![Weihrauchopfer_RamsesIII_aus_KV11[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GZroZ8p.jpg "Weihrauchopfer_RamsesIII_aus_KV11[1].jpg")
What race were the Ancient Egyptians, /his/?
Mixed African / European / Semitic
They were pure white Nordic Aryans.
>>308638
ARYANID, BUT THE EGYPTIAN PEOPLE ITSELF AS A WHOLE WAS COMPRISED OF SEVERAL ETHNICITIES, SOME MORE ARYAN, OR LESS ARYAN, THAN OTHERS.
>>308652
NONE OF THOSE TERMS INDICATE THE NAME OF A RACE.
Nilo-Saharan, Cushitic, Nilotic, Ethiopic, proto-Semitic, neo-berber
>>308652
They have no European ancestry at all until Roman occupation.
Stop.
The ancient race of kings
Coptic.
>>308662
>aryanid
this tripfag
Black as they come, nigga.
>>308638
Egyptian.
They were a mixture of Berbers, Cushitic people, Nubians, and West Asians who initially settled into Egypt from the Niolitic times.
They were the kingly race
>>308638
A race of memes
>>308706
>>308679
>>308652
All wrong, the climate change changed caused widespread movements of peoples around 3000 years ago.
That's when Blacks started to encroach upon northern territory.
Consider the whole population if Egypt at 4000 BC was no greater than 4,000 people.
North Africa had a native NEANDERTHAL POPULATION, so that rules out BLACKS seeing that they pride themselves on not being Neanderthals.
All N.Africans have Neanderthal DNA.
Blacks started mixing with Eurasians about 3000BC due to climate change.
Egyptian.
You know? The brown skinned, largely dark haired, and dark eyed people who still live there?
>>308933
>encroach
What are you talking about Black Africans are the oldest population in North Africa and DNA proves that.
3K my ass.
>>308956
That's 5KYA you stupid piece of garbage.
>>308933
Black africans are part Neanderthal. Even the so called "pure" Khoisan.
There was a back migration into Africa which spread Neanderthal genetics far and wide.
>>308969
Starting about 2000BC.
I think its called Lord of the Rings. kek
>>308961
Wrong you stupid piece of shit.
>the results show that the most ancient haplogroup is L3*, which would have been introduced to North Africa from eastern sub-Saharan populations around 20,000 years ago. Our results also point to a less ancient western sub-Saharan gene flow to Tunisia, including haplogroups L2a and L3b. This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 BP.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21082907
>>309001
20000 years ago, go to hell.
>>309008
Mad or nah?
Roundhead art period confirms the antiquity of black Africans in the Sahara of North Africa :3
>>309023
I'll tell you what, you've cheered me up this evening.
>>309035
You have to laugh to keep from crying.
It's okay, I know it must hurt to smash you naive idea that carriers of a neolithic gene that expresses light skin in fact were no in Africa before the neolithic
But it's okay! Everyday we are smashing that assumption :-))
There were sub Saharan elements if that's what you're asking
Quick recap on neolithic Egyptian history for everybody:
Around 4,000 BC there was a culture group called Naqada. They were located in Upper (southern) Egypt. This is around the time that the Middle Egyptian Badari culture disappeared. To the North (Lower Egypt) there was the Buto-Ma'adi culture group and in Nubia there was A-Group.
Naqada went through 3 phases (I,II,III) which show continuity in art and the development of a class system probably beginning with merchant fortunes. A lot of contact with A-Group evident in tombs, which grow from cist-graves to mud brick buildings until finally you get Mastabas which are considered monumental architecture and clearly predict the pyramids. You also see the largest Naqada population and religious centres become major cities and cult sites which persist well into Roman times.
Naqada III (with the mastabas) is also the 'Protodynastic' or 'Pre-Dynastic' period, when it is believed Narmer unified Upper and Lower egypt. Also the period where writing is invented, and the beginning of the Egyptian redistributive economy and bureaucracy.
tl;dr
Egyptian culture and civilization developed alongside but independent of Nubian culture and civilization
There is near perfect continuity between the culture of Upper Egypt in 4,000 BC and the final 'Egyptian' product of the Early/Old Dynastic.
>>308638
North African/Semitic while their slaves being Sub-Saharan oongaboongas
>>309299
So where are those people? Mixed in with the conquerors?
>>309299
> This is around the time that the Middle Egyptian Badari culture disappeared. To the North (Lower Egypt) there was the Buto-Ma'adi culture group and in Nubia there was A-Group.
>Naqada went through 3 phases (I,II,III) which show continuity in art and the development of a class system probably beginning with merchant fortunes. A lot of contact with A-Group evident in tombs, which grow from cist-graves to mud brick buildings until finally you get Mastabas which are considered monumental architecture and clearly predict the pyramids.
To clarify those statements: The position of bodies and style of grave (cist) are consistent with Badari culture. The evidence for A-Group contact is in grave goods found within the tombs, beginning with cist graves and continuing into Mastabas. Goods like gold, ivory, iirc some exotic masks, all came from Nubia and demonstrate trade contacts and the advent of exotic displays of wealth and status.
>>309322
Well the Naqadans didn't overwhelm the Buto-Ma'adi. There is continuity of settlement, and clear signs that Naqada simply assimilated them even prior to unification.
These 'native' peoples, we'll call them, probably badari/buto/naqada, never left and would have comprised the population of ancient Egypt, and probably continue to live there today as copts.
Occupied in any meaningful way until the Arab conquests and even that was probably negligible. The Persians, Greeks and Romans stuck to a few cities and didn't mingle with locals much.
I'm just trying to demonstrate that Egyptian culture remained independent and continuous from 4,000 BC until ~565 BC. Within that period Egypt had 3 periods of foreign rule but none as long as the Persian conquest (230~ years). and only 1 foreign dynasty ruled both kingdoms iirc. Hyksos for instance only ruled Lower Egypt.
