The ‘Black Pharaohs’ Fallacy:

Misinterpretations of Kush-Kemet Identity

Tristan Samuels

NMC 260Y

Prof. Batuik

4 April 2014
 Samuels 1

This essay addresses two misinterpretations of identity of the nation of Twenty-fifth

dynasty Kemet.* First, the cultural interaction of Kemite and Nubian elements in the twenty-fifth

dynasty is still described as ‘Egyptianization’ and Nubian elements are categorized as ‘African’

which implies that Kemet was not African and ignores the complexity of Kemite-Nubian

cultural interaction. The most prevalent problem is the ‘Black pharaohs’ nomenclature which

assumes that the Kemites were White or non-Black. These problems are mainly due to the

Eurocentric racism1 of Early Egyptology and its residual effects in current scholarship. This

paper investigates the ways in which these residual effects have lead to a misreading of Kush-

Kemet2 identity. Ultimately, it is argued that Kush-Kemet neither ‘Egyptianized’ the Kushites

nor did it make Kemet more or less African and, furthermore, the ‘Black Pharaohs’ nomenclature

is an inaccurate description of the Kush-Kemet pharaohs.

The “Egyptianized” Africans Myth

In Egyptology and Nubiology, Nubia is often treated as the ‘African’ contrast of Kemet

that was ‘Egyptianized’ which is problematic. The categorization of Kemet as a ‘Near Eastern’

or ‘Oriental civilization’ is a result of the racism of early Egyptology (Levi 2012: 188-89).

Kemet was no more or less African than Nubia. Kemet was an organically African civilization,

as bio-anthropologist S.O.Y Keita explains:

It is not a question of “African influence”; ancient Egypt was organically African.

Studying early Egypt in its African context is not “Afrocentric,” but simply correct (Keita
1997: 46, emphasis added).
Keita bases his analysis on a variety of evidence – biological, linguistic, archaeological – which

demonstrates that Kemite civilization emerged from an African context (1997: 35-46). Kemet is
*
Kemet and Kemite are used instead of ancient Egypt and ancient Egyptian because it is the original name of that
territory.
1
Eurocentric racism is a hegemonic and totalitarian Eurocentric perspective that marginalizes non-Western peoples.
2
This term emphasizes the dual-nation entity dynamic of the XXV dynasty (Peake 2008: 467).
 Samuels 2

no more or less African than Nubia. Therefore, the intrinsically racist category ‘Near East’ has to

be discarded. Rather, the term Afrasian should be used to describe ancient relations and

interconnections between Northeast Africa and Southwest Asia.

There is a common misconception that Nubian ethnicity underwent ‘Egyptianization’ in

the New Kingdom and Kush-Kemet periods. This approach overlooks the long and complex

cultural exchange between Kemet and Nubia (Gatto 2011; Williams 2006). Secondly, the

concept of ‘Egyptianization’ is rooted in the anti-Black racism of early Egyptologists (Pelt 2013:

526). Pelt (2013) and Smith (2013) use the concept of ‘cultural entanglement’ to explain Kemite-

Nubian cultural interaction revealed in the archaeological record. The concept of ‘cultural

entanglement’ is much more progressive and does not carry the same racist connotations of

Egyptianization.

However, the concept of ‘cultural entanglement’ still somewhat undermines Nubian

agency. First, most of the evidence reflects elite consumption more so than the lower classes

(Pelt 2013: 529; Smith 2013: 90). Secondly, ethnicities are geo-cultural sub-divisions within a

racial group (Lipsitz 1995: 370) which makes race a more appropriate terminology for

distinguishing Kemite and Nubian identity (see ‘The Issue of Race’). Furthermore, identity

involves an intangible consciousness that cannot be detected in the archaeological record. While

material culture helps us distinguish between Kemites and Nubians, we cannot be certain that the

Nubians themselves felt culturally ‘entangled’. Therefore, we should use the term ‘material

identity entanglement’ to acknowledge our methodological perspective and its limits.

The status of royal women, however, is a strong example of the uniqueness and common

African context of both Kemet and Kush. Nubiologist Robert Morkot dismisses the matrilineal

Kush-Kemet position as a shallow assumption based on its perceived Africanness (2003: 168).
 Samuels 3

Nubiologist Angelika Lohwasser, however, points out that Kushite kings always made reference

to their female ancestors (2001: 64-66). Matrilineal succession also occurred in seventeenth and

eighteenth dynasty Kemet (Allen 2007: 819-20). However, Lohwasser notes key differences

between New Kingdom Kemet and Kush-Kemet. For example, Kushite royal women were

buried with the kings in contrast from Kemet. In addition, the female members of his family are

present with the king more so than in Kemite art (2001: 67-68). However, both Kemite and

Kushite culture saw man and woman in rulership as complementary (2001: 71-74).

