Ancient Egypt and White Nationalism: The Co-option of Egyptian Identity | Tucaksegee Valley Historical Review
Ancient Egypt and White Nationalism: The Co-option of Egyptian Identity | Tucaksegee Valley Historical Review Home Spring 2021 Spring 2020 Spring 2019 Select Page Home Spring 2021 Spring 2020 Spring 2019 Ancient Egypt and White Nationalism: The Co-option of Egyptian Identity Zachary Morgan, Western Carolina University Ancient Egyptian civilization. Just these simple words conjure a bombardment of imagery to any reader: from massive pyramids, noble Sphinxes, and regal pharaohs with wealth unimaginable. The history and culture of Egypt has always been a source of fascination with academics and the public alike, and for good reason.1 Ancient Egypt is universally recognized as one of the premier civilizations of the Ancient world and an outlier to the common narrative of the West being the foundation of civilization. Because of this, interpretations of the biological racial identity of Ancient Egypt have played a critical role in forming various ethnic, cultural, and political groups’ perception of their heritage and identity.2 This has led to conscious attempts of these groups to claim the legacy of Egypt as their own through a variety of methods, creating uses and abuses of history that have been directly linked to the political and cultural concerns of the time. Considering that the claim of this paper is to support the idea that Egyptian history has been critical in creating heritage and national identity throughout history, for both white nationalists and African/African American activists, the periodization covered by this paper will be quite long. Analysis will begin by examining ancient sources that the Egyptians themselves left behind. This will be an attempt to capture as accurate an understanding as possible of how the Egyptians viewed themselves, to make more obvious the abuses that occurred later. Most historiography on ancient Egypt suggests that Egyptians were well aware of the “skin color” differences of their time, a fact which would be utilized by white nationalists to support an xenophobia against many of the races that would attempt to claim them.3 This did not stop white and black groups from both attempting to claim the legacy of Egypt, however, especially in America as it began to move towards Civil War. The next section of this paper will focus on the historiography of the Civil War era, focusing primarily on US writers. This will shed light primarily on how racial science theories were utilized to discredit the idea of African Americans possessing the ability to form a civilization. Comparisons to more modern sources will begin in this era due to it being the first time in American history the racial identity of Egyptians became intensely argued, largely due to attempted justifications of slavery. Most historical writings of the day presented the belief that no “dark race of men” had ever been equal to the white race.4 This belief caused many academics to assume that all great civilizations of the past had been created by the white race, since it was believed they were the only ones capable of such a feat. Historians of the time used this belief to claim that the success of the Egyptian civilization was a direct result of it being Caucasian, again proving the inferiority of African Americans.5 The third section will shift ahead in time to the period from World War I to World War II and that era’s struggles over utilizing Egyptian history to construct national and ethnic identities. Historiography of this era is directly connected with the aims of European imperialism. The rise of imperialism coinciding with the 1922 discovery of King Tutankhamun’s tomb tied politics and Egyptian history more closely together than had ever been seen.6 This connection created a historiography that utilized Egyptian history to promote European ideals of imperialism, always at the expense of the native peoples. This message naturally created a backlash within the African American community that would reach its height during the turmoil of the Civil Rights movement. As the Civil Rights movement gave African Americans the confidence to fight the segregation of Jim Crow, activists and academics were also encouraged to create a new historiography that emphasized the importance of black history. This caused them to reject the imperialist ideals of Egyptian historiography and to claim that the treasures and cultural heritage of Egypt should be analyzed in a purely African context.7 The new historiography directly challenged the belief of the aforementioned Civil War era historians, who believed that no Africans had ever created a civilized culture before the arrival of white Europeans.8 Naturally, the popularity of this new belief generated a severe response from the white academic community, who attempted to support the old claim of the superiority of white civilization. Debate guaranteed that the controversy of the racial identity of Egypt would continue into the