Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
Cleopatra
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Grumpyshakazulu (U6590497) on Monday, 16th March 2009
Why are so many researchers so shocked to discover she was part black?
Please discuss............. -
Message 2
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Monday, 16th March 2009
(stunned)
Which parts of her body was black, then? -
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 16th March 2009
Grumpy is not kidding. He refers to a fresh hot research that came out this week but I share your surprise. Indeed, we know Cleopatra was Greek. Even more she is supposed to had been Greekier than Greek and nothing else, not any other tribe of the Mediterranean, Europe or Asia.
Really, Grumpy, the reaction you talk about has nothing to do with the well-known black-white frictions especially on the case of Egypt.
From what we know from ancient writers, the "epigons" (descendants) of Ptolemaios, general of Alexander the Great inherited the kingdom of Egypt. They ruled for some 300 years there as Greek rulers and not as Egyptian. It strikes us that in 300 years none of them apart Cleopatra ever bothered to learn Egyptian to pretend to get closer to the bulk of the population. However, like in other Hellenistic kingdoms they took a lot of local customs - afterall the hellenistic culture was everywhere a culture of synchretism (moreover, Greeks always liked Egypt). One of the less attractive features that the Ptolemaians took up was the... inbreeding of pharaos. Hence, marriage was done only among cousins, half-siblings, even siblings! And that up to the last epigon, that was Cleopatra.
That is not to say that Ptolemaians would not have an endless army of concubines from pretty much all over the place. But then, any children born out of such one-night stands would be lucky enough to remain around the palace let alone be considered as princes and princesses (and that would had nothing to do with their half-origins). Such a kid would not have any hope even back in more "liberal" kigdoms, let alone in dynastic Ptolemaic Egypt. Only through some legitimate (for them, inbred) marriage we could had a "diadochos" (heir to the throne).
The possibility of children born out of some Ptolemaic father and an Eastern-African (probably Ehtiopian) mother is very probable. What is not probable is the child boy or girl remaining around the palance and being accepted as "prince" or "princess", that even in the case the king was in love with the woman and really favoured her. Children would be outsted for not being "real" Ptolaimaioi, let alone a half-caste child whose different origins would be evident.
Again this has nothing to do with the black-white modern complexes. The same would hold true if Ptolemaios had a kid with a northern Germanic slave (the kid would be too blond to pass as a real "Ptolemaios" - let alone that at those times nordic blond was considered more barbaric than Eastern African).
However, in history I am one that says "never say never". So I believe we have to look at that interesting theory more closely:
The guys that came out with that theory had excavated a tomb as far as Ephesus (western Minor Asia), that is next to the great temple of Ephesus and believe they found the tomb of Cleopatras' sister Arsinoe because it is an aristocratic lady of around 20-25 years old from the same era (1st century B.C.). Then some of them did an analysis and deducted that she was half-caste, half Mediterranean, half African. Interesting.
But. 1st they have not yet established for sure who is buried. I am sure tons of aristocratic people where buried there. 2nd, as far as I know, the very same scientists refuse other similar analysis as making too many suppositions:
It is possible to excavate an ancient cemetery and find 1000 graves and state that they are rather Mediterranean, rather Dinarics, rather Eastern Africans. However still many have objections even to that since a large number of people belonging to some tribe do not have necessarily cranial characteristics 100% right on the average metrics. Personally for large samples I by and large accept anthropometry. From there on to state with certainty that 1 specimen is this or that, really you have to have found more than bones - you might have a suggestion but it will be always based on suppositions.
Let alone, claim half-caste which is even more difficult. In my opinion, if you take Nicko-MacBrian, drummer group Iron Maiden and analyse his crane and bones and give it to researchers they will most possibly classify it as "African" (not even half-caste) due to the large base of his nasal opening his crane most probably will have. And imagine that he comes as far as Britain.
I am still not ruling out any possibility. I mean you could just have an Ethiopian princess as a Ptolemaios favourite woman, then at his death due to the various political games that were played at that time in Egypt she could had been forwarded as a Ptolemaia princess. Why not?