Morkot stereotypes, without any discourse analysis, “modern Afrocentrist writings” as

idealizing matrilineage and the importance of women in Kushite culture as a contrast to White

male European aggression. He argues that African monarchies are as likely to be patrilineal as

matrilineal (Morkot 2003: 168). To the contrary, Afrocentric womanist Nah Dove (2002) argues

that Kemet and Kush are examples of a Mother-centered matrix which is the balance between

feminine and masculine principles on physical, material and spiritual planes. In Africa,

matrifocal and patrifocal African societies value the female-male reciprocal relationship – unlike

European cultures (2002: 6). Dove explains that the Kushites came into Kemet sharing the same

underlying principles because they were part of the same cultural context, not ‘Egyptianization’

(2002: 13). Morkot’s reactionary criticism of Afrocentrists reveals an underlying White privilege

bias that cannot tolerate the Afrocentric dismissal of White normativity (see ‘white privilege’

sub-section). Dove’s approach goes beyond the simplistic issue of succession and, instead,

focuses on the notion of a reciprocal relationship between masculine and feminine principles.

Overall, Dove’s Mother-centered Matrix concept demonstrates the African context of both

cultures, without undermining their uniqueness.

 Samuels 4

Myth of “the Black Pharaohs”

The issue of Black identity has been a problem for Egyptology since its emergence due to

anti-Black racism (Diop 1974; Keita 2000). Consequently, the problem of White privilege must

be confronted and critically engaged in every discussion about racial identity. White privilege is

the unearned social, economic, and political advantages of Whites vis-à-vis other racial groups

due to White supremacy (Lipsitz 1995: 383). In the context of anti-Black racism, this privilege

extends to non-Black people of color. In Egyptological discussions, the influence of White

privilege is evident in the negative reception of African-centered Black scholars, often falsely

stereotyped as ‘Afrocentric’, who argue that Kemet was a Black civilization. There is also the

problem of defining Black identity as Black perspectives on Black identity are often ignored by

Egyptologists and Nubiologists. These problems are discussed below.

White Privilege

Morkot openly refers to the Kush-Kemet rulers as Black Pharaohs (2000), but he claims

that the Blackness of Kemet “depends on your own point of view” (2005: 10, emphasis added).

This is a glaring contradiction which begs the question: why are the Nubians easily accepted as

Black, while Kemite Blackness depends on ‘point of view’? Morkot never questions the

influence of anti-Black racism in the ‘point of views’ that reject a Black Kemet. Furthermore, it

should be common sense to center the question of Black identity on actual Black perspectives

that critically engage Kemite and Nubian sources. However, as noted earlier, White normativity*

pervades the underlying assumptions in Morkot’s ‘point of view’.

*
White normativity is the centering of the White reference group as the constitutive norm (Mills 2007: 25).
 Samuels 5

Redford epitomizes White normativity in his discussions of Nubian relations with Kemet

which he calls ‘the Black experience’ (2004). Redford explains the problem behind the issue of

race relations “between Mediterranean and Nilotic peoples” (2004: x) as follows:

Although the more extreme positions OF Eurocentrists and Afrocentrists alike have now
Been abandoned, neither they nor their more sober counterparts show much inclination to
adopt a dispassionate empirical approach. What I have tried to do is allow the Egyptian
texts to speak for themselves (2004: x).
First and foremost, Redford never questions his White privilege. He also marginalizes the work

of Black scholars without thorough discussion of their discourse which, in turn, reinforces his

White privilege. Moreover, Redford provides no nuanced discussion on Black identity. Stuart

Tyson Smith correctly argues that Redford dangerously implies that the Kemites were White or a

darker ‘Mediterranean’ race (2008: 191). Smith, agreeing with ‘Afrocentrists’, argues that

Egyptologists are “reluctant to admit that the ancient Egyptians were rather dark-skinned

Africans”. Smith points out that “If Tutankhamen hopped on a bus with a Nubian friend in, say,

Atlanta…both would be sitting at the back of the bus” (2008: 191, emphasis original).

