posted
I was asked this question in a PM, I don't usually read PM's but just happen to catch this one so I will respond publicly
quote:What is the view concerning the race of the ancient egyptians, among egyptologists? In this case i use race to denote phenotype.
I have seen countless times the rejection of a black egypt, simply because the theory isn't "mainstream".(one of the primary arguments of someone incapable of argueing against ancient egypt being a black civilization)
The easiest and most common way to reject the notion of a Black Race of Ancient Egypt is by exploiting the nebulous and nefarious nature of race classification, and then placing the burden of proof on those who claim Black Race Ancient Egypt to prove it.
Many African scholars get suckered in by this classic 'chess/ploy' which is a shame, because there is no way for them to win such and argument, which requires them to prove....
1) there exists 'race',
2) in which 'black' is a classification of 'race', and
3) in which ancient egyptians belonged to such a race.
Mainstream science reject the 1st two assumptions...which moots the 3rd [conclusion] assumption.
There is a better approach to the biological origin and social classification of the ancient Egyptians.
This approach roots its biological/scientific base firmly and properly in modern physical and genetic anthropology.
As a distinct issue, it's social basis is founded 1st and foremost and again properly in primary textual evidence [ie - what did the Kemetians [AE] themselves have to say on the subject], and 2ndly in contemporary/peer accounts from Hebrews, Greeks, etc..
Such and approach leads to very powerful arguments [as typified by African scholar SOY Keita in terms of biology] and by our ES discussant Wally with regards to primary textual evidence.
This approach has yet to be refuted, or even seriously challenged.
The problem is only that many African scholars have not digested the most powerful arguments in their favor.
Too much time is spent chasing [cough] negro eskimo and other flights of fantasy instead.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I was asked this question in a PM, I don't usually read PM's but just happen to catch this one so I will respond publicly
quote:What is the view concerning the race of the ancient egyptians, among egyptologists? In this case i use race to denote phenotype.
I have seen countless times the rejection of a black egypt, simply because the theory isn't "mainstream".(one of the primary arguments of someone incapable of argueing against ancient egypt being a black civilization)
...
"Countless rejection" by dogmatic folks with nothing to lean on other than their subjective ideological bias is immaterial. One should focus on factual material and that of scholarly & objective substance. The claim of "isn't mainstream" falls apart quite swiftly when it dawns to one, that precisely what supports the 'black African' base of ancient Nile Valley cultural complexes, is the overwhelming objective material in support of it than contrary to it; needless to say, this gathered objective data comes from authoritative and peer reviewed 'mainstream' sources. So whoever advances such an argument, should come out of under the rock; this is the 21st century, not the 19th century.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the idea of a "Black Egypt" is becoming more and more mainstream as time moves on. Definently moreso than it was say 20 years ago in the 1980's. I've posted two threads that were virtually ignored about studies and current projects being done by mainstream historians and people of the like where they're coming to the conclusion that AE was a solely African creation with roots in the south and west.
Now, how long that'll crossover to mainstream MEDIA is another thing. You have to remember though, there will always be dogmatic people in this field who will stick to the traditional way of thinking. There will also always be closet racists who will never accept the notion of an African Egypt (emphasis on African). You just have to ignore those people. And for it's many faults...we wouldn't even have made it this far had it not been for afrocentrism. Because before that, no one was challenging the then mainstream notion of a white Egypt.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, the idea of a "Black Egypt" is becoming more and more mainstream as time moves on.
It is striking that the goddess Isis, according to the legend, has precisely the same skin color that Nubians always have, and that the god Osiris has what seems to me an ethnic epithet indicating his Nubian origin. Apparently this observation has never before been made".--Amélineau, Prolégomènes
By calling the dove black the Dodonaeans indicated that the woman was an Egyptian. - Herodotus, the Histories
Osirus, Kem Wer, la grande Negre', the great Black - Champollion.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The easiest and most common way to reject the notion of a Black Race of Ancient Egypt is by exploiting the nebulous and nefarious nature of race classification, and then placing the burden of proof on those who claim Black Race Ancient Egypt to prove it.
Here is and example of how effective this tactic can be, if you accept the hypocrtical terms of discussion of Eurocentrism, and in so doing fall right into their trap:
Ann Macy Roth, 1st builds her strawman argument....
Race, then, is essentially a social concept, native to the society in which one lives. It is anachronistic to argue that the ancient Egyptians belonged to one race or another based on our own contemporary social categories, and it is equally unjustifiable to apply the social categories of modern Egypt or of ancient Greece or any other society, although all of these questions are interesting and worthy of study on their own. The results tell us nothing about Egyptian society, culture and history, which is after all, what we are interested in.
Then she proceed to attack the strawman:
This is not, however, what the Afrocentrist Egyptologists are interested in. They want to show that according to modern Western categories, the ancient Egyptians would have been regarded as black.
Carefully notice what Roth is attacking here: Not African Egypt, not Black Egyptians, not even Afrocentrism -> she is actually disputing modern Western categories.
Having defined her afrocentric opponents as defenders of Western race catagories - all she has to do is stand back and watch the foolish Afrocentrist comply.
This is what Dr. Winters does in his various threads defending the pseudoscientific western race concept.
In order to defeat Roth's gambit, you must see thru to its core contradiction - > The concept of race is *precisely what is used to deny that AE is African and Black to begin with.*
Thus Roth offers no basis for disputing that AE were African, or that AE were Black. She has actually renounced the very basis [race] for disputing this fact in the 1st place.
However Roth relies on 'afrocentrists' to make the mistake of defending Black as a modern racial construct.
Never defend the core assumptions of your opponent!
Instead, allow Roth to show us that AE were not a dark skinned people, native to Africa and who referred to themselves as Blacks.
She never refutes any of the above, because she can't.
Because she does not address *OUR POSITION* but rather her straw-man of it, her discourse can be dismissed as off point, and not chased after, in the a fashion of a bull fanning at red cape.
Finally, Roth is to be permitted to show us that her unwillingness to acknowledge Km.t [black] African Egypt is a product of something other than her own imposition of modern Western racist discourse, against longstanding historical facts, which simply happen to confound white supremacy.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ tracking hypocrisy in the eurocentric discourse.
they never have, and never will, have any problem denoting Blacks in history. as long as they constrict, or disrespect....
Thus, Ms. Roth has no criticism for the thinking exemplified below....
The Egyptians were not Nubians, and the *original Nubians were not black. Nubia gradually became black because black peoples migrated northward out of Central Africa.” - Miriam Lichtheim
Black is very much relevant to the likes of Roth, as long as they can use it to separate Africa *from* Egypt.
In the western racist discourse - slaves can be Black. Pharoahs cannot be.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol which simply happen to confound white supremacy.
^Which is why I feel sorry for Horemheb/Arrow99 at times It must be very traumatic to have ones whole world (albeit, constructed of lies) flipped completely over. For hore to learn that what you were taught (and cherished) was false and is anachronistic with current times, had to be devastating to ARROW99.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that the scientifically "mainstream" view of Ancient Egyptians' biological affinities is that they were some kind of "melting pot" between blacks and so-called "Mediterreaneanids", just like modern Egyptians. The only people who insist on mostly K-zoid Kemites are the likes of Dienekes, Evil E, white nationalists, and those cretins at Dodona (ironic given that Herodotus used a story about two black doves to prove that Egyptians founded the Oracle at the real Dodona). That said, most scholars seem to shy away from explicitly labelling Kemites as black, because (1) they don't want to be identified as Afrocentrics, and (2) they don't want to get nasty mail from irate northern Egyptians whose colorism makes them unwilling to accept black ancestry, let alone the idea that they can trace their country's heritage to black people.
I agree that black Egyptians are less common in popular culture than we would all like, but they have appeared on rare occasions. Recently, as I was flying back from winter vacation on Singapore Airlines, I watched an on-flight documentary about the history about mathematics and the number 1. There was a brief segment about the Ancient Egyptians and how they came up with the cubit, and I noticed that they cast a variety of dark-skinned people, some who were black and others who had a more Indian/Arabian appearance. While I realize that some of you would take it even further, I think it's a start.
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man: It seems to me that the scientifically "mainstream" view of Ancient Egyptians' biological affinities is that they were some kind of "melting pot" between blacks and so-called "Mediterreaneanids",
Not really. There are no Mediterreaneanids in 'science'
You can speak of people being mixed in a scientific sense of course, but this is a slippery slope.....who isn't mixed?
My favorite comment on mixture comes from Cavelli Sforza - 'Europeans appear genetically as 2/3 Asian, 1/3 African'.
Any attempt to objectify mixture must acknowledge that Europeans are mixed.