I am ok with it. What I am not ok with is the total failure of any historian to write about that characteristic of hers. I mean, had she been half-caste, it would be the first thing Greeks and Romans would write about. And I am not implying that they would treat a half-caste like Europeans would treat in the 17th-19th centuries, no but neither they would pass it unidentified. People (i.e. Greeks and Romans - i.e. Mediterranean people) seemed to speak of her as a plain girl without much external beauty, with a relatively large nose (not a usual characteristic for a half-caste girl, even boy, anyway - but a very usual Greek trait). Ceasar saw nothing of that and was ready to play along with her making descendants that were destined one day to grab the power of the Roman Empire (the dream of Cleopatra). And that is 100% normal if Cleopatra was an 100% Greek girl. That would not sound normal for a 50% Greek girl especially if the other 50% was African, Middle Eastern or Northern Eureopean (i.e. anything that did not look at all Mediterranean), for the very simple reason that this was not the 400 A.D. but the the 1st century B.C. and Roman families cared to have sex with anyone but to have "official descendants" only with those of the good families.
Again I am not ruling out this possibility, I find it however very small. If anything, I cannot think of any propaganda that erased the "dark" colour from Cleopatra for the very simple reason that most people that wrote about her, were political opponents of her and her second husband Antonius ending in an unfair treatment. She was much more educated and quite less sex-maniac than people want to believe, above all she was an excellent monarch that had succeded in restoring the economy of Egypt from the ashes it was at time of the death of her father then nearly succeded doing the unbelievable, inheriting the Roman Empire even before it was named an Empire!).
So if people wrote in such negative light, would they really miss the chance to state also that she was a "foreigner" too? I really cannot believe it. Thus in this grave-mystery I think there are 10s of other possible explanations with first of all the two 1) wrong name, 2) wrong cranial analysis. -
Message 4
Posted by Grumpyshakazulu (U6590497) on Tuesday, 17th March 2009
I personally don't think the mix would have been Ethiopian as their dna is only 35% sub saharan black! The majority is euro asian therefore the rmains found would not be representative of someone that was mix heritage!
-
Message 5
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Tuesday, 17th March 2009
Technically the Austrian study states the skeleton found in a high status tomb known as the Octagon in the centre of Ephesus was not a local individual and had a mother from North Africa. However this is based upon a limited set of measurements taken from the missing skull rather than the surviving skeletal material. Thus it seems to have been subjected to certain amount of dubious racial profiling based on the apparent length of the skull in comparison to examples from the Eastern Mediterranean. The study attempted to verify one way or the other whether the theory that this was the tomb of Arsinoe, a daughter of Ptolemy XII, murdered at the behest of her sister Cleopatra VII in Ephesus during the civil wars. As it stands the assumption that she was Arsinoe is really no nearer to being resolved.
The press attention on the supposed African ancestry of the skeleton does not mean that she was therefore black as it is popularly understood. It also does nothing to prove that the skeleton and Cleopatra VII have the same mother. Even though the Ptolemies may have taken to marrying their sisters, like many Macedonian dynasts they hardly seem to have remained faithful to one partner and the issue of maternal descent was not overly important to succession. Cleopatra and Arsinoe's father, Ptolemy XII is thought to have been illegitimate. The results drawn from the study merely enforce a growing trend towards looking at the development of Ptolemaic Egypt as a fusion of Egyptian and Greek societies rather than presuming that the Greek element remained aloof to the native culture.
However what the sensationalist reporting really means is the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ have another documentary to promote. In fact they've been dropping hints about since late last year. -
Message 6
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 17th March 2009
My main problem with the theory has mainly to do with this: "why contemporaries did not mention it?". We also know that Cleopatra went in Rome. Everyone despised her because she had such an influence, but no-one implied anything else than that - had she been a half-caste the title "barbarian" would had been heard at every Roman mouth. It would really surprise me if nobody had mentioned it.
-
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 17th March 2009
Also the presumption of an early merge of Ptolemaic Egypt is much superficial and that despite the fact that the bulk of Greeks saw with positive light Egyptian culture and vice versa. You do not have even to look at 300 B.C., 200, B.C. not even at 100 B.C.... I am getting you forward nearly 1000 years later, during the conquest of Egypt by muslims. What we find is a so-called Roman element - by all means we talk about Greeks - as a high class ruling over the middle-lower Egyptian classes. The earlier social clashes with the destruction of libraries and public buildings, the expansion of every aristocrat-(and greek-) hating pseudo-religion promising "social liberty" and of course at the end the ease with which muslims found local allies being able to conquer a land of 10 million souls with a relatively small for the task army of 40,000 men (currently sold as gods will by them), all show the depth of division between Greeks and Egyptians.
The merge of Greeks and Egyptians in Egypt was much more cultural than really social - said that, it does not mean that it did not happen. Of course it happened but not to any fast rate, proven by the distinct castes easily surving 900 years of cohabitation despite sharing partially common culture. -
Message 8
Posted by justalexander (U13884823) on Monday, 23rd March 2009
I just watched the programe about Cleopatra killing her sister. I have no doubt that indeed it was her way to do such thing. But there was no evidence that the Skeleton was the girl or that she was murdered.
