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.).  
3
Nicholson   &   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.