Ancient Egyptian Ties With The Indus Civilization: Theories of Contact
Transcript of Ancient Egyptian Ties With The Indus Civilization: Theories of Contact
Ancient Egyptian Ties With The Indus Civilization: Theories of Contact Paul D. LeBlanc
Abstract: There is ample proof of Mesopotamia having cross-cultural trade links with Egypt, and the same can be said of the Mesopotamia-Indus commercial ties; both were active participants in the 3rd and early 2nd millennium BC Bronze Age Mesopotamian world-system. There is, however, the lesser understood relationship between ancient Egypt and the Indus civilization: Did ancient Egyptians ever sail directly to any of the various Indus ports to trade their goods? Or vice-versa, did Harappan traders ever make it to the Nile Valley? So far, the simple answer to these questions – for lack of any archaeological proof documenting the direct exchange of Indus-Egypt goods – is negative. Although, despite this, there are various theories of contact that do exist and that argue in favour of Afro-Asian ties in Antiquity. Mostly anthropological in nature, those who explore these connections can be separated into two distinct groups, firstly there are those who are labelled as Afrocentric scholars, and secondly, there is a minority of Western scholars who also argue in favour of the same Afro-Asian genetic affiliation. This article will take a look at these vastly two different schools of thought and identify similarities and differences that underlay their approaches.
Introduction1
So far, of the 2600 Indus sites that have been uncovered – from the scores of precious artefacts
archaeologists have managed to dredge up form the dry earth – there is not one single shred of
evidence that exists in support of linking the Indus civilization directly with ancient Egypt in
cross-cultural trade links. None. Nor has any Indus artefact turned up anywhere in the Nile Delta
area. But, because merely a fraction of the Indus dig-sites have yet to be excavated, ultimately,
this means that an Egyptian-made object could very well still turn up somewhere… Although, at
present time – or until such an object does turn up – such links can only be made by conjecture. 1 Most of the information found in this Intro. draws in large part from my thesis research notes, mainly from §§1.3.1, 1.3.3 & 3.2.
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
2
There does exists, however, archaeological proof of trade between Egypt and Mesopotamia,
and these artefacts uncovered in the Nile valley serve as evidence to link Egypt with faraway
Susa, in Elam (Iranian plateau). Elam, as one of the “peripheral” regions of the Mesopotamian
world-system that formed in the 3rd millennium, is located to the immediate west of the Indus
civilization. The urbanized societies of Mesopotamia, Elam, and the Indus, altogether formed an
integral part of the 3rd millennium world-system and were consequently interconnected “through
maritime roads in the Persian Gulf and land routes that ran all the way to Turkmenistan and
Bactria (ca. 2600-1800 B.C.E.)” (Beaujard & Fee 2005: 417). Egypt, nevertheless, was not a
main player in its involvement in the Mesopotamian-dominated Gulf trade. Consequently,
because of this little-understood relationship between Egypt and the commercial trading ties it
held with the Mesopotamian world, it can only be tied with the Indus commercial network
through its common association with neighbouring Elam. Some archaeological discoveries,
however, suggest that this 3rd millennium world-system may have included some trade routes
leading into East Africa – such discoveries have forced scholars to rethink the geographic extent
of the Mesopotamian world-system.2
Also, importantly, some early uses of lapis lazuli in the fabrication of Egyptian jewellery do
“certainly suggest a Western Asiatic trade-link” (Nicholson & Shaw 2000: 39).3 There were no
native Egyptian sources of the stone (ibid. 39). The “principal” ancient source of lapis lazuli is
the region of Badakhshan in northeastern Afghanistan, “where four ancient quarries have so far
been identified: Sar-i-Sang, Chilmak, Shaga-Darra-i-Robat-i-Paskaran and Stromby” (ibid. 39; in
2 Such as a copal necklace uncovered in a tomb at Tell Asmar (near Baghdad) and dated to 2500-‐2400 BC (Beaujard & Fee 2005: 417); this object likely came from North East Africa – and more specifically still – from the vicinity of Zanzibar (ibid.). 3Nicholson & Shaw (2000) refer to the evidence in support of this connection, mentioning the discovery of “[a] necklace of lapis lazuli beads in the late Predynastic grave T29 at Naqada, for instance, included a cylinder seal imported from Mesopotamia” (ibid. 39; in reference to Frankfort 1939: 293, pl. XLVIa).
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
3
reference to Kulke 1976; Wyart et al. 1981). These quarries “lay at the centre of vast trade
networks whereby lapis lazuli was exported to the early civilizations of western Asia and
northeast Africa from at least the Fourth millennium BC” (ibid. 39; in reference to Herrmann
1968; Payne 1968; Majidzadeh 1982; Sowada 2009: 183-85).
