The ancient Egyptians were blacks!

[kreed]

ancient Egyptian DNA:

Ramesses III

In December 2012, a genetic study conducted by the same researchers who decoded King Tutankhamun's DNA found that Ramesses III, second pharaoh of the Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt and considered to be the last great New Kingdom regent to wield any substantial authority over Egypt, belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup E-V38. (saharasian)

In 2013, Nature announced the publication of the first genetic study utilizing next-generation sequencing to ascertain the ancestral lineage of an Ancient Egyptian individual. The research was led by Carsten Pusch of the University of Tübingen in Germany and Rabab Khairat, who released their findings in the Journal of Applied Genetics. DNA was extracted from the heads of five Egyptian mummies that were housed at the institution. All the specimens were dated between 806 BC and 124 AD, a timeframe corresponding with the late Dynastic and Greek Ptolemaic Kingdom periods. The researchers observed that one of the mummified individuals likely belonged to the mtDNA haplogroup I2 (saharasian)

In 2015, genome sequencing of a 4,500-year-old skeleton from the Mota Cave in the highlands of southwest Ethiopia suggested that Middle Eastern farmers had migrated into Africa around three thousand years ago, bringing new crops to the continent such as wheat, barley and lentils. Mota was assigned to MtDNA haplogroup L3x2a and Y-DNA haplogroup E-P2 (saharasian).

Modern DNA:

Luis et al. (2004) found that the male haplogroups in a sample of 147 Egyptians were E1b1b (36.1%, predominantly E-M78), J (32.0%), G (8.8%), T(8.2%), and R (7.5%). E1b1b and its subclades are characteristic of some Afro-Asiatic speakers and are believed to have originated in either the Middle East, North Africa, or the Horn of Africa. Cruciani et al. (2007) suggests that E-M78, E1b1b predominant subclade in Egypt, originated in "Northeastern Africa", which in the study refers specifically to Egypt and Libya.

DNA history of Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The settlements on the Nile or the Tigris-Euphrates, as the portions more humid highlands of the Levant, Anatolia and Iran were invaded and conquered by peoples who had abandoned Arabia and / or Central Asia continuously drying up.

Demeo.

The people of ancient Egypt came in part from the Arabian Peninsula, in part by central asia territories and partly from Africa itself (not insignificant).

------------

"Africa antiquity, from which he was 'always something new'. These conceptions survived through the centuries after the first teachings of historians of classical Greece. The latter had stated that 'the land of the Blacks' had created the civilization of 'Egypt of the Pharaohs, and Egypt, in turn, had fostered the birth of Greek civilization: in short, says Herodotus in 450 BC, "the names of almost all the gods came to Greece from Egypt." this view was widely accepted by Europeans until the early nineteenth century, more precisely until 1830, when it was suddenly replaced by the emergence of imperialist ideology on the hierarchy of races, in which the Blacks were placed in a lower level and even subhuman.

-----------

The Egyptology has proved a more difficult partner. The Egypt of the Pharaohs was considered as belonging to Africa? So far the problem had almost never place and, despite the testimony of ancient Greek authors, such as Diodorus, Egyptologists were generally given a dry negative answer: or Pharaonic Egypt had evolved within the its original spirit, or had derived from the cultures of Mesopotamia .. "

Africanismo in "Enciclopedia delle scienze sociali"

The ancient Egyptians were the same back then as they are now. Sand negro. Though there was a time when Egypt was conquered by the negro Nubians. They ruled Egypt for about 100 years. More modern Egyptians tried to delete that shameful part of their history.

 

[historycisalpin]

The ancient Egyptians were the same back then as they are now. Sand negro. Though there was a time when Egypt was conquered by the negro Nubians. They ruled Egypt for about 100 years. More modern Egyptians tried to delete that shameful part of their history.

The ancient Egyptians were a mixture of Semitic (not europid native) and African, as, indeed, still are.

The strain of African origin, I helped (not just), the formation of the Egyptian civilization, not as slaves.

 

[historycisalpin]

They are all ancient historical sources.

I agree with Martin Bernal when he says that the "civilization" of ancient Greece arose thanks to Egyptian and Phoenician colonies stationed on site. I agree with him even when he says that the ancient Greeks (the classical and Hellenistic period) had a conventional conception, according to which the Greek culture had arisen as a result of colonization around 1500 BC, the Egyptians and Phoenicians, who had colonized the natives.

