How did the people who built civilizations like ancient china, rome, greece and babylon look like?

>hey guise lets go in and kill all men over age 13 and rape all the women!!

How does this not have any impact?

>90% of the original population died

Well, there were people who looked like that living in Egypt after the Roman conquest, when this style of mummy-art became popular. How many of them were ethnic Greeks, Romans, etc. is harder to say.

30% of Fayum's population was Greek.
So it's fair to say you have both phenotypes in the mummy portraits.

But they lived pretty segregated from each other so it's possible to tell them apart. The one I posted before looks Egyptian while this one looks clearly Greek.

Genetic testing also shows Egypt's core population hasn't changed much since ancient times.

OK I think I can explain this. Many of the top results are from medievalpoc.tumblr.com/, which has a topic of “People of Color in European Art”. What’s likely happening in this case is that it’s picking up on “European”, “People”, and “Art”, and giving back results based on that. Searching it with quotations brings up nothing similar, which supports my hypothesis. As for why people are searching it, I’m guessing it’s because they’re looking for portraiture and don’t know what to use for search terms.
For “American inventors”, it’s likely because it’s picking up on “African-American inventors”, which skews the results as it ignores the “African-” part. With “white man white woman”, it’s likely not seeing “white” and “woman” as being connected, plus white is already used in the search, which makes it really search for “white man woman”. Since race usually isn’t involved unless people are talking about interracial relationships, it skews results toward pages that talk about them. “White couple” brings up more accurate results, so if you need a picture of a specifically white couple, use that instead.

look at the indigenous non-muslim or isolated populations that keep to themselves and dont marry outsiders or accept converts. Samaritans, assyrians, lebanese christians, alawus, druze. Not all non-muslim but meet the other criteria. They range from looking suprisingly western or eastern european, to southern european, to paki/north pajeet . As well just arab/brown mediterranean looking.

that covers the levant, sumerians would have looked like tanned chirkas and modern iraqis. Romans like modern italians but more people who look british/lighter skinned spanish. Chinwse like modern chinese, but possibly more exaggerated "mongoloid" features

Aren't people in the Levant mostly Semites?

Here's a reconstruction of an ancient Phoenician man.

One thing I have noticed with reconstructions of ancient people is that they seem to have no chin, a rounder face and smaller eyes. Does anyone else notice this?

I AM AUTISTIC!!!!!!!!!!

Are you seriously thinking that this was a common practice if you are you shouldn't be here.

oh you read it somewhere i guess that settles it then

WE

>How did the average person from the fertile crescent look like before arabs took it all over?
probably like this

Things like that have happened over and over again over the past couple thousand years, and are still happening today.

>what are the Mongols, Indo-Aryans, Bantu, Spanish, Russians

Oh yeah, the grand indo-aryan ethnicity that reaches from Iceland to India

>Vedic Sanskrit just so happens to share many key structures with Latin

deal with it faggot you won't

thats cultural not genetical you idiot

>all those tabs

Disgusting

By and large the same as they are now, except the upper classes might look different from intermarriage for prestige

Wholesale genocides like in the Americas were extremely rare

DNA evidence tells us that ancient and medieval people were exaggerating cunts who never left more than 10 miles from home on average

These were the same people who saw a flooding river and blew it up into "GLOBAL PUNISHMENT OF THE GODS!!"

>genetical

ok

listen, I never said anything about Indo-Aryans stretching from Finland to Bengal

What I said was they had a big effect on the genetic makeup of the peoples inhabiting the Indian sub-continent. Big enough such that the oldest writings (I think) we have from that continent are in their language.

Tamerlane arguably had just as large an impact (though maybe not as lasting), cause of all the genocide and forced conversions him and his dudes did.

what does their genetical makeup have to do with their culture? It doesnt, deal with it faggot.

>It doesnt

That's quite a strong statement, considering culture wouldn't exist in the first place without genes to keep a collection of bodies operating.

All human culture stems from inherited biology, and biological reactions to outside pressures. That is why human cultures generally have more in common with one another than they have differences.

Culture is derived entirely from genetic action over time.

>All human culture stems from inherited biology,

no

This is generally true, but it really depends on demographics, colonization efforts, cultural adaptability, among other things.

Assyrians are northern mesopotamian and fairly close to Armenians. Genetically they're very far from Europe. Most Lebanese Christians have very strong middle eastern traits. Isolated populations do go through founder effects and such.

>30% of Fayum's population was Greek
but MOST of the Fayum portraits themselves were Greek, some were Roman, very very few were native Egyptians

They were very likely mixed still.

This is how the Romans pictured Alexander in 100BCE.

true

I am sorry but it is the truth.

>Egypt's core population hasn't changed much since ancient times

duh bro their birth rate was TIGHT

So is Egypt then really a Semitic civilization?

The Vikings were Black, obviously, same with the Egyptians, Moors, and Carthaginians.
However the Romans and Greeks were a Pure Nordic peoples with tall strong frames, straight noses, piercing blue eyes, and golden blonde locks. The Gauls were as well of a darker skin tone, something akin to an Arab or Semitic look about them, of course nothing has changed in France over the years, Arabs are the true French, the same with the Germans.

Semitic is a cultural/linguistic term.

it is also a racial one

Afro-Semitic.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_history_of_Egypt
>blood typing of dynastic mummies found ABO frequencies to be most similar to modern Egyptians, and some also to northern Haratin populations.

>The results of these genetic studies is consistent with the historical record, which records significant bidirectional contact between Egypt and Nubia, and the Levant/Middle East within the last few thousand years, but with general population continuity from the Early Dynastic Period of Egypt up to the modern day era.