>>309314
No, they were not Semitic.
Egyptian is a unique branch of AfroAsiatic.
>>309350
Figure D, top to bottom: Buto-Ma'adi, Badari, Naqada, Nudia
Naqada occupy the bend above the first cataract. Abydos/Thebes/Luxor region.
>>308638
Ancient Egyptians were a mix of Native Egyptians, Berbers and Nubians.
Native Egyptians made up the majority.
Nubians ruled the pre-dynasty Lower Kingdoms for aprox 3000 years.
Berbers were the primary slave class.
Eventually during the Hellenistic Period, other peoples, such as Arabs, Greeks, Romans, Thracians, etc... also mixed in.
Deal with it.
No Empire was a "single race".
"Single Race" and "Empire" are literal contradictions.
>>309438
>Pre Dynastic Lower Kingdoms
>Kingdoms
>3000 years
>>309299
>>309323
>>309358
>>309350
>>309376
No evidence that Naqada was Nubian in origin. No evidence for anything resembling 'kingdoms' until Naqada II (c. 3500 BC).
Nubians were located beyond the 1st and 2nd cataracts (including A-Group culture), not at Luxor, and the largest and earliest examples of large military architecture in ancient egypt are fortresses to occupy Nubia and guard against nubian invasion.
There is less evidence that Egypt has Nubian origins then there is for Atlantis.
>>309469
No one mentioned Naqada but you.
As for Kingdoms, yet there were.
A Kingdom is defined by size and organization, not by industry, written history, etc.
I also didn't say Upper Egypt was Nubian.
There is a clear distinction between Classical Ancient Egypt and Egypt as a land.
I am referring to the latter.
To claim there were no civilizations in the South, and that the South was not populated by Nubians is a direct lie.
>>309469
And, to slap you in the face, here:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubia#Prehistory
Stop being a pseudo-intellectual and read something that contradicts your self-serving beliefs and change already.
>>308638
>>309493
>No one mentioned Naqada but you.
Naqada separates Nubia and Lower Egypt. It also supplanted Lower Egyptian culture.
In case you're confused Lower=North and Upper=South.
>A Kingdom is defined by size and organization, not by industry, written history, etc.
Yeah, and that organization in Naqada manifests in Phase II. Every organized group does not a kingdom make.
>To claim there were no civilizations in the South, and that the South was not populated by Nubians is a direct lie.
There was civilization to the south. In Egypt proper that was Naqada. In Nubia that was A-Group and whatever predated A-Group.
>>309497
This complexity as observed at Nabta Playa, and as expressed by different levels of authority within the society there, likely formed the basis for the structure of both the Neolithic society at Nabta and the Old Kingdom of Egypt.[5]
Nabta Playa is in the middle of the desert, it pre-dates the Early Dynastic Period by 6,000 years, and the culture has parallels in the south Sahara.
>>309520
You're 100% incorrect though.
Naqada separated Upper and Lower Egypt.
At this point you're a pathological lair, and all pathological liars have ulterior motives.
Pic provided to prove you're a liar.
>>309497
>>309520
>Around the turn of the protodynastic period, Naqada, in its bid to conquer and unify the whole Nile Valley, seems to have conquered Ta-Seti (the kingdom where Qustul was located) and harmonized it with the Egyptian state. Thus, Nubia became the first nome of Upper Egypt. At the time of the first dynasty, the A-Group area seems to have been entirely depopulated,[1] most likely due to immigration to areas west and south.
So here your own link says that Naqada conquered the Nubians, who ran in the opposite direction of Egypt.
Earlier it said that Naqada and A-Group were similar, but the source was some d-rate non-referencing 1999 website. Also said A-Group nubians helped in unification but provided no source... and then this was the next paragraph.
>>309520
btw I mean parallels ONLY in the south/subsahara. As in it either died out in the desert, or migrated south. No Nilotic connection.
From the A-Group article:
>The A-Group Culture was an ancient civilization that arose between the First and Second Cataracts of the Nile in Nubia.
>A-Group royal tombs were found to be two centuries older than those of the Egyptians. However, further research has demonstrated that this is no longer the case:
So either you are asserting that Naqada, the civilization that culturally assmilated the Nile Valley and unified Upper and Lower Egypt was Nubian, or you are posting bullshit.
0, zero, no evidence at all to support the position that Egypt has Nubian foundations.
>>309548
No stupid.
There were multiple kingdoms.
The two primary where upper [naq.] and lower [nub.]
Upper conquered lower.
Conquered doesn't mean ran away.
It's means they became one.
Secondly, you're using the Haplo Culture Group Cultures, which are Bronze Age.
I'm using pre-historic Paleolithic and Neolithic references.
You can't use Broze Age information to discount an argument about neolithic proto-culture.
Accept the citations. Get your head out of your ass.
This IS NOT the history:
>"Nubia isn't Egypt; Upper conquered Lower, and that means Lower ran away"
You don't even know what the word conquered means.
*facepalm*
>>309541
Entire paragraph is wrong and I already ripped apart two out of three sentences.
Nabta Playa is dated to c. 8,000 BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabta_Playa
Additionally the most important gods to the Naqadans were Horus and Osiris, associated with the largest centers between 3500 BC and 2800 BC, Heirakopolis and Abydos.
Proponents of the Nabta Playa theory emphasis Hathor. Naqada I and II art are primarily about hunting and fertility, not cattle.
'Ethnically and culturally very similar' is a 1999 bullshit website and a cranial analysis.
'The nubian culture may even have contributed...'
In what way? A-Group was run out in the next paragraph. Please edit better bullshit into wikipedia.
>>309566
>There were multiple kingdoms.
Nothing resembling Kingdoms in the Luxor region until Naqada II. No evidence that these kingdoms were in competition at the time. No evidence of military expansion at all during Naqada II or most of Naqada III.
>The two primary where upper [naq.] and lower [nub.]
