Lately there have been a lot of debate in media (including social media) about topics like Netflix Cleopatra, the Kemet exhibition in Holland, but also about returning ancient artifacts to Egypt which some museums in America and Europe refuse to do.
It leads to the question, who owns Egypt´s material- and immaterial heritage? Who has the right to possess Egyptian artifacts (and even buildings)? Who has the right to tell Egyptians who their ancestors were? Who has the right to go to Egypt and conduct research? Who has the right to use Egyptian history in film and music?
In the Cleopatra debate one could hear Egyptians express their discontent that their prehistory was used for political purposes in other countries (in this case USA) or to promote peoples who are not Egyptians.
So who owns Egyptian history, who shall define who ancient Egyptians were, or who modern Egyptians are? It seems as there are many who, in different ways, use Egyptian history without asking the Egyptians about it.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: So no one who has a narrow face can claim Egyptian history, even if his family lived in Egypt since time immemorial?
The head on the picture is from the Old Kingdom. Do you mean that no one in Egypt looked that way during that time?
Im saying that the majority of Ancient Egyptians looked the way of the hieroglyph for face and that narrow faces was not celebrated like it is today
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: the majority of Ancient Egyptians looked the way of the hieroglyph for face and that narrow faces was not celebrated like it is today [/QB]
So would you say that that heritage of Egypt belongs to all people whose faces are not narrow?
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
it belongs to people who look like this and others the Lioness
To think the Ancient Egyptians linked themselves to Sudan nubia with the look of the same skin color and clothes
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Who owns Egypt's history and heritage?
Lately there have been a lot of debate in media (including social media) about topics like Netflix Cleopatra, the Kemet exhibition in Holland, but also about returning ancient artifacts to Egypt which some museums in America and Europe refuse to do.
It leads to the question, who owns Egypt´s material- and immaterial heritage? Who has the right to possess Egyptian artifacts (and even buildings)? Who has the right to tell Egyptians who their ancestors were? Who has the right to go to Egypt and conduct research? Who has the right to use Egyptian history in film and music?
In the Cleopatra debate one could hear Egyptians express their discontent that their prehistory was used for political purposes in other countries (in this case USA) or to promote peoples who are not Egyptians.
So who owns Egyptian history, who shall define who ancient Egyptians were, or who modern Egyptians are? It seems as there are many who, in different ways, use Egyptian history without asking the Egyptians about it.
Wrong section for this.Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ In the presentation of the video it says:
quote: The amount of vitriol directed towards the series, and personal attacks on lead actress Adelle James is unprecedented. But what are the facts and why are people so unhinged?
It is quite bad with personal attacks. Seems such attacks have also affected some of them who spoke up against the Netflix Cleopatra, which Nora "Kemet Queen" can bear whittness about. Seems the questions about the race or skin color of ancient Egyptians stirs up very strong feelings
quote: EXPOSING ABUSE, HATE, RACISM and the attacks I've been getting from them ever since I started speaking up on cultural appropriation
posted
Nora also Questions the belief that someone cut the noses off ancient Egyptian statues just to hide their true identity, which is claimed in the video above
quote:(at 31:45) statues of phenotypic African pharaohs are obscured most of which have had their noses desecrated in an attempt to conceal their ethnicity
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Nora also Questions the belief that someone cut the noses off ancient Egyptian statues just to hide their true identity, which is claimed in the video above
quote:(at 31:45) statues of phenotypic African pharaohs are obscured most of which have had their noses desecrated in an attempt to conceal their ethnicity
posted
She is not an professional Egyptologist. just a happy amateur but at least she shows a keen interest in her ancestors culture. But of course if she could find some Egyptologist to fact-check her videos it would be better.
Maybe one could invite her to discuss here on Egyptsearch. Always interesting to hear Egyptian voices about ancient Egypt.
But the main question though, that she addressed is if Europeans (and/or modern Egyptians) regularly hacked of the noses of ancient Egyptian statues to hide their true ethnic or racial identity as is claimed in the video that Firewall posted. I also have read that claim many times on the net in different fora.
