In honor of that Ancient Egypt study, show some pics for an Egyptian themed game

WUZ SPOOKY

>Africa besides Egypt the north was behind Eurasia throughout history

>Japanese don't have any genetic closeness to Nigs

What the hell do you think?

I think that's retarded, but hoteps wanna think Scipio Africanus named the continent when it was the other way around.

> the daily mail

>hoteps

Stop spamming your New Worlder Mongrel garbage.

"In their paper, the researchers acknowledged that “all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt.” In the south of Egypt, the authors wrote, sub-Saharan influences may have been stronger."

Copts aren't Nigs.

>1400 BCE to 400 CE
>Mummies share genes with other people in the Mediterranean
Well yeah, no shit.

It's pretty annoying that people try to push all the "Ancient Egyptians" into a single group. Egypt changed hands a bunch of times in its 3500+ years of history since Narmer. Even the scientists that published this paper acknowledge that.

Keep going We Wuz, Tyrone.

Even since the Old Kingdom, Egypt has been a crossroads and invaded a dozen times over, adding to the admixture. If you're trying to imply even the ancient Egyptians were one color, you're already going about it wrong.

actually very little has changed genetically in the region meaning that genetically modern egyptians are more or less the same as the ancient ones

...

You seem to have linked to a tabloid journal, instead of a scientific paper, but the fascinating, tumultuous time period mentioned spans from the New Kingdom to the Late Period, and the three mummies were found in lands near Henen-nesut, later named Herakleopolis by the Ptolemaic Greeks. Notable events during and right before this time include the rule of the Hyksos (Caananite or Hurrian), the Late Bronze Age Collapse (along with an invasion of the Anatolian Sea Peoples), and a succession of foreign born dynasties (such as the Persians and Nubians), so a large number of foreign origins would have been plausible.

However, if my eyes do not deceive me, in the three mummies cluster around Bedouins, Palestinians, and other Middle-Easterners, so the dramatic headline contrasting Anatolians and Europeans with sub-Saharan africans seems quite artificial - would "Ancient Egyptians just as brown-skinned as everyone else in the region" not have been a more accurate headline, even if it received fewer views?

It seems that the editors at Daily Mail squinted at that chart, noticed that the Turkish stars were slightly closer to the Egyptians than the Malian Mandinka circles and Nigerian Yoruba stars, and then just ignored the Arabs, Berbers, Bedouins and various Levantine groups in between in an unnecessary demonstration of the well known fact that Egyptians weren't sub-Saharan Africans. In fact, the closest Europeans, Greeks and Cypriots, appear to be just as close as the West African Mandinka. The tiny number of people - a group of African-Americans referred to as "Hoteps" - who might be surprised by this news, and who don't accept that apart from the rulers of the 25th dynasty and plenty of slaves the Egyptians weren't sub-Saharans is likely dwarfed by the number of people on certain politically active boards on Veeky Forums who'd regularly read Daily Mail, fall for a clickbait article with a catchy title, and post it on Veeky Forums in yet another attempt at memery.

based Houtengeki

Egypt was only conquered by blacks once, in the 25th Dynasty, which lasted for less than a century. Persians drove them out.

>the daily mail
Okay, so we can confirm that in fact they definitely were kangz then.

Nubians are separate from Amerifat Niggs.

Yes and no. Yes in that they're not from western africa where the blacks in america are from. No in that they're still bantus and are thus related. The blacks you are thinking of are Ethiopians and Somalis, who are indeed not related at all to bantus.

More credible sources have reported on it, user just picked the worst one to use because x.