But even when he says:

"The old model had no major" internal "deficiencies, weaknesses or explanatory power. It was rejected for external reasons. For the eighteenth and nineteenth century romantics and racist at XVIII - XIX all was intolerable that Greece, conceived not only as the epitome of Europe but as his pure childhood, was the result of the mixture between European natives (indigenous europid ???? - I might add) and African and Semitic colonists. the old model had to be rejected and replaced with something more acceptable. "

 

[Meathead]

The Greeks spoke an Indo-European language then as now. Indo-European is a language classification, not racial.

Stupid non-starter on an already stupid thread.

WTF is wrong with you?

 

[historycisalpin]

The Greeks spoke an Indo-European language then as now. Indo-European is a language classification, not racial.

Stupid non-starter on an already stupid thread.

WTF is wrong with you?

You see that you are not knowledgeable enough, not only regarding the language and the alphabet of the ancient Greeks, but also on the same ancient historiography, that was not pro-European (Eurocentric), but far !!

The philologist and linguist Giovanni Semerano He considered Indo-European reconstructed by traditional linguists an invented language, without a land without a people he'd spoken and theory hypothesis kept alive because functional ethno racist ideology defined (to other non-European peoples) and social class and caste (within European societies).

I think the exact same way!

Post Scriptum:

Even the theories of Theo Vennemann are not unwrapped.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Of course they were! Did you think Egypt was full of sunburned white guys?

 

[historycisalpin]

Of course they were! Did you think Egypt was full of sunburned white guys?

The ancient Egyptians were of African Semitic race.

 

[Meathead]

The Greeks spoke an Indo-European language then as now. Indo-European is a language classification, not racial.

Stupid non-starter on an already stupid thread.

WTF is wrong with you?

You see that you are not knowledgeable enough, not only regarding the language and the alphabet of the ancient Greeks, but also on the same ancient historiography, that was not pro-European (Eurocentric), but far !!

The philologist and linguist Giovanni Semerano He considered Indo-European reconstructed by traditional linguists an invented language, without a land without a people he'd spoken and theory hypothesis kept alive because functional ethno racist ideology defined (to other non-European peoples) and social class and caste (within European societies).

I think the exact same way!

Post Scriptum:

Even the theories of Theo Vennemann are not unwrapped.

Language is not alphabet. If it were, the Turks went from being Arabic speakers to Indo-Europeans essentially overnight and he Vietnamese became Indo-Europeans.

Save that air-head stuff for people with the knowledge and intellect of CC.

 

[historycisalpin]

The Greeks spoke an Indo-European language then as now. Indo-European is a language classification, not racial.

Stupid non-starter on an already stupid thread.

WTF is wrong with you?

You see that you are not knowledgeable enough, not only regarding the language and the alphabet of the ancient Greeks, but also on the same ancient historiography, that was not pro-European (Eurocentric), but far !!

The philologist and linguist Giovanni Semerano He considered Indo-European reconstructed by traditional linguists an invented language, without a land without a people he'd spoken and theory hypothesis kept alive because functional ethno racist ideology defined (to other non-European peoples) and social class and caste (within European societies).

I think the exact same way!

Post Scriptum:

Even the theories of Theo Vennemann are not unwrapped.

Language is not alphabet. If it were, the Turks went from being Arabic speakers to Indo-Europeans essentially overnight and he Vietnamese became Indo-Europeans.

Save that air-head stuff for people with the knowledge and intellect of CC.

The oldest languages are those of the Semitic race, as well as the alphabets: you do not know how many words of Latin derived from ancient Semitic voices, but also from the greek.

Obviously the learned nonexistent language Indo-""European"" this do not say never.

 

[Meathead]

The oldest languages are those of the Semitic race, as well as the alphabets: you do not know how many words of Latin derived from ancient Semitic voices, but also from the greek.

Obviously the learned nonexistent language Indo-""European"" this do not say never.

Sure. We know what the oldest languages are because we have so much evidence of what people spoke 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

 

[whitehall]

Why do we need to debate the skin color of ancient Egyptians? Was it just the DNA of Egyptian royalty that was classified as Saharasian or did it include the Phero's subjects as well? Is Saharasian DNA different from subsahara DNA and is it possible that the Jewish slaves who built the pyramids still have some Subsarasian DNA or does it even matter?

 

[historycisalpin]

Why do we need to debate the racial component of ancient Egyptians? Is Saharasian DNA different from subsahara DNA or does anyone care?

There are southern African ethnic groups who have a Jewish origin, did you know this ??

Speaking of races and ethnic groups, not necessarily the same as being a racist who believes in the supremacy of the white race.

 

[historycisalpin]

These are the famous patterns of Theo Vennemann:

 

[irosie91]

The Greeks spoke an Indo-European language then as now. Indo-European is a language classification, not racial.

Stupid non-starter on an already stupid thread.

WTF is wrong with you?

You see that you are not knowledgeable enough, not only regarding the language and the alphabet of the ancient Greeks, but also on the same ancient historiography, that was not pro-European (Eurocentric), but far !!

The philologist and linguist Giovanni Semerano He considered Indo-European reconstructed by traditional linguists an invented language, without a land without a people he'd spoken and theory hypothesis kept alive because functional ethno racist ideology defined (to other non-European peoples) and social class and caste (within European societies).

I think the exact same way!

Post Scriptum:

Even the theories of Theo Vennemann are not unwrapped.

Language is not alphabet. If it were, the Turks went from being Arabic speakers to Indo-Europeans essentially overnight and he Vietnamese became Indo-Europeans.

Save that air-head stuff for people with the knowledge and intellect of CC.

The oldest languages are those of the Semitic race, as well as the alphabets: you do not know how many words of Latin derived from ancient Semitic voices, but also from the greek.

Obviously the learned nonexistent language Indo-""European"" this do not say never.

the oldest indo European language is SANSKRIT

 

[Meathead]

The Greeks spoke an Indo-European language then as now. Indo-European is a language classification, not racial.

Stupid non-starter on an already stupid thread.

WTF is wrong with you?

You see that you are not knowledgeable enough, not only regarding the language and the alphabet of the ancient Greeks, but also on the same ancient historiography, that was not pro-European (Eurocentric), but far !!

The philologist and linguist Giovanni Semerano He considered Indo-European reconstructed by traditional linguists an invented language, without a land without a people he'd spoken and theory hypothesis kept alive because functional ethno racist ideology defined (to other non-European peoples) and social class and caste (within European societies).

I think the exact same way!

Post Scriptum:

Even the theories of Theo Vennemann are not unwrapped.

Language is not alphabet. If it were, the Turks went from being Arabic speakers to Indo-Europeans essentially overnight and he Vietnamese became Indo-Europeans.

Save that air-head stuff for people with the knowledge and intellect of CC.

The oldest languages are those of the Semitic race, as well as the alphabets: you do not know how many words of Latin derived from ancient Semitic voices, but also from the greek.

Obviously the learned nonexistent language Indo-""European"" this do not say never.

the oldest indo European language is SANSKRIT

ALPHABET! FFS, AN ALPHABET IS NOT A LANGUAGE!

People spoke before they developed alphabets to symbolize speech.

Does anybody get this?!

 

[irosie91]

The Greeks spoke an Indo-European language then as now. Indo-European is a language classification, not racial.

Stupid non-starter on an already stupid thread.

WTF is wrong with you?

You see that you are not knowledgeable enough, not only regarding the language and the alphabet of the ancient Greeks, but also on the same ancient historiography, that was not pro-European (Eurocentric), but far !!

The philologist and linguist Giovanni Semerano He considered Indo-European reconstructed by traditional linguists an invented language, without a land without a people he'd spoken and theory hypothesis kept alive because functional ethno racist ideology defined (to other non-European peoples) and social class and caste (within European societies).

I think the exact same way!

Post Scriptum:

Even the theories of Theo Vennemann are not unwrapped.

Language is not alphabet. If it were, the Turks went from being Arabic speakers to Indo-Europeans essentially overnight and he Vietnamese became Indo-Europeans.

Save that air-head stuff for people with the knowledge and intellect of CC.

The oldest languages are those of the Semitic race, as well as the alphabets: you do not know how many words of Latin derived from ancient Semitic voices, but also from the greek.

Obviously the learned nonexistent language Indo-""European"" this do not say never.

the oldest indo European language is SANSKRIT

ALPHABET! FFS, AN ALPHABET IS NOT A LANGUAGE!

People spoke before they developed alphabets to symbolize speech.

Does anybody get this?!

you made no point-------the human brain ----WORLD WIDE----is so constructed that all HUMAN BRAINS have the capacity for spoken and even written language. ----Eventually ALL HUMANS do elaborate a language---spoken----and then in some ways SYMBOLIZED. As to evidence of language----old evidence is the written stuff------Sanskrit is the major precursor of INDO EUROPEAN LANGUAGES-----

 

[whitehall]

Why do we need to debate the racial component of ancient Egyptians? Is Saharasian DNA different from subsahara DNA or does anyone care?

There are southern African ethnic groups who have a Jewish origin, did you know this ??

Speaking of races and ethnic groups, not necessarily the same as being a racist who believes in the supremacy of the white race.

