Print Page | Close Window

Werer the Egyptians white or black?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: African History
Forum Discription: Talk about African History
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20649
Printed Date: 16-Jan-2018 at 10:29
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Werer the Egyptians white or black?
Posted By: asdfghjkl
Subject: Werer the Egyptians white or black?
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2007 at 23:46
As the question stated, were they white or black? I'm very critical and upset of this dispute, that afrocentrics are trying to rewrite history. But if they are wrong.....



Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 01:26

Wherever they are they are now probably green; sick of such stupid discussions.



-------------


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 02:09
Originally posted by Sparten

Wherever they are they are now probably green; sick of such stupid discussions.

 
LOLClap
 
Egyptians are probably very similar pheotypically to how they were in the Kingdoms. You would get a concentration of some Greek, Roman and Arab genetics in some of the Delta cities, but overall they would be a brownish colour like they were back in ancient times.


-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 08:14
This poll is not right for there is no other answer than to say black or white. So far as I know it was never like that. The Egyptians were mixed in appearance for they took in an array of very early tribes that came together to make the nation. On the whole they may have had, as suggested, a brownish appearance with black straight hair. The Egyptians had settlements in Nubia, which were of course negro, but further North were tribes that looked Mediterranean. Then one must remember they became an Empire that took in other nations. Then they  did a lively trade with Europe for instance in livestock and other goods like amber.


-------------
elenos


Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 08:20

If you go by the colour spectrum no one would have had a hue comprised of all colours, or on the absence of all light. Various shades or brown more like it.

 
The dischotomy black-white is poorly designed to handle the ancient Egyptians.


-------------
One must not insult the future.


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 09:06
Good one Joinville. No one person could be of a mixed hue!


-------------
elenos


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Jul-2007 at 10:16
Originally posted by Joinville

 
The dischotomy black-white is poorly designed to handle the ancient Egyptians.
 
Or anyone else.


-------------


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 14:19

There was a dynasty in the middle kingdom that were Meroe (Nubian) and were completely black. They looked like someone from Southern Sudan or Chad might look, so that's one slight indication of a different skin tone. Also, there is archeological evidence of a Syrian invasion earlier on in the kingdom in one of the earlier intermediate periods by the presense of large amounts of non-imported Syrian pottery and beads on a VAST scale. The legendry W.B.Emery had done some research into this, and it seems possible, but we have no historic evidence to suggest that. That would suggest perhaps a lighter skin tone being introduced.

...But overall, the Egyptians would have looked as north Africans would have looked today. What's the point of this discussion? Everyone knows the answer. The mummies of Rameses II, the Thothmosids and Tutankhamun were all Caucasian. No offense, asdfghjkl- but I agree with Sparten- this is a little pointless.



-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 18:19
That's an interesting point about the mummies. The Egyptians were invaded by the Indo-European Hyksos and others from the north. In time they were overthrown and driven out. However there is no evidence to say introduced Royal families were purged. Many of those born of immigrant descent soon became patriots of their country, the same way as people do today.    

-------------
elenos


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 18:37
Black white green purple or blue,  They were African, regardless.

-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 18:37
Originally posted by Joinville

If you go by the colour spectrum no one would have had a hue comprised of all colours, or on the absence of all light. Various shades or brown more like it.

 
The dischotomy black-white is poorly designed to handle the ancient Egyptians.
 
Well said,
 
 
Has anyone ever been to Egypt? Or even googled a picture of a modern Egyptian. They're not white or black, they're brown.
 
Egyptians,%20Canaanites,%20Nubians%20and%20Lybians%20on%20fresco%20in%20tomb%20of%20Seit.%20c.%201300%20BC.%20The%20sons%20of%20Ham:%20Cush%20%28Nubians%29,%20Egypt,%20Put%20%28Lybians%29,%20and%20Canaan..%20%28Gen.10:6%29.
Egyptian, Caanites, Nubians, Libyans.
 
Egyptian surely weren't black(Nubians) in their own eyes. They seem to suggest Libyans were white, and they clearly don't see themselves as white either.
 


-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 19:32
Those pictures prove the native (brown) Egyptians accepted other races and saw nothing strange about other skin colors among their families. The skin color issue may be pointless, but the treatment and acceptance of other races among them is an issue, like in countries all over the world today. Why spend millions on faculties of black history in America  or Asian studies in Australia? It may not not for the historian to ask the skin color but we are the ones who are expected to trace things like migration of races back in time and give fair and impartial answers.


-------------
elenos


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 20:50
Originally posted by red clay

Black white green purple or blue, They were African, regardless.


They weren't Africans, they were Egyptians. I say this because we know that they classified themselves as such however the idea of referring to a people as being African, European, Asian, American (I don't mean a US citizen but merely somebody who lives in the Americas) is anachronistic. The Egyptians would not have seen themselves as the same as or closely akin to people like the Zulu or Kush.


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 21:17
Originally posted by King John

They weren't Africans, they were Egyptians. I say this because we know that they classified themselves as such however the idea of referring to a people as being African, European, Asian, American (I don't mean a US citizen but merely somebody who lives in the Americas) is anachronistic. The Egyptians would not have seen themselves as the same as or closely akin to people like the Zulu or Kush.


Interesting point, but somewhat confusing for geography purposes. Canada is not America. However Canada is in North America. Egypt is not Africa, but Egypt is in North Africa.


-------------
elenos


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 21:33
Geographically they are African.  What they classified themselves as is no longer relevant.  As for anachronistic, your opinion only.  Thats like saying French aren't European or Brazilians aren't South American.

-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 00:28
Red Clay, now that rings a bell. I think the Egyptian religion was the first to state man was made out of clay. Could their belief in a grey formative material of mankind show they had a neutral attitude towards skin colour?

-------------
elenos


Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 17-Jul-2007 at 21:43
Originally posted by red clay

Geographically they are African. What they classified themselves as is no longer relevant. As for anachronistic,your opinion only. Thats like saying French aren't European or Brazilians aren't South American.

What they classfied themselves to be is exceptionally relevant, if one wants an historial (non-anachronistic, non-reductionistic) understanding of the ancient Egyptians themselves.
From that kind of historical POV, how we today classify people (ethnicity, geography, "race", whatever) is entirely irrelevant.

The difference between classifying the ancient Egyptians as "Africans" and the French as "Europeans" is that if presented with this classification of them, the French would shine up and declare "Mais oui!", but the ancient Egyptians would simply look puzzeld and say "Huh?"

Unless one subscribes to some form of realist theory of historiography whereby somehow modern geographical and etnicity concepts contain a higher degree of truth than those of the ancient Egyptians by force of being more recent, more scientific, etc.
Than it's a conflict between humanist historical relativism and anti-humanist anhistorial realism, the kind the sciences traditionally represent.

-------------
One must not insult the future.


Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 01:40

There was a dynasty in the middle kingdom that were Meroe (Nubian) and were completely black. They looked like someone from Southern Sudan or Chad might look, so that's one slight indication of a different skin tone. Also, there is archeological evidence of a Syrian invasion earlier on in the kingdom in one of the earlier intermediate periods by the presense of large amounts of non-imported Syrian pottery and beads on a VAST scale. The legendry W.B.Emery had done some research into this, and it seems possible, but we have no historic evidence to suggest that. That would suggest perhaps a lighter skin tone being introduced.


And don't forget (don't know if this counts as "ancient" enough) but that Cleopatra the most famous egyptian, was herself the product of a couple of hundred years of Greek inbreeding.


-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 01:50

It is convinient to classify people by modern definations; for us. The problem is when those definations confuse the general populace. A few years ago in the states, I nearky came to blows with a black gentleman (and I use the latter word advisedly) since he insisted that since Cleopatra was an Egyptian Queen, and Egypt was in Africa, well Africa= Black.

 
What is sad about such discussions is the clear lack of knowledge of black African culture. The Mali Empires, Ghanain Empires etc.


-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2007 at 02:27
Even the name Cleo=daughter, patra=(greek)father is a give away. Many awful mistakes are made here, for in her time Egypt looked and dressed like a Greek colony. The land been settled long before by the Greek general Ptolemy who served under Alexander. So far as I know they were patriotic towards their adapted country, but am willing to be corrected.

She had been forced to marry her younger brother and shed no tears when lover Caesar had the spoiled little nerd drowned. His death was said to be a boating accident but nobody believed it.


-------------
elenos


Posted By: andrew
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 11:32
I will say this once and only once.
 
The Egyptian were neither black nor white.  They are an African people however, they do not consider themselves Black. They consider themselves the perfect color not yellow like the Asiatic people and not Black like the Nubians. Furthermore saying the Egyptian were 'brown' is not correct at all. The Indians, as in India, are brown and back then generally an Indian would be darker then an Egyptian excluding Aryans.
 
They considered themselves an orange/reddish tint. They made their women a yellowish color. The argument of if they were black or white is so dumb because they were neither, they were Egyptian and African non-Subsaharan peoples. Also it is hard to generalize the Egyptians because from the beginning of when we may do any research they were a mixed people.
 
For crying out loud when will people realize Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism is just ethnocentrism?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 11:45
Egyptians were (and are) mainly Mediterranean people, with some  admixture. Nothing new under the sun.
 
