Anthropology question:Was ancient Egypt an African accomplishment?

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

http://www.politicalforum.com/consp...al-ancient-egyptians-were-black-africans.html
http://egyptiansociety.co.za/2011/01/ancient-egypt-and-africa-2/

I would include this as a continuation of the superiority thread, but I feel a sense of exhaustion emanaitng from it so thought it best to start afresh.
I consider Ancieny Egypt as an African achievement in the same way that Europeans would consider Eastern Europe or Russia European achievements though these cultures were Part Asiatic. The genetic origins of Egypt were in Africa and there are tell tale marks all over the civilisation. Im not arguing that Egyptians are African, mainly because the word "African is more a pejorative genetic slight.
Africa is the most genetically diverse place on the planet and this image:http://wysinger.homestead.com/africanlanguage.jpg
shows how the different parts of Africa interact to form a unified African identity. Its important to rememer too that while there is genetic continuity from ancient to modern egypt the phenotypes are different. The whole debate is informed by the perception that Africa is and always has been backward but thats a new discussion.

 

[max_]

Africa got held back at some point but they were pretty much ahead of the game for several thousands of years. It was there were it all began, agriculture was invented there a couple or three thousand years before Europe. I don't know whatever happened to them in terms of development (too hot probably, not kidding) or when it happened but they certainly got a head start.

Edit: Maybe it was too bushy on the south for them to empire it up and the greeks (and romans too?) ruined Egypt for everyone.

 

[P A]

Good idea, Rudy. This topic really does deserve separate treatment.

As I mentioned in the erstwhile 'Superiority' thread, by far your biggest challenge in formulating the Egypt Question in a manner that's conducive to effective discussion lies in the establishment of first principles and the deployment of operational categories 'up front,' as it were. This task is particularly thorny when it comes to the question of Egyptian ethno-cultural/national identity with all of its historical and present-day ambiguities. In your estimation, what constitutes (i.e., what collection of characteristics defines) an African nation, particularly one with such unparalleled longevity as Egypt? Are political borders relevant outside of their various historical roles? What role does ethnicity, both in terms of self-professed identification and genetic inheritance, have to play in your final analysis? Is it even possible to identify (equate) some loose collection of attributes of the principally Arabic, supra-Saharan UN-member of today with the pyramid-building, pharaoh-worshiping slave apparatus of yore; or is that tendency not a result of spatial and lexical conflation ("They're both called Egypt and they're geographically similarly placed, so I guess they're the one and the same")?

Until you define 'Africa' in a discursively and historically consistent way, any responses you receive will be unsystematic and conceptually nebulous, and therefore equivocal in the extreme.

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

Africa got held back at some point but they were pretty much ahead of the game for several thousands of years. It was there were it all began, agriculture was invented there a couple or three thousand years before Europe. I don't know whatever happened to them in terms of development (too hot probably, not kidding) or when it happened but they certainly got a head start.

Edit: Maybe it was too bushy on the south for them to empire it up and the greeks (and romans too?) ruined Egypt for everyone.

I think it was the warring factions. European innovation is focused in the Germanic peoples i.e Germany and Britain. Germany started to surpass surrounding countries when Barbarossa united the city states. Similarly Britain became the world mover it is today when the various facctions were united under the feudal system.

African innovation only occurred in countries where a centralised government existed, i.e. in Egypt Ethiopia and Ghana.These countries were surrounded by barbaric groups who would have , as they did with rome, weakened these nations' infrastructures.

 

[max_]

I think it was the warring factions. European innovation is focused in the Germanic peoples i.e Germany and Britain. Germany started to surpass surrounding countries when Barbarossa united the city states. Similarly Britain became the world mover it is today when the various facctions were united under the feudal system.

African innovation only occurred in countries where a centralised government existed, i.e. in Egypt Ethiopia and Ghana.These countries were surrounded by barbaric groups who would have , as they did with rome, weakened these nations' infrastructures.

Well, feudalism came along when monarchies fell. The problem with Africa may be that the little monarchies that did exist never fell therefore never allowing feudal lords to be overpowered by capitalists, therefore not entering an industrial revolution and becoming a big colony to those countries who did switch to capitalism. (I know next to nothing about African history, I am mostly guessing)

 

[Belisarius]

In a continental sense, absolutely. In the sense that it was a distinct culture at home in Africa, certainly. Where people get into trouble is when they start thinking in terms of whole continents instead of particulars, or when they cherry-pick what they want to shoehorn into their "own" culture. Note, as an example, the way Ancient Egypt is included in Western civ courses as a matter of fact, but say, Moorish Spain never is, despite the fact that the latter was *on* the continent of Europe for hundreds of years. Ancient Egypt's influence on European history is extremely oblique, while Moorish Spain was responsible for the transmission of a great deal of preserved Greco-Roman knowledge to Europe (as well as many Arabic philosophical commentaries, which influenced Aquinas and others). Yet, one is "European", and one is not.

So, to echo what PA already posted, the whole topic is a can of worms.

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

In your estimation, what constitutes (i.e., what collection of characteristics defines) an African nation, particularly one with such unparalleled longevity as Egypt?

Ok well im looking at genetic markers for starters. I did find a diagram which depicted the migration of various genetic markers throughout Europe which i'll try and find a direct link to. Second is the origins of the language. Third is the phenotypal characteristics of the ancient Egyptian peoples

Are political borders relevant outside of their various historical roles?

I'd say that political borders are constantly in flux due to various factors. In this case the only truly relevant borders are the Sahara i.e. to what extent did it form a natural barrier between super and sub saharan Africa. Outside of that, there were as I said barbaric groups outside Egypt as well as a few actual empires. Egypt was on good terms with both for some time at least in terms of cultural and mercantile trade.

What role does ethnicity, both in terms of self-professed identification and genetic inheritance, have to play in your final analysis? Is it even possible to identify (equate) some loose collection of attributes of the principally Arabic, supra-Saharan UN-member of today with the pyramid-building, pharaoh-worshiping slave apparatus of yore; or is that tendency not a result of spatial and lexical conflation ("They're both called Egypt and they're geographically similarly placed, so I guess they're the one and the same")?

Im specificaly looking at ancient egypt as opposed to modern egypt. Arabic invasions mean that todays egyptians are gentically distinct to the ancients in many different ways. We only have dna anaysis from the tombs to go on and the royalty would have been a huge remove gentically from the common populace if only due to their rabid inbreeding. We can only try and find certain genetic markers in common and analyse the language origins.

Until you define 'Africa' in a discursively and historically consistent way, any responses you receive will be unsystematic and conceptually nebulous, and therefore equivocal in the extreme

Problem is the study of Africa (and I mean real archaeologically honest study as opposed to the preening pseudo suprmacism of many african scholars) is fraght with difficulties. We know very little and africa is so vast and complex linguistically culturally and gentically you just cant define "Africa". You can only break it up and subdivide it into territories and attempt to make sense of the multitudes of cultures and peoples.

 

[P A]

Okay, fair enough. If I've understood you correctly, you're focusing upon the linguistic structures, genetic patterns of inheritance, and national identity of Ancient Egypt in particular, with an eye to their (purported) African identity. Contemporary Egypt is basically out of the question. I guess the more pertinent (meta-)question would be, "Apart from the obvious considerations re. topography, climate, and whatnot, are traditional continental associations of any real (i.e. practical, academic, etc.) significance in the discussion of ancient civilizations?"

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

Okay, fair enough. If I've understood you correctly, you're focusing upon the linguistic structures, genetic patterns of inheritance, and national identity of Ancient Egypt in particular, with an eye to their (purported) African identity. Contemporary Egypt is basically out of the question. I guess the more pertinent (meta-)question would be, "Apart from the obvious considerations re. topography, climate, and whatnot, are traditional continental associations of any real (i.e. practical, academic, etc.) significance in the discussion of ancient civilizations?"

Well things such as the sahara today form a practically insurmountable barrier between super and sub regions. This effectively keeps the genetic pallete if the respective populations "pure". Back then the effects of dessertification werent nearly as pronoucned so there were trade posts and travel back and forth. Also Ethopia and surronding countries had much more communication with sub regions by virtue of their position.

Anyway to be pertinent. No. Thats imo subjective and has more to do with the initial impression you get when surveying a map than actual geography. The casual observer sees egypt as an extension of the middle east seeing the sahara as the vast expanse seperating north africa from the savage realms below.

 

[Thanatos]

As far as I know, most archaeologists, historians, and anthropologists classify Ancient Egypt as a culture substantially different than those of Africa and the Levant. Correct me if I'm wrong but the progenitor of Egypt was a Libyian-Egypt like civilization situated between the west of modern Egypt and north-western Lybia before the Saharra had swallowed the north of the continent. It should be treated apart from both Hellenic, African, and Arab history.

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

As far as I know, most archaeologists, historians, and anthropologists classify Ancient Egypt as a culture substantially different than those of Africa and the Levant. Correct me if I'm wrong but the progenitor of Egypt was a Libyian-Egypt like civilization situated between the west of modern Egypt and north-western Lybia before the Saharra had swallowed the north of the continent. It should be treated apart from both Hellenic, African, and Arab history.

Its lways been fraught with disagreements and inconsistencies. Look at the wiki on it. There doesnt seem to be any real consensus. Only way is to look at it linguistically phenotypally technologically genetically and in terms of the arts and humanities that is comparisons of art poetry science etc

 

[Thanatos]

Is it too early to bump?
I've been musing over this topic all day but I don't feel educated to post anymore than I already did.

 

[webbykevin]

I thought everyone knew it was the 9 feet tall aliens from Sirius that came down in an indigo coloured beamship after having stopped off and mated with the plieadians that created the pyramids, It was on the history channel so it must be true

 

[ebola?]

mmm...yeah. We need a more clear definition of what being "African" is (or in this case, was) before we can answer this question meaningfully.

ebola

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

I did already address that earlier. I'll repost in more detail:

*Does the Ancient Egyptian language/languages have trace elements of African languages?
*Do Ancient Egyptian phenotypes have aspects in common with other African phenotypes?
*Do Ancient Egyptians share African genetic markers?
*Are there cultural/religious/legal/medical etc ideas or practises that exist in both sub saharan and Egyptian lore?

The great point of contention is whether there is a north south African divide. In this instance we're trying to prove cultural and genetic contiguity with sub saharan Africa

 

[ebola?]

I think that what I want here is a theoretically coherent exposition of what being "African" is...what we have are 4 disparate markers thereof, applying to 4 distinct domains. They may converge on a largely coherent population, but we need some coherent concept to unify them analytically (the same difficulty will appear when we attempt to identify any continentally bounded group).

Maybe we should approach things geographically and macro-temporally. We can ask, over a couple tens of thousands of years, in what ways have sub-Saharan African populations conditioned the shape of Ancient Egypt?

ebola

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

I think that what I want here is a theoretically coherent exposition of what being "African" is...what we have are 4 disparate markers thereof, applying to 4 distinct domains. They may converge on a largely coherent population, but we need some coherent concept to unify them analytically (the same difficulty will appear when we attempt to identify any continentally bounded group).

Maybe we should approach things geographically and macro-temporally. We can ask, over a couple tens of thousands of years, in what ways have sub-Saharan African populations conditioned the shape of Ancient Egypt?

ebola

Problem is it would be like asking someone to give a workable defintion of a European. There are just too many genetic families an disparate populations to present a cohesive whole. Your approach would in fact give the whole thing precision. It is actually a clever restatement, but adjusted to lend the original question specificity.

 

[Thanatos]

mmm...yeah. We need a more clear definition of what being "African" is (or in this case, was) before we can answer this question meaningfully.

ebola

So do we have a definition of African yet? Or shall we leave ancient Egypt as the progenitor of the Levant world?

 

[Foreigner]

Yes it was, speaking geographically and ethnically, but the assertion is rather academic and superior. Ancient Egypt would not have considered itself to be part of a unified Africa as it had many political enemies in the region. It would have considered itself to be its own country separate from the others. Analogously, in the modern world people may reflect on various feats in Europe as "European" accomplishments, but it wasn't long ago that each European nation's pride would have been offended by grouping all the nations together.

I think even modern day Africans from various countries would be willing to acknowledge Egypt as an African accomplishment, but at a distance. I do agree that Africa's misappropriation as a backward, primitive continent should be countered with examples like Egypt, but we should avoid prideful claims based on competitive politics.

I guess my view is formulated based on an internal Egyptian view.