The Bulk of Ancient Egyptians were Brown

It's time for the retarded WE WUZ from all sides to stop. Let's dispel some myths people have about Ancient Egypt.

>1. Ancient Egypt was homogenous
NO!
Ancient Egypt was a mixture of several peoples as it was subject to foreign invasion countless of times. Before Egypt was overrun by Arabs, Ancient Egypt suffered invasions from the Hicsos, Sea Peoples, Assyrians, Babilonians, Nubians, Macedonians, Greeks, Romans and Persians, among other groups.

There was also a large difference in demographics between Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt, the closer to the Mediterranean the less Nubian and Kushite influences.

>2. Ancient Egyptians were Black.
NO!
There were Black Pharaohs in Ancient Egypt but these were dynasties implanted by Nubian invaders, not native to Egypt.

>3. Ancient Egyptians were White
NO!
There were White Pharaohs in Ancient Egypt but these were late dynasties implanted by foreign invaders, like the Ptolemaic (Greek) Dynasty

So, if Egyptians were not Black, or White, what race where they?

NON-BRAINLET EDUCATED ANSWER:

Linguistic and genetic analysis indicates Ancient Egyptians were an Afro-Semitic population, halfway between the Berbers and the Ethiopians. (Also an Afro-Semitic people).

The bulk of the Ancient Egyptian population, up to the New Kingdom period was BROWN, neither White, nor Subsaharan African Black.
This is also how the Ancient Egyptians painted and saw themselves, and Occam's Razor as well as the historical and genetic record, indicate that this is what they looked like.

PIC RELATED:
How the Ancient Egyptians painted themselves and neighbouring nationalities.

From left to right:
4 Libyans - A Nubian - A Syrian - An Egyptian

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/ST_tAduIhWc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Yusupov
biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/21/191569
cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)31008-5
researchgate.net/figure/305985032_fig2_Figure-2-Analysis-of-Ari-ancestry-ADMIXTURE-analyses-of-the-Ari-and-neighbouring
journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005397
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

They were also invaded by Nubians

They were also invaded by Lybians

WE WUZZZ KANGS AND SHIEEEEEEEEEET

PIC RELATED II:
Ethiopian singer Sayat Demissie, belonging to the Habesha (Abyssinian) ethnic group.

Probably the closest living ethnicity to the Ancient Egyptians, present in the Horn of Africa since the time of the Axumites, who spoke the ancient Ge'ez language. The Aksumites inhabited northern Ethiopia and Eritrea. They already lived in this area by the early 1st millennium BC, and founded the Axumite empire, which succeeded the pre-Aksumite Kingdom of D'mt. These people formed the basic ethnocultural stock of both the pre-Axumite and Axumite states

Linguistic analysis further indicates that the Ethiopian Semitic languages have retained a Cushitic substratum, which also belongs to the Afro-Asiatic family. The Ge'ez language, Tigre and Tigrinya spoken in the north were influenced by Beja, Agaw and Saho-Afar substrates, with Amharic and Gafat in the south also partially influenced by these substrates.

South Arabian expert Eduard Glaser claimed that the hieroglyphic ḫbstjw, used in reference to "a foreign people from the incense-producing regions" (i.e. Punt, located in Eritrea and northeast Ethiopia) used by Queen Hatshepsut c. 1460 BC, was the first usage of the term or somehow connected.

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WUZZ KANGZZZZZ

That's not a Subsaharan African

AND SHIEEEEEEEEEEEEET

Why did Libyans wear such silly hats

>actually bothering to explain this shit

You'll only draw posts like these:

I believe they're just pheasant feathers or something, they probably looked better IRL.
I never noticed the tattoos before though. Tattoos are extremely rare among civilized people, especially among upper classes. That plus their feather ornaments give them a strange sort of semi-primitive semi-civilized look.

A better question would be, what's up with libyans and their clothing/tattoos?

Actually the more I read about them the more primitive they seem. That weird robe they have is

>a thin mantle of antelope hide, dyed and printed, crossing one of their shoulders and coming down until mid calf length to make an open robe over a loincloth with an adorned phallus sheath

a fucking phallus sheath

>among civilized people

Lybians were nomadic war like people without sedentary settlements (except for maybe a port frequented by Aegeans west of the Nile Delta) at the time

Looks like my maid holy fuck

Oh, that's no surprise then.

