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.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
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.
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ 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.
Posted by Willing Thinker (Member # 10819) on :
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.
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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. ]
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
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.
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
*bump
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
rasol wrotea:
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
rasol wrote:
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
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.
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
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.
Posted by Willing Thinker (Member # 10819) on :
Anyone know where that ancestry chart thingy is? I know genetic testing isn't 100% accurate. I'll look for it.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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:
VERY great post DougM!!!
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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]
Of course you do. Posted by Ephestion (Member # 12836) on :
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.
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
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...
Posted by Ephestion (Member # 12836) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by Kemson (Member # 12850) on :
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.
Posted by Ephestion (Member # 12836) on :
See what i mean?
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.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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. Posted by tutemkasret (Member # 12109) on :
Too much time is spent chasing [cough] negro eskimo and other flights of fantasy instead
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!! Now that was funny
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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.
Posted by tutemkasret (Member # 12109) on :
****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
Posted by Willing Thinker (Member # 10819) on :
Fantastic points, Doug.
Ephestian, mixed, how?:
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. Posted by tutemkasret (Member # 12109) on :
****See what i mean?
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*
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:To think that they were not mixed by the 3000BC point is just silly
^ Apply to Europe.
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ephestion:
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. Posted by Ephestion (Member # 12836) on :
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".
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
rasol wrote:
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.
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
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.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Doug M wrote:
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.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
^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.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
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.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Ephestion wrote:
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?
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
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.
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
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.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Doug M wrote:
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?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
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.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
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.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
One important factor you are leaving out is that population growth from the Old Kingdom into the later periods is to be expected because Egypt became more international. From direct texts I have read dating to the Middle and New Kingdom ancient Egypt had a tendency to settle captives or war in less populated areas such as the Delta and Middle Egypt thus even by the foreign occupation of Egypt the common Egyptian probably already had a good deal of foreign ancestry.
The population growth of 7 million is primarily around areas like Alexandria but does not include the entire Egyptian population as a whole. By the time of Amr ibn Al'as invasion of Egypt the total population was down to 3 million as a whole. Understand I expect this number because many of the occypying Byzantine fled back to Greece or Costanoiple. One of the other factors that inflates the population around Alexandria is the Judea factor. During the Roman occupation of Egypt many Judeans were settled into parts of Alexandria but later progroms massacred many of these populations or they just fled back into Judea.
You also tend to overemphasize the devestation that many foreign populations had upon the ancient Egyptian population. I suppose you are using modern colonialism as a model which really donot apply to ancient Egyptian antiquity. Despite what bitter resentment the elite might have had of foreign occupation, I doubt the common majority felt much of an impact going into the Roman occupation. Most foreigners,unlike modern European colonials, actually adopted the culture and language of the ancient Egyptians. From the Libyans down to the Greeks all adopted and admired ancient Egyptian culture.
Most of the view of Dyanstic Egypt we have is of both the elite and literate class which probably comprised more of a minority than the majority. What glimpse we have of the commoners comes to us in texts like The Eloquent Peasant and the The Tale of Woe which do not present the utopian ancient Egyptian society that many envision or romanticize. If any population migration occured it was most likely the elite class and not really the majority. Such examples we do have are stories preseved in the writings of Diodorus Siculus of Necho II fleeing to the south.
In earlier accouts I mentioned the ancient Egyptians reflection is more sedentary instead of migratory populations. The Tales of Sinuhe emphasize that Sinuhe must be buried along the Nile Valley in order to make it to the Filed or Iru.
While Upper Egypt has less foreigners,many Greeks and other foreigners did settle in places like Middle Egypt and even Aswan. Many reservist cleruchs[off-season soliders] were settled around what is today Minya,Asyut,Faiyum and Sohag. Infact,both Faiyum Ptolemis were offical Ptolemic cities. Aswan had Roman soliders settled on the border.
With the exception of Alexandria, most of Lower Egypt had a majority Egyptian population. Even within Alexandria Egyptians had their own ethnic enclave seperated from other ethnic groups that included the Judeans.
Here are some of my basic points:
1. If even small migrations over periods of time occured some evidence would have been left depending on what social class of Egyptian we are speaking of.
2.Foreign occupation was not pleasant but to the common Egyptian it would have not been relevent unless of factors that effected them directly
3.Demographic shift from Old to New Kingdom is to be expected since Egypt became more international and absorbed more foreign terroritories and captives of war. Whatever shift in Hellenistic times and decline by 640 A.D. is also to be expected. The gaps missing are between the Islamic period going into the 1700's when a more scietific census was taken.
4. To determine the indigeness populations is to determine baseline genetic or biological/physical anthropological data. In my opinion, the following is more precise than just demographic estimates. Of course, demographic estimates are useful if factors behind such as also known.
5. Judging by what written documentation we have of Egyptian texts[which are subject to interpretation] we are pesented by a people that really dislike permnantely settling in foreign lands and was against their own cosmological belief system exp in texts like the Tales of Sinuhe.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: One important factor you are leaving out is that population growth from the Old Kingdom into the later periods is to be expected because Egypt became more international. From direct texts I have read dating to the Middle and New Kingdom ancient Egypt had a tendency to settle captives or war in less populated areas such as the Delta and Middle Egypt thus even by the foreign occupation of Egypt the common Egyptian probably already had a good deal of foreign ancestry.