Why would a simple informed non confrontational post to an historic DNA claim prompt a response about the alleged "supremacy of the white race"? "Gotcha" and I rest my case.

 

[historycisalpin]

Sanskrit is an Indian language (not europoidal) introduced by people of Mesopotamian strain - Semitic (not europid)

There are traces of pre-Columbian America as well languages Semitic (Mesoamarican)..

 

[historycisalpin]

Why do we need to debate the racial component of ancient Egyptians? Is Saharasian DNA different from subsahara DNA or does anyone care?

There are southern African ethnic groups who have a Jewish origin, did you know this ??

Speaking of races and ethnic groups, not necessarily the same as being a racist who believes in the supremacy of the white race.

Why would a simple informed non confrontational post to an historic DNA claim prompt a response about the alleged "supremacy of the white race"? "Gotcha" and I rest my case.

I do not believe in any kind of supremacy (white - black - red yellow or green that is), light ???

 

[historycisalpin]

The Aryans are not even originate in Europe, if anything, Afghanistan:

The conception that the Western academic community centers (corporatist and Eurocentric) of Arian peoples, is strongly affected (directly or indirectly) by the Nazi regime, which appropriated unjustly of that period, making it their own, and rewriting history to their liking, but remains a concept totally wrong.

Note that invented the myth of the Indo "European-European" goes hand in hand with the wave of anti-Judaism and the 800 European dell'900.

The Aryans (the real ones), departed from today Afghanistan to expand into today's Iran and neighbors, then a branch of Codest populations invaded Indian Sub Continent, bringing down the Indus Valley civilization, while another part went to Central Asia, southern Siberia and in of Minusinsk region, the Kurgan Culture Andronovo.

Airyanem Vaejah (Airyanəm Vaejah, approximately "expansion of Indo-Aryan peoples," such as Iran) would be the homeland of the first Iranian spoken of Avesta Zoroastrian (Vendidad, Farg. 1) as one of the sixteen lands perfect dell'Ahura Mazda.
According to a Harvard University scholar, Michael Witzel, the Airyanem Vaejah was in the middle of these lands, the center of the plateau Afghan (Around Bamiyan Province).

The first city of Codest populations Aryānām Xšaθra called "Land of the Aryans", located right in Afghanistan.

David Frawley wrote:

"The current archaeological data do not support the existence of a South Asian European invasion at any time in pre protohistoric eras. The Indo-Aryan invasion as Europe academic concept of the 18th and 19th century, reflects the cultural environment of the time. The linguistic data They were used to validate the concept that in turn was used to interpret the archaeological and anthropological data.

In other words, the Vedic literature has been interpreted on the assumption that there had been an invasion Aryan. Then archaeological evidence were interpreted on the same assumptions.
And both interpretations were then used to justify with each other. It is nothing but a tautology, an exercise in circular thinking, it just proves that if you assume something as true, this proves true!

The modern Western academic world is sensitive to criticism for the cultural and social prejudices. For scholars to speak out against this partial interpretation of "Veda" would cause a re-examination of many of these historical hypotheses that do not bear the physical examination. But if scholars Hindu remain silent or passively accept the misinterpretation of their own culture, all this will no doubt continue, but they will have no one to blame except themselves. It is not an issue to be taken lightly, because the way in which a culture is historically defines, creates prospects with which it is perceived in the modern social context and intellectual. Tolerance is not to allow a false view of their culture and religion propagated freely. This and only one to betray themselves.

Such a view is not good culture or archeology but merely cultural imperialism. Western Vedic scholars have achieved in the sphere intellectual, what the British army has done to discredit the political, divide and conquer the Hindus. In short, the compelling reasons for the Aryan invasion theory were neither literary nor archeological but political and religious, which is to say, no culture, but prejudice. such injury may not have been intentional, but so deeply rooted easily blurs political and religious vision and blurs our thinking. "

Post Scriptum:

Critical only that the leading theory of David Frawley is one of a gradual and evolving among the indigenous peoples of the civilization of the Indus valley Vedic astrology, without which there was no invasion, while I support the theory that the civilization of the Indus valley invaded by populations They came from the territories of today's Afghanistan, certainly not from Europe.

Source:

Frawley - Il Mito dell'Invasione Ariana dell'India

allochthonous Indian Mesopotamian Semitic origin (Various Aryans of India):

Afghan (true Aryans) of the Mesopotamian strain - Semitic Saharasian:

It is clear that there are similarities ethno anthropological and socio-cultural, that unite the true Aryans Afghanistan with their Brother allocated in India. Traits and characteristics that are not European.