>Genetic analysis of modern Egyptians reveals that they have paternal lineages common to indigenous North-East African populations primarily (Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco), and to Middle Eastern peoples to a lesser extent—these lineages would have spread during the Neolithic and were maintained by the predynastic period.

>HOWARD STERNS PENIS

>not having at least 1.7k tabs open
[spoiler]
I'm actually using 3 browsers and running two instances of chrome so it's closer to 2 thousand [/spoiler]

A large percentage of India speaks English. It is the official language of India. What is the genetic imprint of the English on the Indian population.

Conversely, the entire world uses the Hindu number system. Does that make this mean the entire world can trace some of the genetic makeup to India.

I must have missed the part of history class where disease wiped out 90% of Mesopotamia's population

It did have an impact, just not as much an impact as people want to believe. Tens of thousands of invading soldiers with antiquated technology and no real genocidal plan cannot stamp out an ethnic group of tens of millions of civilians. Look at any "genetic cluster" chart and you'll see that modern Turkish people are much closer to Levantines and Greeks than they are the other Turkic ethnicities back east, because the genetics of the populace of Anatolia has more or less remained the same despite the invasion. Only in cases like the Americas, where disease wipes out tens of millions in a matter of decades, will you see the kinds of changes that people are thinking happened to the middle east.

Modern Egyptians are still by far the closest descendants of the ancients. As are modern Iranians to the ancient Persians, and Greeks, and so on and so forth. "muh rape babbies" is a myth that has been disproved time and again by genetic studies.

Tens of thousands invading tens of millions.

Yeah, that never happened.

Your point is that an invading army couldn't change the ethnicity of a people, that is right up to a point.

That point presents itself in the period after the invasion. The male populace of the conquered is largely removed leaving females and children, assuming the invaders stay for at least a generation you'll have a different population from what you got at the beginning. You are right though because, take for example the battle at Cannae where the Roman male population was reduced by a third, the Carthaginians did not follow up with a proper invasion so the genetic markup of the population remained the same.

Now, everything changes in the last couple of hundreds of years when an invasion meant not only taking the leadership role in the land but also increasing trade and generally all kinds of relations with the conquered land.

Is.A.Myth

>no georgian
????

*starts writing in alphabets*
HOL UP
*builds pyramids*
SO YOU BE SAYING
*builds hanging gardens of babylon*
I MIGHT BE WRONG BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAYIN
*creates ancient art*
I JUST THINK YA MIGHT BE SAYING
*invents science and math*
MAH MAN DID I GET THAT RIGHT?
*founds rome, carthage, phoenicia, assyria, sumeria, greece*
SO YOU REALLY BE SAYIN
*is of the same people as jesus*
WE WUZ ANCIENT EMPIRES AND SHIET?

this.

Even if it were, it still doesn't invalidate my point.

No disease benefit in the old world

It is a fact that it's a myth. Iranians and Russians are no genetically closer to mongols for having been invaded by them and the Turks are a notable distance from the other Turkic groups still being genetically closer to Levantines and even Southern Italians, like you would expect the native population of Anatolia to be. This is a genetic fact. Yours is an antiquated stance that was disproved by actual genetic studies decades ago. The point your making is also invalidated by the existence of Egypt. It's been invaded by Nubians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Turks over the course of over 2 millenia and the population still remains, for the most part, the same as it was 3000 years ago.

You cannot compare What happened in the Americas were 90+% of the population died due to disease with other conquests.

Why do Turks in Turkey and Turks in Western China look radically different?

Why do Indo-Europeans in Spain, Sweden, and India look radically different?

"Arabs" in Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon look pretty different.

Why? Because a small group of conquerors don't displace a population. And historically its usually the men who move around these small groups rule and marry into the local population their features disappear even if their language and culture remains. Arabs were the minority in every nation the conquered people became Arabized. Without their actual genetics changing much. Genetic testing a skull recreations back this up.

Its not like Egypt, or Mesopotamia or North Africa were wiped out. Those were major areas, cities with populations larger than the entirety of Arabia. Islam put an emphasis on both the Arabic language and the Arabs as the chosen people. If you spoke Arabic and were Muslim you'd just call yourself an Arab.

>MUH ABSOLUTES. MUH NEVER EVER.
The answer is always "it depends." Retard.

Central Asia used to be full of whitish looking people. Now the majority are Slanty eyed cunts. Not saying they genocided the bastards, but the fact of the matter is the numerically superior Asiatics just absorbed the Indo-Iranians.

The same Asiatic Nomads doing the same in China and its a different story.

Then I invite you to explain the similarity between Romanian people and the Portuguese, if it's not because of the Roman expansion, then what is the cause of that.

>similarity between Romanian people and the Portuguese
???

I'm looking at the image you posted that puts Romanians, Spaniards and north Italians in the same area.

they had zillions of statues of him though

I'm not the one you were arguing with, but including very divergent central Asian populations is gonna shrink the west-east difference in Europe in a PCA, thus they are gonna look more similar then they really are.
When you look at things more in detail, including closer populations, you see the actual differences.
The portuguese are a typical south-west Med population, more similar to the early neolithic farmers of Europe, while Romanians are kind of a east Euro influenced east Med population, so more "west asian" if you will.

Ah right, then I'm wrong, thanks for clearing that up.

For a village of 40 people, not a kingdom of a million.

>>apocalypto
mfw it WAS phoencians that discovered america

Christian middle easterners are much, much more brown than muslim middle easterners.

At least, most of the time.