>Ptolemaic (Greek) Dynasty
>white
kek

KAAAAAAAANGZZZ

youtu.be/ST_tAduIhWc

Ethiopians are considered SSA

>ancient Egypt was multiculti
I don't care if they were black or white or blue with pink dots, but why people think they were not racist back then? Xenophobia is a basic trait in every species...

t. deluded Afroamerican

They are considered as Horners and different from Bantus

>LE INVASION MEANS THEY GOT AN INFLUX OF FOREIGNERS
When will this meme die? Do you also think that Russia is half German just because Germans invaded them in WW2? Most invasions don't leave a genetic trace.

Because they were not, there is evidence of Egyptian often using foreign mercenaries like Nubians and people from the Mediterranean and giving them a lot of lands and respect

This is the Lybian port of Marsa Matrouh settled by Cypriots and Aegeans from where probably the sea peoples allied with the Lybians attacked Egypt

Macedonians, Greeks, Romans, and Persians didn't really have any major influence or impact on native Egyptian genes or sedentary population at all in Egypt. I can't say anything about Nubians but I'm certain Assyrians, Sea Peoples, Akkadians, and the Hittites were the same as the above mentioned ones.

You're thinking of Nubians my friend. They were a ethnic group of dark skinned peoples who lived south of the Egyptians along the Nile, and gained hegemony over Egypt for a relatively brief period.

Man it doesn't mean they were integrated, their society was pretty rigid, you bet the Nubian mercenaries were camped aside. There's a reason why these people are specifically mentioned, if they were naturally part of the society they wouldn't bother to write about it.

The Germans failed, retard.
Prolonged conquest usually brings mass migration and settlement alongside.

See:
European conquest of the Americas
European conquest of Australia
Seljuk Turk conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire
Visigothic invasion of Spain
Chinese settlement in Taiwan
Russian colonization of the East
German expulsions from Eastern Europe

The longer the domination and the smaller the conquered population, the stronger genetic imprint left.

>brown means they were a mixture of black and white
>it cannot ever mean anything else
>black means anyone with any sub-saharan african admixture in the last 50,000 years
>everyone is black when I want them to be
Egyptians are and were part of a Caucasoid subgroup, closely related to Europeans but not the same
Also Ramses the Great was red-haired. There are non-white red-haired North Africans. Red-haired does not mean Irish with translucent skin. But it does mean non-Negroid.

They are also different from Ancient Egyptians.

Yes, they were integrated, they had Egyptian names and were personally addressed by the pharaoh in some documents, they were also given the freedom to worship their own God, some were given as many lands as the priests and owned slaves, and could be taken as witnesses during a process

>Visigothic conquest
>mass migration
Top kek

>muh Caucasoids and Negroids

>deux mille dix-sept
>using biologically and anthropologically-relevant classifications
I'm, like, so sorry brah

This discussion reminds me a lot of the Russian Empire too, with their rather magnanimous attitude towards various non-Europeans:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Yusupov
From Khan Yusuf of the Nogai Horde to the wealthiest and noblest aristocrats in Russia (after the Czar's own family of course)

This is what most people would call "black"

>personally addressed by the pharaoh
>given the freedom to worship their own God
This perfectly describes a diaspora, thanks for proving my point.

For instance here in a speech Ramses III begs the citizens of Egypt to accept his new son as pharaoh, among them he address one of the sea peoples' tribes, who among other things previously attacked Egypt during his own reign

>a society is not multicultural if it still acknowledges it has different cultures and ethnic groups
I think that puts you to the left of most SJWs.

Amerilards, maybe.

>ancient Egyptians
>Halfway between Berbers and Ethiopians

No sweetie

>Krause’s team compared the mummies’ mitochondrial and nuclear DNA to ancient and modern populations in the Near East and Africa. They discovered that ancient Egyptians closely resembled ancient and modern Near Eastern populations, especially those in the Levant

Ironically I hear that half-white American "blacks" who go to Egypt simply pass for Egyptian.

...

...

They overlap closer to Bedouins than to Levantine populations, are you literally retarded posting that?

Also Levant Neolithic(the black and white circles)

>modern Near Eastern populations
>modern Near Eastern populations
>modern Near Eastern populations
>modern Near Eastern populations
>modern Near Eastern populations

>what are Bedouins

>Racialists like to pretend that Arab admixture with the modern Egyptian populations and made them swarthier and more semitic, what actually happened is that the ancient Egyptians were pretty much pure Arabs and they later mixed with North African populations which made modern Egyptians paler and more Caucasian-looking (though it also introduced SSA admixture)

>closely related to Europeans
No more so than any other Semite. In fact, rather more distantly then your typical semite or North African.

I meant compared to Negroid and Mongoloid populations. Take an Egyptian, Englishman, Congolese and Maya and I know which two will be most alike, genetically-speaking, as two are Caucasoid and two are not.