Which is what I said, but you refused to accept that foreign migrations were part of the reason for such population growth.....
quote: The population growth of 7 million is primarily around areas like Alexandria but does not include the entire Egyptian population as a whole. By the time of Amr ibn Al'as invasion of Egypt the total population was down to 3 million as a whole. Understand I expect this number because many of the occypying Byzantine fled back to Greece or Costanoiple. One of the other factors that inflates the population around Alexandria is the Judea factor. During the Roman occupation of Egypt many Judeans were settled into parts of Alexandria but later progroms massacred many of these populations or they just fled back into Judea.
So what are you saying? I said that population decreased because of unfavorable conditions in places. I was talking of the population as a whole and not singling out any single group. But, you seem to be implying that the Judeans leaving because of oppression represents a "separate" issue. It is the same issue. You seem to be twisting my point ad infinitum to argue strawmen, when in essence you are agreeing with me.
quote:
You also tend to overemphasize the devestation that many foreign populations had upon the ancient Egyptian population. I suppose you are using modern colonialism as a model which really donot apply to ancient Egyptian antiquity. Despite what bitter resentment the elite might have had of foreign occupation, I doubt the common majority felt much of an impact going into the Roman occupation. Most foreigners,unlike modern European colonials, actually adopted the culture and language of the ancient Egyptians. From the Libyans down to the Greeks all adopted and admired ancient Egyptian culture.
No. You are attempting to force the argument into some sort of categorization of how occupation worked in ancient Egypt. Occupation worked like it does everywhere else. The invaders use whatever force they need in order to maintain control of the country and the adoption of the local customs is only to reinforce their power even more than it is for reasons of love of the culture. The Greeks, while adopting the customs of the Egyptians, still considered themselves above and separate from the indigenees. The Greeks were responsible for the creation of Serapis and the eventual banning of many of the original Egyptian temples. The Romans continued this by forcing Christianity on the population. The Romans and the Greeks often fought wars with rebellious populations in Upper Egypt, where resistence to foreign occupation in the North was ALWAYS fierce. Roman and Greek armies had to tend with revolts in Upper Egypt and some even say that the Ptolomies had largely abandoned upper Egypt. So this idea of my point about the occupation of Egypt being based on modern colonialism is a strawman. What I am talking about is that the foreign occupations were largely not welcomed and was mainly for the benefit of the foreigners not the natives and was not some kind of love affair between the invaders and the natives. Likewise, upper Egypt had long been a center of resistence to foreign invasion even into Roman times, causing conflict and destruction in order to bring them into submission. Likewise, during the Byzantine period much was done to forcefully eradicate the temples of the old gods and the temple priests and the system that had been created in dynastic times. This again was not a rosy affair and involved much in the way of violence and oppression against the native believers. Therefore it is nonsense to suggest that over the 975 years of GrecoRoman occupation that there was no violence or persecution against native Egyptians for purposes of control by foreigners or eradication of ancient systems of belief and worship. Serapis was forced on Egypt. Christianity was forced on Egypt. Islam was forced on Egypt. None of these are indigenous religions of Egypt and they only became mainstream due to the use of force and persecutions by those in power.
quote: Most of the view of Dyanstic Egypt we have is of both the elite and literate class which probably comprised more of a minority than the majority. What glimpse we have of the commoners comes to us in texts like The Eloquent Peasant and the The Tale of Woe which do not present the utopian ancient Egyptian society that many envision or romanticize. If any population migration occured it was most likely the elite class and not really the majority. Such examples we do have are stories preseved in the writings of Diodorus Siculus of Necho II fleeing to the south.
Needless speculation. If the population declined it was because people left, period. What you are saying is meaningless. If the population declined and it wasnt because people were killed off, it is because they left. The texts written in the dynastic period are irrelevant in this regard as the dynastic period was long over during the Greek, Roman and subsequent Islamic period of Egypt. Likewise, we also have accounts of upper Egyptian soldiers moving into Sudan and Kush, especially during periods of strife in Lower Egypt. Therefore, a couple stories do not tell the whole tale.
quote: In earlier accouts I mentioned the ancient Egyptians reflection is more sedentary instead of migratory populations. The Tales of Sinuhe emphasize that Sinuhe must be buried along the Nile Valley in order to make it to the Filed or Iru.
While Upper Egypt has less foreigners,many Greeks and other foreigners did settle in places like Middle Egypt and even Aswan. Many reservist cleruchs[off-season soliders] were settled around what is today Minya,Asyut,Faiyum and Sohag. Infact,both Faiyum Ptolemis were offical Ptolemic cities. Aswan had Roman soliders settled on the border.
With the exception of Alexandria, most of Lower Egypt had a majority Egyptian population. Even within Alexandria Egyptians had their own ethnic enclave seperated from other ethnic groups that included the Judeans.
Here are some of my basic points:
1. If even small migrations over periods of time occured some evidence would have been left depending on what social class of Egyptian we are speaking of.
2.Foreign occupation was not pleasant but to the common Egyptian it would have not been relevent unless of factors that effected them directly
3.Demographic shift from Old to New Kingdom is to be expected since Egypt became more international and absorbed more foreign terroritories and captives of war. Whatever shift in Hellenistic times and decline by 640 A.D. is also to be expected. The gaps missing are between the Islamic period going into the 1700's when a more scietific census was taken.
4. To determine the indigeness populations is to determine baseline genetic or biological/physical anthropological data. In my opinion, the following is more precise than just demographic estimates. Of course, demographic estimates are useful if factors behind such as also known.
5. Judging by what written documentation we have of Egyptian texts[which are subject to interpretation] we are pesented by a people that really dislike permnantely settling in foreign lands and was against their own cosmological belief system exp in texts like the Tales of Sinuhe.
Bottom line, I dont see where you are disagreeing with me. You yourself said that populations grew and contracted over time in Egypt. You yourself said that populations grew in some areas more because of foreign migrations into Egypt. Yet you also disagreed with me when I said the exact same thing a few posts back. In essence, I dont see your point. I dont see why you are finding it necessary to make all these statements which essentially agree with what I said. You have also provided no evidence why the periods of decline in Egyptian population did not represent people LEAVING Egypt, both foreign and indigenous.
What I said:
The Egyptian population shifted over time. The populuation in Late period and foreign occupied Egypt shifted more to the North away from the South. The low points of Egyptian population occured up to and during the early periods of Islamic occupation when the estimates are of Egypt having about 2-2.5 million people. Therefore, if this was a low point it means people left, regardless of what the reasons were, they LEFT, otherwise the numbers would not have gone down. Now if you can show me how numbers would not have declined so drastically without people leaving or being killed off by invaders, as you say, then I would agree with you. But I wont because it is not possible. You paint a picture of foreigners moving freely all over the map, yet Egyptians stayed put? That is nonsense. Egyptian people were subject to movement as much as anyone and are no exception. You seem to be trying to oversimplify the history of the occupation of Egypt in order to distort my point.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegyptus_(Roman_province)
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Doug M wrote:
quote:Which is what I said, but you refused to accept that foreign migrations were part of the reason for such population growth.....
Your initial post was reffering to the growth rate around the 1700's instead of the Hellenistic era. The reason why I pointed out the inflated 7 million in your reference was due to Alexandria which probably was predominately foreign. By the time when the invasion by Amr Ibn Al'as most foreigners within Alexandria and other regions would have decreased leaving about 2-3 million people which is consistant with the dyanstic era population estimate by most scholars.
Doug M wrote:
quote:So what are you saying? I said that population decreased because of unfavorable conditions in places. I was talking of the population as a whole and not singling out any single group. But, you seem to be implying that the Judeans leaving because of oppression represents a "separate" issue. It is the same issue. You seem to be twisting my point ad infinitum to argue strawmen, when in essence you are agreeing with me
No, I was using the Judean example in Alexandria as an example that accounts for the low figure during the beginning of the Islamic period. The Judean example was not relavent to the whole Egyptian population but to why the numbers were low. On the issue of Egyptians fleeing opressive conditions. You have just speculated this was the primary reason and used demographic statistics from various periods. You have yet to cite one example from texts or archaeology.
Doug M wrote:
quote:No. You are attempting to force the argument into some sort of categorization of how occupation worked in ancient Egypt. Occupation worked like it does everywhere else. The invaders use whatever force they need in order to maintain control of the country and the adoption of the local customs is only to reinforce their power even more than it is for reasons of love of the culture. The Greeks, while adopting the customs of the Egyptians, still considered themselves above and separate from the indigenees. The Greeks were responsible for the creation of Serapis and the eventual banning of many of the original Egyptian temples. The Romans continued this by forcing Christianity on the population. The Romans and the Greeks often fought wars with rebellious populations in Upper Egypt, where resistence to foreign occupation in the North was ALWAYS fierce. Roman and Greek armies had to tend with revolts in Upper Egypt and some even say that the Ptolomies had largely abandoned upper Egypt. So this idea of my point about the occupation of Egypt being based on modern colonialism is a strawman. What I am talking about is that the foreign occupations were largely not welcomed and was mainly for the benefit of the foreigners not the natives and was not some kind of love affair between the invaders and the natives. Likewise, upper Egypt had long been a center of resistence to foreign invasion even into Roman times, causing conflict and destruction in order to bring them into submission
Of course some resistance existed between parts of Egypt and the Greeks but as a whole Greeks were not opressive against the Egyptians. Once native Egyptians were administered into the Greek military Egyptians began to get better treatment and many intermarried and Hellenized themselves into Greco-Roman society. Also, you cannot group the Greeks and Romans together because overall the Roman occupation was much more opressive that restricted the power of the priesthood and taxed the commoners. Greeks did not really care about what indigenous Egyptians did outside centers of Hellenistic cities. My other point which tied in with the initial point was that the common Egyptian peasant would have been adopted to such harsh regines it really would not have mattered much who was in power or how harsh their rulership was thus it would be doubtful they would flee. Upper Egypt was not primary the center of resistance during the Roman era because you had many Delta Egyptians that fought resistance against the Romans.
Your point about Christianity being forced by the Romans is rather inaccurate itself considering that the early Christians under emperor Decius[sp] were massacred. Not untill much later under Constantine did Christianity swept the Roman empire. Under Theodosius he did decree that all non-Christian temples close but tolerated the temple in Philae. Under his decree he had limitations of violence that newly converted monks like St. Shenute to not abide by so you cannot blame it primarily upon the Romans or Byzantines
Doug M
quote:Needless speculation. If the population declined it was because people left, period. What you are saying is meaningless. If the population declined and it wasnt because people were killed off, it is because they left. The texts written in the dynastic period are irrelevant in this regard as the dynastic period was long over during the Greek, Roman and subsequent Islamic period of Egypt. Likewise, we also have accounts of upper Egyptian soldiers moving into Sudan and Kush, especially during periods of strife in Lower Egypt. Therefore, a couple stories do not tell the whole tale
Its speculation to attribute population decline to people fleeing Egypt with no trace of archaeological or textual evidence. The textual references I posted are relavent to the ancient Egyptian belief system which remain consistant up untill the Byzantine period. What textual evidence do you have of Upper Egyptian soliders fleeing south into Kush?
Doug M wrote:
quote:Bottom line, I dont see where you are disagreeing with me. You yourself said that populations grew and contracted over time in Egypt. You yourself said that populations grew in some areas more because of foreign migrations into Egypt
We disagree upon during which period populations grew and changed over a period of time. You claim that the shift of the population is primary evidence of ancient Egyptians fleeing into other regions which I don't agree or disagree with but remain skeptical because of the lack of evidence. Read what I said about foreign populations growing in Alexandria during the Hellenistic times and then read where you stated that during the 1700's in Egypt the population grew because of foreign migration. If any population declined happened after the Hellenistic period it was most likely foreign populations. Doug M wrote:
quote:You have also provided no evidence why the periods of decline in Egyptian population did not represent people LEAVING Egypt, both foreign and indigenous
The burden of proof is upon you because you are the one that made such claims. You have provided no evidence that migrations occured because of opression. I never contested that foreign populations left Egypt and infact that is probably why the 7 million number during the Hellenistic era was down to 2 million.
Doug M wrote:
quote:The Egyptian population shifted over time. The populuation in Late period and foreign occupied Egypt shifted more to the North away from the South
What I disagreed with this statement because the foreign populations in Lower Egypt with the exception of Alexandria and parts of Memphis always remainded in the minority. The population shift of Lower Egypt shifted more towards the 1700's because of the modernization of Lower Egypt over Upper Egypt. Doug M wrote:
quote:The low points of Egyptian population occured up to and during the early periods of Islamic occupation when the estimates are of Egypt having about 2-2.5 million people. Therefore, if this was a low point it means people left, regardless of what the reasons were, they LEFT, otherwise the numbers would not have gone down
2-3 million is not a low point in Egypt's history and it is consistant with dyanstic Egypt untill the population boom in the 1700's. You have provided no evidence of who left or that people leaving was the primariy reason for the demographic shift. The period between the Hellenistic era and Islamic period is rather long and it was most likely inflated because of Alexandria. You have not demonstrated that any indigenous people left or fleed anywhere else.
Doug M
quote:Now if you can show me how numbers would not have declined so drastically without people leaving or being killed off by invaders, as you say, then I would agree with you. But I wont because it is not possible
Not a matter or agreeing or disagreeing with me but presenting precise data to back up your claims. We can automatically throw out killed off by invaders because invasions by the Greeks,Romans or later Arabs were not violent. If large amounts of people massacred we would have archaeological or textual information of such. I am still open to the idea of people leaving but your present insufficant demographic data with no other evidence.
Doug M
quote:You paint a picture of foreigners moving freely all over the map, yet Egyptians stayed put? That is nonsense. Egyptian people were subject to movement as much as anyone and are no exception. You seem to be trying to oversimplify the history of the occupation of Egypt in order to distort my point.
Foreigners during the 26th dyansty were actually invited to settle around various parts of Naucratis,Men-Nefer and other parts of Middle Egypt. Foreigners already by the time of foreign occupation lived freely with most Egyptians. I don't believe that such population movement is implausible but you have not presented any evidence that validates your points.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The gist of your disagreement boils down to the idea that the decrease of population in Egypt was mostly foreigners leaving (up to 3 or 4 million) and these foreigners left an Egyptian population that was pure and untouched and exactly as it was before these foreigners arrived. Sorry, I dont buy that at all. These foreigners had been in Egypt for quite a while and I am sure that they had more than just a minor impact on the indigenous population, in terms of mixing. Also, given that Egypt had changed quite drastically religiously and politically, from the dynastic period, by the time of the Islamic invasions, it is not accurate to say that the locals all had the same attitude towards Egypt as they did in dynastic times. That is not saying they were oppressed, but that their attitudes were not necessarily the same as those in dynastic times. Second, when I say left, I mean left willingly and it is you who assumes I mean flee. If I meant flee I would have said flee. You are overemphasizing that leaving Egypt means being oppressed or fleeing oppression. I did not say that. At the same token, I am saying that they probably left for other reasons, which may have included the political or religious or even social situation. None of that rises to the level of persecution or oppression that you are implying. In any country there are always some people arriving and some people leaving, even in the best of times. The fact that some people left does not imply oppression, even though during foreign rule everything was not always rosy or perfect. Even during dynastic times everything was not rosy and perfect. Still there were people who were leaving Egypt even then for various reasons.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
The whole weakness of your arguement is that you present no other evidence then a demographic shift. The demographic shift can be cause by many factors other than what you postulate. Where is the textual or archaeological evidence that demonstrates that Egyptians left willingly at any time in Egypt's history?
The foreigners might have impacted Egypt politically and culturally but certain aspects of ancient Egyptian spirtuality always remained intact because of the Egyptians conservative nature. Infact, from the textual evidence you can see much of the same pratices,although modified, into the Islamic period.
We even have written papyri during the Greco-Roman period about the common Egyptian which was not that great of a transition. Which is why the Egyptians probably had the same weariness of being away from the Nile Valley as persisted into the Greco-Roman period into the advent of the Byzantine and perhaps beyond.
According to historian David Frankfurther in his Religion in Roman Egypt the pratices of the ancient Egyptians became more localized because of medling of the Romans.
If you are curious of where I get my information from it's the following book titles:
Egypt After the Pharoahs by Alan K. Bowman
Egypt under the Romans Naptali Lewis
Agritculture in Egypt edited by Alan K. Bowman[ has first hand and second hand sources from the pharoanic period down the Islamic period]
I really dont get your point Ausar. If the Egyptian population swelled to 7million during the late GrecoRoman period, as you said, then by 1700 it was down to 2 million,by the chart Iposted earlier, then what happened? SOMETHING happened to cause that many people to leave. 5 million or so people leaving a country is nothing to sniff at. And if this 5 million people were all foreigners then what of the natives? You mean to tell me that foreigners outnumbered the total number of indigenous people in Greco Roman times? I agree with your point that more facts are needed to back up my opinions, but at the same token we should not be overly suspicious of the evidence we do have. 1700 A.D. is almost 2000 years since the time of the Menches papers you linked to. 2000 years is a long time for people to leave Egypt slowly producing a overal decline in population. I do not believe that 5 million people left Egypt as foreign expatriates returning to their native country at the arrival of the Muslims. I also dont believe that, at the time of the rise in population in GrecoRoman times, the foreigners outnumbered the indigenous people. IF SO, then that contradicts what you have said elsewhere on this forum, where the foreigners were always a minority relative to the natives. My concern here is that a lot of what you are saying does not sound right to me. You are saying that a great number of foreigners arrived in Egypt during Greco Roman times and outnumbered the natives and then completely left, leaving the original population and culture intact and in pristine condition almost as if they never were there? If not then changes occurred and trying to equate Egypt after the GrecoRoman period with Egypt prior to the GrecoRoman period is nonsense, as they were not the same. Then, on top of that, there was a period of 1,000 years between the arrival of the Muslims and the census estimates from the 1700s. What happened during that period? I am sure you aren't going to say that the Egyptians were happy campers with the new rulers and everything was rosy are you?
Somehow it seems you want to cling to a notion of "pure" identity for Egyptians even after thousands of years of occupation, which even by your own admission is quite impossible.... So your disagreement with me about people leaving Egypt seems to stem from some notion of a "pure" Egyptian peasant class who always wanted to stay close to their roots even though they were not in power and subject to being manipulated and controlled by foreign masters....... Of course some rebelled and of course some got fed up and left. If things were bad enough for them to fight for, then they were bad enough for some to leave as well. I didn't say persecuted, but I said fed up or not totally happy with the situation at any given time. This does not mean a mass exodus either, as opposed to a slow trickle that added up over time, thereby not producing a single mass exodus which would leave any substantial archaological remains.
Posted by Ephestion (Member # 12836) on :
quote:since he mistakenly refers to the mongenic theory of out of africa, as polygenic, and refers to -all species of man- indicating that he thinks humans consist of different species, then i'd say yes...it's unrealistic to expect intelligent discourse from this person.
The correct terms in that case is anthropogenesis and filogenisis. I tried to dumb it down to your level by using Dr Diops vocab for it, sorry.
quote: Ausar: Well, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you have yet to present any scientific or even historical data. Are the following some pet theory you have or some science-fiction novel you been planning to write? How about presenting data with some scientific or historical sources present? Is this too much to ask?
Scientific proof? You mean use science to try and prove an argument? That is a contradiction of its purpose. Science is the process of applying the truth. Philosophy is the discovery of truth. If you are looking at science create or prove facts your on a different level to me. As we said, the earliest accounts of Egypt identify the people as white with some blacks. If you wish to speculate and cant handle this truth then thats your problem i am of no need to argue since i have established the truth. However, I do accept that Egypt by all means had a changing demography, to what extent and in what proportions is entirely debatable. It is much like locking 100 people of mixed colour in an area and once they leave we try and work out how many blacks and whites. To me it does not make a difference.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I really dont get your point Ausar. If the Egyptian population swelled to 7million during the late GrecoRoman period, as you said, then by 1700 it was down to 2 million,by the chart Iposted earlier, then what happened? SOMETHING happened to cause that many people to leave.
Here's my take - whether you imagine the population of post dynastic Km.t dwindled over time due to low birth rate and high death rate - or population exodus, you are still left to deal with the fact that modern Egypt has 75 million people, almost all of whom are the result of the last 200 years or so of population growth and concordant with a demographic shift favoring the delta and at the expense of the Nile Valley.
This means that we cannot presume that the present populaton demographics bear any resemblence to the demographics of dynastic km.t.
I would offer Mexico and Brazil as examples for comparison.
In neither of these countries were native populations replaced en masse.
Both countries still have millions of people who are predominently of native extraction.
In fact - in Mexico there are arguably more 'indigenous' peoples now than there were before the conquestadors invaded, raped and pillaged.
However.....the demographics of these modern countries are nonetheless radically different than they were in pre-coloumbian times.
Modern day Brazil for instance - has more African and European mtdna lineages than Native American.
Now, consider that this change has occured in only 200 years, whereas Nile Valley Km.t was conquered by Asiatics over 2 thousand years ago.
Two....thousand....years.
Posted by Sonofisis (Member # 12762) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ephestion:
quote:
Scientific proof? You mean use science to try and prove an argument? That is a contradiction of its purpose. Science is the process of applying the truth. Philosophy is the discovery of truth. If you are looking at science create or prove facts your on a different level to me. As we said, the earliest accounts of Egypt identify the people as white with some blacks. If you wish to speculate and cant handle this truth then thats your problem i am of no need to argue since i have established the truth. However, I do accept that Egypt by all means had a changing demography, to what extent and in what proportions is entirely debatable. It is much like locking 100 people of mixed colour in an area and once they leave we try and work out how many blacks and whites. To me it does not make a difference.
^This is someone truly talking out of their ass, lol! Not one fact...
Posted by RU2religious (Member # 4547) on :
quote:Scientific proof? You mean use science to try and prove an argument? That is a contradiction of its purpose. Science is the process of applying the truth. Philosophy is the discovery of truth. If you are looking at science create or prove facts your on a different level to me. As we said, the earliest accounts of Egypt identify the people as white with some blacks. If you wish to speculate and cant handle this truth then thats your problem i am of no need to argue since i have established the truth. However, I do accept that Egypt by all means had a changing demography, to what extent and in what proportions is entirely debatable. It is much like locking 100 people of mixed colour in an area and once they leave we try and work out how many blacks and whites. To me it does not make a difference.
LOL...
Now that is funny. No where in history does it refer to the ancient Egyptians as ever being white unless they were dead Egyptians. Yet if you have some proof to this doctrine from Stormfront I would love to see it.
While your at it can you define black for me. You said the White Egyptians had some black in them.
Look why don't you explain white, black and a euro Egypt.
This post is funny at best ... and down right foolish at worst.
Posted by nur23_you55ouf (Member # 10191) on :
quote:
Two....thousand....years.
More than enough time to cause some to believe in an indeginously "white" egypt.
I guess such a time period of intermingling will generate such a flawed belief in some folks, void of rationality. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
The "problem" is practical.
Many people - certainly many modern Egyptians - have at least a superficial interest in some form of identification with Ancient Egypt.
At the same time, modern peoples have collective, ethnic, national, racial and other forms of identification.
To accept the reality of and African Ancient Egypt creates a certain amount of conflict for non African enthusiasts of Ancient Egpt.
Likewise the modern African voice has been until recently sublimated and/or intimidated, so that even today there is rationale among a minority of African scholars that says in effect -> Give non Africans Ancient Egypt, and focus on 'elsewhere'.
But such and approach is neither honest nor honorable.
Accepting a discourse rooted in someone else's dishonesty ultimately makes you just as dishonest.
It's also cowardly and foolish to believe that Africans can run away from the intellectual battle over the history of the Nile Valley, and 'resume' the fight elsewhere.
The Nile Valley is critical terrority....the high ground of African history. Once you surrender the high ground, the fight is all but over.
Posted by One_and_Done (Member # 10712) on :
quote:there is rationale among a minority of African scholars that says in effect -> Give non Africans Ancient Egypt, and focus on 'elsewhere'.
From what I perceive from people of European decent is that in order for them to claim Ancient Egypt (even by proxy), they have to lay claim to other Africans.
My guess is it's because of the murals they left behind and the fact the Ancient Egyptians said they were from the land of Punt.
So they claim that Ethiopians, Eritreans, Somalis are caucasoid/hamitic.
They also claim that the people identified by the bogus term "Nubians" were caucasoid/hamitic. This is kind of funny because on one hand they are the equally fake term "Negroes" when they want to separate Africans from Ancient Egyptians and then on the other hand they are caucasians when it comes time to claim the bogus "Nubians" history.
Then since they claim the bogus "Nubians" as caucasoid/hamitic they claim the rest of the Sudanese population caucasoid/hamitic.
Then they go from there and claim populations in Chad, Niger, Mali, and Nigeria.
In the East they go from Ethiopia to Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and South Africa.
I have actually come across two independent forums\websites that said that some Zulus have caucasoid skulls.
Its as if when they claim someone as caucasoid, if anyone else has something in common with the said caucasoid group then they become caucasoid as well.
An AA woman on Wikipedia (correctly in my opinion) stated that they are basically trying to whittle indigenous Africans down to a few villages in west and central Africa.
Someone there also linked to a European decented scientist that said the purest "Negro" is that of the Pygmy stock. Which my take on what the person is saying is that everybody in Africa outside of the Pygmy is mixed.
Posted by ARROW99 (Member # 11614) on :
I have never heard a European scholar 'claim' anyone.
Posted by Willing Thinker {What Box} (Member # 10819) on :
Mainstream view of Kemet -- up
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: I have never heard a European scholar 'claim' anyone.
quote:They were pieces of a broken human face .... Here were the remains of a very ancient and fine type of art .... These meagre relics were eloquent of a symmetry, a vitality, a delicacy of form directly reminiscent of ancient Greece and a proof that, once upon a time, a race, far superior in strain to the negro, had been settled here. Leo Frobenius, German ethnographer on first seeing terracotta sculptures in Ife, Nigeria. 1910
He went on to say Atlantians must have settled here
Others believed it must have been a white man that travled to Nigeria and made all the art
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Yes, but have you read enough of Froebenius to know who he identifies as Atlantean and where he believes Atlantis was located? And do you have the exact Froebenius citation in Und Afrika Sprach were he allegedly makes that racialist statement?
quote: "idea of the barbaric Negro is a European invention,"
That's the kind of statement I expect from Froebenius.
Césaire, Senghor, and their colleagues in the Négritude movement had been fascinated with Leo Frobenius, the German irrationalist whose massive ethnography, Histoire de la civilisation Africaine, provided a powerful defense of African civilization. See Suzanne Césaire, "Leo Frobenius and the Problem of Civilization [1941]," in Michael Richardson, ed., Refusal of the Shadow, pp. 82-87; L.S. Senghor, "The Lessons of Leo Frobenius," in Leo Frobenius: An Anthology, ed. E. Haberland (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1973), p. vii; Jacqueline Leiner, "Entretien avec A.C."
Robin D.G. Kelley Poetics of Anticolonialism intro to Aimé Césaire Discourse on Colonialism Monthly Review Press, 2000
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Interesting. This comes to show that not all early white Western scholars were racist.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Yes, but have you read enough of Froebenius to know who he identifies as Atlantean and where he believes Atlantis was located? And do you have the exact Froebenius citation in Und Afrika Sprach were he allegedly makes that racialist statement?
quote: "idea of the barbaric Negro is a European invention,"
That's the kind of statement I expect from Froebenius.
Césaire, Senghor, and their colleagues in the Négritude movement had been fascinated with Leo Frobenius, the German irrationalist whose massive ethnography, Histoire de la civilisation Africaine, provided a powerful defense of African civilization. See Suzanne Césaire, "Leo Frobenius and the Problem of Civilization [1941]," in Michael Richardson, ed., Refusal of the Shadow, pp. 82-87; L.S. Senghor, "The Lessons of Leo Frobenius," in Leo Frobenius: An Anthology, ed. E. Haberland (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1973), p. vii; Jacqueline Leiner, "Entretien avec A.C."
Robin D.G. Kelley Poetics of Anticolonialism intro to Aimé Césaire Discourse on Colonialism Monthly Review Press, 2000
According to the BBC program on Ife and Benin he believed Atlantis was a lost Greek colony
That's where I first heared about it, so did he change his mind about "a race far superior in strain to the negro must have settled here"
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Forget the BBC program. What does he himself say in his book Und Afrika Sprach available in English as The Voice of Africa?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
OK, my copy of Voice of Africa, which I recollect being in two volumes, is unavailable but I did dig up the citation and yes that quote appears on page 89.
So I have to conclude that you're correct and somewhere along the line Frobenius altered his original opinion about what his negroes were capable of accomplishing.
Thanks for the lesson!
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: OK, my copy of Voice of Africa, which I recollect being in two volumes, is unavailable but I did dig up the citation and yes that quote appears on page 89.
So I have to conclude that you're correct and somewhere along the line Frobenius altered his original opinion about what his negroes were capable of accomplishing.
Thanks for the lesson!
Thank you for the lesson as well
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
[Off topic material transferred to Frobenius thread.]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
The scientifically mainstream view of ancient Egyptians is clear-- they are indigenous Africans.
Now whether or not they are "black" is the main argument that goes on, especially in mainstream Egyptology.
Of course such an argument is rooted in silly semantics which stem from racist bias and denial.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
How do mainstream Egyptologists say about Greeks thinking the Egyptions were black?
That was after the early dynasties but don't many say that the Egyptions have looked consistently the same over history
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The first thing you must understand is that Egyptology besides involving alot of guess work when working with an extinct ancient culture is also an institution that is unfortunately rooted in Eurocentrism. As such, it is actually a rare event for Egyptologists in general to come to a common consensus about something, especially when it comes to the "racial" identification of the Egyptians. Some Egyptologists have no problem acknowledging the Egyptians were black, while others do.
As for the accounts made by ancient Greeks and others who described the Egyptians, again some historians who have a problem in racial bias tend to argue against such accounts and go so far as to argue what the very meaning of the words the Greeks used. They would say a Greek word like melanchroes or Maure "doesn't mean black", when that is exactly what Greeks today mean by it as well as early English translators.
So in short, what so-called "experts" say on such matters depends on the individual expert.
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The scientifically mainstream view of ancient Egyptians is clear-- they are indigenous Africans.
Now whether or not they are "black" is the main argument that goes on, especially in mainstream Egyptology.
Of course such an argument is rooted in silly semantics which stem from racist bias and denial.
It really does become a semantics argument. I'd go farther and say that the accepted view is that the Egyptians came from a southern region. That seems to be pretty well established.
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ The first thing you must understand is that Egyptology besides involving alot of guess work when working with an extinct ancient culture is also an institution that is unfortunately rooted in Eurocentrism. As such, it is actually a rare event for Egyptologists in general to come to a common consensus about something, especially when it comes to the "racial" identification of the Egyptians. Some Egyptologists have no problem acknowledging the Egyptians were black, while others do.
As for the accounts made by ancient Greeks and others who described the Egyptians, again some historians who have a problem in racial bias tend to argue against such accounts and go so far as to argue what the very meaning of the words the Greeks used. They would say a Greek word like melanchroes or Maure "doesn't mean black", when that is exactly what Greeks today mean by it as well as early English translators.
So in short, what so-called "experts" say on such matters depends on the individual expert.
What Egyptologists do you know that call the Egyptians black?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ To name just a few, Barbara Walker, Michael Rice, Kent Weeks, and Frank Yurco. Although Yurco and others have a 'round about' way of stating it rather than direct and outright.
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
never mind
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
IIRC while never stating AEs were blacks Yurco did relate an anecdote about how his Black American wife was taken for Egyptian by modern Egyptians who, by the way, mistook their traveling companion for a foreigner even though she was a born(?) Egyptian citizen.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, Yurco often described the ancient Egyptian skin color as "medium to dark brown" as being best represented by modern day rural peasants especially in southern Egypt. Again, a 'round about way' of saying they're "black".
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
No. Yurco was very determined to not have AE's known as blacks despite the fact that western "blacks" (African Americans and a coloured Caribbean) were taken for modern Egyptians in his own life experience.
quote:Richard Poe author of Black Spark, White Fire wrote:
One day, Diane and an Egyptian friend decided to explore a nearby village, while Yurco was busy with his archaeological work. Onlookers stared at the two women and exchanged comments.
"The short one is definitely Egyptian," opined one villager, within earshot of the women. "The other one is probably a khawaja – a foreigner."
But just the opposite was true. Yurco's wife was the khawaja and her friend the Egyptian. Diane's African blood made her look Egyptian, while her friend's partially French ancestry gave her a foreign appearance.
Frank Yurco Were the Ancient Egyptians Black or White? Biblical Archaeology Review (Sept-Oct 1989)
Compare and contrast the above statement with that in your last post (which reads like something Ausar once posted here).
You may wish to interpret Yurco in a way that agrees with your thought, but that is not how the man himself actually thought, believed, or taught.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ I discussed Yurco with Ausar awhile back.
It is true that he is less Eurocentric that most, and is willing to acknowledge the African Egypt.
He stated flatly that of non "Egyptians", AE were ethnically closest to "Nubians". [which, to the extint that we accept for sake of argument distinction between Egyptian and Nubian - is de facto - true]
However, he also participated in knowing deception over the Tomb of Ramses III mural, which he essentially, and lyingly claimed did not exist.
He accepted the reality of African Kemet, but remained threatened by the reality of the Black Kemet.
On this matter, he tended to play the condescending white liberal, trying to correct the 'misperceptions' of 'others', all the while lying thru his teeth.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Precisely.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: He accepted the reality of African Kemet, but remained threatened by the reality of the Black Kemet.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: I discussed Yurco with Ausar awhile back.
It is true that he is less Eurocentric that most, and is willing to acknowledge the African Egypt.
He stated flatly that of non "Egyptians", AE were ethnically closest to "Nubians". [which, to the extint that we accept for sake of argument distinction between Egyptian and Nubian - is de facto - true]
However, he also participated in knowing deception over the Tomb of Ramses III mural, which he essentially, and lyingly claimed did not exist.
He accepted the reality of African Kemet, but remained threatened by the reality of the Black Kemet.
On this matter, he tended to play the condescending white liberal, trying to correct the 'misperceptions' of 'others', all the while lying thru his teeth.
On this I agree. The guy (R.I.P.) while not as racist or Eurocentric as his peers still struggled with prejudice. I just hope he broke free before his death.
![[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)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)