By Bashir ABDULRAHMAN
BOOK title: The African Origin of Civilization : Myth or Reality
Author: Cheikh Anta Diop
Publisher: Lawrence Hill Books
Year: 1974
ISBN: 155-652-072-7
There is a narrative that the black race native to sub-Saharan Africa has not contributed anything to human civilisation. We have no old monuments; no histories of empires comparable to those of Eurasia and the Mediterranean; no medicine or literature or mathematics or astrology or even agriculture that we taught the rest of the world. This is disgraceful since we are the original humans and have been residing here in Africa forever. It is even more disgraceful that we have remained at the bottom of human development. This is something I am really sensitive about.
This book makes the argument that the feeling of inferiority is unnecessary because black people founded Egypt which civilised everybody else. He takes on assertions that Egypt was a white or at least brown civilisation. The author makes his argument using:
- 1. Egyptian art which gives pre-eminence to black people when showing people of different races. Further, their gods were depicted as black. And interestingly, the white man was shown in last place wearing animal skins; evidence that he was at the bottom of the civilisational hierarchy and evidence that no condition is permanent.
- Similarities between ancient Egyptian cosmogeny and contemporary traditional, African cosmogeny and religion, especially that of the Yoruba.
- How ancient Egyptian accounts stated that their origin was south, in Ethiopia, which in antiquity was Sudan, not present-day Ethiopia. A bit like how the original Ghana was in present day Mali.
- He quotes descriptions written by Greek historians (Herodotus and the usual suspects) which said the ancient Egyptians were black with woolly hair.
- Comparisons between words in the ancient Egyptian language and contemporary African languages like (especially) Wolof, which is his native language; Yoruba, Laobe, Peul, Serer and other languages.
It is a persuasive argument because firstly, I want to be persuaded since it is a claim that, if true, benefits me.
It is a persuasive argument because firstly, I want to be persuaded since it is a claim that, if true, benefits me.
Secondly, parts of it are sensible and logical because since black Africa is the origin of humanity, and it is where humans have occupied for the longest time, it is not implausible that the oldest occupants (black people) developed civilisation and exported it.
Thirdly, it has been proven that at least 13,000 years ago, the Sahara was wet and peopled, most probably by black people. It is possible that Egypt is a remnant of a civilisation now lost to time; especially since the harshness of the desert might have destroyed evidence of that civilisation or it is under the sand.
Fourthly, Sudan is part of black Africa. It has more pyramids than Egypt and some of the pyramids there seem to be prototypes of the ones in Egypt, so it is plausible that there was a precursor civilisation there.
However, I am skeptical of his argument because of motivated thinking. That I want something to be true does not mean I should not question it to see if it aligns with what I already know (or think I know). There are parts of his argument that I find hard to accept.
I find it hard to believe that the civilisations in Arabia, China, Mesopotamia and India were established by colonies of civilised black people who eventually became white or slitty eyed.
Firstly, I think that too little time would have passed for those physical changes to happen. Further, the presence of Red Indians in the Americas, who are genetically closer to Orientals and the historical evidence of people crossing the Bering strait means Asiatics had diverged at an earlier time in the past than the timeline he claims. While it is evident that humans migrated, it was a slow process. And since the migrants were wandering about in the wild, I imagine the population growth was too slow to allow for the mass that would enable specialisation and thus civilisation. The point here is that while it is not worth debating whether it was black people who migrated from Africa, it is worth debating whether by the time civilisation developed in Asia, the people were still negroid.
Related to the bit about the Bering Strait, his descriptions of biological negroid markers found on Egyptian skeletons seems like dated knowledge. It appears dated because I have read claims that skeletons have no racial characteristics. I am inclined to believe him though, because it does not make sense for there to be differences in say facial structure and then for someone to say these differences do not go down to the bones. The claims that say otherwise are probably just political correctness gone wild.
Another weakness of his argument is the similarity he claims exists between ancient Egyptian and contemporary black African languages.
Another weakness of his argument is the similarity he claims exists between ancient Egyptian and contemporary black African languages. He gave too few examples and that means the similarity could just be coincidental.
My criticism of this argument is itself weak since studies of Proto-Indo-European (PIE), which existed 4,500 years ago have claimed similarities between languages in India and Europe. However, those claims are backed up by a lot of evidence and supposedly more rigorous studies. His claim does not have such support. Further, given how mutable language is, I find it hard to believe traces of a 5,000 year old ancestral language would be easily discovered.
Although I repeat, this criticism is weak, and I am probably just including it here to pretend erudition at knowledge of PIE. Speaking of erudition, the guy was quite learned. He had degrees in anthropology, history and physics. The book uses jargon precisely, even though as I said earlier, some of the scientific proofs he presents seem like they have been superseded by new findings. I have mentioned the Bering Strait above. And so, I sometimes felt like I was reading a discredited science like phrenology, especially in his arguments about biological negroid features like dolichocephalic heads.
However, the biggest weakness of his thesis is related to something I said in my opening paragraph. Why are we the most backward now? If we were civilised before, why have we not been able to become civilised again? And if Egypt is descended from a sophisticated black African civilisation, one which branched out in other directions, why did those other places not thrive?
There may be an argument that the conditions of the Nile valley enabled the building of the pyramids and other archaeological remains. If so, why are there no impressive remains of African civilisations in the forested parts of Africa like what is found in Central and South America? There are no monuments in clement populated places like Uganda, which was rich enough and populated enough to generate the surpluses necessary for a complex society. If a conducive environment is what enables civilisation, one should have developed there, since that is what is said to have enabled those in the Middle East. There are also none in the harsher places like the Sahel.
So, given the range of environments on the continent, there should have been more civilisations with more impressive records.
So, given the range of environments on the continent, there should have been more civilisations with more impressive records. But there is no evidence. If such evidence existed, we would not have to fight to claim Egypt, even if the claim is true. Because we would have other history just as impressive.
This is an interesting book that is worth reading. However, it is not an enjoyable read. I did not enjoy it because it is dense academic writing. It felt a bit like Wole Soyinka’s work. But it is highly recommended because of the new knowledge I have been made aware of even though it does not fit in well with what I have previously accepted as most probably correct.
Bashir Abdulrahman writes about books he has read. He can be reached via bashirhimma@gmail.com