Does anyone here believe that ancient egyptians were actually black?

Question

Does anyone else know about this?
How come the idea that they weren't has persisted? We call them Egyptians, when they called themselves Kemuts, or Black people. Growing up, when I thought of Egyptians, I never thought of black people. It took a black history class to change this idea!
Don't believe me? Take a look at some of the theories...

http://www.tehutionline.com/newpage29.htm

http://users.sunbeach.net/jrmoore/Black_Egyptians.html

Fascinating!

Of course, they later became light skinned after being conquered by outsiders a couple of times, but they were originally black, and still the great black civilization!

Maybe I'm not being objective about this; it clearly begs further research since it is such a sensitive topic.

Answer 1

There was a great range of physical appearances in ancient Egypt, much like there is in modern Egypt as the general physical characteristics have probably not changed all that greatly - there have been new population groups introduced, but most scholars feel that their influence has been fairly small and gradual and new population groups have been moving through Egypt since humans first arrived there.

The ancient Egyptians were African, as Egypt is in Africa. "African" is frequently conflated with "black" especially in the US and Europe, despite the vast range of physical appearance, including skin tones and facial features among various indigenous African groups. The ancient Egyptians had a variety of skin tones, roughly similar to those seen in Egypt today - that is, ranging from relatively light skinned/tan to very dark skinned, with hair that is straight, curly or very curly, noses that range in shape and eyes that are brown, blue, grey, or green. This is a standard phenotype for most North Africans.

It might be worth noting that many modern Egyptians are offended if called "black" - yet another complicated aspect of racial and ethnic categories and the way they shift meanings from context to context.

There was population movement into Egypt despite it's relative isolation from both father south in Africa and from western Asia that contributed in a slight way to the external physical characteristics of the general population.

Ancient Egyptian art had certain conventions for depicting Egyptians as well as other population groups. Egyptian males are typically shown as red or reddish brown, women in a yellowish shade, Nubians as black, and Asiatics as yellow. This may not have always reflected the reality of individual appearance as most of these depictions were not intended as portraits.

It's important to realize that most scholars in history and anthropology no longer consider race to be a reality in a genetic sense. Rather, we consider race to be a cultural construction and the definitions of race vary from culture to culture and context to context.

In the various reenactments of historic events in ancient Egypt that are shown in recent documentaries the majority of the actors are Egyptian. I've seen some these being filmed while I was in the field - Egyptian actors are less expensive to hire and filming costs are cut down by filming on-site in Egypt.

The majority of Egyptologists, anthropologists and historians will tell you that despite the Arab Conquest, modern Egyptians don't look all that different from ancient Egyptians, especially outside Cairo. It's important to note that most of the Arabs and other Muslims who migrated into Egypt following the conquest tended (with exceptions, of course) to reside primarily around Cairo and to remain fairly exclusive in their marriage habits.

The confusion comes in because of the history of the discipline of Egyptology and history, the history of European colonialism, and the history of the rise of Afrocentrism.

In the early days of Egyptology western thought was that white Europeans were superior to all other "races" and therefore a civilization like Egypt could not have arisen out of a black African "race." This lead to theories such as the "Dynastic Race" - an idea that the Egyptian state arose after the invasion of a separate race of people from Western Asia who subjugated the native Egyptians and became the ruling class, though they eventually intermarried with the "natives". This also nicely explained the features of Egyptians as shown in various ancient depictions which weren't stereotypically "black" but weren't stereotypically "white European" either.
This theory is no longer popularly accepted - nor should it be. Archaeological evidence does not support it, nor do most studies of human remains from the pertinent period of Egyptian history, though ascertaining "race" from skeletal remains has its own problems. Essentially, "race" as determined from skeletal remains is more of a continuum - as in, this skeleton shows a series of features, usually cranial features, that tend to stereotypically "*******," "Caucasian," etc. You can come close, but it's not exact, and it's not going to tell you eye color, skin tone, or hair type - the phenotypic features that most cultures rely upon to define "race."

In reaction to ideas like the "Dynastic Race Theory" and with the rise of the black pride movement, the civil rights movement and other social/political movements, certain members of the black community, especially in the US, have argued that the Egyptians were "black" which they usually define, at least in the US as looking like the majority of black Americans. In some of its most extreme forms, this movement has suggested that Europeans deliberately changed or defaced monuments to hide the "African" features of ancient Egyptians (which is totally ridiculous) and they tend to point to evidence of Egyptian "blackness" that is not really valid within the broader scholarly understanding of ancient Egypt.
The big problem with this movement and the claiming of Egypt by black pride movements is that it ignores the points of origin of most African Americans - slaves were derived primarily from sub-Saharan Africa, some distance from Egypt and in areas the had little or no contact with ancient Egypt. It also tends to treat Africa as though it is one huge cultural unit, disregarding the vast amount of diversity and individuality of various African cultures. It also tends to shortchange and direct attention away from other amazing African cultures, such as the cultural group associated with the amazing constructions at Great Zimbabwe.
Overall, the primarily problem with the Afrocentrism movement is that it tends not to meet the rigorous requirements of modern scholastic practice and that those who argue against their theories are accused of being racist, white supremacists, or of being part of a vast conspiracy to claim Egypt as a white culture. In other words, the proponents of Afrocentrism rely on ad hominem personal attacks on those they disagree with, rather than addressing their arguments.

