Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rear-gunner OP t1_iwb9q3l wrote

A new study suggests that small branding irons from ancient Egypt were likely used to mark the skin of human slaves.

Until recently, Egyptologists had assumed that these were used to brand cattle but now it appears too small that it precludes them from being used on cattle or horses.

Interestingly some of these ancient Egyptian branding irons are almost exactly the same size as branding irons used by Europeans on African enslaved people during the trans-Atlantic slave trade much later.

The article is here

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03075133221130094

42

Zigazig_ahhhh t1_iwbf67l wrote

So there's no actual evidence? It's just someone saying, "Hey, these cattle brands are really small, and they look like human brands from thousands of years later and from a different region of the world."

79

pgm123 t1_iwbuxbr wrote

>So there's no actual evidence

The actual evidence is that texts say enslaved people were marked. It cites arguments that tattooing in Egypt was religious (so less likely for slaves) and the branding irons appearing to be better fitted for humans. But the primary evidence is the fact that enslaved people were marked.

30

Mindless_Challenge11 t1_iwbiupr wrote

Well what's the evidence that these ancient egyptian branding irons were intended for use on cattle in the first place? Genuinely curious here if anyone knows the answer!

(After all, comparing the evidence we have for their different possible uses would be the best way to evaluate the strength of this argument. For instance, if we had extant cow hides bearing brand-marks that matched the patterns on some of the irons, or visual depictions of branded cattle, or textual descriptions of people branding cattle using branding irons, that would be pretty strong evidence for that form of use.)

15

[deleted] t1_iwbg8fz wrote

I don't think it's that much of an unreasonable conclusion

9

Zigazig_ahhhh t1_iwbj1ci wrote

It's a perfectly reasonable conjecture. It is definitely an unreasonable conclusion.

47

Rear-gunner OP t1_iwblo28 wrote

It's a likely possibility

−24

Zigazig_ahhhh t1_iwbo0m3 wrote

Yes, but the way the article presents it as a fact is disingenuous.

27

Lindvaettr t1_iwci9p6 wrote

It is a possibility. "Likely" adds too much implication of "more probable than other possibilities", which doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence presented.

4

YouAreGenuinelyDumb t1_iwbzd4f wrote

It’s all circumstantial evidence, but that’s often as good as it gets with ancient history.

6

Iertjepapiertje t1_iwc09f3 wrote

Not with the Romans or the Chinese, for example. Plenty of cultures kept records.

7

LateInTheAfternoon t1_iwc1wkd wrote

There are plenty of lacunae for those two civilizations as well despite what has survived. For certain times the dearth of sources is almost complete and mere conjecture the best that can be offered.

6

Metal-Scrunch t1_iwbes9v wrote

'Were likely used to mark the skin of human slaves' - so its all based on assumptions.

39

severed13 t1_iwbjspn wrote

Most of history is, since I would imagine you can’t ask any ancient egyptian slave owners directly

31

Jester252 t1_iwbmo5y wrote

That's what I love about history.

I want to see what humans in 1000 years think of Shaq statue.

12

BouncingBallOnKnee t1_iwbqvvs wrote

Being a basketball player, and basketball being a game of tossing balls into hoops, I'd say it was safe to say Shaq was probably one of the greatest shooters of his time.

11

Rebel_Skies t1_iwc2v4n wrote

It's obvious that no man of that time period could actually match the proportions of "The Ballplayer". The statue is overlarge to show how much of an important figure the man was in time of the bloodsports.

2

Kelmon80 t1_iwbrg2z wrote

Iron was a rare, expensive resource back then, and likely a huge investment for an ancient Egyptian farmer (or slave merchant, for that matter). But i fail to see why you can't brand cattle with some iron that's smaller than whatever is in use today. Even a finger-sized branding in the right position would still do its job: Differentiating who's cattle belongs to whom, even if it takes longer to figure out.

I mean, I'm not saying it couldn't have been used for slaves, but that's a huge assumption to make just based on size.

8

Rear-gunner OP t1_iwbskfh wrote

Actually if you read the article you would have read that these irons were made of bronze

21

pedrito_elcabra t1_iwchw60 wrote

Or goats, or sheep, etc etc. There's many other possible explanations... someone went with the most clickbaity one.

6

_W1T3W1N3_ t1_iwbi7rp wrote

Tattoos were widely available since 3000BC and are still used by criminal networks today. Something to think about.

4