Therefore, as can be seen, there are several indirect linkages that can be made in order to
connect together ancient Egypt with the Indus civilization. An exploration of these complex
interrelations can, albeit at times, lead a scholar to pure conjecture for the lack of any direct
evidence validating such theoretical views. The main focus of this essay will then certainly not
be to rely on any imaginary and yet undiscovered archaeological artefact, but rather the very real
objective is to take a close look at the theories of contact that do exist between Egypt (or more
generally North East Africa) with the Indus. These theories of contact are mostly anthropological
in nature and can artificially be separated into two distinct groups, firstly, the theoretical views
held by many Afrocentric scholars (e.g., Cheikh Anta Diop [1981], Wayne B. Chandler’s [1995],
Runoko Rashidi [1995]) that propose a genetic affiliation between the ancient Indus people
and/or culture with Black Africa – what some scholars see as a commonly shared African origin
between the Indus and Kemet/Egypt. Secondly, there is another class of scholars (e.g., Henri
Vallois [1944], Bernard Sergent [1997], Alain Froment [1992, 1994]) – for the most part
mainstream Western scholars – who also hold specific views on the racial categorization of the
ancient Indus inhabitants and, surprisingly at times, their views often corroborate the Afrocentric
approach in seeing an African origin as being an integral part of the Indus equation insofar as
searching for the origins of the culture, people, and language.
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
4
Linking Egypt to Indus Through the Afrocentric Perspective: Cheikh Anta Diop and Wayne B. Chandler
As detailed in the Preface to the tenth anniversary edition of the African Presence in Early Asia
(1995), the editor, Runoko Rashidi has included additions to the original 1985 edition.4 These
additional articles are of interest to us, because they explore theoretical links between Egypt and
the Indus. Before exploring the Afrocentric discourse, however, and seeing how it relates exactly
to the polemical debate that pertains to the identity of the Indus culture; it is important to note
that much of the Afrocentric scholarship is modelled after the work of Cheikh Anta Diop, who
by Rashidi’s account, encourages scholars to re-examine the history of “Black people” and their
emigration from out of Africa “within documented historical periods” and to re-appraise “the
evidence” and to examine how it is they “created or influenced some of ancient Asia’s most
important and enduring high-cultures” (Rashidi 1995: 10). It is on this premise that according to
the Afrocentric perspective and its re-evaluation of its ancient past, ancient Egypt – or Kemet –
is not merely an African cultural achievement, but it is originally representative of Africa’s
Black culture. Also important to bear in mind, when examining Afrocentric theories that look for
an ancient African Black influence, usually, this influence is specifically referred to as one that is
interchangeable with an ancient Kushite/Ethiopian influence.
The connection that Afrocentric scholars make between the ancient Egyptian and Indus
cultures, is an interrelationship involving early Kushite/Ethiopian history. In The Jewel in the
Lotus: The Ethiopian Presence in the Indus Valley Civilization, Wayne B. Chandler (1995)
explores the theoretical Ethiopian Black presence in the ancient Indus Valley. These Negritos, as
Chandler refers to them, he argues, are the population that formed “the original layer” of the
“racial stratifications arranged within Indian history” (84). His article deals with racial types and 4 Originally edited by Ivan Van Sertima (1985).
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
5
goes on to revisit the various terms used within the context of Western scholarship in relation to
the anthropologically shared physical characteristics of the traditional peoples and tribes of
ancient India. In his analysis, Chandler (1995) goes so far as to write that the polemical debate
surrounding the identity of the Indus culture and its “racial makeup” is a direct consequence of
“[t]he growing likelihood that the culture of Indian Asia was born out of the Black race is a bitter
pill for many to swallow; therefore, a controversy exists among historians even today” (ibid. 83).
In support of seeing Afro-Asian links in Antiquity, Chandler (1995) adopts the Aryan
Invasion theory (AIT) in seeing an influx of Indo-European speaking Aryans as the reason
behind the destruction or fall of the Indus civilization (ibid. 83). By adopting the AIT default
position in regards to the identity of the Indus culture/race, Chandler rules out “the notion of
Aryan or Caucasian paternity” (ibid. 83). Therefore, in so doing, Chandler’s theoretical approach
focuses instead on describing the Aryans as an outside foe, invaders belonging to that “light-
skinned Nordic race” who had “waged war for many years on the black, by then ‘native’ people”
of the ancient Indus Valley (ibid. 83). The theoretical grounds on which Chandler makes this
assertion of seeing black Africans as the “original layer” of ancient Indian society reposes on
scholarship supporting the AIT view (e.g. A. L. Basham [1959]). And in his view, upon
observing what he considers to be racial characteristics that belong to the African black
phenotype in the archaeological record of ancient India, Chandler argues that this can be
interpreted to present sufficient proof in favour of seeing (African) Negritos as being mainly
responsible for the genesis of the Indus culture/race.5
5 Also, Chandler (1995) makes mention that in addition to this “original layer” of Ethiopian Negritos present in the prehistory of the Indian Subcontinent, he also considers these Negritos to have merged with what is considered to be the second anthropological “layer”, the Proto-‐Australoids, a “merging of these two culturally diverse but monoracial groups” that would result in producing the people of the Indus civilization (84).
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
6
Similarly to Cheikh Anta Diop (1981) and his pioneering work, he who had explored the
African contribution to the Origin of the Ancient Egyptians, Chandler’s approach is not
altogether different. Much like Diop, Chandler invokes the great antiquity of the “Black race”6,
and then goes on to reference Diop, who, also wrote about the anthropological record of
prehistoric South Asia and considered the Negroid (or Negrito) people as the first humans to
have entered the Indian Subcontinent from Africa – after having made their way from there
through Arabia and throughout the coastlands of the Iranian plateau and Baluchistan (Chandler
1995: 83). In pursuing his main argument that theorizes these ancient African Negritos to be the
original instigators of the Indus culture, Chandler (1995) writes that “[o]nly ignorance could
prevent a historian from seeing the indelible connection between the original African presence [=
the Negritos] and later civilization” (84). He goes so far as to make the following assertion: “For,
as the mighty Kushite nation was to Egypt, as Egypt was to Greece and as Greece was to
Renaissance Europe, so was the Ethiopian race to Harappan civilization” (84).