modern era, again proving its long legacy. The final section of this paper will focus on specific modern-day controversies regarding the racial identity of Egyptians. Interesting to note, modern “historiography” has largely been led by the public, since academics discussing the race of Egyptians had been considered taboo since the 1970’s.9 Thus, much of the debate has been carried out in the public eye, focusing on the very specific issue of the racial identity of certain Egyptians, especially King Tut and Cleopatra. The success of these public debates varies and may suggest that historians should once again take a more active role in engaging the question of the racial identity of the Ancient Egyptians. As mentioned above, ancient Egyptians were aware of perceived differences that existed between different races and geographical locations, and by examining the art and relics they left behind one can see how this awareness shaped their worldview. The Egyptian elite primarily saw themselves as possessing a dark red/brown complexion, while associating stereotypical “black” and “white” ethnicities with the Sudanese and Nubians.10 Egyptian depictions of these races were often negative, especially in the fourteenth through tenth century B.C. For example, on the throne dais of Nefertiti of the fourteenth century, one can see black Nubians chained in servitude alongside “blonde” Anatolians.11 In the tomb of Horemheb, archeologists also discovered a hieroglyph of an Egyptian brutalizing a Nubian captive.12 This suggests that both black and white races were treated, at best, as second-class citizens in the early kingdoms of Egypt, damaging the argument that either was responsible for the foundation of Egyptian civilization. Furthermore, examining Ancient Egyptian laws and decrees also discredits the idea that Egypt was originally a black or white society. In 1425 B.C., the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenophis 2nd said of Nubians, “Don’t be at all lenient with Nubia! Beware of their people and their magicians!”13 As far as societal acceptance, sources suggest that Egypt followed a protocol like the Romans; acclimating to the language and culture of Egypt was the basic ingredient of becoming an Egyptian.14 Foreigners, such as Nubians, were forbidden by a decree of Pepy 1st from harvesting lands in pyramid towns and from entering religious temples. This again suggests that black Africans had little to do with the foundation of Egyptian civilization, and that the rhetoric that would appear later was a result of the irresistible attraction of the power of Egypt to white supremacists. After examining the complicated message provided to us by the ancient sources themselves, one might be tempted to ask how such an obvious abuse of history occurred. To begin answering this question, one must first consider Herodotus’ writings in the fifth century B.C. Considered by many to be the Father of History, Herodotus was possibly the first known foreigner who wrote on Egypt whose work has survived. Therefore, Herodotus created an early interpretation of Egyptian race that others would seek to counter years later. Interestingly, this interpretation would later be utilized to support the Black African Theory of the 1970s: the belief that Egypt was primarily a black civilization. Naturally, this hypothesis would later be challenged by white supremacists in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, making it critically important to the controversy. Herodotus wrote on Egyptians in the fifth century B.C., long after the Nubians had emerged from their dark age during Egypt’s earliest dynasties and after Egypt had become a land of foreigners. This abundance of foreigners doubtlessly appeared alien to Herodotus, which caused him to emphasize the “otherness” of the Egyptians in his writings. For example, in the Histories of Herodotus he describes Egyptians as black or dark, a common stereotypical description of Africans.15 In an even more influential description, Herodotus claims that a Greek priestess was well known to be Egyptian due to her black skin.16 This goes beyond just a passing description; it suggests that individuals with dark skin were commonly associated with Egypt by the Greeks. Herodotus’ writings had a great deal of influence on other Greek writers as well. His influence was so widespread that many academics in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries later claimed that Greek historians were in universal agreement that Egyptian civilization was a product of black Africans.17 Academics also cited Greek poets and writers such as Aeschylus, who wrote of Egyptians as possessing black limbs.18 Herodotus’ vast influence made him the established authority on the racial categorization of the Egyptians, meaning his interpretation was the one that would have to be discredited to combat the Black African Theory. Renewed interest, and intensified abuse, of Herodotus’ writings on Egypt came about with the rise of the race controversy of the Atlantic slave trade. Interestingly, his work was used by both sides of the debate to support their beliefs. Abolitionist Constantin François de Chasseboeuf wrote in 1787 that “the Ancient Egyptians were true negroes of the same type as all native-born Africans.”19 In 1838, historian A.H.L Heeren used Herodotus as his main source to support his theories on Egyptian society, including their racial demographics. 