Can Ancient Egyptians Be Classified as Caucasian?

Modern Egyptians have some admixture from West Asian invaders, Hyskos, Greeks, Persians, Arabs, Berbers, Levantines, Mamluks etc. So they will look lighter and more Caucasoid than the Ancient Egyptians. There is also some Black admixture; they were after all conquered by the Nubians, and later Islam brought slavery, but looking at some of the pre-Nubian statues, there already were some Blacks in Ancient Egypt in high positions.

The best representation of Ancient Egyptians is from the mural in the Tomb of Seti. In Gates’ book, The Races of Man, the Ancient Egyptians portray themselves as brownish, while the Semites and Berbers are portrayed as White and the Nubians as Black.

Ancient Egyptians in my humble opinion are their own distinct group.

How will modern Egyptians look more Caucasoid than the Dynastic Egyptians? The Dynastics were 13% Black, and the modern Egyptians are 30% Black, 20% in the north and 40% in the south. The Black percentage of the stock has increased by 2.5X, and the Caucasoid percentage of the stock has decreased by 20%. Given that, how could they possibly look more Caucasoid?

The problem here is that we look at these ancient races through modern lenses. Caucasoids in some parts of the world looked quite different than they do now.

And this is true not only of Caucasoids but of other races too. Racial stocks existed then which have vanished from the Earth. Kennewick Man’s race has vanished. There is not a trace of his race left. There are only a few minor races that look somewhat like Kennewick in the sense that they place closest to him on a graph, but they are not his people. His people are gone.

The ancient Romans are gone. There is nothing left of them at all. It is another vanished race. Sure, the modern Italians have evolved from them, but few if any modern Italians are actually “Romans” because this racial stock has vanished.

It is clearly the same with the ancient Egyptians with the caveat that skull studies show broad continuity between modern and ancient Egyptians. Modern Egyptians look more like Dynastics than any other stock on the planet does, but in general, they are not Dynastics.

The Dynastics were a peculiar Caucasoid race that has vanished from the Earth. However, based on studies of skulls and even genes, the Dynastics were absolutely Caucasian. The skulls plot clearly Caucasian on a graph. And 87% of the genes are derived from the surrounding region, mostly from the ancient Levant where the pre-Dynastics originated prior to 13,000 YBP. At that time, these archaic Levant Caucasians moved out of the Levant, down into Egypt and over time evolved into the Dynastics.

46 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Anthropology, Antiquity, Egypt, Egyptians, History, North Africa, North Africans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional

46 responses to “Can Ancient Egyptians Be Classified as Caucasian?

  1. Paul Vann

    The game is over boys, the British Medical Journal Published Ramses Haplogroup in 2012, it was E1b1a, Sub Saharan African. the info can be found in their journal.
    BMJ 2012;345:e8268 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8268 (Published 17 December 2012)

    • Single Haplotypes can determine ancestry, not racial group.

      And I wouldn’t be so smug based on these.

      https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/egyptian-mummy-reconstructions/

      While some have subshaharan affinity, it is far from predominate.

      • pepperroncini

        Facial reconstruction is a bit iffy, though not necessarily all reconstructions. Skin coloring makes all the difference in how we perceive the race. That old man pictured in your link would look quite different with dark skin. Innitial rendentions of Kennewick Man had him looking like Patrick Stewart but later renditions with darker skin and addition of hair made him look somewhat like an Ainu.

        • My point is that melanin aside that the phenotypes of Egyptians doesn’t equal predominate sub-Saharan.

          Also, in terms of her blog, I don’t use her ideas as proof but rather the papers she uses.

        • Jm8

          Despite the slightly unusual morphology, Kenwick man was found to be (of a type of early/proto mongoloid stock) genetically closest to native Americans. He does look kind of like Patrick stewart, but looks to have more prominent cheekbones, which is at least consistent with his early Mongoloid/East Eurasian Affinity.

    • TJF

      To Paul Vann:
      The game is over boys.

      Hmm… white nationalists were going gaga a few years ago when it was determined that King Tut supposedly was haplogroup R1b1a2 (Commonly associated with Western Europe) The problem with that notion is that 30% of the black men in the US have European Y-DNA (and 18 % of the black women have European MTDNA) As Phil noted ones haplogroup does not necessarily determine phenotype.