Pinguin


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 21:12

The Egyptians were both white and black. However, it was an African civilization (language, culture, religion).

I recommend the book "Egypt in Africa" edited by Theodore Celenko. It's not Afrocentric or Eurocentric, and clearly shows that Egypt was an African civilization (not the near east, not Mediterranean). It features contributions from people like Frank Yurco, S.O.Y Keita,
Christopher Ehret as well as many others. (It may be hard to find. None of my local book stores had it, but every university library had a copy)

You should also look at S.O.Y. Keita's peer reviewed sources:
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.html - http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.html

Keita S.O.Y
Department of Surgery, Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC 20060.

"Historical sources and archaeological data predict significant population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa. Multivariate analyses of crania demonstrate wide variation but also suggest an indigenous craniometric pattern common to both late dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb region. Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites. Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration."

For those of you who think the Egyptians were solely white (since it's winning the poll):

"Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kush*tes, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans."

http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa - http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa (from the book Egypt in Africa)

"Ancient and modern Egyptian hair ranges from straight to wavy to woolly; in color, it varies from reddish brown to dark brown to black. Lips range from thin to full. Many Egyptians possess a protrusive jaw. Noses vary from high-bridged-straight to arched or even hooked to flat-bridged, with bulbous to broad nostrils. In short, ancient Egypt, like modern Egypt, consisted of a very heterogeneous population." (Dr Frank Yurco)
http://homelink.cps-k12.org/teachers/filiopa/files/AC383EB269C648AAAA659593B9FC358C.pdf - http://homelink.cps-k12.org/teachers/filiopa/files/AC383EB269C648AAAA659593B9FC358C.pdf

I really don't care about this "were the ancient Egyptians white or black" argument (they were both, get over it). The one thing that needs to change, is the view that Egypt wasn't an African civilization. This is the issue that should be tackled.

 


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 21:38
Originally posted by Earl Aster

...But overall, the Egyptians would have looked as north Africans would have looked today. What's the point of this discussion? Everyone knows the answer. The mummies of Rameses II, the Thothmosids and Tutankhamun were all Caucasian. No offense, asdfghjkl- but I agree with Sparten- this is a little pointless.


"Pharaoh Rameses II who reigned from 1279 to 1212 B.C.E. He is a typical northern Egyptian; he came from the northernmost nome (governate) of Egypt. He had fine, wavy hair, a prominent hooked nose and moderately thin lips.

This mummy may be contrasted with the mummy of Sequen-Re Tao, who died on the battlefield about 1580 B.C.E. He was from Thebes, much further south. He had tightly curled, woolly hair, a slight build and strongly Nubian features." (Frank Yurco)
http://homelink.cps-k12.org/teachers/filiopa/files/AC383EB269C648AAAA659593B9FC358C.pdf - http://homelink.cps-k12.org/teachers/filiopa/files/AC383EB269C648AAAA659593B9FC358C.pdf


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 21:46
Originally posted by asdfghjkl

As the question stated, were they white or black? I'm very critical and upset of this dispute, that afrocentrics are trying to rewrite history. But if they are wrong.....


They were both, which is why I didn't vote. Anyone who says any different (Afrocentric, Eurocentric, whatever else there is) is wrong.


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 22:05
Excellent work, Jugernot! Full marks. Trouble is with the links you sent give no diagrams. I thought of mentioning Nefertiti myself but like many cringe by the misinformation of others that want to push these issues to extremes.  Seeing we can open up and say more about color, the color white always had been sacred. Like the white plumage on a bird, the sacred Ibis perhaps, or Apis the bull god. That a person paints their face white, (they did in many sacred ceremonies) does not mean they meant having a white skin, just that they were honoring the god, spirit, place beyond or whatever.

I have traveled all over South-East Asia and seen the use of pale makeup everywhere. I have only seen white men getting upset about it as well. The girls use pancake makeup to make themselves look and feel good for that is part of their culture. They are not trying to be white women, but be attractive in the own way using white as a base.

The white man's religions tell of dressing forever and ever in white robes when reaching the "pearly gates".  the importance attached to being white ( a soul as what as snow) is more to do with religious belief and ritual than color of skin and also a symbol of being clean. Think of seeing an ancient Egyptian and immediately say what color clothes you imagine, white linen of course.


-------------
elenos


Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2007 at 05:03
Interesting as the biological anthropological data is, the point still stands that there is a difference between trying to find a realist basis for classification based on science and a humanist historical understanding of how ancient Egyptians figured their own identity.
 
The first does not necessarily say anything of importance about the second. And it gets really, really confused when modern concepts of identity like "black" and "white", African and... something else, which can't quite be supported by the biological data, gets thrown into the mix.


-------------
One must not insult the future.


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2007 at 06:09

Egypt in Africa, (1996), Theodore Clenko, editor -- article by Frank J. Yurco, page 110-111

Excerpt:

When Egyptian statuary, wall reliefs, and painted scenes are viewed without selectivity, they show a population with various complexions, from light to dark brown, mirroring the diversity of the modern Egyptian population. That this was also so in antiquity is indicated by a statement in Sinuhe's autobiography: "as when a Delta man sees himself in Elephantine, a marsh man in Nubia," metaphors describing the broad ethnic and cultural differences within the country (Lichtheim 1973:225). This agrees with anthropological studies (Keita 1990; 1993) that demonstrate that African population is diverse. The Arab conquest of 639-642 A.D. did not alter significantly Egypt's population, which still remains very diverse (Batrawi 1945; 1946). The Islamization of the population came largely through religious conversion from Christianity although some ten percent of Egyptians remain Christian. This modern population still echoes Nile Valley diversity, where people of the lightest and darkest complexions within Africa are found (Trigger 1978; Yurco 1989). Nonetheless, these Nilotic populations are all Africans, so was the population, religion, culture, and other aspects of pharaonic Egypt (Frankfort 1948). It is quite correct that many early Egyptologists tried to detach Egypt from its African context, as Asante posits in this section, and that this partly reflects racist thinking of earlier eras. Yet, some of the effort to see foreign influence on late Predynastic Egypt was based upon archaeological finds and the early interpretation of them. Current scholarship in Egyptology not acknowledged often by Afrocentrists, has demonstrated that Egyptians were most closely related to Saharan Africans, culturally and linguistically (Hoffman 1991), that such Mesopotamian influence as can be inferred, came through the Nile Delta town of Buto, as part of long-distance trade. Whatever foreign ideas and cultural item were adopted, they were speedily Egyptianized, and they probably did not include writing or its concept (see Yurco essay in the African Origins of Egyptian Writing section). Egypt made early contact with its Nubian neighbors on its southern boundary. After the unification in about 3100 B.C., a distinct Egyptian state emerged (Hoffman, 1991).

Thenceforth, Egyptians called their country Kemet and themselves Rmt. All foreigners were called by distinctive names and portrayed with distinctive dress. Nubian, first call Nhsy(Fisher 1961), were depicted darker, with frizzy hair, and wore a distinctive dress. Later, other groups were encountered in Nubia, for example, Mdja, and viewed as distinct from the Nhsy.



Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 21-Jul-2007 at 06:32
More info

"Finally, the posters have lurched into the truth on the issue of who the ancient Egyptians were. Yes, Upper Egyptians, Copts and Muslims alike are dark complexioned, and their hair varies from wavy to kinky. Certainly,in the ante-bellum American South, they would have been classed with the other Africans who were enslaved. That ante-bellum southern image is still common in the United States, where if you have any African ancestors you are classed as "b;ack". Yet, how screwed up the Americans are is evident by how the census bureau deals with Egyptians who migrate to the United States. They are classed as "white" no matter how brown they appear!!!

The facts are this: Egyptians are, and were anciently an African people. All Africans, though are not uniformly black! In the Nile Valley, pre-cisely, you can see the whole array of complexions that these Africans come in, from the light complexioned northern Egyptians, to the light brown of Middle Egypt, the rich brown of southern Upper Egypt and the Sudan, and finally the jet black Shilluk, Dinka, and Nuer. No Africans anywhere are blacker than these three Sudanese groups.
So, calling ancient Egypt an African culture is quite correct, but
calling it a black culture, simply takes the American social construct
and incorrectly applies it to a country where it simply does not fit.
No wonder the Egyptians get upset with this misrepresentation. I cannot blame them, and agree with them, that all people in their society, no matter how light or dark complexioned, are Egyptians. They have never practiced racial discrimination such as the American and certain western Europeans nations reek from."

Most sincerely,
Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago


--
Frank Joseph Yurco fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu


I can attest to Yurco's anger. Being bi-racial, I don't consider myself solely white or black (I'm both and am proud of this fact). However, in America I'm considered black. If we look at the world as black and white, sometimes we only get half of the picture.


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 01:40
Originally posted by Joinville

Interesting as the biological anthropological data is, the point still stands that there is a difference between trying to find a realist basis for classification based on science and a humanist historical understanding of how ancient Egyptians figured their own identity.
 
