posted
One important factor you are leaving out is that population growth from the Old Kingdom into the later periods is to be expected because Egypt became more international. From direct texts I have read dating to the Middle and New Kingdom ancient Egypt had a tendency to settle captives or war in less populated areas such as the Delta and Middle Egypt thus even by the foreign occupation of Egypt the common Egyptian probably already had a good deal of foreign ancestry.
The population growth of 7 million is primarily around areas like Alexandria but does not include the entire Egyptian population as a whole. By the time of Amr ibn Al'as invasion of Egypt the total population was down to 3 million as a whole. Understand I expect this number because many of the occypying Byzantine fled back to Greece or Costanoiple. One of the other factors that inflates the population around Alexandria is the Judea factor. During the Roman occupation of Egypt many Judeans were settled into parts of Alexandria but later progroms massacred many of these populations or they just fled back into Judea.
You also tend to overemphasize the devestation that many foreign populations had upon the ancient Egyptian population. I suppose you are using modern colonialism as a model which really donot apply to ancient Egyptian antiquity. Despite what bitter resentment the elite might have had of foreign occupation, I doubt the common majority felt much of an impact going into the Roman occupation. Most foreigners,unlike modern European colonials, actually adopted the culture and language of the ancient Egyptians. From the Libyans down to the Greeks all adopted and admired ancient Egyptian culture.
Most of the view of Dyanstic Egypt we have is of both the elite and literate class which probably comprised more of a minority than the majority. What glimpse we have of the commoners comes to us in texts like The Eloquent Peasant and the The Tale of Woe which do not present the utopian ancient Egyptian society that many envision or romanticize. If any population migration occured it was most likely the elite class and not really the majority. Such examples we do have are stories preseved in the writings of Diodorus Siculus of Necho II fleeing to the south.
In earlier accouts I mentioned the ancient Egyptians reflection is more sedentary instead of migratory populations. The Tales of Sinuhe emphasize that Sinuhe must be buried along the Nile Valley in order to make it to the Filed or Iru.
While Upper Egypt has less foreigners,many Greeks and other foreigners did settle in places like Middle Egypt and even Aswan. Many reservist cleruchs[off-season soliders] were settled around what is today Minya,Asyut,Faiyum and Sohag. Infact,both Faiyum Ptolemis were offical Ptolemic cities. Aswan had Roman soliders settled on the border.
With the exception of Alexandria, most of Lower Egypt had a majority Egyptian population. Even within Alexandria Egyptians had their own ethnic enclave seperated from other ethnic groups that included the Judeans.
Here are some of my basic points:
1. If even small migrations over periods of time occured some evidence would have been left depending on what social class of Egyptian we are speaking of.
2.Foreign occupation was not pleasant but to the common Egyptian it would have not been relevent unless of factors that effected them directly
3.Demographic shift from Old to New Kingdom is to be expected since Egypt became more international and absorbed more foreign terroritories and captives of war. Whatever shift in Hellenistic times and decline by 640 A.D. is also to be expected. The gaps missing are between the Islamic period going into the 1700's when a more scietific census was taken.
4. To determine the indigeness populations is to determine baseline genetic or biological/physical anthropological data. In my opinion, the following is more precise than just demographic estimates. Of course, demographic estimates are useful if factors behind such as also known.
5. Judging by what written documentation we have of Egyptian texts[which are subject to interpretation] we are pesented by a people that really dislike permnantely settling in foreign lands and was against their own cosmological belief system exp in texts like the Tales of Sinuhe.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: One important factor you are leaving out is that population growth from the Old Kingdom into the later periods is to be expected because Egypt became more international. From direct texts I have read dating to the Middle and New Kingdom ancient Egypt had a tendency to settle captives or war in less populated areas such as the Delta and Middle Egypt thus even by the foreign occupation of Egypt the common Egyptian probably already had a good deal of foreign ancestry.
Which is what I said, but you refused to accept that foreign migrations were part of the reason for such population growth.....
quote: The population growth of 7 million is primarily around areas like Alexandria but does not include the entire Egyptian population as a whole. By the time of Amr ibn Al'as invasion of Egypt the total population was down to 3 million as a whole. Understand I expect this number because many of the occypying Byzantine fled back to Greece or Costanoiple. One of the other factors that inflates the population around Alexandria is the Judea factor. During the Roman occupation of Egypt many Judeans were settled into parts of Alexandria but later progroms massacred many of these populations or they just fled back into Judea.