As a scholar, I don't think the Egyptians were white, but I don't think that they were "black" in the common usage either - I think that they were Egyptian. I think, based on evidence from their own texts, artistic representations, etc., that they defined themselves as "Egyptian" in opposition to other groups. I don't think that you can apply modern categories with their own baggage to the past and I don't think that it serves any worthwhile purpose to "claim" an ancient cultural group as one's own without a wealth of evidence. I study ancient Egypt because I find it interesting, not because I feel that I need to support a modern social-political ideology and to be frank, at times I get a little tired of the ongoing arguing because I think that it distracts from the really interesting parts of Egyptian culture and because I don't think it should matter what box on a census form an ancient Egyptian would check. I say again, they were Egyptian - and that's all that should matter.

I'll add that the answer above pulled from Wikipedia is essentially correct, especially in the brief discussion of the term "kmt" - usually rendered "kemet" or "kemit" in print. Yes, it is a term for "Egypt" yes, it literally means "the black land." However, it isn't the only term for Egypt or for Egyptians from ancient Egypt. Nor is it clear that it refers to skin color. It seems more likely, given that the biliteral sign "km" probably refers to the Nile banks, to refer to the color of the fertile soil on the Nile banks, especially as the term "kmt" is often used in opposition to the term "dSrt" (deshret) which literally translates as "the red land" and refers to the desert. Such oppositions are common in literary and religious texts - the Egyptians played with their language in a number of ways. Puns are quite common, as are other plays on words that don't translate particularly well, but are clear to those who have studied the language. Thus, you have the "people of the black land" - Egyptians are the people who live along the banks of the Nile.

I think it's also worth pointing out that the second website you link to contains a great deal of information that I would disagree with, or, in some cases, find down-right insulting. The site in general is, in fact an excellent example of what I was talking about when discussing some of the problems with extremely Afrocentric presentations of Egyptian history.
Specifically, the writer says that whites who visit Egypt are called "khawaaga" - "foreigner" while blacks who visit Egypt are not, and are in fact welcomed as Egypt is a black African nation. All of the anecdotal evidence I've heard and many encounters I have observed suggests otherwise. Modern Egyptians tend to regard themselves as emphatically NOT black and there is a tendency to be prejudiced against individuals with darker skin, especially in the northern part of Egypt. Darker skin is associated by some people with southern Egyptians, who are regarded as "backward" - the dialect of Arabic they speak has a distinct accent which is also regarded as slightly backward. People from around the area of Aswan, on Egypt's southern border and people who were re-settled after the construction of the Aswan High Dam also tend to be regarded in a less than complimentary light by some other Egyptians. The stereotype is that people from Aswan are waiters and servants.
There is also a clear bias against admitting people from sub-Saharan Africa into Egypt as either refugees or immigrants, which, in recent years, has led to some very unpleasant encounters between the Egyptian police and people protesting their treatment based on their area of origin.
I would direct you to have a look at the collection of essays on race and ethnicity in ancient Egypt and Nubia: Race and Identity in the Nile Valley: Ancient and Modern Perspectives
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1569021791/ref=sr_11_1/103-0142777-6847015?ie=UTF8
I can't find my copy right now, but I do recall reading one of the essays - either the last or next to last in the book - written by an woman who identifies herself as an African-American relating her experiences in visiting Egypt. If I recall correctly, she had a few experiences of unusual/racist treatment in northern Egypt, but in Aswan (where people tend to have darker complexions) she claims that she felt far more welcomed and accepted.

While I am familiar with the term "khawaaga" in Arabic, I get the distinct impression that it's somewhat dated and hearkens back to the days of colonialism. The rough translation I'm familiar with is "honored foreigners" - it's not meant as a pejorative term, though it does have some of those connotations by virtue of being associated with colonialism. Most uses of it I have heard have not come from many Egyptians, but from fellow archaeologists in the field, usually in the context of making self-deprecating jokes about ourselves or colleagues as a group.
I have always been made to feel extremely welcome by the Egyptians I have encountered either in a tourist capacity or a professional capacity. As I said, I don't recall having ever been called "khawaaga" - I've either been addressed in English as "miss" or "madame" (Madame being a term used even for native Egyptian ladies of a certain age or status and/or married women, despite it's obvious origins outside Arabic). "Doctora" - another word that is not Arabic, but has crept in to common usage, especially on field expeditions, despite whomever it refers to not necessarily yet holding a doctorate, is something I've also been called, or by my first name or an Arabic name that sounds very much like my first name.