When it concerns the facial features of statues one can see examples of both broader and thinner facial features. Ancient Egypt´s population seems to have been somewhat varied, not everyone looked the same during 3000 years or more.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes but while she is talking about the reasons for the broken noses she is adds repeatedly goes out of her way to say they were not "black Africans"
Yet the country is in Africa and a component of the ancient and present Egypt are "Black Africans"
She would be wiser not to even make racial statements, the people were highly varied
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were and still are folks that believe modern sudanese are caucasoids/caucasian. Now some are,but most are not.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Archeo why do you keep rehashing the same thing over and over again? How many threads have you posted on this same topic? There isn't anything "new" to discuss that hasn't already been discussed here a thousand times before.
Here is the actual point of all this: Ancient Kemet ended after the Greek invasion and after that became Egypt, as a name created by the Greeks. From that point on, the nation has been colonized physically and culturally by various groups for the purposes of extracting wealth and resources from the land and people. After Greece came Rome and they used Egypt as a breadbasket for Rome. Between Greece and Rome they maintained some level of respect for the ancient cultural traditions up until Christianity became the religion of the Empire. After that, the ancient language and culture of Egypt died.
Following the Romans came the Arabs and various Arab/Middle Eastern Muslim populations. These people then began to erase the Christian and Roman legacy of Egypt in order to replace it with an Islamic one and since then the entire region has become a part of the Islamic World and Arabic World. That was almost 1500 years ago. Since then the monuments of the ancient kingdom of Kemet were buried in the sand and all but forgotten due to both Arabs and later Turks who replaced the Arabs as colonial rulers of Egypt. Then in the 1700s the French invaded Egypt and began the history of European plundering of historical artifacts from the Nile with the consent of the Ottoman rulers, because they weren't Muslim or Ottoman artifacts, as a result of the general disregard for the ancient culture. The French invasion triggered a conflict with Britain for colonial control of Egypt. All of these groups continued to exploit Egypt for its grain and people used for labor projects such as the Suez canal. And this brings us up to WW 1 when the Ottoman Empire was defeated and Egypt, like most of North Africa and the Middle East became a protectorate of Britain and other allied European powers, such as France. Egypt did not become an independent state until 1922. One of the triggers for this rise in nationalism among the Egyptians was the European obsession with the ancient history of the Nile. And since independence, the modern nation of Egypt has made that history a key part of its "official" national heritage alongside Islam.
All of that to say that the modern nation of Egypt is disconnected from the ancient kingdom of Kemet by over 2000 years of history. This is unlike China which can directly claim continuity with ancient Chinese kingdoms going back thousands of years. Even Greece, has no direct continuity with the Hellenistic era due to being conquered by the Romans and then colonized by the Ottomans. That said, from a sovereign and legal perspective, obviously they have ownership of any historical artifacts within the boundaries of their nation. But that ancient culture was of African origin and many of the modern people of Egypt don't identify as African.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug is right there there is not cultural continuity so in that sense the cultural heritage belongs to no one he also said "Ancient Kemet ended after the Greek invasion"
However prior to the Greeks the Persians had taken over for over a hundred a while and prior to that Assyrians ruled for around ten years
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Greek civilization had major changes like china over the years but greek civilization and ethnic greeks still exist today.
It's the romans and roman civilization that has gone away.
Italy is not roman civilization and italians are not ethnic romans.
Greeks
Continuity
quote: The most obvious link between modern and ancient Greeks is their language, which has a documented tradition from at least the 14th century BC to the present day, albeit with a break during the Greek Dark Ages from which written records are absent (11th- 8th cent. BC, though the Cypriot syllabary was in use during this period).[168] Scholars compare its continuity of tradition to Chinese alone.[168][169] Since its inception, Hellenism was primarily a matter of common culture and the national continuity of the Greek world is a lot more certain than its demographic.[45][170] Yet, Hellenism also embodied an ancestral dimension through aspects of Athenian literature that developed and influenced ideas of descent based on autochthony.[171] During the later years of the Eastern Roman Empire, areas such as Ionia and Constantinople experienced a Hellenic revival in language, philosophy, and literature and on classical models of thought and scholarship.[170] This revival provided a powerful impetus to the sense of cultural affinity with ancient Greece and its classical heritage.[170] Throughout their history, the Greeks have retained their language and alphabet, certain values and cultural traditions, customs, a sense of religious and cultural difference and exclusion (the word barbarian was used by 12th-century historian Anna Komnene to describe non-Greek speakers),[172] a sense of Greek identity and common sense of ethnicity despite the undeniable socio-political changes of the past two millennia.[170] In recent anthropological studies, both ancient and modern Greek osteological samples were analyzed demonstrating a bio-genetic affinity and continuity shared between both groups.[173][174] There is also a direct genetic link between ancient Greeks and modern Greeks.[175][176]
Wikipedia
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Doug is right there there is not cultural continuity so in that sense the cultural heritage belongs to no one
Still, as Doug also says "from a sovereign and legal perspective, obviously they have ownership of any historical artifacts within the boundaries of their nation", and even if there is no direct cultural connection anymore it is still up to the modern Egyptians to manage their heritage, and also produce new knowledge (conduct research) about it. A new generation of Egyptian Egyptologists, archaeologists and others are prepared to ask questions to the archaeological record and to the written sources which survived. Maybe they will ask questions from a somewhat other angle than the many foreign researchers who have worked in Egypt for such a long time.
Then, just as in many other countries the cultural heritage is also a part of modern politics and is used for political purposes.
The question is also who have the right to access the Egyptian heritage, at least the part that is in Egypt? As in many countries the heritage is, or will be a question of identity. Who will be a part of that identity, and who will be excluded?
Already now Egypt seem prepared to exclude foreigners who they claim falsify and misrepresent their history and the ancient culture.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Nora's "awakening" to ancient Egyptian culture seems to have been a reaction to a Netflix series, thus "reactionary" What if the Netflix never came out would she be doing all this? It's a series that came and went, about a Greek Queen
Probably she has been interested in Egypts ancient history already before Netflix Cleopatra (she says in one of her videos that she has visited Egyptian museums since she was five years old) but the TV series seems to have made her much more active on social media.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It looks like business as usual
Yes, the cultural heritage is of course also about money. Tourism is an important source of income, and many tourists travel to Egypt just to see the ancient sites and ruins.
It is interesting to see where most of the tourists came from. Here is a list. One can mention that around 100 000 Swedes also go to Egypt every year
Most tourists to Egypt comes from Europe
(numbers from Wikipedia)
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2685 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Greek civilization had major changes like china over the years but greek civilization and ethnic greeks still exist today.
It's the romans and roman civilization that has gone away.
Italy is not roman civilization and italians are not ethnic romans.
Greeks
Continuity
quote: The most obvious link between modern and ancient Greeks is their language, which has a documented tradition from at least the 14th century BC to the present day, albeit with a break during the Greek Dark Ages from which written records are absent (11th- 8th cent. BC, though the Cypriot syllabary was in use during this period).[168] Scholars compare its continuity of tradition to Chinese alone.[168][169] Since its inception, Hellenism was primarily a matter of common culture and the national continuity of the Greek world is a lot more certain than its demographic.[45][170] Yet, Hellenism also embodied an ancestral dimension through aspects of Athenian literature that developed and influenced ideas of descent based on autochthony.[171] During the later years of the Eastern Roman Empire, areas such as Ionia and Constantinople experienced a Hellenic revival in language, philosophy, and literature and on classical models of thought and scholarship.[170] This revival provided a powerful impetus to the sense of cultural affinity with ancient Greece and its classical heritage.[170] Throughout their history, the Greeks have retained their language and alphabet, certain values and cultural traditions, customs, a sense of religious and cultural difference and exclusion (the word barbarian was used by 12th-century historian Anna Komnene to describe non-Greek speakers),[172] a sense of Greek identity and common sense of ethnicity despite the undeniable socio-political changes of the past two millennia.[170] In recent anthropological studies, both ancient and modern Greek osteological samples were analyzed demonstrating a bio-genetic affinity and continuity shared between both groups.[173][174] There is also a direct genetic link between ancient Greeks and modern Greeks.[175][176]
Wikipedia
The main connection between ancient Greece and modern Greece is the language. However, since the Hellenistic era, Greece was ruled first by Rome and then the Ottomans. And while the Greeks were the first to promote the spread and development of Christianity in Egypt, it was the Roman decree of Christianity that ended the ancient Hellenistic deities. And then after the Romans, Greeks became somewhat Islamized, case in point Muhammad Ali, the ruler of Egypt, who was a Macedonian Greek of the Ottoman empire. The main reason the language lasted was due to so many of the ancient writings of Greece seen as the source of science, philosophy and math knowledge. All of that is why modern Greece doesn't have a continuity with the Hellenistic era. For example, they don't really have a good idea how ancient Greek music sounded.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: italians are not ethnic romans.
what's your proof?
Romans were a latin italic group and over time there were major changes,more so then what happen to the greeks and chinese. Modern italians are not listed in the italic ethnic group.
Italian language Ethnicity Italians Classification
quote:Italian is a Romance language, a descendant of Vulgar Latin (colloquial spoken Latin). Standard Italian is based on Tuscan, especially its Florentine dialect, and is, therefore, an Italo-Dalmatian language, a classification that includes most other central and southern Italian languages and the extinct Dalmatian.
Romance languages History
quote: During the Empire's decline, and after its fragmentation and the collapse of its Western half in the fifth and sixth centuries, the spoken varieties of Latin became more isolated from each other, with the western dialects coming under heavy Germanic influence (the Goths and Franks in particular) and the eastern dialects coming under Slavic influence.[17][18] The dialects diverged from classical Latin at an accelerated rate and eventually evolved into a continuum of recognizably different typologies. The colonial empires established by Portugal, Spain, and France from the fifteenth century onward spread their languages to the other continents to such an extent that about two-thirds of all Romance language speakers today live outside Europe.[citation needed]
Italic peoples
quote: The Italic peoples were an ethnolinguistic group identified by their use of Italic languages, a branch of the Indo-European language family.
The Italic peoples are descended from the Indo-European speaking peoples who inhabited Italy from at least the second millennium BC onwards. Latins achieved a dominant position among these tribes, establishing ancient Roman civilization. During this development, other Italic tribes adopted Latin language and culture in a process known as Romanization. This process was eventually extended to certain parts of Europe. The ethnic groups which emerged as a result are known as Romance peoples.
Latins (Italic tribe)
Genetic studies
quote:
Examined individuals from the city of Rome during the time of the Roman Empire (27 BCE – 300 CE) bore almost no genetic resemblance to Rome's founding populations, and were instead shifted towards the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. The Imperial population of Rome was found to have been extremely diverse, with barely any of the examined individuals being of primarily European ancestry. It was suggested that the observed genetic replacement of the city's founding populations was a result of heavy migration of merchants and slaves from the populous urban centres of the Middle East and Greece.[79] During late antiquity, after the Imperial era, Rome's population was drastically reduced as a result of political instability, epidemics and economic changes. In this period, more European ancestry is evident in Rome; its inhabitants started to again approximate present-day Italians, and can be modeled as a genetic mixture of Imperial-era inhabitants of the city of Rome and populations from central or northern Italy.[80] In the following Early Medieval period, invasions of barbarians brought further European ancestry into Rome, resulting in the further loss of genetic link to the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. By the Middle Ages, the people of Rome again genetically resembled European populations.[81][82][83][84][85][86][87]
Roman people
quote: The Romans (Latin: Rōmānī; Ancient Greek: Ῥωμαῖοι, romanized: Rhōmaîoi; Greek: Ρωμαίος, romanized: Romaíos)[a] were a cultural group, variously referred to as an ethnicity[2][3][b] or a nationality, [4][5] that in classical antiquity, from the 2nd century BC to the 5th century AD, came to rule large parts of Europe, the Near East and North Africa through conquests made during the Roman Republic and the later Roman Empire. Originally only referring to the Italic Latin citizens of Rome itself, the meaning of "Roman" underwent considerable changes throughout the long history of Roman civilisation as the borders of the Roman state expanded and contracted. At times, different groups within Roman society also had different ideas as to what it meant to be Roman. Aspects such as geography, language, and ethnicity could be seen as important by some, whereas others saw Roman citizenship and culture or behaviour as more important.[6][7][8][9] At the height of the Roman Empire, Roman identity was a collective geopolitical identity, extended to nearly all subjects of the Roman emperors and encompassing vast regional and ethnic diversity.[10]
Wikipedia
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Firewall: italians are not ethnic romans.