Europeans descend from a common stock with people of New Guinea, Australia, and NorthEast Asia.
But Europeans are clearly mixed with Africans subsequent to migrating from central Asia into Europe. And that is why they are genetically closer to Africans than Eurasians or Australians are.
quote: (ironic given that Herodotus used a story about two black doves to prove that Egyptians founded the Oracle at the real Dodona).
Yep. I'm glad you caught that. Now, think about the stupidity and dishonesty of Roth' discourse: According to her - Herodotus can call the AE Black - but you can't. Moreover it has no historical value - Herodotus notwithstanding. Only Black slaves have historical value. Only Black slaves can be named. lol.
quote:That said, most scholars seem to shy away from explicitly labelling Kemites as black, because (1) they don't want to be identified as Afrocentrics
Afrocentrism is irrelevant to Westerners denying that km.t was Black.
The proof of this is that such denials predate any "threat" from Afrocentric interpretation of histroy.
The reason for ws.t denial of Black Km.t is simply that western ideology is predicated on white surpremacy.
This fact is revealed in the deep contradictions in the rhetoric of people like Roth.
They have no objection to white Romans and Greeks. They have no object to European history. They have no objection to 'western' history.
And...they have no objection to 'black' history, africa history, or negro history either....as long as it is [slave] history.
Only when the issue turns to great contributions of Black civilisations do they strike phony, actually racist poses in the name of non-racialism.
It's easy to understand: THEY OBJECT TO BLACK IN ANY CONTEXT THAT THREATENS WHITE SUPREMACY.
quote:(2) they don't want to get nasty mail from irate northern Egyptians whose colorism makes them unwilling to accept black ancestry
Arabs are weak players in the ideology war. Arab culture is so 'juxtaposed' to ancient Egyptian, that that the Arabs were hell bent on destroying all remnants of Km.t.
But, the Egypto-Arabs were conquered by the Egyptomaniacal Brits.
It's only because the Brits worshipped the AE, while showing nothing but contempt to the 'sheet negroes' that the Arabs began claiming Km.t.
After all, if British *scholars* can produce documentaries where they stand in front of the Pyramids in Giza and pronounce with a straight face - that *their* ancestors built it, then...anything goes. ]
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Underpants Man: It seems to me that the scientifically "mainstream" view of Ancient Egyptians' biological affinities is that they were some kind of "melting pot" between blacks and so-called "Mediterreaneanids",
Not really. There are no Mediterreaneanids in 'science'
You can speak of people being mixed in a scientific sense of course, but this is a slippery slope.....who isn't mixed?
My favorite comment on mixture comes from Cavelli Sforza - 'Europeans appear genetically as 2/3 Asian, 1/3 African'.
Worth repeating indeed, until it soaks in.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Arabs are weak players in the ideology war. Arab culture is so 'juxtaposed' to ancient Egyptian, that that the Arabs were hell bent on destroying all remnants of Km.t.
But, the Egypto-Arabs were conquered by the Egyptomaniacal Brits.
It's only because the Brits worshipped the AE, while showing nothing but contempt to the 'sheet negroes' that the Arabs began claiming Km.t.
After all, if British *scholars* can produce documentaries where they stand in front of the Pyramids in Giza and pronounce with a straight face - that *their* ancestors built it, then...anything goes
Actually, there are many false statements in the following such as:
1. Arabs destoyed remnants of ancient Egyptian culture. When the Arabs invaded Egypt in 640 A.D. pharoanic culture was already gone,for we only had monuments and some folk customs amongst the rural and urban Egyptian population.
2. There was no such thing as Egypto-Arabs during the 1800's up untill 1952 when Nasser came into power. Most Egyptians desend from fellahin and not Arab invaders. The migration of Arabs into Egypt never dominated the entire country or replace the whole population.
3. Modern Egyptian populations actually did show interest in ancinet Egypt well before the Western world. You have examples of Dhul'-Nun-al-Masri who tried to decipher some of the mdu ntr. Rifaa Tahtawi under Muhammed Ali even wrote about ancient Egypt.
4.The British Egyptologist or orientalist believed modern Egyptians were mongrelized by infusion of ''negroe'' blood thus bringing them down to their current position. By no means were the British scholars in favor of even crediting the modern Egyptians with ancient Egyptian civlization. One example was Sir Elliot Grafton Smith who wrote such racist things about Egyptians. Richard Burton even called the Egyptians ''white washed'' negroes. Most other writers just called Egyptians mullatoes or any other disparing racist term.
I have to clarify this everytime but I will agree that northern Egyptian populations have more foreign ancestry but its more than just Arabic ancestry. You have to consider the post-pharoanic ancestry with the Mameluke and Ottoman era. Most northern and southern Egyptians desend from the ancinet Egyptians but are not pristine. Otherwise, you can just throw out the genetic data used if you believe most Egyptians are displaced ''Arabs'' from the Arabian peninsula.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: 1. Arabs destoyed remnants of ancient Egyptian culture. When the Arabs invaded Egypt in 640 A.D. pharoanic culture was already gone,for we only had monuments and some folk customs amongst the rural and urban Egyptian population.
Really? Then what languages did rural Upper Egyptians speak, prior to the Arab conquest?
quote:2. There was no such thing as Egypto-Arabs during the 1800's up untill 1952 when Nasser came into power.
Please explain further - are you saying that their were no Arabs in Egypt until the 1800's, or that none of them Egyptian citizens until then?
quote: Most Egyptians desend from fellahin and not Arab invaders.
I agree with this, at least as far as Upper Egyptians go. Modern lower Egyptians have extremely diverse origins and I don't know if we can say where 'most' of them stem from.
quote: The migration of Arabs into Egypt never dominated the entire country
Arabs dominate the country now - just as Afrikaner once dominated southern Africa. Note: this is distinct from the issue of the biological contributation of Arabian descended populations to the population.
quote:or replace the whole population.
Agreed... but then I never said, suggested or implied that Arabs replaced the whole population.
quote:. Modern Egyptian populations actually did show interest in ancinet Egypt well before the Western world.
But apparently not enough to prevent Nasser from renaming the country United Arab Republic.
quote: 4.The British Egyptologist or orientalist believed modern Egyptians were mongrelized by infusion of ''negroe'' blood thus bringing them down to their current position. Agreed. By no means were the British scholars in favor of even crediting the modern Egyptians with ancient Egyptian civlization.
Agreed. My point had nothing to do with British creding 'negroes'. My point was that the British admired Ancient Egypt. Islamic Arabs did not admire AE. To them it was just another kaffir [means non Islamic] African culture.
My central contention, which has gone unaddressed is that it is the Arabs inferiority complex visa vi their British conquerers that generated their interest in African culture.
And interest which is still superficial, since Islamic culture is still juxtaposed violently against Native Nile Valley culture.
quote: I have to clarify this everytime but I will agree that northern Egyptian populations have more foreign ancestry but its more than just Arabic ancestry. You have to consider the post-pharoanic ancestry with the Mameluke and Ottoman era.
Again....agreed.
Mostly we agree, but i'm not sure you correctly understood or addressed my point.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really? Then what languages did rural Upper Egyptians speak, prior to the Arab conquest?
According to history books on the Late Antique Greco-Roman era and into the Medieval era, most rural Upper Egyptians spoke Sahidic Coptic. Since we don't have much textual documentation or any recording of the dialect spoken in rural Upper Egypt we can only speculate. Most historical sources say that Sahidic Coptic was spoken untill the late 1600's and possibly even later.
Under the Umayyad caliph it was decreed that only Arabic could be spoken in territories under the Caliph.
rasol wrote:
quote:Please explain further - are you saying that their were no Arabs in Egypt until the 1800's, or that none of them Egyptian citizens until then?
No, what I am saying there were very few ethnic Arabs in Egypt from 640 A.D. to present. When Arabs invaded in 640 A.D. they mostly settled in the province of al-Fustat located presently near the modern area of Cairo. Of course, even within this province they were still outnumbered by either desendants of Greek and Egyptians. You also have to consider the decree issued by Caliph Umar stating that no Arabs could own land within their conquered territory.
Whatever other Arab tribes brought into Egypt either intermarriaged with local Egyptians or fled into Sudan. The only area I know inexception to this was in Middle Egypt where there was a rank based upon ashraf[desendants of the prophet Muhammed],Arabs[desendants of those who invaded Egypt in 640 A.D.] and finally the Fellahin[people that desend from either group and are indigenous]
Not all the tribes that settled in parts of the Delta or Middle Egypt are desendants of Arabs,for many are actually nomadic Berber tribes. I touched upon this in the archive with historical references.
During the 1800's the Ottoman Turks and Mamelukes still had great control over Egypt. Most Egyptians during this era were differentiated from all foreigners by the term ''baladi''.
rasol wrote:
quote:I agree with this, at least as far as Upper Egyptians go. Modern lower Egyptians have extremely diverse origins and I don't know if we can say where 'most' of them stem from
What complicates this issue is most Cairene residents either come from the rural Delta or Middle and Upper Egypt. Many times if Egyptians are part of the older rich they are either Turo-Circassian or mixed partially with Turco-Circassian.
I can say with confidence that most Fellahin from the Delta come from the pharoanic populations albeit with lots of mixture with Western Asians. You have to consider that the northern part of Egypt always had some foreign mixture going back into pharoanic periods.
rasol wrote:
quote:Arabs dominate the country now - just as Afrikaner once dominated southern Africa. Note: this is distinct from the issue of the biological contributation of Arabian descended populations to the population
Actually, this is incorrect. Very few ethnic Arabs exist even within modern Egypt in all classes. Many of the goverment officals desend from wealthier Egyptian families which do have more foreign mixture. Some might have ''Arab'' ancestry but the majority donot.
One thing I will agree with you is the idealogy of the Egyptian goverment is very socio-politically aligned with Arabism. Most of this was laid into foundation by Gamal Nasser's pan-Arabism.
rasol wrote:
quote:Agreed... but then I never said, suggested or implied that Arabs replaced the whole population
Your statements imply that your perception is that the Arab invasion replaced the indigenous elements within the northern Egyptian populations. I simply suggest that foreign incursions have modified the indigenous populations. Perhaps I am wrong on this regard but will stand by my views untill I see data to refute such notions.
rasol wrote:
quote:But apparently not enough to prevent Nasser from renaming the country United Arab Republic
This should not be held against Egyptians since it was primarily the political move of Nasser. Most Egyptians needed somebody to align with and they found this within the Arab world. For the first time Egyptians embraced Pan-Arabism which unfortunately became the idenity of modern Egypt.
Previously,under Saad Zaghloul,Egyptians did not champion Pan-Arabism but actually embraced a pharoanic idenity for modern Egyptians. The British later exiled him to Malta and took control of Egypt again.
rasol wrote:
quote:Agreed. My point had nothing to do with British creding 'negroes'. My point was that the British admired Ancient Egypt. Islamic Arabs did not admire AE. To them it was just another kaffir [means non Islamic] African culture
Your post shows ignorance in regards to both the early Arab rulers of Islamic Egypt and of Islam itself. Islam is not a religion primary for Arabs. The Arab rulers had mixed reaction to ancient Egypt being both disdain and admiration. Recently a book by Egyptian Egyptologist el-Daly shows that quite contrary the ''Arabs'' admired and preserved alot of the ancient Egyptian monuments. He uses their own sources to demonstrate this.
Most of the Muslims in Egypt,with the exception of the rulers and scholars, were indigenous not Arabs.
I recommend you read the following book for more details:
Egyptology: The Missing Millen n ium. Ancient Egypt in Medieval Arabic Writings by Dr Okasha El Daly
rasol wrote:
quote:My central contention, which has gone unaddressed is that it is the Arabs inferiority complex visa vi their British conquerers that generated their interest in African culture.
And interest which is still superficial, since Islamic culture is still juxtaposed violently against Native Nile Valley culture
First you have to state which ''Arabs'' you are talking about under British occupation? If you are talking about Egypt, most Egyptians during this period were neither ethnic nor self identified with Arabs.
The issue of Islam vs. ancient Egypt has nothing to do with Pan-Arabism. When many people convert to a Abrhamic faith they often neglect or forget about their percieved ''paganistic'' past. Such phenomenon occured with many indigenous Hawaiians converting to Christianity.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Really? Then what languages did rural Upper Egyptians speak, prior to the Arab conquest? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:ausar: According to history books on the Late Antique Greco-Roman era and into the Medieval era, most rural Upper Egyptians spoke Sahidic Coptic.
But now they speak Arabic and don't/can't speak Coptic.
So I don't see how you can honestly state that it is incorrect to imply that Arabs destroyed Kemetic culture.....when you can no longer speak your native language and must speak the language of your foreign invader....that's pretty significant distruction of your culture. To imply otherwise is arguably a form of denial.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your statements imply that your perception is that the Arab invasion replaced the indigenous elements within the northern Egyptian populations.
Do you know the meaning of the phrase 'protest too much'?
It's when you read more into someone elses remarks than was actually said -> revealing something that you are sensitive about, while having little to do with 'what was actually said.'
So here is what was said by me about Arabs
1) Arabs are weak players in the ideology war.
2) Arab culture is so 'juxtaposed' to ancient Egyptian, that that the Arabs were hell bent on destroying all remnants of Km.t.
3) But, the Egypto-Arabs were conquered by the Egyptomaniacal Brits.
4) It's only because the Brits worshipped the AE, while showing nothing but contempt to the 'sheet negroes' that the Arabs began claiming Km.t.
5) After all, if British *scholars* can produce documentaries where they stand in front of the Pyramids in Giza and pronounce with a straight face - that *their* ancestors built it, then...anything goes
Nowhere does it state that Arabs systematically 'replaced' Egyptians.
I stand by all 5 points.
So feel free to refute what was actually said....instead of refuting that which was not said.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I apologize if I misread your 5 points. I don't necessarily disagree with point 1 or 5 but the other are too vague.
2. If you are reffering to ''ethnic'' Arab invaders into Egypt,some destoyed the ancient Egyptian culture and some actually studied the remnants. I gave the reference of el-Daly's book entitled Egyptology:The Missing Millennium in a previous post.
3. Who are the Egypto-Arabs you are reffering to?
4. I have never known any Arabs from the Arabian peninsula to claim they desend from the ancient Egyptians. Can you give a precise example of the following? Most ''Arabs'' take pride in desending from either Qahtani or Adnan not ancient Egypt. Even many non-Arabic people like the rural fellahin or Sudanese claim they desend from the same Arabian tribes as the prophet Muhammed[p.b.uh.] or simply ashraf.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your statements imply that your perception is that the Arab invasion replaced the indigenous elements within the northern Egyptian populations.
Do you know the meaning of the phrase 'protest too much'?
It's when you read more into someone elses remarks than was actually said -> revealing something that you are sensitive about, while having little to do with 'what was actually said.'
So here is what was said by me about Arabs
1) Arabs are weak players in the ideology war.
2) Arab culture is so 'juxtaposed' to ancient Egyptian, that that the Arabs were hell bent on destroying all remnants of Km.t.
3) But, the Egypto-Arabs were conquered by the Egyptomaniacal Brits.
4) It's only because the Brits worshipped the AE, while showing nothing but contempt to the 'sheet negroes' that the Arabs began claiming Km.t.
5) After all, if British *scholars* can produce documentaries where they stand in front of the Pyramids in Giza and pronounce with a straight face - that *their* ancestors built it, then...anything goes
Nowhere does it state that Arabs systematically 'replaced' Egyptians.
I stand by all 5 points.
So feel free to refute what was actually said....instead of refuting that which was not said.
On that note, you're right that there was never any replacement or genocide of the "aboriginal" egyptian population, and no migration or fleeing from Arab jihads either. . Simply put, it was more cultural and linguistic replacement, plus ALOT of intermixing, I mean alot folks. The whole mediterranean world was double dipping with the nile valley folks . heh-heh.
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that part of the problem is that Arab being used as an indicator of ethnicity or lineage is as useless as the term American. What is an American? Likewise, what is an Arab? Remember the conquest of Egypt took place under to domain of the Umayyads and Abbasids who hailed from Syria and Baghdad. Those people are not Arabs in any sense of the word. In times prior to the rise of Islam, they were Babylonians, Canaanites and Phoenicians. The so-called Arab of the early Islamic era could have been a Turk, Syrian, Persian, Circassian, Slav, Mongol or black African. Therefore, Arab has no true meaning in any real sense, especially in the way it is used today. Look at the rulers of Egypt after the Islamic take over, you had Syrians, then Saladdin, then Turks, then an Albanian, among others. There was a whole mish mash of people from various places who ruled Egypt from afar and NONE of them were from the Arabian peninsula proper. In fact there were various black Africans who ruled in various cities in the Islamic world, due to their mothers being the favorite wife of the ruling monarch. This happend more than a few times in Egypt, Baghdad and throughout North Africa. People need to keep in mind that the Arabs, meaning those in Arabia did not come to be rulers of the Muslim world until recently, with the establishment of Saudi Arabia, by of all people, the British. Prior to that, power in the "Arab" world bounced between Damascus, Baghdad and Istanbul. So, technically Ausar is perfectly correct, since there were not many true "Arabs" historically that invaded Egypt, but all sorts of peoples of various descent who were subject to the rule of the overlords in one of the places I mentioned. In fact, these overlords depended on "slave" armies made up of all sorts of ethnicities to control the expanding empire. Therefore, calling someone from this period an Arab is about as meaningless as calling someone an American, given that Americans have many different backgrounds from all over the world, not to mention the ORIGINAL indigenous populations of America.
