[Goddess]

Neither of the coins tell anything about the appearance of the ancient Egyptians.

You are right, although my argument doesn't rest on the depictions on the coins.

As for the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, they shared North and East African genes

I am not here concerned with their genetic origins per se, but with their outward appearance.

Anyway, you are correct that they have North and East African genes, and here are some photographs of native North and East Africans:











The ancient Egyptians probably looked something like this prior to the Arab expansion.

They looked similar to Greeks, southern Italians, and Spaniards in physical appearance. This is not to say that native North and East Africans all have an origin in Greece, southern Italy, or Spain, which would be preposterous. They merely have similar physical appearances, and the significance of this is only trivial.

[noemon]

I think these pictures show Berbers?

[Goddess]

As Lokakky said: see Ptolemaic Dynasty.

Yes, I didn't realise that the coins depicted Egyptians of Greek origin, and it was obviously incorrect of me to use those as examples of native Egyptians. However, my argument does not rest on this point.

And yap, the Copts are the closest one can get to Ancient Egyptians.

That is my main argument. Ancient Egyptians probably looked more like Copts and other non-Arabised North Africans than they looked like the present day Muslim Egyptians.

[Thunderhawk]

I am certain that you are overestimating the "religion of the foreigners", which the religion in and of itself has nothing to do with the identity of nations, the religious aspect of a nation matters only in juxtaposition, not in and of itself. I think many people are over-estimating it. And the religious organizations contribution to civilization, which has been next to nothing, except for a catalyst of homogeneity among groups.

But anyhow, the Copts are more native to Egypt than the Arab-Muslims.

I was pointing out how much foriegners have influenced the region, genetically, culturally and religiously. I consider Islam and Coptic to be both foreign to the land. However, over time they have been adopted.

Up until the Arab conquest, Greek was the language used over there, and the Greeks did not have to adopt a native language to communicate, but the natives had to conform to this reality. And hence Coptic.

This statement implies that Coptic was the native language.

The Copts are Egyptians who mixed with a variety of others, probably, if judging from their language, that other part is mostly Greek. Though this is not conclusive either, because the Greek influence could be not from mixing, but due to the nature of Greek being the language of upward mobility for many centuries spanning from the conquest of Egypt from Alexander, well into the Arab conquista. Or more simply, both.

This statement implies 'Coptic' has evolved over time, adopting foreign words.



That the Copts speak a language derived from Ancient Egyptian does not give them more validity as "Egyptian" then speakers of a modern cousin language, Arabic.

[Lokakyy]

That is my main argument. Ancient Egyptians probably looked more like Copts and other non-Arabised North Africans than they looked like the present day Muslim Egyptians.

Based on what?

If you cannot tell a Greek coin from an Egyptian one, what is your exact expertise in saying what they looked like? Especially considering that there is metres of scientific debate about the subject.

[Goddess]

You have lapsed into a counterfeit of an argument, a fallacy of distribution. People are respected as having expertise and their judgments are accorded the consideration that their credentials merit, but the validity of the judgments themselves are not assessed on the basis of the person's expertise or lack thereof. My argument is true or false irrespective of my credentials. And since my argument is neither new nor original, my personal credentials are irrelevat. The argument should be assessed on its own merits.

[noemon]

I was pointing out how much foriegners have influenced the region, genetically, culturally and religiously. I consider Islam and Coptic to be both foreign to the land. However, over time they have been adopted.

Yeap, i know what you mean but it does not hold water in the Coptic vs Islam argument. This foreign religion argument is a myth. There is no "native religion". Absolutely none. The old Egyptian deities were as foreign to Egypt as Christianity and Islam. It was a system based on syncretism(we do not know how many of the deities were native and how many foreign, for easiness we just call them all Egyptian, but now that we begin to decipher Babylonian, and Akkadian and all that jazz, we realize that neither Judaism is native to Judeah, but a product of syncretism by pick and match from Babylon, not Artemis, Dionysus native to Greece(just to give an example), and probably not X Egyptian deity native to Egypt) very much like Christianity's syncretism. And Coptic Christianity is not foreign to the land, but native. In juxtaposition to Islam, Coptic is much more native. To compare the link between Ancient Egyptians and Copts, we can compare their language(link established), and their customs, and again link established, such as the fact they add jewellery in their burial ceremonies, just to give an example. There are many more. The myth of Christianity or Islam making an actual "impact" on the lives of the people, of the world who came to be registered as one or the other, is a myth promulgated by these 2 major Imperial tools, that are still under prominence, and hence capable of parroting their myths. Societies and their structure did not change, neither in one case or another. It just allowed the Empires of the time, to add disgruntled elements under their umbrella, and use them for further conquest.

This statement implies that Coptic was the native language.

Exactly, Coptic is native Egyptian, corrupted by Greek. It is not Greek or something else corrupted by Egyptian. At least not according to all scholars that have dealt with this subject.

This statement implies 'Coptic' has evolved over time, adopting foreign words.

Yeap.

That the Copts speak a language derived from Ancient Egyptian does not give them more validity as "Egyptian" then speakers of a modern cousin language, Arabic.

This validity you speak of, is a very loose term. Fact is the Copts are the Ancient Egyptians. Validity to claim Egypt as their own is impossible considering their small numbers, lack of organization, and non-interest to it.

But, that they are the natives, who have kept one way or another their ancient link inside their language, no matter how corrupted it is, is a fact, that, one cannot deny to them.

[Thunderhawk]

Fact is the Copts are the Ancient Egyptians.

i I disagree.
Derivatives and evolutionary differences make them seperate. Related, but still seperate. I am yet to see comments or evidence, aside from "language", that the copts are any more "successors" to the Ancient Egyptians then Muslim 'Arab' population is.

But, that they are the natives, who have kept one way or another their ancient link inside their language, no matter how corrupted it is, is a fact, that, one cannot deny to them.

So people who are strongly tied together should be differentiated based on threads?

[noemon]

So people who are strongly tied together should be differentiated based on threads?

Threads are very important, and things that actually matter.

Copts and Arabs are strongly tied together but that does not make them, one and the same. They are different.

Derivatives and evolutionary differences make them seperate. Related, but still seperate. I am yet to see comments or evidence, aside from "language", that the copts are any more "successors" to the Ancient Egyptians then Muslim 'Arab' population is.

It makes them more related to the Ancient Egyptians than to Arabs. Ofc today, that they have completely abandoned their language and adopted Arabic on a popular usage, certainly does not aid their ethnic-distinctiveness, but the fact that they have put their language on vault(liturgy), tells us that they are at least interested on keeping it alive. Browse a little bit the internet for Coptic customs and you will find a hell lot of material linking them to ancient Egypt.

In addition, Egypt has been populated from time immemorial, and nobody throughout any period of time has disputed the Ancient Egyptian origins of the Copts.

[Thunderhawk]

Copts and Arabs are strongly tied together but that does not make them, one and the same. They are different.

Just as they are different from each other, they are both different from historic peoples.

In addition, Egypt has been populated from time immemorial, and nobody throughout any period of time has disputed the Ancient Egyptian origins of the Copts.

Aside from some revisionists here on Pofo*, I have never heard of anyone disputing Coptic or Muslim Egyptian heritage in Ancient Egypt.

*:p

Browse a little bit the internet for Coptic customs and you will find a hell lot of material linking them to ancient Egypt.

I knew a Copt, very distinctive from the Muslim Egyptians I know.
I relate it to Gothic Kids I knew. They too had a distinctive custom and culture seemingly seperate from their family and mainstream. None the less, these Goths didnt stop from being (antsy white teenagers with out a clue) Westerners.

[noemon]

Just as they are different from each other, they are both different from historic peoples.

Nope, their links are established, the fact of the matter is that we got 3 people. Copts, Arabs, and Ancient Egyptians:

And we are to make some true statements:

Copts are related to Ancient Egyptians.
Arabs are not related to Ancient Egyptians.

Copts are more related to Ancient Egyptians than any other group surviving to this day.

Copts are ethnic Ancient Egyptians, with a significant Greek corruption.

Language is the ethnic-identifier, according to both ancient, and modern academic criteria of ethnicity.

Revising or neglecting this, is what constitutes revisionism.

Aside from some revisionists here on Pofo*, I have never heard of anyone disputing Coptic or Muslim Egyptian heritage in Ancient Egypt.

This is not revisionism. Muslim Egyptians started calling about their Egyptian heritage only after the formation of an Egyptian nation-state. This is what is revisionism. It was integral to the formation of the nation-state. Prior to that, the Islamic Caliphate, did not even state that the Muslims Arabs have any relation whatsoever to Ancient Egypt. The Copts, on the other hand, did, and nobody disagreed with them.

I knew a Copt, very distinctive from the Muslim Egyptians I know.
I relate it to Gothic Kids I knew. They too had a distinctive custom and culture seemingly seperate from their family and mainstream. None the less, these Goths didnt stop from being (antsy white teenagers with out a clue) Westerners.

Yeap, i see that you are using your creative imagination, and personal conceptualization. Not the way to go. And the fact that all modern kids are westererns due to globalization, media, and etcetera, does not mean that they are not ethnically unique, on their own right, as well.

[Lokakyy]

You have lapsed into a counterfeit of an argument, a fallacy of distribution. People are respected as having expertise and their judgments are accorded the consideration that their credentials merit, but the validity of the judgments themselves are not assessed on the basis of the person's expertise or lack thereof. My argument is true or false irrespective of my credentials. And since my argument is neither new nor original, my personal credentials are irrelevat. The argument should be assessed on its own merits.

It actually wasn't an argument, I was just wondering what kind of sources you have when you claim that the ancient Egyptians looked like the people in the pictures you posted (whose source is unknown - are they Berbers or Copts?). The original post was honest (while erroneous), since you posted the coins (the historical source for the argument) to validate the claim.

Expertise might be a bad word, I'm just puzzled about on what kind of authority you rest your argument, if you haven't conducted any original research about the subject. Your argument isn't a new one or an original one, but in that case you'd do justice to the readers of this thread by pointing out the origins of the claim.

You have also ignored the arguments that pointed to the East African descent of the Egyptians, as notably we don't see any "black" characteristics in your pictures, only very pale skinned individuals, which hardly can be correct. I have a very basic understanding of the public debate about the subject, but I think it has been mostly about whether the Egyptians were black or brown skinned - remembering the controversy rising from the National Geographic rendition of Tutankhamen having a milk coffee coloured skin.

[Ombrageux]

Other: Ancient Egyptians, like the modern ones in fact, had some black in them (the late President Anwar Sadat was half-Sudanese). Most would not be able to get served at a 1960s southern lunch counter.

[Goddess]

Yes, like swarthy Mediterraneans, although blacks were mainly present in Egypt as slaves. As a matter of fact, it was illegal under the rule of many pharaohs for blacks to enter ancient Egypt except as slaves - not even black diplomats were allowed in.

[Ombrageux]

Goddess - I hope you realize some pharaohs of Egypt were not just 'swarthy Mediterraneans' but of Nubian descent.

[Oxymoron]

pharaohs for blacks to enter ancient Egypt except as slaves

Egypt was ruled by the Nubians for a long time so I beg to differ.

[The Immortal Goon]

Egypt was ruled by the Nubians for a long time so I beg to differ.

QFT.

Really, even if you go back enough - when everything is still really fuzzy - there is good reason to beleive that the "original" Egyptians looked a lot like the Nubians. Many of the statues and such - including the Sphinx - have African characteristics, and the decorations often portrayed the Egyptians as being darker than anyone around them.

Herodotus described the Egyptians as being "dark-skinned and woolly-haired"

The thought that they were white is mostly racist garbage.

[Potemkin]

Really, even if you go back enough - when everything is still really fuzzy - there is good reason to beleive that the "original" Egyptians looked a lot like the Nubians. Many of the statues and such - including the Sphinx - have African characteristics, and the decorations often portrayed the Egyptians as being darker than anyone around them.

Herodotus described the Egyptians as being "dark-skinned and woolly-haired"

The thought that they were white is mostly racist garbage.

Precisely. The Ptolemies even inbred with each other to ensure that their dynastic line remained purely Greek, untainted by those dark-skinned Gyppoes they ruled over.

[Thunderhawk]

Arabs are not related to Ancient Egyptians.

Every Arab, no.
Arabs as a whole, no.
In Egypt however there has been to much mixing within their population that their "Arab" is related.

Language is the ethnic-identifier, according to both ancient, and modern academic criteria of ethnicity.

We've had this debate.
I do not recognize Language as the sole factor in ethnicity.
Cultural aspects also matter, and both groups have adopted foreign cultures, largely stemming from a very foreign religion.
I recognize that all cultures, like religions, are dynamic and have contributions from various sources. But some sources are very distinctive from what was/is the norm, and that is how I view both Christianity and Islam, and its cultural impact in Egypt.

[Lokakyy]

As a matter of fact, it was illegal under the rule of many pharaohs for blacks to enter ancient Egypt except as slaves - not even black diplomats were allowed in.

I'm once again interested where you are digging these "facts". It is very anachronistic to claim that the ancient Egyptians actually had some sort of "race"-concept as implied.

The Ptolemies even inbred with each other to ensure that their dynastic line remained purely Greek

I'm pretty sure the inbreeding of the Ptolemies was mostly political in nature.