[Potemkin]

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

It was primarily political, yes, but there was also an ethnic side to it too. Although the modern concept of 'race' did not yet exist, there was a great deal of ethnic prejudice and tension in ancient Egypt under the Ptolemies - Alexandria was an exclusively Greek city, for example, which 'native' Egyptians were forbidden to live in. In later years, there were often riots in Alexandria sparked off by tensions between the Greek and Jewish communities. The Ptolemies were prejudiced in favour of Greek culture and to some extent the Greek ethnicity as being 'superior' to the native Egyptian.

[Goddess]

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

But as anthropologist Nina Jablonski points out, it’s hard to say exactly what ancient historians meant when they described the skin they saw as “dark.” And she says much of the archeological evidence points to a different conclusion.

“When we look at the representation of the Egyptian royalty on the walls of tombs, we see a range of sort of moderate, tan-colored skin on the royalty,” Jablonski said. “This probably is a fairly close approximation of what skin color these people actually had.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=13992421

[Goddess]

Relying on crania, the anthropologist Loring Brace argues that the ancient Egyptians were more similar (head-wise,) to Germans or Danes than to Nubians, Somalis, or Ethiopians.

“It is obvious that both the predynastic and late dynastic Egyptians are more closely related to the European cluster than they are to any of the other major regional clusters in the world,” says Brace.
http://way.net/dissonance/sundiata.html

Moreover, many statues of ancient Egyptians are painted in various ways, and the eyes are often depicted as blue. A large proportion of the mummies that have survived into the 21st century are red haired. The mummy King Tutankhamun's wife has auburn hair. A mummy with red hair and beard was found in the pyramid at Saqara. The mummy of Pharaoh Thothmes II has chestnut-coloured hair.

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

Yes, but it should be noted that Herodotus lived about 484-425 B.C. Egypt had been affected by the importation of slaves and other immigrants by about 800 B.C. Looking back to earlier times, we can take note of the Egyptian nobleman Yuya, who lived about 1400 B.C. He is said to have blond hair, and he had a typically Caucasian physiognomy:



Another notable mummy is that of Pharaoh Hatshepsut:



Another one is Seti I:

[The Immortal Goon]

The problem with your race-baiting is two fold:

First, it almost all necessarily just kicks up dust without adding any proof of it. Herodotus also compared the Egyptions to the Nubians in complexion. But you can still say, "Well, he meant that they were both in the sun," or something like that. The fact is that he didn't specify that, and people with your point of view have to take loads of evidence to the contrary and find some way to write it off - as you have a clear line that you're trying to establish in view. But the fact is, the best evidence we have of certain periods is that the Egyptians were for long periods - perhaps even at their very beginning - African.

Which brings us to the second point:

Race is a social designation. The way we understand it has a lot more to do with the slave trade than one is at first inclined to think. Because the Egyptians saw race differently then we do, and because they were such an ancient and long-running regime, there were various changes in their leadership, art work, and population, which is what makes this all somewhat less clear than it normally would be.

Presenting statues or mummies from one era only confirms certain specific regimes and does absolutely nothing to disprove all the evidence that exists saying that there were at the very least long stretches of black dominance of Egypt, and that the best evidence we have of their founding was, in fact, by blacks.

Case in point, let's say Obama became president, and then an asteroid hit the planet. Future archaeologists debate whether the United States was an African or a European oriented society. Because someone can prove that one of the leaders was black, the closest descendants to the Founding Fathers are black, and can cast doubt on the accuracy of paintings left of the founding of the country (Ie, almost all of the scenes never actually happened; there was a lot of enlightenment imagery about the light overcoming the darkness), one could make the argument that it was an African-dominated society.

But that would, as you have to do with Egypt, make excuses for all the evidence to the contrary by kicking up dust without offering any other evidence in its place. Some of it would seem compelling enough while taking on its own, but in light of the total of our knowledge not make any sense.

And that's more or less what your argument is doing. It's distorting all the contemporary data and ignoring a large amount of evidence in exchange for a few compelling ones from a certain period and listing that as a total sum.