The first does not necessarily say anything of importance about the second. And it gets really, really confused when modern concepts of identity like "black" and "white", African and... something else, which can't quite be supported by the biological data, gets thrown into the mix.


If you don't want to give them a racial identity, that's fair enough. Having that said, we can, and should call Egypt an African civilization because that's what it was ( Again, I recommend "Egypt in Africa"):

"Nonetheless, these Nilotic populations are all Africans, so was the population, religion, culture, and other aspects of pharaonic Egypt (Frankfort 1948). It is quite correct that many early Egyptologists tried to detach Egypt from its African context, as Asante posits in this section, and that this partly reflects racist thinking of earlier eras. Yet, some of the effort to see foreign influence on late Predynastic Egypt was based upon archaeological finds and the early interpretation of them. Current scholarship in Egyptology not acknowledged often by Afrocentrists, has demonstrated that Egyptians were most closely related to Saharan Africans, culturally and linguistically"


I'm also confused as to how someone else could possibly vote white after the information I posted. If you're going to give them a racial identity, one simply can't say one without acknowledging the other. Again, this quote is all one needs to see ancient, as well as modern Egypt's diversity:

"Ancient and modern Egyptian hair ranges from straight to wavy to woolly; in color, it varies from reddish brown to dark brown to black. Lips range from thin to full. Many Egyptians possess a protrusive jaw. Noses vary from high-bridged-straight to arched or even hooked to flat-bridged, with bulbous to broad nostrils. In short, ancient Egypt, like modern Egypt, consisted of a very heterogeneous population."



Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 02:04
The main prob here is the very term 'African civilization'. As if there were such a thing at a time when sailing down the red sea was a small miracle. Africa is certainly the most diverse continent, talking about an African civilization is about as constructive as saying that the Incas and the Inuits are Pre-Colombians.

Egyptian had more in common with the Hebrews for instance than with the people of the Great Lakes and more in common with the Nubians than with the Celts. Egypt is a crossroad it couldn't be anything else than diverse. Ultimately we should blame the word civilization for the confusion, but we'd need to recognize that except in a very few cases, it means nothing as more often than not it is synonymous with national culture inside the border of a polity.


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 02:05
Just to cover all bases and be through with this. Dr. Frank Yuroc dispels the myth that all copts are light in complexion.


Yes, Egyptologists do consider the ethnicity of the Egyptians, but in a rational way without the flaming that is seen in many postings in this issue. To the Egyptian who considered any dark complexioned Egyptians as descendants of Nubians or Sudanese, have you ever travelled from Luxor to Aswan? There the entire population is dark brown in complexion. Yet can you write them all off as descendants of Sudanese? Hardly. They are Egyptians and that they have been that complexion for thousands of years is demonstrated by New Kingdom paintings of the Theban population, then just as dark brown as now, for instance, in Sennedjem's tomb at Deir el-Medinah. So, what we have is a very diverse population in Egypt, light complexioned in the north, and gradually darkening as you proceed south. Another myth that needs exploding is that all Copts are light complexioned. Ever meet a Copt from Luxor or Aswan? They are as brown as the rest of the population there. I lived three years in Luxor and have travelled extensively in Egypt, so I speak from experience. Again, surveying the ancient monuments can be instrutive. So, for instance, the statue of Sheikh el-Beled, or Ka-Aper, as he was known anciently, looks exactly like the people of Saqqara today. That's how he acquired the name "Sheikh el Beled" for those who know the story of the statue's finding by Mariette's workmen. Another famous excavated piece is the double statues of Rahotep and Nofret. You can see people like the facially, all over the Cairo greater area. What differs, is the color convention that has depicted Nofret as light and Rahotep as red-brown. Aside from that color convention, if you examine the facial details of Dynasty IV-V statuary and reliefs, they look very alike the modern Cairo area population. As Sinuhe, in his story put it, when a Delta man finds himself in Elephantine, he is confused. The two extreme parts of Egypt were quite distinct even back in Dynasty 12! Another of Sinuhe's metaphors is, "can the papyrus ever cleave to the rock" another contrast of the Delta with Elephantine.
Most sincerely,
Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago


--
Frank Joseph Yurco fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu

And with that, I'm done as far as race/ethnicity is concerned. If one doesn't get the picture that the Egyptians were (since predynastic Egypt), and are, a diverse people, I don't know what to tell you my friend.




Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 02:31
Originally posted by Maharbbal

The main prob here is the very term 'African civilization'. As if there were such a thing at a time when sailing down the red sea was a small miracle. Africa is certainly the most diverse continent, talking about an African civilization is about as constructive as saying that the Incas and the Inuits are Pre-Colombians.

Egyptian had more in common with the Hebrews for instance than with the people of the Great Lakes and more in common with the Nubians than with the Celts. Egypt is a crossroad it couldn't be anything else than diverse. Ultimately we should blame the word civilization for the confusion, but we'd need to recognize that except in a very few cases, it means nothing as more often than not it is synonymous with national culture inside the border of a polity.


"Current scholarship in Egyptology not acknowledged often by Afrocentrists, has demonstrated that Egyptians were most closely related to Saharan Africans, culturally and linguistically"

Ancient Greece was a Mediterranean civilization. Ancient Sumer was a Mesopotamian civilization. What makes Ancient Egypt any different??

The Egyptians were a diverse group of people, but they were all African nonetheless.

Their religion was African. Their language was African. Their culture was African. What more do you need?

P.S. What do you think of the quotes from Dr. Frank Yurco? Surly a man as qualified as himself would be far more knowledgeable on the subject than you or I. Note that African civilization doesn't equal a solely black civilization. If people can come to terms with this, then I think it's easier to accept.

1.They were a multiracial civilization
2.They were an African civilization
3.They were Egyptian


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 06:41
Originally posted by Jugernot

Ancient Greece was a Mediterranean civilization. Ancient Sumer was a
Mesopotamian civilization. What makes Ancient Egypt any different??The
Egyptians were a diverse group of people, but they were all African
nonetheless. Their religion was African. Their language was African. Their culture was African. What more do you need?


There was no such thing as an African religion, or an African language, or an African culture, any more than there was such a thing as the European religion, the European language, or the European culture. Continents simply weren't cultural entities.

Culture, language, and religion at that time had no idea what continent they were on and didn't stop at tectonic plate boundaries or remain consistent on one. Cultural groups were related primarily by the easiest means of travel - usually bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, and seas, or sometimes steppes. They were divided by things that made travel difficult - mountain ranges, long distances, bodies of water too distant to cross, jungles, etc. The Egyptians knew where Greece and Babylon and even India were, but they had no idea of the source of the Nile and had never been as far inland even as Lake Tana or Lake Victoria.

They didn't give a hoot about continental divides and didn't feel any sort of special affinity with other groups simply because they shared the same tectonic plate. Nor were they necessarily related.

You said it yourself - Greece is a Meditteranean culture. What continent is it on? The Meditteranean continent? No, its in Europe, but the first thing - and indeed, the correct thing - that popped into your head was Meditteranean. Egypt, too, is a Mediterranean culture. It had no real ties with most of the rest of the continent in sub-Saharan Africa. If your ancestors came from Ghana or Zimbabwe, they had nothing to do with Egyptians. If your ancestors were Greek or Mesopotamian, it's definately possible that they did.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 10:16

Co-sign. Egypt mas a Mediterranean culture and also one of the extremes of the Fertil Crescent.



Posted By: Tk101
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 12:01

pinguin you should back your rhetoric with actual data...and not heresay



-------------
there is only one truth
- Conan
[IMG]http://www.architecture.org/shop/images/402036lg.jpg[IMG]


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 13:18
It is not rethoric. It is just a matter of definition. Egypt is at the coast of the Mediterranean Sea and part of the Fertile Crescent. The oldest cities, agriculture, domestic animals and technologies appeared in that region. The conclusion is obvious I guess. Well, perhaps a matter of taste.
 
 


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 13:22

Egypt has always had more in common with the Middle East and to a lesser extent the Med than Sub Saharan Africa.



-------------


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 16:43
I would agree with the general thing that Juggernaught and Edgewaters have been discussing (obviously they have their differences, but I think they're on the right track...) - skin colour does not neccesarily divide a civilization (as it has ours for a long, long time...). Egyptians, black, white, olive-skinned, or brown are...well...Egyptian. People keep diving into genetics, but frankly, all of us here are mish-mashes. There is no "solid" ethnic group which you can call "Egyptians" - they are, like all peoples, a mixture. The "English", of whom I belong - we are traditionally a mix of various ethnicities of Northern Europe. Because Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt both have highly different skin colours, which just happen to be in closer proximity to each other, it doesn't mean that they are all any less "Egyptian".

-------------


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 16:57
Originally posted by pinguin

Co-sign. Egypt mas a Mediterranean culture and also one of the extremes of the Fertil Crescent.



No it wasn't.

Egypt in Africa, 1996, pp. 25-27




Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture

Christopher Ehret
Professor of History, African Studies Chair
University of California at Los Angeles

Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.

The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food.

