quote: The mentioned pottery and arrowheads, being interpreted as Nubian, needed further arguments which were provided by interpreting burials of several adult males, inside and outside of the Second Intermediate Period enclosure wall (are-as H/I, H/III, and H/VI-North), as Nubian. It was argued that the skeletal rema-ins found in some of these graves “show negroid physical features and are most likely to be identifiable as southern Nubians” (Bietak 2007, 19). Which features exactly is nowhere clearly explained nor written. The anthropological study of Karl Großschmidt and Josef Tangl, on which this racial and ethnical attribution of skeletal material is based,2 is until now not published and therefore not su-bjected to review of scholars. Nevertheless, this information is further used in the construction of the “Nubian” archers narrative:
quote: he problem is, as it was already mentioned, that the finds (pottery and arrowheads) are not contextually related. They do not come from the same stra-tum and are not found in the burials (cf. Forstner-Müller and Rose 2012, 200). It is also not clear to what does the term “Kerma” type refers to as no analogies from Kerma were ever offered.
quote: It all comes down to anthropological argumentation which seem to be in line of tradition of 19th century racial anthropology fused with nascent cultu-re-historical paradigm.
quote: One further problem with the “Nubian” archers interpretation is that the burials are not contemporary, resulting from several consecutive changes of the function of the burial area to a sort of a workshop.
quote: The skeletal remains in these graves are identified as “negroid” and “south Nubian”, however the anthropological report explicitly stating the method used to detect “negroid” features and south Nubian origin of these individuals was never published.
quote:These individuals were interpreted as “Nubian” archers through circular ar-gumentation; as their bodies were argued to be “negroid”, the finds of Nubian provenance were associated to them, and as the finds showed Nubian provenan-ce their presence was explained with the individuals buried in these graves.
quote:Therefore, the finds were brought together in a coherent narrative because they were from the beginning seen as material remains of a people in an ethnic sense. The pots stood for people, although they were spatially and chronologi-cally dispersed. The culture-historical reasoning is clearly the theoretical fra-mework behind this narrative. It was further strengthened with references to textual sources, such as the Biography of Ahmose, son of Ebana. However, as the Nubian campaign of Ahmose, based on the text at least, happened after the conquest of Avaris it cannot be used as a historical argument.Indeed, if archaeology of Egypt intends to become a mature discipline it needs not only to show how it can fruitfully contribute to our knowledge of Egyptian past, but also to show that it is capable of critically rethinking its the-oretical and methodological concepts. There are other ways of approaching ma-
Doug M Member # 7650
posted
Funny enough though this outspoken objection seems to be coming up in the context of Avaris in the Delta, not the origin of such terminology for cultures further south by Reisner. Sounds more like a rejection of the idea that "Nubians"/southerners were in Avaris.
Forty2Tribes Member # 21799
posted
^^ Really Doug. I didn't get that impression. To me Uros was removing Euocentrism and pointing out how Egypt is racialized, identifying how this dogma uses circular logic and deconstructing its flaws.
quote:The problem with the entry “race” is that even though the authors allow that individuals of different “race” could have identified themselves as Egyptian they accept “race” as a legit concept. It comes down to a view that everyone co-uld have identified as Egyptian, but at the end of the day it is nevertheless clear who is who (a “negro”, a person from Mediterranean or a European).
quote: What is usually missing in culture-historical archaeology is the explicit state-ment on why are certain correlations made in order to define an archaeological culture and not others.
De-colonizing historiography and archaeology of ancient Egypt and Nubia Part 1. Scientific Racism. Journal of Egyptian History 11: 19-44. October 2018Journal of Egyptian History
Yatunde Lisa Member # 22253
posted
Capturing the Complexity and Diversity of Ancient Nubia (Aaron de Souza)
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes: ^^ Really Doug. I didn't get that impression. To me Uros was removing Euocentrism and pointing out how Egypt is racialized, identifying how this dogma uses circular logic and deconstructing its flaws.
quote:The problem with the entry “race” is that even though the authors allow that individuals of different “race” could have identified themselves as Egyptian they accept “race” as a legit concept. It comes down to a view that everyone co-uld have identified as Egyptian, but at the end of the day it is nevertheless clear who is who (a “negro”, a person from Mediterranean or a European).
quote: What is usually missing in culture-historical archaeology is the explicit state-ment on why are certain correlations made in order to define an archaeological culture and not others.
I understand what you mean, but my point is I cant tell if he rejecting the idea that Southern Nile Valley populations were at Avaris or the overall usage of "Nubian" going all the way back to the Predynastic. All of his examples in this particular paper are based on Avaris only. So at best he is arguing against comparative anthropology to determine "race" at worst he is questioning the presence of Southern Nile Valley populations in Avaris in the Hyksos era. They are not the same thing.
The whole idea of "Nubians" goes back to the comparative archaeology and dating system of artifacts developed by Reisner and Petrie. And that is where they created this concept of "Nubia" as an assemblage of styles of pottery. That was then extrapolated into a "racial" distinction between cultures along the Nile using the pottery and other artifacts as arbitrary identifying markers. So in fully deconstructing the concept of "Nubia" one would have to go all the way back to the original system of comparative archaeology that is the foundation of modern Egyptology. So while definitely Matic is making some very good points and objections, it misses the heart of the issue which is the use of comparative archaeology and the associated dating and naming schemes for people and cultures along the Nile. "A-Group", "C-Group" and "X-Group" are totally arbitrary and meaningless terms that only serve to lump together different eras and populations as part of an artificial "Nubian" identity. Plus it also serves to break up the historic flow of history of the Nile going back before the Dynastic era into artificial "groupings" which only serves to downplay the shared history and evolution among all these groups. These same problems exist in the "Egyptian" cultural phases such as "Naqada", "Qadan" and "Halfan" which all imply or impose some sort of "racial" dichotomy on the Nile Valley even though all of these cultures are all in so called "Nubian" areas of the Nile, between Upper Egypt and the Second Cataract.
Of course Jebel Sahaba is used as an argument for ancient "race war" in the Nile valley in order to justify the nonsense that there were different "races" in "Nubia" 10,000 years ago..... If Matic was challenging the assigment of "Nubia" to remains and cultural artifacts at Jebel Sahaba, which is the cornerstone of the racial historiography of the Nile Valley, then I would totally say he was getting to the core issue. Not that his work isn't valid but it just doesn't go far enough.
My objection to the use of "Nubian" is across the board, not just limited to any specific time period or geographic area. And the usage of "Nubia" has always been as a counterpart to "Eurasian" Egypt. So when they start promoting "Nubia", expect them to start doubling down on "Eurasian" Egypt.
quote: The mentioned pottery and arrowheads, being interpreted as Nubian, needed further arguments which were provided by interpreting burials of several adult males, inside and outside of the Second Intermediate Period enclosure wall (are-as H/I, H/III, and H/VI-North), as Nubian. It was argued that the skeletal rema-ins found in some of these graves “show negroid physical features and are most likely to be identifiable as southern Nubians” (Bietak 2007, 19). Which features exactly is nowhere clearly explained nor written. The anthropological study of Karl Großschmidt and Josef Tangl, on which this racial and ethnical attribution of skeletal material is based,2 is until now not published and therefore not su-bjected to review of scholars. Nevertheless, this information is further used in the construction of the “Nubian” archers narrative:
quote: he problem is, as it was already mentioned, that the finds (pottery and arrowheads) are not contextually related. They do not come from the same stra-tum and are not found in the burials (cf. Forstner-Müller and Rose 2012, 200). It is also not clear to what does the term “Kerma” type refers to as no analogies from Kerma were ever offered.
quote: It all comes down to anthropological argumentation which seem to be in line of tradition of 19th century racial anthropology fused with nascent cultu-re-historical paradigm.
quote: One further problem with the “Nubian” archers interpretation is that the burials are not contemporary, resulting from several consecutive changes of the function of the burial area to a sort of a workshop.
quote: The skeletal remains in these graves are identified as “negroid” and “south Nubian”, however the anthropological report explicitly stating the method used to detect “negroid” features and south Nubian origin of these individuals was never published.
quote:These individuals were interpreted as “Nubian” archers through circular ar-gumentation; as their bodies were argued to be “negroid”, the finds of Nubian provenance were associated to them, and as the finds showed Nubian provenan-ce their presence was explained with the individuals buried in these graves.
quote:Therefore, the finds were brought together in a coherent narrative because they were from the beginning seen as material remains of a people in an ethnic sense. The pots stood for people, although they were spatially and chronologi-cally dispersed. The culture-historical reasoning is clearly the theoretical fra-mework behind this narrative. It was further strengthened with references to textual sources, such as the Biography of Ahmose, son of Ebana. However, as the Nubian campaign of Ahmose, based on the text at least, happened after the conquest of Avaris it cannot be used as a historical argument.Indeed, if archaeology of Egypt intends to become a mature discipline it needs not only to show how it can fruitfully contribute to our knowledge of Egyptian past, but also to show that it is capable of critically rethinking its the-oretical and methodological concepts. There are other ways of approaching ma-
Good reference. Interesting how these narratives automatically identify "negroid" remains as "Nubian" as if they could not possible be other, rather than simply Egyptian. Its the old dodge of trying to portray so-called "negroid" remains as something foreign, something alien to Kemet, "Nubian" perhaps but never, heaven forbid, "Egyptian." Its a way of denying or downplaying indigenous diversity in Kemet and the region, including insinuating dark skin to be something "foreign" in Kemet.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
Isn't all this part of the age old problem of identifying remains based on biases. In this case "racing" the remains, though another problem is "sexing" as well. And forget about the identification of artwork based on certain features, recall the debacle of the Giza Reserve Heads.
I'm still looking for the report on that Nubian Princess who was identified as such based on not only her tomb belongings but strontium analysis of her bones despite her "Mediterranean/Caucasoid" features including prominent nose.
As for the issue of who is Egyptian or Nubian recall the Kanya Godde study or the flip-flopping of Maria Gatto.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
We discussed the reserve heads of pyramid era Giza before. But as it pertains to this topic, many of these heads displayed "negroid" features which led to them being classified as "foreign" (Nubian).
The Origin of Civilization: The Case of Egypt and Mesopotamia from Several Disciplines, p134
So going by racial typology predynastic Maadi and Heliopolis was inhabited by Nubians too.
Doug M Member # 7650
posted
A big part of the problem specificially with Avaris is that it blows a huge hole in the theory that Aisatics overran the Nile Valley during the Hyksos era. They have found more African/"Nubian"/Negroid remains than any other kind of remains. They still have not found any "Hyskos" remains. Even though the Nile Valley is in Africa and was originally settled first from Africa, they still try to make it "shocking" to find African features in ancient remains there. Its just that this far North in the Delta everyone had been assuming that Eurasian features would more obvious among the remains. This is why they are going with the "blended over time" theory which is a way of quietly backpedaling on it, while still keeping it to some degree.
Swenet Member # 17303
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: We discussed the reserve heads of pyramid era Giza before. But as it pertains to this topic, many of these heads displayed "negroid" features which led to them being classified as "foreign" (Nubian).
posted 
