Print Page | Close Window

Egypt Origins

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mesopotamia, Near East and Greater Iran
Forum Discription: Babylon, Egypt, Persia and other civilizations of the Near East from ancient times to 600s AD
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=664
Printed Date: 29-Mar-2024 at 10:45
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Egypt Origins
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Subject: Egypt Origins
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 05:11

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

What is your idea about it?



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



Replies:
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 17:10

I really dont want to get into this debate as so many people get really wierd about this topic so Ill just ake an argument-lite.

Cultural influence has nothing to do with actual migration and conquest in many situations, and can simply be a by-product of trade, fr example no conclusive evidence exists that Ireland was ever invaded or the host of migrations from teh Celts, yet their culture is considered Celtic, so also an be the case of Egypt.

Lets simply face it...no one thinks Africa itself could ever produce a civilization like Egypt, so they come up with fantasy theories about migrations and Hamites which would be prfectly reasonable if there was any proof, which there is not.

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



-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 13:54
I would have to say that even if there was an actual migration, it didn't have a political impact as much as a cultural one.  Egypt apparently did adopt some major facits of culture of Sumero-Susian origin, but remained distinctively Egyptian for at least two millenia after the initial Mesopotamian influence came and went.  This itself is consistent with what we know of he Uruk Expansion (c. 3800-3200 BC).  The southern Mesopotamians created trade colonies and garrisons throughout much of the Middle East to gain either access or control over natural resources far from their homes.  In the case of the west, this cultural dominance stopped in northern Syria.  We know that among the major centers of this Uruk expansion were Uruk, Girsu (both in Sumer), and Susa (in Elam).  This cultural tyranny may have stopped in northern Syria, but then, Egypt was not distant.  Contact may have occurred via the sea-route which in historical times connected Egypt with Phoenicia, more specifically with Byblos.  Whatever influences the Mesopotamians had with the Egyptians, the Egyptians fairly quickly made them their own, and refined them. 


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2004 at 17:52

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

 

 I'll have to disagree on this. Mitochondrial DNA analysis is the wrong way to deal with that, because of the fact a small group of the original women population, marrying the invaders will give you the impression that the new generation is similar to the original one. This is infact extremely misleading and without foundation even scientifically speaking.

  However although as you say art is very stylised, in the case of the Egyptian it was rather accurate and cannot be considered as art but recorded history.  They protrayed themselves as they perceived correct. In fact, in one drawing you can see Ramses, a giant, holding the heads of a Lybian, nubian and syrian, clearly this drawing is very accurate with diferring colour skins tone fo each civ. And Ramses was protrayed as a giant to show superiority over them. I think it's not really art but recorded history. But you got to beware of propaganda, Pharaohs tend to glorify themselves,  jut like modern history it takes a shape mind to distinguish btw truth and propaganda.



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


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2004 at 18:07

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

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

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



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


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2004 at 18:07

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

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

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



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


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2004 at 18:13

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

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

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



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


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2004 at 18:24

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

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

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



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


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2004 at 18:57

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

 

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

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

 




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


Posted By: Evildoer
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2004 at 17:04

Even before the Romans, the Egyptian elite were probabbly "white-skinned" since the Pharaohs were all Greeks starting from Alexander when he liberated Egypt from Persia. Cleopetra was the first Pharoh since Alexander to speak Egyptian I belive.

There were several great civillizations that were totally African. Zimbabwe for example which even sent a mission to China.



Posted By: Cornellia
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2004 at 19:27

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

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

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



-------------
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2004 at 20:01
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

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

actually the first guy ís Lybian and the third is syrian. you can easily tell the Lybians by those feathers or whatever on their heads...



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


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2004 at 01:59

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

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

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

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

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



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


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2004 at 13:11
I definately think that Egyptians used to be darker than they are now...remember all those foreign migrations like the Semetic Hyksos and later hirsute Greeks and Arabs...  You can tell if you look at people north of Cairo they are different are more pale then those int eh south.

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Cornellia
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2004 at 14:42

Originally posted by Tobodai

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

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

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

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

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



-------------
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2004 at 16:52

well if soputherners being darker the influence of kush*tic oputsiders it sjust as likely northerners are influenced from other foreigners as well.  There also never where very man y Nubians, when Kush conquered Egypt it was only about 80 years and not many of them migrated, unlike the Greeks who rule dmuch longer and had alot of people move into the Nile.

Also its erroneous to call peopel south of Egypt "ethiopians" even though the Greeks did.  The culture of the Ethiopian highlands is very different from the Kush*tic/Meroetic peoples of modern Sudan.  They were never one nation until Axum sacked Meroe, and by that point the Kush*tes had been replaced by mroe modern Nubians from hrder tribes.



-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2004 at 18:13

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

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

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



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


Posted By: Cornellia
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2004 at 19:39

I used Ethiopia not because the Greeks did but because that's the modern day equivalent to the area, Tobodai, and you are correct - to a point. 

In Egyptian wall paintings, men are painted a dark (but never as dark as the known ancient blacks) BUT women are painted white.

So, if Egyptian wall paintings show Egyptian society as it is.............................and we know that Egyptian pharoahs married their female close kin...............why are the men dark and the women white?  If they share the same genetic code, wouldn't they be the same color?

Note the female is obviously white.



-------------
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas


Posted By: Colchis
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2004 at 20:18
Originally posted by Cornellia

In Egyptian wall paintings, men are painted a dark (but never as dark as the known ancient blacks) BUT women are painted white.

So, if Egyptian wall paintings show Egyptian society as it is.............................and we know that Egyptian pharoahs married their female close kin...............why are the men dark and the women white?  If they share the same genetic code, wouldn't they be the same color?


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

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



Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2004 at 21:02

no the modern equivalent to Nubia is modern north Sudan not Ethiopia, Ethiopians have no more in common wiht Nubians then they do with Kenyans.

Im not saying the Egyptians were black, but they were darker than Arabs, their paitings cant be trusted, but that could work wither way.  Try farming in the Nile, Im sure a white person would get very sunburned and would be maladapted.



-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2004 at 21:14
women were white becasue white chikcs are mroe attractive, just look at japan, ther Geishas paint themselves completely white, so it'S just a beauty thing entering the world of wall paintings...

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


Posted By: Cornellia
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2004 at 07:45
I stand correct, Tobodai.

-------------
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2004 at 11:29
lol I ve just noticed a strange thing in this thread, it seems that theres some sort of rudimentary censorship program that refuses to allow me to type Kush*te as it detects the "s-h-i-t" part and take sout the i.  Strangeness.

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2004 at 11:29
yeah it did it again! 

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Cornellia
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2004 at 14:08
I wondered why you kept typing it like that.  LOL

-------------
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas


Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 07-Oct-2004 at 18:30

Good point Cornellia. The reason why Egyptian males were always painted a reddish brown is symbolic, not factual. For one thing, Egyptian art is a highly symbolic art form, and nothing is to be taking literally.

 Hmmm, that would be wrong. Actually the pictures are very concise, an analogy to that would be English language. Everyone has his own handwriting but the language is standardized. Same thing for Egyptian pictures, it is standardized, the colour tone is accurate and they'll portray all gods as giant for instance. Everything is precisely pictured and you can have an accurate idea what jars, what ships and what and how they hunt from their pictures. In some case skin tone has a particular significance like for the gods. However on that picture that woman is clearly white. The reason why many women is portrayed as white rather than black is simply most of those women are not real Egyptian but foreigners or of strong foreign ancestry. Usually the elite only are portrayed and many Pharaohs married foreign women. These women became the elite and are therefore commonly portrayed. However the common Egyptian women are still african in origin (African here is a vague term since it is far from being a race but an extremely varied type of people). I'll put the original Egyptian as exactly the same as the Ethiopian wildess tribe as well as the coptic Egyptian. Any idea that the Egyptian has arabic roots should be disgraded. Clearly Egyptian prior to Ramses II or III were an africoid race but later they become more mixed up and can hardly to be called africans.

 That case will be similar to us french, the original people were from Gaul, but the romans, Franks and scandinavians also came and gave the country another dimension. I want history to be told as it is, and speculations and myths should all be disgarded. The same kind of myths have led to people to believe that normans were viking rather than french.

 



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


Posted By: boody4
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2004 at 21:33
"I used Ethiopia not because the Greeks did but because that's the modern day equivalent to the area, Tobodai, and you are correct - to a point. 

In Egyptian wall paintings, men are painted a dark (but never as dark as the known ancient blacks) BUT women are painted white.

So, if Egyptian wall paintings show Egyptian society as it is.............................and we know that Egyptian pharoahs married their female close kin...............why are the men dark and the women white?  If they share the same genetic code, wouldn't they be the same color?"

Um i think the answer could also be as simple as the women wore a lot of makeup...including "face whitener".



Posted By: Quetzalcoatl
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2004 at 03:05

So, if Egyptian wall paintings show Egyptian society as it is.............................and we know that Egyptian pharoahs married their female close kin...............why are the men dark and the women white?  If they share the same genetic code, wouldn't they be the same color?"

Um i think the answer could also be as simple as the women wore a lot of makeup...including "face whitener".

 Nope I don't think those women wear whiteners but are clearly white or very light in skin colour. The reason for then being white is that they are not Egyptian of origin but more likely foreigners, perhaps from greek. The vast majority of pictograms however portray women as dark and that picture probably date much after Ramses II. Below is a more accurate smaple of Egyptian women.

 

Image http://www.historel.net/femmegypt/pict14.jpg -

 

 Queen Tiy wooden carving, now you are not going to tell this women is an arab.

Image showing a woodern carving depicting Queen Tiy



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


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2004 at 14:26
yeah, wall paintings arent accurate, but in the more realistic sculpture you can see people who prolly look real close to reality, those small wooden dummies and sculptures all show a very brown people.

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2004 at 15:41

According to this site, the question of Egyptian "race" cannot be truly answered using Egyptian art. 

http://www.focusanthro.org/essays/jackson--03-04.html - http://www.focusanthro.org/essays/jackson--03-04.html

See also this site as to how Tutankhamun was portrayed as both "black" and "brown", as well as other interesting details.

http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html - http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html

The general consensus, however, is that the Egyptians were already a mix of various races in predynastic times, and that they viewed themselves as different and superior than everyone else.  "Race" in the modern sense of the word was not a valid category in Egyptian society.   What was a category was borders and culture.   A foreigner could become an "Egyptian". 



Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2004 at 16:46
Here is excerpt from 'The Worlds First Melting Pot' by Mark Andrews:

Examination of human remains from the Predynastic period shows a mixture of racial types, including negroid, Mediterranean and European. However, by the time that the dynastic period was clearly established, the racial types were already mixed to a large extent.. Therefore, the issue of race usually surfaces in regard to the protodynastic period (3100-2900 BC). Some scholars, such as W. B. Emery, believed that the predynastic Egyptians were conquered by a new race from the east. Skeletal evidence does in fact suggest that there was a physical or racial change during this period, but other scholars believe that the change was more gradual.. They think that the indigenous Egyptian population was gradually infiltrated by people from Syria-Palestine though the Delta region.

Recent studies by anthropologist C. Loring Brace, along with his co-researchers, taking a look at cranial measurements, suggest that the early Egyptians were similar to people from Southwest Asia and Neolithic Europe, as well as North and Northeast Africa. However, the study seems to rule out commonality with Africans from.

The Pharaonic Period

During Egypt's 3,000 year Pharaonic period, Egypt was both a captor and a captive of other lands. They both ruled Nubia, and were ruled by Nubia. There were Hyksos and Persians, and later certainly Greek and Roman populations within Egypt, as well as slaves from a number of different areas. Again, these cultures mixed, along with marriage, to a lesser or greater extent.

The Arabs

Most believe that whatever the racial mix at the end of the phraraonic period, the Arab invasion some 1,400 years ago probably had a considerable effect upon the indigenous population. Populations from any number of Arabic countries, from modern Saudi Arabia to Turkey came to Egypt, mixed with the Egyptians and largely resulted in the race of Egyptians we know today. Interestingly, however, DNA studies at the University of Cairo report that there is little differences between modern and ancient Egyptians. Of course, books on Egypt often point to members of the Coptic Christian faith as being closer in race to the ancient Egyptians, because they supposedly do not marry outside the ancient faith.

Regardless of what race came to Egypt first, what is most clear is that it has always been a melting pot of humanity, as it surely remains today. Ancient Egypt was a crossroad of civilizations, who often came to Egypt for one reason or another, and very often stayed on to become Egyptians themselves.

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


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2004 at 19:51
goes to support my theory that mutt societies do better than less diverse ones.

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: vagabond
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2004 at 03:27

I believe that the preponderance of archaeological, historical and literary evidence at this time leans toward the theory that Egyptian civilization developed as a unique culture in the Nile Valley. While there was contact with outsiders; Egyptian culture tended to look inward rather than outward until the invasion of the Hyksos forced them to consider the world outside of the Nile valley. There was certainly early contact between the civilizations - there are many well-documented pieces of correspondence between the rulers of the Nile valley and the rulers of the various states in Asia - from Anatolia to the Tigris and Euphrates valleys.

In addition to the written records of contact, there is a strong tradition of portraiture in Egypt. Portraits of foreigners were not uncommon, so the claim the article makes that the knife handle (which is not pictured, nor could I find a photo with the catalogue numbers given) is based on persons from either Sumeria or Susa is entirely possible. There are a number of images of foreigners throughout Egyptian history - becoming more common in the later Dynasties of the New Kingdom as contact with other cultures increased. Egyptian art certainly had a political side, rarely are foreigners depicted in a good light. They are either supplicants or diplomats appearing before the pharaoh or the conquered, being walked on and tortured by their conquerors. Some of the best portraits of foreigners familiar to many are the various articles in the Tutahnkamun collection in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. In this collection alone are the sandal images, the painted box and the cane and weapon handles as fine examples of exactly this practice of denigrating everyone (Asians, Hittites, Syrians, Lybians, Nubians…) who is not Egyptian .

Painted Box:

http://www.nilemuse.com/muse/TutBoxF.html - http://www.nilemuse.com/muse/TutBoxF.html

with a closer look here:

http://www.nilemuse.com/muse/TutBoxF.lg.html - http://www.nilemuse.com/muse/TutBoxF.lg.html#chestFront

amd the other side here:

http://dsc.discovery.com/anthology/unsolvedhistory/kingtut/tomb/tomb_zoom4.html - http://dsc.discovery.com/anthology/unsolvedhistory/kingtut/t omb/tomb_zoom4.html

 

These examples lead me to the next thought - the color of skin in ancient Egyptian art. Egyptian art is quite stylized - which is one of the reasons that it is such a good record of Egyptian thought and culture. Had it been ore expressionistic, it would have been more fluid and conventions would have changed more quickly, leading to a greater difficulty in interpretation. As it remained static for so man years (with the exception of the Amarna period), concepts and ideas are easily identifiable.

