what race do you think ancient egypt was?

[Sammy-San]

This is a very controversial topic-and I'm not bringing it up to argue Afrocentrism or racist views that "the ancient egyptians couldnt have been black". Many people have biased views and agendas regarding this subject-but my interest in this subject is purely academic.

My personal view is that the Egyptians in ancient times were black-more specifically they were related to and looked like the East African people of today.

I tend not to focus on "this pharoah was black" or "what they looked like in the paintings" because that evidence is very anectodal. What a certain dynasty or people in a few photos looked like does not represent the entire population of a country or area. I think DNA and anatomy is the strongest piece of evidence-and I will present it.

1. Craniofacial analysis of Ancient Egyptian skulls groups them with modern East African populations such as the Somali and Oromo.

2. Skeletal analysis of the Ancient Egyptian limb proportions reveal that they have tropical body plans indicating an evolutionary adaptation to a tropical environment of Ancient Egyptian ancestors.

3. DNA studies reveal that Ancient Egyptian remains have African genetic lineages.

4. Histological analysis of Ancient Egyptian skin indicates that the Ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned people.

5. Ancient Egyptians artwork depicts them as brown-skinned with Afros and African style braids. Ethnographic murals show Ancient Egyptians to be much darker than light-skinned neighbors from Libya and Palestine (only jet-black Nubians are darker).

6. The Ancient Egyptian language has an Afroasiatic origin. Proto-Afroasiatic was spoken in the Horn of Africa region and disseminated before the formation of the Ancient Egyptian state. The architects of Ancient Egyptian civilization must have come from the South. This is supported by archeological evidence.

References:

- Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships,S.O.Y. Keita, History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)

- Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body Proportions Sonia R. Zakrzewski, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK,American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 121:219–229 (2003)

- Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation S.O.Y. Keita & A. J. Boyce, History in Africa, 32 pp. 221-246 (2005)

- The Origins of Afroasiatic, Ehret, Keita and Newman, Science (2004)

- Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State Sonia R. Zakrzewski, Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 132: 501–509 (2007)

- The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians, Egypt in Africa, (1996), pp. 25–27

- Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft ttissues Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13

Some studies show the invasions didnt change the DNA of current Egyptians significantly.

Egypt has experienced several invasions during its history. However, these do not seem to account for more than about 10% overall of current Egyptians ancestry when the DNA evidence of the ancient mitochondrial DNA and modern Y chromosomes is considered.
In general, various DNA studies have found that the gene frequencies of present Egyptian populations are intermediate between those of the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, southern Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa,[1] though NRY frequency distributions of the modern Egyptian population appear to be much more similar to those of the Middle East than to any Sub-Saharan African or European population, suggesting a much larger Middle Eastern genetic component.[2][3][3][4][5][6][7]
Other studies have shown that modern Egyptians have genetic affinities primarily with populations of Asia, North and Northeast Africa,[27][28][29][30] and to a lesser extent Middle Eastern and European populations.[31]

DNA history of Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Were the Ancient Egyptians black? That is entirely up to you. But were they biologically African? It would seem that they were. After considering the full range of anatomical, linguistic, cultural, archeological and genetic evidence, Shomarka Keita feels confident in concluding that the original Egyptians by which he means the pre-dynastic people of Southern Egypt, who founded Egyptian civilization evolved entirely in Africa. Both culturally and biologically, he says, they were more related to other Africans than they were to non-Africans from Europe or Asia.

Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt. But Egyptian civilization remained profoundly African to the very end.

Keita himself rarely resorts to such crudely racial expressions as black and white. But if we might be forgiven a momentary lapse into everyday speech, it would probably not hurt to conceive of Keita's theory as the polar opposite of the Hamitic Hypothesis. Whereas the Hamitic theorists saw Egypt as a nation of white people that was gradually infiltrated by blacks, the biological evidence seems to suggest that it was more like a black nation that was gradually infiltrated by whites.

Source: Black Spark White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? - Chapter 77. Black, White or Biologically African? Pg. 471

There are certain studies that say the invasions didnt change the race/dna of egypt.