Nothing to suggest that Nubia was unified into a kingdom. Your Wiki article as no citation there, buddy.
>Conquered doesn't mean ran away.
From your 'source'
>Around the turn of the protodynastic period, Naqada, in its bid to conquer and unify the whole Nile Valley, seems to have conquered Ta-Seti (the kingdom where Qustul was located) and harmonized it with the Egyptian state. Thus, Nubia became the first nome of Upper Egypt. At the time of the first dynasty, the A-Group area seems to have been entirely depopulated,[1] most likely due to immigration to areas west and south.
>Accept the citations. Get your head out of your ass.
I already addressed Nabta, your other statements are irrelevant, misrepresented, or unsourced.
>You don't even know what the word conquered means.
>At the time of the first dynasty, the A-Group area seems to have been entirely depopulated,[1] most likely due to immigration to areas west and south.
>>309572
Let me correct you in the way true academics correct stupid people.
By enumerating points:
1.) You're claiming an academic citation is less accurate than your proclamations.
2.) You have provided zero citations.
3.) You keep saying the Bronze age came BEFORE the Neolithic age.
4.) You claim only Naq is "Egypt Proper".... calling something "Proper" when it is not, is a clear tactic that revisionists use. I feel like I'm talking to a Stormfront loser.
5.) You deny that Nubia had 3000 BC culture even when provided with citations.
6.) You just reject citations while providing none of your own.
7.) You used the infamous wikipedia fallacy, not touching on it's own citations.
8.) You claim conquering means "the conquered people run away"... it means they absorbed them. It only has two meanings: totally destroy or absorbed them.
9.) Horus and Osiris aren't even Early Bronze Age. How do you not know this?
Osiris even has an earlier prototype; Andjety.
10.) You aren't focusing on the origin story at all.
You focus on late bronze.
They're Semites, modern day ones near the coast probably have a lot of Greek in them too
>>309615
>Citation?
Why Americans care so much about this? Do they realize that the Sahara desert is between West Africa and the Egypt.
This is like if Iranians claimed they were samurai because they are Asian.
>>309615
>Semites
No, Afro-Asiatics. They're in their own group within Afro-Asiatic.
>>309629
>Greek colonies on the coast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naucratis
Greeks spread out quite a bit, although none were permanent. To say "A lot" is an understatement, but there was most likely some Egyptian-Greek mixture going in some amount, especially as time went on. Egypt was a huge crossroads in the Roman period as well.
>Egyptian is Afro-Asiatic
http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450ch/reports/afro-asiatic.html
The "We wuz kings" thing is a joke for a reason. The average African American physically could not be descended from Egyptians as 1) There is no relation between the Egyptians and Sub-Saharan Africans nor was there any (Extended) contact. Nubians are not Sub-Saharan Africans, they are Nilo-Saharans, 2) The Sub-Saharans would have to cross the largest desert on Earth diagonally to get from Western Africa to Egypt.
>>309611
>1.) You're claiming an academic citation is less accurate than your proclamations.
Half of the Wikipedia articles statements are not cited. Those that are seem dubious or simply are not relevant to the dominance of Naqada/Nubia because they just don't have pertinent information.
For instance Nabta Playa... and connection to Naqadan rituals is a leap at best and other than 'see this was here, and they also liked cows' there is no connection proven.
>2.) You have provided zero citations.
Lots of reading on the subject and revisiting The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt.
>3.) You keep saying the Bronze age came BEFORE the Neolithic age.
Not at all. I was just confused at your 'Lower Kingdom' claims since I was clearly talking about Upper/Lower bronze age kingdoms in my lead up to bronze age continuity. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
>5.) You deny that Nubia had 3000 BC culture even when provided with citations.
Not at all. We disagree on the influence it played on Egyptian unification, on Naqada culture (which is the direct predecessor of Pharaonic Egypt), and which of the two was dominant.
Also I guess on the organization of it.
>>309611
>>309680
>8.) You claim conquering means "the conquered people run away"... it means they absorbed them. It only has two meanings: totally destroy or absorbed them.
Your Wikipedia article link asserts that after being conquered the A-Group people migrated.
>9.) Horus and Osiris aren't even Early Bronze Age. How do you not know this?
>9.) Horus and Osiris aren't even Early Bronze Age. How do you not know this?
What do you mean? I am saying that Horus and Osiris were the dominant gods of neolithic naqada (assuming the bronze age begins around 3200 BC?). Though now that I look at the Pallet of Narmer, I see Hathor is on there with Horus so Hathor was obviously more important that I gave credit for in an earlier post. Still, Naqada I & II pottery is most hunting which you can observe for yourself.
>10.) You aren't focusing on the origin story at all.
You focus on late bronze.
????
Neolithic expansion from the Middle East spread similar cultures to Europe and Africa (Sudan).
Between 4000BC and 3000BC these cultures mixed together with the Sub Saharans and the Native Europeans.
Burials from Southern Egypt and Germany show evidence of an influence from the same Macro Culture coming from the Middle East.
>>309759
I would like to know what influence that is, and some examples of it?
>>308638
> Ancient Egyptians
Which period?
>>309770
> http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.ie/2014/07/gebel-ramlah-footnote.html
North of the Dead Sea in the Levant there is an ongoing archaeological study of Tell Hammam, around the settlement at Tell Hammam there lies 100's of Dolmens, we see these Dolmens across N.Africa, Iberia, France, and Britain.
Around 4000 BC they started appearing with frequency in Ireland.
>>309818
I never said that, I said a culture spread out of the Middle East that influence Europe and Africa.
>>309809
Meh, I would need a lot more time to dig into that. That burial position isn't really that strange and that position is supposed have an antedate of 4,000 BC.
I said that because Naqada burials are like that, and they show continuity with earlier (Pre-4,000 BC presumably) Badari burials.
Plus it seems like a pretty simply custom to develop independently.