There was a short article on the old site regarding the use of color in Egyptian wall painting. Egyptian men were always depicted as red, Egyptian women as a lighter color.  Most of the discussion of wall painting applies as well to decorative painting on furniture and household items as many of the conventions were the same, although the materials were different and have therefore produced different colors as the years passed.

See the article by Mark Andrews here: http://touregypt.net/featurestories/artoverview.htm - http://touregypt.net/featurestories/artoverview.htm

And particularly the article by Marie Parsons here: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/colors.htm - http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/colors.htm

There are also good Egyptian portraiture links here: http://www.nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/index.html - http://www.nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/index.html

Some good examples of the conventional use of color in Egyptian art can be found here:

http://www.touregypt.net/magazine/mag01012001/magf4.htm - http://www.touregypt.net/magazine/mag01012001/magf4.htm

http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_Of_Art/viewHigh.asp?dep=10&viewmode=0&set=02 - http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_Of_Art/viewHigh.asp?dep=10&am p;viewmode=0&set=02

http://www.worldisround.com/articles/21513/ - http://www.worldisround.com/articles/21513/

(in particular #13, 25 and 28)

and compare the soldiers in these two photos:

http://www.hat.net/album/middle_east/004_egypt/day_48_egyptian_museum/detail029.htm - http://www.hat.net/album/middle_east/004_egypt/day_48_egypti an_museum/detail029.htm

http://www.hat.net/album/middle_east/004_egypt/day_48_egyptian_museum/detail028.htm - http://www.hat.net/album/middle_east/004_egypt/day_48_egypti an_museum/detail028.htm



-------------
In the time of your life, live - so that in that wonderous time you shall not add to the misery and sorrow of the world, but shall smile to the infinite delight and mystery of it. (Saroyan)


Posted By: vagabond
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2004 at 03:37

re:  portrait of Queen Tiye shown above

This is an Amarna period piece and cannot be compared to sculpture or painting  from other dynasties - there are many confusing portraits from the Amarna period.  Akenaten' artists portrayed the royal family in a very strange way.  Some have interpreted these portraits as being realistic, others as being, in their own way, quite stylized.  Compare this portrait of Tiye with Portraits of Nefertiti and others from the Amarna period here:

http://www.nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/1-a.htm">http://www.nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/1-a.htm



-------------
In the time of your life, live - so that in that wonderous time you shall not add to the misery and sorrow of the world, but shall smile to the infinite delight and mystery of it. (Saroyan)


Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 23-Oct-2004 at 06:18
Hey vagabond,good to see you. The code denied the last link.

http://www.nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/1-a.htm">Armana

http://www.nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/ - http://www.nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/


Posted By: vagabond
Date Posted: 24-Oct-2004 at 00:14

Thanks Catt - good to be seen -

Oops  sorry - let's try

http://www.nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/1-a.htm">http://www.nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/1-a.htm

(Strange - I know I didn't put that smilie in there???)

Hmmmm!

Got it - it should read  " http:......./1 8 d - a.htm "

The site code is reading the 8 d together as a smilie

You'l have to go to this page:

http://www.nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/index.html - http://www.nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/index.html

then look under New Kingdom/18th dynasty/from the riegn of Akhenaten until the end of the dynasty



-------------
In the time of your life, live - so that in that wonderous time you shall not add to the misery and sorrow of the world, but shall smile to the infinite delight and mystery of it. (Saroyan)


Posted By: Ptolemy
Date Posted: 30-Oct-2004 at 01:36

If you want to find the original egyptian, look among the coptic egyptian, they didn't marry the invaders.

A few people have mentioned this before, but you can't really tell the difference between a Copt and a muslim Egyptian. Albeit, there are more Copts in the south, and the people of upper Egypt are slightly darker.

Also, does anyone know how much Greeks and Jews contributed to modern Egyptians DNA?



Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2004 at 08:49

Not sure about the Jews but there were many Greeks living in Egypt until the 1960's.

My (limited) knowlegde is that they didn't intermary with the Egyptians (definately not with the Muslim ones) so they're not very likely to have any sizeable contribution to modern Egyptian DNA.



-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2004 at 09:05
Originally posted by Temujin

[QUOTE=Quetzalcoatl]

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

actually the first guy ís Lybian and the third is syrian. you can easily tell the Lybians by those feathers or whatever on their heads...

INDEEDAs an Egyptian and "regular" museum visitor you should have spotted that. on a mural one can see the forces of Pharaoh Merneptha fighting with the "Lybians"dressed like the First person above, but who knows? the Greek and Lybians may have dressed alike in his time, whilst the "Syrian"HAS a Mycenean, skirt.  The Greeks wore long pointed beards untill 500 bc afterwards they wore none and appear in "summer casual clothing"or at least their ancient Heros were painted on vases with shaven faces except Heracles. The "Egyptian" is painted in light brownbut this may be "traditional" andheactualy coulve been "European-White". Most"Nilotes" are pitch/Blue black but with European features.  "True Negroes  as we think to know them are the Bantu-Species.Besides the "Nubians"are an "enclave between Lower-Egypt and the Sudan-Negroes probably"discarded"egyptian military mercenaries-Veterans but from what Epoch???  The"MEDYAH

or"Mesh-Wesh"were definately present(Hamite-) "Massaii"who inter-married with White egyptian Women and"Egypt once had colonies in Kenia & Somalia;  during the early 18th Dynasty.

 



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


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2004 at 23:32

"Syrian"HAS a Mycenean, skirt.

or rather, the Mycenaean has a "Syrian" skirt

Besides the "Nubians"are an "enclave between Lower-Egypt and the Sudan-Negroes probably"discarded"egyptian military mercenaries-Veterans but from what Epoch???

Bad geography lesson.  Between Lower Egypt and the Sudan is Upper Egypt. 

"Nubians" (Egyptian, Nehasyu) is the collective name of all peoples south of the 1st Cataract (i.e. south of Upper Egypt), not "discarded Egyptian mercenaries". 

The"MEDYAH or"Mesh-Wesh"were definately present(Hamite-) "Massaii"who inter-married with White egyptian Women and"Egypt once had colonies in Kenia & Somalia;  during the early 18th Dynasty

They were different peoples.   The Medjay were a Lower Nubian tribe.  The Meshwesh were a Libyan people.  The ethnicity of the Nubians was not the result of "white" Egyptian women marrying native males.  True, Nubia was subject to Egyptian military and economic occupation at various periods, but nothing suggests a change in the physical anthropology of the Nubians. 



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2004 at 19:47
I didn't read the whole thread and I don't know much about Anicent Egypt so I'm probably wrong but...

Isn't the color white suppose to mean purity and omnipotence while the color red meant victory and life? I always thought that the wall paintings showed the skin color between both genders different because of that.

The people in this wall painting...

http://historylink101.net/egypt_1/egyptian-wall-painting-5 .jpg

... seem to be in some type of cermony or ritual so they could of painted their skin?

I don't know, just a guess on my part.



I do think that Ancient Egyptians were Mesopotamian since the civilization of Sumeria predates Egypt and is located fairly close to the Nile. Both civilizations bare some minor similarities so I don't doubt Ancient Egypt was settled orginal by Mesopotamians and just copulated with surrounding tribes.


Posted By: Mr Bobo
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2004 at 09:44

I think perhaps some of the assumptions that are made about on this subject are a bit narrow becasue people relate geo-political situation of that time period to the current geo-political situation. What i mean by this is that 5000 years ago there werent any defined countries and the like of what we had today, people moved about alot and you didnt need a visa to get from one area to another. This means that there will of course be many different cultures and practises of many different households/tribes/races in one particular region that dont nesceearily relate to the 'original' inhabitants of that region. This means its immpossible to say wether all 'Egyptians' were either fair skinned, originated from Mesopotamia or preffered chicken instead of lamb. Most definately there were certain sections of the general eygptian society that portrayed all or some of these characteristics in some way shape or form, but to classify all Eygptians with one particular characteristic or origin is narrow minded. Even today with set borders and things like immigration laws can you classify all Americans as white, slightly overweight and a bit slow?         



Posted By: Kids
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2004 at 01:58
Originally posted by Temujin

women were white becasue white chikcs are mroe attractive, just look at japan, ther Geishas paint themselves completely white, so it'S just a beauty thing entering the world of wall paintings...


If you know nothing about Oriental culture, please shut you month up. When Chinese encountered Caucasian tribes in Silk Road, they described them as "monkey-like" with "blond hairy faces and hairy body". When Japanese encountered Europeans in 15th century, they called them "Barbarians from the South", now they described them as almost devil like feature: blue eyes and hairy features. Yes, in today's world, under Westernization, our beauty perception was dictated by Western perception, but that wasnt the case back then.

In ancient time, there was no such thing as "racial superiorty", ancient Greeks believed Ehiopeans were the most beautiful people in the world, and we know that in a globalized Western world, black women rarely are the symbols of beauty.

Race is such important thing to European civilization, but not to other civilizations. I just dont understand why debate whether Egyptians were black civilization or white civilization was such a big deal?

Let me ask you this: Do you think ancient Greeks and Romans believed themselve as part of "European civilizaton"??? NO, abosolutely no! Europe was created by the Germanic tribes. Greeks and Romans called all their neighbors, regarless of their races, barbarians. Greeks and Chinese believed they were the most advanced civilizations on earth and see themselves as the center of the world. Thats why Greeks call their north as Europe and refered the south as Asia.

As a political science student, I can tell me one thing, by 2050, 40% of US population will be black and immigrants, and the low birth rate in Europe will force their governments to adopt similar immigration policy as that in North America. If you dont like other racial types, blame the seed of Western capitalism, which we (Westerners) worhshiped commodities, and destroyed the traditional familiy values. This results in low birth rate, and over reliance on immigrants.

The concept of race will definately destroyed in the middle of this century, and we will witeness shrinkage of native population in Europe. We can not blame why immigrants keep come to our world, because we create this globalized capitalist system.


Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2004 at 02:40
Welcome to AE Kids. Kids, it is very evident that when Temujin says "white chicks", he is not refering to modern white chicks but that the earliest cultures seemed to look at women's fair skin as a thing of beauty. Even Romans used creams to lighten the skin.Murals of fat Tang beauties on the Silk Road that your speak are commonly portrayed very light.Women from some of the northern areas of Japan such as Akita are regarded because of their fairer skin even today.


Posted By: Kids
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2004 at 08:33
Originally posted by Catt

Welcome to AE Kids. Kids, it is very evident that when Temujin says "white chicks", he is not refering to modern white chicks but that the earliest cultures seemed to look at women's fair skin as a thing of beauty. Even Romans used creams to lighten the skin.Murals of fat Tang beauties on the Silk Road that your speak are commonly portrayed very light.Women from some of the northern areas of Japan such as Akita are regarded because of their fairer skin even today.


I believe this is a matter of word usage. Why African-Americans do not perfer to be called Negors or Chinese people dont like the words "Chinaman"? On the surface, they all identify particular groups clearly. On the other hand, they accompanies with racial stereotyped images. When HE used the phrase "White chicks", it does not give an impresson of description of facial fairness, but targets clearly on specific groups, that of  Caucasian females.

The concensus of skin fairness and the concensus of the concept of beauty was never established in ancient time. If Orientalist skin fairness was the same as Europeans', I doubt Han Chinese did not speak the beauty of European women. But, this did not happened in 15th century when Chinese and Japanese encountered Europeans. As I said earlier, different ethinicities hold different cultural values as well as perception of beauty; when Chinese encountered nomadic tribes as early as Han dynasty, they refered people as like "mao ren" or hairy monkey man with blue eye and "exceed" facial hairs.

There was simply no establishment or pulblic recognition of the "racial" differences in ancient time prior the colonization in 18th century. Ethiopians were considered the most attractive "barbarians" in the eyes of ancient Greeks. But that was not the case in today's world. The force of Globalization has established consensus or norm and challenge the traditional and cultural values. This is certainly positive in many aspects regarding of human right and equalization, but things such as beauty perception has became globalized too. Western female models became the beauty idols in Far East, and appear in most of media and magzines. Many women incline to believe larger breasts, small faces, and tall statue are the standard characteristics of what is beautiful. I even notice that in Japan and in Taiwan, where Western prostitutions and hostess are paid much higher in comparsion with cheap Orinental prostitues in Paris and London. This, however, no longer can be explained and described as "exotic phenomenon", but as "racial commodities". Racial conceptions, instead, being channelized and materilized into commodities, in order to satisfy people's mental pleasure and satisfaction. Just as we are inclined to develop a loyalty to certain commodities (shoes, clothings, electronics), women in 3rd world become to incline to believe there is "urgency" to look akin like a Caucasian women. I have countless experience to read news and to read Social reports from Taiwan and some back in early '90s in Japan, where there was an increasing demand in an "invisible" market of look attractive as Western models (a Canadian award documentary called "Tokyo Girls" is widly studied for this subject).

Now, do you still try to belive and to explain that as part of native cultures? Unfortunately not in a world of Globalized and Westernized world.


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2004 at 11:38
no i did not, your just interpreting here, i think I was quite clear in what I wrote, even when the usage of "white chick" was not the most political correct.

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


Posted By: Kids
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2004 at 13:14

"women were white becasue white chikcs are mroe attractive, just look at japan, ther Geishas paint themselves completely white, so it'S just a beauty thing entering the world of wall paintings..."

So, are you saying there is no public consensus of what "white chick" meant? and it can refer all other racial groups?

And, why you assume culture of Geishas has to do with desiring being "white chick"?

Last, can you explain why you say "white chicks are more attractive, just look at Japan....Geishas paint themselves complete white"???

My intention is that I DO NOT want to see anyone who tries to comment on certain ethnicities without trying to put themselve in other's position. There is no ABOSULTE  norm of what beauty is, and I already gave a lengthly explaination on that.

 





Posted By: vagabond
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2004 at 14:07

Kids - Welcome to AE - nothing like diving right into a self created controversy.  Perhaps spend a bit if time reading other posts by long standing members before attacking them.  Temujin's been around here for a while and we don't have a great deal of tolerance for intolerance.  BTW - he's pulling your chain - lighten up a bit. 

Hey T - Those of us that know you know that we don't have to worry about you -  - but go easy on Kids - there's not a lot of sense of humor there apparently.



-------------
In the time of your life, live - so that in that wonderous time you shall not add to the misery and sorrow of the world, but shall smile to the infinite delight and mystery of it. (Saroyan)


Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2004 at 14:14
He means fair skin, drawing on the old 'in many countries women are lighter than men' observation.
It may not look that way, but its what he intended.
This discussion have come up a million times.

Race is such important thing to European civilization, but not to other civilizations. I just dont understand why debate whether Egyptians were black civilization or white civilization was such a big deal?


IIRC, most of the fuss comes from N. America, and does indeed revolve around the subjective and vauge colour codes of black and white. That the Egyptians were light brown must be too difficult for some people to grasp.

And wouldn't call Europe a 'Germanic' thing, Latin christians were using it very early on too. It basicly became a name for 'Christiandom' that could be deemed to be rooted in the classical past.






welcome to the forums btw.


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


Posted By: demon
Date Posted: 25-Nov-2004 at 12:41
Just for fun: I've heard Korean nationalists claim Egypian origin as Korean because of the word Egypt.  Egypt= this house (is) foundation in Korean translation, ironically.  But don't bother believing it. 

-------------
Grrr..


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 26-Nov-2004 at 00:40
Another funny story is that they originated Sumerian civilization, because the name "Sumer" sounds like one of their words. 


Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 26-Nov-2004 at 02:17
I've got a feeling that Sharukin
is not buying the Egypt-Korea connection.


Posted By: Gubook Janggoon
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2004 at 13:43
Him and me included...

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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 02:11

Hello, I am an anthropology grad student that has studied Egypt for the last few years.  I was browsing through your thread and was so alarmed by your posts that I actually signed up on the spot just to say something.

I grew up in the suburbs as an ordinary "all American white kid."  I too was taught in high school all of the false truths that have been constructed as a way too describe Ancient Egypt.  The thing is, in the course of my studies, I have learned just how untrue this "knowledge" is.  First: Ancient Egyptians were not what we would call white people.  They weren't what we would call a mixed "race" (race is such an incorrect term here) either.  To say that would be like saying that modern England is a mixed population simply because there are some blacks living in the country.  Likewise Egypt was, even from early dynastic times, a place where several different peoples existed.  The majority of the population (including royalty), however, were people that we would today consider "black people."  This is pretty much accepted by most people in the field today and all reliable evidence supports this.

The question is, why is there such a debate about this.  The answer is simple.  In order to understand why this is even an issue you must know a little bit about the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and the colonization of Africa.  To cut a long story short, it became essential for the European powers, if they wanted their economies to continue to benefit from slave labor and colonial exploitation, to dehumanize the African or black person.  A big part of this was to portray him/her as having no history of any consequence and of basically coming from the trees.  In this way colonization could be portrayed as a civilizing mission.  In this way the unprecedented brutality of slavery in the Americas could be condoned as not being inflicted upon a real person.  In creating this image of the black man, it would be extremely detrimental to the cause to show that indeed one of the first and the longest lasting of all great civilizations in human history was predominately black.

I have learned a lot about what a threat that was to the Western powers at the time who attempted to rewrite history.  The French were particularly zealoous in their actions.  There are countless monuments and artifacts that have been defaced or destroyed.  All of the recovered defaced items have striking similarities.  Their noses and lips have been removed or crushed.  This is not a coincidence as these features were considered to be revealingly black features.

Anyway, I just think it's sad that even today these perceptions still exist.  Ask yourselves why you want to believe that Egyptians weren't black.



Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 06:59
Hello,   Grad, what school if i may ask?

This on western powers attempting to rewrite history, what evidence do you have for this?
It is a little bit out there.

The same can be asked, " Why do blacks want to claim Egypt?" [I will tell why. In order to understand why this is ,you must understand the achievments Europeans have made in science and literature. Africans,what do they have to show for their past? Nothing. No buildings or historical monuments. That is why they want Egyptian civilization and its pyramids for their own, thereby lifting their own selfworth.]

I heard this years ago and could be based on paranoia.
Even though both ideas are crazy and racism is still around , i am apt to believe the latter (a huge generalization)than yours which to be true, one would have to believe in this whole big conspiracy that was well orchestrated by Europeans.

However, there is evidence of African-American writers mangling history for their own purposes on this subject.Early leaders such as Marcus Garvey,founder of the Universal Negro Improvement Association(UNIA) writing..

The time has come for the blackman to forget and cast behind him his hero worship and adoration of other races, and to start out immediately to create and emulate heroes of his own. We must canonize our own saints,create our own martyrs, and elevate to positions of fame and honor Black men and women who have made their distinct contributions to our racial history.

every student of history, of impartial mind, knows that the Negro ruled the world, when white men were savages and barbarians living in caves; that thousands of Negro professors at that time taught in universities in Alexandria,then the seat of learning.

Alexandria,.. are you sure about that Marcus?

The truth is that neither one of our statements is fact and no assistance in finding the truth. I would stick to solid ground in your position.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 11:20

Originally posted by Catt

Hello,   Grad, what school if i may ask?

This on western powers attempting to rewrite history, what evidence do you have for this?
It is a little bit out there.

The same can be asked, " Why do blacks want to claim Egypt?" [I will tell why. In order to understand why this is ,you must understand the achievments Europeans have made in science and literature. Africans,what do they have to show for their past? Nothing. No buildings or historical monuments. That is why they want Egyptian civilization and its pyramids for their own, thereby lifting their own selfworth.]

I heard this years ago and could be based on paranoia.
Even though both ideas are crazy and racism is still around , i am apt to believe the latter (a huge generalization)than yours which to be true, one would have to believe in this whole big conspiracy that was well orchestrated by Europeans.


There is concrete evidence to show the "rewriting of history" that I have seen for myself.  It is known, for example that the Napoleon lead French were responsible for defacing the Sphynx at Giza.  If you do not believe Africans or African Americans then read up on reports from Europeans.  There are recorded logs of ninteenth century European exploration of the region which describe their shock at encountering an ancient black civilization.  Historically speaking there are also some preserved records of early Greeks describing the population that they encountered upon journeying to Egypt as black skinned.  Also there have been testse done on mummified remains which, while not completely reliable (due to the severe erosion of time and the chemicals used in the mummification process), indicate almost without fail that the people that were embalmed were indeed dark skinned people.

Again the question is, why is this so hard to believe.  Egypt was in Africa! It was in a dry, hot, desert region.  All evidence points to a dark skinned indiginous populace.  Yet there is a strong resistance to these facts and they are not made readily available.  The world we live in has been distorted out of the necessity for colonial powers to justify their practices.  You made the statement that Africans have nothing to show for their past.  This is indicative of the way that people in the Western world are educated to believe in white European superiority.  Forget Egypt for a moment, there were kingdoms in Sub-Saharan Africa during the European Middle ages with more wealth and power than anything in Europe at the time.  Kingdoms like Ghana, Songoy and Mali.  In our education system we are not taught about these kingdoms and that is not out of coincidence.  I would recomend reading a book called The Colonizer and the Colonized by Memmi.  It details the colonization process and how eradicating the history of the Africans (who at that time were no longer living in larger kingdoms but rather in smaller tribes) was essential to effective colonial rule.  The Europeans had to establish racial inequality as fact in order to maintain the social climate within the colonies.

I could go on forever about this.  I could talk about how I was taught that the pyramids were built by slaves.  I could bring up the way we are taught to believe that Africans have no written history when in fact massive libraries have been found on the Ivory coast that pre-date the Roman Empire.  It is a source of frustration for everyone in our field because of the tremendous amount of information that has been destroyed and is forever lost to us.

There have been authors to attempt to claim the entirety of Egypt's history as being one of black rule.  This is not acurate as foreigners ruled from 670 B.C. on and at intermittent periods in between.  There is also evidence of mixed race rulers from interracial marriages.  That being said this practice by black authors is a result of the way that blacks raised in the West, upon investigating their history, become alarmed at the amount of information that was left out of their education and end up not trusting any of it.

Believe me buddy, I grew up learning the same things as you.  I thought that all relevent history was the result of people "like me."  I have since learned otherwise.  The information is out there.  The only reason to trully believe that the Egyptians were somehow a non-African people is out of desire to believe that; which is a prolem in and of itself.



Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 11:53
The only reason to trully believe that the Egyptians were somehow a non-African people is out of desire to believe that; which is a prolem in and of itself.


The generaly taught thing is not that they were non-african, its that they didn't look like Nigerians.
I was taught that they had light to medium brown skin in general, though were ruled by various dynasties from the area, brining anatolian hitties and Nubians and Kush*tes into the mix. Of couse, US education may be different.

It is known, for example that the Napoleon lead French were responsible for defacing the Sphynx at Giza.


It is known that the sphynx's face was badly damaged back at least as far as the 1500s, from various arabic accounts, exactly when and who damaged it is genuinly uncertain. The Napoleon gag is a tourist's tale, though if you are a French tourist, then you will probably be told that it was either the Mameluks or British soldiers in WWI, using it for target practice to ease their boredom.


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


Posted By: Dawn
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 12:32

Originally posted by CywrThe generaly taught thing is not that they were non-african, its that they didn't look like Nigerians.
I was taught that they had light to medium brown skin in general, though were ruled by various dynasties from the area, brining anatolian hitties and Nubians and Kush*tes into the mix. Of couse, US education may be different.

[/QUOTE


you may be correct that it is differant in the US  but it Canada it isn't -I was taught the same thing.

you may be correct that it is differant in the US  but it Canada it isn't -I was taught the same thing.



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


Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 14:37
 
Originally posted by sandman1347

Again the question is, why is this so hard to believe.  Egypt was in Africa!


Sumer was in Asia. You are not going to use that as evidence that Sumerians looked Chinese. Are You?


Originally posted by sandman1347

It was in a dry, hot, desert region.  All evidence points to a dark skinned indiginous populace. 


That is not the same as "African-American" look if that is what you are thinking


Originally posted by sandman1347


Believe me buddy,


You use “believe me” a lot. History is not a religion that people “just believe in”. It is based on evidence. You need to provide some credible evidence  



Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 16:12
It is known, for example that the Napoleon lead French were responsible for defacing the Sphynx at Giza. If you do not believe Africans or African Americans then read up on reports from Europeans.


Which europeans wrote reports about this? This would be interesting to see since there are actual sketches of the Sphinx that pre-date Napoleon that clearly show the nose missing.

Historically speaking there are also some preserved records of early Greeks describing the population that they encountered upon journeying to Egypt as black skinned


Here is were i have to ask the silly question, just how black do you think the ancient Egyptians were?
Dark like the Egyptians today, or dark as Denzel Washington is?

Most likely here you are refering to Herodotus who said that Egyptians he encountered were dark skinned(melanchroes). He also claimed that Colchians from the east coast of the Black Sea that he encountered to be melanchroes and that they were the same as Egyptians.


You made the statement that Africans have nothing to show for their past. This is indicative of the way that people in the Western world are educated to believe in white European superiority.


Let me remind you this is not my original statement



There have been authors to attempt to claim the entirety of Egypt's history as being one of black rule. This is not acurate as foreigners ruled from 670 B.C. on and at intermittent periods in between.


There were foreign rulers before this date as well.

That being said this practice by black authors is a result of the way that blacks raised in the West, upon investigating their history, become alarmed at the amount of information that was left out of their education and end up not trusting any of it.


That is no reason for them to have a knee-jerk reactions and resort to revisionist history as some black leaders are doing today in colleges.

Do you believe that the greeks raided the Great Library of Alexandria?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 22:46

[QUOTE=Catt][quote]

Here is were i have to ask the silly question, just how black do you think the ancient Egyptians were?
Dark like the Egyptians today, or dark as Denzel Washington is?

Most likely here you are refering to Herodotus who said that Egyptians he encountered were dark skinned(melanchroes). He also claimed that Colchians from the east coast of the Black Sea that he encountered to be melanchroes and that they were the same as Egyptians.

QUOTE]

Well a question like that is more of a statement than you realize.  Do we speak about Spanierds, Brittish or Norweigions in those terms?  Do we ask how white were they?  Do we consider one more white than the next because they may have darker skin or eyes?  Not usually.

What I said was that if we saw them today (which is really the time when these terms could apply) we would refer to them as black people.  It seems that many people are of the of the opinion that black people come in one uniform discription and that the term black person only applies to Nubian and/or Sub-Saharan Africans with regards to history.  When it comes to the world we live in, however, there is a much broader population that we call black.

In truth, Africa as a continent has more genetic variation than any place else on the globe.  There is a wide variety of facial features and other physical characteristics that can be observed among different black populations.

Ask yourself this; Would you call Denzel Washington a black man?  What about Will Smith?  What about Tiger Woods?

By the way I know that foreigners had ruled before 670B.C. that's what I meant by intermitent periods.



Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 22:57
Tiger woods looks Filipino to me, but then he is half Asian so...
And here in lies the problem, you are assuming everyone has the same American centric 'Black' gaze.
Plus, if people today saw many ancient Egyptians, they'd probably mistakenly label some of them as 'Arab', the Coptics, for example, who are descendant from the people of Lower Egypt and did not intermarry much with muslims but kept to themselves, and do not look like your stereotypical 'black' man.
Fact is Egypt occupies an area that is where meditereanian and sub-sahara meet. you can't label them as just 'black' in a simplistic sense, and pretty everyone much agrees that they are not 'white' in the simplistic European looking sense.

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


Posted By: Gubook Janggoon
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 22:59
May I offer brown?

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


Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 23:05
Does the US even have a brown label?
In the UK Brown is used for North Africans, Middle easterners and Indians (although some people use it exclusivly for Indians), so it does work here.


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


Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 23:11
Tiger is half Thai i believe.
Browns in the US refer, as they refer to themselves..
Mexicans or Latinos.

Most in the US who are so radical about this are of Nigerian decent and have almost no relation to ancient
Egypt.


Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 23:14
1/4 Thai, 1/4 Filipino, 1/4 euro-yank, 1/4 afro-yank. At least IIRC.


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


Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2004 at 23:40
ahh, i see.

Sandman, perhaps we dont disagree as much about this as i thought,Africa does have alot of variety but i try to stay clear of stolen legacy theories.


Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2004 at 00:48

You maybe looking for "Olive skin", but the real differentiating points between racial categories are the facial features not the skin color. Sandman should know this one. He is a Anthropology Grad Student. Although we still don't know which school he has gone to  



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2004 at 12:32

Originally posted by Catt

Tiger is half Thai i believe.
Browns in the US refer, as they refer to themselves..
Mexicans or Latinos.

Most in the US who are so radical about this are of Nigerian decent and have almost no relation to ancient
Egypt.

The reason that I brought up those three people is to show a strange trend.  Denzel is someone who we all consider a black man.  Will Smith has a lighter skin tone but we still consider him black.  Tiger Woods is of known mixed racial decent and yet when he first came on to the scene everyone could not stop talking about how great it was that a black golfer had finally broken through to stardom.  Yet if these were people of great historical significance, we might not call any of them black!

We use black to describe a broad range of people today just like we use white to describe a broad range of people (and brown in some places).  As far as official races, there are none.  On a scientific level, there are no different races of human beings as some 90% of possible genetic variation takes place on an individual level.  That being said, the concept of race is a social concept, not a scientific or factual one.

As for the comment that the African Americans who argue the issue are of Nigerian decent, I would venture to say that there is absolutely no way of knowing that.  If their ancestors were victims of the slave trade, then there is no reliable way to know exactly where they came from as people were displaced from many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa and cut off from their pasts and families.  There is also the possibility that they are decended from black immigrants of the past 50 years or so.  Don't be so quick to put people in a box.

By the way its NYU



Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2004 at 13:09
The reason that I brought up those three people is to show a strange trend.  Denzel is someone who we all consider a black man.  Will Smith has a lighter skin tone but we still consider him black.  Tiger Woods is of known mixed racial decent and yet when he first came on to the scene everyone could not stop talking about how great it was that a black golfer had finally broken through to stardom.  Yet if these were people of great historical significance, we might not call any of them black!


I really don't see people argueing that D. Washington or Will Smith aren't black, they are too iconic and their imagry is allover the place.

As for Tiger Woods, this is where things get intresting, you fluant him as a 'black golfer', as if the whole world agrees. Do you realise that when many Asians look at him they see an Asian golfer (not unreasonable considering he is half Asian)? Why has he suddenly become a 'black' golfer? Because you are incapable of looking beyond your particular way of viewing the world, and that, because he is dark, be must therefore simply be 'black'?
He looks 'Asian' as well, so why can't he be an Asian golfer?
Is it forbidden to mention his white ancestry? Can he be a white golfer too, i mean he is 1/4 white as well as 1/4 black?

Which brings us back to the Egypt fuss, a perfect example in fact.
Forget Denzel Washington, he perfectly fits the concept of how a 'black man' looks (indeed, he is idiolised as an exceptionaly attractive model of one, and rightly so too), as defined by American popular culture, there is no doubt there.
But with Tiger Woods on the other hand, everyone sees what they want to see, because he does not belong in any single simple colour bucket, and niether does Egypt.

That being said, the concept of race is a social concept, not a scientific or factual one.


Many of us agree with you here, but despite that, you seem to be insisting that your socialy defined view of who should or should not be considered black is the most relevant one somehow.


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


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2004 at 17:19
Don't be offended, that's certainly not what I'm trying to do.  Certainly Tiger could be seen as Asian.  As I wrote, he is of known mixed decent.  I was commenting on the way that the American public christened him as the breakthrough black golfer.  The way that we loosely throw around terms like "black" and "white" when we talk about people in the world today but we get really particular when talking about historical figures.  I often get the sense that there is a concious or sub-concious effort to avoid calling significant historical figures "black."


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2004 at 22:56

Accoprding tot the Oxford guide of Ancient Egypt acheology has discovered the ethnic backgrounds of the ancient Egyptians to be quite unique, probably stemming from a blend of mediteranina, saharan, and sub saharan ancestry, that gradually over time became mroe and mroe meddieteranian with the later Libyan and Greek migrations then even later the 8th century Arab migrations.

So truly a melting pot, belonging to no one but hte Egyptians themselves really.



-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2004 at 03:48
oh, NYU. Im jealous,i love Manhattan.

You're correct, regardless that many slaves were bought in Nigeria, it probably would have been best for me to simply say west Africa. I think the point is made though. Despite being on the same continent,the connection isnt there.


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2005 at 17:51
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl

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

actually the first guy ís Lybian and the third is syrian. you can easily tell the Lybians by those feathers or whatever on their heads...



LOL! That's what I thought, based not on the feathers but on the tatoos.


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

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2005 at 21:32

how old is this drawing?

 



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


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2005 at 22:32
Originally posted by azimuth

how old is this drawing?

 


No idea... but it must be at least 2000 years old (but not onder than 5500 years). Possibly 3000 y.o. is a reasonable hint.



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

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2005 at 02:50

According to this site:

http://www.wcg.org/wn/98may/black.html - http://www.wcg.org/wn/98may/black.html

it is from the tomb of Seti I (r. 1291-1278 BC), or thereabouts.



Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2005 at 03:41
3200-3300 years old! What did I say? 

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

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2005 at 04:56
You said 3000 y.o.  You were 200-300 years too soon!!!


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2005 at 06:08
Originally posted by Sharrukin

You said 3000 y.o.  You were 200-300 years too soon!!!


It wasn't bad for a baseless guess. Was it?


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

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2005 at 09:45
Well, considering that most of the major artefacts are more than 3,000 years old, your guess was a safe one. 


Posted By: King_Cyrus
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2005 at 01:54

 

A very mysterious thing is the origin of the Egyptions.  Im not gonna take any guesses at it cause ill probly just make my self look like a moran. 

This isnt a guess but just something i heard that probly isnt true at all.  It is said that the Egyptians are decendents of the survivers of Atlantis.  Did Atlantis really exist.  There might have bin a island of the southern shore of Greece that was destroyed by a volcanic explosion or a large earth quake.  It seems the Greek writer who wrote the story of Atlantis romanticized it to grand scale.  So it seems that the Egyptians are not Atlantians

Other then that i have heard that the Egyptians are possibly related to the Phonicians.  The only real way to figure the whole origin problems in history that is not recorded is either to look at langwage or as i have seen on tv a few times, to do a blood test of the population of the people in question and to also test the people they are believed to have come from.  Altough maybe the original people the Egyptians came from all went to Egypt with them.

 



Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2005 at 05:29
Egypt:

Late Paleolithic: Aterian culture, like in the rest of North Africa, evolving independently in the late phase.

Neolithic: The following timeline is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predynastic_Period_of_Egypt - Wikipedia :
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_millennium_BC" title="10th millennium BC - 9500 BC - ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic" title="Neolithic - Neolithic ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle" title="Sickle - Sickle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade" title="Blade - blades , world's earliest known (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization" title="Civilization - Civilization )
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_millennium_BC" title="8th millennium BC - 8000 BC - early tribes migrate to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile" title="Nile - Nile , developing a settled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture" title="Agriculture - agricultural http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy" title="Economy - economy and more centralized http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society" title="Society - society
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_millennium_BC" title="7th millennium BC - 7th millennium BC - domesticated animals imported from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia" title="Asia - Asia between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7500_BC" title="7500 BC - 7500 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4000_BC" title="4000 BC - 4000 BC (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara#History" title="Sahara - Sahara: History, Cattle period )
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6000_BC" title="6000 BC - 6000 BC - artwork of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship" title="Ship - ships (see above, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predynastic_Period_of_Egypt#Late_Lower_Paleolithic" title=" - Late Lower Paleolithic )
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_millennium_BC" title="5th millennium BC - 5th millennium BC - foreign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artifact" title="Artifact - artifacts in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badarian" title="Badarian - Badarian culture indicate contact with distant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria" title="Syria - Syria http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/badari/trade.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/badari/trade.html - [33]
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_millennium_BC" title="5th millennium BC - 5th millennium BC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furniture" title="Furniture - furniture , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tableware" title="Tableware - tableware , models of rectangular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House" title="House - houses , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot" title="Pot - pots , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vase" title="Vase - vases , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figurine" title="Figurine - figurines , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb" title="Comb - combs http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm - [34]
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_millennium_BC" title="5th millennium BC - 4500 BC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry" title="Geometry - geometric designs adorning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naqada" title="Naqada - Naqada pottery http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm - [35]
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_millennium_BC" title="5th millennium BC - 4400 BC - finely woven http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linen" title="Linen - linen fragment in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Fayyum" title="Al Fayyum - Al Fayyum http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/fayum/uc72770.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/fayum/uc72770.html - [36]
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4000_BC" title="4000 BC - 4000 BC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerzean" title="Gerzean - Gerzean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery" title="Pottery - pottery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieroglyph" title="Hieroglyph - hieroglyph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing" title="Writing - writing , world's earliest known form http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.touregypt.net/ebph5.htm - [37]
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4000_BC" title="4000 BC - 4000 BC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron" title="Iron - Iron works (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_age#The_Iron_Age" title="Iron age - Iron Age )
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4000_BC" title="4000 BC - 4000 BC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_%28masonry%29" title="Mortar (masonry) - Mortar (masonry) , world's earliest known
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4000_BC" title="4000 BC - 4000 BC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy" title="Alchemy - Alchemy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy#Alchemy_in_Ancient_Egypt" title="Alchemy - Alchemy in Ancient Egypt )
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3500_BC" title="3500 BC - 3500 BC - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faience" title="Faience - Faience , world's earliest known
Probably this chronology can be disputed, as Egyptian pre-Dynastical archaeology has too may blanks. In any case they didn't use iron till the Assyrian invasion, or so I've read.

It seems that at that time the North Africans were influenced by Nilotics from Nubia and the Near East. Some of the iconography of the first pharaohs could link the origins of monarchy to Sumer... somehow.

Atlantis has nothing to do: Egyptians weren't any good sailors, they just trasmitted the legend, or so it seems if you follow Plato.




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

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: merced12
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 11:37

this is not academic site

and egypt origin is african u.s universitiy found and discovery chanel say african origin everything is not irans



-------------
http://www.turks.org.uk/ - http://www.turks.org.uk/
16th century world;
Ottomans all Roman orients
Safavids in Persia
Babur in india
`azerbaycan bayragini karabagdan asacagim``


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2005 at 12:40
Originally posted by merced12

this is not academic site

and egypt origin is african u.s universitiy found and discovery chanel say african origin everything is not irans

Who said that everything is irans? 

African origin: that may be, but what does that mean? African does not necessarily mean black, the way we seem to instantly associate it. The North African indigenous population that eventually composed Egypt probably resembled the Berbers a lot more than they did say someone from Senegal.

as for your comments about Wikipedia not being an academic site: Maju did express some doubt as to its validity. In any case, can you provide some better academic links?



-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 09:43
Hamatic = Berber (and others) no?


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


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 11:03

"Hamitic" means a subgroup of languages within Afro-Asiatic (originally "Hamito-Semitic") comprising northern and northeastern African languages including Berber, Egyptian, and Cush*tic. 



Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2005 at 13:13
Originally posted by Sharrukin

"Hamitic" means a subgroup of languages within Afro-Asiatic (originally "Hamito-Semitic") comprising northern and northeastern African languages including Berber, Egyptian, and Cush*tic. 



Kush*tic is Hamitic? I though it belonged to the Nilo-Saharian group. It seems I was wrong.


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

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Janissary
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2005 at 22:40

I think Egypt Belongs Iran, i do not sure, but I think so, But Nubia not



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


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 03:12
At one time the Persian kings did conquer Egypt (525 BC) but natural barriers thwarted the Persians from conquering Kush.


Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 04:35
Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans and Arabs succesively dominated Egypt. But that doesn't mean that Egypt "belongs" to anyone. Egypt has a long history that pre-dates all the above mentioned nations and has a clearly diferent personality. If anything one could accept that modernly is rather Arab... but Persian? No way. 

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

NO GOD, NO MASTER!


Posted By: Janissary
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2005 at 20:31

I know, thank u, i was just kidding

i think It was Ciris defeated Greek army and Conquered Egypt



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


Posted By: Perseas
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2005 at 05:27
Originally posted by Janissary

I know, thank u, i was just kidding

i think It was Ciris defeated Greek army and Conquered Egypt

Unlikely to be so! It was Cyrus son, Cambyses who conquered Egypt and i dont recall defeating any Greek army.



-------------
A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.


Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2005 at 11:28
Concerning Greeks, what Cyrus did was conquer the Greeks of Asia Minor.


Posted By: sedamoun
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2005 at 09:29

Originally posted by Sharrukin

Concerning Greeks, what Cyrus did was conquer the Greeks of Asia Minor.

n    Persians under Cyrus defeat Medes.

n    Cyrus used giant square, departing from standard tactics of the day

n   Lured Medes into the square’s flanks, then attacked the gaps in the “hinges” of their opponent’s formation.

n    Cyrus considered first Great Captain.



Posted By: Jhangora
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2005 at 10:32

I have something to say.I had a Cameroonian roomate n asked him this question.He smiled n said "Egypt.That is the place where White man stole civilization from Black man".

I guess this issue is similar to the AIT.Racist Whites claim only the white race has the genius to create n sustain civilization.They find it difficult to accept that dark-skinned people could have achieved great things in the past.Kid is correct when he says that western ideas of beauty r being imposed globally.

I guess it all boils down to purchasing power.Whites today have more purchasing power than other races.Though as another participant pointed out it is debatable whether such a race actually exists.I remember as a child I used to hear BBC radio n on one program which was on European Unification the anchor said there r advertisements in the Nordic countries which ask listeners "Would u like ur daughter to marry a Sicilian"?



-------------
Jai Badri Vishal


Posted By: sedamoun
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 04:37

katulakatula,

I think Egypt was a real melting pot, gathering and mixing people from Sudan, the Desert, the Arabian peninsula, Palestine and all over the Med Sea.

The First Egyptian DYNASTIES spawned between Egypt and Sudan, near Assuan, were i believe African, by that i mean black skin. The later Dynasties - by the Nile Delta - that created the Pyramids, the Sphinx, the monuments at Memphis and Luxor were much more evolved than the first ones.

At this time the African-Egyptians were already mixed with other populations.

Peace be with us all my Hindu friend.




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


Posted By: Alkiviades
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 05:21
Originally posted by Aeolus

Originally posted by Janissary

I know, thank u, i was just kidding

i think It was Ciris defeated Greek army and Conquered Egypt

Unlikely to be so! It was Cyrus son, Cambyses who conquered Egypt and i dont recall defeating any Greek army.

 

I assume the little troll (as always, mixing and matching epochs, people and incidents) refers to the force of 4.000 Athenian  fighting alongside the Egyptians against Persia.



Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 09:31
The first egyptian dynasties hailed from Hierakonpolis, whose patron deity was Horus, hence we know the names of the earliest kings by their Horus-names.  They then moved their capital to Abydos at which time they conquered the Delta and unified Egypt.  It was either Menes or one of his descendants who made Memphis the new capital at base of the Delta.


Posted By: sedamoun
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2005 at 10:52
The unifying of Upper and Lower Egypt into a single kingdom is the event pointed to by the ancient Egyptians themselves as the beginning of their civilization.

Lower Egypt is roughly the broad delta of the river, where it separates into many branches before flowing into the Mediterranean. Upper Egypt is the long main channel of the river itself, possibly as far upstream as boats can reach - to the first waterfall or cataract, at Aswan.
  http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/histories.asp?pid=aqe&nid=aa28">Click for interactive version

http://www.historyworld.net/textonly/printpg.asp?type=histories&pid=aqe&nid=aa28&pcount=3">Click to print section

aqe





Egyptian tradition credits the uniting of Upper and Lower Egypt to a king called Menes. But that is merely a word meaning 'founder'. It is possible that the real historical figure is a ruler by the name of Narmer, who features in warlike mood on an early slate plaque.

Whatever the name, the first historical dynasty is brought into being by the king or pharaoh who in about 3100 BC establishes control over the whole navigable length of the Nile. His is the first of thirty Egyptian dynasties, spanning nearly three millennia - an example of social continuity rivalled in human history only by China.
 

aqf





javascript penWindow('treasure','/images/imagepopup.asp?No5=41&Id5= xabi')"> In the early centuries, and again in the closing stages of ancient Egypt, the capital is at Memphis, near modern-day Cairo. But at the peak of Egyptian power, during the period from about 2000 to 1200 BC, the city of Thebes - several hundred kilometres up the Nile - is a place of greater importance.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa28 - http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?h istoryid=aa28

 



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



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