Talk:Dynastic race theory

Mesopotamians seeded the Egyptian Dynasties

The reason why people don't like this theory is because they don't like the idea that Ancient Iraqis founded Ancient Egypt, Racism against Iraqis.

Iraq is the alpha and omega of this world.

Redford

^Can someone please quote where redford says what the statement says, it seems like original research and possible twisting of what was said since it contradicts its self from the same source and if it isn't that big of an issue, the "however" part is a weasel word and makes it seem as if this is still hotly debated and would render that entry redundant, please provide a quote. That's all I ask..Taharqa 05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you desire a quote, I advise you go to your local library and get a copy of the book in question. It is not the business of people who have read the book to prove to people who have not what the book actually says. I, for my part, have explained at length to you why the material is not contradictory. The Dynastic race theory is a theory of Statecraft. The belief that a dynastic race created the Egyptian state is debunked. However, this does not mean that there was not noticable trade and even possible, though very small, migrations of people during the Naqada II - Uruk III period. This is what Reford says over about four pages. If you please to disagree about what he actually says, you are obligated to read it yourself. Thanatosimii 06:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you say very small migration (possibly) then obviously "significant" is a weasel word, why do you insist on using weasel words? Makes no sense at all, the fact now that Egyptian civilization was indigenous is mainstream consensus, what's the use for this redundant entry with accompanying weasel words? Trade does not equal "influence" either, that's another weasel word, so I'll change the weasel words and any reverts will simply result in a template since from your own words, there was small trade, "possible small migration" which comes from you and is not confirmed physically by population biologists. You only indicate trade and possible migration as a result of it, which means nothing to science or gives credence to the evidence of which the theory was based, or makes it viable. I'm quite sure they weren't the only traders as there was confirmed significant trade with the south. And actually the Dynastic race wasn't only a theory of states craft, see Petrie.. Thank youTaharqa 01:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

One, "however" is not a weasel word, it's a simple negative conjunction. Two, significant is used because said contact, if it happened, would be the source of several significant changes in the material culture, i.e. it shows up in archaeology and had a long term effect on the egyptian civilization. Once again, you haven't got any right to complain about a source which you refuse to read yourself. Editors cannot simply barge into other articles and demand that people prove that a book actually says somthing, because they believe what is said to be "fallacious." [1] Thanatosimii 03:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Three, "contact" and "influence" are different. Redford argues one, and does not argue the other. Now who's misrepresenting the source? Thanatosimii 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also Taharqa, this is not a dispute over weasel words, but actually over factual accuracy. In fact, your change to "some" introduced weasel words where there weren't any.--Urthogie 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The quote you wanted, since you asked nicely.

I'm typing from a book, not cutting and pasting, so apologies for the typos. pages 17-23, selected quotes.

"Be that as it may, there can be no questioning the fact that the Gerzean displays numerous cultural features that are not the products of autochthonous development, but which have all the earmarks of having been introduced from the outside suddenly. (Of the voluminous literature on this subject, one might consult as convenient compediums H. Frankfort, The Birth of Civilization in the Near East, Baumgartel, CAH3 1 chapter 9), W.S. Smith and W.K. Simpson, The Art and Archetecture of Ancient Egypt, Trigger, Ancient Egypt, Aldred, Egypt, 31ff.) ... Thanks to the German excavations at Warka in Iraq and the French excavations in Iran, convincing parallels to most of these new features can be found in that region of western Asia dominated by the late Uruk culture of Mesopotamia. Moreover, in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley and southwest Iran, the cultural evolution that produced these forms and motifs can be traced back over centuries of indicenous development, whereas in Egypt ther eare no antecedents. Few would dispute, therefore, the obvious conclusion that we are dealing with the comparativly sudden importation into Egypt of ideas and products native to Mesopotamia. ... Although it is perhaps premature to arrive at conclusions, the evidence for contact with Mesopotamia is more extensive and specific than can be accomodated by a theory of intermittent and casual trade. It would seem that besides trade items, a human component of alien origin is to be sought in the Gerzean demography of Egypt. This is not to resuscitate the moribund "dynastic race" theory, but we should be careful not to misread the evidence or ignore its real weight."