Still, I'll keep that in mind to look into more.
>>309653
Fucking /thread. Give him a medal or something.
>>309653
You do realize Nilo-Saharans not only exist in West Africa but also that they are the foundation of West African society right?
Kanem is Tebu related and that is the basis for Sahelian African society. Hausa are nilo-saharans, Fulani have North African and Nilo-Saharan ancestry, Mande speakers have nilo-Saharan affinities as do Songhai.
Stop being so uneducated so confidently.
>>309842
pic related serves the same purpose as a pyramid, only in Egypt they were influenced by the Middle East (Levant) directly, hence the Egyptians evolved their practice of tomb building to the zenith which was Step Pyramids and Pyramids.
>>309848
>>309809
>>309902
Go back to stormfront, no serious archaeologist agrees with this retarded picture
>>309896
cont -
>>309916
What they look like today.
>>309902
Not disagreeing with the migration theory, only the culture spreading thing. And even then I don't reject it's possible... just that a pretty rudimentary burial is a very small thing to extract such a big conclusion from.
For instance burials in Siberia have armor in them similar in style to Myceneaen armor, as well as gold masks ala grave circles A and B. Doesn't mean theres a connection.
>>309915
>stormfront
Never visited that site in my entire life.
Everything in that image is accurate.
R1B spread Chadic language.
Mega Chad started to dry up 5000 years ago.
Agriculture spread from the Middle East, see pic related
>>309916
Tholos tomb!
Here is a sketch of the Treasury of Atreus, although this is from the late bronze age and a very late development for the Greeks.
>>309931
>>308638
can't we talk about something other than the egyptian's race? can't we celebrate their artistic achievements without "muh genetics"? fuck.
>>309926
Most modern Chadic speakers like Hausa are Nilo-Saharans. As anyone who spends time reading genetics of the region would know, it's a recent shift.
>>309964
Genetics have shown that R1B V88 is correlated to the spread of the Chadic branch of the family.
>>309944
If you think the concept was ported to Crete, then maybe they have the same source?
Tholos tombs are representative of Myceneaens, now wealthy, emulating Minoan customs. There was a lot of interaction especially in art and architecture so it makes a lot of sense especially with their increased wealth during the period.
Your dates match up roughly with the migration and the advent of beehive burials on Crete.
>>309974
Research also shows the exploitation of wild grass seeds long before the creation of Afro-Asiatic speaking peoples. To assume the people who were utilizing krebs for thousands of years before the formation of the Afro Asiatic family didn't also domesticate the grains is silly and not backed by any real researcher.
>>309979
pic related
>>309990
tfw you've been had
>>309809
cont -
Dolmen Fields
>>308638
>>308638
Closest living people to them or the descendants the the Beja people, who stretch from southern Egypt, northern Sudan all the way to northern Eritrea
>>309498
dumb frog poster
>>308638
same people that are there now, whatever you want to call them
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11006048
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1216069/
>>308662
STOP TYPING LIKE THIS
IT IS THE CRINGIEST THING I EVER SAW HERE
>>310360
The basis of Egyptians is pre-Afro asiatic, I am speaking less on the linguistic groups of today and more so the kinds of people.
Ethio-Somali, Nilo-Saharan and Ethiopic are genetic groups that existed far longer than the time of Afro Asiatic formation.
>>310394
I'm not talking about languages either, I'm talking about the Y-chromosome E haplogroups (that constitute the majority of Egyptians, Berber and East Africans), it started in North Africa and spread south, not the other way around.
>>310418
We don't know it's exact origin, the Sahara has had several green periods in the past 100K years.
Every year we add another piece to the puzzle but I wouldn't say it started "north" when almost all populations in Africa at that time were north.
>>310432
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v22/n12/full/ejhg201441a.html
>is present within macrohaplogroup E that seem to have appeared 21000–32000 YBP somewhere between the Red Sea and Lake Chad
Even if we pretended we don't know where the E haplogroup started, we DO know that Egyptians always had it (to this day) and it's not the result of migration, so why would you label them "Ethiopic" or "Cushitic"?
>>310394
>The basis of Egyptians is pre-Afro asiatic
that's totally bullshit too, btw, unless you want to go back to pre-out of africa times
>>310460
Lake chad to the Red Sea is not north when all Africans other than Khoisan lived exactly in that region.
I'm trying to use accessible language instead of posting papers like this that people don't even both reading or even understanding
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393
>>310509
The basis of Egyptian people is before the Neolithic Subpluvial and there is a clear progression of technologies to show it extended before the advent of Afro-Asiatic language.
So stop with the BS, the archaeological record shows it.
>>310526
>Lake chad to the Red Sea is not north when all Africans other than Khoisan lived exactly in that region.
source?
>I'm trying to use accessible language instead of posting papers like this that people don't even both reading or even understanding
You just posted a paper that contradicted what you were saying.
From your own source:
>Like the Ethio-Somali, the Maghrebi IAC in North African populations derives from a early back-to-Africa migration [34], [43], [61], [99]–[102]. Studies of North African populations reveal a complex layered history of admixture in North Africa, with an inferred pre-Last Glacial Maximum settlement of North Africa by a non-African population followed by gene flow from European, Middle Eastern, and sub-Saharan African populations dating from the end of the LGM to the recent past [43], [103]–[105].
>The basis of Egyptian people is before the Neolithic Subpluvial and there is a clear progression of technologies to show it extended before the advent of Afro-Asiatic language.
That's not true at all, also, is it just a coincidence that all E hapologroup populations are also Afro-Asiatic speakers?
>So stop with the BS, the archaeological record shows it.
enlighten me.
Predominantly Semetic with a smattering of black in the north and predominantly black with a smattering of Semetic. Possible a tiny amount of Hyksos and other invades/neighbors of other ethnic makeups, but likely not enough to be notable outside of a DNA test.
>>310613
My source is not contrary to anything I said. Anyone who know about African history knows Africa received a very ancient bad migration, that being said it was before the formation of stable Western Eurasian populations from Europe down to the middle east.
They are by and large a product of a distinct set of people who are not the people most would call Berber, Arab or Semitic. Those groups are very new and recent to Africa.
>Source
There is no population of people who lived in the forest zones of Africa, we have records of only Khoisan populations along the eastern perimeter of Africa and down.
There is evidence of very ancient African people in North Africa >>309001
And we also have the remains of various peoples who are within the phenotypical range of people now most commonly having L haplogroups throughout north Africa.
>>308638
None. Race is a social construct. They are technically whatever the general population believes them to be. They are Ethnically Ancient Egyptian, that is fact. They seemed to draw themselves differently from Black Africans, Semitic peoples, and Greek Europeans, so we can only assume their "race" was separate from all others around them as they considered themselves a separate social entity from those other peoples.
>>310664
Egyptians split from Semites around 20,000 years ago, they are cousins not ancestors. Also. the north had almost no black/sub-saharan admixture, and it's less than 30% in the south (that includes very recent salve trade)
>>310684
>My source is not contrary to anything I said.
Yes, it does, it contradicts everything you have been saying so far.
>Anyone who know about African history knows Africa received a very ancient bad migration, that being said it was before the formation of stable Western Eurasian populations from Europe down to the middle east.
WTF
>There is no population of people who lived in the forest zones of Africa, we have records of only Khoisan populations along the eastern perimeter of Africa and down.
Here's a heatmap of african populations:
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/pubs/gdp/pop/gif/afmodel2.gif
Pretty much covers all of Africa with the exception of the Sahara and Kalahari deserts.
>There is evidence of very ancient African people in North Africa
There's evidence of CONTRIBUTION from (mostly Eastern) sub-Saharans to North African populations, that's completely different from being one of the same. And as I said, all North and East African populations are predominantly Afro-Asiatics (i.e. back-to-Africa populations)
>And we also have the remains of various peoples who are within the phenotypical range of people now most commonly having L haplogroups throughout north Africa.
First of all L is a mitochondrial haplogroup, second, it's almost non-existent in Egypt, and is only common in Tunisians (48%) and East Africans (50-70%), and absolutely nobody else in North Africa, which means it's probably just a single migration from East Africa to Tunisia, not something that all North Africans shared.
>>310793
Sub-Saharan African is a misnomer when you have evidence of L showing up several times in Tunisia for example beginning over 20K years ago.
You may have misunderstood my words but I am not stating anything contrary.
Horners have descended mainly from two groups that are unique to North Eastern Africa, the ancestry of one group Ethio-Somali has and is seen throughout North Africa to this day.
The people we call Berbers are not the same as the people who inhabited North Africa for most of history, the Berbers of today are migrants who absorbed such people and are a part of recent migration from the later pasotralist period of the Neolithic Subpluvial coming in contact with various indigenous populations.
Afro-Asiatic is a recent language group, the people existed before the language group. Afro-Asiatic is not an accurate term to describe the foundational population of Egyptians.
30K years ago a population returned, say what you will but these people are still Africans who formed not from admixture but divergence. Admixture with Eurasians came much later.
Nice try though :^)
Why is this even an argument? If you look at their statues and paintings and shit they look like modern Egyptians, so why is it so hard do believe that they are one and the same when there has historically been relatively little actual settlement of outsiders in the already densely-populated region? Seriously, I get that this is a bait thread, but why is this even an argument at all?
>>310526
>So stop with the BS, the archaeological record shows it.
The archaeological record shows a clear cut attesting to the arrival of a new people from the middle east.
>>310819
>Sub-Saharan African is a misnomer when you have evidence of L showing up several times in Tunisia for example beginning over 20K years ago.
What exactly are you talking about here? L only appears in Tunisians and almost nowhere else outside Sub-Saharan Africa (except for Yemen), why exactly wouldn't it be called "Sub-Saharan"? exception makes the rule?
>You may have misunderstood my words but I am not stating anything contrary.
err..maybe? stop being so ambiguous then.
>The people we call Berbers are not the same as the people who inhabited North Africa for most of history.
Not sure what you mean by "most of history", we KNOW current Berbers are at least 20,000 old (~LGM), there was however another wave of back-to-africa migration that began in the neolithic, but there's genetic continuity from BOTH periods to this day, and it's all traceable.
>Afro-Asiatic is a recent language group, the people existed before the language group.
Sure, but the relationship between the language group and the people who speak it is obvious, and it could be attributed to the neolithic second wave.
>30K years ago a population returned, say what you will but these people are still "Africans"
What the heck does "African" even mean to you?
>who formed not from admixture but divergence. Admixture with Eurasians came much later.
The admixture was more likely to be with Neanderthals, and yes Eurasians, as we know the Near East is where a lot of interbreeding with Neanderthals happened.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474783/
>>310694
The Calchians were descendants of earlier Egyptian armies, left in Colchis by the Pharoah Sesostris III, meaning Egyptians were already beginning to civilize Greeks around coastal Turkey, and ultimately interbred with.
Isnt there some hermit tribe out somewhere in the sahara that can trace its lineage back before the fall of Egypt to the Muslims?
>>310819
>Nice try though :^)
>actually thinks he's wining
>>310694
>None. Race is a social construct.
Kill yourself
>>310824
>Why is this even an argument?
African-Americans with self-esteem issue, it's complicated.
>>310868
>Isnt there some hermit tribe out somewhere in the sahara that can trace its lineage back before the fall of Egypt to the Muslims?
No, but Egyptians can.
>>310303
Also, the whole Egyptians became Arabs thing is made up shit, Egyptians were converted not killed ffs, and the ones that weren't, are called Copts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts
>>310872
I got a 100 on an anthropology test that asked whether race was a social construct and I answered yes.
>>310900
Was the class taught by Steven Jay Gould by any chance?
>>310900
Let me guess, American?
>>308638
Caucasian. If you're not a dumbass when it comes to racial science you'll know what i mean by that.
>>310859
>Our data are consistent with the current phylogeographic knowledge displaying the occurrence of sub-Saharan haplogroup L sequences, found in 48.4% of Tunisians and 25% of Moroccans
http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(09)00017-9/abstract
There is not genetic continuity between Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic North African and post-Neolithic Subpluvial North Africa.
My definition of African is any group that's genetic roots are formed within Africa, if say the Ethio-Somali component was shown to have split have have a locus in the Eurasia and horn of Africa I would say that they are Afro-Eurasian but they aren't.
The original human population in Africa in part migrated out to Oman extending the Nubian Complex from the Horn and Nile Valley. A population in time went East, some north, some South.
The population south then formed 30-40K years went back to Africa and became the Ethiopic, North African and Ethio-Somali populations.
Now here is where it gets murky:
These groups may have had contact and intermixture with
Skhul and Qafzeh hominids who existed from the southern Levant through to North Africa from an even older pre-human migration or these Back crossers may have gotten such Neanderthal genetics from other modern human populations who themselves contacted such hominids (this is all up in the air desu, there is no consensus yet in the least)
Regardless these populations then mixed with proto-Nilo-Saharan and proto-Niger-Congo populations.
Then at around the time of the peak of the most recent green Sahara period (because there were many) the southern Western Eurasian population migrated into Africa mixing with populations from The Nile, Red Sea and Darfur eventually migrating into the Saharan Montane finally mixing with North African autochthonous population that gave rise to the populations we now see today the light skinned, afro-Asiatic speakers with further mixing up to present.
For example here is a reconstruction of Mecta Alafou/Kiffians of North Africa
>>308638
I would assume something like this
>But Arab invasions!
You can't cause the geneocide of an entire fucking people in that large a strech of land purelly with iron-age technology; it's fucking unrealistic and you put in all that effort for... what exactly? You want people to convert, not just spread your population in how desolated land
>>310995
>North Africa
You mean Niger? Hardly North Africa but sure.
2,100 kilometres, a flash desertification, and 4,000 years removed from Egyptians.
Versus say..... the Levant or (actual) North Africa?
That's the interesting thing. Ancient Egyptians were pretty unique. AFAIK their language was an isolate.
They are definitely not semitic, because language has no resemblance. The could possibly be berber, but I never actually heard anything relating to that hypotheses.
In the end, what I believe is that Egyptians are simply a people that migrated in prehistory, settled, and were detached from the semitic speaking population (Sinai serving as a buffer), and gradually developing a distinct native language. Eventually they came to dominate Judea and the Levant, parts of Libya (which had Berber population at the time) and down the Nile all the day to the alleged kingz n queenz. Despite this their language isn't Kushitic, Semitic nor Berber.
So who knows?
>>311030
You are incorrect and should know what you're talking about before disagreeing.
>Craniometric data from seven human groups (Tables 3, 4) were subjected to principal components analysis, which allies the early Holocene population at Gobero (Gob-e) with mid-Holocene “Mechtoids” from Mali and Mauritania [18], [26], [27] and with Late Pleistocene Iberomaurusians and early Holocene Capsians from across the Maghreb (see cluster in Figure 6). The striking similarity between these seven human populations confirms previous suggestions regarding their affinity [18] and is particularly significant given their temporal range (Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene) and trans-Saharan geographic distribution (across the Maghreb to the southern Sahara).
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002995
>>311052
>Mali
>Mauritania
>Iberomaurusians
>Capsians
On this map I have highlighted those regions in Purple, and also Gobero (Gob-e).
Egyptian neolithic sites are in red.
Nubian neolithic sites are in blue.
>>311052
From your link:
>(C)-Skeleton (dark-stained) of an early Holocene adult male (G3B8; ∼7515 B.C.E.) buried in supine, hyperflexed posture with hands over the mouth and feet crossed.
Not similar to Egyptian or Nubian burials.
And from one of the citations in your source:
> Results revealed: (1) a relationship between the Iberomaurusians, particularly those from Taforalt, and later Maghreb and other North African samples, and (2) a divergence among contemporaneous Iberomaurusians and Nubian samples. Thus, some measure of long-term population continuity in the Maghreb and surrounding region is supported, whereas greater North African population heterogenity during the Late Pleistocene is implied.
So take your Kiffian crap out of the thread, thank you.
>>309611
Let me correct you in the way true academics correct stupid people
By enumerating points:
1.) You keep crying stormfront whenever something disagrees with you
2.) You keep attacking the person rather than the argument
3.) You just stopped responding after this last gasp of retardation
what has /his/ come to, so soon
>>311094
Your statement was they are based in Niger, I responded by proving your statement is incorrect and that it there are foundational links that connected North African populations together from the Upper Paleolithic to Mesolithic and now into the Early Neolithic with Tassili n'Ajjer in Algeria
I am not arguing that Egyptians are in fact wholly or predominately North African.
I am stating that the formation of Egyptian people is multi-pronged and that by the time of the second phase of the Neolithic subpluvial North African, Ethio-Somali and Nilo-Saharan ancestry was infact the basis of Saharan societies from Mauritania to Egypt as a whole.
Only later near the end of the second half of the NS did Afro-Asiatics come to form a cohesive linguistic basis for Nile populations.
You're constantly changing your goal post. There is genetic and archaeological continuity amongst the various populations of North Africa, there is clear affinities to and from the Earliest populations of Egypt and Northeast Africa.
There is nothing else to prove, I am not denying a West Eurasian component. Merely that it's not foundational, it's a mid-neolithic introduction and that the afroasiatic label you are constantly applying is unfounded
>>311131
Population of Egypt 3500BC is about 4,000 people, in Mesopotamia cities like Eridu had a population of 4,000 people at 4000BC.