Egypt has experienced several invasions during its history. However, these do not seem to account for more than about 10% overall of current Egyptians ancestry when the DNA evidence of the ancient mitochondrial DNA and modern Y chromosomes is considered.
In general, various DNA studies have found that the gene frequencies of present Egyptian populations are intermediate between those of the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, southern Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa,[1] though NRY frequency distributions of the modern Egyptian population appear to be much more similar to those of the Middle East than to any Sub-Saharan African or European population, suggesting a much larger Middle Eastern genetic component.[2][3][3][4][5][6][7]
Other studies have shown that modern Egyptians have genetic affinities primarily with populations of Asia, North and Northeast Africa,[27][28][29][30] and to a lesser extent Middle Eastern and European populations.[31]

DNA history of Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My guess is that to determine the level that the invasions affected the dna/race of the modern Egyptians is to compare ancient and modern DNA and see how close their genes are-then directly compare ancient and modern DNA of Egyptians-and thats something that these students havent done. They only determine ancient and modern Egyptians have some similar DNA. If you have some evidence against my claims, please mention it.

I dont think the studies comparing DNA are detailed enough to come to the conclusion modern egyptians are the same as the ancient ones-and anatomy studies show them as being similar to black africans.

Also, at the time Egypt was invaded in ancient times, their population was very tiny in comparison to today, so an invasion could have changed their racial component significantly (similar to how most of the hundreds of millions of South Americans are mestizos-descendants of the smaller native populations who intermarried with European settlers.)

 

[Sammy-San]

Another interesting study on this subject.

The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians

Professor S.O.Y. Keita
Department of Biological Anthropology
Oxford University

Professor A. J. Boyce
University Reader in Human Population
Oxford University

What was the primary geographical source for the peopling of the Egyptian Nile Valley? Were the creators of the fundamental culture of southern predynastic Egypt—which led to the dynastic culture—migrants and colonists from Europe or the Near East? Or were they predominantly African variant populations?

These questions can be addressed using data from studies of biology and culture, and evolutionary interpretive models. Archaeological and linguistic data indicate an origin in Africa. Biological data from living Egyptians and from skeletons of ancient Egyptians may also shed light on these questions. It is important to keep in mind the long presence of humans in Africa, and that there should be a great range of biological variation in indigenous "authentic" Africans.

Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.

Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.

Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.

The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kushites and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.

There are few studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, including not surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993). The other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin. More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA of African peoples.

The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).

Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.

This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.

The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.

The various genetic studies usually suffer from what is called categorical thinking, specifically, racial thinking. Many investigators still think of "African" in a stereotyped, nonscientific (nonevolutionary) fashion, not acknowledging a range of genetic variants or traits as equally African. The definition of "African" that would be most appropriate should encompass variants that arose in Africa. Given that this is not the orientation of many scholars, who work from outmoded racial perspectives, the presence of "stereotypical" African genes so far from the "African heartland" is noteworthy. These genes have always been in the valley in any reasonable interpretation of the data. As a team of Egyptian geneticists stated recently, "During this long history and besides these Asiatic influences, Egypt maintained its African identity . . ." (Mahmoud et al. 1987). This statement is even more true in a wider evolutionary interpretation, since some of the "Asian" genes may be African in origin. Modern data and improved theoretical approaches extend and validate this conclusion.

In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin.


References Cited:

Angel, J. L., and J. O. Kelley, Description and comparison of the skeleton. In The Wadi Kubbaniya Skeleton: A Late Paleolithic
Burial from Southern Egypt. E Wendorf and R. Schild. pp. 53-70. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. 1986

Brauer, G., and K. Rimbach, Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implications, Journal of Human Evolution 19:789-807. 1990

Drake, St. C., Black Folk Here and There, vol 1. Los Angeles: University of California. 1987

Keita, S.O.Y., Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships. History in Africa 20:129-154. 1993

Mahmoud, L. et. al, Human blood groups in Dakhlaya. Egypt. Annuals of Human Biology. 14(6):487-493. 1987

Paabo, S., and A. Di Rienzo, A molecular approach to the study of Egyptian history. In Biological Anthropology and the Study
of Ancient Egypt. V. Davies and R. Walker, eds. pp. 86-90. London: British Museum Press. 1993

Petrie, W.M., F. The Making of Egypt. London: Sheldon Press. 1984

Thoma, A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khaterman. Journal of Human Evolution 13:287-296. 1984

 

[mafwons]

This is a very controversial topic-and I'm not bringing it up to argue Afrocentrism or racist views that "the ancient egyptians couldnt have been black". Many people have biased views and agendas regarding this subject-but my interest in this subject is purely academic.