what's your proof?
quote:Originally posted by Firewall:
Genetic studies
quote: Examined individuals from the city of Rome during the time of the Roman Empire (27 BCE – 300 CE) bore almost no genetic resemblance to Rome's founding populations, and were instead shifted towards the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. The Imperial population of Rome was found to have been extremely diverse, with barely any of the examined individuals being of primarily European ancestry. It was suggested that the observed genetic replacement of the city's founding populations was a result of heavy migration of merchants and slaves from the populous urban centres of the Middle East and Greece.[79] During late antiquity, after the Imperial era, Rome's population was drastically reduced as a result of political instability, epidemics and economic changes. In this period, more European ancestry is evident in Rome; its inhabitants started to again approximate present-day Italians, and can be modeled as a genetic mixture of Imperial-era inhabitants of the city of Rome and populations from central or northern Italy.[80] In the following Early Medieval period, invasions of barbarians brought further European ancestry into Rome, resulting in the further loss of genetic link to the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. By the Middle Ages, the people of Rome again genetically resembled European populations.
^^ if that URL dont work because of the ( ) then change the URL at https://tinyurl.com real easy
_____________________________
The above quote does not support what you said. It says the opposite
the Roman Empire is (27 BC–476 AD)
your quote says "Examined individuals from the city of Rome during the time of the Roman Empire (27 BCE – 300 CE) bore almost no genetic resemblance to Rome's founding populations"
This means during the Roman empire it was already a population mixed with Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East >> unlike in the very early Mesolithic founding haplogroup I population that did not have this
"the observed genetic replacement of the city's founding populations was a result of heavy migration of merchants and slaves from the populous urban centres of the Middle East and Greece." ( Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East admixture)
the end of the paragraph:
In the following Early Medieval period, invasions of barbarians brought further European ancestry into Rome, resulting in the further loss of genetic link to the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. By the Middle Ages, the people of Rome again genetically resembled European populations By the Middle Ages, the people of Rome again genetically resembled European populations. _______________________
>> It was the Roman empire period when they became more mixed But getting deeper into the genetics, one of the reference articles of the wiki:
Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean Margaret L. Antonio,2019
see yellow box, near bottom, click on the supplement PDF
Supplement Click here to view.
Look at Mesolithic in the beginning of Y
it's hap I
and the female mtDNA it's U
right after that in the Neolithic (farming period) that I is not even there anymore although the mtDNA U carries over
As we can see by the Roman Empire period, here called "Imperial" that was even more mixed than today. We can see that the J2 and the G2 of the YDNA go all the way back to Neolithic (but not to that really early Mesolithic) The with the female mtDNA of Imperial hap U goes all the way back to Mesolithic and the H,K and T go back to the Neolithic
39% of the Sardinians belong to Mesolithic European haplogroup I2a1a.
A 2004 study by Semino et al. showed that Italians from the north-central regions had around 26.9% J2; the Apulians, Calabrians and Sicilians had 29.1%, 21.5% and 16.7% J2 respectively; the Sardinians had 9.7% J2
The position of Volterra in central Tuscany keeps the debate about the origins of Etruscans open, although the numbers are strongly in favor of the autochthonous thesis: the low presence of J2a-M67* (2.7%) suggests contacts by sea with Anatolian people; the presence of Central European lineage G2a-L497 (7.1%) at considerable frequency would rather support a Central European origin of the Etruscans;
Both modern and ancient Umbrians were found to have high rates of mtDNA haplogroups U4 and U5a, and an overrepresentation of J (at roughly 30%). The study also found that, "local genetic continuities are further attested to by six terminal branches (H1e1, J1c3, J2b1, U2e2a, U8b1b1 and K1a4a)" also shared by ancient and modern Umbrians
_____________________________________
^^ so we see a lot of matching here between modern Italians, Roman empire and back further to Neolithic and some even Mesolithic on the female side
There was also R1b, look on the chart, that's blue and that came in heavily in the Iron age that was before the Imperial Empire period
Many Italians, especially in Northern Italy and Central Italy, belong to Haplogroup R1b, common in Western and Central Europe. The highest frequency of R1b is found in Garfagnana (76.2%) in Tuscany and in the Bergamo Valleys (80.8%) in Lombardy.[31][32] This percentage lowers in the south of Italy in Calabria (33.2%)
So a lot of this DNA carries over from the early to the modern But if you look at that very early per-farming Mesolithic period it's Y DNA I (yellow) that is gone in the Neolithic but you see it return in Late antiquity Where it's coming back from is not clear but generally I think there is plenty of possibility that some modern Italians have a continuity of ancestry going back to the Roman epire and earlier
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Were Romans Italians: What Are Their Real Connections?
