- This topic has 5 voices and 8 replies.
-
Posts
-
I heard a historian mention something about ancient Egypt which was quite interesting. He said that Egypt in itself was not really all that great as a foundational civilization within the larger framework of Western Civ. While it impressed other ancient peoples (the Greeks, Romans) with its grand pyramids or whatnot, Egypt did not really make any original, long-lasting contributions to the West. Contributions that it did make were more like modifications or rehashings of previous contributions made by other peoples.He went on to say that some of the modern-day interest in the "importance" of Egypt has come about because of the rise in black consciousness in 20th century North America. I think this position argues both that Egyptian civilization was actually "African" rather than "Western" and that it was a foundational civilization. So basically, if Egypt was both fundamentally-important and African that was later taken over by the West, then Western Civ is built partly on African contributions.Your thoughts?
I heard a historian mention something about ancient Egypt which was quite interesting. He said that Egypt in itself was not really all that great as a foundational civilization within the larger framework of Western Civ. While it impressed other ancient peoples (the Greeks, Romans) with its grand pyramids or whatnot, Egypt did not really make any original, long-lasting contributions to the West. Contributions that it did make were more like modifications or rehashings of previous contributions made by other peoples.He went on to say that some of the modern-day interest in the "importance" of Egypt has come about because of the rise in black consciousness in 20th century North America. I think this position argues both that Egyptian civilization was actually "African" rather than "Western" and that it was a foundational civilization. So basically, if Egypt was both fundamentally-important and African that was later taken over by the West, then Western Civ is built partly on African contributions.Your thoughts?
Greek mythology is based on Egypt's. The Greeks revered the Egyptians because their civilization was much older than theirs. Outside of that influence, I'm not sure the Egyptians contributed much else to Western culture. Often, the Egyptians ended up on the losing side of cultural battles that did influence the West. They always ended up under the thumb of a foreign power whether it was Persia, Greece, Rome, or Islam. In all examples, they ended up assimilating into the cultures that came to dominate them.
So Egypt ended up being the old man on the block that the younger kids could throw around. Basically after the clash with the Hittites at Qadesh around 1275 B.C., things have not gotten better for the Egyptians.I'm surprised that this thread hasn't gotten more discussion. Where does Egypt belong? Does it belong to the West? Or does it belong to Africa? Or does it belong to the Middle East and Arab heritage? I don't know that the answer is all that clear-cut.Yet it's fascinating that people in the West have been fascinated by Egypt for centuries. Even as a kid I remember jumping on the bed singing some ditty about King Tut (I don't think I'm the only one who did this ;D ). Who here sang songs about Greek or Roman rulers as a child? Anyone? Things Egyptian have been in our movies, in our music videos, in our songs. It's somewhat strange that the history of one nation, mostly from about 3000 B.C. to 1000 B.C., would have such a sustained effect on the West.
Very interesting indeed, when you consider how important is the Egyptian Heritage for the West, it seems that the Greek civilisation was the most influenced (Kouros sculptures, prestige of the rulers).However what makes the difference between those important civilisations of the past is that Egypt didn't set a kind of global empire : everything happened in a limited area whereas Greece , Rome, Persia did spread over more significant areas therefore a much greater influence over different nations. (to be developed)
I'm surprised that this thread hasn't gotten more discussion. Where does Egypt belong? Does it belong to the West? Or does it belong to Africa? Or does it belong to the Middle East and Arab heritage? I don't know that the answer is all that clear-cut.
The Ancient Egyptians have nothing to do with Arab heritage. Arabs conquered Egypt under the Islamic general Amr ibn al As in the seventh century and over time, the Arabs moved in and totally replaced their culture. So in a nutshell, Egypt quit contributing to Western culture from that point on.
The Ancient Egyptians have nothing to do with Arab heritage. Arabs conquered Egypt under the Islamic general Amr ibn al As in the seventh century and over time, the Arabs moved in and totally replaced their culture. So in a nutshell, Egypt quit contributing to Western culture from that point on.
I see what you're saying, but it just seems that the Middle East could still claim Egypt as its "own", just as the West does, just as Africans do. The Christian West makes its claims despite starkly different religious systems.
Very interesting indeed, when you consider how important is the Egyptian Heritage for the West, it seems that the Greek civilisation was the most influenced (Kouros sculptures, prestige of the rulers).However what makes the difference between those important civilisations of the past is that Egypt didn't set a kind of global empire : everything happened in a limited area whereas Greece , Rome, Persia did spread over more significant areas therefore a much greater influence over different nations. (to be developed)
I have heard that Egypt actually did not make many fundamental contributions to the West. But, you are right that some contributions were made...sculpturally, like what led to the kouroi statues.
I think that, if we look at Egypt's place in a broader spectrum, meaning the influence on humanity, we may see its significance. I say this because modern humans appeared around a million years ago, but changes in the first 995 000 years or so were gradual. Then, in the past 5000 years everything accelerated. The reason for this, I strongly believe, has to do with the introduction of writing. I know that the Sumerians are credited with being the first culture to develop writing, but they didn?t last nearly as long and had a very brief head start on the Egyptians.Egypt?s grander made others want to develop writing, which in turn led to rapid advancements in technology. After all, imagine building an edifice without blueprints. So, I?m saying that, although Egypt fell to the might of other cultures in battle, they revolutionized architecture and communications by influencing the development of writing systems.
Hello Jake10. That is an absolutely true point about the importance of writing in the development of civilizations. But as to the importance of writing and Egypt, I think that Sumerian civilizations existed for nearly 1000 years, which is quite significant in the scheme of things. Yes, the mighty Egypt lasted about twice as long as a great power, and a bit longer from end to end. But these numbers are all relative; some civilizations are but a blip on the radar (think Phoenician) but they can still provide a lot to wider culture.As for the Egyptians, I'm not even sure that they invented papyrus. They may have, and if that is the case, it would likely be there great "contribution" in this regard. Writing on large stone blocks is one thing, but writing on a scroll that can be easily transported would have been a major development, even if the underlying idea wasn't all that original.
Hello Jake10. That is an absolutely true point about the importance of writing in the development of civilizations. But as to the importance of writing and Egypt, I think that Sumerian civilizations existed for nearly 1000 years, which is quite significant in the scheme of things. Yes, the mighty Egypt lasted about twice as long as a great power, and a bit longer from end to end. But these numbers are all relative; some civilizations are but a blip on the radar (think Phoenician) but they can still provide a lot to wider culture.As for the Egyptians, I'm not even sure that they invented papyrus. They may have, and if that is the case, it would likely be there great "contribution" in this regard. Writing on large stone blocks is one thing, but writing on a scroll that can be easily transported would have been a major development, even if the underlying idea wasn't all that original.
Thank you for your response, Phidippides.You?re right, papyrus would indeed be a great contribution, but according to my studies, it was the Chinese Monks who first made writing more facile by putting it on silk, as opposed to wood or stone carvings, which were the norm before that. As far as I know, the Sumerians and the Egyptians started developing their writing systems in and around 3000 BC. The Chinese and Greeks followed in and around 2200 BC. Archeologists are constantly changing these dates because the whole idea of writing was often ridiculed back then, so the developers often worked hidden away. But, it was the status of Egypt that influenced other cultures to be more open to writing, despite its complexity and time consumption. It took a lot of vision to see how communicating through symbols would elevate a culture, despite its apparent uselessness on battlefields or daily necessities. Today, of course, the saying ?the pen is mightier than the sword? is a clich?. Yet, I think it?s fascinating to picture ourselves back in a time when communications were only oral. How many of us would have the persistence to dedicate our research to developing a writing system?
As I understand it, the development of writing was an example of something being called into being because of its usefulness not because of any aesthetic pleasure derived from the actual act of developing it. Writing was developed initially as an accounting shorthand that made keeping accounts easier than keeping physical representations of things. Cuneiform was developed as a method of keeping inventory in grain warehouses and only later adapted for storytelling. My reading of the development of reading has it that writing developed to solve practical problems and any artistic value was secondary to writings invention and not primary. In short, writing was not invented to transmit cultural ideas but to account for grain and beer, eminently practical. The happy side effect is that writing also allowed tradition and history to develop. Good thing it did, otherwise we would not be having this conversation in the first place. ;D