My personal view is that the Egyptians in ancient times were black-more specifically they were related to and looked like the East African people of today.

I tend not to focus on "this pharoah was black" or "what they looked like in the paintings" because that evidence is very anectodal. What a certain dynasty or people in a few photos looked like does not represent the entire population of a country or area. I think DNA and anatomy is the strongest piece of evidence-and I will present it.

Some studies show the invasions didnt change the DNA of current Egyptians significantly.

DNA history of Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are certain studies that say the invasions didnt change the race/dna of egypt.

DNA history of Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My guess is that to determine the level that the invasions affected the dna/race of the modern Egyptians is to compare ancient and modern DNA and see how close their genes are-then directly compare ancient and modern DNA of Egyptians-and thats something that these students havent done. They only determine ancient and modern Egyptians have some similar DNA. If you have some evidence against my claims, please mention it.

I dont think the studies comparing DNA are detailed enough to come to the conclusion modern egyptians are the same as the ancient ones-and anatomy studies show them as being similar to black africans.

Also, at the time Egypt was invaded in ancient times, their population was very tiny in comparison to today, so an invasion could have changed their racial component significantly (similar to how most of the hundreds of millions of South Americans are mestizos-descendants of the smaller native populations who intermarried with European settlers.)

Sounds like evolutionary filth to me, the Bible tells us the origin of all the ancient cultures, does it not?

 

[LionL]

North African.

 

[Kuraisto]

The ancient Egyptians would paint Cushites (those from present-day Sudan, Ethiopia) as a very dark brown or black, darker than how they would paint themselves. I believe the ancient Egyptians were similar to the Moors or Berbers.

 

[mafwons]

Human race as far as I can tell.

 

[Bknight006]

Sounds like evolutionary filth to me, the Bible tells us the origin of all the ancient cultures, does it not?

...You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.

EDIT: After looking at your second comment, I realized you were kidding. Never mind me. XD

 

[Kate94]

It's my understanding that they were a somewhat mixed race society. The modern day Copts of Egypt are considered to be their descendants, at least in large part, so I would imagine they were similar in appearance and looked like most North Africans. You probably also had some admixture from the Nubians (Biblical Cushites) in the south. Taking a look at portraits of pharaohs like Akhenaten suggest some Nubian ancestry, even if King Tut's Y haplogroup suggests he was related to Europeans it wasn't very likely the majority of his heritage.

 

[Cearbhall]

Sounds like evolutionary filth to me, the Bible tells us the origin of all the ancient cultures, does it not?

Genesis isn't quite that comprehensive.

 

[peepnklown]

Reptilian?

 

[Sammy-San]

The ancient Egyptians would paint Cushites (those from present-day Sudan, Ethiopia) as a very dark brown or black, darker than how they would paint themselves. I believe the ancient Egyptians were similar to the Moors or Berbers.

Is it fair to say that this is an irrelevant mystery?

 

[raschau]

The ancient Egyptians were indigenous to Northern Africa, and genetically similar to their Near Eastern and Levantine neighbors. The unnecessarily controversial "Black Egypt" theory has been put to rest with genetic testing:

Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods

 

[ShamashUruk]

It's my understanding that they were a somewhat mixed race society. The modern day Copts of Egypt are considered to be their descendants, at least in large part, so I would imagine they were similar in appearance and looked like most North Africans. You probably also had some admixture from the Nubians (Biblical Cushites) in the south. Taking a look at portraits of pharaohs like Akhenaten suggest some Nubian ancestry, even if King Tut's Y haplogroup suggests he was related to Europeans it wasn't very likely the majority of his heritage.

Almost correct, the Egyptians originated from Sub-Saharan African's, even Egyptian pyramids are replicated as such. We don't see influence from Babylon as they would have only been familiar with Ziggaruts' and influenced from Akkadian's and Sumerian's. Also, Sub-Saharan African's are pre Kush, they are an early Nubian civilization.

 

[ShamashUruk]

It's my understanding that they were a somewhat mixed race society. The modern day Copts of Egypt are considered to be their descendants, at least in large part, so I would imagine they were similar in appearance and looked like most North Africans. You probably also had some admixture from the Nubians (Biblical Cushites) in the south. Taking a look at portraits of pharaohs like Akhenaten suggest some Nubian ancestry, even if King Tut's Y haplogroup suggests he was related to Europeans it wasn't very likely the majority of his heritage.

