Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-19-2010, 04:06 PM
 
14,985 posts, read 23,761,138 times
Reputation: 26468

Advertisements

OK guys, I've read about 3 historical innacuracies on this one page alone. I don't know who said these because they are repeated quotes, but they are wrong:

"Egyptians often depicted themselves no different from those of the Nubian portion of the Nile."

That is incorrect. They did draw people to the south of them, and they were drawn distinctly different...coal black usually. Now Ancient Egyptian art, we are talking about a 2,000 year period, varied of course. Some was realistic (i.e the famous bust of Nefertiti), some of Picasso-esque mishapen images of human. Mostly it seems they colored themselves as reddish brown. But you had two or three kingdoms at one time or another that make up modern day Egypt, some with all it's own art form, with the upper Nile to the south having more of a nubian influence as well.

"the egyptians are africans the people who live there now are the arabs who invaded africa in the 8th century"

Again, incorrect. The egyptians had been invaded from the north east, across the arab lands, not necessarily arabs, since the beggining of recorded time. Peoples from the Steppes (what is now Turkey and Russia), Hykosis, Libyans, and you had Nubians as well. Later you had Persians, Greek, Romans, etc. Some of these invaders stayed for centuries. All this before the birth of Christ. Egypt was a huge melting pot due to it's location. Not so much from the south of Egpyt, except for some Nubian expansion, but that migration of invasions was limited by the deserts and the jungles. It was a natural barrier. My guess is the Hyksos had the greatest influence (and that's really where the iconic Egyptian horse drawn chariot's really originate from).

Egyptians are africans, naturally, because they originate from Africa. That is not the same as saying Egyptians are black. People think there is some kind of concrete barrier at what is now the Suez canal where in ancient times everyone north of that barrier was pale white and everyone south of it was coal black? Recorded history, since about 3,000 BC, is a blink in time for mankind. By the time of the Pharoes the gentic make up and color had already been set by tens of thousands of years of human evolution, it hasn't changed much. It's neither black nor white - if you must classify it, it's probably Semitic white, arab if you will.

Even in Africa you had various shades of course, as it remains still today. Nubains were lighter, probably reflecting the mix with the tribes to the north. West africa is distinctly darker. Less mix with the northern tribes. Geography and ease of access mix with other tribes - invasion routes over sea or land, had a lot to do with it. Geographical boundries would have been oceans, mountains, long stretches of desert, jungle, etc. The sea stretch on the Medditeranian from Egypt to Turkey and north by the way was a common invasion route, in spite of the deserts and the narrow corridor of the Suez. Not so from the interior of Africa to Egypt - no easy route.

Last edited by Dd714; 07-19-2010 at 04:19 PM..

 
Old 07-19-2010, 06:07 PM
 
Location: West Coast of Europe
25,915 posts, read 24,567,553 times
Reputation: 9708
Quote:
Originally Posted by city414 View Post
your basically saying arabs dont really exist there, in the red theres more to it than that
All I am saying is that Arabs are ethnically a small minority in Egypt, around 5 to 10% max. And in many other north African countries they are also way less present than it seems as many Berbers knowingly or unknowingly pretend to be Arabs because of the racism they have suffered under the Arabs.
 
Old 07-19-2010, 06:52 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,005,939 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
OK guys, I've read about 3 historical innacuracies on this one page alone.
Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
I don't know who said these because they are repeated quotes, but they are wrong:

"Egyptians often depicted themselves no different from those of the Nubian portion of the Nile."

That is incorrect. They did draw people to the south of them, and they were drawn distinctly different...coal black usually. Now Ancient Egyptian art, we are talking about a 2,000 year period, varied of course. Some was realistic (i.e the famous bust of Nefertiti), some of Picasso-esque mishapen images of human. Mostly it seems they colored themselves as reddish brown. But you had two or three kingdoms at one time or another that make up modern day Egypt, some with all it's own art form, with the upper Nile to the south having more of a nubian influence as well.
You are flat out wrong, because as this text points out and actually shows , Egyptians often depicted themselves similarly to those further south of the cataracts. If you actually bothered to fully read and research this text and authors you'd have known that.