It's in short, bad, inaccurate history.

[Goddess]

The problem with your race-baiting is two fold:

It's race baiting to say that the Egyptians were typical Mediterraneans in appearance, but it's acceptable to advocate the discredited Afrocentrist view that they were blacks?

First, it almost all necessarily just kicks up dust without adding any proof of it.

There is plenty of evidence:

1.) Anthropologist Loring Brace compared the skulls of ancient Egyptians and found them to be more similar to European skulls than to Nubian, Somali, or Ethiopian skulls.

2.) The Egyptians usually depicted themselves as having either a moderate tan coloured skin with facial features typical of other Mediterraneans, sometimes even as having blue eyes, fair hair, and fair skin.

3.) Many surviving Egyptian mummies have red hair

But you can still say, "Well, he meant that they were both in the sun,"

I never said anything of the sort. Herodotus was referring to the period 484-425 B.C. (the era in which he lived), so his account is only relevant to that single period. I don't dispute that the original Egyptians had been absorbed by the importation of slaves and other immigrants by the year 800 BC. Furthermore, it is impossible to tell precisely what ancient historians meant by 'dark'.

Race is a social designation.

Race isn't relevant to this discussion. I am not talking about what race the Egyptians were, but whether or not they looked like other Mediterranean peoples in their outward physical features.

ignoring a large amount of evidence

What evidence am I ignoring? The single passage by Herodotus? No, I accept that as evidence for the period in question, although I question whether a precise meaning can be attached to the word 'dark' as used by an ancient historian. On other hand, you are ignoring the cranial evidence I presented, as well as the statues, mummies, and depictions of ancient Egyptians from earlier eras which I have described.

[noemon]

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.

The thing is not what you personally consider, but what are the academic criteria. If every one of us started inventing his own standards and conceptualizations, while at the same time lacking the most adequate knowledge on the subject as it is, then we would all be in big trouble.

Christianity being distinctive as a foreign culture in Egypt, is at best laughable. Islam which carried an Arabic distinct culture did make an impact. It was not Islam that made the impact, it was the Arabic pool that travelled with it, that made the impact. On the other hand, Christianity was born in Greek Egypt, in Alexandria particularly.

Here is an example, so that you understand, how fallacious is to give priority to a supposed "foreign" religion, especially that syncretic amalgamation of Christianity, against ones language, then the Russian's maybe should start calling themselves Greeks or something other than Russian, because they were baptized massively by the Byzantine Greeks, copied the architecture of Byzantium and so on. Let's forget the fact that they have an unrelated language, a unique literature, a distinctivelly unique architecture as they evolved it themselves, and so on, and lets group them with those that baptized them instead, or start denying them their name, which they used prior and after their massive baptism.

Take a look at this treaty that i have posted before:

A Byzantine-Russian Treaty of 911 A. D.["Treaty with the Greeks (911)," in Anthology of Russian Literature From the Earliest Period to the Present Time, Leo Wiener, ed. and Tr. Pt. 1 (New York, 1902), pp. 41-44]


WE of the Russian nation, Karly, Inegeld, Farlof, Veremud, Rulav, Gudy, Ruald, Karn, Frelav, Ryuar, Aktevu, Truan, Lidulfost, Stemid, who were sent by Oleg, the Russian Grand Prince, and the illustrious boyars who are under his rule, to you, Leo and Alexander and Constantine, the Greek Emperors and great autocrats by the grace of God, to confirm and proclaim the amity which has existed for many years between the Christians and Russians, by the will of our princes and by the order of all those in Russia who are under his rule. Our illustrious Prince has often thought, more persistently than the others who have desired to maintain and proclaim the amity in God which has been between Christians and Russia, that not only with mere words, but also in writing and with a solemn oath made over our armour, ought such amity be proclaimed and confirmed, according to our faith and law. The following are the articles that we wish to establish in the faith of God and in love:

In the first place, we will make an agreement with you Greeks to love each other with our souls and as much as is in our power, and we will not permit, as far as is in our power, that harm or damage be done to any of you by those who are under the rule of our illustrious princes, but we will try, according to our ability, to preserve for ever and ever, unbroken and undisturbed, the amity which we profess both in words and in writing under oath. Likewise you Greeks shall preserve the same love to our illustrious Russian princes and to all who are under the rule of our illustrious Prince unpolluted and unchanged for ever and all time.

Under the head which is called damages we will agree as follows: Whatever may be made manifest in regard to a grievance, let the information of such grievance be accurate, and let not him be believed who begins the action; and let not that party take an oath if he deserve no belief; but if one swear according to his religion, let there be a punishment if perjury be found.

If a Russian kill a Christian, or a Christian a Russian, let him die where the murder has been committed. If he who has committed murder run away, then if he be possessed of property, let the nearest in kin to the murdered person receive that part which is his by law, and let the wife of the murderer have as much as belongs to her by law. If he who has committed the murder be destitute and have run away, let the case stand against him until he be found, and then he shall die.

If anyone strike another with a sword or beat him with a drinking vessel, let him for such striking or beating pay five litras of silver according to the Russian law. If the offender be destitute, let him pay as much as he can, and let him take off his upper garment which he wears, and besides let him swear according to his religion that there is no one to help him, and let the case against him forthwith be dropped.

If a Russian steal something from a Christian, or a Christian from a Russian, and the thief at the time when he commits the theft be caught by him who has lost the article, and the thief struggle and be killed, let not his death be avenged by either Christians or Russians, but let him who has lost take back what belongs to him. If a Russian despoil a Christian, or a Christian a Russian, by torture or by a show of force, or if he take anything away from a member of the druzhina, let him pay back threefold.

If a boat be cast by a great wind upon a strange shore, where there be any of our Russians, and someone come to furnish the boat with its belongings, we will take the boat through all dangerous places until it has smooth sailing. If such a boat cannot be returned to its place, on account of storm or impassable places, we Russians shall see the oarsmen off safe with their goods, if the accident happens near Greek land. But if the same happen near Russian land, we will take the boat to Russian territory, and let them sell the belongings of the boat and what else of the boat they can sell, and when we Russians shall go to Greece, with merchandise or with an embassy to your Emperor, the proceeds from the sale of the belongings of the boat shall be forwarded without hindrance. Should any man of the boat be killed, or beaten, by us Russians, or should anything be taken away, the wrongdoers shall be punished as above.

Should a Russian slave be stolen, or run away, or be sold by force, and a Russian make complaint of it, and the fact be ascertained in regard to the slave, then let him be returned to Russia. And if the merchants should lose a slave and make complaint thereof, let them search for him and let him be returned; should anyone prevent making such a search, then the local magistrate shall be responsible for him.

If a criminal should return to Greece from Russia, let Russia institute a complaint to the Christian Empire, and let the same be returned to Russia, even against his will.

All these things the Russians are to do to the Greeks, wherever such things may happen. To make the peace established between the Christians and Russians firm and lasting, we ordered this document to be written by John upon two charts and to be signed by the Emperor's and our own hand before the blessed cross and in the name of the holy Trinity and our one, true God, and to be proclaimed and to be delivered to our ambassadors. And we have sworn to your Emperor according to the law and custom of our nation, as being God's own creatures, not to depart, or let anyone else of our land depart, from the established treaty of peace and amity. This document we gave to your Empire in order to confirm the treaty on both sides and to confirm and proclaim the peace in your country, September the second, the fifteenth week, in the year from the creation of the world 6024 (911).

This might make you understand, how nominal, the so-called religious impact is, in and of itself. Religions are catalysts for empires, and do make an impact, if they are accompanied by an ethnic pool, such as Islam carrying the Arabs together, them settling, and them making an impact through their overwhelming ethnic-presence.

The Byzantine baptism of the Russians, did not carry an overwhelming Greek ethnic-pool with it, it did not carry anybody to Russia, except for a couple of monks, so it did not make an ethno-alienating impact in Russia. Christianity in Egypt, carried a Greek impact on the Egyptians or more simply continued, the ongoing Greek alienation of the Egyptians up to a certain percent, and resulted to the large Greek corruption of Coptic, but it did not transform them into Greeks, and it probably would have, if they hadn't taken their measures, and take that protective arrangements with the Arabs. It alienated them up to a certain level, but not enough to transform them into something else.

In Egypt however there has been to much mixing within their population that their "Arab" is related.

This does not follow from the previous 2 statements, it is a convenience of the Egyptian nation-state. And if they mixed with the native Egyptians, when they came, that would be the Copts.

The thought that they were white is mostly racist garbage.

The thought that they were Black Africans is Afro-centrist propaganda, from the school of Bernal.

The Nubians and the other Black-African's were distinguished by the Egyptians:



And the Herodotus text is certainly not conclusive:

For it is plain to see that the Colchians are Egyptians; and what I say, I myself noted before I heard it from others. When it occurred to me, I inquired of both peoples; and the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; [2] the Egyptians said that they considered the Colchians part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; though that indeed counts for nothing, since other peoples are, too; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practised circumcision. [3] The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine acknowledge that they learned the custom from the Egyptians, and the Syrians of the valleys of the Thermodon and the Parthenius, as well as their neighbors the Macrones, say that they learned it lately from the Colchians. These are the only nations that circumcise, and it is seen that they do just as the Egyptians. [4] But as to the Egyptians and Ethiopians themselves, I cannot say which nation learned it from the other; for it is evidently a very ancient custom. That the others learned it through traffic with Egypt, I consider clearly proved by this: that Phoenicians who traffic with Hellas cease to imitate the Egyptians in this matter and do not circumcise their children.

Herodotus relates the Egyptians to the Colchians in the Caucasus, and to the Ethiopians, partly becasue they are all dark-skinned and wooly haired and partly because they are the only ones practising circumcission, and partly becasue the Colchians were part of Ramses army.

Oh and Thunderhawk, this text if further evidence of the Egyptian ethnicity of the Copts, since they are the only Christians along with the Ethiopians and Eritreans that is customary to circumcise. And circumcision is an original Ancient Egyptian trait, discarded by the Orthodoxes, and Catholics.

[noemon]

delete

[The Immortal Goon]

It's race baiting to say that the Egyptians were typical Mediterraneans in appearance, but it's acceptable to advocate the discredited Afrocentrist view that they were blacks?

I'm not saying that they were all black; I'm saying that some of them were and that it's a lot more complicated then you're trying to make it look.

There is plenty of evidence:

He can't possible have examined every skull of every ancient Egyptian, and even when putting together mummies, which are well preserved, are problematic in determining an exact race, and when renderings have been done - they've usually been told to do so, for instance, with "with Caucasoid features. "Caucasoid" describes a major group of peoples of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and India."

Further, depictions of themselves varied rather significantly. They also depicted themselves as being as dark as nubians.

I don't dispute that the original Egyptians had been absorbed by the importation of slaves and other immigrants by the year 800 BC.

That's the problem. You are ignoring things like the statues, many of the paintings, and other evidence while throwing away evidence that you don't like.

The difference is, I'm not claiming that there's a clear answer. You take the result you want and dismiss and accept evidence as seems fit to get to such a goal.

[Stipe]

Actually, Thunderhawk's belief that language is not the sole factor in determining ethnicity is one which is widely shared in the academic community today. The idea that language = ethnicity is one which is very 19th century, not internally consistent, and quite out of date.

Also, I think you are exaggerating his point about religion. I don't think he intends to argue that religion has a primary role in ethnicity. Christianity, like any religion, carries with it certain cultural mores which would have been innovative and would have changed the way Egyptians thought about themselves, although not in an ethnic sense. If it is to, we are still waiting for that to happen. Ultimately, I don't believe that the adoption of either religion, Christianity or Islam, by Egyptians should merit refusing the possibility of cultural continuity to the ancients, which is preserved in some places (even in Egyptian Arabic itself). I would agree though, that Islam has a potential for affecting ethnic identity that Christianity does not, since it is in many ways essentially identical to Arabic culture.

[Suska]

racial definitions are a product of modern thinkings, they come rather late... rather AFTER the fact when applied to Egypt - which it must be said lasted thousands of years in as wide a variety as all that has passed since.

a little perspective. The whole world had few if any examples of nation or territoriality at the outset. These ideas were applied along the way, first by the idea of the Upper and Lower Kingdoms of which the white crown of the upper Nile stood for the Nubians, while the Red Crown of the Lower (Northern) Nile stood for the Delta peoples. But by the time these were joined they already had a long history. If you want to look at it culturally a good analogy would be Football teams. You cant say the New England Patriots are the same as the Dallas Cowboys because they play in the same league! Cities and before them Tribes were the more significant cultural units and the empire was a matter of getting them to work together. It should be noted that each city from the beginning to the end had a representative Deity. A temple building symbolically housed them, these were no abstract or elemental - these people were very careful to distinguish themselves and their histories etc. When Akheneton decided there was to be considered only ONE God (ie. One Peoples) the whole nation took him down and erased him from history.

It seems to me more correct, as Goddess suggests, that what we call Egypt is more like the U.S. than Saudi Arabia. It was a collection with variety. Its a clearly false notion to suggest that African = Nubian, or Arabian. Just as Judaism seems to have originated in North Africa, the Berbers - the entire Sahara region (which until lately was lush) and north of it lived the people now represented most closely by the people of Morocco (well, ok, the North Sahara - look up Berber on Wikipedia). Their own deities as well as those of the Nubians entered the Egyptian pantheon, very strongly I might add, The Coptic Amun figures very prominently.

[noemon]

Actually, Thunderhawk's belief that language is not the sole factor in determining ethnicity is one which is widely shared in the academic community today. The idea that language = ethnicity is one which is very 19th century, not internally consistent, and quite out of date.

Sole ethnic-identifier = no; primary ethnic-identifier = yes.

What is ethnicity? Is there a ‘white’ way of speaking? Why do people sometimes borrow features of another ethnic group’s language? Why do we sometimes hear an accent that isn’t there? This lively overview reveals the fascinating relationship between language ethnic identity, exploring the crucial role it plays in both revealing a speaker’s ethnicity and helping to construct it. Drawing on research from a range of ethnic groups around the world, it shows how language contributes to the social and psychological processes involved in the formation of ethnic identity, exploring both the linguistic features of ethnic language varieties and also the ways in which language is used by different ethnic groups. Complete with discussion questions and a glossary, Language and Ethnicity will be welcomed by students and researchers in sociolinguistics, as well as anybody interested in ethnic issues, language and education, inter-ethnic communication, and the relationship between language and identity.

• First overview of the relationship between language and the construction of individual ethnic identity • Looks at the language of a wide range of ethnic groups around the world • Written in a lively and accessible style

It is quite out of date in the modern era, with the modern nations, under the age of communications, it is not out of date when we are talking about ancient populations and their descendants in the modern era. It is out of date when we talk about Europeans, Chinese taking on English classes, for in this era of communications the adoption of English, does not guarantee English ethnicity, and rightly so.

Language remains the primary ethnic-factor for it remains the primary consciousness development tool.

Also, I think you are exaggerating his point about religion. I don't think he intends to argue that religion has a primary role in ethnicity. Christianity, like any religion, carries with it certain cultural mores which would have been innovative and would have changed the way Egyptians thought about themselves, although not in an ethnic sense. If it is to, we are still waiting for that to happen. Ultimately, I don't believe that the adoption of either religion, Christianity or Islam, by Egyptians should merit refusing the possibility of cultural continuity to the ancients, which is preserved in some places (even in Egyptian Arabic itself).

You come to my words. Am not exaggerating it at all, am merely explaining what you just stated. And Christianity carrying something new to the Egyptians is incorrect. Christianity carried the non-circumcision clause of the Gentiles, and the Egyptians changed their Christianity to fit into their ancient practices. The Egyptians were well known for sanctifying all the personae, and they do not recognize the human nature of Jesus, once against Christian mores. Trying to find an innovation that Christianity brought to the Egyptian society of that specific era, is like looking for a flea on the field. The common ground far surpasses the innovation, if any.

It should be noted that each city from the beginning to the end had a representative Deity

And it should be noted that every Christian city, still does.

[Stipe]

The quotation doesn't say anything contrary to what I have stated. It recognizes that language has a role in the formation of ethnicity. Any schmuck on the street in our post-Herder world could tell you that. It is sometimes not even the primary one although it is certainly one of the primary ones.

The hard and fast rule of ethnicity being identical to language runs into trouble even (and especially) in the pre-modern past as notions of ethnic identity tended to be in flux (not surprising, since notions of ethnicity didn't usually have much reason to harden until the emphasis placed upon it in the 19th century). This is different from place-to-place and according to historical context, but there are nonetheless peoples who believed in a shared ethnic identity (and ethnicity is ultimately about the belief in a common ancestry) despite speaking recognizably different languages, those who did not believe in a shared ancestry despite speaking roughly the same language, and many more who didn't even have much of a sense of ethnic identity at all.
As for the rest, my intention wasn't to disagree with you, but to illuminate the common ground which I think exists in both lines of argument but which is getting lost somehow.

[noemon]

The quotation doesn't say anything contrary to what I have stated. It recognizes that language has a role in the formation of ethnicity. Any schmuck on the street in our post-Herder world could tell you that. It is sometimes not even the primary one although it is certainly one of the primary ones.

And your previous statement does not say anything contrary to what i stated before. It is only in exceptions, that language is not primary.

As for the rest, my intention wasn't to disagree with you, but to illuminate the common ground which I think exists in both lines of argument but which is getting lost somehow.

Well, thanks for clarifying, and for the interesting middle-paragraph.

[Suska]

And it should be noted that every Christian city, still does.

Lol, way to miss the point altogether. Christianity is preeminently a top-down affair. My point was that ancient times particularly Egypt was varying stages of ground up growth, that is; for much of their history those city Deities were supreme with rulership being a matter of interoperation between them. Anyways you need to explain what you mean by Christian "city-deities"

[Stipe]

I'm a big fan of nuance, and the exceptions are often the most important. Now you too can get back to arguing over by what degrees of difference Coptic and Muslim Egyptians are closer or further away from the ancients. (well, you're right on that one, although don't cut the Muslims out of the picture, either)

[noemon]

Suska, almost every christian city, has one deity which is venerated specifically for the city.

Saint Nicholas(Santa Claus) for example is the patron saint of a whole list of cities around the globe. And also patron of sailors and various other proffesions.

Search for Patron Saint's.

way to miss the point altogether

I just corrected the past-tense had in your sentence.

Also what you added just now, "the inter-operation of the deities", it still exists in modern day-christianity(see the intercession of the saints), one saint can cancel out another, depending on who is patron where. But, just like the old deities, they are all answerable to the source.

Stipe, agreed..ofc..as always, ill be more careful with the Muslims next time

[Maas]

What did ancient Egyptians look like?

hard to say.

People who did escavations in Egypt, were all western people who did that almost a century ago. With slavery fresh in the mind and the role the races played in that era, they all ashumed it was unthinkable that Egyptians were black. About the same way Spanish conquistadores had simular views when seeing native americans and their inca ruines. But it's terrible obvious a couple of farao's were darn black since they were Numbians. So since Egyptians didn't mind a couple of black faraos at all.... who'se to say they weren't that "white" themselves?

[noemon]

who'se to say they weren't that "white" themselves?

The Egyptians themselves at that specific time, when they distinguished themselves from the Nubians and Black Africans in general.