In his own theoretical views, (and as demonstrated by the above quote) Chandler has linked
his proposed Ethiopian origins of the Indus civilization with Diop’s views on the Kushite origins
of ancient Egypt; two trunks from the same tree, specially given the fact that in the Afrocentric
discourse the terms “Kushite” and “Ethiopian” are quite interchangeable. Such an
anthropologically-based argument can permissibly be advanced, theoretically at least, specially
since the emergence or development of civilization in both ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley
are two contemporaneous historical occurrences. Chandler’s approach, therefore, is perfectly in
line with the Afrocentric scholarly worldview, for is supposes there to be some kind of genetic
relationship between the original cultures and populations of Egypt (Kemet) and the Indus – one
6 To this effect, Chandler’s (1995) exact wording is: “Given the fact that the Black race is by far the oldest, the presence of Black culture at the dawn of Indian history should not be surprising.” (83)
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
7
that is used as evidence in order to support a commonly shared black African cultural/racial
inheritance.
Along these lines, Chandler goes on to explore the remaining “races” of South Asia in the
“racial stratifications arranged within Indian history”, and he does so by looking at other ancient
populations that contributed to the racial makeup of the Indian Subcontinent (84).7 Incidentally,
in Chandler’s (1995) summarization of the six racial groups that have historically contributed to
India’s racial makeup, the Vedic Aryans are theorized to be the last, as the sixth racial stratum to
“represent the latest major influence on India” (87). And insofar as the Dravidians are concerned,
Chandler theorizes them to be the result of a “racial mixture” of the fourth racial stratum to have
migrated into the Indian Subcontinent, which he describes as belonging to “the Mediterranean
[race]: [comprised of] Black/Mongoloid and Black/Caucasian” (87). In short, to summarize
Chandler’s complex views on the racial makeup of India, he considers nor the Vedic Aryans nor
the original Dravidian populations to be the purveyors of the Indus culture, but rather instead he
sees both as having inherited the more ancient culture from the first original Ethiopian Negrito
stratum, the latter which he argues mixed with the Proto-Australoid in order to create the “Black
race” of the Indus Valley (87). In regards to this proposed North East African origin of the Indus
people, culture and script, it should be noted that Chandler’s views vary only slightly by
comparison to some other Afrocentric scholars. For instance, W. E. B. DeBois (1972), in his
racial/anthropological history of ancient India, considered the Indus population to be a sort of
mixture between ancient Blacks and Dravidians, who he referred to as Dravidian negroes (ibid.
ibid. 176; referenced by Chandler 1995: 87).8
7 Chandler’s discussion of racial categories is based for the most part on S. Roma-‐Krishnan and Bhavan Bombay’s (1962) scholarship. 8 Chandler (1995) discredits DeBois, by writing: “Several historians have mistakenly identified the Dravidians as the racial element represented in the Indus Valley civilization. For example, in his account of the ethnic background of
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
8
In his definition of what exactly the ethnos of a bona fide Harappan consists, Chandler argues
that it is ultimately the result of a meshing of the Ethiopian Negrito and the Proto-Australoid
solely; his argument discredits any inclusion of Dravidian, Mongoloid, or Caucasian stocks into
his equation.9 In short, Chandler only sees the original Indus culture as having been the result of
a Black African innovation and nothing else. Also, in regards to scholars who see “apparent
similarities between the Harappan script and the writing of certain Dravidian sub-groups”, those
same scholars who “believe that the terms Harappan and Dravidian should be synonymous”
(ibid. 87); in countering this apparent Dravidian association with the Indus culture and script,
Chandler counter-argues and dismissively explains his position on the subject by stating that―
Due to the relatively late construction of the Dravidian megaliths, I believe that the Dravidians were the inheritors of the Harappan script rather than its originators. Similarly, Harappan science and philosophy far predates the Dravidian’s arrival in India; although they later absorbed these elements, yoga and Jainism originated thousands of years prior to the Dravidian migration.
Ibid. 87
Therefore, all in all, a close analysis of Chandler’s approach reveals it to be twofold: i) his
views tie the Indus culture with that of North East Africa (ancient Ethiopia) in order to present
sufficient proof “in order to demonstrate that the first inhabitants of India were Black” (89), and
ii) this proof he invokes also ties these African-originating Harappans to these same Nilotic
peoples who would also form the original populations of predynastic Egypt.
India, W. E. B. DuBois identifies “first a prehistoric substratum of Negrillos; then the pre-‐Dravidians, a taller, larger type of Negro; then the Dravidians, Negroes with some mixture of Mongoloid and later of Caucasian stocks. The Dravidian negroes laid the basis of Indian culture thousands of years before the Christian era” (DuBois 1972: 176). DuBois is correct of course in his identification of the Harappans as Black; however, the Harappans represented a meshing of the Ethiopian Negrito and the Proto-‐Australoid solely. The racial parentage of the Harappans becomes more apparent when one considers the dates involved. The Mediterranean influx which was to father the Dravidians has been tentatively placed within the “latter half of the first millen[n]ium B.C.”; this is inferred from the age of the Dravidian megaliths (A.L. Basham 1959: 25). The Harappan civilization, of course, is much older” (87). 9 See above note.