However, Smith also asserts White normativity in his treatment of African-centered

Black scholars, particularly Chiekh Anta Diop. Smith, without discourse analysis, complains that

Diop’s Black Kemet “simply reversed” the racist assumptions of the “Dynastic Race” theory

(Smith 2003: 14). However, J.D. Walker has pointed out that scholars misinterpret Diop’s use of

Black identity, which included a diverse range of phenotypes, and recent bio-anthropological

studies conclusively support Diop’s conclusions on African physical diversity (1995: 80). Also,

critical race theorist Tommy Curry explains that Diop’s Black Kemet shows that race is a

culturally and historically grounded construct – not biological essentialism (2011: 157). Clearly,

Smith’s sees Diop’s approach as ‘reverse racist’ because of his White normative assumptions

about race and racism which is a consequence of his White privileged bias.
 Samuels 6

Smith still considers Redford’s work on the Nubian experience of Kemet scholarly (2008:

192), despite Redford’s application of the Mediterranean race myth to Kemite identity which is

actually based on racist assumptions (Reynolds-Marinche 1994) – a disturbing contradiction.

Why is Diop, instead of Redford, criticized for perpetuating racist ideas? White normative

assumptions, underpinned by White privilege, often unfairly accuse Black people of perpetuating

racism when they simply discuss the problem (Mills 2007: 25-28). Smith silences the

perspectives of Black scholars who actually experience racism and, consequently, understand

race in different and complex ways. Black perspectives, in spite of their distinctive conceptual

difference and theoretical insights, are ignored or dismissed in disciplines affected by racism

(Mills 2007: 33-34). Unintentional or not, Smith’s reactionary critique of Diop reinforces his

White privilege. White privilege is a clearly a problem in Egyptology and Nubiology.

Sally-Ann Ashton, an African-centered White female Egyptologist, is an exception.

Ashton openly embraces Kemet as a Black and African civilization (2011: 105). Ashton

thoroughly confronts the problem of White privilege in Egyptology, unlike the scholars

discussed above. Ashton, for example, emphasizes the tendency of traditional Egyptology to

pathologize African-centered Black scholars (2011: 108). Ashton, in marked contrast, eradicates

the issue of White privilege in her approaches by engaging Black perspectives. Ashton correctly

observes that Black perspectives on Black identity provide insight into Kemite racial

identification. For example, Ashton observes that Kemites depicted themselves in shades of

brown and compares it to the practice among Afro-Caribbeans who use terms like ‘brown-

skinned’ or ‘dark’ to describe themselves (2011: 106). Furthermore, Ashton observes that

studying Kemet as a part of African and Black history leads to an engagement with a broad range

of perspectives which enables an inclusive study of Kemet (2011: 108-11). Therefore, it is only
 Samuels 7

through inclusive approaches that Egyptology and Nubiology can eradicate the problem of White

privilege.

The Issue of Race

In Egyptology and Nubiology, race is misinterpreted as simply biological essentialism

(i.e. Smith 2007: 220) which undermines the complexity of racial identity and conflates it with

racism. Critical Race theorist Barbara Fields avoids the problematic conflation of racism and

race. Racism is:

[T]he assignment of people to an inferior category and the determination of their social,
economic, civic, and human standing on that basis. (Fields 2001: 48)
Racism denies identity (sense of self) and agency (conscious goal-directed activity) – it is

asymmetrical. Targets of racism are not free to ‘negotiate’, but they can challenge it or navigate

through the obstacles that it creates (2001: 48). Race, according to Fields, is:

[A] state of mind, feeling, or being, rather than a program or pattern of action. It radiates
a semantic and grammatical ambiguity that helps to restore an appearance of symmetry,
particularly with the help of a thimblerig that imperceptibly moves the pea from race to
racial identity (2001: 49, emphasis original).
In this way, racial identification is an ongoing dialogue between groups which makes it a tool of

both domination and resistance (2001: 49). In this context, the discussion of Black identity

investigates its role in Kemite and Kushite racial identification.

Black Identity: Correcting the Misinterpretation

In Egyptology and Nubiology, Black identity is equated with the ‘True Negro’ myth (i.e.

Black skin, broad noses, thick lips) which is based on eighteenth and nineteenth century

European racist assumptions about the African body (Levi 2012: 185). Smith, who criticizes

African-centered scholars as ‘reverse racists’, perpetuates this assumption. Smith uses the ‘True
 Samuels 8

Negro’ approach to Nubian identity based on the Seti I depictions (2003: 22). If Smith actually

engaged Black perspectives on Black identity, as Ashton did, he would realize that there is no

monolithic Black physical type. Furthermore, approaching Black identity from a non-Black

perspective reinforces White normativity and, in turn, White privilege.