20 Historians’ frequent acceptance of the findings of Herodotus demonstrates that he was considered by historians to be the authority for Egyptians being black, which caused him to be the first individual attacked by white supremacists seeking to uphold the institution of slavery.21 Attempts to discredit Herodotus began in earnest in the 1830s, as mentioned above, due to the desire of pro-slavery historians to protect slavery from abolitionists. Many academics were motivated to ruin Herodotus’ credibility as an Egyptian historian, while also creating their own interpretations of Egyptian primary sources. An early attack appeared in 1833, in the New England Magazine, claiming that individuals in Egyptian tomb paintings possessed no characteristics that matched a “black appearance.”22 As the abolition movement in America intensified, attacks on the Black African Theory became rooted in proving the inferiority of Africans, which would justify their slave status. White Americans attempted to claim the greatness of Egypt for themselves, rewriting the historical interpretation of Egypt for their own ends. In 1851, John Campbell’s novel Negro-Mania: Being an Examination of the Falsely Assumed Equality of the Various Races of Men set the tone for what many historians of the Civil War era would repeat. The novel rebranded the racial identity of Egypt to prove the natural inferiority of Africans. He boldly claimed that the Caucasian makeup of Egypt should be obvious simply because their civilization progressed politically and territorially, believing that a pure “Negro” society would naturally have collapsed.23 This theory is clearly more influenced by the political concerns of the time than with actual evidence. As we have seen, while Egypt likely was not originally a black African civilization, whites were often ostracized and persecuted against in a similar manner. Campbell’s proslavery scholarship was clearly an attempt to reduce Africans of the past to the status of the present: “inferior” slaves in the service of “superior” masters. Campbell’s narrative was naturally popular among pro-slavery academics and was supported by many during his time. Prominent American surgeon Josiah C. Nott coauthored Types of Mankind in 1854, a medical study dedicated to proving that Africans were intellectually inferior to Caucasians and that civilizations such as Egypt were Caucasian.24 A professor of anatomy named Samuel George Morton also concluded that “Negroes” possessed the same status as servants and slaves in ancient Egypt as they did in nineteenth-century America, a clear attempt to historically justify American slavery. These widespread beliefs were very popular and produced a significant amount of scholarship, ensuring that they would remain relevant beyond the Civil War and into the era of imperialism and World War I. Historical research on Egypt during the era of World War I carries many similarities to that which occurred during the Civil War era. In the same way that pro-slavery academics framed their research to support their identity and self-conception as superior to their slaves, European imperialists used a variety of methods to support their claims on their colonies in foreign nations. This era was characterized by the rise of colonial archeology and colonial museology, which grew to prominence as Europeans strengthened their control on Egypt.25 Essentially, the dual rise of archaeology and museology, along with the spread of European imperial power, created a rhetoric regarding ancient Egypt that was extremely difficult for the Egyptians to escape. Evidence of the power of colonial rhetoric can be seen in the large number of countries that participated in crafting this message and the variety of methods they utilized to spread it. Egyptology prior to the outbreak of World War I mirrored the nationalistic competition of that era. European nations—and eventually the United States—all competed to be recognized as the ones who had founded the still young discipline.26 This created a very Euro-centric analysis of Egypt, with many historians and archeologists claiming that their own civilization and wisdom had originated in Egypt. This led to European nations competing to establish a monopoly on the recovery of Ancient Egyptian artifacts, such as when Auguste Mariette gained a monopoly for the French in 1863.27 England and Germany would eventually rise to compete with the French monopoly on excavation, each trying to use archeology and museum displays to claim the glory of Egypt for themselves. This competition further distanced ancient Egyptian discourse away from the Black