And in Egypt, you have to remember that it had already been occupied for over 1000 years by foreigners like Libyans, Persians, Greeks and Romans at the dawn of the Islamic invasions. These invasions largely resulted in a much depopulated Egygpt during the Roman period. Things pretty much stayed that way until the population explosion of the last 100 years, which has changed the population a lot, IMO. In fact, the reason why so many black Africans are evident in the pictures from the 1800s is because the population boom had not yet happened and Egypt still was largely a population of native Egyptians, albeit depleted by many years of invasions and subsequent exoduses. However, the recent boom has distorted the balance of identity from one of the original black African type, to the more current image of a caucasian population. In fact, it is quite funny how even the "Arabs" who are shown in Egypt from the 1800s often black nappy haired Africans. Dont forget that for much of the early period of Islamic rule in North Africa and its subsequent spread southward, BLACK Africans were the ones going to get slaves in the interior of Africa. Arabs largely stayed in the cities of the North.
However, there were many populations from Arabia that did sweep through Egypt and the rest of North Africa, who are identified often times by tribal names like Banu Hilal, etc. So there was also some actual Arabian blood infused into Egypt after the Islamic conquest. But they only added to the growing mix of people and cultures that were already there.
More on Egypt's explosion in population:
quote: The most obvious feature of Egypt's population problem is the continued increase in the population growth rate. Our numbers have doubled from 2.5 million in 1800 to 5 million in 1850, then to 10 million in 1900, and again to 20 million in 1947. This means that the Egyptian population has doubled once every fifty years over one and half centuries (1800-1950). It took a mere 30 years for the number to double the fourth time around: from 20 million in 1950 to 40 million in 1978. The increase resumed again until the population reached nearly sixty million, according to the 1996 census. Finally by January, 2006, Egypt`s population had reached nearly 71.348 million inhabitants and is expected to continue rising throughout the 21st century.
But the key to this is WHERE this explosion took place. The chart on that page shows that MOST of Egypts population is now centered in Lower Egypt. But this is the EXACT opposite of what it was in pharoanic times, where population and power were centered in UPPER Egypt. So even if pure foreigners were a minority, the growth of the population of Egypt among those who are more likely of a mixed Egyptian-foreign background therefore skews the ethnic mix of modern Egypt further away from that of ancient times, even though traces of the original Egyptian population still remains. Even with that, however, there are those who want to promote the idea that modern Egypt is exactly the same ethnically as it was in ancient times and hence the whole controversy. Sure, modern Egyptians are descended from ancient Egyptians, but does not mean they are ethnically and phenotypically the same on average as in ancient times.
So, technically Ausar is right, but only in the sense that Egyptians have absorbed many groups into themselves, even while maintaining some identity as "Egyptian". But the point that is being made is that modern Egypt, nor even Egypt in 700AD reflected the ancient population of Egypt from 3000 B.C. times changed, people came an went and the mixture of ethnicities in the population, while called Egyptian, were not the same as before. Also, keep in mind that many Coptics were Greeks and that Coptic is nothing but a Greek bastardization of the Egyptian language designed to promote and facilitate the conversion of Egyptians to Christianity. I dont know where this idea came from that the word Coptic means native Egyptian, since most Coptics are actually descendents of Greek Christian nomads and monks who HATED anything from ancient Egypt and did as much to damage and destroy ancient Egyptian monuments as anyone. Likewise, I also believe that a lot of this population growth over the last 150 years is due to migration and not just birth rate.
The other thing being touched on here, even though some may want to deny it, is that throughout this period there has been an overwhelming amount of racism and bias based on skin color practiced by the paler skinned muslims versus their darker skinned neighbors, Muslim and non Muslim alike.
quote: "The civil wars which arose some few years ago in Morocco between the Blacks and Whites, merely on account of their complexion, are founded on a pleasant difference. We laugh at them; but, I believe, were things rightly examined, we afford much more occasion of ridicule to the Moors. For, what are all the wars of religion, which have prevailed in this polite and knowing part of the world? They are certainly more absurd than the Moorish civil wars. The difference of complexion is a sensible and a real difference; but the controversy about an article of faith, which is utterly absurd and unintelligible, is not a difference in sentiment, but in a few phrases and expressions, which one party accepts of without understanding them, and the other refuses in the same manner.... Besides, I do not find that the Whites in Morocco ever imposed on the Blacks any necessity of altering their complexion . . . nor have the Blacks been more unreasonable in this particular." .... Blacks were occasionally recruited into the mamluk forces in Egypt at the end of the eighteenth century. "When the supply [of white slaves] proves insufficient," says a contemporary observer, W. G. Browne, "or many have been expended, black slaves from the interior of Africa are substituted, and if found docile, are armed and accoutred like the rest." This is confirmed by Louis Frank, a medical officer with Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt, who wrote an important memoir on the Negro slave trade in Cairo.
In the nineteenth century, black military slaves reappeared in Egypt in considerable numbers; their recruitment was indeed one of the main purposes of the Egyptian advance up the Nile under Muhammad 'Ali Pasha (reigned 1805-49) and his successors. Collected by annual razzias (raids) from Darfur and Kordofan, they constituted an important part of the Khedivial armies and incidentally furnished the bulk of the Egyptian expeditionary force which Sa'id Pasha sent to Mexico in 1863, in support of the French. An English traveler writing in 1825 had this to say about black soldiers in the Egyptian army:
"When the negro troops were first brought down to Alexandria, nothing could exceed their insubordination and wild demeanour; but they learned the military evolutions in half the time of the Arabs; and I always observed they went through the manoeuvres with ten times the adroitness of the others. It is the fashion here, as well as in our colonies, to consider the negroes as the last link in the chain of humanity, between the monkey tribe and man in intellect; and I do not suffer the eloquence of the slave driver to convince me that the negro is so stultified as to be unfit for freedom.
Even in Turkey, liberated black slaves were sometimes recruited into the armed forces, often as a means to prevent their reenslavement. Some of these reached of ficer rank. A British naval report, dated January 25,1858, speaks of black marines serving with the Turkish navy:
quote:Originally posted by ausar: I apologize if I misread your 5 points. I don't necessarily disagree with point 1 or 5 but the other are too vague.
No problem. As the thread is about scientific view of AE, my 5 points actualy digress into a poltical discussion, so I can't complain if the response continues to address biology. My bad for digressing.
quote: 2. If you are reffering to ''ethnic'' Arab invaders into Egypt,some destoyed the ancient Egyptian culture and some actually studied the remnants.
I don't think that most Egyptians are 'ethnic' Arabs. I consider the Arab invasion a primarily political conquest of Native Nile Valley Kemet and Kush.
quote:3. Who are the Egypto-Arabs you are reffering to?
Everyone who considers themselves Arab in the self proclaimed "Arab Republic" that is Egypt.
But again note....the construct referenced is political, not biological.
quote:4. I have never known any Arabs from the Arabian peninsula to claim they desend from the ancient Egyptians.
Neither have I. But we have heard Egyptian and Sudanese Arabs... claim that Ancient Egypt and Sudan was 'always' part Arab, or at the very least part Asiatic. Amr1 for instance, made such claims on ES.
quote:Most ''Arabs'' take pride in desending from either Qahtani or Adnan not ancient Egypt.
Remember: My whole point is that Arabs have no traditional intererst in AE....it's only Europes fascination visa Egypt and the Arab inferiority complex with Europe, that causes Arabs to mirror the fantasy that Ancient Egypt is somehow part of the "Arab world".
Do you ever stop to think about how aggressive are the Arab imperialistic concepts we take for granted:
Arab Republic of Egypt?
The Arab world? [which refers primarily to North Africa]
posted
Our Morphology can be captured in snapshots of a continual changing process yet this does not mean that what we see is indicative of the next moment in history. The same can be said of Races. In the same way you use black and white, yellow and red to differentiate and in the same way you use hair and eye colours then by the same way the term Race was a collective to such differentiation. To say the Mediteranean Race and the Negro Race were quantified sets of phenotypes that for the most part worked in deifferentiating one human being from another. In the end the amount of inter racial mixing resulted in multiple forms of ethnicities based on their racial forms. It does not mean that the once Racial categorisation techniques were perfect or obsolete but they only emphasised on a snapshot of human existance. Tomorrow the face of those living in teh same region anywhwere in teh world maybe entirely different. So the use of scientific racial categorisation became redundant.
However, due to the fundamental basis of Racism being on differentiation it also has led to much criticism in the way it was used to isolate and scapegoat people in a way to make they appear different or dehumanised in form. The racial theories and categorisations failed to account for much other than to incite rivalry.
Both Blacks and WHites, tanned and otherwise were initially working together to create the most famous Egypt. Alexandria from which most of Egypts historical fame derives was a Greek colony.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ephestion: Alexandria from which most of Egypts historical fame derives was a Greek colony.
If you think the reason Egypt has become so famous is because of Alexandria, please explain things like the pyramids, the tombs in the Valley of Kings, the temples, etc...
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
With emphasis on Historical Fame. Yes the Alexandrians wrote and were written about and then of course we have Ptolemy of who gave use several historical firsts like a nice mediteranean map. However i did not want to undermine the great archaeologicaly visible achievements of the Egyptians.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ephestion: Our Morphology can be captured in snapshots of a continual changing process yet this does not mean that what we see is indicative of the next moment in history. The same can be said of Races. In the same way you use black and white, yellow and red to differentiate and in the same way you use hair and eye colours then by the same way the term Race was a collective to such differentiation. To say the Mediteranean Race and the Negro Race were quantified sets of phenotypes that for the most part worked in deifferentiating one human being from another. In the end the amount of inter racial mixing resulted in multiple forms of ethnicities based on their racial forms. It does not mean that the once Racial categorisation techniques were perfect or obsolete but they only emphasised on a snapshot of human existance. Tomorrow the face of those living in teh same region anywhwere in teh world maybe entirely different. So the use of scientific racial categorisation became redundant.
However, due to the fundamental basis of Racism being on differentiation it also has led to much criticism in the way it was used to isolate and scapegoat people in a way to make they appear different or dehumanised in form. The racial theories and categorisations failed to account for much other than to incite rivalry.
Both Blacks and WHites, tanned and otherwise were initially working together to create the most famous Egypt. Alexandria from which most of Egypts historical fame derives was a Greek colony.
Actually, if you want to look at a civilization that was built by mixtures of people and cultures look at Al-Andalus in Spain. It was a mix of black, white, asian and others that achieved greatness under a somewhat tolerant mantle of religious diversity at various periods. Ancient Egypt was largely dominated by black Africans from the south of Egypt, ethnically, culturally, militarily, religiously and politically. They vastly outnumbered the small pockets of "others" that were present in various places. Later periods of Egyptian history saw a greater presence of "others" but by this time ancient Egypt as we know it was gone.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Many African scholars get suckered in by this classic 'chess/ploy' which is a shame, because there is no way for them to win such and argument, which requires them to prove....
1) there exists 'race',
2) in which 'black' is a classification of 'race', and
3) in which ancient egyptians belonged to such a race.
Mainstream science reject the 1st two assumptions...which moots the 3rd [conclusion] assumption.
There is a better approach to the biological origin and social classification of the ancient Egyptians.
This approach roots its biological/scientific base firmly and properly in modern physical and genetic anthropology.
Excellent questions! The four videos below answers these questions quite logically. The first two are most important due to the purely scientific approach and the next two, more like short film trailer documentaries. Enjoy!
NOTE: Sometimes there is a period(s) at the end of the URLS causing errors with a red horizontal line apprearing across the top of the webpage, if this happens simply remove the period ('.') and try again.
Posts: 179 | From: United States | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
1. The term HISTORY is used so loosely it should be written accounts only. 2. It takes 2hrs to convince us with a French accent that Egyptians were black. 3. Nothing more about Egypt is learned other than the rivalry about race still carries on.
I think that from what we know both historically and archaeologically and not one or the other that Egypt was indeed mixed. The first upper Egyptians I think were modern Ethiopians/Nubians.
To think that they were not mixed by the 3000BC point is just silly. What existed 40 000yrs ago? Well possibly and highly likely that the entire of Africa including Egyt were all black.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Excellent questions! The four videos below answers these questions quite logically.
Excellent videos from Diop, but they don't answer the questions provided.
I warn you not to over rely on Diop for and understanding of modern anthropology. Diop is arguably a father and therefore one of the 'beginnings' of modern African science....but he is not the *end*.
Science has no end.
Africanists who stop at Diop are likened to archaic physicists who stop at "Newton" while failing to learn the post Newtonian relativistic physics of Einstein, et. al.
I try to explain this to archaic Africanists who counter with the irrelevancy of defending Diop - because they don't want to 'take' the fact that it isn't Diop who is being criticised....it's them.
Scientists like Diop keep growing and learning.
Fossil Africanists become ideologues who refuse to learn where learning threatens prior belief.
Specifically -
Diop did not, and could not, anticipate the following post-Diop anthropological findings:
* Physical and genetic data showing, not merely the ancient origin of Hominids in Africa, but the recent common origin of all non Africans from a small group of NorthEast Africans and within the last 75~ thousand years.
meaning -> there was no ancient separation of populations into phenotypical 'races', of African or any other derivation, and dating to 100's of thousand if not millions of years - which is actually the *operative assumption* of the race anthropology of Diop's era.
* Genetic data for the PN2 clade - proving the indigenous and related African paternity of not only East and West Africans...but North African Berber as well.
meaning -> Berber does not originate as 'white' intruders into Africa, but as a language group, as much a part of indigenous Africa as Wolof, or San.
* Genetic data for E3b and E3a, allowing us to distinguish East and West African pedigree.
meaning -> there was never a mass exodus [Black flight] from dynastic Egypt to West Africa. Most West African lineages separate from East Africa in the Holocene [sahara?], long before the formation of of Dynastic Km.t
* Genetic data proving that leucoderm [pale skin] is a recent anthropological development, that post dates not only melanoderm - dark skins, but also intermediate skin tones.... therefore people with intermediate skin tones, such as 'yellow' or 'brown' Asians cannot be conceived as mixtures of ancient Black and White 'races', as early anthropology had mistakenly assumed.
Bottom line: Learn Diop, and then keep going....study Keita, Kettles and modern African [and Africanist] scientists.
Don't make the mistake of Dr. Winters and others of believing you can use Diop to cover your own lack of current knowledge.
Winters got trapped into asserting that all Black people around the world can be explained in term of race - historical migrations of Mandingo to India, China etc.. But genetics completely destroyed this view - leaving Winters to stubbornly assert a fringe pseudoscientific view, for the benefit of the followers of pesonality cult.
Don't let this happen to you. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The best deconstruction of Marc/Winters was provided by Djehuti.
There is something profoundly insecure about chasing mythical Mandingo all the way to China and India [and MesoAmerica] in order to give them their 'props'.
I think Africans are more likely to perceive the condescension and disrepect implied.
West Africans are told they founded almost all civilisation - then West Africa itself is ignored, and the focus is instead on India and Asia.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
****tracking hypocrisy in the eurocentric discourse.
they never have, and never will, have any problem denoting Blacks in history. as long as they constrict, or disrespect....
Thus, Ms. Roth has no criticism for the thinking exemplified below....
The Egyptians were not Nubians, and the *original Nubians were not black. Nubia gradually became black because black peoples migrated northward out of Central Africa.” - Miriam Lichtheim
Black is very much relevant to the likes of Roth, as long as they can use it to separate Africa *from* Egypt.
In the western racist discourse - slaves can be Black. Pharoahs cannot be.****
Very good point
Posts: 141 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
America is mixed. European, but mixed. Even the europeans are mixed.
Again, who isn't mixed.
So what's your point? Are you saying that there was substantial mixture? If so, can you explain or elaborate.Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
1. The term HISTORY is used so loosely it should be written accounts only. 2. It takes 2hrs to convince us with a French accent that Egyptians were black. 3. Nothing more about Egypt is learned other than the rivalry about race still carries on.
I think that from what we know both historically and archaeologically and not one or the other that Egypt was indeed mixed. The first upper Egyptians I think were modern Ethiopians/Nubians.
To think that they were not mixed by the 3000BC point is just silly. What existed 40 000yrs ago? Well possibly and highly likely that the entire of Africa including Egyt were all black . ****
I kind of like this guy's sneakyness *snicker*
Posts: 141 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
2. It takes 2hrs to convince us with a French accent that Egyptians were black.
Some of us were already convinced, although it apparently takes an additional "2 hours" for a special someone. Posts: 214 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
if the polygenetic theory he talks about is to be true and as he says all species of man were found in Africa, then it also means that differentiation existed within the same time. In otherwords the WHite and tanned African would have emerged. This must have occurred well before ~10,000BC and most of Egyptian pyramids and monuments were built 3000BC. This coincides with a southward migration of 4000BC found throughout Europe and the increased activity found in the MEditeranean world during this time. It holds true then that irrespectve of his claims the Egyptians in particular were mixed people. The idea that Egyptians were all black is entirely speculation. Historical accounts some 1500 years after the first Pyramid was built identify Egyptians as mixed "some blacks existed".