I'd still advise you read the whole thing if you are interested in this time period. What I cut out were the specific lists of evidences. Or you could read from his included reading list. Additionally, there is some somewhat dated material in the first volume of the Cambridge Ancient History, and some up to date stuff in Shaw's History of Ancient Egypt.

Pay particular attention to "no questioning," "voluminous literature" "Few would dispute ... obvious conclusion ... importation into Egypt." Thanatosimii 06:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Modern Minority Theories

The modern minority theories needs attention, preferably by the one who wrote it. It cites four persons in sucession, of which two are long dead Egyptologists, one is a modern crackpot, and another is a modern layperson. The former two should go in the Origins section, but I can't sort out which authors made which arguments, given the rest of the paragraph just says "they also point out" without distinguishing which author pointed out what. Beyond this, the kind of observations in that paragraph do not necessarily belong under the heading "minority" at all. Egyptology has rejected the position that the kings and the state were Mesopotamian, not that the culture borrowed from Mesopotamia. Where have these suggestions been published, and how did academia receive them? Thanatosimii (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not write this, but as a start have reorganized the lead to at least separate the older proponents from the modern. This section does need to address the ideas of the particular authors and provide sources, and when I have the time I might jump back here and give it a whirl.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

DNA Evidence supports Theory

Worth noting that the recent DNA analysis of Tutankhamun showed that he shared his DNA with half of European men, Proving conclusively that he wasnt fully Egyption/African by descent. Having lived around 1300 BC that points to a very long period of rule by an invading aristocratic elite from outside Africa. --94.31.12.194 (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Need of an Overhaul

This article seems to have been neglected for quite some time. There are several sources cited which I have removed which were used to support OR statements not even made by the sources. There are others I need to research as well for this same purpose. The statements in the Decline Section "Such borrowings are much older than the Naqada II period,[5] the Naqada II period had a large degree of continuity with the Naqada I period, and the changes which did happen during the Naqada periods happened over significant amounts of time" also need to be clarified and put into better context in relation to the indigenous population. As time allows, I will spend some time on this article.Thanos5150 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe I'm the one who crafted that sentence, and I'd be happy to explain what was intended by it if you have any specific questions. As I understand it, the Dynastic Race Theory developed out of discoveries in the early 1900s which seemed to indicate that, between the Amratian and Gerzean, there was a spontaneous change in material culture, and these changes were primarily Mesopotamian in design. Added to this, it appeared that the burials of the Gerzean suddenly began containing bodies of a more Mesopotamian physiology. It was thus assumed that these developments in the material culture were brought about by these supposedly Mesopotamian persons. The point of that sentence is to indicate that borrowings from Mesopotamia are far older than the supposed (and now highly disputed) influx of Mesopotamians, and that the development of Gerzean material culture was a long term process growing out of the Amratian, not the "poof! everything's different now" drastic changes that certain earlier archaeologists suggested. As I understand it, the Dynastic Race Theory stands on the two legs of population history and material culture, and I aimed to indicate that modern scholarship believes itself to have kicked the latter leg out from under it. Granted, my understanding of the rise and fall of this theory is largely informed by sources who are quite negative on the theory, so perhaps that's an unfair caricature of it. But since the theory is basically dead, it's hard to find anything but critical sources. Thanatosimii (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I understand what you are saying, it's just not complete making it a bit misleading. Yes, there was trade going back quite some time before the burials of the Dynastic Race, from various places, not just Mesopotamia, which is common anywhere you go in the ancient world, but this is related to few pottery, various raw materials, precious stones, ect, not the sweeping change and development of architectural style, writing, art, king/priest/temple system of governing, technology, ect that seemed to appear with the arrival of the Mesopotamian influence. Though things do appear rather suddenly in historical terms, this is not meant to suggest the indigenous culture just dropped what they were doing when the DR showed up and magically everything just changed, so as expected, of course there are clear relationships and development between the Amratian and Gerzean-they didn't just stop being Egyptian. Cylinder seals, niched-facade architecture, the pear shaped mace, specific art motifs, the boat loads of cedar wood from Lebanon, not to mention the cedar wood boats themselves, whose trade was known to be controlled by the Sumerians in ancient times, the advent of writing, making bricks, king/temple/priest form of governance, ect, ect- all of these things are clearly associated as being Mesopotamian in origin and all begin to appear en masse only after the physical arrival of the Dynastic Race. These are not the result of any relationship between the Amratian and Gerzean.

