[Goddess]

Ancient Egyptians are not descendants of modern Arab Egyptians, who conquered Egypt during the expansion of Islam. The Arab Egyptians are occupiers and colonisers of Egypt. Coptic Christians are the true descendants of ancient Egyptians, although even Copts now have a significant amount of Arab genes. This is what Coptic Christians look like:





Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses and King David of the neighbouring Israel were both described as having red hair by the Bible as well as and non-religious documents.

Adam and the ancient Egyptian God 'Set' were both described as a redheads, shewing that this hair colour was normal in the ancient Middle East.

Many Egyptian mummies are very well preserved to the point where one can count the number of their eye-lashes. It is obvious while looking at the mummies that these people were similar to Greeks or Italians in appearance.

[Lokakyy]

Nice try of twisting the past out of malice or ignorance, but hopelessly flawed. Neither of the coins tell anything about the appearance of the ancient Egyptians.

Portrayed in the first coin is Ptolemy I, who was the general of Alexander the Great and Macedonian. Later the king of Egypt.

Portrayed in the second coin is Arsinoe II, who was the queen of Thrace and Macedonia, later coruling Egypt with Ptolemy II. Daughter of Ptolemy I.

As for the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, they shared North and East African genes, and to the lesser extent Middle Eastern and European.

[Oxymoron]

Well Egyptians did not have one set of peoples. Upper Egypt (South Egypt was made up a mostly black population which ruled the whole of Egypt at one point), Lower Egypt(North Egypt) was populated by semitic peoples related to Mesopatamia.

[noemon]

As Lokakky said: see Ptolemaic Dynasty.

Portrayed in the first coin is Ptolemy I, who was the general of Alexander the Great and Macedonian. Later the king of Egypt.

To clarify, "Macedonian" not to be confused with the modern Slavic people of FYRoM.

This article is about the people of ancient Greece; for the unrelated modern Slavic ethnic group see Macedonian Slavs or Slav Macedonians.

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

[Red Star]

To clarify, "Macedonian" not to be confused with the modern Slavic people of FYRoM.

I think most non-modern Macedonians recognise that, N.

[noemon]

...just to clarify...just in case. And no they do not, accept that. They claim the Egyptian demotic second text of the Rosetta stone, one of the Ptolemaic decrees, as the "original Macedonian Language as a Slavic tongue".

In their mainstream newsmedia.

[Stipe]

Red Star means non-ethnic Macedonians, i.e., everyone except the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia (and even plenty of intellectually honest people recognize it their too). Essentially, when the world thinks of the Macedonian dynasties like the Ptolemies, they're thinking of the Hellenistic world.

Anyway, Lokakky is completely correct and this topic pretty much fails. Their is no more fundamental genetic difference between Copts and their Muslim Egyptian neighbors. They share common origins.

[noemon]

I am pretty sure i read: "most modern", without the "non".

Is there a chance Red star, that you mispelled and added the "non", just before i posted the reply?

They share common origins

Geneticaly they probably do after such long co-existence, but ethnically they are different people, the Muslim neighbors are Arabs in their majority, while the Coptic language is original Egyptian, with a very strong Greek influence.

[Red Star]

Nope, didn't edit my post. Get glasses!

[noemon]

Sorry!

[Thunderhawk]

Were the Coptic population during the presence of the Roman empires and afterwords representitive of the rural and the urban populace?

If one supports the claim that Coptics were/are the "originals" and the Muslim Egyptians are decendants primarily of Arab invaders who mixed with some of the "originals", then one can say the same about the Coptics. That the Coptics are primarily decendents of Greek and Roman invaders who mixed with the "originals".

[noemon]

One could say that, if their language was primarily Greek or Roman instead of Egyptian. But it is not, its Egyptian core is factual. So, priority oughts to be given to the lingual core.

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.

The Muslim Arabs whatever ancestry they might have somewhere along the line of their genes becomes irrelevant, when they are recognizably and homogeneously Arabic.

[Stipe]

Thunderhawk's initial premise is problematic. It's actually hard to say that there has been that much ethnic mixing among as a consequence of the Arab invasion. Egyptians (both Muslims and Copts, really) speak Egyptian Arabic today since Arabic was the language of state (and religion in the case of Muslims. Christianity preserved Coptic, since it used it as a liturgical language but it remains essentially just that). This wouldn't matter if there were straightforward "Arab" and "Coptic" ethnic identities among Egyptians, but my understanding is that it isn't so. Copts apparently don't consider themselves an ethnicity separate from other Egyptians, but rather as Christian Egyptians, and neither do Muslim Egyptians consider them separate. Furthermore, Pan-Arab identity is something which has had an ambiguous and contested history in Egypt among Muslims, even though it's been promoted by the state (sometimes rather forcefully, though not so much now) since Nasser.

[noemon]

Copts distinguish themselves, and their status as a separate ethnicity was contested only very recently, i imagine after Nasser.

One of the main reasons, the Orthodoxes excommunicated the Copts(except for the Jesus controversy, which they consider as Divine alone, and reject his human nature, just like every other political christian dispute posing behind jesus controversies) was because they aided the Arabs against the Byzantines during the Arab conquest of Egypt in exchange for a variety of protective measures towards their identity, which lasted well into this century as far as am aware of.

In addition, i happen to know a couple of Copts, and they do distinguish themselves in a way.

[Stipe]

Copts distinguish themselves as a religious community, and I'm sure there are many diaspora Copts who assert ethnic separateness, but importantly there is not really a separate ethnonym for Copts. Copt or "Aqbat" was simply an Arabization of the Greek word for Egypt. It was initially used to refer to all Egyptians irrespective of religion and only took on a narrower usage after most of the Egyptians converted to Islam. The term Copts use to call themselves in Coptic simply translates to "Egyptian Christian". There are certainly examples of other Copts which contradict the idea that all Copts hold the notion of a separate ethnic identity. There have been a number of intellectuals who have taken to using Copt in its original sense. The founder of the Coptic Museum , Morcos Smeika Pasha, identified all Egyptians as simply Muslim and Christian Copts in speeches. That was long before Nasser and, indeed, it makes no sense for such a thought to be expressed under Nasser.

[noemon]

Well, i think we both know, how more often than not, religious communities, who also boast a separate and distinct language, turn out to become ethnicities, when the weather is cozy.

I reckon the mutual attitude they share with the Muslim Arabs, is and could turn out to be quite fragile.

[Stipe]

All ethnic identity is historically contingent, but it's too early to say if the Copts are moving towards a full-on ethnogenesis.

[noemon]

^Ofc to both statements, from what i gathered from your previous post, i doubt that they are interested in it at all, at this stage. What i wanted to point out, was, that some basis -in case "interest" arises- exists.

[Thunderhawk]

One could say that, if their language was primarily Greek or Roman instead of Egyptian. But it is not, its Egyptian core is factual. So, priority oughts to be given to the lingual core.

The intial Greek and Roman invaders kept their respective languages of Greek and Latin, one can see it on the coins and in correspondence. They adopted the local's language over time.


Did the Egyptians have their own teachings of Jesus translated into Egyptians strait from Aramaic/Hebrew, or a translation from Greek works?


Anyways, my point is this:
The Egyptians, like most societies and peoples, have absorbed many foriegners over the ages.
The Copts are descendents of Egyptians who mixed with foreigner and adopted a religion brought by foriegners. The current Arab-Muslim-Egyptians are also followers of a foreign religion brought in by foriegners.

I find it foolish to believe that the Muslim Egyptians are any more descendents of invaders then the Coptic Egyptians are. That some how a greater share of "foreigner" ancestors long ago absorbed culturally and genetically would make one group of Egyptians any less "native" then another is also absurd.

[noemon]

The Copts are descendents of Egyptians who mixed with foreigner and adopted a religion brought by foriegners.
The current Arab-Muslim-Egyptians are also followers of a foreign religion brought in by foriegners. I believee it to be foolish to believe that the Muslim Egyptians are any more descendents of invaders then the Coptic Egyptians are. That some how a greater share of "foreigner" ancestors long ago absorbed culturally and genetically would make one group of Egyptians any less "native" then another.

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. The one keeps Egyptian in liturgical form(at least, something like the last haven) that spans some milleniums back, the other speak Arabic which even though Arabs existed in the antiquity in Egypt, they were a very small minority.

The intial Greek and Roman invaders kept their respective languages of Greek and Latin, one can see it on the coins and in correspondence. They adopted the local's language over time.

No they didnt, adopt the natives language to create Coptic. 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.

Did the Egyptians have their own teachings of Jesus translated into Egyptians strait from Aramaic/Hebrew, or a translation from Greek works?

Probably from Greek works, but even the Jews had to translate their texts from the Greek. Even though themselves do not admit it, and their holy texts have significant differences, with the Greek septuagint, differences that according to the Dead Sea scrolls invalidate their texts.

These differences could be explained by the fact that they consciously added the differences when translating their texts from the Greek in order to make them unique. Fact is they were not copying from the original Hebrew, because the originals(Dead Sea scrolls) were found the past century, and agree with the Greek instead of their own text.

In other words, this is irrelevant.