Did Native Egyptians from upper or lower Egypt ever rebel against Cleopatra and her family or did they accept them with no major problems? I wonder about Cleopatra specifically since she's often who people think of when they think of Egypt but general information's cool to share too if you have it. How was she received by natives?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Did Native Egyptians from upper or lower Egypt ever rebel against Cleopatra and her family or did they accept them with no major problems? I wonder about Cleopatra specifically since she's often who people think of when they think of Egypt but general information's cool to share too if you have it. How was she received by natives?
Alexander had the priest killed and the population marginalized.
“Cleopatra of Macedonia (Greek: Κλεοπάτρα; c. 355/354 BC – 308 BC), or Cleopatra of Epirus, was a Greek Epirote-Macedonian princess and later queen regent of Epirus. The daughter of Philip II of Macedon and Olympias of Epirus, she was the only full sibling of Alexander the Great. Her other siblings include half sisters Thessalonike and Cynane, and half-brother Philip III of Macedon.“ ~Wiki
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Thank you very much. If you have any info on Cleo VII, I hope you or anyone else can share that too.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Alexander had the priest killed and the population marginalized.
do you have any sources saying that?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Did Native Egyptians from upper or lower Egypt ever rebel against Cleopatra and her family or did they accept them with no major problems? I wonder about Cleopatra specifically since she's often who people think of when they think of Egypt but general information's cool to share too if you have it. How was she received by natives?
After the death of Ramesses XI, his successor Smendes ruled from the city of Tanis in the north, while the High Priests of Amun at Thebes had effective rule of the south of the country, whilst still nominally recognizing Smendes as king. In fact, this division was less significant than it seems, since both priests and pharaohs came from the same family. Piankh, assumed control of Upper Egypt, ruling from Thebes, with the northern limit of his control ending at Al-Hibah. (The High Priest Herihor had died before Ramesses XI, but also was an all-but-independent ruler in the latter days of the king's reign.) The country was once again split into two parts with the priests in Thebes and the Pharaohs at Tanis. Their reign seems without other distinction, and they were replaced without any apparent struggle by the Libyan kings of the Twenty-Second Dynasty.
NUBIAN RULE
After the withdrawal of Egypt from Nubia at the end of the New Kingdom, a native dynasty took control of Nubia. Under king Piye, the Nubian founder of Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, the Nubians pushed north in an effort to crush his Libyan opponents ruling in the Delta. Piye managed to attain power as far as Memphis. His opponent Tefnakhte ultimately submitted to him, but he was allowed to remain in power in Lower Egypt and founded the short-lived Twenty-Fourth Dynasty at Sais. The Kushite kingdom to the south took full advantage of this division and political instability and defeated the combined might of several native-Egyptian rulers such as Peftjaubast, Osorkon IV of Tanis, and Tefnakht of Sais. Piye was succeeded first by his brother, Shabaka, and then by his two sons Shebitku and Taharqa. Taharqa reunited the "Two lands" of Northern and Southern Egypt and created an empire that was as large as it had been since the New Kingdom.
ASSYRIAN RULE
From 671 BC on, Memphis and the Delta region became the target of many attacks from the Assyrians, who expelled the Nubians and handed over power to client kings of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. Psamtik I was the first recognized as the king of the whole of Egypt, and he brought increased stability to the country during a 54-year reign from the new capital of Sais. Four successive Saite kings continued guiding Egypt successfully and peacefully from 610–526 BC, keeping the Babylonians in certain measures away with the help of Greek mercenaries.
However, during this period Babylonian emperor Nebuchadnezzar II (605–562 BC) campaigned against the Egyptians and drove them back over the Sinai. And in 567 BC he went to war with Pharaoh Amasis, and briefly invaded Egypt itself.
PERSIAN RULE
By the end of this period a new power was growing in the Near East: Persia. The pharaoh Psamtik III had to face the might of Persia at Pelusium; he was defeated and briefly escaped to Memphis, but ultimately was captured and then executed. Persian domination Main article: History of Achaemenid Egypt
Achaemenid Egypt can be divided into three eras: the first period of Persian occupation when Egypt became a satrapy, followed by an interval of independence, and the second and final period of occupation.
The Persian king Cambyses assumed the formal title of Pharaoh, called himself Mesuti-Re ("Re has given birth"), and sacrificed to the Egyptian gods. He founded the Twenty-seventh dynasty. Egypt was then joined with Cyprus and Phoenicia in the sixth satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire.
GREEK RULE
In 332 BC Alexander III of Macedon conquered Egypt with little resistance from the Persians. He was welcomed by the Egyptians as a deliverer. He visited Memphis, and went on a pilgrimage to the oracle of Amun at the Oasis of Siwa. The oracle declared him the son of Amun. He conciliated the Egyptians by the respect he showed for their religion, but he appointed Greeks to virtually all the senior posts in the country, and founded a new Greek city, Alexandria, to be the new capital. The wealth of Egypt could now be harnessed for Alexander's conquest of the rest of the Persian Empire. Early in 331 BC he led his forces away to Phoenicia, never returning to Egypt.
Following Alexander's death in Babylon in 323 BC, a succession crisis erupted among his generals. Perdiccas ruled the empire as regent for Alexander's half-brother Arrhidaeus, who became Philip III of Macedon, and Alexander's infant son Alexander IV of Macedon. Perdiccas appointed Ptolemy, one of Alexander's closest companions, to rule Egypt in the name of the joint kings. However, as Alexander's empire disintegrated, Ptolemy soon established himself as ruler in his own right. Ptolemy successfully defended Egypt against an invasion by Perdiccas in 321 BC and consolidated his position in Egypt and the surrounding areas during the Wars of the Diadochi (322–301 BC). In 305 BC, Ptolemy took the title of Pharaoh. As Ptolemy I Soter ("Saviour"), he founded the Ptolemaic dynasty that was to rule Egypt for nearly 300 years.
The later Ptolemies took on Egyptian traditions by marrying their siblings, had themselves portrayed on public monuments in Egyptian style and dress, and participated in Egyptian religious life.[33][34] Hellenistic culture thrived in Egypt well after the Muslim conquest. The Egyptians soon accepted the Ptolemies as the successors to the pharaohs of independent Egypt. Ptolemy's family ruled Egypt until the Roman conquest of 30 BC.
All the male rulers of the dynasty took the name Ptolemy. Ptolemaic queens regnant, some of whom were the sisters of their husbands, were usually called Cleopatra, Arsinoe or Berenice. The most famous member of the line was the last queen, Cleopatra VII, known for her role in the Roman political battles between Julius Caesar and Pompey, and later between Octavian and Mark Antony. Her apparent suicide at the conquest by Rome marked the end of Ptolemaic rule in Egypt.
ROMAN RULE
The Ptolemies faced rebellions of native Egyptians, often caused by an unwanted regime, and were involved in foreign and civil wars that led to the decline of the kingdom and its annexation by Rome. Nevertheless, Hellenistic culture continued to thrive in Egypt well after the Muslim conquest. The native Egyptian/Coptic culture continued to exist as well (the Coptic language itself was Egypt's most widely spoken language until at least the 10th century).
Egypt quickly became the Empire's breadbasket supplying the greater portion of the Empire's grain in addition to flax, papyrus, glass, and many other finished goods. The city of Alexandria became a key trading outpost for the Roman Empire (by some accounts, the most important for a time).
In 30 BC, following the death of Cleopatra VII, the Roman Empire declared that Egypt was a province (Aegyptus), and that it was to be governed by a prefect selected by the Emperor from the Equestrian class and not a governor from the Senatorial order, to prevent interference by the Roman Senate. The main Roman interest in Egypt was always the reliable delivery of grain to the city of Rome. To this end the Roman administration made no change to the Ptolemaic system of government, although Romans replaced Greeks in the highest offices. But Greeks continued to staff most of the administrative offices and Greek remained the language of government except at the highest levels. Unlike the Greeks, the Romans did not settle in Egypt in large numbers. Culture, education and civic life largely remained Greek throughout the Roman period. The Romans, like the Ptolemies, respected and protected Egyptian religion and customs, although the cult of the Roman state and of the Emperor was gradually introduced.
Posted by AshaT (Member # 22658) on :
Some quotes from older threads:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Though on the other hand, you do have to wonder why the North Sudanese, even after adopting the Arabic language and Islamic culture, still retain more indigenous African ancestry than Egyptians. What kept the Arabs, Greco-Romans, et cetera from colonizing Nubia to the extent they did Egypt?
Anyone have any other ideas? My take is that the Egyptians expo/erienced more outside gene flow compared to say the less productive reasons of Sudan. In Greco/Roman times Egypt was the granary of the Medit. It had a good strategic location and fed the ROman empire. It was rich and productive. Hyskos, PErsians, Assyrians, Romans, Greeks and most of all Arabs (who havent left yet) swarmed in. The native population did not totally disappear but all these influences made significant changes- demographically, culturally, economically, etc etc
First of all, the Kushites were not Nubian speakers.Secondly, there has been more gene flow in Egypt, than Nubia, because most Egyptians migrated into Kush, during Roman rule. So there were less Egyptians living in Egypt than earlier times.
Beginning with the Assyrian defeat of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty large numbers of nomadic people from the Middle East began to migrate into Egypt. These foreign people began to take over many Egyptian settlements. In response, Egyptians fled to Nubia and Kush to avoid non-Egyptian rule.
Other political and military conflicts erupted after the Assyrians defeated the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. These incidents led many Egyptians to migrate out of Egypt into Nubia and Kush. For example, Herodotus’ mentions the mutiny of Psamtik I’s frontier garrison at Elephantine—these deserters moved into Kush.
The archaizing trend in Kush among the post Twenty-Fifth Dynasty Kings testify to a possible large migration of Egyptians into Kush. In 343 BC Nectanebos II, fled to Upper Egypt. Later according to the Natasen period stela we have evidence of other Egyptians migrating into Kush from Egypt (Torok, 1997, p.391).
Between the 260’s-270’s BC Upper Egyptian Nationalists were fighting the Ptolemy (Greek) rulers of Egypt. The rebellion was put down by Ptolemy II. This military action led to Egyptians migrating out of Egypt into Kush (Torok, pp.395-396). Rebellions continued in Egypt into the 2nd Century BC (Torok, p.426).
Between Ptolomy II and Ptolemy V, the Greeks began to settle Egypt. This was especially true in the 150’sBC. These conflicts led to many Egyptians migrating into Nubia and the Sudan. By the time the Romans entered Egypt, many Egyptians had already left Egypt and settled in the Meroitic Sudan.
Roman politics also forced many Egyptians to migrate into Kush. This was compounded by the introduction of the Pax Agusta policy of the Romans which sought the establishment of Roman hegemony within territories under Roman rule . This led to the emigration of many Romans into Egypt, and the migration of Egyptians into Kush.
During most of Kushite history the elites used Egyptian for record keeping since it was recognized as a neutral language.As more and more Egyptians, fled to Kush as it came under foreign domination . Egyptians became a large minority in the Meroitic Empire. Because of Egyptian migrations to Kush, by the rule of the Meroitic Queen Shanakdakheto, we find the Egyptian language abandoned as a medium of exchange in official Kushite records, and the Meroitic script takes its place.
The textual and historical evidence is clear. There was a large migration of Egyptian speaking nationals into Kush, which left Egypt ripe for population change. .
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Not to steer to far off the topic but Id like to re-dedicate this thread to the evidence of Nehshi/Nubian Egyptian Rulers and Royals having power in KMT
Towards the end of Kemetic Rule a little known Nubian Egyptian nearly threw off PTolomaic Rule and restored Native Nile-Valley Rule
Hugronaphor (also known as Hurganophor, Haronnophris, Harmachis, Hyrgonaphor, Herwennefer, or Horwennefer) was an Upper Egyptian of apparently Nubian origin[1] who led Upper Egypt in secession from the rule of Ptolemy IV Philopator in 205 BC. No monuments are attested to this king but along with his successor Ankhmakis (also known as Chaonnophris or Ankhwennefer[2]) he held a large part of Egypt until 186 BC. A graffito dating to about 201 BC on a wall of the mortuary Temple of Seti I at Abydos, in which he is called by the Greek name Hyrgonaphor, is an attestation to the extent of his influence.[2] He appears to have died before 197 BC.
The Abydene graffito, one of the few documents remaining from his reign, is written in Egyptian using Greek letters, the oldest testimony of a development which would end in the Coptic script replacing the native Egyptian demotic
His Successsor
Ankhmakis
Ankhmakis (also known as Chaonnophris or Ankhwennefer[1]) was the successor of Hugronaphor, a rebel ruler who controlled much of Upper Egypt during the reigns of Ptolemies IV and V. His rule lasted from approximately 199 to 185 BC.
Ankhmakis succeeded Hugronaphor as king of Upper Egypt in 199, or thereabouts, and managed to win back as much as 80% of the country. He held Lykopolis (modern Asyut) in 197 BC but was later forced to withdraw to Thebes. The war between North and South continued until 185 BC, when Ankhmakis was arrested by the Ptolemaic General Conanus.[2] The Rosetta Stone was carved in a gesture of thanks to the priests for helping to defeat him. Little is known about the details of his reign as most of records thereof were destroyed.
Here's each article's references + bibliography:
quote:
Hugronaphor:
References Edit Robert Steven Bianchi, Daily life of the Nubians, Greenwood Press, 2004, p. 224 Günther Hölbl, History of the Ptolemaic Empire, Routledge, 2000, pp. 155ff. Willy Clarysse (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven), The Great Revolt of the Egyptians, Lecture held at the Center for the Tebtunis Papyri, University of California at Berkeley, on March 16, 2004, accessed 15 August 2006
Bibliography Edit The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian by Joseph Mélèze-Modrzejewski, Princeton University Press 1997, p. 150
Ankhmakis:
References Edit Günther Hölbl, History of the Ptolemaic Empire, Routledge, 2000, pp. 155ff. Second Philae Decree
Bibliography Edit Robert Steven Bianchi, Daily life of the Nubians, Greenwood Press, 2004, p. 224 Joseph Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian, Princeton University Press 1997, p. 150 Willy Clarysse (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven), The Great Revolt of the Egyptians, Lecture held at the Center for the Tebtunis Papyri, University of California at Berkeley, on March 16, 2004.
Harsiesi Harsiesi (? – 130 BC) was an ancient Egyptian rebel against the rule of Ptolemy VIII Physcon of the Ptolemaic Dynasty.
Harsiesi Rebel pharaoh Reign 131-130 BC (Ptolemaic Dynasty (non dynastic)) Royal titulary Father Paious? Died September 130 BC Biography Edit Probably the same person of "Harsiesi, son of Paious" (Paious meaning "Enemy of the gods"), he was arguably the last native Egyptian to call himself "Pharaoh", although ruling only on the southern part of Upper Egypt and only for a brief period.[2]
Taking advantage of the civil war between Ptolemy VIII and his sister Cleopatra II,[3] Harsiesi captured Thebes in the summer of 131 BC and likely assumed pharaonic titles, although only his nomen is known, Ḥr-sA-Js(t ) sA-Wsjr, meaning "Harsiesi, son of Osiris" (literally "Horus-son-of-Isis, son of Osiris"), as reported on the demotic papyrus Karara 1, 2. Ptolemy's forces recaptured the city in November of the same year, yet Harsiesi led the rebellion until his death, likely occurred in September 130 BC.[2]
References Edit von Beckerath, Jürgen (1999), Handbuch der Agyptischer Königsnamen, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz, p. 246 Bennett, Chris. "Harsiesi". Tyndale House. Retrieved 15 October 2016. "Ptolemy VIII Physcon". Livius.org. Retrieved 15 October 2016. Véïsse, A.-E. (2004). "Les "révoltes égyptiennes": Recherches sur les troubles intérieurs en Égypte du règne de Ptolémée III Évergète à la conquête romaine". Studia Hellenistica. 41.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Alexander had the priest killed and the population marginalized.
do you have any sources saying that?
This is well known, even to people who only know basic Egyptology.
"Alexander, the westerner, who was dwelling in Egypt, and he burned them up. And he killed several high priests and judges and priests and the masters of the Magians and upholders of the religion"
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Did Native Egyptians from upper or lower Egypt ever rebel against Cleopatra and her family or did they accept them with no major problems? I wonder about Cleopatra specifically since she's often who people think of when they think of Egypt but general information's cool to share too if you have it. How was she received by natives?
Alexander had the priest killed and the population marginalized.
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Alexander had the priest killed and the population marginalized.
do you have any sources saying that?
This is well known, even to people who only know basic Egyptology.
"Alexander, the westerner, who was dwelling in Egypt, and he burned them up. And he killed several high priests and judges and priests and the masters of the Magians and upholders of the religion"
Stop the bullshit, the quote of your source is talking about killing Persian priests The Achaemenids Persians from what is now Iran conquered Egypt twice, 525–404 and 343–332 BC, until Alexander's conquest
(from the Book of Arda Wiraz, a Persian religious text of the Sasanians)
They say that, once upon a time, the pious Zarathustra made the religion, which he had received, current in the world; and till the completion of three hundred years, the religion was in purity, and men were without doubts. But afterward, the accursed Evil Spirit, the Wicked One, in order to make men doubtful of this religion, instigated the accursed Alexander, the westernernote who was dwelling in Egypt, so that he came to the country of Iran with severe cruelty and war and devastation; he also slew the ruler of Iran,note and destroyed the metropolisnote and empire, and made them desolate.
And this religion, namely, all the Avesta and Zand,note written upon prepared cow-skins, and with gold ink, was deposited in the archives, in Ishtakr, and the hostility of the evil-destined, wicked Ashemok,note the evil-doer, brought onward Alexander, the westerner, who was dwelling in Egypt, and he burned them up. And he killed several high priests and judges and priests and the masters of the Magians and upholders of the religion, and the competent and wise of the country of Iran. And he cast hatred and strife, one with the other, amongst the nobles and householders of the country of Iran; and self-destroyed,note he fled to hell.
And after that, there were confusion and contention among the people of the country of Iran, one with the other. And so they had no lord, nor ruler, nor chieftain, nor high priest who was acquainted with the religion, and they were doubtful in regard to God; and religions of many kinds, and different fashions of belief, and skepticism, and various codes of law were promulgated in the world; until the time when the blessed and immortal Ataropad-i Marspendannote was born; on whose breast, in the tale which is in the Denkard, melted brass was poured.
This is the full sentence
"And he killed several high priests and judges and priests and the masters of the Magians and upholders of the religion, and the competent and wise of the country of Iran."
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Stop the bullshit, the quote of your source is talking about killing Persian priests The Achaemenids Persians from what is now Iran conquered Egypt twice, 525–404 and 343–332 BC, until Alexander's conquest
It's not bullshit. According to the Max Planck propaganda it is correct.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Stop the bullshit, the quote of your source is talking about killing Persian priests The Achaemenids Persians from what is now Iran conquered Egypt twice, 525–404 and 343–332 BC, until Alexander's conquest
The Persian religious text you quoted may or may not be accurate
The bullshit part is you chopping off the end of the sentence where it says it is talking about Iran so you could make it seem like it was talking about killing priests in Egypt. Alexander conquered Egypt from Persian rule in 332-333 BC. After that, in 331 he conquered Persia.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
After the Ramessids, the Priests of Upper Egypt were still affiliated with the cult of Amun which was associated with Gebel Barkal in Sudan. The hereditary institution called "God's Wife of Amun" was ultimate manifestation of this and started with the in Queen Ahmose Nefertari. This institution and the association of the high priests of Amun with Gebel Barkal in Sudan and the various Sudanese cultures in the region go back to this time as well. And therefore after the Ramessid era, Egypt was basically split in half with the Upper portion still associated with Sudan as seen in the rise of the 25th dynasty. But this southern regency was maintained even after the 25th well into the Roman Era.
quote: this in his Res Gestae “two armies were led at about the same time into Aethiopia and into the Arabia called Felix". Before the Romans had even tried anything, the Nubians attacked the Thebaid, and the Roman garrison at Syene. They enslaved inhabitants and pulled down Augustus’ statues. The prefect of Egypt, Petronius led 10,000 infantry against 30,000 Nubians, chasing them back to Nubia. He then sacked the seat of the Nubian queen – queen Candace (actually Queen Amanirenas, with title of “candace”) known from Nubian inscriptions. He enslaved the inhabitants (sending 1,000 to Augustus presumably for the games) and set up a Roman garrison nearby. However, after the change in imperial policy later in Octavian Augustus, the Romans gave up their ambitions to conquer Meroe. They instead treated it as a "client state". Strabo talks about the Nubian ambassadors making a treaty with Augustus.
It wasn't until the Mameluke era that the power centers in Upper Egypt and Sudan were defeated under Muhammed Ali in his various expeditions (because by this time many of the Sudanese and Upper Egyptians were Christian).
As for the Romans and the massacre of Egyptian priests this happened after Christianity became the official religion of Rome.
quote: The decree of February 391: prohibited to enter in temples
24 February 391 the emperor Theodosius, said from the Christians " the Great", a person who has been baptized as a christian in 380, emitted the legislative provision " Nemo se hostiis polluat ", that:
- renewed the putting to the ban of any sacrifice, public or private;
- prohibited the traditional ceremonies of State still in use in Rome:
- prohibited for the first time the access to the sanctuaries and the temples: " nobody can approach the sacrifical altars, can walk inside the temples or can worship images forged by human hands ";
- forbade in an explicit way the apostasy from the Christianity , pain the loss of testamentary rights.
The provision had been strongly wanted by the new minister of the Interior, the catholic Rufinus , and by saint Ambrosius bishop of Milan, in agreement with the groups of monks engaged to plunder and to destroy illegally pagan temples in the oriental provinces.
The traditions and the patrimony of the classic culture were cancelled by a provision modeled on the behavior held by hebrew people towards the religion of the canaanitic people.
The decree of 16 june 391: extension of the prohibitions
The decree of 16 june 391, emanated in Aquileia, extends the previous dispositions also to Egypt, where Alexandria enjoyed, from ancient date, of special privileges relating to local cults, comprised the sacrifical ceremonies .
The pagans pray in their homes
Under the effect of the persecution many houses became cult places, where the pagans gathered in order to continue in their traditional religion.
The third decree of 391: destroy the temples
With the third decree of 391 the persecution intensified and many felt themselves authorized to begin the destruction of pagan buildings.
In Alexandria the bishop Teophilus began a systematic campaign of destruction of the temples.
The temple of Serapis, greek-egyptian divinity who united in himself Zeus and Osiris, was besieged by the Christians. The bishop Teophilus and the prefect Evagrius, together with the men of the military garrison, started the demolition work. The bishop Teophilus wanted to give good example giving the first stroke against the colossal statue of the God Serapis.
Analogous episodes happened at Petra, Areopolis, Canopus, Heliopolis, Gaza and in many other localities. The emperor Theodosius never did take part in order to stop the Christians.
In Gaul saint Martin of Tours did not want to remain behind regarding to the bishop Teophilus and began a destruction campaign.
The fourth decree of 392: pain of death
The fourth decree was emanated in Constantinople by Theodosius the 8 November of 392. According to the historians Williams and Friell " the decree was characterized by an absolute intransigence towards the local traditions that can be compared to that one of a dictatorial atheistic regimen which criminalized Easter eggs, the palm, Christmas cards, Halloween pumpkins and even some universal habits, as a toast ".
The decree established:
- the pain of death for people who carried out sacrifices and divinatory practices
- the confiscation of the places where they carried out the rituals
- heavy fines for the decurions who did not apply the law faithfully
- the prohibition of libations, altars, votive offerings , torches, domestic divinity of the hearth, crowns and garlands, bands on the trees,
Not ironically much of Christianity was "borrowed" or adapted from ancient Egyptian religion and made into the religion of Empire and eventual global domination.... Just like "Frank"incense doesn't come from the Franks either, it came from Egypt and the Red Sea.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
As for the Romans and the massacre of Egyptian priests this happened after Christianity became the official religion of Rome.
quote:
Analogous episodes happened at Petra, Areopolis, Canopus, Heliopolis, Gaza and in many other localities. The emperor Theodosius never did take part in order to stop the Christians.
In Gaul saint Martin of Tours did not want to remain behind regarding to the bishop Teophilus and began a destruction campaign.
The fourth decree of 392: pain of death
The fourth decree was emanated in Constantinople by Theodosius the 8 November of 392. According to the historians Williams and Friell " the decree was characterized by an absolute intransigence towards the local traditions that can be compared to that one of a dictatorial atheistic regimen which criminalized Easter eggs, the palm, Christmas cards, Halloween pumpkins and even some universal habits, as a toast ".
The decree established:
- the pain of death for people who carried out sacrifices and divinatory practices
- the confiscation of the places where they carried out the rituals
- heavy fines for the decurions who did not apply the law faithfully
- the prohibition of libations, altars, votive offerings , torches, domestic divinity of the hearth, crowns and garlands, bands on the trees,
^^ this is a Christian legal decree not a since not account of Egyptian priests being murdered
wiki:
quote:
Religious syncretism exhibits blending of two or more religious belief systems into a new system, or the incorporation into a religious tradition of beliefs from unrelated traditions
Syncretism with Graeco-Roman religion
Distinctively Roman statue of Isis holding a sistrum and a situla, though they were added in a 17th century reconstruction.[6]
Egyptian religion initially came into contact with Graeco-Roman polytheism, which led to a large degree of syncretism rather than opposition.[b] The cult of Isis spread first to the Hellenistic world in the Ptolemaic period after the conquests of Alexander the Great, and then to Italy and Rome. Though Augustus, after defeating Cleopatra and Mark Antony and annexing Egypt, disallowed statues to Isis and Serapis (another prominent god in Ptolemaic Egypt) within the pomerium,[7] Egyptian deities nevertheless gradually became normalised in Roman religion and were considered by the emperors of the Flavian dynasty as patrons of their rule.[8] In the second and third centuries AD, Isis and Serapis were worshipped in the majority of towns in even the western half of the empire, although they probably did not pervade the countryside.[9] Temples to them exist from Palmyra in Syria to Londinium (modern-day London) in Britannia.[10] In this way, Egyptian religion diffused into that of the Romans and enjoyed a wide range of worship all over the Mediterranean. Despite this, this intercultural diffusion almost certainly involved the modification (Hellenisation) of native Egyptian gods so that they were more palatable for converts.[11] The form that Isis took among Greeks and Romans combined her Egyptian traits with Greco-Roman ideas.
The Emperor Diocletian viewed Christianity as disrupting traditional Roman religion (and thus a greater threat to the solidarity of the empire), so he initiated a severe persecution of Christianity to attempt to kerb its growth in the empire. Though this was not the first edict by an emperor against Christianity to affect Egypt (that being Septimius Severus in AD 202, when he dissolved the Catechetical School of Alexandria and forbade conversion to Christianity), the Diocletianic Persecution would be the acutest. [b]In AD 303, Diocletian ordered all churches destroyed, sacred books burned, and enslaved all Christians who were not officials. This decree was in effect for three years, leading to the Era of Martyrs dating system later created by the Church of Alexandria, but many Egyptian Christians survived the persecution because they were instead sent to work in quarries and mines, as penal labour. Overall, however, the persecutions of Christianity were not successful anywhere in the Empire in ceasing its growth. Traditional religion was already beginning to suffer, even more so in Egypt, where Alexandria was an established and bustling centre for the religion.
Decline of paganism in Egypt
Native Egyptian religion clearly had at least a somewhat substantial effect on Graeco-Roman polytheism; in Egypt itself, however, native religion probably felt little other effect from the new pagan rulers, until the advent of Christianity. Although Augustus built new temples and repaired existing ones in Egypt, Roman religious involvement in the province appears to have peaked here. Later emperors may have done the same on a much smaller scale, but it is evident by the complete lack of involvement after the Nerva-Antonine dynasty that Egyptian religion began to fragment and localise in the wake of the loss of centralisation as in Pharaonic and Ptolemaic Egypt.
Where the pagan religion of the Graeco-Roman world accepted the influence and integration of native Egyptian deities and practices into its own tradition, Christianity was not nearly as accepting. The strict monotheism of the latter was in stark opposition to the freeform syncretism of paganism. Local Christians engaged in campaigns of proselytism and iconoclasm that contributed even more to the erosion of traditional religion. In AD 333, the number of Egyptian bishops is estimated to be just under 100; the Christianisation of the Roman Empire itself, and edicts by Christian emperors in the third and fourth centuries AD compounded the decline, and the last known inscription[18] in hieroglyphics (regarded by some as a symbol of the decline of the religion itself due to their close ties) dates from AD 394, known as the Graffito of Esmet-Akhom. It is located at the temple of Isis on the island of Philae, in Upper Egypt believed to be one of the final remaining places of worship of native Egyptian religion.[19] By this time, Egyptian religion was largely confined to the south of the country and to the distant, isolated Siwa Oasis in the west.[20] This century also saw significant expansion of institutionalised Christianity into Egypt, but adherence to the old religion on a smaller, more local scale was still prevalent.[21] Philae is also the site of the final demotic inscription, dating to AD 452. The temple was closed in AD 553 by Byzantine emperor Justinian I,[22] who ruled from 527 to 565. As official temples fell into disrepair, and religious structures across Egypt declined, the religion gradually faded away.[23]
Though imperial edicts fostered a negative atmosphere towards the pagans, they did not ultimately have a large effect on the disappearance of native religion by themselves. Provincial governors often found that enforcing "anti-pagan" edicts such as those of Theodosius I was incisive, especially in unstable regions, and especially so in Egypt.[25] Though undoubtedly effective to check the civil authority of the cults, local village- and town- based practices seem to have been mostly unaffected by these edicts themselves.
Rather, the erosion of native religion, and eventual destruction altogether, can be attributed to the priests, bishops, and monks who rampaged through the countryside, intent on "eradicating demons".[25] A fiat of AD 423 prescribed penalties to Christians who disturbed the homes (including the shrines) of pagans who were "living quietly" and not breaking the law.
Rather, it is more appropriate to trace the decline of native religion to the state of its infrastructure.
Long since missing the central authority given by a pharaoh or even an emperor as seen with Augustus and other first-century emperors who conserved religious infrastructure in the country, Egyptian religion became more and more localised. Religious leaders gradually lost their authority, a probable factor in the conversions to Christianity contemporaneously and later on.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Stop the bullshit, the quote of your source is talking about killing Persian priests The Achaemenids Persians from what is now Iran conquered Egypt twice, 525–404 and 343–332 BC, until Alexander's conquest
The Persian religious text you quoted may or may not be accurate
The bullshit part is you chopping off the end of the sentence where it says it is talking about Iran so you could make it seem like it was talking about killing priests in Egypt. Alexander conquered Egypt from Persian rule in 332-333 BC. After that, in 331 he conquered Persia.
Several “reliable” sources say the same. Can you show otherwise?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Stop the bullshit, the quote of your source is talking about killing Persian priests The Achaemenids Persians from what is now Iran conquered Egypt twice, 525–404 and 343–332 BC, until Alexander's conquest
The Persian religious text you quoted may or may not be accurate
The bullshit part is you chopping off the end of the sentence where it says it is talking about Iran so you could make it seem like it was talking about killing priests in Egypt. Alexander conquered Egypt from Persian rule in 332-333 BC. After that, in 331 he conquered Persia.
Several “reliable” sources say the same. Can you show otherwise?
So you saying there are several reliable sources showing that you misrepresented a quote pertaining to Persians by saying it was about Egyptians?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Why are you shifting the goal post?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Alexander had the priest killed and the population marginalized.
do you have any sources saying that?
This is well known, even to people who only know basic Egyptology.
"Alexander, the westerner, who was dwelling in Egypt, and he burned them up. And he killed several high priests and judges and priests and the masters of the Magians and upholders of the religion"
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Why are you shifting the goal post?
If the goal was to show Alexander killed Egyptians priests and to prove that you posted a quote about Persian priests being killed but left out the last part of the sentence to make it seem it pertained to Egyptians wouldn't that be you moving the goals post?
The Egyptians didn't want to be ruled by foreigners. However they were relieved to an extent when Alexander replaced the Persians who were comparatively more repressive. The Greeks also hybridized their own polytheism with worship of Egyptian gods.
Posted by Black Crystal (Member # 22903) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Did Native Egyptians from upper or lower Egypt ever rebel against Cleopatra and her family or did they accept them with no major problems? I wonder about Cleopatra specifically since she's often who people think of when they think of Egypt but general information's cool to share too if you have it. How was she received by natives?
Wasn't Cleopatra Black?
Posted by the questioner (Member # 22195) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Did Native Egyptians from upper or lower Egypt ever rebel against Cleopatra and her family or did they accept them with no major problems? I wonder about Cleopatra specifically since she's often who people think of when they think of Egypt but general information's cool to share too if you have it. How was she received by natives?
yes they did
Read about the Egyptian revolt Ankhmakis and Hugronaphor who was from kush led the revolt against the Greek colonizers. you can get this information from polybius' Histories
there were several Cleopatras so be specific
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Did Native Egyptians from upper or lower Egypt ever rebel against Cleopatra and her family or did they accept them with no major problems? I wonder about Cleopatra specifically since she's often who people think of when they think of Egypt but general information's cool to share too if you have it. How was she received by natives?
yes they did
Read about the Egyptian revolt Ankhmakis and Hugronaphor who was from kush led the revolt against the Greek colonizers. you can get this information from polybius' Histories
there were several Cleopatras so be specific
Cleopatra VII
quote:Originally posted by Black Crystal:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Did Native Egyptians from upper or lower Egypt ever rebel against Cleopatra and her family or did they accept them with no major problems? I wonder about Cleopatra specifically since she's often who people think of when they think of Egypt but general information's cool to share too if you have it. How was she received by natives?
Wasn't Cleopatra Black?
Unlikely, she was mostly or completely Greek. And even if she had some Egyptian ancestors, by the the time her family came to Egypt, Lower Egypt and much of Upper Egypt would not be best described as black in phenotype.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: by the the time her family came to Egypt, Lower Egypt and much of Upper Egypt would not be best described as black in phenotype.
Ahistoric nonsense. During and after the Ptolemys, Greeks&Romans author Egyptians a generally black populace, despite centuries of conquest by and well-known admixture with non-Africans.
-350 Ptolemaic era Aristotle wrote Egyptians were too black.
-300 Diogenes lets us know 'Egyptian Vine-shoot' was the nickname of a tall, skinny, twisted neck man of black complexion.
Turn of Eras Strabo tried to explain why Egyptians are darker than Indians.
+ 160 Lucian records a conversant describing an Egyptian boy black.
+ 2nd century Achilles Tatius noted herdsman in the Delta were blackish like half and halves.
+360 Ammianus Marcellinus preserves 4th century Common Era Egyptians as brown and black.
All the above is common knowledge since 1981. As late as Byzantium a north Med writer is still placing Egyptians between Sudan and India colorwise. And the early Islamic authors rank the Qubti among other blacks as per the Semitic religion based views.
EDIT Had to replace the below error.
+60 Ammianus Marcellinus preserves 1st century Common Era as brown and black.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
^ Who would that Byzantine-era writer have been? What I do recall is one writer from late antiquity generalizing Egyptians as “brown to black” (which would suggest heterogeneity) and another saying that people at Elephantine weren’t quite the color as the “Aethiopian” Kushites (with Lower Nubians being “moderately black”. Also, I thought Marcinellius said the Egyptians of his day had a more “medium” tone than Indians or Kushites.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Tell me. What black people aren't brown to black? But white people can be white to pink to brown right?
Gtfooh.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Tell me. What black people aren't brown to black? But white people can be white to pink to brown right?
Gtfooh.
Fair enough, but you didn't answer my other points.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
I have always found it strange that in the USA Elijah Muhammad (example) would be Black (AKA Negro/oid) yet in ancient North Africa a person with the same physiology is considered anything but Black.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Tell me. What black people aren't brown to black? But white people can be white to pink to brown right?
Gtfooh.
Fair enough, but you didn't answer my other points.
Don't need to. All your points were answered save one. Research for yourself. Have done the Greco-Latin authors on skin colour eleventy leven times. You been here all through the decade I made those posts. Others made similar posts. What happened? Did you forget?
Your job is to prove the authors posted above didn't leave us the fore mentioned accounts. Your job is to show Greco-Latin authors saying contemporaneous Egyptians are white pink pale or 'olive'. Your job is to produce G-L listings or comparisons of contemporaneous Egyptians with pallid nationalities like themselves or to the even paler ones to their north.
Now for your one unanswered 'point'. I accept your Byzantium precision and thank you for it! The Astronomica wasn't written by the Byzantine Manilius, my bad. It's an 11th century Byzantine art piece depicts Egyptians as brown or black. That's way too late for an eyewitness account of any Alexander the Great to Theodosius the Great timespan Egyptians.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: ^ Who would that Byzantine-era writer have been? What I do recall is one writer from late antiquity generalizing Egyptians as “brown to black” (which would suggest heterogeneity) and another saying that people at Elephantine weren’t quite the color as the “Aethiopian” Kushites (with Lower Nubians being “moderately black”. Also, I thought Marcinellius said the Egyptians of his day had a more “medium” tone than Indians or Kushites.
Ammianus Marcellinus (born c. 330,[1] died c. 391 – 400) was a Roman soldier and historian who wrote the penultimate major historical account surviving from antiquity (preceding Procopius). His work, known as the Res Gestae, chronicled in Latin the history of Rome from the accession of the Emperor Nerva in 96 to the death of Valens at the Battle of Adrianople in 378,
quote: "AEgyptii plerique, subfusculi sunt et atrati, magisque maestiores, gracilenti et aridi.”
- Marcinellius
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
Where in Egypt did these authors visit and what evidence is there they made it to Egypt?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: Where in Egypt did these authors visit and what evidence is there they made it to Egypt?
the way you answer that question is first you look up Roman Egypt to see the dates when they were there. Then you look up the dates Ammaninus Marcellinius lived
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
My bad, I got Marcenillus confused with someone else. But I still think Tukuler is misquoting someone when he claims Roman-era Egyptians were described as darker than Indians. The quote I remember is that Egyptians of that time were generalized as more "medium" in skin tone than Indians, who in turn were less "sunburnt" than "Aethiopians" (i.e. Kushites).
That said, I don't deny what the other authors said, and I certainly don't disagree that there still would have been some darker-skinned Egyptians during the Roman era (particularly in Upper Egypt). After all, there still are darker-skinned people in Upper Egypt today, such as the ones our old friend ausar tried to impersonate.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Great! Fuck what the authors say. Override it with comforting wishology.
The white Greco-Latin authors are clear. They posit the gen pop as a rule is black.
Tyrannohotep is uncomfortable with that. He knows more than the eyewitnesses and contemporaries. He knows only a paltry "some" are not even black, just darker skinned,lol. He doesn't present a single solitary classical evidence, no not one, in support. He does paint them incompetent liars.
Egypt took on more and more foreigners over the millennia. Never 100% black, it became less and less black. But not until some time after Islam was it non-black.
If this isn't so it'll take more than self-asserting wishology to make anybody outside the choir believe the preacher.
Bring on the contemporaneous authors' quotes and quit pussy footing.
Again Your job is to prove the authors posted above didn't leave us the fore mentioned accounts. Your job is to show Greco-Latin authors saying contemporaneous Egyptians are white pink pale or 'olive'. Your job is to produce G-L listings or comparisons of contemporaneous Egyptians with pallid nationalities like themselves or to the even paler ones to their north.
You can't do it. Why? Because no G-L authors rank Egyptians with even nearby Syrians. You have nothing to back up: "there still would have been some darker-skinned Egyptians during the Roman era (particularly in Upper Egypt)."; a non-black but darkerskinned minority ghetto somewhere in southern Egypt except your imagination. Shiiiit. Some Italians are darker skinned. Oh, so some of the Latin authors were Egyptian complexioned. Rotflmrbao.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
So forget all those non African haplogroups in Hermopolis, Dakleh and Abusir? Cranial evidence most of Egypt changed by the NK, even in parts of Upper Egypt?
quote: Your job is to prove the authors posted above didn't leave us the fore mentioned accounts.
With physical data suggesting they changed by the NK in many parts of Egypt, how do we know the people making these accounts physically visited Egypt? And like I said, if they visited Egypt where in Egypt were they going as this may explain the type of accounts they made.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Many black Americans have non-African haplogroups. Many Namaqua have non-African haplogroups. Somehow they remain black. Oh, it's by observation. And don't look now but non-African ol' boy Cheddar was either brown or black skinned. Sigh.
The Greco-Latin authors didn't do genetic and genome measurements. They used non-metric assessment. An assessment seemingly displeasing you. Their assessment exists, you can't counter it. You can go nonsequitor and shift goals with red herrings.
Anything but bring classical evidence of Italian, Greek, or Syrian complexions as equivalent to the Greco-Roman era (~400BCE-400CE) Egyptians.
I mean gosh it should be so easy. Considering your attempted shift to non-sequitor red herrings. You imply people of the time didn't know what the fuck they were talking about because they never visited Egypt nor ever even seed a Egyptian. They lied and made it up. Guess no Greeks or Romans went in conquered settled and ruled. Soldiers never saw the enemy they killed. Administrators never saw the citizens. Merchants never saw their suppliers and customers. And the settlers were all blindmen and women. It's all a great big classical hoax! Lmtt.
We've seen, what looks like to your chagrin, classical sources. They say, as a rule,Egyptians are brown and black like Indians and Sudanese of the era. Brown and black, just like the complexion descriptions on Egyptian legal sales documents. μελίχρως and μελάγχρως
Honey-brown black natives like an afterglow in Egypt Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Many black Americans have non-African haplogroups.
Let's not isolate what I said. Genetically northern Egypt seemed mostly non African, they find some genes for lighter skin, and they find the lower Egyptian phenotype spreading by the NK into Upper Egypt. Does it mean the "black" phenotype was nowhere? No. But it offers enough reason for us not to take writers at face value if they described them without much diversity. Where in Egypt did these writers supposedly go and what evidence is there that they were ever there?
quote: The Greco-Latin authors didn't do genetic and genome measurements. They used non-metric assessment. An assessment seemingly displeasing you. Their assessment exists, you can't counter it.
Skepticism is not displeasure. Please answer my questions: Where in Egypt were these writers viewing the Egyptians and what evidence do we have they that really went to Egypt?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
+60 Ammianus Marcellinus preserves 1st century Common Era Egyptians as brown and black.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Ammianus Marcellinus (born c. 330,[1] died c. 391 – 400) was a Roman soldier and historian who wrote the penultimate major historical account surviving from antiquity (preceding Procopius).
quote: "AEgyptii plerique, subfusculi sunt et atrati, magisque maestiores, gracilenti et aridi.”
- Marcinellius
Date precision noted. Post in error now edited.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
That's not answering the question. That is the description from a historian. But where in Egypt was he basing his accounts? What evidence do we have that suggests he went to Egypt?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
It's a hoax. They made it up. Alert departments of Classics in all university. Greco-Latin texts are bullshit. They made them knowing those godawful blackcentrics would fall for it. They are laughing in their graves. They send posthumous apologies to the Classicists who were likewise duped.
Ditto for Aithiopians/Aethiopians.
From Hesiod to Marcellinus. For like a 800 year span. What evidence they visited Egypt, Sudan, India? The best hoax ever concocted. Nevermind Egyptians and Sudanis living in Rome. They were invisible. Their Isidae rite temples, like at Pompeii, are part of the hoax. They didn't exist. No Egyptian or Sudani priest to officiate for Egy/Sudani acolytes and European & Levantine co-worshippers. It's all fake.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: That's not answering the question. That is the description from a historian. But where in Egypt was he basing his accounts? What evidence do we have that suggests he went to Egypt?
the way you answer that question is first you look up Roman Egypt to see the dates when the Romans were occupying Egypt. Then you look up the dates Ammaninus Marcellinius lived, who was a soldier and historian for the Romans
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
But how do we know he went to Egypt? and if he went, where in Egypt?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] It's a hoax. They made it up. Alert departments of Classics in all university. Greco-Latin texts are bullshit.
Herodotus already gets the opinion that he stereotyped, embellished or exaggerates. It wouldn't be difficult to imagine he wasn't the only one. We could inversely switch this and say we should discard all the biological data we have on classic writers we have no confirmation traveled to Egypt.
quote:From Hesiod to Marcellinus. For like a 800 year span. What evidence they visited Egypt, Sudan, India? The best hoax ever concocted. Nevermind Egyptians and Sudanis living in Rome. They were invisible.
Egyptians and Sudanis living in Rome would only be a fraction of the population living in the country and Egypt in particular was very diverse in phenotype.
quote:No Egyptian or Sudani priest to officiate for Egy/Sudani acolytes and European & Levantine co-worshippers. It's all fake.
An Egyptian or Sudani priest to officiate doesn't give an accurate picture of how the the majority of Egyptians in the country looked like. I wasn't denying a black phenotype was native to Egypt. I don't think it was the dominant phenotype in many parts of Egypt after the NK though.
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
double post my bad please delete
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: But how do we know he went to Egypt? and if he went, where in Egypt?
the way you answer that question is first you look up Roman Egypt to see the dates when the Romans were occupying Egypt. Then you look up the dates Ammaninus Marcellinius lived, who was a soldier and historian for the Romans
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
No, I don't think that's quite right. Every Roman soldier went to Egypt to rightly assume this historian did? And to assume he did also doesn't explain where in Egypt he visited.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: [QUOTE]Genetically northern Egypt seemed mostly non African, they find some genes for lighter skin, and they find the lower Egyptian phenotype spreading by the NK into Upper Egypt. Does it mean the "black" phenotype was nowhere?
Hi Oshun - We seem to be conflating two different terms, i.e. "Black" and "African". Defining terms facilitates clarity. When you say African and Black what do you mean? Also, since most evidence suggests bi-directional gene flow in and out of Africa since the OOA movement what is the cut-off/threshold for one to be objectively Black or African in genetic terms and in phenetic terms? thanks
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: [qb] [QUOTE]Genetically northern Egypt seemed mostly non African, they find some genes for lighter skin, and they find the lower Egyptian phenotype spreading by the NK into Upper Egypt. Does it mean the "black" phenotype was nowhere?
Hi Oshun - We seem to be conflating two different terms, i.e. "Black" and "African".
In the United States "Black" means "of African decent"
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
It is best to use the whole statement to understand what I mean. It's not just the fact the remains show affinities outside of Africa. It's the fact that there's evidence of lighter skin tones and the fact that cranial data suggests a shift into the NK where the Lower Egyptian phenotype becomes more widespread throughout Egypt. It'd be helpful in piecing all this data together to know if these historians went to Egypt personally, and if the did what parts of Egypt were they basing their claims off of?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QUOTE]OIn the United States "Black" means "of African decent"
In most cases this is true. However, the US Census classifies a person as white if they have origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. Regardless or phenotype or genetics.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: It's the fact that there's evidence of lighter skin tones and the fact that cranial data suggests a shift into the NK where the Lower Egyptian phenotype becomes more widespread throughout Egypt.
Is it possible for the general population of Late Kingdom Egyptians to be generally Black, yet have lighter skin and different cranial facial traits than neolithic Naqada people?
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
delete
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: It's the fact that there's evidence of lighter skin tones and the fact that cranial data suggests a shift into the NK where the Lower Egyptian phenotype becomes more widespread throughout Egypt.
Is it possible for the general population of Late Kingdom Egyptians to be generally Black, yet have lighter skin and different cranial facial traits than neolithic Naqada people?
No cranial data has been presented or credible source discussing cranial DATA
Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
1945 Ahmad Batrawi
quote:Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebaïd, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period. In Lower Nubia a slight infiltration of negroid influence is observed during the Middle Kingdom times. In the New Empire period, however, the southern Egyptian type prevails again. After the New Empire a fresh and much stronger negro influence becomes discernable till the end of the Roman period.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshun: 1945 Ahmad Batrawi
quote:Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebaïd, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period. In Lower Nubia a slight infiltration of negroid influence is observed during the Middle Kingdom times. In the New Empire period, however, the southern Egyptian type prevails again. After the New Empire a fresh and much stronger negro influence becomes discernable till the end of the Roman period.
Thank you for sharing this abstract Oshun. What is your assessment of the general Egyptian population during the Greco-Roman period as it pertains to them being of indigenous African origins and/or Black? Also, what does it mean to be African and/or Black? thanks
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Greco-Latin writers didn't know what they were talking about, etc. My argumentum ad absurdum demolished that. Now you even do a reductio ad absurdum on yourself with "we should discard all the biological data we have on classic writers we have no confirmation traveled to Egypt."
Nobody's learning anything by seriously considering or debating the adsurd.
People could really learn about G-L Nile Valley relations in this thread. One way is to follow one methodology given 3X alread
quote:theLioness suggests:
first you look up Roman Egypt to see the dates when they were there. Then you look up the dates [the authors] lived
first you look up Roman Egypt to see the dates when the Romans were occupying Egypt. Then you [for example] look up the dates Ammaninus Marcellinius lived, who was a soldier and historian for the Romans
first you look up Roman Egypt to see the dates when the Romans were occupying Egypt. Then you look up the dates [an author] lived, who [served in what capacity, rank, office, or occupation] for the Romans
Done with debating absurd proposition. For obvious reasons, I prefer discussion to debate anyway. May or may not contribute primary text and art. They evince G-L common first hand knowledge of NV. That includes the light-dark cline from Delta to Sudd. Also the general changes in face and body build.
Herodotus described the typical Egyptian as black skinned and woolly* haired. That's what Oshun learned is a Herodotean exaggeration per Eurocentrism. Herodotus was making a point about Colchis in the southwest Caucasus. That the kingdom was founded by NV Africans.
Of course Herodotus was tripping. He followed Pindar's lead. He lied up a hoax to last 700 years among G-Ls. Add 4th cent CE Sophronius and St Jerome to the liars club. They confirm Pindar and Herodotus. In their time honey brown Colchis is The Second Aethiopia. Other Colchis lying G-Ls include Apollonius Rhodius, his scholiast, and Diodorus Siculus among others.
* BTW the Greek idea of woolly hair covers naps, kinks, curls, and frizz. By G-L notice, Colchian complexion went from dark brown to "yellow" over time. The soldiers married the local womens. Even the very first generation offspring lose NV mtDNA. Eventually even their autosomes become de-NVized. MSY remains NV in many. New locality specific subclades possibly develop. Though NV fathered, these new HGs aren't NV HGs. They'd just attest to NV patrilineal origins.
By St Jerome's and Sophronius' time the Colchidae could have had little NV genetics or osteo types. They went from dark brown to "yellow" in complexion. St Jerome and Sophronius call them the Second Aethiopia. Regardless of 19th century anthropology and 21st century population genetics factors. They did it by non-metric observation. Colchians still didn't look much like neighboring Caucasus peoples. Their overall bones and genomes probably did.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Herodotus is considered by many to be the first historian. Born in Halicarnassus around 490 BC, he visited Egypt during the Persian occupation (the twenty-seventh dynasty). The second volume of his "Histories" describes Egypt's geography and people and recounts a few semi-mythical stories about some pharaohs.
His detractors complain that he was merely a storyteller who repeated fantastical and unlikely tales with no basis in reality. Furthermore, his visit to Egypt was fairly brief, he could not speak Egyptian, and had no understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs or cursive script.
It is important, however, to remember that Herodotus was not trying to write history in the modern deconstructionist manner. He was simply describing what he saw and heard, and does not claim to have all the answers. Nevertheless, he was also criticised by other scholars of the ancient world. Plutarch wrote a set of essays called "Malice of Herodotus" and Manetho penned a (now lost) essay called "Against Herodotus".
His stories about the pharaohs are almost entirely hearsay, and should be taken with a fairly hefty pinch of salt, but they are entertaining. He claims that a priest read him a kings list which listed three hundred and thirty kings. Of those, eighteen were Ethiopian and one was a woman named Nitocris. Modern chronologies generally list only five Ethiopian Pharaohs, and what about Queen Regents such as Mereneith and the Female Pharaohs Sobekneferu and Hatshepsut?
To complicate matters, he does not use the Pharaoh's Egyptian names, making it difficult to be certain which king he is referring to. For example, according to Herodotus, Rhampsinitos was succeeded by Cheops. But, Rhampsinitos is thought to be the twentieth dynasty king Ramsess III and his successor could not have been Cheops (who was Khufu the fourth dynasty king who is credited with the construction of the Great Pyramid).
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:AE online says: his visit to Egypt was fairly brief, he could not speak Egyptian, and had no understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs or cursive script.
.
But his eyes could see people.
Say I visited Sweden for even one minute. I don't know its languages or runes. I don't know its former kings' names and biographies. Nor do I need to.
I could still tell you they are white and "straight" haired. All I need for that is my eyes, just one of them.
Herodotus was more like a modern travelogue writer than an historian. He delivered his History of the Persian Wars to live audiences. Think the original History Channel meets Jerry Springer. The ancient Greeks even liked storytelling etc in their court trials.
Who are H's ancient detractors who disagree with him on the colour, hair, and penes of Egyptians, Aethiopians, and Colchians?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
CLASSICS GRADUATE THESES & DISSERTATIONS The Audiences of Herodotus: the Influence of Performance on the Histories Ian Cody Oliver, University of Colorado at Boulder
Date of Award Spring 1-1-2017
Document Type Dissertation
Degree Name Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Department Classics
Abstract Scholars have long recognized that Herodotus wrote his Histories when literature was often researched, composed, and circulated by oral rather than written means. Like his contemporaries, Herodotus gave oral demonstrations of his expertise (in Greek, epideixeis) in widely diverse settings across Greece.
Most modern scholarship, however, treats Herodotus’ Histories as fundamentally unrelated to these performances, assuming instead that, in the Histories, Herodotus wrote for a single, broad, and Panhellenic readership.
My dissertation argues that significant portions of the Histories in fact follow Herodotus’ earlier oral performances closely—sometimes so closely that the original audience and historical context can be identified. In my dissertation, I analyze three Herodotean battle narratives (Plataea, Salamis, and Thermopylae) where anomalies in composition appear to reflect these narratives’ origins as oral epideixeis with specific original performance dates. In short, my proposed original performance dates match the compositional context of Greece in the mid-fifth century BCE better than the traditional ‘publication’ date two decades later.
If we recognize that Herodotus’ text reflects widely differing historical contexts, not only can we place Herodotus more satisfactorily in the oral culture of fifth-century Greece, we can also see how closely Herodotus engaged with the regional politics of his time.
My approach thus challenges entrenched assumptions about the composition of the Histories, significantly improving our current understanding of Herodotus’ personal bias, his historiographical method, and his intended audience.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Criticism of Herodotus’ work seems to have originated among Athenians who took exception to his account of the Battle of Marathon (490 BCE) and, specifically, which families were due the most honor for the victory over the Persians. More serious criticism of his work has to do with the credibility of the accounts of his travels.
One example of this is his claim of fox-sized ants in Persia who spread gold dust when digging their mounds. This account has been rejected for centuries until, in 1984 CE, the French author and explorer Michel Peissel, confirmed that a fox-sized marmot in the Himalayas did indeed spread gold dust when digging and that accounts showed the animal had done so in antiquity as the villagers had a long history of gathering this dust.
Peissel also explains that the Persian word for `mountain ant’ was very close to their word for `marmot’ and so it was established that Herodotus was not making up his giant ants but, since he did not speak Persian and had to rely on translators, was the victim of a misunderstanding in translation. This same scenario could apply to other observations and claims found in Herodotus' histories, though certainly not all.
In the interests of telling a good story, Herodotus sometimes indulged in speculation and, at other times, repeated stories he had heard as though they were his own experiences.
Early Life & Travels
While little is known of the details of his life, it seems certain that he came from a wealthy, aristocratic family in Asia Minor who could afford to pay for his education. ... His ability to travel, seemingly at will, also argues for a man of some means. It is thought he served in the army as a Hoplite in that his descriptions of battle are quite precise and always told from the point of view of a foot soldier.
Herodotus' penchant for storytelling, & his obvious talent for it, have alarmed & annoyed critics since antiquity.
He moves fluidly through his work from culture to culture and is always most interested in telling a good story and less so with fact-checking the details of the tales he heard and repeats in his pages. It is this tendency of his, as noted, which has given rise to the centuries of criticism against him.