For what it's worth, the distance of ancient Egyptians from Northwestern Europeans and Horn Africans is just about the same. I suppose that could be grounds for calling Horn Africans Caucasoid, if you want.

>mixed with North African populations
>made modern Egyptians paler and more Caucasian-looking

Lmao

Maghrebins are hardly any swarthier or more Semitic than freaking Bedouins, and we can see that modern Egyptians are closer to Tunisians and Algerians than more SSA-admixed groups like the Saharawi.

Maghrebis got European'd.
They were dark skinned before Spanish farmers came.

biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/21/191569

>North African Neolithic sites further reinforce the model of an Iberian intrusion into the Maghreb.

I don't think the Euroblood made it to Egypt though.

Thats because the Sherden were subdued and became subject to the Egyptian Pharoah as evidenced by them fighting for the Pharoah in the latter wars to the north in the fertile crescent.

I recall reading that there was a substantial migration of Caucasoids into the Horn of Africa in the Neolithic, and that Ethiopians, Somalis, Sudanese, etc are basically the result. It's also worth considering that East Africans and Horners may always have been much more closely related to non-SSA groups due to the latter originating with the OOA, who exited the continent via the Horn

The issue is that people hold the concept of race to the standards set for defining 'species', and so groups such as Horners, whose ethnogenesis appears to have been an ancient mixing of Caucasoid and [possibly] Negroid groups, are put forward as proof that 'race doesn't exist'

I'm not sure I see your point. We're talking about how modern Egyptians drifted towards modern North Africans. The "ancient Egyptians" are Bronze Age people at most. The "Neolithization of North Africa" is an event twice as old as ancient Egypt itself, the North Africans had been Iberianized for millennia by the time the Egyptian people whose descendants would become modern Egyptians started mixing with them.

North Africans have more negroid admixture than Bedouins

cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)31008-5

West Africans aren't all that different from ancient East Africans without Caucasoid admixture, compared to the San.

North Africans are not niggers for the last time.

The main issue is "what the fuck is a race anyway"
I'm quite happy to talk about the existence of an "Ethio-Somali component" emerging at k=12, I don't know that an Ethio-Somali race would be an useful concept. Is your Caucasoid race a combination of the Eurasian, European, Arabian and Maghrebi ancestries on these maps?

They're still less swarthy or semitic, and the Egyptian depictions of Lybians rather confirm this has been the case for a while. Again, I'm not sure what your point is.

All humans are some shade of brown.

Bantu is only one type of Congoid idiot and the niggers Afromericans come from arent even Bantu.

Faccetta nera
Bell'Abissina

That's rather rude to tyrosinase-deficient people, like albinos and our pink-skinned cousins from the British Isles.

So, was the Tanzania_Luxmanda from 1000 BC Ethio-Somali?

He appears close to the root of the modern East African Caucasoid cline, yet not inside it. Basically he was a purer version of Ethiopians and Somalis.

Given how he clusters with those unidentified gray dots midway between modern Western African and Eastern African ancestry, and which probably correspond to the dots in Southwest Ethiopia/Tanzania right above where he was found, I'm going to guess he represents the separate "Ethiopic" component you see in purple at k=11 or k=12, of which we do have surprisingly pure living examples (Ari people.)
But that's seriously a pure guess.

>Western-Eurasian-related ancestry is pervasive in eastern Africa today (Pagani et al., 2012, Tishkoff et al., 2009), and the timing of this admixture has been estimated to be ∼3,000 BP on average (Pickrell et al., 2014). We found that the ∼3,100 BP individual (Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP), associated with a Savanna Pastoral Neolithic archeological tradition, could be modeled as having 38% ± 1% of her ancestry related to the nearly 10,000-year-old pre-pottery farmers of the Levant (Lazaridis et al., 2016), and we can exclude source populations related to early farmer populations in Iran and Anatolia.


>While these findings show that a Levant-Neolithic-related population made a critical contribution to the ancestry of present-day eastern Africans (Lazaridis et al., 2016), present-day Cushitic speakers such as the Somali cannot be fit simply as having Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP ancestry. The best fitting model for the Somali includes Tanzania_Luxmanda_3100BP ancestry, Dinka-related ancestry, and 16% ± 3% Iranian-Neolithic-related ancestry

YALL

I'm having trouble reconciling all this but I'll give it a shot.
I'll use pic related (A and B are much like the k=11 and k=12 from my previous pic, but trimmed down to 4 horn africans) taken from
researchgate.net/figure/305985032_fig2_Figure-2-Analysis-of-Ari-ancestry-ADMIXTURE-analyses-of-the-Ari-and-neighbouring

Since Afars have more of whatever that blue bar is in A, I'm going to assume it's combined Arabian and Maghrebin (basically "Caucasoid") ancestry, since Afars, Amharas etc sharply and consistently present more of it than Somalis. The purple in A is essentially synonymous with Nilo-Saharan ancestry, leaving our mysterious Ethiopic/Ari component in yellow.