quote: Were Romans Italians? Yes, as the Romans came from the Italian Peninsula—that is if the geographical location of the land they inhabited was the only factor to consider.
However, many factors must be taken into account when it comes to one’s ethnicity and ancestry, especially for Romans, who hail from one of ancient history’s most glorious civilizations.
Were Romans Italians? The Difference Between Roman and Italians
quote: Geography and history have had a significant impact on Italy’s genetic history. Geographically speaking, ancient Romans were born in the land of Italy, but it all depends on how you define the term “Romans” as it has numerous definitions. It can refer to individuals who lived in the Roman Empire, people who identify as Romans, people who have Roman genetics, or those who defend Roman imperial values.
As a result, there are various explanations about what ethnicity were the Romans and how they are related to Italians.
– What Happened to the Roman People After Rome Fell?
quote: After the empire fell apart, feudalism, in which people were given land and protection by people of higher rank who would work and fought for them in return, was more organized and controlled. The ancient Roman provinces were split into feudal kingdoms by ethnic chiefs and kings, ex-Roman governors, generals, warlords, peasant leaders, and bandits.
In exchange for protection from robbers and neighboring kingdoms, peasants were permanently allocated to “manorial estates,” where they were provided food and labor to the aristocratic class of lords and knights.
Many of the Roman Empire’s regions were attacked and ruled by various invaders. Italy was administered as a Byzantine province with Gothic administrators before being taken over by direct control in the south and the German Lombards in the north. With the election of Pope Gregory, the papacy and the Byzantine Empire was divided in authority. The Byzantine Church and the Catholic Church finally parted in the eighth century. Various German tribes had also increasingly settled in the west. The Vandals ruled Africa; the Visigoths ruled Spain and southern Gaul; the Suevi ruled northern Spain; the Burgundians ruled southeastern Gaul; the Saxons and Jutes ruled Britain; the Heruli ruled Italy.
Only in the northern portion of Gaul was the ghost of Roman power perpetuated by the governor, Syagrius, who held out against the invaders for another 10 years before succumbing to the Franks under Clovis. The new German kingdom’s commanders had begun to wield autonomous authority, whereas the Romans had been subjected to new overlords.
– Effect on the Roman People With the dawn of the new invaders, Roman customs, manners, laws, and language were preserved, but new customs and ideas influenced by the invaders were added to them. When the Roman Empire fell in the west, it served as a transition to a new state of affairs that evolved into our modern civilization. More like the transition of the old republic to an empire, the fall of the early empire was a transition to a new phase of imperialism.
The east prospered over time, whereas the west fell. Even after the Western Roman Empire fell, the Eastern Roman Empire survived for hundreds of years as the Byzantine Empire. As a result, the “fall of Rome” truly only refers to the fall of the empire’s western half. From what is now northern Italy, the Ostrogoths (who ruled Rome from 454 to 933) and the Lombards (who ruled Rome from 566 to 68) seized Rome. The eastern provinces grew stronger as Rome’s power declined, becoming the Byzantine Empire. As late as 1780 AD, people in Rome spoke Ostrogoth.
– What Was the Native Language of the Romans? Latin was considered their classical language. Although Latin was used across the Roman Empire, it coexisted with a variety of other languages and dialects, such as Greek, Oscan, and Etruscan. After its form was fixed, Classical Latin, Cicero’s, and Virgil’s language became “dead,” while Vulgar Latin, the language used by the majority of Romans, grew and expanded across the western Roman Empire, eventually becoming the Roman language.