So what are you saying? I said that population decreased because of unfavorable conditions in places. I was talking of the population as a whole and not singling out any single group. But, you seem to be implying that the Judeans leaving because of oppression represents a "separate" issue. It is the same issue. You seem to be twisting my point ad infinitum to argue strawmen, when in essence you are agreeing with me.
quote:
You also tend to overemphasize the devestation that many foreign populations had upon the ancient Egyptian population. I suppose you are using modern colonialism as a model which really donot apply to ancient Egyptian antiquity. Despite what bitter resentment the elite might have had of foreign occupation, I doubt the common majority felt much of an impact going into the Roman occupation. Most foreigners,unlike modern European colonials, actually adopted the culture and language of the ancient Egyptians. From the Libyans down to the Greeks all adopted and admired ancient Egyptian culture.
No. You are attempting to force the argument into some sort of categorization of how occupation worked in ancient Egypt. Occupation worked like it does everywhere else. The invaders use whatever force they need in order to maintain control of the country and the adoption of the local customs is only to reinforce their power even more than it is for reasons of love of the culture. The Greeks, while adopting the customs of the Egyptians, still considered themselves above and separate from the indigenees. The Greeks were responsible for the creation of Serapis and the eventual banning of many of the original Egyptian temples. The Romans continued this by forcing Christianity on the population. The Romans and the Greeks often fought wars with rebellious populations in Upper Egypt, where resistence to foreign occupation in the North was ALWAYS fierce. Roman and Greek armies had to tend with revolts in Upper Egypt and some even say that the Ptolomies had largely abandoned upper Egypt. So this idea of my point about the occupation of Egypt being based on modern colonialism is a strawman. What I am talking about is that the foreign occupations were largely not welcomed and was mainly for the benefit of the foreigners not the natives and was not some kind of love affair between the invaders and the natives. Likewise, upper Egypt had long been a center of resistence to foreign invasion even into Roman times, causing conflict and destruction in order to bring them into submission. Likewise, during the Byzantine period much was done to forcefully eradicate the temples of the old gods and the temple priests and the system that had been created in dynastic times. This again was not a rosy affair and involved much in the way of violence and oppression against the native believers. Therefore it is nonsense to suggest that over the 975 years of GrecoRoman occupation that there was no violence or persecution against native Egyptians for purposes of control by foreigners or eradication of ancient systems of belief and worship. Serapis was forced on Egypt. Christianity was forced on Egypt. Islam was forced on Egypt. None of these are indigenous religions of Egypt and they only became mainstream due to the use of force and persecutions by those in power.
quote: Most of the view of Dyanstic Egypt we have is of both the elite and literate class which probably comprised more of a minority than the majority. What glimpse we have of the commoners comes to us in texts like The Eloquent Peasant and the The Tale of Woe which do not present the utopian ancient Egyptian society that many envision or romanticize. If any population migration occured it was most likely the elite class and not really the majority. Such examples we do have are stories preseved in the writings of Diodorus Siculus of Necho II fleeing to the south.
Needless speculation. If the population declined it was because people left, period. What you are saying is meaningless. If the population declined and it wasnt because people were killed off, it is because they left. The texts written in the dynastic period are irrelevant in this regard as the dynastic period was long over during the Greek, Roman and subsequent Islamic period of Egypt. Likewise, we also have accounts of upper Egyptian soldiers moving into Sudan and Kush, especially during periods of strife in Lower Egypt. Therefore, a couple stories do not tell the whole tale.
quote: In earlier accouts I mentioned the ancient Egyptians reflection is more sedentary instead of migratory populations. The Tales of Sinuhe emphasize that Sinuhe must be buried along the Nile Valley in order to make it to the Filed or Iru.
While Upper Egypt has less foreigners,many Greeks and other foreigners did settle in places like Middle Egypt and even Aswan. Many reservist cleruchs[off-season soliders] were settled around what is today Minya,Asyut,Faiyum and Sohag. Infact,both Faiyum Ptolemis were offical Ptolemic cities. Aswan had Roman soliders settled on the border.
With the exception of Alexandria, most of Lower Egypt had a majority Egyptian population. Even within Alexandria Egyptians had their own ethnic enclave seperated from other ethnic groups that included the Judeans.
Here are some of my basic points:
1. If even small migrations over periods of time occured some evidence would have been left depending on what social class of Egyptian we are speaking of.
2.Foreign occupation was not pleasant but to the common Egyptian it would have not been relevent unless of factors that effected them directly
3.Demographic shift from Old to New Kingdom is to be expected since Egypt became more international and absorbed more foreign terroritories and captives of war. Whatever shift in Hellenistic times and decline by 640 A.D. is also to be expected. The gaps missing are between the Islamic period going into the 1700's when a more scietific census was taken.
4. To determine the indigeness populations is to determine baseline genetic or biological/physical anthropological data. In my opinion, the following is more precise than just demographic estimates. Of course, demographic estimates are useful if factors behind such as also known.
5. Judging by what written documentation we have of Egyptian texts[which are subject to interpretation] we are pesented by a people that really dislike permnantely settling in foreign lands and was against their own cosmological belief system exp in texts like the Tales of Sinuhe.
