...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Toby Wilkinson: racism and the Kushites
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by claus3600: [qb] @Djehuti '[Wilkinson]seems to be caught in a sort of schizo mind-frame regarding the Egyptians. He acknowledges via all the evidence that the Egyptians are an African people as he noted himself in his book Genesis of the Pharaohs yet he cannot bring himself to acknowledge that this thus means they are closely related to other African peoples like the Nubians. I've only read his Genesis of the Pharaohs and not his other works, and these other works of his seems strikingly contradictory from his Genesis works. I mean you consider the Egyptians to be Africans yet you disparage African culture. What is one to make of this?' Yes, although I haven't yet finished The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt, I'm in agreement with what you write here. When I first started reading, I got the sense that he was avoiding the issue of race and the identity of the AEs- fair enough I thought. There were however a couple of indications which I thought revealed his understanding that they were black Africans; on page 4 in describing the tomb of Tutankhamun he writes of the 'two life-size figures of the dead king, with black skin and gold accroutements'. I noticed that he didn't say 'blackened skin', or try to qualify why they might be depicted as such, i.e. using the black as fertility and re-birth approach. Elsewhere he also describes one of the Egyptian Queens (I forget which) as having the appearance of an 'African Queen' when in full regalia. He also desribes that when besieging a city, some of the Egyptian fatalities arose from objects being dropped onto their heads. He strangely writes that their tightly curled hair was unable to protect them. (Someone needs to tell Wilkinson that Afros aren't helmets!) However, there were other instances which fed the suspicion that there was some sort of strategy at work to separate the Egyptians from the rest of Africa. For instance, he cautions that we shouldn’t take Egyptian xenophobic propaganda at face value when it was directed at Asiatics, but that we should when it concerned Nubians. (p56-57) The suspcion that he is making an effort to differentiate the Egyptians and Nubians grows with his deployment of the historical record concerning the atrocities carried out under Horemheb. ‘More unsettling still are the scenes of prisoners of war from Horemheb’s campaigns in the Near East and Nubia, row upon row of captives lined up before the commander-in-chief to await their fate. With wooden manacles on their wrists and ropes around their necks, Asiatic prisoners are paraded, pushed and cajoled by Egyptian soldiers.’ However, Wilkinson informs the reader that ‘Even more humiliating treatment was received for the Nubian citizens of ‘vile Kush’, ancient Egypt’s favourite whipping boy. The Kushite chief was forced to prostrate himself before Horemheb while armed Egyptian soldiers harassed and assaulted his men, beating them with sticks and punching them on the jaw in acts of deliberate humiliation.’ (p310)From what I've read the Egyptians applied the term 'vile' to all of their enemies, but so far, I've only seen Wilkinson reference it regarding the Nubians. After reading this I decided to jump a hundred or so pages to the 25th dynasty and the section on Kushitic rule. In contrast to his understated approach regarding the racial identity of the Eyptians,and indeed the other Ancient peoples encountered in his narrative, Wilkinson immediately makes overt reference to Piankhi as the ‘black crusader’ (p414). (Maybe Wilkinson should be asked why he felt it was salient so obviously raise the issue of race regarding the Kushites?) He also writes that 'the ruler os Kush...earnestly believed themselves to be the true guardians of Egyptian kingship. This astonishing conviction was a legacy of New Kingdom imperialism. When Thutmose I had invaded Kush, he had taken with him not just battalions of Egyptian soldiers but also the High Priest of Amun. His objective had been not simply to subjugate 'vile Kush' but to convert its heathen inhabitants to a 'true' religion'...'Little did the Egyptians imagine, however, that once they left Nubia, their own propaganda would come back to haunt them'. (p414-415). I had been under the impression that concepts of Egyptian kingship had originated in Nubia. If my understanding is correct, then it would appear that Wilkinson is again attempting to create differentiation between Egypt and Kush, and deny the Kushites agents in shaping Egyptian kingship; whatever concerns they must have had, Wilkinson is trying to say, must have resulted from inculcation through Egyptian imperialism. His use of the word 'astonishing' suggests that the very premise of the Kushites' approach is outlandish and incongruous. Wilkinson also suggests that under Kushite rule, in the area of statuary, ‘there was a deliberate return to Old Kingdom proportions, the rather squat and muscular treatment of the male body perfectly in tune with the Kushite rulers’ self-image. The close-fitting cap-crown favoured by the Kushite kings also seems to have been chosen for its great antiquity. Yet certain features of royal portraiture were undeniably Nubian: the African facial features, thick neck, large earrings and ram’s-head pendants.’ He basically seems to be citing these 'African facial features'as a point of differentiation between Egyptians and Kushites. My reading over the last six months tells me that ethnically, the Egyptians and Nubians/Kushites were related. (Someone other than the racists here please correct me if I have misunderstood.) Wilkinson continues; ‘These kings from Upper Nubia were determined to present themselves as more Egyptian than the Egyptians, respectful of the ancient traditions. But underneath, they were foreigners all the same, born and bred of a fundamentally different, African culture.’ I may be wrong in my reading of this, but my attention lingered on the insertion of the comma in 'born and bred of a fundamentally different, African culture.' Here, Wilkinson appears to imply that Ancient Egyptian wasn’t an African culture. Had he written 'born and bred of a fundamentally different African culture' then he would be saying that the cultures of Egypt and Kush were both African but different. However, and again I might be over-thinking here, he seems to be saying that they were different because one was African (Kush) and the other was not (Egypt). I hope I'm wrong on this. Continuing the theme of differentiation, he adds that when the Kushites attempted to portray themselves as true Egyptians, it 'was not always a comfortable mix’ (p427) Lastly, paying homage to the enduring fascination with the Egyptians in the epilogue, Wilkinson writes; ‘Individuals and popular movements, too, have appropriated pharaonic ideas in pursuit of their particular cause. Akhentaten, to take just one example, has been co-opted as a role model by Freudian psycholanalysts, Protestant fundamentalists, Fascists, Afrocentrists, New Age spiritualists and gay rights campaigners.’ (p512) I'll leave you to work out whether there was any ulterior motive in listing Afrocentrists immediately after Fascists. [/qb][/QUOTE]It's official. Wilkinson is obviously one conflicted individual. From what you describe in his [i]Rise and Fall of Egypt[/i], it is as if it were written by a completely different person! I mean, his [i]Genesis of the Pharaohs[/i] was so ingrained in the African nature and character on the ancestral culture of Egypt and how this culture was not located in the eastern desert but can be found farther south into 'Nubia', that I am just befuddled. And no you do not misunderstand when you state the Egyptians share a close relation with Kushites and other Nubians. As a rule in bio-anthropology populations, especially in ancient times were usually closely related to neighboring peoples. This is proven time and again through countless analyses of skulls and skeletal material showing Egyptians' close affinities to peoples of northern Sudan. In fact it is because of such close affinity that believe it or not there are Euronuts who now try to white-wash Nubians!! Yes it has gotten that bad. Before, at least Nubia was safe as a black African civilization albeit a 'cheap knockoff' of Egypt as was once believed, but ever since the discovery of Qustul Culture in the 1970s by Bruce Trigger and the Oriental Institute showing origins of pharaonic culture, the mental disease of white-wash assimilation must follow. By the way, while it is true that epithets like 'vile' or 'wretched' were used of any enemy people of Egypt, during the 18th dynasty it seemed to have been over-emphasized on Kushites. Why?? Because not only did Kush plot with the Hyksos to divide Egypt between them but some years prior to that, Kush and her allies in the south invaded and sacked Egypt terrifically as can be read [URL=http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002341]here[/URL]!! The raid was described as so devastating, that Egyptian civilization itself was almost destroyed! So after the raid, the plot with the Hyksos was enough to warrant the wrath and hatred of Egyptians. Needless to say there was nothing racial at all regarding such enmity. In fact the Egyptians vanquished the Kushites with aid from another Nubian group-- the Medjay who became the military elite and police force in domestic affairs. Egyptologist Frank Yurco even postulates Medjay ancestry for the 17th dynasty which I'm trying to find more evidence of. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3