      Now the shoe, in theory, is on the other foot – presumably you mean Ramses III. Ok, so one dynastic leader of ancient Egypt, 2000 years after it’s estimated founding is believed to have DNA associated with sub-Saharan Africa. He could have had long roots in Egypt or descended from earlier conquerors or migrants, we don’t know. We do know that Eqypt was later ruled by Nubians, Asssyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Turks. Sampling the DNA from any of those ruling peoples would not have given us an accurate view of your average Egyptian.

      If there were a number of samples of DNA from the artisan classes (say 100 people or so) from the same era I would be interested and consider that to be a markedly more accurate representation of the people of ancient Egypt.

      • pepperroncini

        The claim that King Tutankamen was R1b is unsupported. It was a claim made by IGenea , a Swiss ancestry gene testing company . It is not peer reviewed because the Swiss company did not have the raw genetic data of Tut.

        Their (IGenea) claim is based on a screenshot of Tut’s (alleged) genetic data that was pictured on a monitor on a Discovery channel documentary.

        Nobody in the scientific community nor the popular Genetic ancestry blogs , like Dienekes , takes this claim seriously.

        There isn’t any proof that Tut is a European clade of R1B because the raw data has not been released by the researches who worked on the mummy.

        There is a lot of R1b in Cameroon and Chad, and none of it is from Europeans/Whites either.

        http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/08/igeneas-king-tut-claims.html

        There is no way Ancient Egypt was White / European , as the languages and culture are totally different.

        • TJF

          To pepperroncini:

          There isn’t any proof that Tut is a European clade of R1B because the raw data has not been released by the researches who worked on the mummy.

          Which I find interesting since apparently this is the same group that analyzed the dna of Ramses III. Also I read some critiques of the processes for determining the dna of any mummy’s given the potential decades of contamination and high heat and desiccation in Egypt. Note I didn’t claim that Tut was R1B – but that white nationalists went gaga over the data. My point is that confirmation bias is very high among some groups regarding the ancestry of pharonic mummies.

          There is a lot of R1b in Cameroon and Chad, and none of it is from Europeans/Whites either.

          Yes I know – FWIW my mother, a woman of Irish descent with red hair and blue eyes, is part of MTDNA haplogroup that is common in Senegal. See my point about haplogroups not determining phenotypes.

          There is no way Ancient Egypt was White / European , as the languages and culture are totally different.

          And I am not claiming ancient Egypt was European (Although at certain points they had European descended rulers…see my point about testing the DNA of multiple artisans and not random rulers who often were not from Egypt) My belief is that ancient Egyptians look rather similar to modern Egyptians – with lighter complexioned people in the North near the Mediterranean and people in the South who would be considered black in the US.

        • Dave Mowers

          “Plato Cratylus,” by C.D.C. Reeve

          pg. 53

          “But then you know, *Hermogenes, that the first names given to things have long since been covered over by those who wanted to dress them up, and that LETTERS were added or subtracted to make them sound good in the mouth, resulting in distortions and ornamentation of every kind.” -Socrates

          *A well-known title of Hermes(an Egyptian word Her-Mes) was the, “…interpreter of the gods…” IE: his recognized synonym in Greek as, “…thought…” therefore in a wordplay, “Hermogenes,” means the, “Genesis of Thought..” or, in fact, a metaphor for the play being told.

          In addition, it is also a fact that Sumerian, Greek, Egyptian, Phoenician and Hittite words are derivations of eachother transposing consonants and altering inflective vowels to modify, as-in, the variations seen in accents between similar-languaged peoples. Showing their root words to have come from a single origin however slightly differentiated.

          Plato goes on to claim that the names found in differing languages are foreign having all originated from the barbarians who came to the Mediterranean before the Greek nations developed. That is why their meanings are obscured. Furthermore, it is known that all Egyptian gods and Greek gods are the same pantheon of gods and that ancient Egyptians spoke Greek when Solon visited in 600 B.C. The Egyptian priests told Solon that they knew their language because Greeks and Egyptians were the same people having descended from the same mother.

        • The halfan culture was in response with your Sumer claim.

          As for the language similarities you didn’t, give a source or quote of Plato believing that the reason for similar words was because of having a root language rather than simply acculturation via commerce. You didn’t
          Give a quote or source in regard to the mother tongue assertion in regards to solon’s visit to egypt.