Bottom line, I dont see where you are disagreeing with me. You yourself said that populations grew and contracted over time in Egypt. You yourself said that populations grew in some areas more because of foreign migrations into Egypt. Yet you also disagreed with me when I said the exact same thing a few posts back. In essence, I dont see your point. I dont see why you are finding it necessary to make all these statements which essentially agree with what I said. You have also provided no evidence why the periods of decline in Egyptian population did not represent people LEAVING Egypt, both foreign and indigenous.
What I said:
The Egyptian population shifted over time. The populuation in Late period and foreign occupied Egypt shifted more to the North away from the South. The low points of Egyptian population occured up to and during the early periods of Islamic occupation when the estimates are of Egypt having about 2-2.5 million people. Therefore, if this was a low point it means people left, regardless of what the reasons were, they LEFT, otherwise the numbers would not have gone down. Now if you can show me how numbers would not have declined so drastically without people leaving or being killed off by invaders, as you say, then I would agree with you. But I wont because it is not possible. You paint a picture of foreigners moving freely all over the map, yet Egyptians stayed put? That is nonsense. Egyptian people were subject to movement as much as anyone and are no exception. You seem to be trying to oversimplify the history of the occupation of Egypt in order to distort my point.
quote:Which is what I said, but you refused to accept that foreign migrations were part of the reason for such population growth.....
Your initial post was reffering to the growth rate around the 1700's instead of the Hellenistic era. The reason why I pointed out the inflated 7 million in your reference was due to Alexandria which probably was predominately foreign. By the time when the invasion by Amr Ibn Al'as most foreigners within Alexandria and other regions would have decreased leaving about 2-3 million people which is consistant with the dyanstic era population estimate by most scholars.
Doug M wrote:
quote:So what are you saying? I said that population decreased because of unfavorable conditions in places. I was talking of the population as a whole and not singling out any single group. But, you seem to be implying that the Judeans leaving because of oppression represents a "separate" issue. It is the same issue. You seem to be twisting my point ad infinitum to argue strawmen, when in essence you are agreeing with me
No, I was using the Judean example in Alexandria as an example that accounts for the low figure during the beginning of the Islamic period. The Judean example was not relavent to the whole Egyptian population but to why the numbers were low. On the issue of Egyptians fleeing opressive conditions. You have just speculated this was the primary reason and used demographic statistics from various periods. You have yet to cite one example from texts or archaeology.
Doug M wrote:
quote:No. You are attempting to force the argument into some sort of categorization of how occupation worked in ancient Egypt. Occupation worked like it does everywhere else. The invaders use whatever force they need in order to maintain control of the country and the adoption of the local customs is only to reinforce their power even more than it is for reasons of love of the culture. The Greeks, while adopting the customs of the Egyptians, still considered themselves above and separate from the indigenees. The Greeks were responsible for the creation of Serapis and the eventual banning of many of the original Egyptian temples. The Romans continued this by forcing Christianity on the population. The Romans and the Greeks often fought wars with rebellious populations in Upper Egypt, where resistence to foreign occupation in the North was ALWAYS fierce. Roman and Greek armies had to tend with revolts in Upper Egypt and some even say that the Ptolomies had largely abandoned upper Egypt. So this idea of my point about the occupation of Egypt being based on modern colonialism is a strawman. What I am talking about is that the foreign occupations were largely not welcomed and was mainly for the benefit of the foreigners not the natives and was not some kind of love affair between the invaders and the natives. Likewise, upper Egypt had long been a center of resistence to foreign invasion even into Roman times, causing conflict and destruction in order to bring them into submission
Of course some resistance existed between parts of Egypt and the Greeks but as a whole Greeks were not opressive against the Egyptians. Once native Egyptians were administered into the Greek military Egyptians began to get better treatment and many intermarried and Hellenized themselves into Greco-Roman society. Also, you cannot group the Greeks and Romans together because overall the Roman occupation was much more opressive that restricted the power of the priesthood and taxed the commoners. Greeks did not really care about what indigenous Egyptians did outside centers of Hellenistic cities. My other point which tied in with the initial point was that the common Egyptian peasant would have been adopted to such harsh regines it really would not have mattered much who was in power or how harsh their rulership was thus it would be doubtful they would flee. Upper Egypt was not primary the center of resistance during the Roman era because you had many Delta Egyptians that fought resistance against the Romans.