2ndly as I have previously stated physical anthropology, archaeology & linguistics relate Saharan, Nile and horn African peoples to each other more closely than anyone else. In fact physical anthropology shows connections all the way from the Horn to the Nile Delta but there was no such relationship to contemporary populations from Palestine and parts further north (see p. 52-55, especially 54 #'s 2 & 4).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
"the egyptians are africans the people who live there now are the arabs who invaded africa in the 8th century"
I already addressed this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Again, incorrect. The egyptians had been invaded from the north east, across the arab lands, not necessarily arabs, since the beggining of recorded time.
Do you realize your not making any sense at all. For starters if they were invaded from people coming arab lands, how could those peoples not have been arabs?

Not to mention the fact that an arab ethno-linguist identity would not have emerged until many millennium later.

2ndly, there is no evidence from a mass migration of people from the northeast into Egypt. The only evidence of migrations is from the Sahara into the Nile or from the further south coming from either the more southerly Sudan or the Horn (see p. 26).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Peoples from the Steppes (what is now Turkey and Russia), Hykosis, Libyans, and you had Nubians as well.
Russia?!! WTF! My God man, are you that guy that posts here about how every civilization comes from Russia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Later you had Persians, Greek, Romans, etc. Some of these invaders stayed for centuries. All this before the birth of Christ. Egypt was a huge melting pot due to it's location. Not so much from the south of Egpyt, except for some Nubian expansion, but that migration of invasions was limited by the deserts and the jungles. It was a natural barrier. My guess is the Hyksos had the greatest influence (and that's really where the iconic Egyptian horse drawn chariot's really originate from).
Jungles?? Do you not realize that Egypt and the Sudan are located in the Sahara, a desert larger than the United States?!!

2nd, the Hyksos only ruled for a century or so. Do you not realize the Greeks built Alexandria in Egypt, one of the greatest cities in antiquity that Rome herself coveted her? The same Rome that ruled Egypt for centuries and Egyptians even up to the Middle Ages, even in southern Egypt away from Alexandria in the Delta, the population spoke fluent Greek. Yet you claim the Hyksos who ruled for a mere 100 years had the greatest influence?!! Buddy you're batting a thousand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Egyptians are africans, naturally, because they originate from Africa. That is not the same as saying Egyptians are black. People think there is some kind of concrete barrier at what is now the Suez canal where in ancient times everyone north of that barrier was pale white and everyone south of it was coal black? Recorded history, since about 3,000 BC, is a blink in time for mankind. By the time of the Pharoes the gentic make up and color had already been set by tens of thousands of years of human evolution, it hasn't changed much. It's neither black nor white - if you must classify it, it's probably Semitic white, arab if you will.
Now you're confusing Semitic which is a family of languages with being some kind of "white". Jeez Louise, you've really outdone yourself here.

1st off Semitic is what linguists name a family of languages. Semitic is part of a larger grouping of family languages called Afroasiatic or Afrasan. And as I posted previously Afrasan is considered to have originated somewhere in northeastern Africa. Some linguists even contend that semitic was born in the Horn and spread from there across the Red Sea into Arabia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Even in Africa you had various shades of course, as it remains still today. Nubains were lighter, probably reflecting the mix with the tribes to the north. West africa is distinctly darker. Less mix with the northern tribes. Geography and ease of access mix with other tribes - invasion routes over sea or land, had a lot to do with it. Geographical boundries would have been oceans, mountains, long stretches of desert, jungle, etc. The sea stretch on the Medditeranian from Egypt to Turkey and north by the way was a common invasion route, in spite of the deserts and the narrow corridor of the Suez. Not so from the interior of Africa to Egypt - no easy route.
Obviously you didn't read Brace as he tackles your fallacies head on, but you might be able to digest Hiernaux (read up on his elongated africans) and Paul Baker, as they demonstrate that physical features can be explained by long term adaptation to a particular environment rather than by "mixture of distinct races".

Junior, I think you've got a lot of homework to be due.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
All I am saying is that Arabs are ethnically a small minority in Egypt, around 5 to 10% max. And in many other north African countries they are also way less present than it seems as many Berbers knowingly or unknowingly pretend to be Arabs because of the racism they have suffered under the Arabs.
From what I've read after revolts in the 8th century the Berbers basically kicked out most of the and sent them scurrying across the Mediterranean into Iberia or back to Egypt.

