Pour citer cet article:
Sandro Capo Chichi (2015), On the Etymology of the Egyptian word Nehesi ‘Nubian’ , NACâs Journal of African Cultures & Civilizations, n°1, 2015, Paris : New African Cultures, : http://nofi.fr/?p=6445;  ISSN 2428-2510
By Sandro Capo Chichi
Ph.D student, Université Paris VII-Paris Diderot / CNRS
Abstract
Náž„sj(w) was a demonym used by Ancient Egyptians to refer to their southern neighbours for several millenia. Its etymology is often assumed to derive from a root whose meaning referred to Ancient Egyptians’ neighbours’ dark complexion. In this study however, we challenge this assumption and propose that the etymology may have been a reference to one of their cultural characteristics, from an Egyptian standpoint : that of mumbling incantations.
Keywords : Nehesi, Nubian, Ancient Egyptian, Etymology
1. Introduction
Náž„sj(w) was an ancient Egyptian word used to describe a significant number of different ethnic groups during the Pharaonic era and beyond. While it has been well established as only referring to populations living to the south of Egypt, a convincing etymology for this word has yet to be proposed. The purpose of this work will be, after having made a state of the art about the research on náž„sj(w)’s etymology, to claim that the most likely original meaning of the word would be « those who mumble incantations » rather than one based on ‘race’ or skin complexion.
2. Proposals of etymology for náž„sj(w) : a state of the Art
The word náž„sj(w) has been applied to people from various nations by Egyptians since the Old Kingdom. It is often translated by âNubianâ among Egyptologists. Hence, people from the lands of Ta Seti, Yam, Kush, Punt, Wawat, Medjay, Irtjet, Satjou, Nemy, Miu, etc. have been described as such.
Since all these lands share the characteristic of being located to the south of Egypt, one could expect the etymology of the word to mean âsouthernerâ. However, such a etymology has yet to be proposed, either on internal or external grounds. The word could have been an ethnonym borrowed from a foreign language, but there is no evidence to suggest it. Various scholars have claimed it to be associated with the complexion of the náž„sj(w), which would have been darker than that of Egyptians.
2.1. Albright (1918) : náž„sj(w) = âblack-skinned peopleâ
Hence, W.F. Albright (1918), attempted to explain the etymology of the word relying on external evidence. Since in Semitic languages,-which are remotely related to Ancient Egyptian- there is a root roughly resembling náž„s, namely *ĆĄáž„r meaning âblackâ, Albright attempted to claim that Egyptian náž„sj(w) was derived from a ânow lost- Egyptian root *náž„s meaning âblackâ. However, while ancient Egyptian s regularly correspond to Semitic ĆĄ, there is no convincing reason to explain the different position of  ង which is located after the *ĆĄ in Semitic but before the *s in Egyptian. Moreover, the presence of an initial n- exclusive to Egyptian, and the final âr exclusive to Semitic makes the relatedness of the two words very unlikely. Moreover, we will see, there does not seem to have been any objective evidence supporting the claim of dynastic Ancient Egyptians having called their earliest Southern neighbours âBlacksâ.
2.2. Yeivin (1930) : náž„sj(w) = âcopper coloured peopleâ
Another proposal of external etymology for náž„sj(w)  based on colour complexion is that of S. Yeivin (1930) who claimed that the ancient Egyptian word may have been derived from a ânow lost- Egyptian word *náž„s meaning something close to âcopper colouredâ on the basis of an existing Semitic root *náž„ĆĄ meaning something close to âcopper colouredâ. Here, the sound laws allow one to valid this etymology. However, from a semantic standpoint, this etymology seems far less convincing to us. Indeed, the color of the copper is precisely the one that was consistently used by Ancient Egyptian men to depict themselves. Of course, the meaning of the word in Egyptian could have been different from âcopper coloredâ and simply meaning something like âdark-skinnedâ, but  accepting this etymology would require taking too many unproven assumptions into account.
