Were ancient egyptians black?

So are somali amharic and other ethiopian languages.

That study was suspicious though. IIRC they used mummies that were from Greek/Roman times and called Yoruban samples sub-saharan meanwhile ignoring Ethiopian and Somali ones.

No

There are no egyptian hyroglyphs in east africa

I know. So?

/thread

Äijäkupittaa is Finnish

Nope, recent genetical researches have shown, that they weren't.

But their script is descended from Egyptian I think?

Yes

hehehe

are you watching barbie

yea, majority of them would have looked like Northern Ethiopians

Not that I'm one of those who larp about white egyptians or anything, but how can anyone know whether they were black or white-ish? Maybe they were kinda mediterranean? Or maybe they were like this portrait from the roman era, white-ish, like the sandniggers kind of are? I surely don't know, but I think it's weird that people pretend to know the answer in any definite way.

Forgot the file.

The common people are black, but the kings and queens are not black.

The further you go down the nile, the blacker the people become. Also, even the egyptians didn't view themselves as black kangz or whitoids.

This whole topic seem silly to me, but I'm reading about it on wikipedia now. Apparently there is a ginger mummy:

"In 1975, the mummy of Ramesses II was taken to France for preservation. The mummy was also forensically tested by Professor Pierre-Fernand Ceccaldi, the chief forensic scientist at the Criminal Identification Laboratory of Paris, who wrote: "Hair, astonishingly preserved, showed some complementary data - especially about pigmentation: Ramses II was a Red haired cymnotriche leucoderma", that is a fair-skinned person with wavy red hair.[23][24]"

What meme is this?

there weren't some blacks from Nubia (actual Sudan), but native Egyptians were as black or white as they're today, and the only black kangz they had were literal 2 nubian pharaos in the late period

t. ancient egypt pro

there were*

WE WUZ KANGZ N EGYPT N SHIT MAYYYN THEY WUZ FULL LIPPED NEGROES BOY

Maybe because one of the most notable aspects of their culture was preserving their bodies so we CAN see what they look like.

Can you guys just stop already? The ancient egyptians are the same egyptians living there. This meme is so old and boring.

>their language was Afro-Asiatic like Arabic.
Except nobody fucking knows where the Afro-Asiatic languages even originated.

They are indigenous North Africans. Egyptian civilisation began in Upper Egypt so they would have looked like pic related. So not black or white.

someone was white and someone was black. for example, nefertiti was white

they were most likely like other saharan groups like the bedouins or the berbers, who have vary quite a bit visually

tutankhamon was black

No wonder people thought gypsies came from Egypt

No, going by what literally everyone means when they say black, they were not.

Based on what? He has zero prognathism, not a very black thing to have.

Define "black". They had dark skin and lived in Africa but they aren't sub-Saharan Africans so they have different facial features.

fpbp

>that were from Greek/Roman times

Not all of them

>The study, published on 30 May in Nature Communications1, includes data from 90 mummies buried between 1380 bc, during Egypt’s New Kingdom, and ad 425, in the Roman era. The findings show that the mummies’ closest kin were ancient farmers from a region that includes present-day Israel and Jordan. Modern Egyptians, by contrast, have inherited more of their DNA from central Africans.

nature.com/news/mummy-dna-unravels-ancient-egyptians-ancestry-1.22069

>imagine being this much of a brainlet

Not this fucking shit again. Somali and amharic peoples have what black ancestry they do from the local populations they mingled with after migrating to their respetive areas. Do you want to take a guess who doesnt have that local ancestry? Those that did NOT migrate there.

Oh by the way, SSA ancestry is so distinctive it's very easy to detect, so if they indeed were mixed populations like Somali or even Amharics, they would still show some of that SSA component. If you're saying they were like the ancestors of somali and amharic people that didnt yet have sub-saharan ancestry, you may be right. But what I guess you're saying is that they didnt detect the black ancestry because they were looking at the wrong kind. That's assuming somali and amharic people are a pure form of black all by themselves, and not west asian and ssa mixed.

Aristotle says: "Too black a hue marks the coward, as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians.."

And he says : "Why are Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because the bodies of living creatures become distorted by heat, like logs of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair too supports this theory; for it is curlier than other nations, and curliness was as it were the crookedness of hair."

Herodotus said: "the Egyptians said that they considered the Colchians part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; though that indeed counts for nothing, since other peoples are, too; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practised circumcision."