Your point about Christianity being forced by the Romans is rather inaccurate itself considering that the early Christians under emperor Decius[sp] were massacred. Not untill much later under Constantine did Christianity swept the Roman empire. Under Theodosius he did decree that all non-Christian temples close but tolerated the temple in Philae. Under his decree he had limitations of violence that newly converted monks like St. Shenute to not abide by so you cannot blame it primarily upon the Romans or Byzantines
Doug M
quote:Needless speculation. If the population declined it was because people left, period. What you are saying is meaningless. If the population declined and it wasnt because people were killed off, it is because they left. The texts written in the dynastic period are irrelevant in this regard as the dynastic period was long over during the Greek, Roman and subsequent Islamic period of Egypt. Likewise, we also have accounts of upper Egyptian soldiers moving into Sudan and Kush, especially during periods of strife in Lower Egypt. Therefore, a couple stories do not tell the whole tale
Its speculation to attribute population decline to people fleeing Egypt with no trace of archaeological or textual evidence. The textual references I posted are relavent to the ancient Egyptian belief system which remain consistant up untill the Byzantine period. What textual evidence do you have of Upper Egyptian soliders fleeing south into Kush?
Doug M wrote:
quote:Bottom line, I dont see where you are disagreeing with me. You yourself said that populations grew and contracted over time in Egypt. You yourself said that populations grew in some areas more because of foreign migrations into Egypt
We disagree upon during which period populations grew and changed over a period of time. You claim that the shift of the population is primary evidence of ancient Egyptians fleeing into other regions which I don't agree or disagree with but remain skeptical because of the lack of evidence. Read what I said about foreign populations growing in Alexandria during the Hellenistic times and then read where you stated that during the 1700's in Egypt the population grew because of foreign migration. If any population declined happened after the Hellenistic period it was most likely foreign populations. Doug M wrote:
quote:You have also provided no evidence why the periods of decline in Egyptian population did not represent people LEAVING Egypt, both foreign and indigenous
The burden of proof is upon you because you are the one that made such claims. You have provided no evidence that migrations occured because of opression. I never contested that foreign populations left Egypt and infact that is probably why the 7 million number during the Hellenistic era was down to 2 million.
Doug M wrote:
quote:The Egyptian population shifted over time. The populuation in Late period and foreign occupied Egypt shifted more to the North away from the South
What I disagreed with this statement because the foreign populations in Lower Egypt with the exception of Alexandria and parts of Memphis always remainded in the minority. The population shift of Lower Egypt shifted more towards the 1700's because of the modernization of Lower Egypt over Upper Egypt. Doug M wrote:
quote:The low points of Egyptian population occured up to and during the early periods of Islamic occupation when the estimates are of Egypt having about 2-2.5 million people. Therefore, if this was a low point it means people left, regardless of what the reasons were, they LEFT, otherwise the numbers would not have gone down
2-3 million is not a low point in Egypt's history and it is consistant with dyanstic Egypt untill the population boom in the 1700's. You have provided no evidence of who left or that people leaving was the primariy reason for the demographic shift. The period between the Hellenistic era and Islamic period is rather long and it was most likely inflated because of Alexandria. You have not demonstrated that any indigenous people left or fleed anywhere else.
Doug M
quote:Now if you can show me how numbers would not have declined so drastically without people leaving or being killed off by invaders, as you say, then I would agree with you. But I wont because it is not possible
Not a matter or agreeing or disagreeing with me but presenting precise data to back up your claims. We can automatically throw out killed off by invaders because invasions by the Greeks,Romans or later Arabs were not violent. If large amounts of people massacred we would have archaeological or textual information of such. I am still open to the idea of people leaving but your present insufficant demographic data with no other evidence.
Doug M
quote:You paint a picture of foreigners moving freely all over the map, yet Egyptians stayed put? That is nonsense. Egyptian people were subject to movement as much as anyone and are no exception. You seem to be trying to oversimplify the history of the occupation of Egypt in order to distort my point.
Foreigners during the 26th dyansty were actually invited to settle around various parts of Naucratis,Men-Nefer and other parts of Middle Egypt. Foreigners already by the time of foreign occupation lived freely with most Egyptians. I don't believe that such population movement is implausible but you have not presented any evidence that validates your points.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The gist of your disagreement boils down to the idea that the decrease of population in Egypt was mostly foreigners leaving (up to 3 or 4 million) and these foreigners left an Egyptian population that was pure and untouched and exactly as it was before these foreigners arrived. Sorry, I dont buy that at all. These foreigners had been in Egypt for quite a while and I am sure that they had more than just a minor impact on the indigenous population, in terms of mixing. Also, given that Egypt had changed quite drastically religiously and politically, from the dynastic period, by the time of the Islamic invasions, it is not accurate to say that the locals all had the same attitude towards Egypt as they did in dynastic times. That is not saying they were oppressed, but that their attitudes were not necessarily the same as those in dynastic times. Second, when I say left, I mean left willingly and it is you who assumes I mean flee. If I meant flee I would have said flee. You are overemphasizing that leaving Egypt means being oppressed or fleeing oppression. I did not say that. At the same token, I am saying that they probably left for other reasons, which may have included the political or religious or even social situation. None of that rises to the level of persecution or oppression that you are implying. In any country there are always some people arriving and some people leaving, even in the best of times. The fact that some people left does not imply oppression, even though during foreign rule everything was not always rosy or perfect. Even during dynastic times everything was not rosy and perfect. Still there were people who were leaving Egypt even then for various reasons.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole weakness of your arguement is that you present no other evidence then a demographic shift. The demographic shift can be cause by many factors other than what you postulate. Where is the textual or archaeological evidence that demonstrates that Egyptians left willingly at any time in Egypt's history?
The foreigners might have impacted Egypt politically and culturally but certain aspects of ancient Egyptian spirtuality always remained intact because of the Egyptians conservative nature. Infact, from the textual evidence you can see much of the same pratices,although modified, into the Islamic period.
We even have written papyri during the Greco-Roman period about the common Egyptian which was not that great of a transition. Which is why the Egyptians probably had the same weariness of being away from the Nile Valley as persisted into the Greco-Roman period into the advent of the Byzantine and perhaps beyond.
According to historian David Frankfurther in his Religion in Roman Egypt the pratices of the ancient Egyptians became more localized because of medling of the Romans.
If you are curious of where I get my information from it's the following book titles:
Egypt After the Pharoahs by Alan K. Bowman
Egypt under the Romans Naptali Lewis
Agritculture in Egypt edited by Alan K. Bowman[ has first hand and second hand sources from the pharoanic period down the Islamic period]
posted
I really dont get your point Ausar. If the Egyptian population swelled to 7million during the late GrecoRoman period, as you said, then by 1700 it was down to 2 million,by the chart Iposted earlier, then what happened? SOMETHING happened to cause that many people to leave. 5 million or so people leaving a country is nothing to sniff at. And if this 5 million people were all foreigners then what of the natives? You mean to tell me that foreigners outnumbered the total number of indigenous people in Greco Roman times? I agree with your point that more facts are needed to back up my opinions, but at the same token we should not be overly suspicious of the evidence we do have. 1700 A.D. is almost 2000 years since the time of the Menches papers you linked to. 2000 years is a long time for people to leave Egypt slowly producing a overal decline in population. I do not believe that 5 million people left Egypt as foreign expatriates returning to their native country at the arrival of the Muslims. I also dont believe that, at the time of the rise in population in GrecoRoman times, the foreigners outnumbered the indigenous people. IF SO, then that contradicts what you have said elsewhere on this forum, where the foreigners were always a minority relative to the natives. My concern here is that a lot of what you are saying does not sound right to me. You are saying that a great number of foreigners arrived in Egypt during Greco Roman times and outnumbered the natives and then completely left, leaving the original population and culture intact and in pristine condition almost as if they never were there? If not then changes occurred and trying to equate Egypt after the GrecoRoman period with Egypt prior to the GrecoRoman period is nonsense, as they were not the same. Then, on top of that, there was a period of 1,000 years between the arrival of the Muslims and the census estimates from the 1700s. What happened during that period? I am sure you aren't going to say that the Egyptians were happy campers with the new rulers and everything was rosy are you?
Somehow it seems you want to cling to a notion of "pure" identity for Egyptians even after thousands of years of occupation, which even by your own admission is quite impossible.... So your disagreement with me about people leaving Egypt seems to stem from some notion of a "pure" Egyptian peasant class who always wanted to stay close to their roots even though they were not in power and subject to being manipulated and controlled by foreign masters....... Of course some rebelled and of course some got fed up and left. If things were bad enough for them to fight for, then they were bad enough for some to leave as well. I didn't say persecuted, but I said fed up or not totally happy with the situation at any given time. This does not mean a mass exodus either, as opposed to a slow trickle that added up over time, thereby not producing a single mass exodus which would leave any substantial archaological remains.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:since he mistakenly refers to the mongenic theory of out of africa, as polygenic, and refers to -all species of man- indicating that he thinks humans consist of different species, then i'd say yes...it's unrealistic to expect intelligent discourse from this person.
The correct terms in that case is anthropogenesis and filogenisis. I tried to dumb it down to your level by using Dr Diops vocab for it, sorry.
quote: Ausar: Well, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you have yet to present any scientific or even historical data. Are the following some pet theory you have or some science-fiction novel you been planning to write? How about presenting data with some scientific or historical sources present? Is this too much to ask?
Scientific proof? You mean use science to try and prove an argument? That is a contradiction of its purpose. Science is the process of applying the truth. Philosophy is the discovery of truth. If you are looking at science create or prove facts your on a different level to me. As we said, the earliest accounts of Egypt identify the people as white with some blacks. If you wish to speculate and cant handle this truth then thats your problem i am of no need to argue since i have established the truth. However, I do accept that Egypt by all means had a changing demography, to what extent and in what proportions is entirely debatable. It is much like locking 100 people of mixed colour in an area and once they leave we try and work out how many blacks and whites. To me it does not make a difference.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I really dont get your point Ausar. If the Egyptian population swelled to 7million during the late GrecoRoman period, as you said, then by 1700 it was down to 2 million,by the chart Iposted earlier, then what happened? SOMETHING happened to cause that many people to leave.