Blackness is a complex socio-political and cultural construct – not a monolithic or

biologically precise one. Consequently, Blackness includes a wide variety of brown and black

complexions in combination with other somatic features. African-centered scholars have

consistently emphasized the physical diversity of Black bodies (Carruthers 1992: 470-71; Diop

1974: 164-67). The diversity in Blackness is identical to Kemite racial usage of brown and black

complexions in their art as Ashton observed. Furthermore, as noted previously, using a Black

perspective to interpret Blackness in Kemite art eradicates White normativity. Therefore,

approaching the role of Blackness in Kemite racial identity from a Black perspective is the

logical approach. Hereafter, this study will use “Black identity” (or Blackness/Black) to denote

multiple shades of black and brown in the Kemite construction of racial identity, while “black”

refers to literal skin color.

Black Identity in a Kemite context

The Kemite conceptualization of Black identity is rather complex, especially vis-à-vis

Nubians, in the New Kingdom evidence. Three particular visual depictions reveal this complex

articulation of Black identity. The Nubians in the tomb of Huy, viceroy of Tutankhamun, are

shown in a diverse range of skin complexions from brown to black (see Figure 1). This depiction

displays the diversity of Blackness in Nubians. Therefore, we cannot say that a reddish-brown

skin complexion was the main factor in the Kemite/Nubian dichotomy.

 Samuels 9

Second, it is believed that both the Seti I tomb scenes and Ramesses III tomb scenes (i.e.

Smith 2003: 22) depict Kemite racial divisions in the same way. The Seti I tomb scenes (Figure

2) show reddish-brown Kemites contrasted with black Nubians, tanned Asiatics and white

Lybians. This is not a non-Black/Black racial contrast between Kemites and Nubians as often

assumed. As discussed previously, reddish-brown skin color was not exclusive to Kemites.

Rather, this contrast suggests an intraracial colorism, hierarchy within a racial group based on

skin color (Banks 2009: 214), because reddish-brown Kemites are treated as the normative

identity which neglects the other Black Kemites. In other words, this is a racial contrast between

two different shades of Blackness. In contrast, the Ramesses III tomb scenes show both Kemites

and Nubians as black and they are distinguished only by slight differences in clothing and the

caption text, while Asiatics and Libyans remain physically distinct from Kemites (See Figure 3

& 4). Egyptologists have ignored this aspect of the Ramesses III tomb scenes and have been

rightly criticized by African-centered scholars (Grantham 2003: 23-35). These scenes prove that

black skin color, in a racial context, was not exclusive to Nubians in Kemite art. Overall, we can

see that the Kemites saw themselves and Nubians as two distinct Black racial groups.

Black Identity in Kush-Kemet

The rulers of Kush-Kemet are often labelled the ‘Black Pharaohs’ which leads to

problematic interpretation of Kushite art as distinctive vis-à-vis physical characteristics (i.e.

Taylor 2003: 350). There are two images that sufficiently show this assumption to be false. First,

the eighth century Kush-Kemet queen Queen Qalhata is depicted in a reddish-brown complexion

(see Figure 5) which shows that the Kushites did not consider themselves exclusively darker than

Kemites as often assumed (i.e. Naunton 2010: 134). Second, Pharaoh Taharqa is shown with a
 Samuels 10

dark brown complexion (see Figure 6) which is not unusual for a Kemite skin complexion.

Collectively, these two examples show us the Kushite rulers had the same understanding of

Black identity as articulated by the Kemites in the New Kingdom. Furthermore, there are no

images with Kushites in an exclusively deep black skin color. Clearly, Kushites were just as

Black as the Kemites. Therefore, the ‘Black Pharaohs’ nomenclature has to be discarded.

Conclusion

This paper deflated three aspects of residual Eurocentric racism in the characterization of

Kush-Kemet identity. ‘Material identity entanglement’ better explains the complex mixture of

Kemite and Nubian elements in Nubian material culture as oppose to Egyptianization. The

Mother-centered Matrix of Kemite and Kushite culture is a solid example of how these two

cultures were both African, but distinct. We can see that both Kemites and Kushites, in their

royal elite culture, valued queenship as an essential complementary aspect of rulership which is

part of a broader phenomenon unique to the African continent. This worldview is expressed

differently in Kemite and Kushite culture which makes them distinguishable. Secondly, the

‘Black Pharaohs’ nomenclature associated with Kush-Kemet is false and, therefore, must be

dismissed. Scholars must refer only to Black perspectives to discuss Black identity because it is

the common sense approach and it dismisses White privilege. The Kemite/Kushite polarity was

not contingent on Blackness because it was a racial characteristic shared between them. Clearly,

the Kemites and Kushites perceived each other as two distinct Black racial groups.
 Samuels 11

Images

Figure 1 - Nubian Tribute bearers in Tomb of Huy (Vercoutter 2010, Figure 24)
 Samuels 12

Figure 2 – Drawing of the "four races of man" from Seti I tomb scenes. left to right: four Libyans, Nubian, Asiatic,
Kemite (Hornung 1990, plate 198)

Figure 3 - Photograph of Ramesses III tomb scene. Kemites on top left, while two Nubians are on bottom left (Grantham
2003, Fig 5a-d)
 Samuels 13

Figure 4 - The Kemites in the Ramesses III tomb scene (Hornung 1990, plate 198). Hornung identifies them as Kushites,
but the captions above label these individuals "remetew".
 Samuels 14

Figure 5 - Queen Qalhata of Kush-Kemet (Leclant 2010, Figure 100)

 Samuels 15

Figure 6 - King Taharqa (Welsby 1998, col. plate 1)

 Samuels 16

References Cited

Allen, Troy. 2008. "Cheikh Anta Diop's Two Cradle Theory: Revisited." Journal of Black

Studies 38(6): 813-29. Print.

Ashton, Sally-Ann. 2011. "Curating Kemet, Fear of a Black Land?" Egypt in Its African Context:

Proceedings of the Conference Held at the Manchester Museum, University of

Manchester, 2-4 October 2009. Ed. Karen Exell, pp. 105-14. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Print.

Banks, Taunya Lovell. 2009. "Multilayered Racism: Courts' Continued Resistance to Colorism."

Shades of Difference: Why Skin Color Matters. Ed. Evelyn Nakano, pp. 213-22. Glenn.

Stanford, CA: Stanford UP. Print.

Carruthers, Jacob H. 1992. "Outside Academia: Bernal's Critique of Black Champions of

Ancient Egypt." Journal of Black Studies 22(4): 459-76. Print.

Curry, Tommy J. 2011. "On Derelict and Method: The Methodological Crisis of African-

American Philosophy's Study of African-Descended Peoples under an Integrationist

Milieu." Radical Philosophy Review 14(2): 139-64. Print.

Diop, Cheikh Anta. 1974. The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality. Trans. Mercer

Cook. Westport: Lawrence Hill. Print.

Dove, Nah. 2002. "Defining a Mother-Centered Matrix to Analyze the Status of Women."

Journal of Black Studies 33(1): 3-24. Print.

Fields, Barbara J. 2001. "Whiteness, Racism, and Identity." International Labor and Working-

Class History 60: 48-56. Print.

 Samuels 17

Gatto, Maria C. 2011. "The Nubian Pastoral Culture as Link between Egypt and Africa: A View

from the Archaeological Record." Egypt in Its African Context: Proceedings of the

Conference Held at the Manchester Museum, University of Manchester, 2-4 October

2009. Ed. Karen Exell, pp. 21-29. Oxford: Archaeopress. Print.

Grantham, Charles A. 2003. The Battle for Kemet: Critical Essays on Ancient Egypt. Chicago:

Kemetic Institute. Print.

Hornung, Erik. 1991. The Tomb of Pharaoh Seti I. rich: Artemis Verlag. Print.

_____. 1990. The Valley of the Kings: Horizon of Eternity. New York: Timken. Print.

Keita, Maghan. 2000. Race and the Writing of History: Riddling the Sphinx. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Print.

Keita, S.O.Y. 1997. "Is Studying Egypt in Its African Context “Afrocentric”?" Were the

Achievements of Ancient Greece Borrowed from Africa?: Proceedings from a Seminar

Sponsored by the Society for the Preservation of the Greek Heritage and Co-sponsored

by Georgetown University and Held at the Intercultural Center, Georgetown University,

Washington, D.C. on November 16, 1996. Ed. Anna Lea and Andrea Ross, pp. 35-46.

Washington, D.C.: Society. Print.

Leclant, Jean. 2010. "Cushites and Meroites: Iconography of African Rulers in the Ancient

Upper Nile." The Image of the Black in Western Art. Ed. David Bindman, Henry Louis

Gates, and Karen C. C. Dalton. Vol. 1, pp. 95-140. Cambridge, MA: Belknap. Print.