You guys are saying these people were wrong?

Yeah, Egyptians are dark-skinned but they aren't SSA or the way people define "black". This isn't a difficult concept.

People define black as dark skin and woolly haired. This is why indians arent considered black because they have straight hair.

YOUR MOM

Ok, let's say ancient egyptians really are somalis and ethiopians, as untrue that is, then what are the modern egyptians living right now? Aliens?

Why are you complaining about DNA testing on mummies from 1380 BC, and then turn around and use literal sources from 300 BC? If anything, that's when they started bringing slaves over.

Pic related was the Pharaoh during Aristotle's time.

I've seen people call them "Arab invaders" who somehow displaced the entire native Egyptian population. It's like the people who think the ancient Chinese were Indo-Europeans before northern Mongoloid hordes swooped in and outbred them. Or that "white people" were already living in the Americas before the actual native Americans.

>invaders" who somehow displaced the entire native Egyptian population
>"white people" were already living in the Americas before the actual native Americans
This two are literally the opposite

Black can mean a lot of things in a lot of places. Here we just mean black as in SSA people.

Finns inhabited the whole earth before the last ice age

But that makes zero sense. An entire country's population can't be displaced like that, even in USA where native americans have had their numbers culled and most of them moved to europe, they still exist and practice their customs. Then where are these so called 'true descendants of egyptians'? Why are they nowhere to be seen?

Yeah, I've seen the bullshit about how the original Chinese, Indians, and Mesoamericans were white and they created civilisation before the non-whites moved in.

meant to say most of them moved to south america*

was that hieroglyph of darker skinned men handling the penises of lighter skinned men a fake picture?

No, Indians arent black like australoid people arent black because they dont have sub-saharan ancestry. It's really not that difficult of a concept.

By the way, Indians were considered Aethiopan in ancient Greece.

>With regard to the Ethiopians, Strabo indicates that they looked similar to Indians, remarking "those who are in Asia (Indus), and those who are in Africa, do not differ from each other.

I know it's stupid but they are popular staples in pseudo-history. Some old Egyptology books put forward the idea that Egyptians originally came from Europe and over time they became "mongrelised" by breeding with Middle Eastern people with the Arab conquest being the "final blow". The other one is the Afrocentric theory which is pretty much the same thing but with the Egyptians being from SSA and they were all mixed, massacred, or replaced by Arabs during conquest.

I can see how that theory is popular. Arabs really did destroy a lot of the diversity within the Middle East and now modern day Egyptians identify as Arab which I suppose would confuse a lot of people.

no its just redacted because historical accuracy is racist

most of that has been restored and re-painted though

Yeah, there are actually several. One of the oldest pre-dynastic mummies is even called "the Ginger".

>This body was originally nicknamed 'Ginger' due to his red hair; this nickname is no longer officially used as part of recent ethical policies for human remains.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebelein_predynastic_mummies

Theyre from 3400 BC. Around a millenia before the first pyramids were built. But I guess that's not deep enough history for kangs.

These are the natives of Papua New Guinea. I'm pretty sure you would consider them black despite them not being SSA.

These are aboriginals though. They're not exactly the same race as negroids. The fact they share the same skin colour means nothing, race isn't about skin.

They are some of the most genetically distant people from SSA. And while they would be considered "black" in Oceania, they wouldn't be in the United States.

I would consider them australoid and I would also defend their history from bantucentric boons as much as I defend the history of Egypt. I do imagine the blacks already try to claim these people as their own also.

I said "black" meant different things in different places. When people say "black" on this board they are referring to SSA people and Papuans most definitely aren't. They were some of the first people to leave the African continent and have very little in common with SSA in terms of genetics.

>When people say "black" on this board they are
... they are referring to basically any one who either has light sun tan and/or brown eyes. Sad but true.

So I guess what you're saying is, the Papuans built the pyramids.

Only if they're trolling. They will call Italians black but then get mad at anyone who suggests the Romans were black.

And what exactly is a negroid? Have you thought about it or are you just ignorant because you benefit from those racial classifications.

Negroid is outdated scientific racism. Race is a social construct but they do continue to have an impact on how people view and categorize the world.

I still don't get whats the purpose of these threads, go read a book for a change instead of asking to ignorants what was the color skin of people who lived 5000 years ago, retard

>because you benefit from those racial classifications

??? How exactly do I benefit from these. Negroids/Congoids are people in sub saharan africa. Notice how the egyptians weren't classified as negroids.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid

How do you even define "white" and "black"

the Egyptions of today are pretty much the same as the ones from ancient times

I thought they called them that because of the Moors. I know they weren't SSA either but anyway, they were after the Romans.

White - light skinned people I like
Black - dark skinned people I don't like

>Race is a social construct

Yes of course, there is absolutely no biological difference between any of these people. Your eyes are just seeing things, you need better glasses.

People that fall into the sub-saharan group genetically. The out-of-Africa bottleneck made non-sub-saharan African ancestry distinct from SSA, making all populations not mixed with sub-saharans equidistant from SSA. That's how we can tell that east africans arent an ancestral population, but a mix of SSA and west asian. Not just some another form of black.

You should have added at least one white person with light hair to show contrast.

Kek.

You do benefit from it by being "caucasoid" according to their outdated theory which makes you feel superior to someone and that makes you ignorant to finding out the truth.

We tend to make a big deal of facial features because our species very strongly relies on visual communication, it's why we use reaction images, but the degree of variation for this trait amongst humans is functionally insignificant and so are melanin levels. Yes, geographically isolated populations tend to look like one another, the same holds true for many animals, this doesn't necessarily warrant taxonomical clasification.

Race is very unfortunately an intuitive concept but that doesn't make it useful or significant.

>, but the degree of variation for this trait amongst humans is functionally insignificant and so are melanin levels.
Not true.

Do you know that people with high melanin level will suffer from vitamin D deficit if there were living in northern countries where light day is shorter and people tend to use heavy clothing to keep themselves warm?

No, actually according to the latest science they had nothing to do with sub-saharans. It's actually you who is using outdated theories about race like the australian aboriginies, people that are literally closer to europeans genetically than sub-saharan africans, have anything to do with them because both have the same skin tone and hair texture.

You think about race and then immediately tie it with racism, that's why you hate knowledge about race. Being a race realist isn't the same thing as being a racist. Did you know that studying different human races has allowed us to make many different breakthroughs in medicine?

Race isn't about racism user, stop thinking about it like that.

Not if they're regularly eating meat and dairy as would be normal for most contemporary Western diets. Light skin evolved in agricultural peoples with little access to animal food sources.

Race realist is code for racism, google it yourself you're being disingenous, scientists deal in populations and variation, not races

>We can all happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. That is one reason why I object to ticking boxes on forms and why I object to positive discrimination in job selection. But that doesn’t mean that race is of “virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.” This is Edwards’s point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.

>Race realist is code for racism

Except it's not? A race realist is someone who believes that people who evolved in different geographical locations, climates and conditions have evolved differently and their biological differences are a result of phenomena observed in nature. It has nothing to do with racism, which is the discrimination of people based on their race. Stop oversimplifying things just because it doesn't fit your political agenda.

>, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative

That's not how you argue things Jose. Try to come up with something.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialism

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.. You're the one presenting a, fortunately, still unconventional argument here, burden is on you to prove it, not the other way around, it's a logical fallacy to expect me to disprove a negative (that such correlation exists)

Of course there are genetic differences between peoples, but what's being said is that the modern concept of race isn't a scientifically accurate way of classifying those differences.

You still didn't prove to me how is race realism and racism in any way linked. That wikipedia article you linked me talks about the separation of races based on social levels/castes in society, not based on biological differences. I don't care about societal differences between people, I treat the black person the same way I treat an asian, white or whatever person. But I still like to learn about the biological differences between me and them, which is mainly what race realists are concerned with, the biological differences.

As big a difference than from a 200cm tall dude and a 175cm, or from an obese and a thin guy

>Not if they're regularly eating meat and dairy as would be normal for most contemporary Western diets.

Nope, according to pubmed:

> The vast majority of systemic vitamin D derives from the skin with a minority coming from dietary supplementation.

Anyways there are functional differences between races and melanin / vitamin D is just one obvious example.

Evidence, like leading geneticists still using terms like Caucasoid in their papers? They just sugar coat it these days by referring to clusters, but they still use the old names for them.

"Racialism is the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races, ostensibly distinct biological categories."
You could argue the article doesn't go in depth but it does provide a clear cut definition.
And honestly it is tiresome to discuss with dishonest people, race realism=racism.
"Today, the term "scientific racism" is used to refer to research seeming to scientifically justify racist ideology. "
" authors themselves, while seeing their work as scientific, may dispute the term "racism" and may prefer terms such as "race realism" or "racialism".[127]"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#After_1945
You're trying to defend the indefensible here, the term is most often used by supremacists trying to add a veneer of res´pectability to their beliefs, Ricahrd Lynn and Charles Murray who I must often debunk in this board and are specifically mentioned in the article come to mind.
Go watch some youtube videos by so called race realists on youtube then tell me with a straight face they're not racists.
>But I'm different
Then use a different term, tho I wouldn't bother seeing as you're already radicalized.

>god posts
>from a mexican
Same reaction I had the first time I saw a good post by an aussie

why is the argie an egypt pro?

good*

>Brazilian post without a typo
i'm still looking

Again, you're bringing your own political agenda into this, when for me this has nothing to do with politics. Yes I'm aware that white supremacists and racists have used science to justify their racism, but that doesn't mean science is inherently useless now. It's about how you use the tool, not the tool itself.

>Then use a different term

No. I'm still using the same term. Only difference is I'm actually using it properly, compared to white supremacists who use it to justify their retardation.

>Ricahrd Lynn and Charles Murray who I must often debunk in this board

Wew, I'd like to see that happen.

Fantastic source Ivan, care to actually link the article? Vitamin D is in fact recommended to people like sub Saharan Africans in higher latitudes but that's mostly as an excess of caution, it makes no difference to the body whether you ingest vitamins through your diet or if you use pills, except in the latter case there's questions regarding bioavailability, most sensible practitioners prefer to recommend simple dietary changes over suplementation.

>they still use the old names for them.
It's called vernacular speech, I'm sure that in the context of what I'm dicusiing with the Russian no physician would use "caucasoid" meaning Ethiopian.

Yes, MDs use the same language we do.

what typo
sincerely curious

They absolutely do, when they are talking about the part of their ancestry that falls into the "Caucasoid" group. Here's a page from "The History and Geography of Genes", pretty much the corner stone of books on genetics.

I settle for letting people know they're white supremacists, I prefer to avoid those sad discussions I used to have using Lynn's own data. It's cringe and shameful for everyone involved including me.

No, I'm talking about lack of scientific evidence, some methodologically flawed half assed study by a white supremacist is not it, and if you're relying on intuition or anecdootal evidence and "observations" that isn't scientific at all.

You're the one expressing views here, I'm trying to stick to facts as much as I can. And the fact is race realism is code for racism.
bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40914748

So Charles Murray is a white supremacist for daring to suggest east Asians and Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than white people? They just get sneakier every year, dont they, the white supremacists.

>this thread

You guys also happen to believe that northern Europeans are superior in intelligence than let's say, Arabs?

At the moment? Absolutely, that's what the data suggests. What do you think?

I just want to ask you, why do you think anyone who enjoys learning about different human races and their different genetics is doing it because he's secretly a racist? I'm aware scientific racism exists and science has started to produce flawed research papers because the researcher may follow some kind of political agenda. But for me it's not the same thing, I just like to learn about the difference between a black man and a white man the same way I like to learn about the difference between a chimpanzee and orangutan.

Discussing race and subspecies is such an easy and clear thing to do when it comes to animals, but when it comes to human beings then suddenly everyone loses their shit for some reason. Why can't we just accept that we're different?

Not all of them, or so we think.
Racist egyptologists aren't helping.

Also, bear in mind that Egyptians didn't care for ethnic background - if you are educated like an egyptian, act like one, and follow egyptian religion then you are an egyptian, they didn't care much, if at all, if you were dark-skinned or not.

Old Egyptology books used to say Egyptians were white and now Afrocentrists say they were black.

The truth is they were neither but they did have different “black” and “white” populations in the country.

As black as KARA BOGA so yes.

You're nitpicking at a semantics point here using a source that's over 2 decades old? Use of "caucasoid" in this context does not validate race as a scientifically valid concept.
scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

One more meme I absolutely love from people who deny the existence of race is how they always cling onto this idea that race is a 'social construct' made by racists while at the same time, they support the idea that all races are biologically derived from negroids.

And the people who support this are usually black. I honestly wonder why

They’re North African so they come in a variety of shades. There’s a skin colour cline. The ones in the north of Egypt are lighter than the ones in the south. Since Ancient Egyptians originated in Upper Egypt (located in the south) the population would have been dark skinned. And historical records also say the Egyptians were brown. They weren’t black though. Not everyone with dark skin is black. That’s just stupid.

Charles Murray is a white "nationalist"
splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/charles-murray

That's a strawman, I never claimed there were no differences, I stated such do not amount to the concept of "race" if you're using the same terms as racists don't act surprised when people treat you as one, especially here, if you want to discuss differences I'm all for it, what I'm not going to stand anymore, because I have regretably done so in the past, and this is regretably an easy step to make in this board, is to do it in such a way that can be understood as validating racist thought.

But you're not a racist.

So you made generalisations about me and I somehow can't make generalisations about people like you?

So what do you think they meant when they talked about Caucasoid and Negroid? I do wonder. I mean I guess they could use terms like West Eurasian and Sub-Saharan non-khoisan or something. That definitely would not be nitpicking but smart and ethical use of language, am I right.

I think that it's complicated history rather than inherent intelligence. Western Europe started becoming relevant after discovering Americas which was west to their shores. And they easily made colonies there because they had guns which they got from trade with the Chinese, and the native Americans didn't have that opportunity so the Western Europeans got all that land. Also the disease helped them.

In Aristotle's time it was the Mediterranean Sea which was wealthy and the North of Greece was poor so he tried to explain that, and he said: "Why are those who live in warm regions wiser than those who live in cold regions? Is it for the same reason as that for which the old are wiser than the young? For those who live in cold regions are much hotter, because their nature recoils owing to the coldness of the region in which they live, so that they are very like the drunken and are not of an inquisitive turn of mind, but are courageous and sanguine; but those who live in hot regions are sober because they are cool."

The Greeks used to be powerful but where are they today? I dont think it's because of some arbitrary intelligence.

And what did they look like then?

Like this and

This is actually a really silly debate that tells us very little of interest about Ancient Egypt or anything else, but identity politicians on both sides keep applying our modern obsession with race to a context in which it's completely anachronistic to serve their own ideological and political biases.

halloween gondola

They were all mostly brown. They all belong to the same race. But if some of them had to stay under the sun working hard while the others had a cool place to relax. Then these lower castes had tanned darker skin compared to the higher castes. Same happens on India, the higher the caste the lighter is the skin

Go back to your shithole of a country, Pedro!

Where Santa Catarina?

That man is the real thing. He is the real living pharaoh but we cant say the same about his ugly wife though

No
There were Nubians in Egypt, but they were Nubians and not Egyptians
nature.com/news/mummy-dna-unravels-ancient-egyptians-ancestry-1.22069
> The findings show that the mummies’ closest kin were ancient farmers from a region that includes present-day Israel and Jordan. Modern Egyptians, by contrast, have inherited more of their DNA from central Africans.

>a bioarchaeologist at the University of Southampton, UK
>the mummies were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians.
Muh wh*Te people

Muh pharaoh

They are refusing to mention horn africans meanwhile mentioning central africans that are completely unrelated to the Northeastern Africa kekkkk.

Anyway they were clearly black by modern western opinion as you can see from Nubians were of nilotic origin and have much darker skin than an average African but all the dark skin Africans are still grouped together as black in the western world without further division. Pic related is South Sudanese men and an Afar man.

Lad give it a rest. What's the endgame anyway once you convince everyone that the ancient egyptians were your ancestors? What the fuck are you going to do? Go suck a dick dude.

>They are refusing to mention north africans meanwhile mentioning central africans that are completely unrelated to the Northeastern Africa
Like cherry picking the most unrelated ethnic group from a continent where there is hundreds of other groups with different ethnic background that would relate much more than those euros they are trying to compare to.

I'm just saying the truth which is that Egyptians were black in today's opinion. Somehow people are convinced that pic related isn't black.

Ok but then who the fuck cares? Like what intrinsic benefit are you going to get out of this? It still isn't going to change the fact that your homeland, somalia, is some 3rd world shithole that's less inhabitable than fucking chernobyl in ukraine. Stop obsessing over the past and we wuzzing and develop your country. Be more like your ancestors :)

Same way people in my country are judged as black or white depending on their status. If you are a well dressed black and rich guy, they will think you are white. I guess old Egypts are considered wh*Te now because they are more well respected than before by the Euros

What do you mean by “black” tho?