A new religion came with them as well. Its central tenet explains the often localized origins of later Egyptian gods: the earliest Afrasians were, properly speaking, neither monotheistic nor polytheistic. Instead, each local community, comprising a clan or a group of related clans, had its own distinct deity and centered its religious observances on that deity. This belief system persists today among several Afrasian peoples of far southwest Ethiopia. And as Biblical scholars have shown, Yahweh, god of the ancient Hebrews, an Afrasian people of the Semitic group, was originally also such a deity. The connection of many of Egypt's predynastic gods to particular localities is surely a modified version of this early Afrasian belief. Political unification in the late fourth millennium brought the Egyptian deities together in a new polytheistic system. But their local origins remain amply apparent in the records that have come down to us.

During the long era between about 10,000 and 6000 B.C., new kinds of southern influences diffused into Egypt. During these millennia, the Sahara had a wetter climate than it has today, with grassland or steppes in many areas that are now almost absolute desert. New wild animals, most notably the cow, spread widely in the eastern Sahara in this period.

One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East.

One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East.

Very late in the same span of time, the cultivating of crops began in Egypt. Since most of Egypt belonged then to the Mediterranean climatic zone, many of the new food plants came from areas of similar climate in the Middle East. Two domestic animals of Middle Eastern origin, the sheep and the goat, also entered northeastern Africa from the north during this era.

But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)

Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region.

From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl," (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era.

One key feature of classical Egyptian political culture, usually assumed to have begun in Egypt, also shows strong links to the southern influences of this period. We refer here to a particular kind of sacral chiefship that entailed, in its earliest versions, the sending of servants into the afterlife along with the deceased chief. The deep roots and wide occurrence of this custom among peoples who spoke Eastern Sahelian languages strongly imply that sacral chiefship began not as a specifically Egyptian invention, but instead as a widely shared development of the Middle Nile Culture Area.

After about 3500 B.C., however, Egypt would have started to take on a new role vis-a-vis the Middle Nile region, simply because of its greater concentration of population. Growing pressures on land and resources soon enhanced and transformed the political powers of sacral chiefs. Unification followed, and the local deities of predynastic times became gods in a new polytheism, while sacral chiefs gave way to a divine king. At the same time, Egypt passed from the wings to center stage in the unfolding human drama of northeastern Africa.

A Note on the Use of Linguistic Evidence for History

Languages provide a powerful set of tools for probing the cultural history of the peoples who spoke them. Determining the relationships between particular languages, such as the languages of the Afrasian or the Nilo-Saharan family, gives us an outline history of the societies that spoke those languages in the past. And because each word in a language has its own individual history, the vocabulary of every language forms a huge archive of documents. If we can trace a particular word back to the common ancestor language of a language family, then we know that the item of culture connoted by the word was known to the people who spoke the ancestral tongue. If the word underwent a meaning change between then and now, a corresponding change must have taken place in the cultural idea or practice referred to by the word. In contrast, if a word was borrowed from another language, it attests to a thing or development that passed from the one culture to the other. The English borrowing, for example, of castle, duke, parliament, and many other political and legal terms from Old Norman French are evidence of a Norman period of rule in England, a fact confirmed by documents.


References Cited:

Ehret, Christopher, Nilo-Saharans and the Saharo-Sahelian Neolithic. In African Archaeology: Food, Metals and Towns. T. Shaw, P Sinclair, B. Andah, and A. Okpoko, eds. pp. 104-125. London: Routledge. 1993

Ehret, Christopher, Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, Tone Consonants, and Vocabulary. Los Angeles: University of California Press, Berkeley. 1995

Wendorf, F., et al., Saharan Exploitation of Plants 8000 Years B.P. Nature 359:721-724. 1982

Wendorf, F., R. Schild, and A. Close, eds. Cattle-Keepers of the Eastern Sahara. Dallas: Southern Methodist University, Department of Anthropology. 1984



Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 17:04
Originally posted by Tk101

pinguin you should back your rhetoric with actual data...and not heresay



Exactly. People can say whatever they wish. But I'd rather go along with what most mainstream Egyptologists think. Saying that they were a Mediterranean culture or whatever else, is hearsay  and not at all what Egyptologists think.


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 17:17

Good stuff Jugernot (Oh, I spelt your username wrong in my last post!), but where do you get all of this university material?



-------------


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 17:25
Originally posted by Earl Aster

I would agree with the general thing that Juggernaught and Edgewaters have been discussing (obviously they have their differences, but I think they're on the right track...) - skin colour does not neccesarily divide a civilization (as it has ours for a long, long time...). Egyptians, black, white, olive-skinned, or brown are...well...Egyptian. People keep diving into genetics, but frankly, all of us here are mish-mashes. There is no "solid" ethnic group which you can call "Egyptians" - they are, like all peoples, a mixture. The "English", of whom I belong - we are traditionally a mix of various ethnicities of Northern Europe. Because Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt both have highly different skin colours, which just happen to be in closer proximity to each other, it doesn't mean that they are all any less "Egyptian".


co-sign. I agree with this post 100%


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 17:37
Originally posted by Earl Aster

Good stuff Jugernot (Oh, I spelt your username wrong in my last post!), but where do you get all of this university material?



lol, it's not your fault. I spell it differently (wrong) on purpose. I can't blame you for wanting to spell it correctly.

This is all from the book I recommended in my first post (Egypt in Africa).


The Frank Yurco emails are just emails. Different people ask him different things and he responds sometimes. For instance, there's an email where he proves Lepsius' copy of the Ramesses III tomb relief that most Afrocentrics still use, to be false. And says the real one (which was posted on the first page of this thread) is the real one (which he does in greater detail in the book).


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 17:41
Exactly! Our civilization today is so interested in skin colour, and that skin colour must mean a different ethnicity. Many people still call black Britons in my country "of African descent". If that's so, all Britons can be labeled "of Frankish decent", "of saxon decent" ad infinitum. It's interesting that people still feel that way about black Britons- they are Britons, despite their skin colour! The human race is so intermingled that people can't judge race (apart from in an obvious pan-continental context) by colour. We are effectively all related and the barriers that we put up are those of an ethno-linguistic nature. Because everyone here forum views blacks and whites (inadvertantly) as representing different cultures, we still find it hard to see how people of a different colour could be in the same ethno-lingustic group. It's simple -  Egypt is, and Egypt proves it.

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 17:49
Originally posted by Jugernot

Originally posted by pinguin

Co-sign. Egypt mas a Mediterranean culture and also one of the extremes of the Fertil Crescent.



No it wasn't.

Egypt in Africa, 1996, pp. 25-27

 


 
Very interesting pcture. It shows the AfroAsiatic languages originated just across Arabia into the Red Sea. In other words, it belong to the place we always knew it was: to the Fertile Crescent region LOLLOLLOL
 
Pinguin


-------------


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 17:53
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by Jugernot

Originally posted by pinguin

Co-sign. Egypt mas a Mediterranean culture and also one of the extremes of the Fertil Crescent.



No it wasn't.

Egypt in Africa, 1996, pp. 25-27

 


 
Very interesting pcture. It shows the AfroAsiatic languages originated just across Arabia into the Red Sea. In other words, it belong to the place we always knew it was: to the Fertile Crescent region LOLLOLLOL
 
Pinguin


I'm very sorry, but you're misinterpreting the picture. Read whats under the picture to find the truth.

Here:

"The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east."


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 18:06
Very interesting pcture. It shows the AfroAsiatic languages originated just across Arabia into the Red Sea. In other words, it belong to the place we always knew it was: to the Fertile Crescent region LOLLOLLOL
 
Pinguin, just because they are across the gulf from the Fertile Crescent, that doesn't justify any claims of a link to there - anyway, the area across the gulf on that map is Arabia, which is clearly not part of the fertile crescent. By your logic, Magan (Ancient Oman) must have had cultural links to Elam - "Because it's opposite them on a gluf". The area opposite the origins of Afroasiatic on that map is ...desert...lots....of...it. The most logical crossing place for people from the Levant to bring Afroasiatic languages would be the Sinai, and as you can see, that area indicated to be the origins is nowhere near, proving Jugernot's point...


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 18:17
Originally posted by Earl Aster

Very interesting pcture. It shows the AfroAsiatic languages originated just across Arabia into the Red Sea. In other words, it belong to the place we always knew it was: to the Fertile Crescent region LOLLOLLOL
 
Pinguin, just because they are across the gulf from the Fertile Crescent, that doesn't justify any claims of a link to there - anyway, the area across the gulf on that map is Arabia, which is clearly not part of the fertile crescent. By your logic, Magan (Ancient Oman) must have had cultural links to Elam - "Because it's opposite them on a gluf". The area opposite the origins of Afroasiatic on that map is ...desert...lots....of...it. The most logical crossing place for people from the Levant to bring Afroasiatic languages would be the Sinai, and as you can see, that area indicated to be the origins is nowhere near, proving Jugernot's point...
 
Whatever. I preffer to speak Mapudungun LOLLOL
 
By the way, everyone is invited to my forum. See my signature, thanks


-------------


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 03:33
Whatever. I preffer to speak Mapudungun LOLLOL
 
I don't quite see the reason for that inane giggling, Pinguin - your point has been decimated and I think that it is Jugernot and I who have the right to laugh now - although being a gentleman will refrain from doing so.
 