          Finally, as for your quote concerning the Phoenicians and Egypt, all you proved from those quotes that Phoenicians invaded Egypt on multiple accounts and mentioned how there interaction with Celt (you gave no “quoted evidence” for plato’s beliefs in there lineage affiliation) after the Egyptians had risen. That tells us squat on the ethnic composition of the original stock with actual quotes based on there physical appearance/cultural development

          Also, where did the scythians play into this if you were consistent from the start? If you are frustrated with me that is fine, but your explanations are simply not air tight towards the definite explanation of descent/origins or at least are doubtlessly organized that way.

        • Jm8

          “In addition, it is also a fact that Sumerian, Greek, Egyptian, Phoenician and Hittite words are derivations of each other”

          None of those languages are even in the same family. The closest are Egyptian and Phoenician, from separate branches of Afro-Asiatic, that split several millennia before the invention of writing.
          The first writing in Egypt (ca, 3300 bc) is in the Egyptian language, not Greek or Scythian. Scythian would not have yet diverged from an older Iranian or Indo-Iranian stock and Neither Indo-Iranics, nor the ancestors of Greeks yet had writing.

        • Jm8

          edit: Greek and Hittite are both Indo-European, but rather distant branches, the Anatolian branch having diverged very early.

  2. Paul Vann

    When Anthropologist meet none will cite Mathildasblog as a source, Mathildas’s ramblings are just that her ramblings.

    • And can you prove otherwise scientifically?

      She doesn’t just spout her own opinions, she also cites papers from actual scientists if you even look at the link.

      • pepperroncini

        I thought her blog was not updated for a long time.

        She does feature some academic papers but she also throws out her own idea of how things are .

      • Dave Mowers

        To Phil:

        Justin’s Trogus;

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_%28historian%29

        http://www.britannica.com/biography/Pompeius-Trogus

        From his work in Latin and translated below it;

        “Scytharum Gens antiquissima Semper habita…”

        “The Scythians came into habitation(in Egypt) before them.”

        “Superatus Aegyptus, antiquores Semper visi Scythae…”

        “Egypt was founded by the Scythians.”

        You cannot dispute it. It is a historical fact. It is a written historical piece that is indisputable because it has no peers to dispute it. You can assume, opine, speculate all you want but it is a fact.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strabo

        Now from Strabo;

        “Veteres Graecorum Scriptores universas gentes, ad Septentricnem vergentes, Scytharum et Celto-Scytharum nomine adjecerunt…”

        “The most ancient Greeks gave the names Scytharum and Celto-Scytharum to all the people that dwelt in the Northern countries…”

        Strabo also stated that all the Celts of Europe were called, “Scythians,” according to the most ancient historians. You cannot claim that aborigines, “founded,” Egypt when there is written testimony against it.

        • Jm8

          The Greeks and Romans sometimes compared the Celts and other N. Europeans to Scythians in part because they looked similar (by Mediterranean standards, having lighter coloring) and often shared vaguely similar, strongly pastoral(though agro-pastoral) and sometimes semi-nomadic ways. “Scythians were used by the Greeks, before they or the Romans had much contact with Celts of Germans, as an example of a people at the pale end of the color spectrum(Nubians/”Ethiopians” and sometimes Indians being at the other end, and themselves/Mediterranean/Mid. Easterners being in the middle). Classical Historians were not linguists, since that science did not exist yet ( Romans tended to be little interested in “barbaric” languages.), and sometimes got the linguistic affiliations wrong.

          There is absolutely zero actual (anthropological, linguistic, archaeological, genetic..) evidence of Scythians invading, let along founding Egypt.

        • Jm8

          Scythians, Celts, some Germans, Central Asians and many other northerly, semi-nomad, Equestrian peoples in Eurasia would seem to share a vaguely similar material culture e.g.: the trait of wearing trousers(which Mediterranean peoples then did not)

        • Jm8

          edit: “…sometimes got the linguistic affiliations of foreign peoples wrong.”

        • Okay, multiple points.

          One, and you can whine all you want, I’m not speculating. I should you an archaeological find, papers on genetics, AND commentary from ancients in terms of appearance.

          You on the otherhand so far have been using assertions or quotes that so far having determined any clear without the strong insurance. No offense, but case like this is were debate comes from, with the presence and discussion of ALL types of evidence to lead to a consensus.

          Also, I gave you an archaeological find of aborigine culture prior to the existence of any of the authors you quote from. Just because they say otherwise that makes them right?

          Now, I HAVE Strabo’s geography book translated, is that the book where he mentions the Egyptian’s origins? If not tell me the actual book and observe for myself, then we can make thing square.

        • To Dave,

          My mistake, you had Justin’s quotes and not Strabo’s. Well none the less I have now found Justin’s work.

          http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/justin/english

          A FULL translation and the original for context.

          “In relatione rerum a Scythis gestarum, quae satis amplae magnificaeque fuerunt, principium ab origine repetendum est. 2 Non enim minus inlustria initia quam imperium habuere, nec uirorum magis quam feminarum uirtutibus claruere, 3 quippe cum ipsi Parthos Bactrianosque, feminae autem eorum Amazonum regna condiderint, 4 prorsus ut res gestas uirorum mulierumque considerantibus incertum sit uter apud eos sexus inlustrior fuerit. 5 Scytharum gens antiquissima semper habita, quamquam inter Scythas et Aegyptios diu contentio de generis uetustate fuerit : 6 Aegyptiis praedicantibus, initio rerum, cum aliae terrae nimio feruore solis arderent, aliae rigerent frigoris inmanitate, ita ut non modo primae generare homines, sed ne aduenas quidem recipere ac tueri possent, priusquam aduersus calorem uel frigus uelamenta corporis inuenirentur uel locorum uitia quaesitis arte remediis mollirentur, 7 Aegyptum ita temperatam semper fuisse, ut neque hiberna frigora nec aestiui solis ardores incolas eius premerent, 8 solum ita fecundum, ut alimentorum in usum hominum nulla terra feracior fuerit : 9 iure igitur ibi primum homines natos uideri debere, ubi educari facillime possent. 10 Contra Scythae caeli temperamentum nullum esse uetustatis argumentum putabant, 11 quippe naturam, cum primum incrementa caloris ac frigoris regionibus distinxit, statim ad locorum patientiam animalia quoque generasse, 12 sed et arborum ac frugum pro regionum condicione apte genera uariata ; 13 et quanto Scythis sit caelum asperius quam Aegyptiis, tanto et corpora et ingenia esse duriora. 14 Ceterum si mundi quae nunc partes sunt, aliquando unitas fuit, siue inluuies aquarum principio rerum terras obrutas tenuit, siue ignis, qui et mundum genuit, cuncta possedit, utriusque primordiis Scythas origine praestare. 15 Nam si ignis prima possessio rerum fuit, qui paulatim extinctus sedem terris dedit, nullam prius quam septentrionalem partem hiemis rigore ab igne secretam, adeo ut nunc quoque nulla magis rigeat frigoribus ; 16 Aegyptum uero et totum Orientem tardissime temperatum, quippe qui etiam nunc torrenti calore solis exaestuet. 17 Quodsi omnes quondam terrae submersae profundo fuerunt, profecto editissimam quamque partem decurrentibus aquis primum detectam ; humillimo autem solo eandem aquam diutissime immoratam ; 18 et quanto prior quaeque pars terrarum siccata sit, tanto prius animalia generare coepisse. 19 Porro Scythiam adeo editiorem omnibus terris esse, ut cuncta flumina ibi nata in Maeotim, tum deinde in Ponticum et Aegyptium mare decurrant ; 20 Aegyptum autem, quae tot regum, tot saeculorum cura inpensaque munita sit et aduersum uim incurrentium aquarum tantis structa molibus, tot fossis concisa, ut, cum his arceantur, illis recipiantur aquae, nihilo minus coli nisi excluso Nilo non potuerit nec posssit, uideri hominum uetustate ultima, quae ex aggerationibus regum siue Nili trahentis limum terrarum recentissima uideatur. 21 His igitur argumentis superatis Aegyptiis antiquiores semper Scythae uisi. ”

          “The nation of the Scythians was always regarded as very ancient; though there was long a dispute between them and the Egyptians concerning the antiquity of their respective races; the Egyptians alleging that, “In the beginning of things, when some countries were parched with the excessive heat of the sun, and others frozen with extremity of cold, so that, in their early condition, they were not only unable to produce human beings, but were incapable even of receiving and supporting such as came from other parts (before coverings for the body were found out against heat and cold, or the inconveniences of countries corrected by artificial remedies), Egypt was always so temperate, that neither the cold in winter nor the sun’s heat in summer, incommoded its inhabitants; and its soil so fertile, that no land was ever more productive of food for the use of man; and that, consequently, men must reasonably be considered to have been first produced in that country,1 where they could most easily be nourished.”

          It was a dispute on which one was older period, not who was in Egypt first. I’m a 4th year Latin student, so I can call it out if you try bullshitting me.

        • The fact you only used a fraction of a sentence pretty much shows how much “respect” you have for ancient records.

        • Jm8

          edit: “The Greeks and Romans often associated and lumped together Celts and other N. Europeans with Scythians..”

        • pepperroncini

          Scythians had nothing to do with Egypt. Ancient Egyptian language is not Indo-European like the Scythian language.

          I have not verified your claims on the Scythians but assuming it is true (for the sake of argument) just because the Greeks said it does not make it automatically true. We have check their views with linguistic, archaeological and philological facts.

          We can quite confidently state that Ancient Egypt was not created by Scythians or any other Indo-European speaking groups, because the languages are different and so is the culture. No Indo-European group had such a high culture when Ancient Egypt flourished.

        • To Pep,

          Don’t even worry about it, me and this guy CallmeJoe already debunked his claim that Justin had written that they were first anyways.

  3. Dave Mowers

    For another example of how Phoenicians were Caucasian and how they permeated all of the Mediterranean Sea you look at pages 76-77 of “Phoenicia and the Phoenicians,” by Dimitri Baramki

    Chapter IV;

    “…With the arrival of torque wearers sometime in the twenty first century B.C. several new types made their appearance including the socketed spear head and the socketed battle axe…”

    The “torque wearers,” is an obvious reference to a Celtic custom whereby on their wrists they displayed a bracelet signifying subservience to their tribal King and around their necks they wore a larger, thicker torque which denoted their submission to their god. Also, the socketed battle axe was a Celtic design. So here, once again, perhaps not predating Egyptian dynasties this time but in fact proving that Caucasians as Celts routinely joined their ancestors of Phoenicia, in arts, trade, warfare and metallurgy(sciences).

    Chapter II pg. 6

    “…About 3,500 B.C. a new Semitic folk, the first of a series of waves of Semites….” “….burst into Egypt by way of the Red Sea and overcame the aboriginal inhabitants,”

    pg. 7

    “…Another waves of Semites penetrated the Fertile Crescent from the desert in 2,900-2,800 B.C….”

    “Two or three centuries later the Near East saw an Armenoid race who came from THE CAUCASUS.”

    In 1,400 B.C. the Achaeans invaded Crete, Cyprus, Phoenicia in the Levant AND EGYPT taking control of all of them.

    • TJF

      To Dave Mowers:

      In 1,400 B.C. the Achaeans invaded Crete, Cyprus, Phoenicia in the Levant AND EGYPT taking control of all of them.

      For much of it’s history Egypt was ruled by outsiders, that however does not mean that the learned native Egyptians, artisans, doctors, architects, scholars were Greek, Nubian, Sumerian, etc.

      • Dave Mowers

        All of the original Egyptian city-states except Thebes were named in Sumerian.

        The founder of Egypt, “Menes,” tomb was found and an inscribed plate was found in it written in Sumerian cuneiform.

  4. Paul Vann

    Dave, in another thread on the same subject you mention a Greek author stating that the Greeks came from the Caucasus, could you post the quote and the source please.

    • Dave Mowers

      There are many but you can find all of them in one seminal work by Paul Pezron, “The Antiquities of Nations.” He compiles from every known source and it is universally understood.

      I source from several books and am trying to find the direct one with the Caucasus quote which is a statement about the harshness of that region as being a consideration of why ancient proto-Greek tribes under the name of Sacae left it. There are also two other annotations, one from Chaldeans, one from Assyrians, dealing with the storm god’s origins as having come from ancestors living in a region with unpredictable weather patterns in the Caucasus.

      This is reinforced by Hindo mythology as regards Dyaus, their storm god, origins having come into India from the North with the Aryans.

      There is also a reference to a late Egyptian conquest that went all the way up to the Black Sea and the Egyptian King refers to those people as, “his,” or part of Egypt’s empire. In addition, when describing the kingdom of Mesopotamia at it’s first empiric point under Menes it is claimed that he held sway over all of Aethiopia, west and east, and later authors comment on the confusion about this region as, “Aethiopia,” does not mean a country but two directions of sight; West and East on the horizons.

      A later Greek clarifies it to mean the Indian west coast as, “East,” and the West coast of Africa at the Atlantic Ocean as the, “West.”

      Ethiopia’s current placement is late not ancient. Most anciently it was understood as the two places where the Sun rises and falls.

      I believe that comes from George Cox’s, “The Mythology of Aryan Nations,” and he sources from dozens of authors and scholars, modern and ancient, on the subject.

      The only thing I believe, “missing,” here is the understanding that ancient scholars were attempting to discover history themselves for posterity and that you cannot discount the importance of people who lived thousands of years ago who based their work on works hundreds if not thousands of years older. They had access to ancient libraries that were destroyed. They had access to regional scholars from their time with multi-generational knowledge of their own histories but you can see it all in mythic form in Jason and the Argonauts. The route they trace on their adventure is the historical route of the Greek’s migration….and they do end up in Egypt at one point.

      FYI: Jason didn’t go to the Caucasus to retrieve a golden fleece. It is a metaphor this- “golden,” as in, treasured, and he retrieves vellum that is, “golden,” for the knowledge it contains about the history of the Greek nations. It is classic mythologized history.

      A Greek scholar would be better at this than me and I am positive you can find one online who has thoroughly studied these matters.

  5. Jm8

    “The ancient Romans are gone. There is nothing left of them at all. It is another vanished race. Sure, the modern Italians have evolved from them, but few if any modern Italians are actually “Romans” because this racial stock has vanished.”

    Modern Italians regionally tend to have much continuity from local pre-Roman era stocks (according to studies.) Italians from near Rome probably heavily “Latin”, or at any rate Italians are generally mostly Italic in formerly Italic Areas (being descended from other tribes like the Oscans, Faliscans, Samnites etc) having Greek Admixture in the South, and Celtic/Venetic (and minor Germanic) mixture in the North. I believe many Italians resemble the people in Roman art, at least as much as Egyptians do their ancient counterparts.
    Also, the European component of Ashkenazic (and Italian Jewish) ancestry, which is believed to be derived from mostly from late antique Romans, shows the most similarity with modern Central Italian genetics.

  6. Dave Mowers

    Darwin also states that the Egyptian wheat variety originally came from Switzerland. I suppose we can dispute his science as well even though everyone relies upon it. It appears that no matter what the evidence provided modern college diversity indoctrination has ruined scientific objectivity.

    • First off, quote please for Darwin’s claim.

      Second, we trusted Darwin in his theories of EVOLTUION and pertain to that, it doesn’t mean that gives him credibility in HISTORY.

      In regards to Menes (Narmer’s) palette, the iconography was commented to be Egyptian, not Sumerian.

      http://egypt-grammar.rutgers.edu/Artifacts/Narmer%20Palette.pdf

      With that said, can you provide a source in regards to the Sumerian language being used for the Egyptian City-states?

  7. Paul Vann

    Dave, you seem to be well versed in myth, there is a reason it is deemed myth, Do you believe that all myths are true?

  8. Here’s my commentary as a Latin IV IB student
    “Scytharum Gens antiquissima Semper habita…”

    “The Scythians came into habitation (in Egypt) before them.”

    The excerpt has no ”before them” or any grammatical equivalent. And ”habita” is the perfect passive participle of the verb ”habere” (usually meaning ”to have”, but also means to consider or regard like in Phil’s translation), which has nothing to do with inhabiting anything. ”Antiquisssima” is the superlative of ”Antiquus”, which would translate into ”very old”.

    “Superatus Aegyptus, antiquores Semper visi Scythae…”
    “Egypt was founded by the Scythians.”

    ”Egypt was founded by the Scythians” would not be grammatically correct either since Scythae is in the wrong case since following a passive action would require it to be in the ablative case, and even a Latin I student could see that it’s either in the genitive case, dative, or nominative plural case . No known orthodox declension of nouns has -ae for the ablative case in Latin.

    And on top of all of that, you cited it wrong since you had Egypt in the wrong case, which is a bad move since endings mean everything in Latin since the Romans placed little emphasis on word order.

    Here’s the original sentence:
    ”21 His igitur argumentis superatis Aegyptiis antiquiores semper Scythae uisi. ”

    Provided with a more accurate translation:
    ”Therefore, with the Egyptians having been confounded by these arguments, the Scythians have always seemed the more ancient.”

    ” Superatis Aegyptiis”
    -An ablative absolute ( Noun+ Perfect Passive Participle, both in the ablative case),which would translate ” With the Egyptians having been confounded”.

    ” Igitur”
    -would just mean ”therefore” or ”consequently”

    ”His…argumentis”
    -”His” is the the ablative plural of ”Hic” meaning ”this”. It modifies ”argumentis” since they are both in the ablative plural case. Together they would naturally mean” by these arguments”.

    ”semper Scythae… visi”
    -”Visi” is modifying ”Scythae” because since ”Scytha” is a masculine 1st declension noun, ”visus” (Perfect passive participle which would mean ”be seen”) has to be put in the 2nd declension instead since adjectives/participles are only in the 1st declension when the modified noun is a feminine 1st declension noun. ”Semper” is an adverb meaning ”always”.

    ”antiquiores”
    Stemmed from ” Antiquus”, ”antiquiores” is a comparative adjective in the nominative plural case. You replace the ”-us” with ”ior” to make it comparative and then add ”-es” to make it nominative plural. Since it’s nominative plural, it goes with ”Scythae” as its predicate adjective.

    Even the second sentence you ”quoted” only really means that the Scythians were merely viewed by others as the older population, Justin didn’t even confirm that they in fact predated the Egyptians.

    “The Scythians came into habitation(in Egypt) before them.”
    The excerpt has no ”before them” or any grammatical equivalent. And ”habita” is the perfect passive participle of the verb ”habere”( usually meaning ”to have”, but also means to consider or regard like in Phil’s translation), which has nothing to do with inhabiting anything. ”Antiquisssima” is the superlative of ”Antiquus”, which would translate into ”very old”.

    “Superatus Aegyptus, antiquores Semper visi Scythae…”

    “Egypt was founded by the Scythians.”
    ”Egypt was founded by the Scythians” would not be grammatically correct either since Scythae is in the wrong case since following a passive action would require it to be in the ablative case, and even a Latin I student could see that it’s either in the genitive case, dative, or nominative plural case. No known orthodox declension of nouns has -ae for the ablative case in Latin.

    And on top of all of that, you cited it wrong since you had Egypt in the wrong case, which is a bad move since endings mean everything in Latin since the Romans placed little emphasis on word order.

    Here’s the original sentence:
    ”21 His igitur argumentis superatis Aegyptiis antiquiores semper Scythae uisi. ”

    Provided with a more accurate translation:
    ”Therefore, with the Egyptians having been confounded by these arguments, the Scythians have always seemed the more ancient.”

    ” Superatis Aegyptiis”
    -An ablative absolute ( Noun+ Perfect Passive Participle, both in the ablative case),which would translate ” With the Egyptians having been confounded”.

    ” Igitur”
    -would just mean ”therefore” or ”consequently”

    ”His…argumentis”
    -”His” is the the ablative plural of ”Hic” meaning ”this”. It modifies ”argumentis” since they are both in the ablative plural case. Together they would naturally mean” by these arguments”.

    ”semper Scythae… visi”
    -”Visi” is modifying ”Scythae” because since ”Scytha” is a masculine 1st declension noun, ”visus” (Perfect passive participle which would mean ”be seen”) has to be put in the 2nd declension instead since adjectives/participles are only in the 1st declension when the modified noun is a feminine 1st declension noun. ”Semper” is an adverb meaning ”always”.

    ”antiquiores”
    Stemmed from ” Antiquus”, ”antiquiores” is a comparative adjective in the nominative plural case. You replace the ”-us” with ”ior” to make it comparative and then add ”-es” to make it nominative plural. Since it’s nominative plural, it goes with ”Scythae” as its predicate adjective.

    Even the second sentence you ”quoted” only really means that the Scythians were merely viewed by others as the older population, Justin didn’t even confirm that they in fact predated the Egyptians.

    Even the second sentence you ”quoted” only really means that the Scythians were merely viewed by others as the older population, Justin didn’t even confirm that they in fact predated the Egyptians.

  9. Rus

    There is no question about whom Egyptians were and are. They are African, obviously (except for the people from Sinai, of course).🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s