Close Egyptians were descended from Sub-Saharan African's, they are an early Nubian civilization (denoting they are pre Cush) and have an obviously Afrocentric language.

Cush (son of Noah) would have originated in Sumer, and his father would not be called Noah but Ziusudra from the earlier epic of Ziusudra. However, Cush (check Sumer kings list) would have migrated much later to Africa.

 

[marseph98]

They were black...there are 3 types of peoples in the world, Asian, White and Black (Latins are a mixture of white and Asian, those from India are black and Asian), each race is represented by the sons of Noah, in this case Shem (Asian), Japheth (White) and Ham (Black).

I recently took a class on the history of the Middle East, it is well documented that Egyptians feared Asians, Asians were considered anything from the Middle East and beyond. Fascinating class I might add.

I recently took a DNA test, apparently I have a lot of mixing in me, White, Asian and a sliver of Black. I'm guessing that back in Egyptian days there was a lot of mingling and conquests, things change, peoples change. Today Egyptians are Arabs not Black which tells me the Blacks were pushed out and/or co-mingled.

The hieroglyphics they left shows them as black though...head-dress and all....

 

[ShamashUruk]

They were black...there are 3 types of peoples in the world, Asian, White and Black (Latins are a mixture of white and Asian, those from India are black and Asian), each race is represented by the sons of Noah, in this case Shem (Asian), Japheth (White) and Ham (Black).

I recently took a class on the history of the Middle East, it is well documented that Egyptians feared Asians, Asians were considered anything from the Middle East and beyond. Fascinating class I might add.

I recently took a DNA test, apparently I have a lot of mixing in me, White, Asian and a sliver of Black. I'm guessing that back in Egyptian days there was a lot of mingling and conquests, things change, peoples change. Today Egyptians are Arabs not Black which tells me the Blacks were pushed out and/or co-mingled.

The hieroglyphics they left shows them as black though...head-dress and all....

Egyptians were descended from Sub-Saharan African's, they are an early Nubian civilization (denoting they are pre Cush) and have an obviously Afrocentric language.

Cush (son of Noah) would have originated in Sumer, and his father would not be called Noah but Ziusudra from the earlier epic of Ziusudra. However, Cush (check Sumer kings list) would have migrated much later to Africa. Hence the Nubian reference, but yes for the most part the Egyptians are of Afro descent not of Sumerian.

 

[marseph98]

@ShamashUruk, Remember the tower of Babel when all became separated or confused...languages added/changed names...Noah could be this Ziusudra your refer too, even Gilgamesh to me is one and the same but with a different name since the languages were confused.

 

[ShamashUruk]

@ShamashUruk, Remember the tower of Babel when all became separated or confused...languages added/changed names...Noah could be this Ziusudra your refer too, even Gilgamesh to me is one and the same but with a different name since the languages were confused.

Researcher and archaeologist Samuel Noah Kramer had already introduced a Cuneiform tablet, the tablet is transliterated from Sumerian language and called "Enki confuser of languages", the nam-shub of Enki provides tells the story of linguisitic disintegration as part of the tale "Enmerkar and the Land of Aratta" (Kramer, Samuel Noah and John R. Maier, Enki, the Crafty God, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).

The earliest version comes from Sumer, and is written in poetic line form:

In those days, the land Shubur-Hamazi,
Harmony-tongued Sumer, the great land of the me of princeship,
Uri, the land having all that is appropriate,
The land Martu, resting in security,
The whole universe, the people well cared for,
To Enlil in one tongue gave speech.

Then the lord defiant, the prince defiant, the king defiant

Enki, the lord of abundance, whose commands are trustworthy,
The lord of wisdom, who scans the land,
The leader of the gods,
The lord of Eridu, endowed with wisdom,
Changed the speech in their mouths, put contention into it,
Into the speech of man that had been one.

In the much later written Biblical tale we see:

1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

The Sumerian cuneiform text "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta" also "relates how the god Enki ["the crafty god"] had put an end to man's "golden age" under Enlil's [the God of Heaven's] universal sway over the earth and its inhabitants" (Kramer, Samuel Noah. History Begins at Sumer. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, Third Edition, 1981, 21). We also see the concept of the earliest times representing man's golden age in the Greek poet Hesiod's five ages of man and the Roman poet Ovid's four ages of man.

Also, in the Bible Genesis 11: 1-9 it is originally translated from the Hebrew which is a Semitic tongue, Sumerian tongue is much older and predates Semitic tongue.

This indicates at least to linguists that the Hebrew based Semitic tongue was invented much later and after Akkadian Semitic based tongue was developed. Making the Hebrew language a defunct Canaanite language, as the Israelite's come out of Canaan. Sumer existed before Akkad, the Israelite's and St Moses were not at all Sumerian.

It would be hard to conclude that the epics of Adam and Eve are any less then the earlier epics of Sumerian creation legends and myths. Aside from this (and many scholars will agree) that St. Moses did not pen Genesis, the earlier version being Eridu Genesis.

Something else to consider the "tower of Babel" is thought to have been fashioned after a Ziggurat in, however, the Babel tower was thought to be built upwards and Ziggurat's were not formed in this fashion, the adoption of the Babel tower could have been Pyramid shaped, but there is little evidence for that as the Egyptian's did not build their towers or pyramids identical to Ziggurat's. Also, the Egyptian's were influenced by Sub-Saharan people and not Sumerian's. Hence, we see the Babylonian's being influenced by Sumer and not Egypt. The Israelite's would have had more influence from Babylon than Egypt, so most likely the "Tower of Babel" is a poorly written construct of an older Sumerian tale, as the Israelite tower is built upwards and directly, while Pyramids had differing foundations, as well the Sumerian Ziggurat's were shaped in their own fashion, and it is most likely that Babylon would have had their own Ziggurat's. I am not aware of the Israelite's being influenced by the Egyptian's, more likely the Babylonian's as they end up in Babylonian captivity.

 

[marseph98]

Fascinating...I didn't know there was another story of Babel outside of the Bible. I like your idea of the pyramids too, Pyramids were also found in the America's yet they were not African in descent at all but Asian, I wonder if it was a pyramid-type but much better constructed (granted the ones we have now are magnificent I wonder if the original would of put those to shame). Also, Pyramids are all over the world, from East Asia to Southern Europe to the America's...

You have a lot of knowledge, may I inquire what you do for a living?

 

[ShamashUruk]

Fascinating...I didn't know there was another story of Babel outside of the Bible. I like your idea of the pyramids too, Pyramids were also found in the America's yet they were not African in descent at all but Asian, I wonder if it was a pyramid-type but much better constructed (granted the ones we have now are magnificent I wonder if the original would of put those to shame). Also, Pyramids are all over the world, from East Asia to Southern Europe to the America's...

You have a lot of knowledge, may I inquire what you do for a living?

The Bible story is a replication of a Sumerian epic and Sumerian Ziggurat. There is one Cuneiform with both Sumerian epic and Sumerian Ziggurat, the epic of Enki confuser of languages and an adaptation of the Ziggurat to the tower of Babel. It's not likely that Babylonian's had "Pyramids" most likely they would have had Ziggurat's or replica's of it.

Mesoamerican temples are not the same as Pyramids, they are temples, there is an inherent difference between each:

Mayan, Inca, Aztec temples are simply temples that are somewhat stylized in Ziggurat form, but are meant to be structure's to the Gods. So most likely human sacrifice and God worship would have been the center of Mesoamerican temples. However, it could be stated that one of those culture's did not sacrifice human beings.

While the sarcophagus in the Pyramid's was for funerary practices in Egypt for Pharoah's. Hence the Pyramids were not built as worship sites, but as burial sites. While Pharoah's are regarded as powerful, they are not associated with Egyptian Gods directly, and not all Egyptian's were polytheistic, I believe the Ankht were monotheistic.

The Sumerian Ziggurat's would likely predate Mesoamerican temples, but those were temples built directly for honor of Sumerian Gods such as the Ziggurat to Anu an the white temple. In some instance human sacrifice did occur and in other's it did not, it may have depended on which city-state a person was in, we see this later on in Biblical literature.

A good example of later performed rituals; Hattat rituals in Leviticus 16, we see stylized in older rituals in early Mesopotamia. The blood is smeared on the temple and a goat is ultimately sent to Azazel the creature of the wilderness.

When you say pyramids all over the world, there is a difference between the use of a pyramid and temple. It really has to do with the function and pyramids are not stylized after Ziggurat's or Mesoamerican temples, pyramids are most likely influenced from Sub-Saharan African's.

I am about to be a film student, so I guess you can call me a film maker or soon to be, I just left the legal field so I can pursue film making.