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
9
Specifically in relation to the Egyptian part of this equation, in support of this view, Chandler
invokes the craniological research of B. K. Chatterjee and G. D. Kumar (1965) who examined 18
skeletons from the ancient city of Harappa. Through a racial analysis, they determined that when
compared to other prehistoric skulls and crania found in other parts of the ancient world, the
Harappans are closer in comparison to those specimens uncovered in Kish (Mesopotamia), Anan,
Hissar III (Mediterranean), Egypt Naqada, Egypt Badari, Kerma (Egypt 12th-13th Dynasty), Ur,
Sakkara and Palestine (Chatterjee and Kumar 1965: 88). More importantly, though, in their final
conclusions, Chatterjee and Kumar found that there can be found to exist a “very close relation”
between the cranium materials of Harappa and those excavated in Egypt, Sumer, Mesopotamia,
Ethiopia and Asia (Chatterjee and Kumar 1965: 17; as referenced and quoted in Chandler 1995:
88). This scientific validation that Chandler presents to us does positively demonstrate a physical
relationship that existed between the ancient Indus dwellers with their distant neighbours dug up
in African sites – such as in Ethiopia and Egypt – as well as in Mesopotamia; undoubtedly such
proof can only lend more credence and further validate the Afrocentric perspective embraced by
Chandler and others (e.g. James E. Brunson [1995], Charles S. Finch III [1995], Runoko Rashidi
[1995], R.A. Jairazbhoy [1995]). Moreover, this validation of making links between Indian
“brownness” and African “blackness” is primarily of interest to Indian groups or cultures that
have suffered through a long history of caste descrimination (V.T. Rajshekar 1995a, 1995b).
Interestingly though, this theoretical link between Africa, Egypt and the Indus, as proposed by
both Afrocentrists and Dalit-centric scholars alike, are not views restricted to any marginal
interest group. In fact, rather quite the contrary, for there are those mainstream scholars (Western
non-Afrocentrists) whose views on the subject of tying the Indus culture and people with Africa
and/or Egypt also surprisingly have a lot of in common with the more marginalized Afrocentric
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
10
circle of scholars. For example, (and as shall be explored shortly) among mainstream scholars
who also see some sort of Afro-Asian ties to have existed in antiquity, we can include among
those the names of Henri Vallois (1944), Bernard Sergent (1997), and Alain Froment (1992,
1994). Many of their theoretical views, interestingly, are mutually interchangeable with those
marginalized ones born from the Afrocentric perspective – with scholarly works such as
Chandler’s (1995), who, are often discounted or discredited as being halfway between pure
fantasy and mythmaking.10
Linking the Indus to Egypt Through Mainstream Scholarship: Taking a Look at Theoretical Approaches by Bernard Sergent, Henri Vallois, and Alain Froment Bernard Sergent (1997) is a non-Afrocentric French scholar, who, interestingly, while defending
the Aryan Invasion Theory, also supports an African origin for the Dravidian people whom he
theorizes to be non-autochthonous to the Indian Subcontinent. And not unlike Chandler’s (1995)
work (as seen in the previous section) which relies and makes use of comparative craniological
study material in order to validate theoretical connections between the ancient Indus Valley
dwellers with those of Mesopotamia, and North East Africa (namely Egypt, Ethiopia or Kush),
quite similarly, Sergent supports his own views with this same type of archaeological evidence.
Also, in Genèse de l’Inde (1997), Sergent depends on comparative linguistic research –
additional proof he presents in support of retracing an African origin for the Dravidian language
family.
10 Stephen Howe (1999) includes Wayne Chandler’s name in his list of those Afrocentric contributors whose work he discredits as being “[a]mong the wilder exercises in mythmaking” (in speaking of the contributions made to Van Sertima’s many edited volumes) (257, Nota 9).
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
11
Much in the same way that Chandler (1995) explores the “racial stratifications arranged
within Indian history” (ibid. 84), Bernard Sergent, too, examines the racial makeup of the Indian
Subcontinent. Sergent draws on another French scholar’s work, the pioneering anthropologist
and paleontologist Henri Vallois, who, in Les races humaines (1944), established the theoretical
groundwork for Sergent’s own research. It is in this work that Vallois (1944) developed the
classification system for his racial categorizations, the same ones on which Sergent’s historical
perspectivism surrounding the Indus culture depends. For instance, Sergent makes use of racial
guidelines established by Vallois (1944) in terms of describing the Dravidian culture and
speakers (and their ancient forbearers, the proto-Dravidians), as belonging to one of the “sept
races noires” (lit. “seven black races”) that constitute the “black people” as a whole. To shed
some light on Vallois’ (1944) racial categorization system, he defined these seven black races as
follows: “éthiopienne, mélano-africaine, négrille, khoisan, mélano-indienne, négrito,
mélanésienne” (ibid. 19, 20). Hence, it is Vallois who first coined the term Melano-Indian (the
anglicized form of mélano-indienne) in reference to the Dravidian people’s genotype, which is
usually perceived to be darker, whether it be brown or black in physical appearance when
compared with other cultural groups of present-day India (e.g. Aryans) (Vallois 1944: 19, 20).11
Sergent (1997) sees a direct affinity between the present-day distribution of Dravidian
languages and those inhabitants of the Indian Subcontinent who qualify as belonging to the
Melano-Indian racial category. The only main difference being that while the term Dravidian is
often used in relation to linguistics, on the other hand Melano-Indian is the preferred
anthropological designation. With this particular connection between the Dravidian language
family and a general dark or brown/black inherited genotype in the Melano-Indian population,
11 The term melano is from the Greek, meaning ‘black, dark’, hence Mélano-‐Indien could therefore be translated to mean ‘dark’ or ‘black Indian’ (Vallois 1944: 19, 20).
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
12
according to Sergent, there are exceptions to the rule since this theoretical association between
skin colour and culture of origin does not always apply at present time (in contemporary
populations). For example, Sergent discusses these exceptions, making note of the fact that
present-day Melano-Indians (as defined by Vallois and Sergent) can also be found represented
by the millions in areas north of the Deccan Plateau and in the Gangetic Plain where they speak
non-Dravidian languages such as others belonging to the Indo-Aryan branch of IE languages
(Sergent 1997: 49, 50). And the reverse can be said of the Brahui speakers (the only Dravidian
language spoken outside of India) in Pakistan who are not dissimilar in appearance in
comparison to their Baloch (non-Dravidian speaking) neighbours in nearby Iran (ibid. 49, 50).
How do Vallois and Sergent reconcile the fact that not all of the present-day Dravidian
language population of speakers belong to what they term as the Melano-Indian race? According
to Vallois, the Melano-Indian race remained more “pure” in two regions, one being in the
Deccan Plateau in Tamil country and the other in a large group in the Gangetic Plain area
(Sergent 1997: 49, 50; in reference to Vallois 1944). Sergent explains that this incident of
Melano-Indians found in the Gangetic Plain area is the direct result of an ancient Indo-Aryan
invasion into India, thereby resulting in a push southward en masse of most of the Dravidian
population; the remaining population of Dravidian speakers having adopted the new Indo-Aryan
language.12 Theoretically, Sergent’s views therefore manage to present a cogent argument for the
original physical appearance of the proto-Dravidian speakers as being one that is consistent with
12 Proponents of the Aryan Invasion theoretical scheme hypothesise that the Āryan people arrived at the northwestern entry-‐point of the Indian Subcontinent and either invaded or attacked the natives – often seen as Dravidians – already living in local settlements of the Indus civilization. Scholars who support this historical perspective therefore often describe the arrival of the Āryans as a foreign cultural element, coming into the ancient Indian landscape from the outside – an argument which is suspected of “being based on a white-‐supremacist ideology and a colonial paradigm” since the Invasionist view argues that the Āryans (Sanskrit speakers, a daughter branch of the Indo-‐European language family) originated from somewhere in the Southwestern Russian Caucasus Mountain range (Rodrigues 2006: 12; see also Elst 1999, 2005a, 2005b; Parpola and Carpelan 2005; Witzel 2006a: 160-‐61; Bryant & Patton 2005: 180-‐81).
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
13
the appearance most commonly associated these days with the largest concentration of Dravidian
speakers and Melano-Indians which is situated in South India, in Tamil country (Tamil Nadu).
Sergent argues in favour of seeing the ancient Melano-Indian population as being the original
inhabitants and purveyors of the Indus culture and civilization, and further theorizes the (proto-
)Dravidian Melano-Indian population to have originated from North East Africa (Sergent 1997:
41-7). Thus, such a theoretical view creates an anthropological linkage with not simply North
East Africa, but more specifically it also validates a possible link with Egypt. Therefore,
Sergent’s views have a lot in common with many Afrocentric scholars, such as the previously
explored work by Wayne Chandler (1995), who, also argues in favour of African “Negritos”
having been mainly responsible for the genesis of the Indus culture/race. In support of his
argument, just as Chandler had invoked science (namely the racial categories established by S.
Roma-Krishnan and Bhavan Bombay’s [1962]) in order to support his African origin theory,
similarly, Sergent makes use of the science of craniology to validate his own theoretical views;
Sergent uses Alain Froment’s (1992, 1994) scholarship to corroborate his own finds – a French
anthropologist who has made it his specialty to research the racial composition of the ancient
Egyptians.
Froment (1992, 1994), in his work, has carried out a multivariate craniometrical analysis, a
detailed study of human skulls that originate from various physical types belonging to 384
population groups from around the world. He has designed a chart from which Sergent draws to
bolster his main argument. In order to better understand the results of Froment’s craniological
study, firstly, a brief description of the work is warranted: Simply put, it is a scientific analysis
that is based on nine measurements taken from the cranium of ancient skeletons uncovered in
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
14
various sites across the ancient world.13 Sergent reproduces Froment’s chart detailing his
computed results.
On the chart [See my Appendix Fig. 1 for a reproduction of Froment’s (1994: 53, Fig. 2)
chart.], points map out measurements taken from a multiplicity of samples taken from each
subject population (or cultural group) appearing in the study. On the chart’s horizontal axis, as
Sergent explains, from left to right, there is a gradual progression mapping out populations with
a narrow nose to those who have a broader nose (going towards the right horizontally), and
vertically, narrow skulls (on the bottom) progress towards larger craniums (on the top) (Sergent
1997: 41-2; in reference to Froment 1992: 90-1). The result of this compilation of measurements
made by Froment, as it applies to the ancient Indus people, is a craniometric study that charts for
us exactly where cranium types taken from the Indus sites can be positioned in relation to other
cultural groups; a conclusion that puts the ancient inhabitants of the Indus civilization very close
to what is termed as the “centroïde Nubie” (trans. “Nubian centroid” or “average”) (see Fig. 1).