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:No problem. As the thread is about scientific view of AE, my 5 points actualy digress into a poltical discussion, so I can't complain if the response continues to address biology. My bad for digressing
This is well understood. I am glad you clarified wheather we are talking socio-political aspects of ancient Egypt or biological origins.
rasol wrote:
quote:I don't think that most Egyptians are 'ethnic' Arabs. I consider the Arab invasion a primarily political conquest of Native Nile Valley Kemet and Kush
Then we agree on this point considering that most Westeners or even Arabized people themselves cannot tell the difference between 'ethnic' Arabs and Arabized Arabs. What blurs the line even more is the fact Arabs historically never were one solid ethnic group. Arabs absorbed people into their culture no matter their original ethnic origin.
rasol wrote:
quote:Everyone who considers themselves Arab in the self proclaimed "Arab Republic" that is Egypt.
But again note....the construct referenced is political, not biological
I am glad you mentioned this but in the time frame you mentioned around the 1800's Egypt was not called the ''Arab Republic'' nor did many Egyptians consider themselves Arabs in either the cultural or ethnic sense. People need to study this era to fully understand the transitions Egypt went through.
rasol wrote:
quote:Neither have I. But we have heard Egyptian and Sudanese Arabs... claim that Ancient Egypt and Sudan was 'always' part Arab, or at the very least part Asiatic. Amr1 for instance, made such claims on ES
True, I have heard such claims from modern Egyptians and Sudanese but they are not voiced by all Egyptians. Unfortunately,many Egyptians and Sudanese believe that whatever ''Arab'' heritage they may have overides that of the Nile Valley. Primarily because of the misunderstanding of Islam. Many believe that being ''Arabic'' makes them closer to the prophet Muhammed[p.b.u.h] and then some might have one ancestor that happened to come from the Arabian peninsula in the past.
Here are very common responces when I ask most Egyptians or Sudanese about who the ancient Egyptians are and were:
1. Some Egyptians and Sudanese say the Nubians are the exclusive direct desendants
2.Some Egyptians and Sudanese believe the Coptic Christians are the direct desendants and Muslim Egyptians Arab invaders
3. Some believe ancient Egyptians were not ethnic Arabs but still Semitic like Arabs.
You have to understand that modern Egyptians,including the rural Egyptians, donot have a sturctured opinion on the origins of the ancient Egyptians. Some might but most would not be able to point out which pratices in modern Egypt desend from the pre-Islamic past.
rasol wrote:
quote:Remember: My whole point is that Arabs have no traditional intererst in AE....it's only Europes fascination visa Egypt and the Arab inferiority complex with Europe, that causes Arabs to mirror the fantasy that Ancient Egypt is somehow part of the "Arab world"
I disagree with this point. Arabs did show interest in ancient Egypt before Europeans. This has been demonstrated by textual evidence written in Arabic dating to the Medieval period.
Rasol wrote"
quote: Do you ever stop to think about how aggressive are the Arab imperialistic concepts we take for granted:
Arab Republic of Egypt?
The Arab world? [which refers primarily to North Africa]
Of course you do
Yes, I resent the fact that many non-Arabic people have lost their idenity and are precieved as homogenous Arabic people to the entire world. Unfortunately, non-Arabic people such as Egyptians and Sudanese have fallen so deep into the socio-political label that its hard to escape it.
Due to the close proximity of both the Arabian peninsula and various foreign occupations of Egypt it was bound to happen sometimes.
Egypt at one time had a unique socio-political outlook that was crushed by the British and not upheld by Gamal Nasser.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "Middle East" and Islam has a very complicated and deep history that you could probably dedicate an entire history class to. What makes matters worse is when people attempt to push modern geo-political terms on an ancient culture that was both different in customs and society. And when you try to explain this to people...they ignore it. What baffles me is how historians can say that Ancient Egypt looked the same way 2,000 years ago as modern Egypt does now (pretty much calling AE's Arabs). This is ignoring the huge historical impact of Islam and the Arabic invasions in the region.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Likewise, what is an Arab? Remember the conquest of Egypt took place under to domain of the Umayyads and Abbasids who hailed from Syria and Baghdad. Those people are not Arabs in any sense of the word. In times prior to the rise of Islam, they were Babylonians, Canaanites and Phoenicians. The so-called Arab of the early Islamic era could have been a Turk, Syrian, Persian, Circassian, Slav, Mongol or black African
The conquest of Egypt was under Amr Ibn Al'as and from there it tranfered to the caliph Umar untill his death. The Umayyad and Abbasid did not occupy Egypt untill much later periods.
Although most people from these areas were not ethnic Arabs, it is important to also know that many Arabs from the Arabian peninsula did migrate into parts of Mesopotamia including Syria. You might have heard of the Ghassanids,Lakhmids,and Palmyra. Palmyra was the home of Queen Zenobia. She occupired parts of middle Egypt during the Roman era. Previously,nomadic Arab tribes lead by warrior queens are mentioned in Assyrian annals. Arabs have been in these areas longer than previously thought.
However,Arabs themselves divide into Qahtan or Adnan. Qahtan are Yemeni Arabs considered the authenic Arabs;while Adnan are from Ishmael the Arabized Arabs.
Doug M wrote:
quote:And in Egypt, you have to remember that it had already been occupied for over 1000 years by foreigners like Libyans, Persians, Greeks and Romans at the dawn of the Islamic invasions. These invasions largely resulted in a much depopulated Egygpt during the Roman period. Things pretty much stayed that way until the population explosion of the last 100 years, which has changed the population a lot, IMO
Where is such historical evidence that said invasions of Libyans,Persians or any other foreign groups lead to a depopulated Egypt?
Doug M wrote
quote:In fact, the reason why so many black Africans are evident in the pictures from the 1800s is because the population boom had not yet happened and Egypt still was largely a population of native Egyptians, albeit depleted by many years of invasions and subsequent exoduses. However, the recent boom has distorted the balance of identity from one of the original black African type, to the more current image of a caucasian population
By the 1800's most of the Egyptian population was diluted. True the population boom was primarily in the Delta but that was primarily due to improved living conditions that Muhammed Ali's modernization of Egypt.
Most of the photos are black and white but do show relatively dark skinned people. Indeed, many would probably be ''black'' in Africa but most would definately be considered ''black'' in America. Many people have different perpections of what ''black'' or ''white'' is.
You also make comments that many invasions depleted the population with little textual or archaeological evidence to validate such comment. Also what archaeological proof exists of exoduses out of Egypt?
Modern Egypt,wheather north or south, does not have a predominately ''caucasian'' population. You would do yourself more justice if you quite playing around with racial concepts like caucasian.
Doug M wrote:
quote:Also, keep in mind that many Coptics were Greeks and that Coptic is nothing but a Greek bastardization of the Egyptian language designed to promote and facilitate the conversion of Egyptians to Christianity. I dont know where this idea came from that the word Coptic means native Egyptian, since most Coptics are actually descendents of Greek Christian nomads and monks who HATED anything from ancient Egypt and did as much to damage and destroy ancient Egyptian monuments as anyone. Likewise, I also believe that a lot of this population growth over the last 150 years is due to migration and not just birth rate
Well, what you wrote has facts mixed with myths. The word Coptic comes from a Greek term Aegyptos or possibly from Koptos in Upper Egypt where many early Christians were martyred. The Coptic language is most likely the fourth phase of the ancient Egyptian language written in a Greek alphabet. The language is not really bastardized Greek.
The Coptic Christians are either indigenous Nile Valley African diluted by intermixture or early Greeks that converted to Christianity. Copts,like Egyptian Muslims, range from fair skinned to dark brown colors. You have to remeber that many Greeks were assimilated into Egypt during the Ptolemic era and thus were considered Egyptians when the Romans occupied Egypt. Read any book on Greco-Roman Egypt especially Alan K Bowman's Egypt After the Pharoahs or Egypt Under Roman Rule by Naphtali Lewis. This is also attested in papyri dating to the Greco-Roman period which have double Egyptian and Greek names.
Most of Egypt when the population boom began were mostly rural thus needed more children to work the fields. Infant mortality rates before the rule of Muhammed Ali were quite great which limited the Egyptian population to only a few children. Know if you propose that foreigners immigrating made up the main population boom then who exactly were these foreigners?