FAQ – Was Italian Spoken by the Ancient Romans? The answer is no, as the Italian language that we know now did not exist back then. After the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century, the Italian language underwent a lengthy and gradual evolution, and Romans started speaking the Italian language. Latin had spread and been imposed as the “Madre Franca” or shared language throughout the empire.
As Latin was the language of the ancient Romans and due to the presence of numerous invaders and conquerors, communication became impossible. Consequently, the original language used by the Romans began to gradually adapt and be influenced by different languages. The Italian language that we know today arose in central Tuscany and was formalized in the early 14th century through the writings of Tuscan writer Dante Alighieri.
– Are Romans the Modern Italians? The Italians are descendants of the Romans, Greeks, Etruscans, Ligures, Raetians, and Veneto-Illyrians, as well as numerous Celtic and Italic tribes, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Arabs, Ostrogoths, Lombard and Normans, Franks, and Catalans, among many others.
The Romans, who originated in the city of Rome, were similar but not identical to the Italians. People were more devoted to their city than to their country before nationalism and nationhood, which is why the “Roman Empire” was established rather than the “Italian Empire.”
The more accurate way to identify whether ancient Romans are linked to the Italians is to look at their genetics. Ancient Romans genetically resembled groups from the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East at the height of their empire. This is the defining factor of who are the Romans today and how they evolved from these events.
– Do Italians Carry Roman Genetics? To fully understand this, we must first determine the genetic makeup of the Romans. Ancient Rome was the capital of a large empire by historical standards and still is by modern ones. At that time, Rome was home to more than 70 million people from Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
We know that Rome never imposed its culture on conquered people and that regular contact between conquerors and conquered people resulted in a mutual exchange of knowledge, customs, and traditions that immensely enriched the Eternal City. The same genetic variety and intermingling occurred, according to recent studies from Stanford, Vienna, and Rome La Sapienza universities.
However, one important thing to think about when considering our genetic background is time. Two millennia have passed between the time of the Roman Empire and the present. In these two millennia, history created and destroyed countries and witnessed invasions, conquests, and changed languages. Machiavelli, one of the most enlightened political thinkers, used to say that the first true Italians were the Lombards, who defeated the Romans but also fully embraced their culture and mixed with them through marriages.
– When Were Romans Called Italians? Let’s start with why the people there were called Romans. The thinking during that time was more concerned about tribal regions, hometowns, and villages than with governments and nations. The identity of a person or a family was established by their home tribe. Despite having huge swathes of land and sea under their control, the Romans’ identity was based on their “home”—Rome.
The Italy that we know today was the land on the lower peninsula of what was known as the Italian Peninsula, although it only referred to the geographical mass and not the people. The term “Roman” was never used to apply to the entire Italian Peninsula. Instead, like the Romans after Augustus, they referred to the peninsula as a whole as Italy. However, it was not until 1861 that Italy became a unified country when the Kingdom of Italy was founded from a collection of states and territories.
In the first century BC, Italians and Romans merged into one. Even though Romans and many other Italian populations have a lot in common, Romans used to make up a small percentage of the Italian population.
Conclusion The Romans were people who originated from the Italian Peninsula. During the ancient times, portions of Europe, including Gaul (modern-day France), Greece, and Spain, parts of North Africa, and parts of the Middle East were all under the jurisdiction of the Roman Empire, which was centered in Rome.
Rome started as a small Italic tribe in the Italian Peninsula and was ruled by a monarchy before transitioning to a republic and eventually becoming an empire. Rome’s expansion reached as far as Britain, North Africa, Portugal, and Syria, along with the invaders who conquered them when the empire fell. These led to the intermingling of customs, traditions, and even genetics.
The Italian language that we know today was first used in the early 14th century. Latin was the language used by ancient Romans. The Kingdom of Italy, of which the city of Rome is still a part, was founded in 1861, and finally, Italians and Romans were merged.
Almost all people are genetically mixed. Therefore, if the question is whether Romans were Italians, then the answer is a definite yes! Of course, the Romans were genetically mixed, as were medieval Italians, just like most of us are. It only shows how we are all genetically diverse and lovely as the land from which we came.
quote: Italian language Ethnicity Italians Italian is a Romance language, a descendant of Vulgar Latin (colloquial spoken Latin).
