The Misinterpretation of Ramses II’s Depictions
The depiction of Ramses II fighting the Nubians has been widely circulated, particularly in institutions like the British Museum. Some have pointed to these images as proof that the ancient Egyptians were not black, arguing that since the Egyptians are shown fighting the Nubians, they must be of a different race.
However, such claims ignore historical complexities and reveal a broader misunderstanding of African phenotypic diversity. Interestingly, the original image doesn’t appear to show conflict, but perhaps portrays Ramses marching with, not against, the Nubian bowmen, since their bows are facing in the same direction. Beit al Wali, the location of the original relief, is located 50km south of Aswan, well into the territory of Ta Seti, and approaching Kush.
African Diversity and Misguided Assumptions
A key flaw in the arguments levied by afro-denialists is the assumption that ‘racial’ homogeneity prevents conflict. History has shown that shared ethnicity or phenotype has never been a barrier to war between nations—modern conflicts such as that between Russia and Ukraine exemplify this. Furthermore, African diversity encompasses a wide range of complexions and features. To assume that ancient Egyptians saw all Africans as a monolithic ‘racial’ group misrepresents the nuanced ways in which they depicted different populations. No modern African society possesses this binary view on ‘race’. In most African nations, ethnicity, culture and language supersede superficial constructs, such as complexion and hair texture.
Racial similarities between Ancient Egyptians, ‘Nubians’ and Kushites
Ancient Egypt and the region of the African continent regarded as Nubia have a shared history dating as far back as the birth of Kemet as a civilisation. The place that we in the modern era regard as ‘Nubia’, was actually the first, and in many ways, the most important city state of the Two Lands (Ta Wy) established by Narmer (the first King). It has been a strategy of Egyptologists to regard this city, Ta Seti, as a cultural and ethnic isolate, unique and separate from the land we know as Egypt.
Ta Seti was seemingly targeted by Egyptologists due to its overt phenotypic and cultural alignment with the wider African continent. Historically, the City of Ta Seti (which translates roughly to ‘Land of the Archers’) has been regarded as a parent civilisation, a key trading hub, and on rare occasions interpreted as being an enemy of Kemet. Nubia’s relationship with Kemet is one that is both endemically intertwined and culturally complex, even without the racially motivated distortions which continue to plague its modern placement in history. One thing that is certain is that the peopling of both civilisations were of near identical racial stock, prior to the lower regions of Kemet being more exposed to foreign influence from the Second Intermediary Period onward.
Numerous portraits of Nubians and indigenes of Kemet exist to easily dispel any doubt about the amount of phenotypic and cultural overlap that existed between the regions of Kemet (including Nubia) and Kush.
Artistic Representation in Kemet
A close examination of Kemetic art reveals a sophisticated approach to portraying diversity. Alternating colours were frequently used in depictions of crowds, ensuring that the artwork reflected the broad range of African complexions, and clarity and distinction were preserved between overlapping figures – this protocol followed Kemetic art through all dynastic eras. This technique maintained artistic realism in line with what was phenotypically consistent, challenging the false (and currently perpetuated) notion of a singular racial identity (something that is impossible to find in ANY modern African nation).
For instance, in the depiction of the siege of Dapur, the Syrian forces are shown in a distinct tone, separate from Ramses II, yet no claims of racial bias are made in that context.
Was Ramses II black?
Although the original is now faded, the colours in this publicly displayed facsimile are believed to be representative of what the reproduction artist orginally observed, however, the authenticity of the reproduction is in question. One can assume the colouring convention was copied from genuine artwork seen in tombs.
The answer to this somewhat clunky question is already self-evident in the fact that ancient Egyptian art—particularly the battle reliefs of Ramses II—depicts the pharaoh and some of his Nubian adversaries with the same deep reddish-brown complexion as the chestnut and roan coloured horses used in warfare. This is a common practice seen in tombs, stelae, and papyrus throughout Egypt in most dynastic eras.
This deliberate chromatic alignment in Egyptian iconography was not arbitrary, but once again, it was realistic; artists meticulously rendered skin tones relative to their subjects’ appearance within the natural world. Crucially, modern comparisons reveal a telling disparity: when non-African riders (e.g., Europeans or Asiatics) are depicted alongside the same breeds of horses used by the Ancient Egyptians (Chestnut, Bay, or Roan), their lighter skin creates a stark contrast:
This is in contrast to the harmonious melanin spectrum observable between Ramses, the Nubians, and their horses. Conversely, in imagery of Black African riders (i.e. Nigerian horsemen of the Sahel, the Peul or Sudanese cavalry), the skin-to-horse colour correlation mirrors what is seen in Ramses’ and other Egyptian reliefs, reinforcing that only populations with the high melanin concentrations seen in modern Africans could be so seamlessly matched to these hues in ancient art.
Scientifically, this aligns with dermatological data which suggests that eumelanin-rich skin (type VI) exhibits the same reddish-brown undertones as chestnut horses, a pigmentation exclusive to populations of African descent. The closest living relatives to Ramses’ warhorses—such as the Caspian, Akhal-Teke, or Barb breeds—often display these same historical colours, yet no non-Black group shares the phenotypic overlap evident in Egyptian depictions. Thus, while debates persist about Ramses’ ancestry, the artistic, genetic, and comparative evidence overwhelmingly supports that his portrayal as chromatically congruent with ‘brown’ horses seems to be biologically implausible for non-African ethnicities. The burden of proof, then, falls to those who claim otherwise: why would Egyptian artists systematically depict themselves and their rulers with this deep brown tone — unless it reflected their known reality?
The Distortion of Historical Records
Egyptologists have, at times, manipulated historical interpretations to fit racialised narratives. A striking example is the mistranslation of hieroglyphs related to Senusret III’s battle scenes. Some have replaced the name of a specific Kushite peoples (nhsw) with the generalised (and racialised) term “blacks,” introducing racial prejudice where none originally existed or was being communicated. Such deliberate distortions persist in institutions like the British Museum, influencing public perception, but not reflecting the obvious reality.
Conclusion
The misinterpretation of Ramses II’s conflicts with Kush, and the possible fabrication of conflict with Nubia exemplifies a broader tendency to oversimplify (and often falsify) African history. Recognising the diversity within African populations and understanding the artistic conventions of Kemet allows for a more accurate and nuanced appreciation of the past. Ancient Egyptians should not be punished for their adherence to detail, but rather respected. There is no reason to fabricate races of people, or align them with ethnicities outside of the African continent, since the evidence suggests that all of the phenotypic variance required to explain what is seen in Egyptian art is already present on the African continent.
This article is adapted from research conducted by Andrew A. King (The Kings Monologue).
Leave a Reply