African Theory, a practice which proslavery Americans would continue in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Early American Egyptology was characterized by a desire to utilize Egypt as a forerunner to American civilization, causing the narrative to be controlled by older white conservatives. In 1881, fueled by a fear of what they saw as excessive popular democracy, white Americans arranged for the completion of the Egyptian-style Washington Monument.28 This monument was meant to be a symbol connecting the power of ancient Egypt to the current American democracy. Another piece of evidence worth noting is Edwin Blashfield’s Evolution of Civilization dome painting of 1896, which directly portrays Egypt as a step towards American civilization.29 It is also important to note that the Egyptian man in the painting appears to be depicted as more Caucasian than African, likely a result of the artist’s American-centered mindset. Artistic works such as this directly connect Egypt to a nation that conceived of itself as a white nation, rather than with Africa. The investment in archaeology during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries also demonstrates how important the claiming the legacy of Egypt was to the West. Some archeologists such as Theodore Davis and Lord Carnarvon could pour millions of dollars into archeology and museums, an incredible amount at the time.30 The passion and competition is also astounding, such as when the French resorted to extortion to prevent the Germans from returning to Egyptian research after World War I.31 All this fierce competition served to make Egyptology Eurocentric for much of the first half of the twentieth century. While this might not seem directly related to Egyptian racial theories at a first glance, it did indeed have a significant impact. This Eurocentric emphasis caused Egypt to be considered the precursor of white civilization, rather than a black one. The dominant narrative would face its first significant challenge with the discovery of the tomb of King Tutankhamun, which would create a debate between Caucasians and African Americans over ownership of his treasures. Unsurprisingly, the discovery of King Tut’s tomb drew keen interest from white and black audiences alike. When describing his find, archeologist Howard Carter remarked “Gold, everywhere the hint of gold.”32 In the initial response to the discovery, Eurocentric archaeologists and researchers attempted to nationalize the findings for white audiences.33 This once again created a rhetoric dominated by white audiences, a rhetoric which would be fiercely challenged by the African American community with the emergence of the Civil Rights movement. The debate over King Tut ensured that Egypt would remain both a relentlessly researched historical topic, as well as a continued source of conflict between the white and black communities. The excavation of King Tut’s tomb was marked by Orientalist racism from the very beginning. Several prominent archeologists digging around the time of the discovery clearly possessed white-supremacist views. For example, archeologist George Reisner once described the Egyptian people as a “half-savage race,” going on to mock their ignorant and uncomprehending nature and to claim that the majority were illiterate.34 In 1915 Clarence Fisher, who was employed by Reisner, complained profusely when Reisner took “a native black man” into his employment. He wrote to Reisner that “it is usually accepted that the word of a white man is better than that of a native… you have thought it best to think otherwise.”35 Perhaps the most shocking example of Europe’s perceived racial and cultural superiority can be seen in the remarks of Herbert Winlock, an employee of the Metropolitan Museum in New York, when asked if he would consider hiring an educated elite Egyptian. Winlock refused on the grounds that the Egyptian people had been a dominated race for thousands of years, which had given them “an intellectual facility to twist facts.”36 As the prior analysis of Egyptian artifacts shows, this claim has no basis in fact. Hieroglyphs, statues, and other artifacts suggests that it was the Egyptian race that dominated other peoples. It is indeed ironic seeing someone twist the facts to claim that another is likely to twist the facts. While this blatant racism may seem shocking to us today, it certainly makes European and American reactions to the uncovering of King Tut more understandable. Europeans and Americans had two prime periods of interest in the King Tut discovery. The first was in the 1920s following the initial discovery, when imperial ambitions made the find very relevant to European powers. This can be seen when examining the patterns of Egyptian archeology and tourism, which spiked in the early 1920s and declined as excitement over the discovery faded.37 An imperial agenda could be seen in the discovery very early on, when Lord Carnarvon refused to allow local press to cover … truncated (21,617 more characters in archive)