Also, positing that Egyptians would have called their southern neighbours with a word relative to their darker skin raises a number of issues. Indeed, náž„sj(w)  are first mentioned in the Palermo Stone, in a text relating a victorious campaign against t3 náž„sj, that is the land of the náž„sjw. At this very time, there is no evidence that Ancient Egyptians reached  the area below the 2nd cataract which was inhabited by people from the âNubian C groupâ Culture. The absence of physical distinction between Ancient Egyptians and their neighbours in Egyptian art during the Old Kingdom (ca. 2700-2200 BC) seems to discredit the hypothesis of a physical distinction between Ancient Egyptians and náž„sj(w) during this period and the probability of a derivation of náž„sj(w) from a word *náž„s relative to a dark skin color. No evidence uncovered so far allows one to confirm it.
2.3.  Smith (2008) : náž„sj(w) = âthose who bite or sting (like an insect)â
S. T. Smith (2008) claimed that náž„sj(w)  was more likely to have been derived from an Egyptian verb náž„s bite or sting (for an insect) than to have originally meant ‘dark skinned’, relying on internal evidence. The word náž„sj(w) would thus mean âthose who sting (like insects)â. This would be corroborated by the reputation of náž„sjw as being reputed for their excellent archery skills. Here, both roots would be a perfect match from a morphological and phonological standpoint. To the verb  náž„s would have been added the suffix âj meaning âthe one who (accomplishes the action described by the verb)â and another suffix âw expressing plurality.  From a semantic standpoint however, a major issue would be that náž„s âsting or biteâ is only used for insects, not arrows nor other weapons. Also, this word only appears in Egyptian texts from the second millenium onwards and may have been an Egyptian innovation posterior to the emergence of the word  náž„sj(w).
2.4. Etile (2003) : náž„sj(w) = âThose who mumble incantationsâ
In his 2003 book, R.L.P. Etile posited náž„sj(w)  to be derived from a verb náž„s meaning âto mumble incantationsâ. Náž„sj(w)  would thus mean âthose who mumble incantationsâ. Like Smithâs, this proposal is apparently a perfect match in regard to the form. A first issue however would be that this root is only recorded in one dictionary, namely that of  E. A. Wallis Budge (1920). No other-especially later- dictionary confirmed it , especially A. Erman & H. Grapow âs Wörterbuch der Ăgyptischen Sprache which, unlike Budgeâs dictionary, is considered  as a reference among Egyptologists. Since later dictionaries did not record náž„s âto mumble incantationsâ, one may either suspect that Budge did not record it properly, or that the text where Budge recorded it has long been lost. Out of scientific scrutiny however, we cannot accept Etile’s proposal as such, since he did not provide any semantic justification for his proposed equation Náž„sj(w) = âthose who mumble incantationsâ.
Some elements can however support Etileâs proposal. First of all, relying on internal evidence, Ch. Ehret (2004), posited that some three consonant verbs from Egyptian and related languages were actually verbs with two consonants whose third consonant was actually a suffix. One of these third consonant suffixes, âs, according to him, would express an extended action, as one can see in (1, 2, 3) :
(1) Â wgp âto triturateâ â wgs âto cut openâ
(2) áž«báž«b âto pierce ; killâ Â â áž«bs âto hack up the earthâ
(3) wáž„3 âto hew (a stone)â â wáž„s âto cut off (hair)â
If  Ehret (2004)âs analysis is proven to be correct, one could analyze the verb náž„s as a two-consonant verb *náž„ to which a suffix âs expressing an extension of the action would have been suffixed. This hypothetical verb would thus express a shorter action than that expressed by *náž„s âto mumble incantationsâ. Interestingly enough, an early Egyptian verb náž„j meaning âto prayâ is attested in all dictionaries. The existence of Budgeâs *náž„s âto mumble incantationsâwould thus be vindicated by Egyptian internal evidence. From an external standpoint, this association seems also to be vindicated since F. Calice (1936) has compared the Budge root to a Semitic root láž„ĆĄ meaning âto adjure, to conjureâ. The comparison is perfectly legitimate from the standpoints of both form and meaning. The existence of a similar root in  Semitic may confirm the existence of the Budge root in Egyptian and their connection with náž„sjw.
Regarding the issue of semantic motivation, one may wonder why the Egyptians would have called their southern neighbours âthose who mumble incantationsâ. There is ample evidence of Egyptians considering their southern neighbours as reputed magicians. Hence, the 15th century Egyptian king Amenhotep II wrote to his viceroy : « Do not be indulgent with náž„sj ; be careful with its people with its magicians ». More specifically in regard to incantations, ‘Meroitic’ abracadabras are suspected to have been added by Egyptians in the supplementary chapters of the Book of the Dead. However, one must note that southerners were not the only neighbours of Egypt to be feared for their magic and that the first written association of  náž„sjw with magic seems to date from Amenhotep IIâs reign, that is more than one millenium after the first written mention of Náž„sjw in Egyptian litterature. At this time, the Náž„sjw mentioned in Amenhotep IIâs letter were likely to be very different from the C Group people from King Snefruâs time.
3. Conclusion
In this short study, we tried to confront various proposals of etymology regarding the Egyptian demonym náž„sjw. While the etymology proposed by Albright (1918) must be rejected from a phonological perspective, the three others seem to be valid in this respect. The issue with Yeivin (1930) âs proposal would be that there is no evidence of Egyptians having had contact with southerners having  a physical appearance or skin color different from theirs before the beginning of the Middle Kingdom (first part of the 2nd  millenium). Smith (2008)âs hypothesis is also questionable, since the use of the the word he derived náž„sjw from, namely náž„s âto sting / biteâ is not attested with humans nor with weapons. Etile (2003)âs proposal, via the additional evidence provided in this paper, seems quite consistent, although an early association of  náž„sjw with magic is not attested to the best of our knowledge. It must, in our opinion, be given priority because evidence of this word having existed in Egyptian can be found, unlike any association of a *náž„s root with darkness. We must however emphasize the fact that we do not consider any of these proposals to be decisive at this point and hope more researchers will bring new elements to this discussion in the future.
Bibliography
W. F. Albright (1918), Notes on Egypto-Semitic Etymology, The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Jan., 1918), pp. 81-98
H.D. Betz (1986), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation: Including the Demotic Spells. Chicago ; London : University of Chicago Press, Texts, p.247.
E. A. Wallis Budge (1920), An Egyptian hieroglyphic Dictionary : With an index of english words, king list and geographical list with indexes, list of hieroglyphic characters, coptic and semitic alphabets, etc., London : John Murray.
F. Calice (1936), Grundlagen der Àgyptisch-semitischen Wortvergleichung, Wien, Selbstverlag des Orientalischen Institutes der UniversitÀt Wien.
Ch. Ehret (2004), Third Consonants in Ancient Egyptian, in Gabor TAKACS, (Ă©d.), Egyptian and Semito-Hamitic (Afro-Asiatic) studies in memoriam W. Vycichl, Leiden ; Boston : Brill, pp.33-55
R.L.P. Etile (2003), Ătude sur une civilisation nĂ©gro-africaine, l’Ăgypte antique : mystification sur les tombeaux des rois, Paris : Menaibuc.
A. Erman & H. Grapow (1982), Wörterbuch der Àgyptischen Sprache, Berlin : Akademie-Verlag.
Y. Koenig (1981), Le Papyrus Boulaq 6, Le Caire, p.88
Y. Koenig, 1987, La Nubie dans les textes magiques. ‘LâinquiĂ©tante Ă©trangetĂ©’ , Revue d’Egyptologie 38, p. 105-110.
S. T. Smith (2008), From Slave to Pharaoh: The Black Experience of Ancient Egypt by Donald B. Redford, Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 71, n°3, p.198.
A. WĂŒthrich (2009), Abracadabras mĂ©roĂŻtiques dans le Livre des Morts ? », in: B. BACKES, M. MĂLLER, S. STĂHR (Ă©ds.), Ausgestattet mit den Schriften des Thot. Festschrift fĂŒr Irmtraut Munro zu ihrem 65. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden: SAT 14, 267-282
Sh. Yeivin (1930), Haqirét haswala bavalsanut semitmisrit, 11.: Lasonenu 3 , pp.105-111