Some people have an eschewed sense of colonization and invasion which is not even attested by modern examples. Invaders or colonizers donot necessarily have to displace the original population;thus most of the original population remains with only the rulers being foreign. Sometimes there are examples of where foreign groups push indigenous off their land and settle these lands. Egypt did experiance many invasions but wheather people were pushed off their land or made an exodus from Egypt to other regions is rather questionable. From reading the texts or archaeological evidence I find such implausible but not impossible. The historical implications have yet to be truly resolved.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^True. Indigenous populations were not 'replaced', but they have been modified...which is natural with migrations in and out of the country over the years. This phenomenon is hardly unique to Egypt, as is the case with virtually any non-isolated society. That Egypt is singled-out, is just pure subjective politics.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And when you try to explain this to people...they ignore it. What baffles me is how historians can say that Ancient Egypt looked the same way 2,000 years ago as modern Egypt does now (pretty much calling AE's Arabs). This is ignoring the huge historical impact of Islam and the Arabic invasions in the region
2,000 years ago Egypt was under Greco-Roman occupation. From what evidence I have seen the Arab invasion had little effect on the ethnic shift of the modern Egyptian population.
Your points are valid but at the same time just as ignorant calling modern Egyptians Arabs. I find many people on either viewpoint donot have that concise knowledge of medieval Egyptian history.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:if the polygenetic theory he talks about is to be true and as he says all species of man were found in Africa, then it also means that differentiation existed within the same time. In otherwords the WHite and tanned African would have emerged. This must have occurred well before ~10,000BC and most of Egyptian pyramids and monuments were built 3000BC. This coincides with a southward migration of 4000BC found throughout Europe and the increased activity found in the MEditeranean world during this time. It holds true then that irrespectve of his claims the Egyptians in particular were mixed people. The idea that Egyptians were all black is entirely speculation. Historical accounts some 1500 years after the first Pyramid was built identify Egyptians as mixed "some blacks existed"
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?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: King Scorpion wrote:
quote: And when you try to explain this to people...they ignore it. What baffles me is how historians can say that Ancient Egypt looked the same way 2,000 years ago as modern Egypt does now (pretty much calling AE's Arabs). This is ignoring the huge historical impact of Islam and the Arabic invasions in the region
2,000 years ago Egypt was under Greco-Roman occupation. From what evidence I have seen the Arab invasion had little effect on the ethnic shift of the modern Egyptian population.
Your points are valid but at the same time just as ignorant calling modern Egyptians Arabs. I find many people on either viewpoint donot have that concise knowledge of medieval Egyptian history.
My reply was moreso a reply to DougM's post...and I wasn't calling Egyptians arabs, just heavily Arabized. THAT'S the tremendous effect the Arabic invasions have had on the region as well as others in North and East Africa.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: King Scorpion wrote:
quote: And when you try to explain this to people...they ignore it. What baffles me is how historians can say that Ancient Egypt looked the same way 2,000 years ago as modern Egypt does now (pretty much calling AE's Arabs). This is ignoring the huge historical impact of Islam and the Arabic invasions in the region
2,000 years ago Egypt was under Greco-Roman occupation. From what evidence I have seen the Arab invasion had little effect on the ethnic shift of the modern Egyptian population.
Your points are valid but at the same time just as ignorant calling modern Egyptians Arabs. I find many people on either viewpoint donot have that concise knowledge of medieval Egyptian history.
My reply was moreso a reply to DougM's post...and I wasn't calling Egyptians arabs, just heavily Arabized. THAT'S the tremendous effect the Arabic invasions have had on the region as well as others in North and East Africa.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Understood,King Scorpion. You also have to remind people that you cannot really pigeonhold one exact phenotype for ''Arabs''.
However, I do agree that modern Egyptians donot uniformally have the same phenotype as the ancient Egyptians but do have some of the same customs. Some Egyptians do have a foreign origin and will tell you about their foreign origins.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: The conquest of Egypt was under Amr Ibn Al'as and from there it tranfered to the caliph Umar untill his death. The Umayyad and Abbasid did not occupy Egypt untill much later periods.
Although most people from these areas were not ethnic Arabs, it is important to also know that many Arabs from the Arabian peninsula did migrate into parts of Mesopotamia including Syria. You might have heard of the Ghassanids,Lakhmids,and Palmyra. Palmyra was the home of Queen Zenobia. She occupired parts of middle Egypt during the Roman era. Previously,nomadic Arab tribes lead by warrior queens are mentioned in Assyrian annals. Arabs have been in these areas longer than previously thought.
Which is another example of foreign invaders in Egypt.
quote: However,Arabs themselves divide into Qahtan or Adnan. Qahtan are Yemeni Arabs considered the authenic Arabs;while Adnan are from Ishmael the Arabized Arabs.
Where is such historical evidence that said invasions of Libyans,Persians or any other foreign groups lead to a depopulated Egypt?
The numbers. The population of Egypt dwindled in the centuries during the decline of the Dynastic period and era of foreign occupation. The census I posted said that the Egyptian population was 2 million or so in the 1700s, which is a low point of Egyptian population from dynastic periods onward. And Egypt has always been subject to population migrations since before there was an Egypt. So this is not something new or unique the Nile Valley so it is not absurd to begin with. People are not locked into the Nile Valley, as Africans have always been nomadic and migratory over time.
quote: By the 1800's most of the Egyptian population was diluted. True the population boom was primarily in the Delta but that was primarily due to improved living conditions that Muhammed Ali's modernization of Egypt.
Most of the photos are black and white but do show relatively dark skinned people. Indeed, many would probably be ''black'' in Africa but most would definately be considered ''black'' in America. Many people have different perpections of what ''black'' or ''white'' is.
You also make comments that many invasions depleted the population with little textual or archaeological evidence to validate such comment. Also what archaeological proof exists of exoduses out of Egypt?
The depletion comes from people migrating out of the country. As you said, the population boom occurred in the delta where the resources were spent to modernize and build infrastructure. Upper Egypt was largely left to itself and therefore is much less prosperous. People are not locked into staying in one place, especially when circumstances deteriorate and living conditions get worse. Either way people have been coming and going across the boundaries of Egypt and the rest of Africa for thousands of years, just as they were going across the boundaries of Egypt and the Levant other areas as well. Nobody is fixed in one place forever.
quote: Modern Egypt,wheather north or south, does not have a predominately ''caucasian'' population. You would do yourself more justice if you quite playing around with racial concepts like caucasian.
What I mean is very light complexioned. Maybe this may not seem white to you but it is still very light compared to many other Africans.
quote: Well, what you wrote has facts mixed with myths. The word Coptic comes from a Greek term Aegyptos or possibly from Koptos in Upper Egypt where many early Christians were martyred. The Coptic language is most likely the fourth phase of the ancient Egyptian language written in a Greek alphabet. The language is not really bastardized Greek.
No I said it as a Greek bastardization of Egyptian language.
[QUOTE} The Coptic Christians are either indigenous Nile Valley African diluted by intermixture or early Greeks that converted to Christianity. Copts,like Egyptian Muslims, range from fair skinned to dark brown colors. You have to remeber that many Greeks were assimilated into Egypt during the Ptolemic era and thus were considered Egyptians when the Romans occupied Egypt. Read any book on Greco-Roman Egypt especially Alan K Bowman's Egypt After the Pharoahs or Egypt Under Roman Rule by Naphtali Lewis. This is also attested in papyri dating to the Greco-Roman period which have double Egyptian and Greek names. [/QUOTE]Which echoes my point of Egyptian ethnicity absorbing many of foreign descent, making them Egyptian, but still altering the diversity of the population.
quote: Most of Egypt when the population boom began were mostly rural thus needed more children to work the fields. Infant mortality rates before the rule of Muhammed Ali were quite great which limited the Egyptian population to only a few children. Know if you propose that foreigners immigrating made up the main population boom then who exactly were these foreigners?
I didnt say that they were the main population boom, but that they played a part in it.
quote: Some people have an eschewed sense of colonization and invasion which is not even attested by modern examples. Invaders or colonizers donot necessarily have to displace the original population;thus most of the original population remains with only the rulers being foreign. Sometimes there are examples of where foreign groups push indigenous off their land and settle these lands. Egypt did experiance many invasions but wheather people were pushed off their land or made an exodus from Egypt to other regions is rather questionable. From reading the texts or archaeological evidence I find such implausible but not impossible. The historical implications have yet to be truly resolved.