Just as I previously posted there seems to be a phenomenon in the Maghreb like parts of east Africa.

It seems that certain tribes are more proud of their (real or imagined) Arab fathers and downplay their African mothers.

I mean as a non-Sudanese, from what I've seen of the "Arab militias", I would have a heck of a time distinguishing them from "black african" Darfurians based on looks alone.

Last edited by kovert; 07-19-2010 at 07:18 PM..
 
Old 07-20-2010, 12:10 PM
 
14,985 posts, read 23,761,138 times
Reputation: 26468
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black.

You are flat out wrong, because...yack yack yack yack yack .
Wow you sound angry. Calm down. This ain't the politics forum (how can I guess you are from there). And after I read your post I don't see what you can be angry about, or even that we have that much of a disagreement.

My first point - to come to a conclusion on ethnicity based on ancient Egyptian art is pointless because - 1.) This covered a 2,000 span period, with distinctly different styles through the centuries, 2.) This potentially covers 3 or more different egyptian kingdoms, some ruled by foreigners. Some drawing portray the Egyptians with with long limbs and strange space helmets and misshapen bodies. Do we conclude they are from another planet (their have been books written on that theory by the way)? But, for the record, I can also link to plenty of account where the have drawn people to the south very different from how they drew themselves. The best we can probably agree with is that their is no consensus over the time span that we are looking at.

My second point - Invasions from the north are of a historical record. The Hycsos were a Semitic people, from the semi-fertile region of the northern deserts. This includes the Steppes - what is now part of Russia and Turkey. No one disputes this (except you apparantly, congratulations). By the way, the distance from the Southern Russia state borders from Egypt is about 500 miles, from Nigerea it is about 2,000 miles. Again the point - Egyptians had more ethnic influence from the north east (Asia minor) rather than the south-west of Africa, but they had hunter-gatherer civilization in Egypt (the nile delta) since the stone age, so any ethnic influence is only one of conjecture, and I offer it as such.. The term "Semitic white" is a common term to describe the ethnicity of Arabs, I used it for lack of a better term and I beleive that was made clear by me originally. It seems we both agree that they were not the current ethnicity based on any 8th century arab invasion, and that the Egyptians then look pretty much as they do now, so what are we disagreeing with? That the Hycosis didn't come from the northern arab deserts?

The rest of your discussion - irrelevant to my comments as they do not address my points, and I did not bother to read it. Since most of it borders on hysterics and personal insults ("junior you have some homework to be [sic] due"...come on, can we disagree like adults?) , it's not worth reading.

Last edited by Dd714; 07-20-2010 at 01:06 PM..
 
Old 07-20-2010, 01:07 PM
 
6,082 posts, read 6,005,939 times
Reputation: 1916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Wow you sound angry. Calm down. And after I read your post I don't see what you can be angry about, or even that we have that much of a disagreement.
Not angry. Your last post claimed my statements, which are backed by actual proof from Egyptologists, linguists, physical anthropologists and archaeologists, was inaccurate, while yours was loaded with errors and faulty logic. I am just setting the record straight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
My first point - to come to a conclusion on ethnicity based on ancient Egyptian art is pointless because - 1.) This covered a 2,000 span period, with distinctly different styles through the centuries, 2.) This potentially covers 3 or more different egyptian kingdoms, some ruled by foreigners. Some drawing portray the Egyptians with with long limbs and strange space helmets and misshapen bodies. Do we conclude they are from another planet (their have been books written on that theory by the way)?
3 different Egyptian kingdoms? Space helmets and aliens?

Now I see what types of books and sources you're using and why they're so off from empirically based archaeology and Egyptology.

So what kind of New Ager are ya? Are you a space aliens from another galaxy kind of guy or are you a joneser for Atlantis?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
But, for the record, I can also link to plenty of account where the have drawn people to the south very different from how they drew themselves. The best we can probably agree with is that their is no consensus over the time span that we are looking at.
For the record, this text (albeit it does not mention little green men, so you might not be interested), mentions that from the 1st dynasty and how Narmer, the 1st king of united dynastic Egypt, portrayed themselves similarly to those from the Sudanese Nile. This lasted through to the time of the Macedonians. (see Wildung, particularly p67, 70, 72)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
My second point - Invasions from the north are of a historical record. The Hycsos were a Semitic people, from the semi-fertile region of the northern deserts. This includes the Steppes - what is now part of Russia and Turkey. No one disputes this (except you apparantly, congratulations).
Sorry friend, outside of New Age circles, the Hyksos in terms of physical anthropology and archaeology relate to the peoples of the then contemporary Palestine, who by the way are quite distinct from Egyptians, both of the Nile valley and the Delta (see p. 54 #3).

I was right, you are just like that guy that seems to credit Russia with every civilization on the face of the earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
By the way, the distance from the Southern Russia state borders from Egypt is about 500 miles, from Nigerea it is about 2,000 miles. Again the point - Egyptians had more ethnic influence from the north east (Asia minor) rather than the south-west of Africa, but they had hunter-gatherer civilization in Egypt (the nile delta) since the stone age, so any ethnic influence is only one of conjecture, and I offer it as such.
Do you realize your fuzzy logic statements are not actually helping you? If you are suggesting that Russia has a greater influence on Egypt because it is closer than Nigeria, then wouldn't that suggest that Saharan, Sudanese and Horn Africans would have even greater influence as they're even closer to Egypt than Russia.

And by the way these archaeologists and linguists (see p. 7-8 for origin of afroasiatic language) actually use empirical evidence to back up their "conjectures".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
The term "Semitic white" is a common term to describe the ethnicity of Arabs, I used it for lack of a better term.
I have rarely heard the term semitic white. Semitic is a language and has nothing to do with physical features. In fact many people in Arabian, particularly of the coastal areas adjacent to northeastern Africa are strikingly similar to east Africans. This is not surprising as I previously posted, the afroasiatic language, and perhaps the Semitic branch of it, came out of northeast Africa into Asia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
The rest of your discussion - irrelevant to my comments as they do not address my points, and I did not bother to read it.
Yes, it's quite obvious that you don't bother to read a lot.

Last edited by kovert; 07-20-2010 at 01:26 PM..
 
Old 07-20-2010, 02:21 PM
 
14,985 posts, read 23,761,138 times
Reputation: 26468
Kovert did I **** you off in a different thread? Seriously. I just can't fathom a logical reason for our disagreements, it's like you are reading my thread and intepreting it in a different language. Are you assuming I am suggesting that Egyptians are aliens? Surely you realize that I am putting that in for comparison of the nonsense of basing ethnicity on ancient drawings and sculpture. I just can't imagine how a reader can conclude that from my text. I can only assume that you have no other basis for disagreement and that you are feebly attempting a response on what little you can find.

Well, the only basis of discussion and disagreement I can pull from your last post is the orgination of the Hycsos. This indeed is perhaps a good topic of debate, and I ammend my original statement. No one knows for sure, it appears they were an asiatic peoples of mixed race. But who knows for sure? My basis for my original conclusion was primarily Keegan's "History of Warfare", in which he describes the Hyksos as from the Northern fertile arab desert regions, who in turn references the encylopediac-like "Cambridge Ancient History, vol II". He provides as evidence the evolution of the horse in Egyptian culture, particularly chariot warfare. The horse cultures originated in the steppes for obvious reasons - the availability of grazing land. Not that Hkosis took the quick trip from downtown Stalingrad (yes that's a joke, no I know that Stalingrad did not exist in 2,000 BC), but they originated from that area, maybe settling in the dead sea area for a bit before moving on and conquering southwards.
Keegan also noted that the Hyksos assimilated themeselves (as many conquerors do). They, essentially, became egyptians. Something that the later Persians, Romans, and Greek never bothered with.
 
Old 07-20-2010, 02:49 PM
 
14,985 posts, read 23,761,138 times
Reputation: 26468
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert View Post
3 different Egyptian kingdoms?
Ahh, found one more point of logical contention. Surely you know that for a huge part of ancient egyptian history that they were divided into 2 kingdoms - upper and lower. For a time there was 3 - the Hyksos in the north, the Thebian kings in the Middle, and the Ku****es to the south. It all depends how you want to extend the term "Kingdom". In the late intermediate period Egypt had 5 or 6 different rulers. Naturally at different times in history you would have various factions ruling over city-states or whole provinces. Again the point - there was no consistency to the art, sometimes at the same point in history different art forms were in practice.
 
Old 07-20-2010, 05:35 PM
 
Location: Planet Water
815 posts, read 1,539,226 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
By the way, the distance from the Southern Russia state borders from Egypt is about 500 miles,


Dynasty of Mamiluks .
 
Old 07-20-2010, 06:07 PM
 
Location: Planet Water
815 posts, read 1,539,226 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avengerfire View Post
Modern Greeks yes. Ancient Greeks no. They didn't have Slavic ancestors 2000-2500 years ago. The Slavs were not even in Europe yet.
Christian propagation. The Ancient Greece existed in the beginning of "Middle Ages". I like to read verses in slavic languages of the people which lived before arrival of Greeks. Want I will read?
 
Old 07-20-2010, 08:46 PM
 
301 posts, read 1,368,052 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
That is incorrect. They did draw people to the south of them, and they were drawn distinctly different...coal black usually. Now Ancient Egyptian art, we are talking about a 2,000 year period, varied of course. Some was realistic (i.e the famous bust of Nefertiti), some of Picasso-esque mishapen images of human. Mostly it seems they colored themselves as reddish brown. But you had two or three kingdoms at one time or another that make up modern day Egypt, some with all it's own art form, with the upper Nile to the south having more of a nubian influence as well.
OK well let's see what actual science has to say about the relationship between the early Ancient Egyptians and more Southerly African populations (including the Nubians):

Quote:
"Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Ku****es, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans."
(S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)
Quote:
Again, incorrect. The egyptians had been invaded from the north east, across the arab lands, not necessarily arabs, since the beggining of recorded time. Peoples from the Steppes (what is now Turkey and Russia), Hykosis, Libyans, and you had Nubians as well. Later you had Persians, Greek, Romans, etc. Some of these invaders stayed for centuries. All this before the birth of Christ. Egypt was a huge melting pot due to it's location. Not so much from the south of Egpyt, except for some Nubian expansion, but that migration of invasions was limited by the deserts and the jungles. It was a natural barrier. My guess is the Hyksos had the greatest influence (and that's really where the iconic Egyptian horse drawn chariot's really originate from).
Again let's see what reputed scientist have to say about the population continuity of the Ancient Egyptians


Quote:
Zakrzewski (2007) provided a comprehensive summary of previous Egyptian craniometric studies and examined Egyptian crania from six time periods. She found that the earlier samples were relatively more homogeneous in comparison to the later groups. However, overall results indicated genetic continuity over the Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods, albeit with a high level of genetic diversity within the population, suggesting an indigenous process of state formation. She also concluded that while the biological patterning of the Egyptian population varied across time, no consistent temporal or spatial trends are apparent. Thus, the stature estimation formulae developed here may be broadly applicable to all ancient Egyptian populations.."
("Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature." Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, Aly El-Sawaf, (Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008, Jun;136(2):147-55
Now according to the sourced study above the ancient Egyptians basically remained the same from Pre-Early Dynastic times. Now the first quote confirming the relationship between the Egyptians of those early periods and more Southerly African populations (deemed "black" by most societal standards). Now the quote below further confirms the Southerly African biological affinity of the early Ancient Egyptians:

Quote:
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
and

Quote:
"must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." ("Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999). pp 328-332)
Quote:
Egyptians are africans, naturally, because they originate from Africa. That is not the same as saying Egyptians are black.
Well considering that the studies above do indeed indicate the precise populations that the Ancient Egyptians were closest to biologically, and considering the fact that the only modern population to overlap biologically with the Ancient Egyptians are modern Sub Saharan East Africans (obviously considered black), what is the problem with the labeling the Ancient Egyptians as such in a social sense of the word?



Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top