Here's my take - whether you imagine the population of post dynastic Km.t dwindled over time due to low birth rate and high death rate - or population exodus, you are still left to deal with the fact that modern Egypt has 75 million people, almost all of whom are the result of the last 200 years or so of population growth and concordant with a demographic shift favoring the delta and at the expense of the Nile Valley.
This means that we cannot presume that the present populaton demographics bear any resemblence to the demographics of dynastic km.t.
I would offer Mexico and Brazil as examples for comparison.
In neither of these countries were native populations replaced en masse.
Both countries still have millions of people who are predominently of native extraction.
In fact - in Mexico there are arguably more 'indigenous' peoples now than there were before the conquestadors invaded, raped and pillaged.
However.....the demographics of these modern countries are nonetheless radically different than they were in pre-coloumbian times.
Modern day Brazil for instance - has more African and European mtdna lineages than Native American.
Now, consider that this change has occured in only 200 years, whereas Nile Valley Km.t was conquered by Asiatics over 2 thousand years ago.
Scientific proof? You mean use science to try and prove an argument? That is a contradiction of its purpose. Science is the process of applying the truth. Philosophy is the discovery of truth. If you are looking at science create or prove facts your on a different level to me. As we said, the earliest accounts of Egypt identify the people as white with some blacks. If you wish to speculate and cant handle this truth then thats your problem i am of no need to argue since i have established the truth. However, I do accept that Egypt by all means had a changing demography, to what extent and in what proportions is entirely debatable. It is much like locking 100 people of mixed colour in an area and once they leave we try and work out how many blacks and whites. To me it does not make a difference.
^This is someone truly talking out of their ass, lol! Not one fact...
Posts: 66 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scientific proof? You mean use science to try and prove an argument? That is a contradiction of its purpose. Science is the process of applying the truth. Philosophy is the discovery of truth. If you are looking at science create or prove facts your on a different level to me. As we said, the earliest accounts of Egypt identify the people as white with some blacks. If you wish to speculate and cant handle this truth then thats your problem i am of no need to argue since i have established the truth. However, I do accept that Egypt by all means had a changing demography, to what extent and in what proportions is entirely debatable. It is much like locking 100 people of mixed colour in an area and once they leave we try and work out how many blacks and whites. To me it does not make a difference.
LOL...
Now that is funny. No where in history does it refer to the ancient Egyptians as ever being white unless they were dead Egyptians. Yet if you have some proof to this doctrine from Stormfront I would love to see it.
While your at it can you define black for me. You said the White Egyptians had some black in them.
Look why don't you explain white, black and a euro Egypt.
This post is funny at best ... and down right foolish at worst.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
More than enough time to cause some to believe in an indeginously "white" egypt.
I guess such a time period of intermingling will generate such a flawed belief in some folks, void of rationality. Posts: 214 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Many people - certainly many modern Egyptians - have at least a superficial interest in some form of identification with Ancient Egypt.
At the same time, modern peoples have collective, ethnic, national, racial and other forms of identification.
To accept the reality of and African Ancient Egypt creates a certain amount of conflict for non African enthusiasts of Ancient Egpt.
Likewise the modern African voice has been until recently sublimated and/or intimidated, so that even today there is rationale among a minority of African scholars that says in effect -> Give non Africans Ancient Egypt, and focus on 'elsewhere'.
But such and approach is neither honest nor honorable.
Accepting a discourse rooted in someone else's dishonesty ultimately makes you just as dishonest.
It's also cowardly and foolish to believe that Africans can run away from the intellectual battle over the history of the Nile Valley, and 'resume' the fight elsewhere.
The Nile Valley is critical terrority....the high ground of African history. Once you surrender the high ground, the fight is all but over.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:there is rationale among a minority of African scholars that says in effect -> Give non Africans Ancient Egypt, and focus on 'elsewhere'.
From what I perceive from people of European decent is that in order for them to claim Ancient Egypt (even by proxy), they have to lay claim to other Africans.
My guess is it's because of the murals they left behind and the fact the Ancient Egyptians said they were from the land of Punt.
So they claim that Ethiopians, Eritreans, Somalis are caucasoid/hamitic.
They also claim that the people identified by the bogus term "Nubians" were caucasoid/hamitic. This is kind of funny because on one hand they are the equally fake term "Negroes" when they want to separate Africans from Ancient Egyptians and then on the other hand they are caucasians when it comes time to claim the bogus "Nubians" history.
Then since they claim the bogus "Nubians" as caucasoid/hamitic they claim the rest of the Sudanese population caucasoid/hamitic.
