I recommend you read the book by Alan K. Bowman entitled Egypt After the Pharoah,or Napalty Lewis book Egypt under the Roman Empire. The fact was that it was even illegal for an Egyptian peasent to enter Alexzanderia except as a servent. Certainly this cannot be consider racism,for the Greeks were not racist but it does show they had an elietist stadard.

On the same token the Macaedonians and Thracians were looked down upon as well.

The elite membership in Greece was the Gymnasium which you have to prove both maternal and paternal ancestors were Greek in origin according to Bowman in his book. Indigenous Egyptians were excluded from membership.

Most of Upper Egypt during the Ptolomeic period was never controlled by the Greeks,and some regions like modern Luxor to Aswan most Greeks probabaly never pentrated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Although it may true that Egyptians[Kemetians] were looked upon favorable by Greeks,in later periods when the Greeks and Romans finally conquered Egypt indigenous Egyptians were disdained. This,however, never stopped the intermarriage between Greeks and Egyptians which were even quite frequent in regions of Middle and Lower Egypt.

---

There is no doubt that after conquests, Greeks and Romans didn't show the same amount of respect they had for Ancient Egyptians in the earlier eras. Being able to take on a declining power or empire, tends to make the new victors big-headed. However, the Greeks and Romans still saw Egyptians in a different light from the "barbaric" Europeans to their North.

quote:

---

Posted by ausar:
The fact was that it was even illegal for an Egyptian peasent to enter Alexzanderia except as a servent. Certainly this cannot be consider racism,for the Greeks were not racist but it does show they had an elietist stadard.

---

Well, the Egyptians themselves had social strata since pre-dynastic times. But the question becomes, how were Egyptians with high social standing treated in Alexandria, and did they get the same respect as the Greek elites? Moreover, were Egyptians given the opportunity to be in the same social status as Greeks?
Most likely, elite Egyptians were treated differently from "lower" class Egyptians.

quote:

---

ausar posted:
The elite membership in Greece was the Gymnasium which you have to prove both maternal and paternal ancestors were Greek in origin according to Bowman in his book. Indigenous Egyptians were excluded from membership.

---

Kind of answers the question I just asked about treatement of Egyptians. In this case, I take it that Egyptians of "any" social standing is excluded from membership. Are you talking about Egyptians in Greece, or Egyptians in Greek controlled Egyptian regions, or both? I am assuming you are talking about Greek customs brought to Egyptian territory!

quote:

---

ausar posted:
On the same token the Macaedonians and Thracians were looked down upon as well.

---

...by Greeks?

quote:

---

ausar posted:
Most of Upper Egypt during the Ptolomeic period was never controlled by the Greeks,and some regions like modern Luxor to Aswan most Greeks probabaly never pentrated.

---

No doubt. Egyptian power as an empire was waning at this point, but this doesn't imply that they were totally conquered!

quote:

---

Kind of answers the question I just asked about treatement of Egyptians. In this case, I take it that Egyptians of "any" social standing is excluded from membership. Are you talking about Egyptians in Greece, or Egyptians in Greek controlled Egyptian regions, or both? I am assuming you are talking about Greek customs brought to Egyptian territory!

---

.

I am speaking of Greek cities established during Ptolomeic period when Greek travel to mainland Greece was allowed. During the 26th dyansty Greek and Carian mercenaries were allowed to settle by Ahmose II in the Delta region that became later known as Naucratis. Other Greek settlements sprung up in the Faiyum and in parts of Middle Egypt around modern Sohag was a city called Ptolomeis. The city were such ordances were inacted was in Alexzandria and Naucratis where since the early periods Egyptians and Greeks were forbidden to intermarry. Greeks,however, in Greco-Roman cities like Karnis in Faiyum and Ptolmeis could intermarry legally. The offspring from the unions were not allowed in Gynasisum status.

BTW, the ban on Egyptians to enter Alexzandria was around the Roman era of Emperor Agustas I believe.

QUOTE]Well, the Egyptians themselves had social strata since pre-dynastic times. But the question becomes, how were Egyptians with high social standing treated in Alexandria, and did they get the same respect as the Greek elites? Moreover, were Egyptians given the opportunity to be in the same social status as Greeks?
Most likely, elite Egyptians were treated differently from "lower" class Egyptians.[/QUOTE]

I really don't know the answer to this except the so-called Egyptian medical school in Alexzandria had many Egyptian like qualities that other areas that were not avaiable in the Academy in Greece. People were allowed to dissect animals which was forbidden in the Greek schools in Greece. Egyptians had a prfound influce upon Greek medicine in Alexzandria.

Most Egyptian during the Greco-Romam period were peasent farmers,but eventually some moved up in the military or by becoming Hellenized. We hace many cases of Hellenized Egyptians in Alexzandria who were acclaimed scholars. One of them possibly being Heron.

Truthfully,not many Egyptians wanted to assimilate into Hellenistic soceity,for most bitterly hated the Greek rule. However, I must point out that Grecian women often prefered being tried under Egyptian courts for their equal treatment of women under the law. Greece had no such counterpart for the protection of women, for most were mere property of their hubands and even male children.

Yes,Egypt during the dyanstic era had a stratified social system where most Egyptians were peasents. The status changed much during the Middle Kingdom where often lower class children were allowed to sit in with more elite children to learn how to become a scribe. I recommend you read a papyri called Satrie of the Trades which documents the assorted fields and specialities Egyptians had during this period.

quote:

---

.by Greeks?

---

quote:

---

ausar posted:
I am speaking of Greek cities established during Ptolomeic period when Greek travel to mainland Greece was allowed. During the 26th dyansty Greek and Carian mercenaries were allowed to settle by Ahmose II in the Delta region that became later known as Naucratis. Other Greek settlements sprung up in the Faiyum and in parts of Middle Egypt around modern Sohag was a city called Ptolomeis. The city were such ordances were inacted was in Alexzandria and Naucratis where since the early periods Egyptians and Greeks were forbidden to intermarry. Greeks,however, in Greco-Roman cities like Karnis in Faiyum and Ptolmeis could intermarry legally. The offspring from the unions were not allowed in Gynasisum status.

BTW, the ban on Egyptians to enter Alexzandria was around the Roman era of Emperor Agustas I believe.

---

That's what I thought; the Greek settlements in Egypt! But we are seeing the beginnings of European trend of segregation in foreign lands, and providing privileges to "full-blooded" Europeans. The reaction of Greeks in the Greco-Roman cities you pointed out, might reflect their rather lesser stronghold in those regions.

quote:

---

ausar posted:
I really don't know the answer to this except the so-called Egyptian medical school in Alexzandria had many Egyptian like qualities that other areas that were not avaiable in the Academy in Greece. People were allowed to dissect animals which was forbidden in the Greek schools in Greece. Egyptians had a prfound influce upon Greek medicine in Alexzandria...However, I must point out that Grecian women often prefered being tried under Egyptian courts for their equal treatment of women under the law. Greece had no such counterpart for the protection of women, for most were mere property of their hubands and even male children.

---

Well, there were obviously some Egyptians who were considered being of relative higher social status than other Egyptians, explaining adoption of Egyptian practices in scholastic areas and social life by the Greek settlements. In general, just how much respect these Egyptians of relative high status were able to get from Greeks, might be another story.

quote:

---

ausar posted:
Most Egyptian during the Greco-Romam period were peasent farmers,but eventually some moved up in the military or by becoming Hellenized. We hace many cases of Hellenized Egyptians in Alexzandria who were acclaimed scholars. One of them possibly being Heron.

---

Hellenized in the sense that they adopted Greek values or by simply having Greek admixture?

quote:

---

ausar posted:
Truthfully,not many Egyptians wanted to assimilate into Hellenistic soceity,for most bitterly hated the Greek rule.

---

Egyptian priests probably took the lead in the negative reaction towards assimilation into Hellenistic society.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

Yes,Macedonians and Greeks were traditional rivals. Macedonians were excluded form the Olympic Games.

---

You might want to read Alan K. Bowman's Egypt After the Pharoahs for a better understanding. From his book is where I am getting most of my information.

Let me point out there were also areas in Egypt where the priests would not allow Greeks.