...Also, I'm not being rude, or arrogant or anything like that, but putting endless LOLs in your signature doesn't do your character any credit.


-------------


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 07:51
 
Originally posted by Jugernot

Originally posted by Tk101

pinguin you should back your rhetoric with actual data...and not heresay



Exactly. People can say whatever they wish. But I'd rather go along with what most mainstream Egyptologists think. Saying that they were a Mediterranean culture or whatever else, is hearsay  and not at all what Egyptologists think.
 
Civilisation begins with the development of settled agricultural communities domesticating plants and animals. There are only nine areas of the world where this happened independently - i.e. by the domestication of local species, rather than the introduction of already domesticated varieties from elsewhere.
 
These are, in Asia, the 'Fertile Crescent' of south-west Asia and China; in Africa, the Sahel, West Africa and Ethiopia; in the Americas, Middle America, the Andes, and the eastern part of what is now the US; and New Guinea. Of them the oldest is the Fertile Crescent.
 
All the domesticated plant and animal species (except possible the donkey) found in Egypt are immigrants from the Fertile Crescent: they don't occur in the wild version in Egypt. That includes wheat, barley, peas, lentils, sheep, goats and flax (for linen and linseed oil). None of those found in early Egypt come from the more southerly African areas of independent food production.
 
Irrespective of race or skin colour or language, the civilisation of Egypt is a descendant culture from that of the Fertile Crescent, just as the European ones are, and, as someone already pointed out, its entire history is one of interaction with the rest of the middle east and the other countries of the mediterranean area.
 
The only case for calling ancient Egypt an 'African' civilisation is similar to that of calling Hollywood and 'American' culture - i.e. that's the continent it happened to lie on.
 
Or of course, you may want to call it an 'African' civilisation because after all homo sapiens is an African species.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 11:50
...But surely not linguistically - I'm aware that much of the rudiments of civilization came from the fertile cresent, but not Afroasiatic language - that's been proven

-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 12:05
Originally posted by Earl Aster

Whatever. I preffer to speak Mapudungun LOLLOL
 
I don't quite see the reason for that inane giggling, Pinguin - your point has been decimated and I think that it is Jugernot and I who have the right to laugh now - although being a gentleman will refrain from doing so.
 
...Also, I'm not being rude, or arrogant or anything like that, but putting endless LOLs in your signature doesn't do your character any credit.
 
Well, I won't continue arguing that point. It is just a matter of definitions, anyways. Any child in primary school knows social evolution started in the old world by the interaction of NETWORKS of civilizations, rather that by the genial idea of just a group. We know the people of Mesopotamia traded with India, Turkey, Arabia, etc. We know Arabs were never isolated of Horners, and that Egyptians were not isolated of Horners either. Afroasiatic languages are shared by Arabs, Jews, Egyptians and Africans because they share the same region.
 
So what's the point of claming something was "African"?
 
Now for giggling? Mapudungun is the language of the natives of my country. That's all.
 


-------------


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 14:43
I think that the main problem here is how people decide to define civilization as well as how it is classifyied. Was the Egyptian civilization located in Africa yes. However that doesn't make it black since that is the actual question at the heart of this thread. At the same time they are not white. They are Egyptian nothing more nothing less. Although they spoke a language that belonged to a group of languages expanding out of modern Ethiopia and Kenya (see map above) this again doesn't make them black. The same is true for Pinguin's argument just because they share elements of civilization with Mesopotamia or other Middle Eastern societies doesn't make them Middle Eastern. Given the location of the civilization I think it is safe to say that the Egyptian civilization is a synthesis of African and Asian civilizations. All this however is irrelevant because the question at hand is whether the ancient Egyptians were white or black. Where there civilization/language evolved from is irrelevant to this discussion (in my eyes).


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 15:08
As requested by King John, going back to the original question seems like a good thing to do.
 
 
Originally posted by asdfghjkl

As the question stated, were they white or black? I'm very critical and upset of this dispute, that afrocentrics are trying to rewrite history. But if they are wrong.....
 
 
... afrocentrists are not the only ones blinded by skin color.
 
I get the feeling that a hint of desired superiority is hidden in such perspectives.
 
Aside from linguistic theories and Atlantean mysteries ancient Egypt was peopled in an African Mediterranean land susceptible to climatic influences. I assume  apart from catastrophies of biblical proportions the climate of Egypt had alot to do with her civilization. At times semi-tropical and arid, this productive land around the Nile also produced crops that would sustain large populations. Harvesting and storing grain was of huge importance. This was a sign of power and survival. The weather was conducive to this type of commodity. The inventions may have even revolved around the type of static geography. Plumbing and mining come to mind. Trade also was a focal point since Egypt was a gateway to the Middle East and Africa. Shipping from the med or indian oceans was a boon to commerce.
 
As we can see the color of skin has very little to do with reacting to the environment.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 15:49
...Well, we all seem to have an agreement here then Thumbs%20UpHug
Well done everyone! We seem to have answered the question very well!


-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 21:54
Africa is a continent, not a country! How simplistic can some people get than to say all people in Africa are the same. Even without the presence of other race. there are more ethnic types in Africa that evolved differently in the ecological niches of savannas and jungles than anywhere else on earth.  

-------------
elenos


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 23-Jul-2007 at 22:58
Originally posted by elenos

Africa is a continent, not a country! How simplistic can some people get than to say all people in Africa are the same. Even without the presence of other race. there are more ethnic types in Africa that evolved differently in the ecological niches of savannas and jungles than anywhere else on earth.  


Yes my friend, I think you understand! Africa is the most diverse place on earth. It's critical for one to read Keita's piece called "the diversity of indigenous Africans" (it's on the keita page in my first post). For instance, people used to describe the Ethiopians, Somalis and Nubians as "Caucasoid". We now know that Africans can have "Caucasoid" features without any non-African ancestry. These types developed in Africa because it suited their surroundings more. There is no "true negro", such stereotypes led people like brace to come up with flawed findings (brace now corrected his mistakes). Most anthropologists and egyptologists don't even use the terms "Caucasian" or "Negro" to describe the Egyptians anymore, because it can be very misleading.

I cant force anyone to change their opinion. I can only give you information and show you what current Egyptologists think. Their conclusion is that Egypt was an African civilization.Why this is so hard to accept, I do not know.

No one skin complexion made one more Egyptian than the other, they were all Egyptian. No one skin complexion made them any more African than the other, they were all African (Again, as Dr Yurco said, not all Africans are black).

"This modern population still echoes Nile Valley diversity, where people of the lightest and darkest complexions within Africa are found (Trigger 1978; Yurco 1989). Nonetheless, these Nilotic populations are all Africans, so was the population, religion, culture, and other aspects of pharaonic Egypt" (Yurco).

Edit:
Let me try to make this easier to understand for everyone. First of all, throw this race nonsense out the window (Caucasian, Negro). Know this; biologically theres no such thing as race. We all started out in Africa. So why then dont we all look the same? Simple, we developed to best suit the environment we live in. The whole Hamitic hypothesis has long since been proven to be false (at least 11 years now). So what does this mean? Once people moved out of Africa theres no evidence to suggest large migrations moved back in to create the Caucasians and blacks with Caucasoid features in Africa. These peoples all developed in Africa to suit their diverse environments. This is why Egypt is an African civilization (already gave ample evidence), but not a black civilization (they were diverse and not all indigenous Africans are black).


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 01:15

Country; land of a region.

Continent, continuous land, mainland, one of the main bodies of land. (Europe, Asia, Africa, N & S America, Australia, Antarctica.)

Egypt is a land in the north of African the continent in the Mediterranean region. Nothing personal here its just a matter of using the accepted terminology. I remember not so long ago, some people from Southern Spain got together to say they were Latinos and not Europeans. It didnt work of course for Spain is part of the EU. They would have a better case by saying they were Mediterraneanos. But Northern Spain faces the Bay of Biscay so perhaps we could call them Biscuits!

Italy and Greece are in the EU Trouble is nobody has really thought up a good word that can roll off the tongue to cover those of Mediterranean descent and many want to be known as Europeans despite any technical niggling about the terminology. Now Turkey is pushing to join the EU so what would you call them?



-------------
elenos


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 02:02
delete




Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 02:48
I'm not talking about race but about location and how to define that location. Now I could agree if you said location is is deeply etched into everybody's society. Why do I have to live in the poor part of town when everybody should know how much I deserve to live in rich part of town? Because that's the way the ball bounces.


-------------
elenos


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 03:18
Originally posted by elenos

I'm not talking about race but about location and how to define that location. Now I could agree if you said location is is deeply etched into everybody's society. Why do I have to live in the poor part of town when everybody should know how much I deserve to live in rich part of town? Because that's the way the ball bounces.



edit: the whole post wasn't aimed at you Elenos. Sorry about that. I moved it to my other post to clear up the confusion.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 05:26
 
Originally posted by Jugernot

Originally posted by elenos

Africa is a continent, not a country! How simplistic can some people get than to say all people in Africa are the same. Even without the presence of other race. there are more ethnic types in Africa that evolved differently in the ecological niches of savannas and jungles than anywhere else on earth.  


Yes my friend, I think you understand! Africa is the most diverse place on earth. It's critical for one to read Keita's piece called "the diversity of indigenous Africans" (it's on the keita page in my first post). For instance, people used to describe the Ethiopians, Somalis and Nubians as "Caucasoid". We now know that Africans can have "Caucasoid" features without any non-African ancestry. These types developed in Africa because it suited their surroundings more. There is no "true negro", such stereotypes led people like brace to come up with flawed findings (brace now corrected his mistakes). Most anthropologists and egyptologists don't even use the terms "Caucasian" or "Negro" to describe the Egyptians anymore, because it can be very misleading.
They're misleading in any context.


I cant force anyone to change their opinion. I can only give you information and show you what current Egyptologists think. Their conclusion is that Egypt was an African civilization.Why this is so hard to accept, I do not know.
Because it has nothing in common with the other civilisations of Africa, and pretty well everything in common with the other civilisations of south-west Asia and the Levant. It would be just as silly to call the civilisation of the Fertile Crescent 'Asian'.


No one skin complexion made one more Egyptian than the other, they were all Egyptian. No one skin complexion made them any more African than the other, they were all African (Again, as Dr Yurco said, not all Africans are black).

"This modern population still echoes Nile Valley diversity, where people of the lightest and darkest complexions within Africa are found (Trigger 1978; Yurco 1989). Nonetheless, these Nilotic populations are all Africans, so was the population, religion, culture, and other aspects of pharaonic Egypt" (Yurco).

Edit:
Let me try to make this easier to understand for everyone. First of all, throw this race nonsense out the window (Caucasian, Negro). Know this; biologically theres no such thing as race. We all started out in Africa. So why then dont we all look the same? Simple, we developed to best suit the environment we live in. The whole Hamitic hypothesis has long since been proven to be false (at least 11 years now). So what does this mean? Once people moved out of Africa theres no evidence to suggest large migrations moved back in to create the Caucasians and blacks with Caucasoid features in Africa.
Agreed. But there is overwhelming evidence that agriculture and domesticated livestock and all the other prerequisites of civilisation moved from the fertile crescent into Egypt. Domestication of animals and plants never started independently in Egypt.
 
This has nothing to do with people or race, simply with the climatic and topographic conditions in the related areas and the variety of local wildlife and plants.
 
These peoples all developed in Africa to suit their diverse environments. This is why Egypt is an African civilization (already gave ample evidence), but not a black civilization (they were diverse and not all indigenous Africans are black).


-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 24-Jul-2007 at 06:39
I knew your post was not aimed at me, Jugernot, I thought you has a good point and answered it. My style of writing I suppose. Why is this subject so important to you? We really have to think of proximity here. there are many Egyptian and Ancient Cretan sacred stories of an early connection between the two places. I would suggest you look them up.


-------------
elenos


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 01:03
The subject is important because I love history, and it should be told as it really was.

gcl2003, as far as domesticated animals:

"One of the exciting archaeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East."

If you haven't already done so, you should look at the info I posted (lots of interesting stuff).

I'm pretty much done with this topic. Even if you disagree, I hope everyone enjoyed the info I posted nonetheless.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 06:23
Originally posted by Jugernot

The subject is important because I love history, and it should be told as it really was.

gcl2003, as far as domesticated animals:

"One of the exciting archaeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East."
That the Sahel culture domesticated the cattle themselves is a subject of dispute, and the dates are somewhat exaggerated. 9-8,000 years agoi might be more accurate.
 
Moreover, it isn't just a matter of cattle (the wild ancsetor of which was present in North Africa), but of sheep, pigs, goats and the cereal and other crops.


If you haven't already done so, you should look at the info I posted (lots of interesting stuff).
 
The primer on the subject is Diamond's Guns, Germs, Steel, which I assume you've read.


I'm pretty much done with this topic. Even if you disagree, I hope everyone enjoyed the info I posted nonetheless.


-------------


Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 18:30
How hard can it be to come up with a username.

-------------
Arrrgh!!"


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 19:06
gcle2003 (no offense), your repeating things my sources have already gone over (Christopher Ehret and Dr Frank Yurco). I'm done with this topic, no need to go around in circles. As I said, if you disagree, I hope you enjoyed the info I presented nonetheless.




Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 20:32
Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator

The most logical crossing place for people from the Levant to bring Afroasiatic languages would be the Sinai, and as you can see, that area indicated to be the origins is nowhere near, proving Jugernot's point...


Actually the map clearly depicts the "Afro-Asiatic Languages" moving up through Egypt, across the Sinai, and into the Fertile Crescent. This unequivocally indicates that Egypt had much closer linguistic ties with the languages of the Fertile Crescent than with the Khoisan languages, which emerge from a whole different branch of the Afro-Asiatic root.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2007 at 20:48

Afro-Asiatic languages distribution. It is quite clear that family of language is not only "Afro", because includes Arabia, the Levante and other regions in Asia. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called "Asiatic". Big%20smile

 



-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2007 at 02:05
I would go along with that pinquin. All those early men got their asses moving out of Africa and back again when their looks had changed. "The object of my affection can change my complexion from black to rosy red.."

Why would that happen? Diet has a role to play in genetics worth looking into. Agriculture was never was founded in Africa, but in Western Turkey and spread from there. The grain as a steady source of food, made people settle down and breed more as they bred they expanded again right back to where they started from!


-------------
elenos


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2007 at 05:12
 
Originally posted by elenos

Agriculture was never was founded in Africa, but in Western Turkey and spread from there. The grain as a steady source of food, made people settle down and breed more as they bred they expanded again right back to where they started from!
 
There are three possible areas where agriculture may have self-started in Africa - the Sahel region south of the Sahara, West Africa and Ethiopia. It isn't terribly clear, but since the crops cultivated are totally different in Sahel/West Africa to those domesticated in the Fertile Crescent, it seems likely there was an independent beginning to agriculture there. The Ethiopians do seem to have picked up some of their crops (but not the coffee bean, Ethiopia's unique contribution) from the Fertile Crescent via Egypt.
 
I don't know where you get Western Turkey from: Eastern would be closer, but the oldest evidence of agriculture comes from the Jordan valley.


-------------


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2007 at 06:20

You are right gcle2003I - OMG, I made a typo! I meant Southern Turkey of course. Among the first proven Neothilic settlements is in the village of Catal-Huyuk in Southern Turkey. They had a population of 5000 inhabitants 9000 years B.C. In that area a collection of sickles was found with inserted oxidian blades, smoothed by the routine contact with the stalk of cereals. The sickles indicate that it was possible to collect seeds not only by picking on the ground, but also by cutting stems of plants.

The favored origin of farming practices is of course as you say located in the 'Fertile Crescent': the wide belt of Asia which includes Southern Turkey, Palestine, Lebanon and North Iraq. In the highlands of this area had abundant rainfall. In all of this area existed, and still exists a wide variety of wild cereals, sometimes in natural extended fields, induced by the rainfalls. Wheat) and barley were common and collected by the local dwellers. The wild cereals had very few seeds which fell on the ground.

In the 'Fertile Crescent' food storing and the development of animal farming took place. For hundreds thousands of years: the human birth rate had been limited by nomadic life. Farmers were settlers that wanted to produce more hands in the family. The family size exploded and, as a result, a need to gain more lands ensued.

The farmer's expansion lasted from 9000 B.C. up to the 4000 B.C. when they reached Ireland, Denmark and Sweden covering most cultivable lands in Europe. The expansions followed the waterways of Mediterranean and of Danube across the time of Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans. .



-------------
elenos


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2007 at 18:43
Originally posted by elenos

I would go along with that pinquin. All those early men got their asses moving out of Africa and back again when their looks had changed. "The object of my affection can change my complexion from black to rosy red.."

Why would that happen? Diet has a role to play in genetics worth looking into. Agriculture was never was founded in Africa, but in Western Turkey and spread from there. The grain as a steady source of food, made people settle down and breed more as they bred they expanded again right back to where they started from!


The theory youre talking about is widely accepted to be false. Diamond and Bellwood are trying to give it new life. However, without enough evidence, and a mountain of evidence against the theory, I wouldnt put my faith in it.

 
In their review Farmers and their languages: the first expansions (25 Apr. 2003, p. 597), J. Diamond and P. Bellwood suggest that food production and the Afroasiatic language family were brought simultaneously from the Near East to Africa by demic diffusion, in other words, by a migration of food-producing peoples. In resurrecting this generally abandoned view, the authors misrepresent the views of the late I. M. Diakonoff (1), rely on linguistic reconstructions inapplicable to their claims (2), and fail to engage the five decades of Afroasiatic scholarship that rebutted this idea in the first place. This extensive, well-grounded linguistic research places the Afroasiatic homeland in the southeastern Sahara or adjacent Horn of Africa (3-8) and, when all of Afroasiatics branches are included, strongly indicate a pre-food-producing proto-Afroasiatic economy (1, 7, 8).

 

A careful reading of Diakonoff (1) shows his continuing adherence to his long-held position of an exclusively African origin (4, 5) for the family. He explicitly describes proto-Afroasiatic vocabulary as consistent with non-food-producing vocabulary and links it to pre-Neolithic cultures in the Levant and in Africa south of Egypt, noting the latter to be older. Diakonoff does revise his location for the Common Semitic homeland, moving it from entirely within northeast Africa to areas straddling in the Nile Delta and Sinai, but continues to place the origins of the five other branches of the Afroasiatic language family wholly in Africa (1). (Ehret, Keita, Newman)

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/afroasiatic_-_keita.pdf - http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/afroasiatic_-_keita.pdf

The five branches with a wholly African origin are ancient Egyptian, Cush*tic, Berber, Chadic and Omotic.

 

As for farming:

 The archaeology of Neolithic and predynastic Egypt does not support mass migration from outside of Africa. The earliest evidence for farming in the Nile Valley indicates that local people incorporated Near Eastern domesticates into an indigenous foraging subsistence strategy (Wetterstorm, 1993) that, over time, developed into more reliance on farming. This is not consistent with a Neolithic revolution that would have occurred if there had been mass settlement by farmers! Settlement patterns and artifacts do not suggest the wholesale settler colonization of the Nile Valley by a community of alien origin. (Keita)

http://homestead.com/wysinger/badari.pdf - http://homestead.com/wysinger/badari.pdf

This view seems to be more plausible to me.

Guess Im not quite done with this topic.




Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2007 at 22:00
I want what places like Catal Huyuk have. Photos of the actual sites, carbon dating for the stratas that show an evolution of knowledge, stocks of tools that can be examined and other hard evidence of progressive development. Forget quotes from books for paper theories are weak and pitiful in the light of physical evidence.  I don't give a damn about where the sites are located, they can be in Timbuktu or in my back garden as long is there is hard evidence that can be verified by state of the art equipment.


-------------
elenos


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2007 at 22:34
Originally posted by elenos

I want what places like Catal Huyuk have. Photos of the actual sites, carbon dating for the stratas that show an evolution of knowledge, stocks of tools that can be examined and other hard evidence of progressive development. Forget quotes from books for paper theories are weak and pitiful in the light of physical evidence.  I don't give a damn about where the sites are located, they can be in Timbuktu or in my back garden as long is there is hard evidence that can be verified by state of the art equipment.


The afroasiatic stuff is fact until proven otherwise.

As for farming, there's not enough evidence to conclusively show demic diffusion occurred. We'll have to wait  to find which theory is 100%. Even Keita said future work will give a clearer picture.


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2007 at 23:05
Jugernot, I just read through the evidence you posted, they do not push for any conclusion like you do. Of course Africa  (depending on what part you are talking about, but I will go along with all the generalities) could have, perhaps should have developed earlier. Maybe they did but we are waiting until the body of archaeological evidence is produced and visit the places rather than read about them. Post the photos of a Neolithic's site in Africa 9000BC or older and we will all become true believers immediately! 

-------------
elenos


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2007 at 23:25
Originally posted by elenos

Jugernot, I just read through the evidence you posted, they do not push for any conclusion like you do. Of course Africa  (depending on what part you are talking about, but I will go along with all the generalities) could have, perhaps should have developed earlier. Maybe they did but we are waiting until the body of archaeological evidence is produced and visit the places rather than read about them. Post the photos of a Neolithic's site in Africa 9000BC or older and we will all become true believers immediately! 


There's not enough archaeological evidence to show demic diffusion took place. You can read it plain as day. However, no one is saying there wasn't any outside influence. I don't know what conclusion you think I have. The fact is, there's no archaeological evidence to show large migrations moved back into Africa after they left.

I'm giving you current mainstream ideas. If you don't like it, that's not my fault.



Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 00:06
I have no theories at all on the spread of afroasiatic language and agree there can be no debate there for I am unaware what your premises are. I like current mainstream ideas and ones that are not if worth taking a look. Sorry we do not have the same standards of judging what they are, but it takes all kinds of proof to satisfy the public and I'm just one of them.  

-------------
elenos


Posted By: Jugernot
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 00:26
Originally posted by elenos

I have no theories at all on the spread of afroasiatic language and agree there can be no debate there for I am unaware what your premises are. I like current mainstream ideas and ones that are not if worth taking a look. Sorry we do not have the same standards of judging what they are, but it takes all kinds of proof to satisfy the public and I'm just one of them.  


and I'm fine with that. But, if there isn't the archaeological evidence to support demic diffusion, then I'm not convinced either. Hopefully in the future we'll have a better understanding on the subject.

and i misread your last post, sorry about that.


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 00:37
Well, migration back into Africa is an unnecessary consideration. What's important is not Neolithic migrations, but cultural ties that exist between networks of cities and towns. If Neolithic migrations were important, we'd call Romans, Greeks, Celts and Germans Middle Eastern or East Indian (Indo-European roots), but we do not.

These networks of cities and towns transcend mere national boundaries and are in fact the prerequisite for early states. The Egyptians were interconnected with a network linked by trade, that extended from the Nile clear to the Indus.

They were not substantially connected with Africa - there were local connections with Punt and Nubia but nothing more substantial than that. They may have had some origin on that continent - as we all did - but no lasting contact.

Egyptian technological development reflects its connection with Mesopotamia not Africa - adopting technologies directly from Mesopotamia, like the plough, the wheel, and so on.


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2007 at 01:12
I cannot work out some of your points edgewaters. The Mediterranean became just a relative pond insofar as traveling about to set up new colonies for a long time before civilization. I agree with you in that Egyptian technological development does reflect the cultural ties. Perhaps you mean the interchange of technologies, the migration of ideas, as the important factor. I will go along with that. 

-------------
elenos


Posted By: irani
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 12:37
egyptians were brown, They were mixed with black people from africa and white people from the middle east. They were very similar to current day egyptians.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 15:40
 
Originally posted by Jugernot

The theory youre talking about is widely accepted to be false. Diamond and Bellwood are trying to give it new life. However, without enough evidence, and a mountain of evidence against the theory, I wouldnt put my faith in it.

It's perfectly possible to believe with Diamond that the Egyptian civilisation developed out of that of the Fertile Crescent, without believing that that had anything to do with either racial migration or the spread of language.
 
In fact the sheer history of the devlopment of hieroglyphics indicates to me that, while the idea of writing came from Mesopotamia to Egypt, the difference in language led to the implementation of a very different system.
 
Culture, race and language need to be kept separate unless there is good evidence to connect them. Modern Britain has plenty of people of West Indian (hence African) descent who are nonetheless totally English linguistically and culturally.
 
Racial migration can take place with or without language migration and with or without cultural migration.
 
The question of the origin of Egyptian language or Egyptian culture therefore has nothing to do with the question originally posed here, which was a racial one.


-------------


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 20:08
This would take a lot of space to answer and lots of sources. The leadership of the Egyptians were Caucasian but a Semitic race with olive complexion although the Egyptian society was multicultural so there were black Egyptians. There was a period after the Nubian conquest when the Pharaohs were black. This is only based on sources I have read and Egyptian paintings and recreations, I have seen, from human skulls- doesn't mean I am right.

-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 22:29
I think before this question can be answered one must first define what is meant by "black" or "white". Are we defining "black" by the US Governments definition, are we basing it on skin color, or are we basing it on whether or not the were a native African people?


Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 23:48
It's funny that 11 people would actually choose "white", when in all actuallity, Egyptians can not even be proven to be "white" or "black". There is absolutly 0 conclusive evidence showing that they were white.


Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 04:37
The poll could be widened to say Semitic and others who are not black. Even black is a dodgy term for many types have lived in Africa. Other answers could be given but the poll is too narrow. 

-------------
elenos


Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 15:38
Originally posted by elenos

The poll could be widened to say Semitic and others who are not black. Even black is a dodgy term for many types have lived in Africa. Other answers could be given but the poll is too narrow.


I've seen this debate on many forums, but no one has ever been able to answer the one basic question that I think is central to this whole issue, which is, what is meant by "black"? And for that matter, exactly what is meant by "white"? Perhaps you can give me an answer.


Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 23:03
History has been tampered with due to racism and racial pride, and clearly as you can see this brainwashing affect has effected most people making comments. So due to this racial brainwashing which has lasted for probably centuries, most people wouldn't even think of saying they were black.


Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 23:14
There was a mixture of ethnicities there. But from what i learned the original Egyptians were black.Then through time there were others who inhabited Egypt, from different parts around that region. Due to this migration, and intermixing, they became more of a diverse group of people.


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 23:14

These colour-oriented questions always pop-up and frankly there are ridiculous. I can see where Surmount is coming from, and I agree with him. You can't define ethnicities by colour - ethnicities are defined by ethno-lingustic traits whereas race is defined by genetics. If they were black or white - probably both - then it has no real part to play in the interpretation of their history.



-------------


Posted By: Surmount
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 23:25
Please if you don't mind, explain to me what you mean in detail by.

ethnicities are defined by ethno-lingustic traits whereas race is defined by genetics

Thank you.Big%20smile


Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 00:51
"Ethnicities" (eg. English, German, Latvian, Tartar, Hungarian, Wehga, Zulu etc.) are not tied to any genetic or racial types. They are defined by Ethno-Linguistic differences which have taken place over history. For example, the English are a mix of Celts, French, Germans, Danish and Norwegans. These cultures mixed and caused a unique fusion which, in time, created a distinctly "English" culture. Despite being formed out of various other Ethnicities, nobody would regard the English as Germans, French etc. because "Ethnicity" is fluid and is essentially tribal recognition.
"Race" is a more complex concept as its' supposedly founded on genetics and not ethnicities. It doesn't matter what ethnicity one is, which is abstract, one belongs to a certain race that has some genetic differences from others due mainly to their location on the earth and how their bodies over millenia have adapted to it. "Ethnicitiy" is generally fluid, but "Race" is not.
That said, I'm only voicing the considering opinion and I for one personally believe that there is so much cultural AND genetic intermingling that the terms of "Race" cannot be applied to a single people because the gene pool is always changed by mutations and inter-breeding. The Ancient Egyptians were an Ethnicity, defined by a common culture, nationality, religion, ethnography, approach to life and language. When regarding a country like this, race is unimportant as (apart from in the modern era, which I think has serverly clouded some people's judgement about ancient history on this forum) the ancient's didn't consider "race" in the way we do - it was about common culture and politics. Naturally, since there was less interrelations and globalisation, it was more common for say, a caucasian to be a Gaul (just an ethnic group) than it was for an African to be one, but nonetheless, I can't help feeling that many people in this thread who address issues in this manner are approaching it from a 1930s theoratical view which has no relation to the ancient world whatsoever.


-------------


Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 08:21
Originally posted by Surmount

Please if you don't mind, explain to me what you mean in detail by.

ethnicities are defined by ethno-lingustic traits whereas race is defined by genetics

Thank you.Big%20smile


There's absolutely NO genetic definition of race. There's isn't one trait that is particular to any one race, therefore race is not genetically defined to any extend.


-------------
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."


Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 11:07
Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator

"Ethnicities" (eg. English, German, Latvian, Tartar, Hungarian, Wehga, Zulu etc.) are not tied to any genetic or racial types. They are defined by Ethno-Linguistic differences which have taken place over history. For example, the English are a mix of Celts, French, Germans, Danish and Norwegans. These cultures mixed and caused a unique fusion which, in time, created a distinctly "English" culture. Despite being formed out of various other Ethnicities, nobody would regard the English as Germans, French etc. because "Ethnicity" is fluid and is essentially tribal recognition.


"Race" is a more complex concept as its' supposedly founded on genetics and not ethnicities. It doesn't matter what ethnicity one is, which is abstract, one belongs to a certain race that has some genetic differences from others due mainly to their location on the earth and how their bodies over millenia have adapted to it. "Ethnicitiy" is generally fluid, but "Race" is not.
That said, I'm only voicing the considering opinion and I for one personally believe that there is so much cultural AND genetic intermingling that the terms of "Race" cannot be applied to a single people because the gene pool is always changed by mutations and inter-breeding. The Ancient Egyptians were an Ethnicity, defined by a common culture, nationality, religion, ethnography, approach to life and language. When regarding a country like this, race is unimportant as (apart from in the modern era, which I think has serverly clouded some people's judgement about ancient history on this forum) the ancient's didn't consider "race" in the way we do - it was about common culture and politics. Naturally, since there was less interrelations and globalisation, it was more common for say, a caucasian to be a Gaul (just an ethnic group) than it was for an African to be one, but nonetheless, I can't help feeling that many people in this thread who address issues in this manner are approaching it from a 1930s theoratical view which has no relation to the ancient world whatsoever.


I agree with you. Nevertheless, I find it interesting that people continue to use these terms, "BLACK", "WHITE", but I have never in any forum had anyone answer the one basic question that I've been asking. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY BLACK? The question of this thread is were the Egyptians Black or White. There's even been a poll, yet no one is willing to or able to answer this one basic question, WHAT IS BLACK?    How can one discuss a topic when no one is even able or willing to define the subject of that discussion on the most basic level?


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 14:19
Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator

"Ethnicities" (eg. English, German, Latvian, Tartar, Hungarian, Wehga, Zulu etc.) are not tied to any genetic or racial types. They are defined by Ethno-Linguistic differences which have taken place over history. For example, the English are a mix of Celts, French, Germans, Danish and Norwegans. These cultures mixed and caused a unique fusion which, in time, created a distinctly "English" culture. Despite being formed out of various other Ethnicities, nobody would regard the English as Germans, French etc. because "Ethnicity" is fluid and is essentially tribal recognition.
"Race" is a more complex concept as its' supposedly founded on genetics and not ethnicities. It doesn't matter what ethnicity one is, which is abstract, one belongs to a certain race that has some genetic differences from others due mainly to their location on the earth and how their bodies over millenia have adapted to it. "Ethnicitiy" is generally fluid, but "Race" is not.
That said, I'm only voicing the considering opinion and I for one personally believe that there is so much cultural AND genetic intermingling that the terms of "Race" cannot be applied to a single people because the gene pool is always changed by mutations and inter-breeding. The Ancient Egyptians were an Ethnicity, defined by a common culture, nationality, religion, ethnography, approach to life and language. When regarding a country like this, race is unimportant as (apart from in the modern era, which I think has serverly clouded some people's judgement about ancient history on this forum) the ancient's didn't consider "race" in the way we do - it was about common culture and politics. Naturally, since there was less interrelations and globalisation, it was more common for say, a caucasian to be a Gaul (just an ethnic group) than it was for an African to be one, but nonetheless, I can't help feeling that many people in this thread who address issues in this manner are approaching it from a 1930s theoratical view which has no relation to the ancient world whatsoever.
 
Very well summarised!!!Clap
 
The best answer to this question is to ask another question:
 
are modern  Brasilians and Cubans black or white?


Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 15:30
Originally posted by calvo

Originally posted by Aster Thrax Eupator

"Ethnicities" (eg. English, German, Latvian, Tartar, Hungarian, Wehga, Zulu etc.) are not tied to any genetic or racial types. They are defined by Ethno-Linguistic differences which have taken place over history. For example, the English are a mix of Celts, French, Germans, Danish and Norwegans. These cultures mixed and caused a unique fusion which, in time, created a distinctly "English" culture. Despite being formed out of various other Ethnicities, nobody would regard the English as Germans, French etc. because "Ethnicity" is fluid and is essentially tribal recognition.


"Race" is a more complex concept as its' supposedly founded on genetics and not ethnicities. It doesn't matter what ethnicity one is, which is abstract, one belongs to a certain race that has some genetic differences from others due mainly to their location on the earth and how their bodies over millenia have adapted to it. "Ethnicitiy" is generally fluid, but "Race" is not.
That said, I'm only voicing the considering opinion and I for one personally believe that there is so much cultural AND genetic intermingling that the terms of "Race" cannot be applied to a single people because the gene pool is always changed by mutations and inter-breeding. The Ancient Egyptians were an Ethnicity, defined by a common culture, nationality, religion, ethnography, approach to life and language. When regarding a country like this, race is unimportant as (apart from in the modern era, which I think has serverly clouded some people's judgement about ancient history on this forum) the ancient's didn't consider "race" in the way we do - it was about common culture and politics. Naturally, since there was less interrelations and globalisation, it was more common for say, a caucasian to be a Gaul (just an ethnic group) than it was for an African to be one, but nonetheless, I can't help feeling that many people in this thread who address issues in this manner are approaching it from a 1930s theoratical view which has no relation to the ancient world whatsoever.


Very well summarised!!!Clap


The best answer to this question is to ask another question:


are modern Brasilians and Cubans black or white?


Again, what do you mean by black? Why are people so reluctant to answer such a basic question?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 15:35
Well, I understand that "Black" is used in the sense of a person West African origin of Congoid phenotype, that happens to have very dark skin, and its descendents. Particularly of the ethnic groups called Bantu, Mandinga and others alike of the region of Africa. In short, it is a descriptor of a particularly group of people that lived in a small region of Africa and that were the victims of the transatlantic slave trade.
 
If that definition is applied, Egyptians were not Blacks. Simple.
 
Pinguin
 


-------------


Posted By: Rakasnumberone
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 23:32
Originally posted by pinguin

Well, I understand that "Black" is used in the sense of a person West African origin of Congoid phenotype, that happens to have very dark skin, and its descendents. Particularly of the ethnic groups calledBantu, Mandinga and others alike of the region of Africa.In short, it is a descriptor of a particularly group of people that lived in a small region of Africa and that were the victims of the transatlantic slave trade.

If that definition is applied, Egyptians were not Blacks. Simple.


Pinguin



Thank you for answering my question. Okay, given your definition, are you aware of the fact that this description does not apply to all the inhabitants of the continent, not even SSub Saharan Africa. How then does one classify other African peoples who do not fit this description? Many South Africans have yellowish skins and "mongoloid" features, are they black? What about East Africans like Sudanes, Nubians, Somalis and Ethiopians? And then of course what do you do with Afro Americans, a significant percentage of whom look nothing even close to this definition, but who nevertheless are considered black? might It be more accurate to have asked what African physical type rather than black?



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com