YOu are misunderstanding what I said. I did not say they were replaced or pushed off by force, but that people left out of free will. And that does not imply a single mass exodus as opposed to a gradual migration of people out of Egypt. People have been migrating in and out of Egypt since before there was an Egypt. That is a fact of Egyptian history. People are not locked into Egypt once they get there and they can and will migrate elsewhere if they see fit. I dont see why this is so hard to understand. The archeological evidence alone is not going to tell you this, but the population estimates that have been done. You can look at these and see how Egypt's population rose and fell over its long history and where these populations were located in Egypt.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which is another example of foreign invaders in Egypt
Non-sequitir. I only mentioned Palmyra in regards to your comment about no real Arabs being in Syria or Mesopotamia around this period. Queen Zenobia treated indigenous Egyptians much better than the Romans and even had a great command of the Egyptian language quite unlike her contemporaries.
Doug M wrote:
quote:The numbers. The population of Egypt dwindled in the centuries during the decline of the Dynastic period and era of foreign occupation
When exactly was the decline of the dyanstic era? Where is your evidence that said populations dwlinded during this period? I asked you for hard data which you have yet to provide on this subject. Doug M wrote
quote:The census I posted said that the Egyptian population was 2 million or so in the 1700s, which is a low point of Egyptian population from dynastic periods onward
Actually, from sources I have read the ancient Egyptian population has always been estimated around 1-3 million. Unfortunately, we don't have an accurate census even within the Greco-Roman era. Trying to make such statements can be sketchy without documentation which is why population genetics is used to fill in the gaps. We also have archaeological methods that cvan give us a approximate number. Doug M wrote:
quote:And Egypt has always been subject to population migrations since before there was an Egypt. So this is not something new or unique the Nile Valley so it is not absurd to begin with. People are not locked into the Nile Valley, as Africans have always been nomadic and migratory over time
I am not dismissing such claims but simply showing some skepticism because of texts I have read from the ancient Egyptians themselves. Most Egyptians according to texts like the Tales of Sinhue donot depict as Egyptians a migratory people. No doubt, the ancestors of the dyanstic Egyptians migrated from various areas within Africa but once sedentary the texts donot indicate such events. Most of ancient Egypt were sedentary farmers with a minority of pastoralists.
Doug M wrote:
quote:The depletion comes from people migrating out of the country. As you said, the population boom occurred in the delta where the resources were spent to modernize and build infrastructure. Upper Egypt was largely left to itself and therefore is much less prosperous. People are not locked into staying in one place, especially when circumstances deteriorate and living conditions get worse. Either way people have been coming and going across the boundaries of Egypt and the rest of Africa for thousands of years, just as they were going across the boundaries of Egypt and the Levant other areas as well. Nobody is fixed in one place forever
True but please see points from above post. I am not contesting such theories but simply demand concrete evidence for such claims. If such migrations occured we would have traces left in archaeological remains. Untill textual or archaeological evidence is presented its simply speculation.
Doug M wrote
quote:What I mean is very light complexioned. Maybe this may not seem white to you but it is still very light compared to many other Africans
You should have said such terms instead of caucasian which to most in sociological terms means ''white European'' which most Egyptians are not. Most modern Egyptians are lighter than most Africans but definately darker than most white Europeans with the exception of a few. Even most Africans don't consider Egyptians or other northern Africans white in the literal sense of a European. You should also stop trying to debunk European notions of race while still adhering to their own racial terminology.
Doug M
quote:I didnt say that they were the main population boom, but that they played a part in it
You did say this was you belief but put very little actual evidence for your assertion. I asked you what large mass of foreigners lead to the population increase but you gave me no answer.
Doug M wrote [quote]YOu are misunderstanding what I said. I did not say they were replaced or pushed off by force, but that people left out of free will. And that does not imply a single mass exodus as opposed to a gradual migration of people out of Egypt. People have been migrating in and out of Egypt since before there was an Egypt. That is a fact of Egyptian history. People are not locked into Egypt once they get there and they can and will migrate elsewhere if they see fit. I dont see why this is so hard to understand. The archeological evidence alone is not going to tell you this, but the population estimates that have been done. You can look at these and see how Egypt's population rose and fell over its long history and where these populations were located in Egypt[quote]
The problem is you are not supporting any of your claims with any evidence of population movements. Since we don't have any precise method to truly know the real numbers it remains speculation and we can understand it better with archaeological findings. If populations move then they do leave archaeological clues such as crops,pollen trails or any other artifact such as pottery. Where is this in the case of populations moving out of ancient Egypt?
Plus what about textual evidence?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ephestion wrote: if the polygenetic theory he talks about is to be true and as he says all species of man were found in Africa, then it also means that differentiation existed within the same time.
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?
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.
this is clearly a guy who visited dodona or stormfront or the equivelant, and picked up on buzzwords that he didn't really understand, but feels he can throw around to fake discussions with educated people, and without *making a fool of himself.*
he is sadly mistaken here.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ausar, simply put, a sedentary population is a relative term, meaning that they may stay in one place longer than those who are nomadic. However, over time Egypt's population has not stayed static and I believe a few writers have written about the fluctuation in population over the span of Egypt's long history. There are many factors that influence such migrations, but it seems as if you are thinking of a single mass exodus which would leave a large amount of archeaological evidence. I would just say that it was probably more like a slow process that took a few hundred years to have a impact on the Egyptian population and all these people did not leave at one time or go to the same place. I do remember seeing studies on this but I have no hard evidence as you say. However, even without such, it must be remembered that throughout the history of Africa migrations have always been a large factor in population shifts over time. Egypt is not exempt from that rule. Maybe there were more migrants out of Upper Egypt into places like Sudan and the Western Deserts, as has been documented from the Dynastic period. During the dynastic period it has been documented that some Upper Egyptians did indeed migrate to Southern areas, especially during periods of chaos or foreign intervention. Egyptian people were not boxed in and not allowed to leave if they saw fit. But as I said, I am not talking about a mass exodus, but a slow process.
Here is some data from a quick search on the web:
quote: The population of ancient Egypt varied greatly during its history. Some scholars estimate that only a few hundred thousand people lived in Egypt during the Predynastic period (about 5000-3000 bc). Others believe, based on archaeological evidence and reevaluations of how many people the floodplains could support at the time, that the area had a much higher population. In any case, the population had probably risen to close to 2 million during the Old Kingdom (about 2575-2134 bc). It increased during the Middle Kingdom (about 2040-1640 bc), and by the New Kingdom (about 1550-1070 bc) the population had grown to between 3 and 4 million. This figure almost doubled under Hellenistic rule (332-30 bc), with perhaps as many as 7 million people inhabiting the country at the time it was annexed to the Roman Empire.
Then by the time of the 1700s, the population was down to 2 million, according to the Egyptian government's own accounts. While we may not be able to verify the accuracy of such claims, it still points to periods of population growth as well as population shrinkage at various points in time. But it has been noted by others that the period leading up to the population boom of the 1800s was a low period in the total population of Egypt. While I can see your disagreement in terms of lack of hard facts, I still detect a sense of trying to deny the obvious in the sense that migrations, big and small, happen over time and ancient Egypt is not exempt. Likewise, historically treating various mixed populations of Greek, Roman or other populations as equally Egyptian as those from Upper Egypt is distortion to say the least, not by you, but by historians in general. The occupation of Egypt by foreigners was not a pleasant one and trying to imply that foreigners were benign and not in anyway a negative factor in the lives of the Egyptians is nonsense. Some were worse than others and many had been fighting against uprisings and rebellions, especially in the South throughout the occupation, even during Greek, Roman and the Persian occupations. It seems to me you are trying too hard to paint a rosy picture of Egyptians content under the rule of foreigners and not wanting to leave of their own free will. As you said, the main reason for the population boom would have been modernization, at the same token the reason for the decline would have been a lack of the same modernization and a decline of living standards since the pharoanic era. Of all places Upper Egypt has seen the worst of times since the pharoanic era and would have been one place were people left Egypt and went elsewhere over time. Upper Egypt was once more developed and had a greater percentage of the population in Egypt than in modern times. As various foreign regimes came into power, they focused the balance of power in the North and often had to deal with rebellions in the South. Sometimes these were dealt with militarily, but also this led to a decrease in resources sent to the South, leading to decline and an increase in poverty in the South. Hardly conditions that would be condusive for the sustainment and growth of a sedentary populations. The statistics of the Egyptian government itself bears this out in the charts I posted earlier. If the Egyptian population in pharoanic times was 4 million, I would guess a LARGE percentage of that was in the South. Prior to the population boom, the shift of population size had already shifted towards the North. Therefore, either people had moved from South to NOrth or people left the South and went elsewhere as others stayed and parts of the population in the North grew at various times. It is well known, for example, that Greek and Romans were a large presence in Lower Egypt during their rule.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. Simply put, it was more cultural and linguistic replacement, plus ALOT of intermixing, I mean alot folks. The whole mediterranean world was double dipping with the nile valley folks 
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
If so, can you explain or elaborate.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic