Why did ancient egypt leave so little impact on the west?

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,912
Crows nest
#61

I recently saw this particular mummy in the Ulster museum. Allowing for any "shrinkage" in the mummification process, I asked myself, "How did so tiny a people accomplish so much?"
How they achieved the heavy lifting is of course an entire area of research, and some fantasy, but no matter the techniques involved, with an average height for men of only 5ft 6in [167.9cm] it really is remarkable. This link about height is interesting, particularly that the average height for women, 5ft 2in [157.5cm] was closer to that of men than it is today. Not in the link, but they were not all "vertically challenged" as Tutankhamun was just over average and Amunhotep II was 5ft 9in, but if you're royal you eat better I guess. Question of the Week: How tall were ancient Egyptians? | UCL Researchers in Museums
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,912
Crows nest
#62
Ancient Egypt was an African civilization.
That is of course geographically correct, but it is misleading in presuming that ancient Egypt was just one of a number of similar civilizations spread across the entire continent, when it was in fact unique to that continent. Modern usage of this term, based on the Roman name for one province in North Africa, is mischievous when applied to ancient Egypt in anything except purely geographical terms.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,575
#63
That is of course geographically correct, but it is misleading in presuming that ancient Egypt was just one of a number of similar civilizations spread across the entire continent, when it was in fact unique to that continent. Modern usage of this term, based on the Roman name for one province in North Africa, is mischievous when applied to ancient Egypt in anything except purely geographical terms.
The same does apply to any ancient civilization though. None of them was spread over more than a fraction of either continent.

Not calling it African by-reasons-of-geography makes no more sense than correctly pointing out fx Greek civilization wasn't properly European, but rather unique in relation to most of the rest.

That's the thing about ancient civilizations, they were pretty unique for their time and place. Holding the geographical positioning to be geographically correct but "misleading", at least means geography itself is somehow misleading in relation to... what?

The problem seems to be that implicitly some kind of assumption about essences sticks to it all. That probably holds for how this is parsed either way – regardless if the African geographical positioning is assumed to be significant beyond mere geography, or "misleading" in relation to something beyond geography.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,606
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#64
The same does apply to any ancient civilization though. None of them was spread over more than a fraction of either continent.

Not calling it African by-reasons-of-geography makes no more sense than correctly pointing out fx Greek civilization wasn't properly European, but rather unique in relation to most of the rest.

That's the thing about ancient civilizations, they were pretty unique for their time and place. Holding the geographical positioning to be geographically correct but "misleading", at least means geography itself is somehow misleading in relation to... what?

The problem seems to be that implicitly some kind of assumption about essences sticks to it all. That probably holds for how this is parsed either way – regardless if the African geographical positioning is assumed to be significant beyond mere geography, or "misleading" in relation to something beyond geography.
The problem is the present political usage of a geographical indication. For the rest it's only a metter of conventions. If we keep a totally historical perspective, that is to say we put KmT in its own context, we could say that KmT was between Libya and Canaan. Then, later, the term "Libya" begun to indicate a good part of Northern Africa. A term similar to "Africa" seems to have appeared with the Phoenicians who used the word "Afrigah " to indicate the colony of Carthage [or probably all the colonies]. If Suida is right about this, before of XI century no one knew to be in "Africa" ... and also later, no one tent to indicate the whole continent using the Phoenician term for colony or a similar one.
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,912
Crows nest
#65
The same does apply to any ancient civilization though. None of them was spread over more than a fraction of either continent.

Not calling it African by-reasons-of-geography makes no more sense than correctly pointing out fx Greek civilization wasn't properly European, but rather unique in relation to most of the rest.

That's the thing about ancient civilizations, they were pretty unique for their time and place. Holding the geographical positioning to be geographically correct but "misleading", at least means geography itself is somehow misleading in relation to... what?

The problem seems to be that implicitly some kind of assumption about essences sticks to it all. That probably holds for how this is parsed either way – regardless if the African geographical positioning is assumed to be significant beyond mere geography, or "misleading" in relation to something beyond geography.
Okay, what I mean, and I didn't really want to spell it out, is that this modern fashion, that is within the last few decades, of very deliberately referring to ancient Egypt as an "African civilization" is nothing to do with geography, but all about politics, specifically those of Afrocentrists, and others, who claim that ancient Egypt has it's origins in West central Africa, the place of origin of many African Americans. But in these Orwellian times it's difficult to point this out for fear of accusations of "racism".
 
Feb 2014
294
Miami
#67
The Greeks loved Egyptian culture and we derive our European heritage from Greece, so there may be much more influence than you suspect, just loss as long with much knowledge as they recorded history on papyrus and not clay or stone tablets. Papyrus tends to not fair well in history
 
Likes: Ichon
Jul 2019
3
78 East Princess St, Helensburgh, G84 7DE
#68
Not here to contribute to the topic , but oh I love a good discussion and this is one of them. And by the looks of it, Egyptians have made a lot of contribution, just that not many are aware of it.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,575
#69
The Greeks loved Egyptian culture and we derive our European heritage from Greece, so there may be much more influence than you suspect, just loss as long with much knowledge as they recorded history on papyrus and not clay or stone tablets. Papyrus tends to not fair well in history
Going by Herodotus' take on the Egyptians, they had all kinds of admirable qualities, but like all barbarians tended to get things wrong eventually – in the version of his "History" by, like all "barbarians" really, not being able to do things in moderation, like the Greek, but going overboard also with good ideas. That said, the Egyptians clearly were considered reasonably close and generally intelligible to the Greek.
 
Likes: sparticulous

Similar History Discussions