The Nubian average can be defined as a median or a gravitational centre of the craniums’
measurements used by Froment in his study: Essentially, his analysis asserts the ancestors of the
Hamitic peoples (to whom the ancient Egyptians belong) in North Africa and the Horn to be
mainly descendant from these same proto-Mediterraneans (in an intermediary position on the
chart, in close proximity to the populations of the Maghreb, the Levant, Nubia and Somalia) as
those that populated the ancient Indus Valley basin. The fact that, according to Froment’s
analysis, there does not appear to be any “barrières raciales” (trans. “racial barriers”; see
following quote) separating the North East African and Indian populations, can be taken to mean
13 Froment’s craniological measurements are taken from the following: “longueur, largeur et hauteur du crâne, distance basion*-‐nasion*, distance basion-‐prosthion* (deux mesures qui permettent de calculer le prognathisme*), largeur et hauteur de la face, largeur et hauteur du nez, et reporte par ordinateur les chiffres obtenus sur une table à deux ordonnées” (Sergent 1997: 41; in reference to Froment 1992: 90-‐1).
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
15
that these same proto-Mediterraneans who became the Nilotic settlers (laying down the
groundwork for the foundations of Predynastic Egypt), are then – according to this theoretical
view – also somehow related to those same proto-Mediterraneans populations who made their
way to the foothills of the Iranian Plateau before moving onwards into the ancient Indus Valley
basin. Hence, the implications of Froment’s study are important in supporting Sergent’s views.
In spite of the fact that Froment’s interests and main focus are more about the racial composition
of the ancient Egyptians, his conclusions do nevertheless prove quite useful to Sergent, who, has
made use of the craniomentric study material to validate his theoretical connections between
North East Africa and the purveyors of the Indus culture.
In regards to creating a genetic anthropological correlation between the ancient Egyptians and
the Indus dwellers, Froment (1994) writes that―
[L]es Égyptiens anciens se distinguent aussi bien des Mélano-Africans que des Européens et se situent en position intermédiaire, à proximité des habitants du Maghreb, du Levant, de l’Indus, des Nubiens et des Somaliens. Un gradient de forme régulier entre ces diverses populations interdit d’y établir des barrières « raciales » [ ]. On remarque que se regroupent au centre de la figure les proto-méditerranéens néolithiques, les Somali et Galla, la moyenne de la Nubie et les Indiens.
Ibid. 52
In short, Froment (1994) observes that the racial composition of the North East African (north
of the Sahara) populations and those of the Horn, and onwards leading into the neighbouring
Levantine (eastern Mediterranean) region, are neither “black” (Melano-African) nor “white”
(European). The main focus of Froment’s study serves to recontextualize the gradient variability
of the people that once inhabited ancient Egypt and to clearly demonstrate that our notions of
“black” and “white” ethnic typologies in terms of our modern Western usage of these terms
simply does not exactly apply when trying to pin these labels on cultures of the ancient past.
Instead, the conclusions drawn by Froment argue that instead of “black” or “white” genotypes,
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
16
the aforementioned populations represent a gradual transition situated somewhere between two
ends of a continuous spectrum of human populations (the two extreme ends being “white”
Europe on the one side, and on the other a “black” populated Sub-Saharan Africa). It is this sort
of racial continuum which Froment refers to as “un gradient de forme régulier” (trans. “a regular
gradient form”; see above quote) between two extreme racial poles, and – as previously notes –
his findings place the Indus dwellers’ close to the Nubian average (centroid) (See Fig. 1).
Bernard Sergent has seen fit to interpret this as anthropological proof that the original Indus
settlers (whom he identities as both Melano-Indian and proto-Dravidians) anciently migrated
from east to west from out of North Africa, travelling through the Near East, and onwards into
the Iranian Plateau and into the Indus Valley (where he theorizes they would have been
absorbed by the already present Veddoid population).14
Although, in spite of the fact that Froment’s craniometric study does not portend to identify
any Indus “race” nor anything of the sort, this progressive racial difference in physical types he
has arguably established to have existed in ancient Egypt (and neighbouring populations) does
nevertheless provide Sergent with the valuable data he needs to validate his own theoretical
approach in solving the question of the ancient Indus inhabitants’ cultural identity. For Sergent, 14 In regards to this gradient “racial” variability which Froment (1992) writes about, as far as the ancient Egyptians are concerned, he concludes that they represented a population that possessed “une grande variabilité, et confirme l'opinion générale sur le polymorphisme et le gradient géographique concernant la forme du crâne : les populations de Basse-‐Egypte sont très proches de celles du Maghreb, et celles de Haute-‐Egypte ressemblent à celles de Nubie, ces dernières étant voisines, mais non identiques, à celles d'Afrique sub-‐saharienne” (ibid. 79). Froment also adds that, while there is no break (trans. “rupture”) in all of these populations, there is nevertheless a progressive differenciation that occurs (79). Concerning this, Froment observes that globally, all in all, “le physique des Egyptiens Anciens est exactement à équidistance de celui des Européens et de celui des négro-‐africains; certaines populations de la Méditerranée d'une part, de la Corne de l'Afrique (Tigré, Somalie) de l'autre, tombent à l'intérieur de la gamme de variation des Egyptiens Anciens” (ibid. 79). Froment qualifies his methodological approach of human variability as one that is ultimately “ ‘clinale’ et non ‘raciale’ ”, meaning it is, so to say, placing human variables ‘on an incline’ instead of making use of rigidly stern typologies (ibid. 79). This approach, Froment writes, therefore has an advantage in interpreting “variations anatomiques en termes de biologie génétique et d'adaptabilité au milieu” instead of seeing ancient Egyptians as bieng either “black” or “white” (ibid. 79 ; in the original French, he writes “Dans ce contexte, prétendre que les Egyptiens pharaoniques étaient tous des « Noirs », ou des « Blancs », relève de la fantaisie ou de la manipulation”).