One pratice that set Egyptians apart from the Greeks was the adopting of children that were being killed. Infanticide amungst the Greeks and Romans was quite common during this period,and Egyptians took in all children including Greek children and raised them. The conditions was that the children would become assistants to priests.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
When I say Hellenization I mean that Egyptians would adopt Greek names and culture. Usually indigenous had to do this to become part of the elite status groups. Having Greek admixture was simply not enough for upward mobility.

Let me point out there were also areas in Egypt where the priests would not allow Greeks.

One pratice that set Egyptians apart from the Greeks was the adopting of children that were being killed. Infanticide amungst the Greeks and Romans was quite common during this period,and Egyptians took in all children including Greek children and raised them. The conditions was that the children would become assistants to priests.

---

They do everything they can to suggest, in contradiction to evidence, that ancient Kemet was not an African society, but rather a European, Asian or "Mediterranian" one.

Medit, of course, being the most fashionable term - because it is actually illogical, literally referencing an ocean, not a landmass. Since no people are literally indigenous to the Sea it is therefore literally meaningless, and usefully...literally, impossible to "disprove".

What you can do is press on with specifics.

Specifics will show that Kemetians were an African people.

Historical record, culture, language, bioanthropology....will demonstrate with clarity that Kemet is African by every measure by which origin of any people/civilization can possibly be demonstrated.

Being unable to refute this, the tactic is to shift emphasis. Kemet is "heterogeneous" we are told. That is meant to appear as a reasonable compromise. It is certainly rhetorically safe, since it is easy to argue that that any and all civilization...African, Asian, European, Native American, are ultimately heterogeneous. Heterogeneous is a modern political/philosophical concept, and it is easy to shape it's definition to fit the need. But there is a subtle hypocrisy at work here, and it lies underneath the "reasonable/safe" compromise.

The hypocrisy is revealed whenever Kemet is placed in a broader African context.

Now (wst) advocates of heterogeneous shift mode, and argue that Kemet is essentially "distinct", "separate", different from and has otherwise little do to with: Sub Saharan Africa, or West Africa, or Nubia, or Africans in the diaspora. You would think that Kemetic civilization was the product of instantaneous creation dropped down into the Nile Valley by the Gods, out of any context of African history, and remained so isolated for it's 3000 plus years of existence. Of course, such a view is ridiculous. (WST) rhetoric, is ridiculous.

A specific example of this hypocrisy comes from Egypt's Supreme Czar of the antiquities: Dr. Hawass, who stated that the Kemetians were "not black in the same sense as other africans were black."

Now, lets think about this little Hawassian pearl of wisdom.

This is equivalent to arguing that the Kemetians were not African in the same sense that other Africans are.

This is equivalent to arguing that they were not human in the same sense that other human beings are.

It is the ultimate, extremist, absurdist, segregationist/fantasist argument.

It is based upon the exact opposite core assumption/rhetoric that the "Kemet is heterogeneous argument", is based on.

In terms of logical discourse the (wst) argument: AE is heterogeneous and so "related" to (wst)....and yet.... AE is distinct and so unrelated to Africa, is just a convoluted form of burden of proof fallacy, in which you deny the conclusion the evidence overwhelmingly leads to, in order to assert a contradictory conclusion based on the notion that it has not been shown to be 'completely impossible'.

Or more simply: It's called trying to have it both ways.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Here is something "funny" about how modern (wst) regard ancient Kemet.

They do everything they can to suggest, in contradiction to evidence, that ancient Kemet was not an African society, but rather a European, Asian or "Mediterranian" one.

Medit, of course, being the most fashionable term - because it is actually illogical, literally referencing an ocean, not a landmass. Since no people are literally indigenous to the Sea it is therefore literally meaningless, and usefully...literally, impossible to "disprove".

What you can do is press on with specifics.

Specifics will show that Kemetians were an African people.

Historical record, culture, language, bioanthropology....will demonstrate with clarity that Kemet is African by every measure by which origin of any people/civilization can possibly be demonstrated.