I can assure you that there is not a vast European-centric conspiracy among Egyptologists to deliberately mislead the public, alter artifacts, or hide evidence. I find such suggestions absolutely unacceptable. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. As there is nothing resembling even un-extraordinary evidence, I think anyone with sense can draw the appropriate conclusions.
This is not to deny that there have been any number of theories, suggestions, hypotheses, and reconstructions put forth by Egyptologists in the 200 years of the existence of the discipline that most modern people would find reprehensible. But what must be remembered is that those scholars were a product of their times and a product of the social, political, historical context around them. They interpreted the evidence they had available to them in the way that made sense to them.
When additional evidence became available and/or when scholarly understanding of the nature of humans, race, ethnicity, etc., changed, so have the interpretations made. In essence, we are all doing the best job we can with the tools we have available.

Answer 2

First, there are several periods of the ancient Egyptians. First, there was Kingdom of Kush which is located near/in the Sudan. This civilization was black. Throughout their reign, they conquered the kingdoms of Egypt. Remember there used to be two kingdoms of Egypt ( Lower/ Upper). Then the Egyptians conquered the Kingdom of Kush. All of this lead to offspring of color. We know, from artifacts, that great Egyptian leaders like Ramses II, "Tut," and Nefertiti were black. However, the Egyptians were eventually conquered by the Ancient Greeks and Romans. With this occupation, there we see the emergence of biracial people. This is why Cleopatra ( towards the demise of the last great Egyptian kingdom) was olive in coloring. Then the Arabs from the East conquered Egypt and we see the people of current Egypt come in all different colors. Plus, the British also held Egypt as an imperialistic country. All of this would affect the people.

Answer 3

ancient egyptians , in positions of authority , were arab type. a few blacks were also in the area.

black history revisionist want everyone to believe that blacks created the egyptian culture. it is not true , look at the ancient drawings on artifacts. they had black pigment colors available. the caracitures were not black.

there is no way that they could have organized, designed, and constructed something of this magnitude. they couldnt do it now , much less, 4000 years ago.

look at the rest of sub sahara africa. what is the greatest structure still standing? nothing. they were hunter gatherers herdsmen.

egypt is a crossroads place with great recources, the nile river. technology and militarily superior arabs settled the area thousands of years ago. they settled the north african coast from egypt to morocco. look at who lives there today. they built the pyramids.

Answer 4

They were sort of mixed like that region is today. I'd say that they were mainly Arabic looking judging by some of the photos reconstructed of them. As for > "why do people always assume that the ancient Egyptians were black?" 1) Its politically correct to think this. 2) Most of the people on here are American and most Americans think that, without exception, Africa = Black.

Answer 5

I think that because of their proximity to the equator, the Egyptians would have been darker skinned than they are now. I think the new pigmentation is derived from Arab culture. Because a lot (not all) Egyptians are Muslim, they could have possibly married with lighter, more olive skinned Arabians. I know in ancient Egypt the darker 'race' was the Nubians of southern Egypt.

Answer 6

Certainly no one who knows what he is talking about thinks that the Ancient Egyptians were "blacks".

The reason that the idea that they were not black has persisted is because they weren't.

What's particularly outrageous about the attempt to distort history in this manner is the tacit acceptance of white cultural values that it implies.

If you can't somehow prove that Blacks acted in the same way, lived in the same mode, and had the same attributes as whites then, you assume, Blacks must be inferior.

If this wasn't true then instead of trying to prove that "Blacks" built cities and pyramids, raised armies, and conquered empires people would focus on the values inherent in living in harmony with the land, eschewing unneeded technology, and valuing the family and tribal group above the nation state.

The "Cleopatra was Black" jive is just another expression of self loathing.

Answer 7

There is a lot of evidence to prove who the Ancient Egyptians were. It is not revisionist thinking, but it is getting back to the truth with real evidence and facts. Tut was red but had strong ******* features, the recent computer reconstruction is inaccurate because they did not take into accout fine detailed features which can be seen on his head dress bust for instance. Also his two chief guards were as dark as could be.

Israel came from Egypt and Solomon is described in one verse in "song of solomon" as having a certain anatomical part black as a raven, but it is mistranslated as hair ("bushy locks"; I am an educated student of Ancient Hebrew), people don't want to know he was black as could be. Also Joseph was not recognized by his brothers when he became second to Pharaoh, he probably became very dark when he was brought out of prison.

There is also strong evidence from mummies.

Also I noticed something about the statues which other Egyptologists have not appreciated. They are of three types, Black Basalt statues, Red Granite statues, and white marbel statues. White is rarely used and is used for Greco Roman period Egyptian royalty. The Greeks painted their statues to make them look realistic, but you have to use an undercolor so that it wont show through when painted. The Black Basalt statues must correspond to black pharaohs, the Red Granite to red skined people like King Tut. Other scholars have not figured this out yet, but it is inescapeable.

Now one of the oldest sites is the pyramids at Giza, and there is a complex there which used to contain many Black Basalt statues of the earliest pharaohs. So the earliest pharaohs were black. those statues have almost all be destroyed. People will do everything they can unwittingly to errase history.

The ***** peoples are not native to central Africa. The Tutsi came to the land of the Hutus and took over. The Akan settled in the region of Ghana from another location. The Bantu expansion occured from somewhere close to Egypt. 'Bantu' is the word for "people" in many Niger Congo languages. The Bantu expansion generally refers to all those people who are of a certain physical characteristic and speak a Niger Congo language (anything from Bambara or Mende at one extreme in the north west to Zulu or Lingala at the other extreme south.

The Coptic word for "Egyptian" language is tmntrmnkame, where kame means "black", ect...

I hope this is a good start. there is a Kemet group on yahoo groups and there is a peripheralegyptology group there which is also "afrocentric".

Dave

Answer 8

Most of the historians that depict Egypt as a nation of black africans are generally American afrocenterists that portray part of the facts, while omiting evidence that are just as releveant, but doesn't necessarily portray their perspective as favorably. Generally speaking, the academic world does not put much credence into the 'black egyptian' theory because of this systematic cherry picking of evidence to support a particular perspective by its leading advocates...instead of addressing the complete body of research and simply following evidence to its most likely conclusions.

Now, speaking of evidence, its extensive, and generally supportive of a non '*******' (for lack of a better word) racial heritage for the egyptian. Here are just a few of dozens of distinct pieces of evidence poking truck sized holes in the afrocentric theory of 'black egypt'.

* Investigation into the art of Egypt generally has the early egyptians depicting themselves as 'red' people....distinct from the white, black and yellow peoples they recognized.

* Research involving hair recovered from mummies shows that hair of early Egyptians had few '*******' characteristics, or more specifically, shared very little similarities to the hair structure of other black africans.

* Ethnographic murals. There are actual tomb murals where different peoples are depicted by the egyptians. These include specific references to syrians, libyans, nubians and egyptians...each with different skin tones and facial characteristics, each distinct. The egyptians, per such ethnographic murals did not depict themselves as black, but instead a reddish brown.

Addressing the 'black people' comment....

One of the many names for Egypt in Ancient Egyptian is km.t (read "Kemet"), meaning "black land". More literally, the word means "black thing": km means "black" and the t-suffix indicates an abstract noun formed from an adjective. The chief component of the word is usually a sign (biliteral km) depicting what is either a terraced bank of the Nile (the fertile black soil of the most hospitable part of Egypt), or the tail of a crocodile.

The use of km.t "black land" in terms of a place was generally in contrast to the "red land": the desert beyond the Nile valley. When used to mean people, km.t "people of Kemet", "people of the black land" is usually translated "Egyptians". The Ancient Egyptians occasionally called themselves kmm.w (read "Kememew"), "the black people", omitting the t-suffix.

For more information on numerous supporting studies, facial recontruction, geographic evidence, cranial studies, and much more, follow the wikipedia link. Its been meticulously sourced.

Also, in reference to the first civilization of Egypt being the 'Kush', that is tacitly and obviously false. The First Dyansty of Egypt lasted from 3100 BC to 2890 BC, rising and falling centuries BEFORE the first Kush state, established in 2600 BC. Further, the overwhelming majority of interaction between the Kush and Egyptians came a century later in 2500 BC when the Egyptians started to push southward. The two civilizations influenced each other, but each remained distinct....with the Egyptian civilization clearly preceding that of the Kush peoples.

Answer 9

any good history book will tell you that egyptians were in fact coptic ,certainly not ******* and certainly not white, also the were not of arab extraction either,they would have been closer to asian looking with tannish skin, there are none of these people left now as the arabs are the dominant people this is not a theory this is fact,

Answer 10

ancient paintings and statues from ancient egypt depict them as being dark skinned. It makes more sense to believe that they were black rather than white.

Answer 11

That is certainly a though-provoking question. They certainly could have been. I have looked at several sites on line as a result of reading your question, and the opinions seem to be varied.