Levi, Josef Ben. 2012. "The Intellectual Warfare of Dr. Jacob H. Carruthers and the Battle for

Ancient Nubia as a Foundational Paradigm in Africana Studies: Thoughts and

Reflections." The Journal of Pan African Studies 5(4): 178-95. Print.

 Samuels 18

Lipsitz, George. 1995. "The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: Racialized Social Democracy

and the "White" Problem in American Studies." American Quarterly 47(3): 369-87. Print.

Lohwasser, Angelika. 2001. "Queenship in Kush: Status, Role and Ideology of Royal Women."

Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 38: 61-76. Print.

Mills, Charles. 2007. "White Ignorance." Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance. Ed. Shannon

Sullivan and Nancy Tuana, pp. 13-38. Albany: SUNY. Print.

Morkot, Robert. 2000. The Black Pharaohs: Egypt's Nubian Rulers. London: Rubicon. Print.

_____. 2005. The Egyptians: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. Print.

_____. 2003. "On the Priestly Origin of the Napatan Kings: The Adaptation, Demise and

Resurrection of Ideas in Writing Nubian History." Ancient Egypt in Africa. Ed. David B.

O'Connor and Andrew Reid, pp.151-68. London: UCL. Print.

Naunton, Christopher. 2010. "Libyans and Nubians." A Companion to Ancient Egypt. Ed. Alan

B. Lloyd, pp. 120-39. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Print.

Peake, Lewis. 2008. "The Invisible Superpower: Review of the Geopolitical Status of Kushite

(Twenty-fifth Dynasty) Egypt at the Height of Its Power and a Historiographic Analysis

of the Regime's Legacy." Between the Cataracts: Proceedings of the 11th Conference for

Nubian Studies, Warsaw University, 27 August - 2 September 2006. Ed. Włodzimierz

Godlewski and Adam Łajtar Vol. 2, pp. 465-76. Warsaw: Warsaw UP. Print.

Pelt, W. Paul Van. 2013. "Revising Egypto-Nubian Relations in New Kingdom Lower Nubia:

From Egyptianization to Cultural Entanglement." Cambridge Archaeological Journal

23(3): 523-50. Print.

Redford, Donald B. 2004. From Slave to Pharaoh: The Black Experience of Ancient Egypt.

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP. Print.

 Samuels 19

Reynolds-Marniche, Dana. 1994. "The Myth of the Mediterranean Race." Egypt: Child of Africa.

Ed. Ivan Van Sertima, pp.109-25. New Brunswick, U.S.A.: Transaction. Print.

Smith, Stuart Tyson. 2007. "Ethnicity and Culture." The Egyptian World. Ed. Toby A. H.

Wilkinson, pp. 218-41. London: Routledge. Print.

_____. 2008. Rev. of From Slave to Pharaoh: The Black Experience of Ancient Egypt, by

Donald B. Redford. Near Eastern Archaeology 71(3): 190-92. Print.

_____. 2013. "Revenge of the Kushites: Assimilation and Resistance in Egypt’s New Kingdom."

Empires and Complexity: On the Crossroads of Archaeology. Ed. Gregory Areshian, pp.

84-107. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA. Print.

_____. 2003. Wretched Kush: Ethnic Identities and Boundaries in Egypt's Nubian Empire.

London: Routledge. Print.

Taylor, John. 2003. "The Third Intermediate Period (1069-664 BC)." The Oxford History of

Ancient Egypt. Ed. Ian Shaw, pp. 324-63. Oxford: Oxford UP. Print.

Vercoutter, Jean. 2010. "The Iconography of the Black in Ancient Egypt: From Beginnings to

the Twenty-fifth Dynasty." 1976. The Image of the Black in Western Art. Ed. David

Bindman, Henry Louis Gates, and Karen C. C. Dalton. Vol. 1, pp. 41-94. Cambridge,

MA: Belknap. Print.

Walker, J.D. 1995. "The Misrepresentation of Diop's Views." Journal of Black Studies 26(1): 77-

85. Print.

Welsby, Derek A. 1998. The Kingdom of Kush: The Napatan and Meroitic Empires. Princeton,

NJ: Markus Wiener. Print.

Williams, Bruce B. 2006. "The Adoption and Rejection of Egyptian Symbolic Culture in Nubia."

CRIPEL 26: 399-410. Print.