Ethnic italians,not ethnic romans. Then here it says romans are a ethnic group or nationality.
quote: Roman people The Romans (Latin: Rōmānī; Ancient Greek: Ῥωμαῖοι, romanized: Rhōmaîoi; Greek: Ρωμαίος, romanized: Romaíos)[a] were a cultural group, variously referred to as an ethnicity[2][3][b] or a nationality,
The above are two different ethnic groups.
Italians are a different ethnic group then romans.
The language and culture is too different enough now that they are not the same ethnic group but of course the italians are the closest group to romans.
Italian civilization is not same civilization as roman civilization as well.
Roman people belong to the latin italic groups. Italian people belong to the romance groups.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Here it says who speaks italian.
quote: Italian language Ethnicity Italians Italian is a Romance language, a descendant of Vulgar Latin (colloquial spoken Latin).
Latin and Greek were the dominant languages of the Roman Empire. Vulgar Latin (in Latin, sermo vulgaris, "common speech") is a blanket term covering the vernacular dialects of the Latin language spoken mostly in the western provinces of the Roman Empire
_______________________
Old English
Like other old Germanic languages, it is very different from Modern English and Modern Scots, and largely incomprehensible for Modern English or Modern Scots speakers without study.[3] Within Old English grammar nouns, adjectives, pronouns and verbs have many inflectional endings and forms, and word order is much freer.[2] The oldest Old English inscriptions were written using a runic system, but from about the 8th century this was replaced by a version of the Latin alphabet.
____________________________________
Your argument is if a person does not speak an older form of a language that none of the people who did speak the older form of that language are their ancestors According to that view the heritage of no one living today goes back to ancient times
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Here it says who speaks italian.
quote: Italian language Ethnicity Italians Italian is a Romance language, a descendant of Vulgar Latin (colloquial spoken Latin).
Latin and Greek were the dominant languages of the Roman Empire. Vulgar Latin (in Latin, sermo vulgaris, "common speech") is a blanket term covering the vernacular dialects of the Latin language spoken mostly in the western provinces of the Roman Empire
_______________________
Old English
Like other old Germanic languages, it is very different from Modern English and Modern Scots, and largely incomprehensible for Modern English or Modern Scots speakers without study.[3] Within Old English grammar nouns, adjectives, pronouns and verbs have many inflectional endings and forms, and word order is much freer.[2] The oldest Old English inscriptions were written using a runic system, but from about the 8th century this was replaced by a version of the Latin alphabet.
____________________________________
Your argument is if a person does not speak an older form of a language that none of the people who did speak the older form of that language are their ancestors According to that view the heritage of no one living today goes back to ancient times
No,italians have ancestors that are romans but they are not same ethnic group because customs,culture and other factors.
Think of egyptians. The egyptian ethnic group does not exist anymore but there are some folks in egypt who have egyptian ancestors but they are arab,not ethnic egyptians.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: No,italians have ancestors that are romans but they are not same ethnic group because customs,culture and other factors.
Think of egyptians. The egyptian ethnic group does not exist anymore but there are some folks in egypt who have egyptian ancestors but they are arab,not ethnic egyptians.
the topic of of this thread is heritage, it says that in the title
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is ethnic romans are not ethnic italians.
Other examples,ethnic ancient egyptians are not modern egyptians,abyssinians are not ethnic axumites,nubians are not ethnic kushites and black sudanese arabs are not nubians or any other ethnic group in northern sudan.
Now modern greeks are the same as ancient greeks just like modern chinese are the same as ancient chinese.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
For greeks my point is modern greeks are ethnic greek like the ancient greeks and even if there were some changes overtime it was not enough for them to say they are a different ethnic group now.
I am making a point about ethnic groups as well.
Now getting back to this point you mention,heritage. If nubians are not ethnic kushites could they claim the kushite heritage?
Of course the noba absorbed the kushites and kushites are not around anymore to say get lost with that non-sense,but the nubians are the closest group to them but they are not around to defend themselves anymore,so you have others claiming it like modern nubians and black sudanese arabs.
Ethnic ancient egyptians are not around to defend themselves so you have moden egyptians who are not ethnic egyptians claiming ancient egypt. Same with italians vs romans or modern tunisians claiming ancient carthage etc..
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic