Egypt Origins

http://www.egyptorigins.com/earlymigr2.htm

What is your idea about it?

I would have to say that even if there was an actual migration, it didn't have a political impact as much as a cultural one.  Egypt apparently did adopt some major facits of culture of Sumero-Susian origin, but remained distinctively Egyptian for at least two millenia after the initial Mesopotamian influence came and went.  This itself is consistent with what we know of he Uruk Expansion (c. 3800-3200 BC).  The southern Mesopotamians created trade colonies and garrisons throughout much of the Middle East to gain either access or control over natural resources far from their homes.  In the case of the west, this cultural dominance stopped in northern Syria.  We know that among the major centers of this Uruk expansion were Uruk, Girsu (both in Sumer), and Susa (in Elam).  This cultural tyranny may have stopped in northern Syria, but then, Egypt was not distant.  Contact may have occurred via the sea-route which in historical times connected Egypt with Phoenicia, more specifically with Byblos.  Whatever influences the Mesopotamians had with the Egyptians, the Egyptians fairly quickly made them their own, and refined them. 

Using the art of Egypt as proof of their ethnicity is even more flawed than the science of mitochondrial dna.  Granted dna is not without its flaws but its a much stronger foundation for any sort of ethnicity claims than art.

 Well I have to disagree. Mitochondrial DNA analysis is flaw for the reason, that a small group of women marrying foreigners will give rise to a new generation having exactly the same mitochondrial DNA as the original population. This is very misleading because usually the foreigners DNA, usually male and young, are totally ignored. Infact despite a drastic change in the gene pool, the mitochondrial DNA remains the same because it is inheited from the mother only.

 About art being very stylised, in some case yes but in the egyptian case, their art isn't art but recorded history due to the precision. For instance in one drawing you can see Ramses, a giant, holding a nubian, a lybian and a syrian by the hair. Clearly they were very accurate in portraying each civ with varying skin tone. This pictograms are more accurate in the sense that this is how the Egyptian portrayed themselves. And therefore shouldn't be considered as art but more as recorded history. of course the Pharaohs tend to glorify themselves (they protrayed themelves as giant to show they are gods ) but as it is the case with modern history also, it takes  sharp minds to distinguish btw reality and fiction.

Using the art of Egypt as proof of their ethnicity is even more flawed than the science of mitochondrial dna.  Granted dna is not without its flaws but its a much stronger foundation for any sort of ethnicity claims than art.

 Well I have to disagree. Mitochondrial DNA analysis is flaw for the reason, that a small group of women marrying foreigners will give rise to a new generation having exactly the same mitochondrial DNA as the original population. This is very misleading because usually the foreigners DNA, usually male and young, are totally ignored. Infact despite a drastic change in the gene pool, the mitochondrial DNA remains the same because it is inheited from the mother only.

 About art being very stylised, in some case yes but in the egyptian case, their art isn't art but recorded history due to the precision. For instance in one drawing you can see Ramses, a giant, holding a nubian, a lybian and a syrian by the hair. Clearly they were very accurate in portraying each civ with varying skin tone. This pictograms are more accurate in the sense that this is how the Egyptian portrayed themselves. And therefore shouldn't be considered as art but more as recorded history. of course the Pharaohs tend to glorify themselves (they protrayed themelves as giant to show they are gods ) but as it is the case with modern history also, it takes  sharp minds to distinguish btw reality and fiction.

Egypt=culturally middle eastern yes, but of Middle Eastern origin...probably not.

 

 I don't think the Egyptians had a middle eastern origin or culture. The egyptian started their own culture. There origin is very african and they were racially very close to the Ethiopian. In many drawing, the egyptian viewed the nubians as well as the middle easterners as their inferiors. The egyptian skin colour seem to be in btw that of the nubians and the middle eastern people. This is an indication that they closely ressembled the Ethiopians of nowadays. However depending of the on the centuries, the original Egyptian Pharaoh married with some middle eastern women, so their progeny might have ressembled to that of middle easterners. After the nubians conquered Egypt, the pharaohs seemed to darken. Later after the roman invasion, the Egytian elite were portrayed almost as white. I think this applied only to the elite. But the people of egypt where probably african in culture and origin.

 from right to left: A syrian, a nubian, a lybian and an Egyptian.

 

Edited by Quetzalcoatl

Actually, mitochondrial dna testing indicates the current Egyptians share a great deal in common with the ancient Egyptians....namely the dna.    This does tend to indicate that the ancient Egyptians would look a lot like the modern Egyptians.

I don't find it hard to believe that there would be a Mesopotamian influence in Egypt and vice versa. 

The ancients were quite cosmopolitan and world travelers.  Trade routes bring more than just trade goods.

Actually, mitochondrial dna testing indicates the current Egyptians share a great deal in common with the ancient Egyptians....namely the dna.    This does tend to indicate that the ancient Egyptians would look a lot like the modern Egyptians. I don't find it hard to believe that there would be a Mesopotamian influence in Egypt and vice versa.  The ancients were quite cosmopolitan and world travelers.  Trade routes bring more than just trade goods.

 Mitochondrial DNA can easily lead to error, because it is inherited from the mother line only. Logically it should be rather similar for the reason after the arab invasion, the women tends to marry the invaders passing directly their mitochondrial DNA thoughout the line.  If you want to find the original egyptian, look among the coptic egyptian, they didn't marry the invaders.

 The mesopotamian influence is possible, because I think Ramses went to war against the Hittite and he couldn't conquer them but instead compromise with them. basically there were some exchange btw the two people. but I know as a fact  the Egyptian were very xenophobic, they will marry the hittite princesses but won't let their princesses marry the hittite. Egypt is my second fav civ after the Mayan. And I've been to Egypt and Ethiopia  when my mom was with MSF so I know quite a lot about them. 

Edited by Quetzalcoatl

Originally posted by Tobodai I definately think that Egyptians used to be darker than they are now...remember all those foreign migrations like the Semetic Hyksos and later hirsute Greeks and Arabs...  You can tell if you look at people north of Cairo they are different are more pale then those int eh south.

Its possible that they are darker in the south because of the influence of Ethiopia, etc.  Remember, the Nubians had control of Egypt for a very short while as well in their history.

Using the art of Egypt as proof of their ethnicity is even more flawed than the science of mitochondrial dna.  Granted dna is not without its flaws but its a much stronger foundation for any sort of ethnicity claims than art. 

Egyptian art was VERY stylized, especially by the latter part of the Old Kingdom.  It had its moments of creativity in the intermediate periods but they always maintained a strong connection to the original stylization.   Egyptian males were always painted a darker color while Egyptian women were almost always white or a pale color.

The Egyptians may have strongly controlled the royal lines (and it appears that dna testing is proving that they really did intermarry) but that never stopped them from trading with other countries.   Their contact with Mesopotamia was not only through war.

Using the art of Egypt as proof of their ethnicity is even more flawed than the science of mitochondrial dna.  Granted dna is not without its flaws but its a much stronger foundation for any sort of ethnicity claims than art.

 Well I'll have to disagree on this. Mitochondrial DNA analysis has many flaws, because the approach is wrong to start with. Mitochondrial DNA is only transmitted from mother to her offsprings. So basically if a group of the original Egyptian women marry a group of male invaders, then all of the new generations will have replicas of the mitochondrial DNA of the mother. Therefore the foreigners gene input is totally being ignored. Usually invaders tend to be male and young, so this further destroy the validity of mitochondrial analysis.

 Art being stylised is true, but it is the wrong approach to consider Egyptian pictograms as art rather than recorded history. The pictograms are very concise and not stylised at all. For instance you have Ramses holding a nubian, a lybian and a syrian all by the hair. Each civ has it's different colour skin tone and Ramses is portrayed as a giant because among the Egyptian Pharaohs are gods. So Ramses being represented as a giant is not art being stylised but rather history being recorded. Why Egyptian pictograms better than mitochondrial analysis, because they exactly portrayed Egyptian society as it was.

Originally posted by Cornellia In Egyptian wall paintings, men are painted a dark (but never as dark as the known ancient blacks) BUT women are painted white. So, if Egyptian wall paintings show Egyptian society as it is.............................and we know that Egyptian pharoahs married their female close kin...............why are the men dark and the women white?  If they share the same genetic code, wouldn't they be the same color?

Good point Cornellia. The reason why Egyptian males were always painted a reddish brown is symbolic, not factual. For one thing, Egyptian art is a highly symbolic art form, and nothing is to be taking literally. For example, the reason the people in wall paintings were shown from profile, but always with both feet and arms showing was because they wanted show the whole body; so that they wouldn't lose any body parts in the other world. Back to the issue at hand, the reason why the male is dark skinned and the female white is because in Egypt it was the male who was 'fertile'. As everyone knows it is the inundation of the Nile that made any sort of agriculture in Egypt possible and without the inundation it meant draught and death of thousands of people. The inundated Nile soil is very dark, rich with minerals and organic materials that the river brings. The male in Egyptian society was equated with the fertile soil of the Nile which sustains the whole of Egypt when it's inundated. The woman however is only the carrier of the 'seed'. Another interesting thing is, even though only the male (at least traditionally) had the right to rule as the Pharoah, he had to be married to a woman of the royal line, because in this case the woman was the 'seat' of power. This we can clearly see in Isis and Horus statues where Isis is literally the seat Horus sits on; an imagery which later carried on to Christianity in Mary and Jesus depictions. In any case, this seems to be the reason why the royal family married within the family, so that the Phaorah-ship would not go to another line. Not in all cases the relationship was incestuous however, it was sufficient that the man was married to a woman of the royal line, not necessarily have sexual relations with her although in early kingdoms this was probably widely exercised.

With the Afrocentric theory becoming popular a couple of decades ago the symbolic character of Egyptian art was interpreted literally, especially by Bernal. He is completely discredited as an academician though.