A reminder about the Kemet Expert blog


About this blog

Kemet Expert is now nearly 18 months old. It has been great to make new contacts, and to receive some really interesting questions and thoughts on matters relating to African-centered approaches to the study of Ancient Egypt. However, some readers who get in touch clearly do not share this viewpoint. I’m not sure how much clearer I could be about the purpose of this blog. So I’m re-posting below.

‘Kemet Expert’ is a blog dedicated to African-centred Egyptology. ‘Kemet’ was one of the ancient names given to the country that later became known as ‘Egypt’. However, more recently ‘Kemet’ implies an African-focused approach to the study of the ancient culture.

The blog is based on the premise that Ancient Egypt shares commonalities with other African cultures; and that in order to fully understand this ancient culture, it is necessary to draw parallels from other indigenous African cultures.

This blog is intended as a source of information for those who wish to view Ancient Egypt from an African-focused perspective. It is not intended as a forum for questioning this approach; many of these already exist.

Thank you!

5 thoughts on “A reminder about the Kemet Expert blog”

  1. This is addressed to the readers of this blog.

    What do you find most problematic about the piece on mummy genomes by Schuenemann et al. published in the last two years?
    Please list one or two things.

    This will promote a great discussion.

    1. @ SOY Keita

      I did wonder why they focused mostly on the sub-Saharan ancestry that Egyptians supposedly gained in the post-Roman period. That couldn’t be the only population shift that has affected Egypt over the last few millennia. I don’t think the authors of that study were too familiar on previous bio-anthropological research on ancient Egyptian remains, but they did sound like they wanted to get a rise out of so-called “Afrocentrists”.

      In addition, I don’t think every population indigenous to Africa would necessarily cluster with every single “sub-Saharan” population at the genetic level the way many people imagine. If you think about it, one of the ramifications of the “Out of Africa” theory is that, since non-Africans descend from a specific subset of Africans (namely northeastern Africans), those Africans within that subset would naturally have a greater genetic affinity to all non-Africans than would, say, Africans living further away from the Sinai or Red Sea coast (even if we subtract back-migrations). Even within sub-Sahara, some Africans are going to have less genetic difference from non-Africans than others due to diverging later. Therefore, it wouldn’t surprise me if some of the “Eurasian” ancestry supposedly found in those late dynastic northern Egyptian remains was actually native to northeastern Africa rather than entirely the legacy of back-migration.

  2. Excellent post.

    I personally believe that this is a very groundbreaking blog, and is obstensibly erudite in its presentation.

    I have recently reviewed E.A Wallis Budge’s “An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary”, written in the 1930’s, and he makes a number of remarkable statements in the introduction, most notably that “These words are monosyllabic and were imvented by one of the oldest African peoples in the valley if the Nile”, in regards of the Kemetic language. In short: scholars, and the ancient Kemites themselves, have long ascertained the deep affinities to African culture which must be explored and quantified.

Comments are closed.