Being unable to refute this, the tactic is to shift emphasis. Kemet is "heterogeneous" we are told. That is meant to appear as a reasonable compromise. It is certainly rhetorically safe, since it is easy to argue that that any and all civilization...African, Asian, European, Native American, are ultimately heterogeneous. Heterogeneous is a modern political/philosophical concept, and it is easy to shape it's definition to fit the need. But there is a subtle hypocrisy at work here, and it lies underneath the "reasonable/safe" compromise.

The hypocrisy is revealed whenever Kemet is placed in a broader African context.

Now (wst) advocates of heterogeneous shift mode, and argue that Kemet is essentially "distinct", "separate", different from and has otherwise little do to with: Sub Saharan Africa, or West Africa, or Nubia, or Africans in the diaspora. You would think that Kemetic civilization was the product of instantaneous creation dropped down into the Nile Valley by the Gods, out of any context of African history, and remained so isolated for it's 3000 plus years of existence. Of course, such a view is ridiculous. (WST) rhetoric, is ridiculous.

A specific example of this hypocrisy comes from Egypt's Supreme Czar of the antiquities: Dr. Hawass, who stated that the Kemetians were "not black in the same sense as other africans were black."

Now, lets think about this little Hawassian pearl of wisdom.

This is equivalent to arguing that the Kemetians were not African in the same sense that other Africans are.

This is equivalent to arguing that they were not human in the same sense that other human beings are.

It is the ultimate, extremist, absurdist, segregationist/fantasist argument.

It is based upon the exact opposite core assumption/rhetoric that the "Kemet is heterogeneous argument", is based on.

In terms of logical discourse the (wst) argument: AE is heterogeneous and so "related" to (wst)....and yet.... AE is distinct and so unrelated to Africa, is just a convoluted form of burden of proof fallacy, in which you deny the conclusion the evidence overwhelmingly leads to, in order to assert a contradictory conclusion based on the notion that it has not been shown to be 'completely impossible'.

Or more simply: It's called trying to have it both ways.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 05 September 2004).]

---

You know Rasol, we've repetitively talked about Euro-Egyptologist distortions of Ancient Egyptian civilization and the diffusionist tools employed to downplay its relationship to Africa or Africans. But here, you have picked upon one common diffusionist tool, "heterogeneity", which is often acknowledged in a passing in the discussions that have taken place here or anywhere, and then the discussions move to other specifics. Like you've pointed out, it is one which is often mentioned to reach a compromise, because it cannot be argued against. Yet we know for a fact that any given civilization can be shown to be heterogeneous. I have thought about the over-emphasis of "heterogeneity" in the context of African history, not just Ancient Egypt, and it led me to create the thread titled " Application of racial purity to Ancient Egypt", in the hopes that someone would close in on this diffusionist tool as you did right here. But it turned out to be a compromise in that discussion as well, because the main "opponent" of that discussion refused to answer the questions laid down in the opening notes. In fact, I'll mention the name...Horemheb, refused to answer "any" question in response to his allegations, thereby forcing the discussion to move in the direction of people simply pointing out the specifics of it's African qualities, and irrelevant references to contemporary authors like Bernal, that nobody dearly hold as their lifeline in the advancing their argument!

But lets look at Mr. Zahi Hawass, whom you mentioned, in the context of this thread's subject: What does his portrayal of AE do for him? He is essentially African, even if sees himself as another race different from Black Africans. But Zahi Hawass was also at pains to point out how Africans should look at Ancient Egypt as a special case, and not include it in the list of African studies/history. That logic infers: we have to choose from the events that took place in Africa, which ones we would like to include in African studies! This absurdity is from a man, who is supposed to be charged with the high level responsibility of managing archeological affairs of Ancient Egypt. How does a person get away with such unscholarly comments given his appointed "status", i.e., without the fear of loosing that position? I believe again, the answer lies in the Egyptian social strata. Mr. Hawass' comment isn't meant to merely please Euro-Egyptologists, but to underline the favoritism of the small social layer of Egyptian elites, who instigated putting the process of Pan-Arabism into full swing. These are the same folks who called Egypt the "Arab" Republic, notwithstanding there are Egyptian communities who wouldn't otherwise identify with the label. These elites will likely consider themselves Africans, but not black folks!

BTW, your comment is still relevant to the topic; was just pointing out the missed opportunity in another thread that solely dealt with the issue of heterogeneity!