The Levant spread into Egypt. The Technological Egypt started in the Delta with direct input from the Levant.
Also Neanderthals were present in North Africa
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474783/
> This excess is similar to that found in non-African humans, a fact that can be interpreted as a sign of Neandertal admixture. Furthermore, the Neandertal's genetic signal is higher in populations with a local, pre-Neolithic North African ancestry.
> Therefore, the detected ancient admixture is not due to recent Near Eastern or European migrations. Sub-Saharan populations are the only ones not affected by the admixture event with Neanderthals.
> We found that North African populations have a significant excess of derived alleles shared with Neanderthals, when compared to sub-Saharan Africans.
This proves that admixture between Eurasians/North Africans and Sub Saharans occurred from around 3000 BC onward.
The admixture was ushered in by collapse of the environment and Neolithic expansion.
>>309902
>>311324
I am not talking about 3,500BC as the foundation of Egyptian people, that's recent in the timeline I am talking about.
By then you have the dessication of the sahara forcing populations to the mountains, coast, Sahel and Nile.
West Eurasians are already in there
>>311324
You, like that study are ignoring older admixture events, your and this study's definition of North African and Sub-Saharan African is obsolete
>>309001
As I stated here.
>>310986
Also you can repost that terribly made picture all you want but it doesn't make it so.
Why do threads like these get so many posts?
It's pretty much unanimously agreed by scholars according to genetic, linguistic and historical evidence that the modern day population of Egypt is about 90% the same as the Ancient population.
With the same general progression of light to dark from north to south.
So was dey kangz or not?
>>311376
>As I stated here.
You do know that L is a paternal ancestor to all Eurasians, right?
>>311376
>Also you can repost that terribly made picture all you want but it doesn't make it so.
Excellent refutation there faggot.
>>311398
No. Take a map. See where Egypt is. Better yet: see where Nubia is. Now see where Western Africa is.
>>311406
No one and I absolutely say this with every fibre in my being
No one. In the archaeological field would ever believe nor state that a population of people can instantly migrate to a region and instantly domesticate a plant
The exploitation of Sahelian grasses pre-dates the intrusion of Eurasians, the gradual changes of morphology seen in plants that are recognized as hallmarks of domestication did not begin with them, it began thousands of years before as all crops took thousands of years to develop.
Your stupidity know no bounds
>>311401
In this case this L is a maternal haplogroup that is a branch of L that exist after the expansion of human groups OOA specifically in North Africa found to be the oldest one in the subregion.
>>311425
If after all this you still haven't gathered that the Neolithic Subpluvial made the very definition of supra or sub saharan Africa pointless then nothing will
Thank goodness the research now is bringing so much to light so in the long run what you say doesn't matter :3
Also no one Fucking cares about kings or queens
>>311450
Ad Hominem is an inequality of refutation.
>>308933
>North Africa had a native NEANDERTHAL POPULATION
You fucking idiot, Neanderthals were a Eurasian species. The reason why North Africans have Neanderthal in them is because most (not all, but most) North Africans are Eurasians who migrated back to Africa some several thousand years ago, not to mention the more recent invasions (especially the Greeks).
>>308987
Nah, Lord of the Rings was more like 100,000 years ago, when Sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Hobbits, Erectus, and some other as of yet unknown species in Africa (found only through DNA) were walking the planet.
>>310986
this was another guy >>311143, thought you went away
OK, so now you're just saying confusing/conflicting shit to muddy things even further.
Here are the on-topic facts, I just want to know if you dispute any of them:
1. Current Egyptian population is largely (~90%) the same one that was there since at least the Neolithic (10,000 years ago).
2. Egyptians are just "Egyptians", they are not "Cushitics" or "Ethiopics" or "Somali" or whatever other bullcrap label/population you want to associate with them.
3. Egyptians are closest to their western neighbours in North Africa (whatever you want to call them), not West Asians and not SS East Africans, though they have affinity to both.
I don't want origin stories or other muddy shit, let's just talk about Egypt (North East Africa) from the introduction of Agriculture to present day, since that's what TT is about.
>>310995
even in chad, further south than egypt the ancients there look more caucasoid than negroid
not black obviously
Image: Amun-her Khepeshef reconstruction
skull of ramses
As white as your moms anus lol
>>312504
>Ramses
He's from Libya, the place that Egyptians called white for a while
something like this
notice the wide mouth and somewhat thin lips that makes they're sucking in their lips
also almond shaped eyes and long eye brows and somewhat broad nose
this is what egyptians look like and have looked like for thousands of years
>>312584
>somewhat broad nose
>4/5 of the people on your pic have thin to medium nose
>>308679
The Greeks would disagree fag.
>>312599
This. Minoans as well, depending on whether you count them as Greek.
>>312476
From 6000BC onward there was an influx of people from the Middle East. That is accepted fact amongst academia. Again later there are further movements into Egypt around 3500BC.
Egypt was a Mediterranean civilization technologically.
The Libyans had a big impact in the population near the end of the New Kingdom.
Also the collapse of the First Kingdom is the end of the original Egyptians, from then on they are an admixture of many peoples including Nubians.
>>312191
>especially the Greeks
The Greeks hardly contributed anything to Egypt (genetically). Actually, almost all of Egypt's non-native genes can be attributed to migration, not invasions, as they mirror the variations in mtDNA too.
>>312626
>From 6000BC onward there was an influx of people from the Middle East. That is accepted fact amongst academia. Again later there are further movements into Egypt around 3500BC.
No, the accepted fact is that the migration happened in several waves, the most significant was in the neolithic, ~10,000 years ago.
>Egypt was a Mediterranean civilization technologically.
East Mediterranean, yes.
>The Libyans had a big impact in the population near the end of the New Kingdom.
Libyans are the same people as Egyptians genetically, any impact they had wouldn't be so obvious, unless it's recorded.
>Also the collapse of the First Kingdom is the end of the original Egyptians, from then on they are an admixture of many peoples including Nubians.
Not true, all studies showed that there is genetic continuity in Egypt from the neolithic to present day, and most admixture with Nubians happened much later.
>>312626
>gypt 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.
>Certainly there was some foreign admixture [in Egypt], but basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times
To be honest, it was mostly the royalty which got intermixed thanks to the numerous royal marriages. Common plebs stayed homogenous since the fucking neolithic, more or less.
>>312665
There are gaps Egyptian prehistory when no one lived along the Nile for at least a 1000 years.
At about 3500BC the population is estimated to be no more than 4,000.
>>312634
Wait, really? That's interesting.
>>312686
True, but the population likely just multiplied thanks to the fertile lands and spread of agriculture, not because of foreign admix.
>>312686
>At about 3500BC the population is estimated to be no more than 4,000.
Would love to see a source for that info.
>>312711
There is none. By 3500 BC there were at least 5 notable settlements along the Nile and probably many smaller ones.
>>312784
>There is none.
Figured, sounded too preposterous.
DEY WUZ BLUE EYE'D AND BLONDE HAIRED ARYANS
US WHITE PPL BUILT DA MOTHAFUKIN PYRAMIDS!!!
WE WUZ DA ANCIENT GREEKS AND ROMANS TOO!!!
WE BUILT DA MOTHAFUKIN COLOSSEUM!!!! MOTHAFUKA!!!!!!!!!!
>art is a reliable portrayal of history
>>312902
deyz iz clearly blonde haired blue eye'd aryans ay brudda!
DA ROMANS WUZ NORDIC MOTHAFUKA!!!!
>>312902
>art isn't a reliable portrayal of history
>but some coins are
Nice cherry picking.
>>308638
Blond haired and blue eyed of course
>>312914
ye das rite mein brudder. we gut da blonde hair and pale skin workin in da sun all day in da nile!
WHITE PPL WUZ EVERYTHANG!!!!111
>>312921
White skin is good in the sun because white reflects heat away but dark skins absorbs the heat
>>312921
>>312885
>>312909
You seem to be really angry
>>312805
Archaeologists and Egyptologists estimate that number by the number of villages and their ability to sustain life.
>>312784
Egypt is a river in the desert, they literally had to get wood from Lebanon for their buildings and temples.
The mummies are all treated wit Resin, a resin taken from the Sap of Cedar trees from Lebanon.
Egypt is a desert, the whole reason for settling it, is its isolation, Egypt is an island in the desert.
> pic unrelated
>>312939
>Archaeologists and Egyptologists estimate that number by the number of villages and their ability to sustain life.
I'd still like to see a source, the 4000 number is way too small for 3500BC Egypt.
>>312971
I heard Bob Brier talk about it, he was echoing what others estimated, there is a good page on wiki that shows the populations of ancient cities.
> pic unrelated
>>309683
>Horus and Osiris were the dominant gods of neolithic naqada (assuming the bronze age begins around 3200 BC?).
>>309653
>all blacks are sub-saharan
You know Nubia and Ethiopia is just around the corner. To say they never mixed is retarded
>>313098
Egyptians literally invented sunscreen for a reason.
>>313098
So white people are not allowed to live in Miami? You know Miami and Egypt are almost parallel, there is a reason people live there in retirement.
>>313014
I just did a quick research, and most estimates put the Egyptian population at the start of the Old Kingdom between 1.5M-5M, that would mean x375 growth in just a thousand years with bronze-age technology, that's insane!
>>313014
>>312686
Are you sure you didn't misremember '35,000' as '3,500'?
Wikipedia cites 'Chandler & Fox (1974)' from Tertius Chandler and Gerald Fox, 3000 Years of Urban Growth as saying there were 20,000 people in Abydos around 3500 BC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities_throughout_history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes
>>313063
Their largest cult centres happen to also be two of the oldest, largest, and wealthiest Naqada and Early Dynastic period settlements/cities.
Cult of Osiris clearly originates in that area, and is clearly a well developed system of worship already. Must predate writing.
Narmer Pallet sets the tone for all future Egyptian Artwork, and it features Horus in one of his canonical forms (a hawk) and in a canonical location (overlooking the victorious pharaoh).
Unless you would like to explain how a complex artistic style developed 'spontaneously' alongside an even more complex religion, the answer is continuity with Naqada. This is evidenced in neolithic artwork containing similar shapes, forms, possess and motifs as later ancient Egyptian art of the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom periods and beyond.
>>313098
>...What? White skin is NOT good in the sun
It's not about the sun, it's about UV rays, the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East don't get nearly as much UV rays as Sub-Saharan Africa, even with less shade. Also, very few would describe Egyptians as "white", they are bronze/brown, and get toasted in the sun, quite adaptly.
>I hope you don't think that's an actual black person shitposting.
I actually do.
>>313161
Well, it's not like white people don't like the heat, it's that UV rays affect them the most due to the smaller amount of melanin.
>>313220
You make a good point there about how the Middle East doesn't get as much UV rays.
This also refutes the "theories" made by Nation of Islam and their cults that black people evolved in the Middle East, instead of Africa.
>>313187
That doesn't make sense as I've read that the earliest settlement at Abydos occurred in Naqada III (3200-3000). How could 20,000 exist there 300 years previously?
> Early Dynastic Egypt Toby A.H. Wilkinson - 2002
> Egypt's Making: The Origins of Ancient Egypt 5000-2000 BC Michael Rice - 2004
What was the increase in America within the last 200 years? 200 million? 300 million?
What was the population of Troy? 100,000 or 200,000? Troy was small, it had a population that has been estimated as low as 2,500 to a high of 10,000. Troy was just a citadel surrounded by some satellite villages.
It is famous because of the tellers of History and it is envisaged as a Babylon by popular culture.