In B this is all muddled by the emergence of the Ethio-Somali ancestry in green. The Nilo-Saharan is still there but smaller in blue-gray (some of it evidently shifted green), and we see a noticeable brown bar in Afars that is almost certainly recent and Yemeni. We have that clusterfuck of minor (mostly Eurasian) ancestries in the middle, which is absent in Ari blacksmiths but lightly present in cultivators, the non-brown Caucasoid ancestry in Afars.

Now in the article you cite they talk of three ancestries for Somalis.
In any case, "Dinka-related ancestry" would have to be Nilo-Saharan with perhaps other SSA, and Iranian-Neolithic-related ancestry is certainly the Southwest Asian combination in A or clusterfuck of Eurasian ancestries in B.
In A, this means Luxmanda would be the yellow Ethiopic/Ari compoenent, but in B Luxmanda is the only plausible candidate for Ethio-Somali, in that case Ethiopic/Ari is essentially unrelated to Luxmanda.

>the ancient Egyptians were pretty much pure Arabs

By the way, I seriously think Ari ancestry may be the most interesting direction here, check this too. While they ultimately dismiss the remnant hypothesis based on calculations I didn't try to understand, they discuss all hypotheses:
journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1005397

If they're right to favor the marginalisation/bottleneck hypothesis then Ethiopic/Ethio-Somali distinction is largely artificial (or rather it appeared because of relatively caste-based isolation of one Ethiopic group.)

Well they were more closely related to Bedouins and Jordanians than to any other people on Earth, I'm not sure how else to spin this.

you mean Bedouins and Palestinians are more closely related to ancient Egyptians than any other people on earth including modern Egyptians.

I spin for you, it's ok.

"Bedouins Arabs are the true descendants of the ancient Egyptians, the last pureblooded Pharaohs of this great Bronze-Age civilization who took refuge in the Arabian desert !"
This could get many clicks.

Middle eastern people and jews all look like Evil Neanderthals for me

>Ptolemaic (Greek) Dynasty
but greek werent white

who is that woman?

obligatory Coptpost

I mean yeah they are, that one sample from 4500 is interesting but doesn't tell us as much as the wide studies that have been conducted on Eastern Africans

The Ethiopic gene is the unmixed East African gene and the Ethio Somali is the West Eurasian Admixture

The Ethiopic has as much genetic distance as Europeans do to South Asians but is closer to other africans than anything else. Basically is very unique but related without outside admixture. Which makes sense when you understand that the horners adapted to extreme altitudes.

Jessica Kahawaty
Lebanese Christian

...

...

Neither looks Ancient Egyptian.

Face it, Ethiopians (Hadeshas) are the closest related living group.

No.

We wuz traps

God, you again? Youre making me embarrassed to be habesha

As an Ethiopian pls stop we've got our own shit we don't need to WE WUZ

> Hannibal
> Black

Do they not know the people of Carthage were Phoenician?

every nigga ever in da histury of da world wuz black til da emansipayshun of slaves in da US of A
but da white boi wont tell u dat in skool

#knowthyself

You seem to be implying that Phoenicians were not black.

Well at this point it's like saying Malians were possibly white.

Stop LARP-ing. It's obvious they were darker than the Persians because they lived under extreme heat (Egypt is mostly a desert), but they were not negroids or black in modern sense of the word, that has already been proven. It's like claiming that Alexander the Great was KANG just because he was depicted as brown in the Roman mosaic while Darius III was depicted as lighter even though from everyhing we know Alexander was the complete opposite of 'brown'.

It's obvious that ancient Egyptians saw themselves differently from BOTH the Nubians and the Persians.

>Yes, they were integrated
They were integrated to the point they're mentioned as a curiosity? lol
Anyway, where is the mixed population that should have resulted?

>where is the mixed population that should have resulted?
Are you saying modern Egyptians have no SSA admixture, that Upper Egypt isn't half-black, that widescale racemixing is necessary for a multicultural society or what? Help me out there.

>widescale racemixing is necessary for a multicultural society
Well that should be the expected result after several centuries. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept of "integration"?

>posts 50 cherrypicked images and argues that you can't follow a river against it's flow