Then they go from there and claim populations in Chad, Niger, Mali, and Nigeria.
In the East they go from Ethiopia to Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and South Africa.
I have actually come across two independent forums\websites that said that some Zulus have caucasoid skulls.
Its as if when they claim someone as caucasoid, if anyone else has something in common with the said caucasoid group then they become caucasoid as well.
An AA woman on Wikipedia (correctly in my opinion) stated that they are basically trying to whittle indigenous Africans down to a few villages in west and central Africa.
Someone there also linked to a European decented scientist that said the purest "Negro" is that of the Pygmy stock. Which my take on what the person is saying is that everybody in Africa outside of the Pygmy is mixed.
Posts: 76 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:They were pieces of a broken human face .... Here were the remains of a very ancient and fine type of art .... These meagre relics were eloquent of a symmetry, a vitality, a delicacy of form directly reminiscent of ancient Greece and a proof that, once upon a time, a race, far superior in strain to the negro, had been settled here. Leo Frobenius, German ethnographer on first seeing terracotta sculptures in Ife, Nigeria. 1910
He went on to say Atlantians must have settled here
Others believed it must have been a white man that travled to Nigeria and made all the art
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but have you read enough of Froebenius to know who he identifies as Atlantean and where he believes Atlantis was located? And do you have the exact Froebenius citation in Und Afrika Sprach were he allegedly makes that racialist statement?
quote: "idea of the barbaric Negro is a European invention,"
That's the kind of statement I expect from Froebenius.
Césaire, Senghor, and their colleagues in the Négritude movement had been fascinated with Leo Frobenius, the German irrationalist whose massive ethnography, Histoire de la civilisation Africaine, provided a powerful defense of African civilization. See Suzanne Césaire, "Leo Frobenius and the Problem of Civilization [1941]," in Michael Richardson, ed., Refusal of the Shadow, pp. 82-87; L.S. Senghor, "The Lessons of Leo Frobenius," in Leo Frobenius: An Anthology, ed. E. Haberland (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1973), p. vii; Jacqueline Leiner, "Entretien avec A.C."
Robin D.G. Kelley Poetics of Anticolonialism intro to Aimé Césaire Discourse on Colonialism Monthly Review Press, 2000
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Interesting. This comes to show that not all early white Western scholars were racist.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Yes, but have you read enough of Froebenius to know who he identifies as Atlantean and where he believes Atlantis was located? And do you have the exact Froebenius citation in Und Afrika Sprach were he allegedly makes that racialist statement?
quote: "idea of the barbaric Negro is a European invention,"
That's the kind of statement I expect from Froebenius.
Césaire, Senghor, and their colleagues in the Négritude movement had been fascinated with Leo Frobenius, the German irrationalist whose massive ethnography, Histoire de la civilisation Africaine, provided a powerful defense of African civilization. See Suzanne Césaire, "Leo Frobenius and the Problem of Civilization [1941]," in Michael Richardson, ed., Refusal of the Shadow, pp. 82-87; L.S. Senghor, "The Lessons of Leo Frobenius," in Leo Frobenius: An Anthology, ed. E. Haberland (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1973), p. vii; Jacqueline Leiner, "Entretien avec A.C."
Robin D.G. Kelley Poetics of Anticolonialism intro to Aimé Césaire Discourse on Colonialism Monthly Review Press, 2000
According to the BBC program on Ife and Benin he believed Atlantis was a lost Greek colony
That's where I first heared about it, so did he change his mind about "a race far superior in strain to the negro must have settled here"
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forget the BBC program. What does he himself say in his book Und Afrika Sprach available in English as The Voice of Africa?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, my copy of Voice of Africa, which I recollect being in two volumes, is unavailable but I did dig up the citation and yes that quote appears on page 89.
So I have to conclude that you're correct and somewhere along the line Frobenius altered his original opinion about what his negroes were capable of accomplishing.
Thanks for the lesson!
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: OK, my copy of Voice of Africa, which I recollect being in two volumes, is unavailable but I did dig up the citation and yes that quote appears on page 89.
So I have to conclude that you're correct and somewhere along the line Frobenius altered his original opinion about what his negroes were capable of accomplishing.
Thanks for the lesson!
Thank you for the lesson as well
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The scientifically mainstream view of ancient Egyptians is clear-- they are indigenous Africans.
Now whether or not they are "black" is the main argument that goes on, especially in mainstream Egyptology.
Of course such an argument is rooted in silly semantics which stem from racist bias and denial.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do mainstream Egyptologists say about Greeks thinking the Egyptions were black?
That was after the early dynasties but don't many say that the Egyptions have looked consistently the same over history
Posts: 2642 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The first thing you must understand is that Egyptology besides involving alot of guess work when working with an extinct ancient culture is also an institution that is unfortunately rooted in Eurocentrism. As such, it is actually a rare event for Egyptologists in general to come to a common consensus about something, especially when it comes to the "racial" identification of the Egyptians. Some Egyptologists have no problem acknowledging the Egyptians were black, while others do.