Regardless, the debate all along has been whether or not the DR represented an "invading horde" and "ruling elite" or were they only influential by way of increased trade. So, the Dynastic Race Theory technically includes both ideas, which the latter has apparently won the day. But since the late 1960's, however, talk of the Dynastic Race fades rather quickly from the professional record and today is essentially ignored, which seems to have more to do with political correctness than the evidence in the ground. The dark part of the Dynastic Race Theory is that in the early 20th century this was held by many proponents, given what some took to be Caucasian features of the DR, to be further "proof" of the "superiority" of the mythical Aryan race in ancient times. As a result the Dynastic Race Theory over time has become a relatively taboo subject and rarely discussed, which is quite unfortunate because the evidence is still there. Not evidence of an Aryan ruling elite of course, which is nonsense, but of a distinct Mesopotamian influence that extends well beyond casual trade.

If you are interested in the Dynastic Race Theory beyond skeptical review, I highly recommend the book Archaic Egypt by Egyptologist Walter B. Emery.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with the work, and while much of his observations on material culture may be valid, many of those observations are still considered perfectly valid in modern works on predynastic Egypt. That may warrant a "Mesopotamian influence theory," but not a "dynastic race theory." The problem is, however distinct a Mesopotamian influence may be, without the invading Mesopotamian ruling class who established the first dynasty, you haven't really got a "dynastic race" anymore. Thanatosimii (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You should really get it and read it for yourself. Quite fascinating. There is no proof of the Dynastic Race Theory as Petrie envisioned, an invading foreign army that replaced the local population, but Petrie was also working from the information of his day. Over time many others, including Emery, were of the mind that while there was no "supplanting" of the local population, regardless, the Mesopotamian presence was much more substantial than just casual trade contacts and likely represented a ruling or administrative elite. So while the local populations are indigenous with cultural continuity, the remains found in these noble burials are not and it is upon their arrival that Egyptian high culture begins to develop in earnest and the Dynastic state is formed. While there is no evidence of an "invasion", there is circumstantial evidence to show that battles took place at this time by Mesopotamian led forces and the local population. The Dynastic Race are often referred to as the Followers of Horus because among other things their arrival coincides with the Followers of Horus from the South battling and defeating the Followers of Set from the North which led to the eventual uniting of both as one state.

So, yes, the anthropological evidence does not support a foreign invasion, but this is not to mean there was no Dynastic Race at all because they were definitely there. This is why I find the statements in the Decline Section a bit incomplete. The same is true of the Black Athena Revisited source which a lot of that seems to be parroted from. The basis for their argument against and quick dismissal of a Dynastic Race Theory is in their words that a few cylinder seals, a knife handle, some Mesopotamian motif art, and brick-niched facade (palace-facade or niched-facade) which they say "loosely" resembles Mesopotamian forms were found when in reality there's a lot more than just that. What they talk about was only Petrie's initial discovery at Abydos yet ignore the rest like for example what is found at Sakkara. The Sakkara architecture in particular doesn't "loosely" resemble Mesopotamian forms, it is virtually identical. Little wonder that here we find the first step pyramid as well. I'm trying to avoid rambling on, but there is a lot more to the Mesopotamian influence story than you will find in modern mainstream literature and is worth looking into the original sources if this really interests you.Thanos5150 (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Afrocentrism

Why does this section even exist? doesn't even explain anything, just that this guy is offended by that theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.38.67.59 (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)