Ancient Egyptians - Cultural Origin, genetics, etc.

[grahamguitarman]

In the time when the Egyptians ruled the earth,

Erm, lets not get carried away here, the Egyptians were an amazing culture, but they never even got close to ruling the world. Even at their height their political control was mostly confined to what we now think of as the Arabic countries.

Although the Egyptians were definitely dark skinned, they were not actually black, we know this by looking at pictures where black skinned people were shown alongside the red-brown Egyptian peoples. Their culture was closely linked with the Black skinned Nubians to the south, but they were still a separate and unique race to themselves. They were not Semitic, they were not Black, or white, they were brown skinned Egyptians. I think it is just as bad to try to portray the Egyptians as black skinned Africans as it is to try and make them more Eurasian or Semitic, none of those descriptions are accurate or true.

Personally, I think we should keep race politics out of it and concentrate on admiring the Egyptians for the amazing culture they were, instead of trying to hijack them for our own cultural and political purposes.

 

[Alex97]

I'm not an expert on Eygiptian history or anything but just my two cents.

To be honest I reckon it was a mixture of both Asian and black people and later some whites who were'nt strictly Eygiptiona anyway (Greeks). As the Eygpt's empire expanded their population would become my diverse. People from different cultures mix, marry and have kids. Therefore you get a mix of both. However I have to admit since the Eygiptians were from Africa they wee most likely origanaly black skinned.

 

[grahamguitarman]

Yeah, see all of those people look "Black" to me, except maybe the guy on the top. My own definition of the term is very loose. I essentially use it as synonymous with "African."

The problem with such a loose definition, is that most Arabs would not call themselves black (or white either), But they are still just as African. And there are many cultures around the world who specifically describe themselves as brown not black.

In western countries there has been so much interracial mixing that there are many shades of brown people, who regardless of skin colour all share a Black African cultural background. So there is a tendency in America especially, to lump anyone with darker skin under the 'Black' umbrella whether those people want it or not. However not everyone in the rest of the world works to the american conventions when defining what constitutes a black person.

 

[Jabrosky]

If you use the term black to describe all African peoples, then yes, the average Egyptian would have been black. But that's not an accurate term.

Well, if you really want to get pedantic about it, no one in the world literally has black skin. "Black" was never a scientific taxon.

 

[Steerpike]

Well, if you really want to get pedantic about it, no one in the world literally has black skin. "Black" was never a scientific taxon.

Skin color is not determinative, but I think the point Shockley is making is that many representations of the ancient Egyptians use a skin tone that most people would consider non-black (and yes, everyone understands no one is really "black" or "white" for that matter, but those are the terms we use). I think few would argue that sub-Saharan populations tend to be darker in skin tone than the current Egyptians, and so skin tone is merely one piece of evidence among the entirety of the evidence.

 

[Shockley]

Well, if you really want to get pedantic about it, no one in the world literally has black skin. "Black" was never a scientific taxon.

I don't think I'm the one being pedantic about this. The distinction between black and white has never meant literally black skin or literally white skin.

 

[Jabrosky]

Let's drop the whole semantic argument over the definition of Blackness, because there's something about this whole discussion that really jumps out to me.

First off, let me establish my own credentials in this area: Next to none. I am a history major and I read a lot, but I’ll be the first to admit that Egypt is not my area of primary study. That would be Greeks, Romans and, increasingly as of late, northern European peoples. So when I say anything on this, know that I’m not coming from an area of expertise and most of my points will be made using ancient Greek sources.

Shockley, I notice that you are still clinging to your position even though you admit here that you cannot respond to the bulk of the arguments raised in the Keita and Boyce paper I quoted earlier. What you're doing is singling out their brief statement regarding Greco-Roman descriptions of Egyptians---which wasn't even critical to their thesis---while glossing over the meat of their paper, namely the bio-anthropological and genetic data. If you really have no answer to this data, why can't you concede defeat already?

 

[grahamguitarman]

why can't you concede defeat already?

Why does it have to be about someone winning and someone losing? this is a debate not a contest.

 

[Jabrosky]

Why does it have to be about someone winning and someone losing? this is a debate not a contest.

Debates are supposed to be arguments, aren't they?

Sorry for the confrontational language, but as I understand it, the goal of a debate is to convince the opposition.

 

[grahamguitarman]

Or maybe to have an interesting conversation in which everyone gets to put their point of view, and listen to others point of views. There doesn't need to be a winner or a loser, indeed cannot be, because none of you can be 100% sure your position is irrefutable.

I certainly don't enter into a discussion with the intention of proving to everyone that I know everything and am always right. I only want to have a stimulating discussion where I hope I contribute something of worth and maybe learn something of worth. Life is too short to be worrying about who 'wins' a discussion.

 

[Jabrosky]

You raise valid points there. Honestly, I'm probably too used to the confrontational and uncivil tone of other message boards where I've debated this particular subject in the past. I apologize for my attitude.

 

[Shockley]

Let's drop the whole semantic argument over the definition of Blackness, because there's something about this whole discussion that really jumps out to me.

Let's not, as I think there is a lot of gold there. If mindfire maintains that Berbers are black (as he has said that he does), then that changes the very nature of the argument.

Shockley, I notice that you are still clinging to your position even though you admit here that you cannot respond to the bulk of the arguments raised in the Keita and Boyce paper I quoted earlier.

I'm not 'clinging' to an argument - nor am I overly concerned with Keita/Boyce. My argument comes from Egyptian and Greek sources, and I'd like to point out that the only person in this thread (on this forum, that I know of) who is qualified to really look at the Keita/Boyce paper (steerpike) was unconvinced by it. I think he was rather to the point when he said this:

When you take the genetic evidence as a whole, along with other data (from cultural anthropology, for example), the best conclusion that explains it all is that the Ancient Egyptians were not sub-Saharan Africans. There is more of that particular DNA in the Upper Egypt samples, which makes sense geographically. Most likely, the culture had a good deal of Eurasian origin, though the idea that there was no African influence doesn't seem plausible (and I don't know anyone who holds to that idea).

What you're doing is singling out their brief statement regarding Greco-Roman descriptions of Egyptians---which wasn't even critical to their thesis---while glossing over the meat of their paper, namely the bio-anthropological and genetic data.

I'm not here to address their paper, I'mm here to address the topic title: 'Ancient Egyptians - Cultural origins, genetics, etc.' I'm debating 'cultural origins' and 'etc.'

If you really have no answer to this data, why can't you concede defeat already?

I'll concede defeat when you convince me of your points, which you have failed to do so far. In fact, most of your arguments against me have been against straw men which you have constructed against my position.

 

[Jabrosky]

I'm not 'clinging' to an argument - nor am I overly concerned with Keita/Boyce. My argument comes from Egyptian and Greek sources, and I'd like to point out that the only person in this thread (on this forum, that I know of) who is qualified to really look at the Keita/Boyce paper (steerpike) was unconvinced by it.

And all he had to offer was some bullshit spouted by the chimpanzees at iGENEA which I have already refuted earlier in this thread. Other than that, he offered only baseless assertions.

I'll concede defeat when you convince me of your points, which you have failed to do so far. In fact, most of your arguments against me have been against straw men which you have constructed against my position.

Sorry, but you claimed in the beginning that "ancient Egyptians were not black". Then you revise your claim to "there were some black Egyptians but they were a minority". Which is it?

 

[Jabrosky]

Sorry, double post; please ignore or delete

 

[Shockley]

I mean, I came into this debate conceding a number of points: There were black pharaohs, and I'm willing to concede that there were, at least, eighteen of them (which I conceded in my opening post). I am willing to concede that pharaohs even before the Nubian invasion of that country inter-married with Sub-Saharan Africans (and I have conceded that multiple times since my opening posts). I have given credit to the Nubians for building the pyramids at Meroe (multiple times) and have even gone on the record saying that there were, almost certainly, black members of Egyptian society. So when I say all that and you throw this at me:

Again, I don't really advocate that Egyptians were ever purely Black. Like Mindfire and Steerpike, I maintain that they incorporated people of many different appearances into their civilization. However, you seem intent on generalizing Egyptians as non-Black, as if the population was homogeneously "Semitic" from Elephantine to the Delta. That is simply not true.

I get a little defensive about my position.

 

[Jabrosky]

Then you've only yourself to blame for poor wording in your first statement in the other thread.

 

[Shockley]

Sorry, but you claimed in the beginning that "ancient Egyptians were not black". Then you revise your claim to "there were some black Egyptians but they were a minority". Which is it,?

From the second part of my first post in this thread:

Herodotus says that, at one point, the Ethiopians ruled over Egypt. He says that, at some point in recent history, Ethiopians had invaded and taken over Egypt and that eighteen different Ethiopians had been pharaoh during that time. This is consistent with what we know of the 25th Dynasty (which I mentioned in the other thread). But here’s the point I’m taking from it: By that period, Egypt had been ruled by hundreds of Pharaohs. Hundreds of individuals had held the throne, and Herodotus takes a moment to say that eighteen of these men were Ethiopians, based on the term that he had just revised to refer explicitly to black Africans.

We should even expect a few black-looking Pharaohs — many of the wives of the Pharaohs did come from Ethiopia (members of the 24th Dynasty married the forerunners of the 25th Dynasty). But that matters little — while the British monarchs might be predominately German, the average Brit is still English, Scottish or Welsh. In that sense, the average Egyptian was of a dark, Semitic stock.

Again, you build straw men.

 

[Shockley]

Then you've only yourself to blame for poor wording in your first statement in the other thread.

And you only have yourself to blame for me not 'conceding defeat' when you refuse to argue what I've actually posted int his thread.

 

[Devor]

Debates are usually about convincing a third party, Jabrosky. They are actually counter-productive towards convincing the person you are addressing.

 

[Devor]

Wow that moved fast.