scholars, and they were a minority
until the later decades of the 20th century. As late as the 1930s many were
proposing a plethora of “races” in Egypt ranging from Blackfoot Indian
to Australian. As late as the 1970s some were arguing for “whites with black skin.”
As late as 1990 the Encyclopedia Britannica 15th edition Macropedia was talking bout
"Armenoids" to explain away population segments in Ancient Egypt- a change from some
older editions which acknowledged a fuller diversity in the Nile Valley. The 1974 ed
for example cites osteological studies as to the "negroid" element among the fellahim
peasants of Egypt harking back to predynastic times. Some later editions eliminated this
acknowledgement. Some scholars before that even threw ancient “Caucasoid” Cro-Magnons into the mix.
A great deal of inconsistency and contradiction has clouded the work of Egyptologists.
As noted in one detailed 1967 study by Egyptologists Berry and Ucko ("Genetical Change
in Ancient Egypt," Man, New Series, Vol. 2, No
. 4 (Dec., 1967), pp. 551-568 ):
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is attested by the tendency in the past (summarised by Chantre 1904) to postulate
all sorts of improbable racial amalgams in Egypt: mixtures of peoples representing a singular
variety of groups (viz. Libyan, Caucasian, Arab, Pelasgian, Negro, Bushman, Mongol, Hamitic,
Hamito-Semitic- even Red Indian and Australian aboriginal) were alleged to have migrated into
the Nile Valley." . Indeed Keith (1905:92) complained that the literature at that time included
hopeless contradictions of three, six, one and two races."Berry and Ucko also note most Egyptologists in earlier years pushed a negro-free
line while producing shifting definitions of exactly what 'negroid' was. QUOTE:
"are at pains to disclaim any Negro element in the Egyptian populations
after the predynastic period except for the population of Sudanese Kerma.."
".. the basic weakness of all claims to distinguish or decry Negro elements on the basis of
metrical analyses is the absence of any rigorous population comparisons to isolate particular
featurers which can be described as negroid. It is typical of this unsatisfactory situation
that F.P [Petrie] 1928:68) although basing himself entirely on the original Stoessiger report,
could sumarise the Badarian skull material in terms which denied any serious Negro element.
(Berry and Ucko 1967) ================================================================================
It should be noted however, that father of Egyptology WF Petrie at times, recognized
numerous similarities between Egyptian and other surrounding fellow African cultures.
the Hamitic Hypothesis was proposed in the early twentieth century acknowledging that the ancient Egyptians were related or derived from north east Sub-Saharan Africans. The Hamitic Hypothesis as applied to Egypt actually more touted
a “Caucasoid” outside race, or indigenous “Caucasoid” not sub-
Saharan Africans.
The analysis of predynastic skulls and skeletal anatomy pretty much demonstrated that their was a continuity between ancient Egyptians and modern north east Sub-Saharan Africans. OK, fair enough.
Although their is no genetic correlation between north east Sub-Saharan Africans and Mediterranean populations On what basis do you make this claim? Says who? And what do you mean by
”correlation”? Can you be more specific?
it is clear that there are skeletal differences between west Sub-Saharan Africans, and north east Sub-Saharan Africans. As the most diverse peoples on earth, of course there would be differences
in various African populations. But they are all part of the range of African diversity
including tropical limb proportions. Whatever the diversity however, all are
are Africans, and as demonstrated in Egypt (Ruff 2008, Robins and Shuite 1983,
Godde 2009, Keita 2015, Smith 2002 et al) they are all part of one African reality.
The Afar man in the photo is pretty much proof of the different sub-races living in Africa. Doubtful. Please define what you mean by “sub-race” and the modern scholarly
justification for the definition and how it applies to Africa. Are Germans a
"sub-race" of Europe? If so, on what "racial" basis are they distinguished from
the Russian Slavs Hitler sought to liquidate? Please clarify with scholarly references.
Ancient Egypt was primarily a Cushitic civilization in terms of its racial character and ethnicity, Cushitic in modern usage is a language category not a racial or ethnic
one, so what you say does not seem correct. As far as cultural usage
most references to “Cushites” such as in the Bible, refer to dark-skinned
people to the south of Egypt.
the ancient Egyptians were culturally speaking indeed "African!" Not simply culturally, but ethnically as well, or in modern usage, “racially”
as well with a blend of peoples that varied depending on the era examined.
By the way, some credible mainstream scholars hold that in terms of the modern
racial categorizations used by most white Americans, it is reasonable to
label the ancient Egyptians as “Black.”
There really is no connection linguistically between ancient Egyptians and Niger-Congo speaking populations, but there are of course cultural similarities that can't be denied. There may not be a DIRECT connection per most modern linguists but there
are linguistic connections seen between Nilo-Saharan and Niger Congo with
some mainstream scholars holding that both are part of one larger macro phylum-
Gergesen 1972, Blender 1981, Blench 1995.
Others online have argued that there are such connections such as Asar Imohotep
who would have more information on his own theory- see Ads section, or
contact him directly for details, as he does not participate much here.
And you are correct that cultural similarities are in place, but not only
cultural but “ethnic” or “racial” ones as well to use the categories favored
by most Euro-Americans. Hence dark-skinned Chadic populations speak
an Afro-Asiatic language linked to Egyptian, and dark-skinned Nubians
speak a Nilo-Saharan language, but are ethnically the closest group
to Ancient Egyptians as most mainstream studies show (Godde 2009 et al)
This defeats the simplistic arguments of past years (and some today)
that try/tried to draw neat racial checkboxes based on language, where
conveniently, ”Caucasian” groups spoke “Afro-Asiatic” and “Negroid”
groups spoke ”other” languages like Nilo-Saharan. This was part of the
basis of the now debunked “Hamitic Hypothesis.”
I have seen some suggesting on forums like this that ancient Egyptians were possibly "Bantu" or "Nilotic" which is simply erroneous for many of the reasons already previously mentioned. I haven’t seen any regular poster claim that the Ancient Egyptians were
”Bantu” although it is possible some may have, or trolls may have appeared
to set up strawman supposed “Afrocentric” arguments. As for Egyptians being
”Niolitic” yes, they were, in terms of them being a culture in the Nile Valley,
based on the Nile River. Mainstream Egyptologist Frank Yurco for example
calls Egyptians, Nubians, Sudanics and others part of one Nilotic continuity.”
When people point out that the ancient Egyptians made racial distinctions, they often use the Egyptian/Nubian comparison as some kind of evidence that Egyptians were not "black", even though the Egyptians distinguished themselves from Libyans, Syrians, Cretans, etc. who were treated with the same intolerance and prejudice by the Egyptians as the Nilotic Sudanese. Its an old bogus argument long debunked, for the Nubians are ethnically
the closest people to the Egyptians as almost every credible study has
shown for the past 30 years. These long debunked arguments keep getting
recycled because proponents, particularly those of the racialist “HBD” flavor
are unwilling to accept the hard scientific data, as it defeats numerous propaganda
narratives they have a huge emotional investment in. But the data is what it is.
Aside from the data, others like Keita have pointed out the analogy of France
and England as like Egypt and Nubia. They are closely related, speak different
languages, have fought numerous wars against each other, have shared ruling
regimes, etc, but no one credible is going around saying that the French or English
are different “sub-races” or “sub-species”. It is only when Africans are involved that
a different, hypocritical double standard emerges.