Im not been racist arguing the Afro features of the skull. Cleopatra was Ptolemic Ancestry Greko Macedonian. I can see where the Ptolemic Macedonian. African link can be made. Unless there was cultural mixing going on. Not out of the question.
I think we could narrow the skeleton down if they made a Macedonian link though watered down.
If there was any dna lying around I would guess it possble for a direct link with Alexander The Great. Historical rumour has it that Ptolemy was actually an illegitamate offspring of Philip and maybe Alexanders half brother. -
Message 9
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 24th March 2009
You are not being racist if you argue about the afro-features of the skull. Every tribe has its own special characteristics. However skull examination is not 100% exact on the type of tribe the person belonged. It is true that some Mediterraneans could pass for Eastern Africans and some Eastern Africans for Mediterraneans despite externally they do not look alike - see, skull similarity is a different story.
It is only when you study a large number of tombs were you can define more accurately the tribe of the group. For individuals there is always some doubt since individuals may diverge from the average measurements of their tribe despite being 100% descendants from that tribe.
Also, do not pay attention to those over-passionate Afro-centricists (Shaka I am not refering to you as being one of course - I know you have a critical mind!) cos most of them are more into trying to bend things to fit in their theory for psycho-sociological reasons and in that effort they easily fall into some logical traps:
For example, there was a similar research on Toutaghamon's skull and bones 2 years ago where actually 3 separate teams worked. 1 Egyptian (knowing the person), 1 French (knowing the person) and 1 American (ignoring the person... for obvious reasons!). All three teams concluded to the same result: that Toutaghamon looked like a Mediterranean-like North African (i.e. not so far from the modern Egyptians). Then Afrocentricists claimed that the 3 researches were not accurate. Here in this case I imagine they will be ready to claim that this research (despite being 1 and not 3 independent ones) is accurate.
I had agreed (roughly always) the research on Toutaghamon more on logical grounds than really scientific ones (all 3 could be wrong as well in case the skull was a trick one!).
And for this research I cannot agree or disagree on scientific grounds, I really do not know if this female skull is clearly one of mixed ancestry including African or not. However on logical grounds I remain unimpressed: there is a long line of supposition from the starting point of "is this the the body of the sister of Cleopatra?" to the point of "were the sisters really of the same mother?"... note also that this amazing ability of researchers to have such detailed accuracy as to find "mixed ancestry when others are not 100% sure even when studying 10 tombs from a village known to have hosted 1 tribe only is quite hard to believe - especially when there is no reference or at least a hint in ancient contemporary texts to support it. -
Message 10
Posted by justalexander (U13884823) on Tuesday, 24th March 2009
The most unconvincing part of the argument that this was the remains of Cleopatras sister is basically that it was found in an elaborate tomb.
If as i am sure she did have her sister killed id argue that she would not go through the hastle of building a tomb of such scale.
We know she was involved in her brothers death.No elaborate tomb ever found for him. Its more easier to belive she would have had the body burned or dumped in the middle of the sea.
The only link they make is the similarities to the Pharos.There is no temples or tombs for Cleopatra never mind he murdered sister. -
Message 11
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 24th March 2009
Re: Message 5.
lol,
I had no time till now to start the thread and in the meantime I see already three on the same subject on the boards.
I read it first on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ World teletext. And as I read the sentence I couldn't but understand as if the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ said: scientists say that Cleopatra had a black (negroid?) mother. And I immediately thought at the hundreds of pages that are written on these boards: Were the Egyptians black and also Cleopatra?
I wanted to start a thread: Is the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ searching for easy sensationalism? And if Cleopatra's mother was black, what with her father? If her father was of Greek white (sic) descent she was still from Greek descent? A bit as that Obama story which they say he is black while he is "genetically" as white as black. Are we back in the thirties, when skull measurements and descent and skin colour in some countries could mean a matter of life and death?
And as I read the comments in the three threads it is even worser than I thought. The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ "is" seeking for sensationalism. A bit the German "Bild" story? Or is it still not that bad? Where are the times of a Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ series: "The Nazis a Warning from History?"
Warm regards and with the highest esteem for all what you have written on these boards.
Paul. -
Message 12
Posted by SARGONID (U14121283) on Monday, 31st August 2009
Theres no actual proof sahe was. Certainly contemporary busts and coins do not indicate any African features at all.
We also know she was primarily Greek, being a Ptolemy. Spoke Greek etc.
She may well have had Afro-Asiatic heritage , but thats not the same as being black, Afro-Asiatic means Semitic or North African-Near Eastern stock more usually. -
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 31st August 2009
I have already answered this above:
1) Cleopatra was a Ptolemaian
2) The Ptolemaians broke with Greek traditions of avoiding inbreeding and followed the Egyptian pharaonic tradition of strict inbreeding! Hence all Ptolemaians were inbred, thus...
... Cleopatra was not only Greek-Greek, not only Macedonian-Macedonian but actually she was Ptolemaian-Ptolemaian!!!
There is a possibility of her being descendant of other than Ptolemaius but only partially - as necessarily even from the mother side there would be Ptolemaian blood. But even in case some Ptolemaian wife cheated her husband, that would have to be some other close relative or at least a Greek - at worst a a Greek-looking person (not just any white-face, but a Greek face).... otherwise the cheating would had been obvious and this kid killed. Needless to say that a kid very visibly "foreign" would had been killed on birth.
On the other side there could be the case that some Ptolemey chose to legitimise a kid with a concubine and not his... sister/cousin but we are really not aware. Had that been a kid from an African women that would be interesting news actually and someone would had noticed it, but then we have found no text ever mentioning such.
At the end we have portraits of Cleopatra, she looks like an ordinary plain (not so beautiful) Mediterranean-type (i.e. Greek-like) girl. Romans that hated her and had written against her would had certainly mentioned such a "difference" but they did not.
Thus I really cannot see how we can establish such a possibility. No problems if searching but all odds are against. -
Message 14
Posted by SARGONID (U14121283) on Thursday, 3rd September 2009
I doubt she was, for the good reasons posted by others already.
These sort of claims are not uncommon; there have been unsubstantiated claims that anyone from Ramses 2nd, Hannibal and Jesus were black!
All nonsense. -
Message 15
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 3rd September 2009
According to one portrait I saw on Discovery Channel some time ago the poor woman was a bright green (though on my TV set so is everyone occasionally).
-
Message 16
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Thursday, 10th September 2009
Nik
Ptolemaian-Ptolemaian
Μύ
Don't forget it was with a sprinking of Mithradatic blood as well
Rich -
Message 17
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Friday, 11th September 2009
I remember when I went to the Tutankhamen exhibition at the O2, I saw quite a few exhibits which had images of Nubians, who were generally portrayed as of dark complexion....
Is it accurate to say that the Nubians, who were rivals to the Egyptians, tended to be of sub-Saharan origin? And wasn't there once a Nubian dynasty in Egypt? -
Message 18
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 19
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 26th September 2009
The 25th dynasty was of Nubian origin.
Tutankhamen belonged to much earlier 18th dynasty, which originated from Thebes, far in the South of Egypt. Images of some members of the royal family have lead people to conclude that they may have had Nubian ancestors, while the ancestors of others have been sought in Syria. Today that is mostly guesswork on the basis of superficial evidence.
However, the ancient Egyptians probably did not share the modern (American) obsession with skin colour and 'race'. After all, this was centuries before the transatlantic slave trade. Egyptians lived along banks of the Nile, which stretches over 6000 km south to north, and is a major connection between the relatively fair-skinned people of the Mediterranean basin and the black populations of modern Sudan and Ethiopia. As far as I know, the evidence suggests that Egyptians had a wide variety of physical type and skin tone and accepted this without much comment. A relatively light-coloured skin was just a sign that you didn't have to work out in the fields all day -- in art that was a sign of femininity, and there often is a big difference in skin tone between man and wife in statues of couples.
What mattered for ancient Egyptians seems to have been "membership of the national civilisation". Representations of Nubians, Libyans, Hittites and other foreigners in Egyptian art are very stereotypical (but usually Egyptians were also stereotypical in the way they painted themselves) and clearly intended to highlight their foreignness and physical characteristics as much as possible. They have a conceptual quality -- it is the 'concept' of the enemy that is dragged through the dust at the end of the Pharaoh's walking stick. -
Message 20
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Monday, 28th September 2009
Thanks for that clarification, Mutatis....
Of course, we are often looking at the history of Egypt thru our modern-day glasses. It's just that I went to the Tutankhamen exhibition with my kids, who have some Afro-Caribbean ancestry. And they were curious to see the Nubians portrayed on the staff and other items, often in a position of bondage, or similar servitude, did look very much like sub-Saharan Africans.
Given that races are often grouped into four categories (Indo-European, Oriental, Negroid, and Polynesian), could it be said that Nubians were mainly sub-Saharan African in origin? Or were they just a dark-skinned section of the Indo-European race? Or, perhaps even more plausible, could they have been a mixed-race grouping that emerged from the mixing of both racial groups? -
Message 21
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 2nd October 2009
I am very uncomfortable with the definitions indo-european, oriental, negroid and polynesian... they are over-generic and thus unsuable: there is no thing such european race - Mediterraneans are not affiliated in any way with Baltics who have a strong assiatic (mongolian) influence (despite being of the blondest tribes in the world). Where are Indians in all this? They are after the 1/4th of the population of the world! Too much focus on Europeans and Africans (because of the racial issues in America - which truly leave me indifferent), at the end both Europeans and Africans together are a small minority in the world and they would be even a smaller one if the 110 millions of American natives had not dies of illnesses (so today they would be around 500,000,000 to 800,000,000 million...).
The basic anthropologic races are more than 5 - "europeans" have to be divided essentially to at least Mediterraneans, Nordics, Dinarics & Armeno-Iranians(if not talk about Baltics who could be seen as a mix with mongolians of course), then Asians into Dravidians and Mongolians (with Middle easterners seen as a mix of Dravidians, Armeno-Iranians and Mediterraneans), Indonesians and Polynesians as a mix of Mongolians and earlier Dravidians (out of which Aboriginals in Australia also come) while in sub-sahara Africa there are 3 main groups, the so called negroids, the bushmen in the south and the Ethiopian-like groups in the east which are quite distinct.
I know that even the above is too generic but then we have to generalise it somehow even if I have left out quite a lot... what we cannot do is to talk about white, black, yellow simple makes not sense at all: a Mediterranean is less affiliated to a Baltic and much more to Armeno-Iranian, while an Ethiopian (the original ones) is more affiliated to Indo-dravidian than to negroid.
In that sense the ancient Nubian tribes were indeed dark (people can call it black, as I said I do not use such terms as black or white) but they had features that made reference more to Indo-dravidians than to negroids. Do not forget that the flat nose is not only a feature of Africans but of most of Asians too. Take also into account that were Sudan and Ethiopia is now, there came a lot of tribes from the east in later historic times as a result of the Arab and the huge slave-industry they had set in Africa (transferring millions of Africans from west to the east). Negroid tribes lived of course in Sudan & Ethiopia at all times but it seems that that in ancient times the "Ethiopian" type was more prevalent than what is today. By the way, Ethiopian is a term for an Indian not a western African in ancient Greek. The word was used for Ethiopia.
So the bulk of Nubian tribes (indeed a collection of tribes that could have their differences of course) would be dark skinned (like most Africans) with facial characteristics resembling something as 70% Indian 30% negroid not so much like modern Sudanese (who are overly influenced by Arabic populations) but more like modern Indian-like tribes of Ethiopia.
Hence, ancient Egyptians in their turn would be something between Nubians, berbers, Middle Easterns and Mediterraneans - very probably all that in different sub-tribes, afterall Egypt was a kingdom encompassing also different tribes, not only the nation of Egyptians (itself a collection of tribes that gathered along the Nile). Said all that, the Nubian influence in Egypt downplayed up to quite recently, gains now its proper portions - albeit sometimes over-played for micro-political reasons.
However, the story of Nubians and Egyptians is completely irrelevant to Cleopatra. She was a Ptolemaian-Ptolemaian, Macedonian-Macedonian, Greek-greek, thus a typical Mediterranean-Mediterranean woman. Her face in some coins also shows that (and she was not that beautiful of course - people said she was only charming because of her character and culture). Had she had partial Nubian or other African ancestry, that would be very much visible to everyone and Romans (most of whom hated her) would had certainly noted it down, which they have not.
Thus all that talk about the "cleo re-visited" is really in vain. -
Message 22
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 2nd October 2009
Re: Message 21.
Nikolaos,
when I was young (I was ten in the Fifties) and that's already sometime ago I learned in the lesson of geography that there were only! three "races" on earth: as you said yellow, white, black. And even genetically it is difficult to prove a difference between these three "races"?
If you start with your external physiognomic details we are back in the 19th century dangers of white supremacy where a Georges Vacher de Lapouge with his physiognomic characteristics and skull measurements attributed even psychological and intellectual abilities to it. If I remember it well he wasn't that nice for the "Sub-Alpine" "race" (sic) I think that the 19th century Greeks were also pointed to.
Let us perhaps as Mutatis Mutandis hints that the physiognomy was irrelevant to the Egyptians of that time, see it in that light too?
And you are right about Afro-Americans, Caribbeans, African-descended ones from the former French colonies, who trie to step in the tracks of the white-supremacists of the 19th century...Even Greco-Europeans seems to be touchy about their past and present...
BTW: Is it that "important" how the Egyptians from the time of the Pharaos look liked? That is also an answer to message 1.
Warm regards from your friend,
Paul. -
Message 23
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Monday, 5th October 2009
This was very interesting, Nik....
Thanks for that enlightening post. -
Message 24
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 5th October 2009
Paul, to me it is not important to know how ancient Egyptians looked so as to link them to some population today - anyway if I had to chose that will be a certain % of the present Egyptian population (afterall 10 million Egyptians had been conquered gradually and after step-by-step local adoption by a relatively small initial 40,000 muslim army - even given the later population movements, a large part of the modern population has direct links with ancient Egyptians. I am also not aware of any mass genocide taken place in Egypt.
But when I talk about tribes it is this very notion of "what people are afraid to talk" that I try to tear down. People won't talk about "tribes". (I do not like the word race, an ok word but too much unrelated things around it so I prefer to speak about "anthropologic tribes"). But "tribes" exist, even kids know it without being told about it... and far deeper than the usual "white/black/yellow".
Well, this latter "white/black/yellow" is the problem - and in fact that is what exactly gives also birth to misconceptions. For example all that late 19th early 20th century talk about the "blond Aryans" etc was made exactly by people that tried to speak as little as possible and was heard (no matter if adopted or not) by people who tried to speak as little as possible about tribes. Speaking not of "tribes" was just so handy for everyone especially for those that supported the theories since for example people would not sit down and thing "what 'bullswaste' is all that: blond people exist in Aboriginals while the most blond nations are the Baltics who have probably very ancient but certainly still very visible asiatic influences (blond Putin would never go in for a typical "Aryan" but so I would classify that blond ABBA singer...).
See, anthropology is much more complicated and cannot fit in any theory we want to fit it. One has to remember 2 things:
1) "anthropologic tribes" is just groupings of people according to 1-2-3 basic external appearences which at most cases reveal their closer or more distant relationship (at most cases, not at all cases). There is nothing more to it.
2) Historic tribes, collections of tribes, ethnic groups and nations, historic ones, new ones, lost ones, surviving ones are at most cases not represented by one but usually a minimum of two anthropologic tribes. There is no point in trying to relate any ethnic group with only 1 at 100% but it is of course always interesting to pin point the basic one and the side ones (very often they are many and quite balanced). At the end of the day, tribes, ethnic groups and nations are not fossils but live bodies and continue to evolve. In reality even the most secluded, isolated and introvert tribes would evolve through the "natural selection" and that is what has happaned since the dawn of mankind. In that sense anthropologic tribes are general groupings and of course are always open to definition (for example a mixture of two basic tribes of solidified it can be considered as a new anthropologic tribe like in the case of Baltics but then for others it might be only a case of mixture). However what is most certain that over-generalisation to "white-yellow-brown-black" is even less usefull than making no talk at all.
And just to answer your questioning of "sensitiveness", refering to "greek-europeans" I did not understand to what you were mentioning. We Greeks are not touchy about our past but about our presence (for example when my home region is being disputed I can be as touchy as I can). When people attack greeks with venom saying they are Turks, Albanians, Bulgarians and everything else but not Greeks then i think there is a problem, no there are 2 problems:
1) 1st of all the one who says that directly considers Turks, Albanians and Bulgarians as inferior tribes that "if mixed with Greeks (that came from planet mars I guess?) become a permanent stain".
2) It is clearly not a case of reminding to Greeks of their "mix" since it completely ignores the big truth:.... so where are the references to Thraecians, where are the Lydians, where are the Phrygians, where are the Lycians, the Karians, the Romans and Italics, where are the Armenians?... but you see it is not a case of reminding greeks anything, it is a case of attacking with venom: the reference to modern nations of Turks, Albanians, Bulgarians nations that till recently or till today having territorial wishes over Greece is very handy for some it seems despite that it is not true (for the case of Turkish) or really insignificant (for the cases of Albanians and Bulgarians) given the timelines and co-habitation, you only have to pay a visit to these countries to see for your eyes (visitors are always shocked at the differences and they have to hear the music, visit a church or meet the usual Balkan disorganisation to start finding some common points) ... at the end of the day the reference to Phrygians would be really useless no matter if the totality of the Phrygian nation was absorbed by the Greek nation while those hellenophone populations of phrygian ancestry later were partially muslimified (thus became turks) but a large part of them consist of the genetic heritage of Greeks... but what good can do detractors modern Greeks' affiliation with Phrygians, an anyway tribe almost-identical to Greeks not only in terms of anthropology but also so close in culture and language.
Paul, not speaking only about Greeks, it is exactly those venomous attitudes that I fight. I know that my speech about "anthropologic tribes" sounds too early 20th century but it is not my fault if the general educational level of people it is so low prohibiting them to judge correctly. And speaking of over-sensitiveness I am not really one. I only defend what I think sounds more logical to me.
And since I briefly developed the story about Egyptians, if I was supposed to develop the story about Greeks that is quite simple: they are a majorly Mediterranean type with some important mix of the Armeno-iranian type mainly through their contact with the Minor Asian populations, especially from Hellenistic times onwards and especially in christianised Byzantium but that is a process of course that had started millenia before - we might even talk about the first cultures that cultivated the lands in nothern Mesopotamia (ancestors of Armenians?). Apart that there is some presence of Dinaric tribes - obviously by means of the contact with the christianised populations of Slavs and Albanians in the mid-later Byzantine years, but there is always a good possibility that we had such descends in pre-historic times - we know for example that the north branch called "Dorians" (in fact the group Epirots-Macedonians-Aetolians) were somehow "blonder" (aryanists do not get happy: blonder in greek means simply a higher percentage of a colour that in sweden call... dark brown!). It simply be due to a slow movement of adjacent tribes from the Black sea region (not necessarily an invasion since we simply lack any proof of any large scale invasion in the region in pre-historic times). Thus as you see even an old, quite stable nation like Greeks are not entirely 1 "anthropologic type". At the end of the day, my best mate (who is a really an almost 12-theist hellenist!) is un-Mediterraneally blond and resembles more a north-western European and... has eyebrows a bit neaderdal-like (we make jokes about it...)... he is Greek like me but just not the average, what if his great grandfather was a mercenary Varangian (descendant of an unlawful marriage of a pritimitive germanic with a neaderdal) that established himself in the City (not saying anything on him of course!)? Who cares? At the end of the day, anthropology cares about the "average" not about "cases".
What is the interest out of it? Knowledge. It is just another part of our knowledge. I do not see a reason not to know. Given the variety of "useless" researches out there, I really think that anthropology is an interesting one). Unfortunately today the danger is not at all about what was going on 60 years ago, but about a new threat, that of biological research that is not so innocent as people think and not so scientific too as people think (it reveals not as much as people wish to think about peoples' ancestry as it completely ignores time-scales and ways of "biological-transfer" which are basic things in tribal formation, measuring only biological "presences" which are interesting only if placed in the correct context). -
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 5th October 2009
shifvfan... well I would not say my posts are enlightened! I am no specialist, no knowledgeable, just speak what seems to me common sense, and I am just an amateur of history with some interest in anthropology too (an interst that started back in my uni days in Britain: ... we are talking about times prior to mobile phones smaller than a book...and friends were not always knowledgeable of metro lines and times needed!
so when waiting in Trafalgar smoking the 3rd cigaret (9th if the friend was female - they should add that on the packet) I was checking the passing by girls trying to guess where they come from ("of" "course" "i" "was" "only" "checking" "from" "that" "aspect" "only") to pass the time... a hobby that paid off in my last flight when the Asian doctor sitting next to me was astounded that I told him I thought he was Korean (I just bet on statistics in terms of his taller and wider structure and bigger head - that is my image of all Koreans I compared to Chinese and Japanese I met in Britain)....next thing he wanted to distinguish Greeks from other Europeans (ha! even a Martian can do that I guess). -
Message 26
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 6th October 2009
Re: Message 24.
Nikolaos,
thank you very much for the immediate reply.
On a French messageboard "Passion-Histoire" (passion-history) I have made a lot of comments about "race", "people" (and even that word seems to be another concept than the German/Dutch word "volk" or the French word "peuple"), "nation", "ethny" (I invent the English word, while only "ethnic" seems to exist).
I know you understand French, thus you can read it yourself:
In the messageboard "Histoire globale" (global history) thread: "Comment le peuple juif fut inventΓ©" de Shlom Sand (how the Jewish people was invented) my messages from 11, 12, 14, 16 and 19 June, of 20 and 26 September 2009.
As you I have some difficulties with all these connotations.
You say "tribes" and I know what you mean from all your definitions of the last years. I spoke about "ethnies" perhaps you would agree a bit broader? A group of some related tribes?
As "people" ("peuple", "volk") a group of some related "ethnies"?
But then you come with "anthropologic tribes" and as I understand you you refer then to the physiognomic characteristics of large groups within that "anthropologic tribe"?
So far I understand you and I agree with you;
"There is nothing more to it".
But where I lost the track is within your point "2)": historic tribes". In my opinion there is no connnection between "historic tribes" and "anthropologic tribes" or it as to be that there are more people of specific physiognomy present in a geographical region?
No, a "people" goes more in the sense of a community which adheres to the same values, which has the same cultural background. So I defended here on the "great" Celt discussion, that whatever the former British isles population adhered to, once they got the characteristics of the Celtic culture from main Europe/Turkey by whatever transfer they became "Celts".
About your "2)":historic tribes, collections of tribes, ethnic groups (hmm that is an alternative for my "ethny/ethnies") and nation.
In my discussion on the French forum I made of the concept "nation" an opposite to "people", as I said for "nation" belonging to a territorial area with the same laws and each citizen having to obey to these laws. But you are right the concept of the word "nation" can and is also an alternative of the concept of "people". And what I ment was more the concept of the word: "nation-state". Although you have there also troubles, while some people start to get for "nation-state" connotations of common history and all that...perhaps we would better say to avoid misunderstandings simply "state"?
"sensitiveness" in connection with "greek-europeans"
Nik, just to ignite your hobby-horse
and it is not worth an honest man like I 
. But that of the denigration of De Lapouge for the Mediterraneans was true. I can give you the sources 
And yes I agree with your "2) problem". You and I remember the endless discussion from Alexandar about the construction of a new "nation-state". And there comes the problem, if you agree on the territorial bounderies of a "state", you haven't to lament about "ethnic" groups, which are related to your "ethnic" group but are on the territoritory of another "state". So started Hitler in 1938 with laments about the "ethnic Germans", (whatever that means) on the Czechoslovakian territory...And I said it to Alexandar, what with the 1/3 so-called Albanians within the international recognized territory?
Yes and I agree to your last paragraph. We both accused the "Macedonian/Fyrom" "research to support some weird claims of "greater" this or "greater" that...
Some university of Antwerp if I remember it well, was seeking for "Flemish" genetics...lucky I suppose common sense has made it ridiculous...to prove that the Flemings are better "workers" than the Walloons?. No there is such a mix of names on the two sides of the language border that it can't be "genetic" and has to be "cultural" . Yes, last times Flemings start to act a bit as the Dutch in a pejorative sense and not anymore as the French (sorry, Sweetlake). I guess it has something to do with the large amounts of people who look at both sides of the common Dutch/Belgian border to the same stupid television programs....
BTW. On the French messageboard I said that I belonged to the "Western" "people" ("nation") and if some Chinese adhere to the same "Western" values as we in the West, I reckonned them too as belonging to the "Western nation"...
Warm regards from your friend,
Paul. -
Message 27
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Friday, 9th October 2009
Hello Paul and Nik,
That has been an interesting discussion about the concept of nation. You may have heard of the concept of an imagined community that is conceived by Anderson. Professor Etienne Vermeersch, a countryman of Paul’s, has used this concept a lot.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 28
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 9th October 2009
Re: Message 27.
Poldertijger,
I read the text. Yes, it is interesting and I agree to "unravel, disentangle"
(I use the 1997 van Dale Handwoordenboek Dutch-English as that seems to be the only one which gives "all" the Dutch words, including the Southern-Dutch ones. For the same reason I use for French the 2000 van Dale Woordenboek Dutch-French)
the "feelings" of a "nation" or a "people" one has to rely on an "imagined" "community", but one of my critics (and I agree I have no alternative and who am I, poor amateur-historian...) is that "imagined" will always be tribute to the "imagination" of the author...
As for Professor Etienne Vermeersch (morale philosopher?) I am a bit afraid as some official authorities here in Belgium start to mention him and his "utterings" as new dogmas of a Flemish "Pope"... It's really frightening. Poldertijger, don't ask me to prove this statement, while it is based on reading here and there and it will take me hours to do research to confirm it.
Warm regards from your Southern friend,
Paul. -
Message 29
Posted by elevenses81 (U6285569) on Monday, 19th October 2009
Why are so many researchers so shocked to discover she was part black?Μύ
I know that she was very much looked upon as a sister and reclaimed by students of Black History
in the US in the 1970s, but this 'research' just seems far-fetched.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.