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
17
the Nubian centroid serves as scientific proof that the original Indus dwellers were indeed
genetically related to the populations of North-East Africa – the same ones that are represented
around the Nubian average (in the middle of Froment’s chart [see Fig. 1.1]).
Conclusion
The anthropological approaches proposed by Bernard Sergent (1997) and Wayne Chandler
(1995), in spite of their differences in historical worldviews, do nevertheless share many points
in common and a theoretical similarity in proposing a common origin between ancient North
East African and Indus populations. To synthesize, Chandler, oft marginalized as an Afrocentric
scholar, proposes the Indus people, their culture and ultimately their script, to have originally
hailed from Black Africa – from whence they came to the Indus Valley where they mixed with
the Proto-Australoid population already present. The Proto-Australoid population which
Chandler references is in fact the one and the same Sergent (1997) refers to as the Veddah (or
veddoid) people – the only difference being that mainstream scholars often prefer the use of the
term Proto-Australoid to Veddah in speaking of ancient populations (not to be confused or
associated with the unrelated terms “Veda” or “Vedic”, see note).15 (Proto-Australoids because
they are hypothesized to have descended from the first major migratory wave of humans to have
made their way out of Africa to Australia in ancient times – hence the origin of the term Proto-
Australoid, for in essence they are anthropologically linked to the protohistorical Australian
Aborigines.)
15 The Veddah (or Vedda) people are an indigenous population to South Asia, mostly related to other aboriginal jungle peoples of Southern India and to early populations in Southeast Asia – and the present-‐day Veddah people in Sri Lanka are accorded such an indigenous status by the governments of Sri Lanka. Anthropologists record a genetic continuum between the present-‐day Veddah populations with ancient ones from as early as 18,000 BCE (Deraniyagala 2008). (the original Veddah language is of unknown genetic origins, but it has exercised a substratum influence in the formation of Sinhalese, in spite of the fact that most Veddoid people presently speak Tamil and/or Sinhalese [which belongs to the Indo-‐Aryan branch of the IE language family]).
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
18
Chandler’s (1995) approach is therefore twofold; firstly, it ties the Indus culture with North
East Africa and its ancient populations in order to present sufficient anthropological proof that
the original Indus dwellers (or Harappans) were Black Africans, and secondly, this connection
warrants the inclusion of pre-dynastic Egyptian populations in the polemical debate (surrounding
the Indus culture) since the original Nilotic peoples that gave rise to the ancient Egypian culture
share many physical traits with the Indus skull materials.16 Despite some theoretical nuances,
Sergent’s (1997) views share many similarities with Chandler’s; i) Sergent also makes ties
between the Indus and North East African populations in order to argue that the Melano-Indians
(Black Indians, whom he identifies with Dravidian culture) ultimately find their origin there, and
that ii) these same Melano-Indians share a common genetic “Black Mediterranean” (trans.
“Méditerranéen noir”) and cultural provenance similar to those ancient cultures of Naqada
(where the proto-dynastic Egyptian and Kush/Nubian cultures originate17, and to the
contemporary Somali and Galli people in the Horn of Africa (Sergent 1997: 9, 41). Also, another
important point shared by these scholars is that they both operate on the presupposition that the
Dravidian culture is ultimately identified with the native culture of the original Indus population.
According to Chandler’s views – as previously explored – , he refers to the original Indus
inhabitants as Dravidians negroes, for he theorizes them to have inherited the more ancient
culture from the first original Ethiopian Negrito stratum (87). Ultimately, for both Chandler and
Sergent, this Dravidian and African-oriented presupposition of the original purveyors of the
Indus culture, ultimately, are views that consequently cast the ancient Aryans in a rather negative
16 In support of the shared similarities between the Indus skull material and those discovered in pre-‐dynastic Egypt, Chandler invokes the craniological research of Chatterjee and Kumar (1965: 17, 88; as referenced by Chandler 1995: 88).
17 Hence the importance that Sergent places on the close proximity of the Indus craniums in relation to the Nubian centroid measurements on Froment’s chart (see Fig. 1).
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
19
light, as a foreign cultural element that is rather subversive in relation to the Indus identity.
Hence, an examination of their theoretical views do certainly help explain their adoption of the
Aryan Invasion theory paradigm; the AIT default position can only serve as reinforcement in
their attempt to re-imagine the past.
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
20
Appendix Figure 1, A reproduction of Froment’s (1994: 53, Fig. 2) chart.
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
21
Bibliography Basham, A.L. The Wonder that was India. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1959. Beaujard, Philippe, and S. Fee. “The Indian Ocean in Eurasian and African world-systems before
the sixteenth century.” Journal of World History (University of Hawai’i Press) Vol. 16, no. 4 (Dec., 2005): 411-465.
Brunson, James E. “Unexpected Black faces in early Asia: a photo essay.” African Presence in Early Asia (Tenth Anniversary Edition [1st ed. 1985]), edited by Runoko Rashidi and Ivan Van Sertima. New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.): Transaction Publishers (1995): 204-32.
Bryant, Edwin F., and Laurie L. Patton, eds. The Indo-Aryan controversy, evidence and inference in Indian history. London and New York: Routledge, 2005.
Chandler, Wayne B. “The jewel in the lotus: the Ethiopian presence in the Indus Valley civilization.” African Presence in Early Asia (Tenth Anniversary Edition [1st ed. 1985]), edited by Runoko Rashidi and Ivan Van Sertima. New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.): Transaction Publishers (1995): 81-106.
Deraniyagala, Siran. “Early man and the rise of civilisation in Sri Lanka: the archaeological evidence.” Virtual Library Sri Lanka, 2008.
http://vedda.org/deraniyagala.htm
Diop, Cheikh Anta. “Origin of the ancient Egyptians.” General history of Africa II: ancient civilizations of Africa, edited by G. Mokhtar. Berkeley: University of California Press (1981): 27-57.
DuBois, W.E. Burghardt. The World and Africa. New York: International Publishers, 1972.
Elst, Koenraad. Update on the Aryan Invasion debate. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 1999.
———. “Linguistic aspects of the Aryan Non-Invasion Theory.” The Indo-Aryan controversy, evidence and inference in Indian history, edited by Edwin F. Bryant and Laurie L. Patton, 234-81. London and New York: Routledge, 2005a.
———. “Petty professorial politicking in The Indo-Aryan Controversy: A note on a Harvard professor’s assiduous misrepresentation of my position in the Aryan invasion debate.” Online article made available by author on his website (Oct., 2005b): 1-11.
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/aid/WitzelMisattribute.pdf Finch, III, Charles S. “Africa and Palestine in Antiquity.” African Presence in Early Asia (Tenth
Anniversary Edition [1st ed. 1985]), edited by Runoko Rashidi and Ivan Van Sertima. New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.): Transaction Publishers (1995): 186-97.
Froment, Alain. “Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne : l’apport de l’anthropobiologie.” Archéo-Nil. 2 (1992): 79-98.
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
22
Froment, Alain. “Race et histoire: la recomposition idéologique de l’image des Égyptiens anciens.” Journal des Africanistes. 64 (1994): 37-64.
Howe, Stephen. Afrocentrism: mythical pasts and imagined homes. London/New York: Verso, 1999.
Jairazbhoy, Rafique Ali (R.A.). “Egyptian civilization in Colchis on the Black sea.” African Presence in Early Asia (Tenth Anniversary Edition [1st ed. 1985]), edited by Runoko Rashidi and Ivan Van Sertima. New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.): Transaction Publishers (1995): 59-64.
Nicholson, Paul T., and Ian Shaw, eds. Ancient Egyptian materials and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Parpola, Asko, and Christian Carpelan. “The cultural counterparts to Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan. Matching the dispersal and contact patterns in the linguistic and archaeological record.” The Indo-Aryan controversy, evidence and inference in Indian history, edited by Edwin F. Bryant and Laurie L. Patton, 107-141. London and New York: Routledge, 2005.
Rajshekar, V.T. “Cheikh Anta Diop and the search for cultural roots of Dalits.” African Presence in Early Asia (Tenth Anniversary Edition [1st ed. 1985]), edited by Runoko Rashidi and Ivan Van Sertima. New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.): Transaction Publishers (1995a): 233-4.
———. “The Black Untouchables of India: reclaiming our cultural heritage.” African Presence in Early Asia (Tenth Anniversary Edition [1st ed. 1985]), edited by Runoko Rashidi and Ivan Van Sertima. New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.): Transaction Publishers (1995b): 235-42.
Rashidi, Runoko. “Africans in early Asian civilizations: a historical overview.” African Presence in Early Asia (Tenth Anniversary Edition [1st ed. 1985]), edited by Runoko Rashidi and Ivan Van Sertima. New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.): Transaction Publishers (1995): 21-58.
———. “Dalits: The Black Untouchables of India.” Encyclopedia of the African diaspora: origins, experiences, and culture, edited by Carole Boyce-Davies. Santa Barbara (CA): ABC-CLIO, Inc., (2008): 354-5.
Rashidi, Runoko (ed.), and Ivan Van Sertima (co-ed.) African Presence in Early Asia. Tenth Anniversary Edition. Transaction Publishers. New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.) [1st ed. 1985, © The Journal of African Civilizations Ltd., Inc.], 1995.
Rodrigues, Hillary P. Introducing Hinduism. Oxon/New York: Routledge, 2006.
Roma-Krishnan, S., and Bhavan Bombay. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan: The Vedic Age, Vol. 1. India, 1962.
Sergent, Bernard. Genèse de l’Inde. Bibliothèque scientifique (series). Paris: Payot, 1997.
Paul D. LeBlanc Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley: Theories of Contact
23
Vallois, Henri Victor. Les races humaines. PUF, collection Que sais-je ?, 1944.
Witzel, Michael. “Early loan words in Western Central Asia: Indicators of substrate populations, migrations, and trade relations.” Contact and exchange in the ancient world, edited by Victor H. Mair. University of Hawai’i Press (2006a): 158-190.