As for the accounts made by ancient Greeks and others who described the Egyptians, again some historians who have a problem in racial bias tend to argue against such accounts and go so far as to argue what the very meaning of the words the Greeks used. They would say a Greek word like melanchroes or Maure "doesn't mean black", when that is exactly what Greeks today mean by it as well as early English translators.
So in short, what so-called "experts" say on such matters depends on the individual expert.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The scientifically mainstream view of ancient Egyptians is clear-- they are indigenous Africans.
Now whether or not they are "black" is the main argument that goes on, especially in mainstream Egyptology.
Of course such an argument is rooted in silly semantics which stem from racist bias and denial.
It really does become a semantics argument. I'd go farther and say that the accepted view is that the Egyptians came from a southern region. That seems to be pretty well established.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The first thing you must understand is that Egyptology besides involving alot of guess work when working with an extinct ancient culture is also an institution that is unfortunately rooted in Eurocentrism. As such, it is actually a rare event for Egyptologists in general to come to a common consensus about something, especially when it comes to the "racial" identification of the Egyptians. Some Egyptologists have no problem acknowledging the Egyptians were black, while others do.
As for the accounts made by ancient Greeks and others who described the Egyptians, again some historians who have a problem in racial bias tend to argue against such accounts and go so far as to argue what the very meaning of the words the Greeks used. They would say a Greek word like melanchroes or Maure "doesn't mean black", when that is exactly what Greeks today mean by it as well as early English translators.
So in short, what so-called "experts" say on such matters depends on the individual expert.
What Egyptologists do you know that call the Egyptians black?
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ To name just a few, Barbara Walker, Michael Rice, Kent Weeks, and Frank Yurco. Although Yurco and others have a 'round about' way of stating it rather than direct and outright.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
IIRC while never stating AEs were blacks Yurco did relate an anecdote about how his Black American wife was taken for Egyptian by modern Egyptians who, by the way, mistook their traveling companion for a foreigner even though she was a born(?) Egyptian citizen.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes, Yurco often described the ancient Egyptian skin color as "medium to dark brown" as being best represented by modern day rural peasants especially in southern Egypt. Again, a 'round about way' of saying they're "black".
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. Yurco was very determined to not have AE's known as blacks despite the fact that western "blacks" (African Americans and a coloured Caribbean) were taken for modern Egyptians in his own life experience.
quote:Richard Poe author of Black Spark, White Fire wrote:
One day, Diane and an Egyptian friend decided to explore a nearby village, while Yurco was busy with his archaeological work. Onlookers stared at the two women and exchanged comments.
"The short one is definitely Egyptian," opined one villager, within earshot of the women. "The other one is probably a khawaja – a foreigner."
But just the opposite was true. Yurco's wife was the khawaja and her friend the Egyptian. Diane's African blood made her look Egyptian, while her friend's partially French ancestry gave her a foreign appearance.
Frank Yurco Were the Ancient Egyptians Black or White? Biblical Archaeology Review (Sept-Oct 1989)
Compare and contrast the above statement with that in your last post (which reads like something Ausar once posted here).
You may wish to interpret Yurco in a way that agrees with your thought, but that is not how the man himself actually thought, believed, or taught.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I discussed Yurco with Ausar awhile back.
It is true that he is less Eurocentric that most, and is willing to acknowledge the African Egypt.
He stated flatly that of non "Egyptians", AE were ethnically closest to "Nubians". [which, to the extint that we accept for sake of argument distinction between Egyptian and Nubian - is de facto - true]
However, he also participated in knowing deception over the Tomb of Ramses III mural, which he essentially, and lyingly claimed did not exist.
He accepted the reality of African Kemet, but remained threatened by the reality of the Black Kemet.
On this matter, he tended to play the condescending white liberal, trying to correct the 'misperceptions' of 'others', all the while lying thru his teeth.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: I discussed Yurco with Ausar awhile back.
It is true that he is less Eurocentric that most, and is willing to acknowledge the African Egypt.
He stated flatly that of non "Egyptians", AE were ethnically closest to "Nubians". [which, to the extint that we accept for sake of argument distinction between Egyptian and Nubian - is de facto - true]
However, he also participated in knowing deception over the Tomb of Ramses III mural, which he essentially, and lyingly claimed did not exist.
He accepted the reality of African Kemet, but remained threatened by the reality of the Black Kemet.
On this matter, he tended to play the condescending white liberal, trying to correct the 'misperceptions' of 'others', all the while lying thru his teeth.
On this I agree. The guy (R.I.P.) while not as racist or Eurocentric as his peers still struggled with prejudice. I just hope he broke free before his death.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic