posted                      

quote:

---

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Bruce G. Trigger Source: The International Journal of African Historical Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3 (1997), pp. 652- 654 Published by: Boston University African Studies Center


The aims of this publication, and of the related exhibition organized by the
Indianapolis Museum of Art, are to set ancient Egypt in an African context, "in
contrast to the tendency of universities, museums, and the popular media to view
ancient Egypt from Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, and European perspectives" as
well as "to advance our understanding of possible connections within Africa" (p.
15). Thirty-two short articles written by twenty-eight authors provide perspectives
from the fields of archaeology, art history,physical anthropology, Africa studies,
Egyptology, Afrocentric studies, and Classical studies.

The first section, on Early African Cultures, establishes the great antiquity of humankind and culture in Africa
and describes the African cultural setting within which ancient Egyptian civilization
developed. This is followed by a discussion of the origin of Egyptian writing and
by various sections focusing on proposed "Africanisms" that encourage readers to
see ancient Egypt "within a broader African context without adhering to the concept
of a unified African culture" (p. 17). The examples chosen generally relate to material
culture, which is more appropriate for museum display than are philosophical
and religious beliefs or social organization.They include mother and child figures,
headrests, depiction of the individual human form, ancestor worship and divine
kingship, animal deities and symbols, masking, body art, circumcision, and male
initiation. Finally a series of essays discusses relations between Egypt and Nubia
and the physical relations of ancient Egyptians to the biologically diverse populations
of the rest of Africa.

A significant feature of this publication is its inclusion of diverse and sometimes
opposing viewpoints. John Ray suggests that Mesopotamian influence played
a role in the development of Egyptian writing, while Frank Yurco argues that it was
of indigenous origin. Bruce Williams repeats his familiar arguments in favor of a
Nubian origin for the Early Dynastic Egyptian state, while Joseph Wegner draws
on historical data to present a crushing refutation of this suggestion. Arlene
Wolinski and Robert Bianchi debate the extent and role of masking in ancient
Egypt; the exhibition itself displaying a unique portable ceramic mask of the god
Anubis. S. Keita, Frank Snowden, Jr., and Yurco stress the biological diversity of
Egyptian and other African populations, while Asa Hilliard III and Molefi Asante
stress the blackness of ancient Egyptians. Hilliard dismisses "white"-looking representations
as atypical, foreign, and late. In other cases, parallel articles discuss
phenomena such as ancestor worship, animal deities, masking, and body art in
Egypt and in other parts of Africa. Yurco stresses that, culturally and linguistically,
the ancient Egyptians were related most closely to neighboring Saharan populations.
Celenko correctly draws attention to the outdatedness of the view that ancient
Egypt was a "mother culture" from which the other cultures of Africa were derived
by a process of diffusion. He also notes that many scholars object that a view of
ancient Egypt as the "jewel in Africa's crown" diminishes the undoubted achievements
of other advanced cultures throughout the continent. Historical evidence,
sometimes in the form of rock art, suggests that at least s ome of the Africanisms
being discussed existed elsewhere in Africa prior to their earliest attested appearance
in Egypt.

This in turn suggests that influences between ancient Egypt and other
African cultures were multidirectional. If many cultural features are attested first in
ancient Egypt, this in part reflects the better preservation and more complete recovery
of evidence there than elsewhere in Africa.
Egypt in Africa, despite its many positive achievements, is disappointing in that
it provides historical sketches only of human evolution in Africa, the origin of the
Egyptian language and civilization, the development of Saharan rock art, and of
Nubian culture history. This fails to document the legitimate editorial claim that
throughout all of Africa there have been "cultural accomplishments comparable to
the temples and hieroglyphs of ancient Egypt" (p. 18).

Coverage similar to that given to the culture history of Nubia for West Africa, Ethiopia, Zaire, and Zimbabwe would have helped to situate ancient Egyptian civilization more clearly
within a general pattern of African creativity and interaction While Cheikh Anta
Diop was right in protesting against the efforts of racist European scholars to deny
the African origins of ancient Egyptian civilization, archaeological research carried
out since the 1960s has shown that a simplistic Egyptocentric view of the origin of
African civilizations is as outmoded as Grafton Elliot Smith's (1871-1937) efforts
to derive all civilizations around the world from ancient E ypt. Greater coverage of
what is known about the cultural history of other parts of Africa would have helped
to clarify the African origins of ancient Egyptian civilization as well as the contributions
that Egypt made to the development of neighboring cultures.

I also was disturbed by the implication of a couple of authors that ancient Egypt (KMT) and its
people (Kemites) are essentially different from modern Egyptians. Such efforts to
deny present-day Egyptians their historical roots and modern Egypt its undeniable
status as an African country (something which is absolutely demanded for KMT)
seem to reject the progress that has been made in understanding African civilization,
ancient and modern, as a result of Diop's stimulus.


BRUCE G. TRIGGER

McGill University

---

Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

I also was disturbed by the implication of a couple of authors that ancient Egypt (KMT) and its people (Kemites) are essentially different from modern Egyptians. Such efforts to
deny present-day Egyptians their historical roots and modern Egypt its undeniable status as an African country (something which is absolutely demanded for KMT) seem to reject the progress that has been made in understanding African civilization, ancient and modern, as a result of Diop's stimulus.

---

Posts: 7094 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

while Joseph Wegner draws
on historical data to present a crushing refutation of this suggestion.

---

Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged |