Dynastic Egyptian Phenotypes in Modern Day Egypt

There is very strong continuity between ancient Egypt and modern Egypt in genes and skulls. The bottom line is that Egyptians have not changed a whole lot other than getting Blacker. Ancient Egyptians were 13% Black and modern Egyptians are 30% Black, so the Black genes have more than doubled.

There are still many modern Egyptians with an ancient Egyptian of Pharoanic phenotype. You can especially find them in the Copts. The Copts are said to be the closest modern Egyptians to the Dynastic Egyptians possibly because they never kept Black slaves as the Muslim Egyptians probably did. Muslims who kept Black slaves often bred in with their slaves and as a result in many ME countries, the Christian population is a lot lighter and Whiter looking than the Black population.

I have some photos of some Dynastic Egyptians that I put up at the end of the piece. I am not sure what they look like. I would say they are Caucasoid, but they are very odd looking Caucasians and they almost look sort of Oriental in the eyes. The nose is very long, narrow and straight. Hair is dark and straight or sometimes wavy.

The skin color is quite dark, however it has a very olive tinge. The mix between a more or less European phenotype and the quite dark skin seems shocking at first. I also knew a Coptic Christian pharmacist and his sister who worked at a pharmacy I used to go to. Their skin was quite dark. They were absolutely Caucasians and they looked  broadly Europid, but I must say that they were some of the strangest and most exotic looking Caucasians I have ever seen.

Modern day dynastic Egyptians often do not really look like European Whites because the phenotype does not exist in Europe. But they sure don’t look like Black people either. Who do they look like? They don’t really look like anyone!

I suppose if you sat back and thought about it, there seem to be some Arabs or possibly Berbers who look like this, especially in the Arabian Peninsula, but they don’t exactly look like those  people. Berberids with a Qaddafi-type phenotype may be an even better resemblance but I am not very familiar with Libyan phenotypes and the ancient Egyptians distinguished themselves from the Carthaginians as much as they did from the Nubians of the South.

Modern Dynastic Egyptians look like, well, Egyptians! The ancient Egyptian phenotype is quite and while broadly Caucasoid, they are best placed into a separate category all of their own.

Participants of Miss Egypt 2007 competition pose at a news conference in Cairo

Participants of Miss Egypt 2007 competition pose at a news conference in Cairo April 20, 2007. The final ceremony will be held on April 23 in Cairo. REUTERS/Nasser Nuri (EGYPT)

The woman on the far right in the first row is a classic modern day Dynastic Egyptian. Note that she looks a bit Asiatic. The woman in the first row on the far left also shares the phenotype but not in as marked a manner. The woman in the second from right, first row looks the least Dynastic Egyptian of the three, but she does retain some of the look. Note that the woman in the center first row looks almost Asiatic. I am not sure whether she resembles a Dynastic Egyptian at all.

34 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Anthropology, Antiquity, Blacks, Christianity, Egypt, Egyptians, History, Islam, North Africa, North Africans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Religion

34 responses to “Dynastic Egyptian Phenotypes in Modern Day Egypt

  1. Nebulous Maximus

    Interesting observations. This confirms what I’ve long suspected about the racial characteristics of the ancient dynastic Egyptians; that they were a very unique Caucasian subgroup featuring straight/wavy black hair, slender frames, delicate facial features and dark-ish olive skin.

    WNs and Afrocentrists are equally retarded on this topic. They both spew endless amount of insane horseshit in regards to each of their respective fantasy versions of what the dynastic Egyptians looked like.

      • Paul Vann

        Caucasian, Caucasoid are invalid terms there is no scientific reason for the White Skin mutation to be called that, Blumenbach’s use of the term to describe the White Skin mutation as such was purely subjective.

    • pepperroncini

      Why would they be caucasions/caucasoid. Why couldn’t they just be their own distinct group, similar to how Dravidians are their own thing.

      • The Dravidians are not their own separate group. They are:

        Caucasoids (though I confess that many are such strange Caucasoids that they are quite different and they are not particularly Europid at all).

        Australoids (Tamils are generally Australoids)

        Caucasoid-Australoid mixes: This is probably most of them.

        How do we know these things? Skulls. Major races such as Caucasoids and Australoids can be plotted on graphs as real races because the skulls are cluster in one region away from all of the others. By looking at Dravidian skulls, we can see that they are a mix of the three types above.

        • pepperroncini

          Well sure Dravidians are a hybrid just like virtually every race or group out there. Tamils are the most Dravidian amongst Dravidians.

          I think when you say Australoid you mean Veddoid and Vedda people are distinct and different from Dravidians, including Tamils. Tamils have a range of phenotypes. Tamil speaking groups can range from very dark with low nose bridge and broad noses to dark , normal nose bridge and average nasal index.

    • Dave Mowers

      Just so everyone realizes it…when invading armies took Middle Eastern, Mediterranean city-states by force they killed everyone who lived there.

      There are many examples of wholesale annihilation throughout the region so the original builders were long-dead before the 1st Egyptian Dynasty which, mind you, is talked about in myth under various names from Chaldea to India.

      If you believe in correlation Menes, is Manis, is Mannus, Minos and therefore Mercury so a father to many nations from Egypt to India to Germany to Crete.

      Just as his father before him was known as, “The Father of All Nations…” hence began the practice of visiting all the provincial states and cities under empiric rule. Menes is said by the Celts to have died in England while attempting to colonize it.

      It appears that our modern notions of what was achievable by ancient man are way too encumbered.

      • Exactly what are you suggesting in regards to Egypt? forgive me but much of what I’ve read from you mostly consists of Myths rather than actual documentation/ genetic research.

        No offense, but your tactics is literally as limited as that as Afrocentrists.

        that’s not to say myths are overall unreliable, but without somesort of secondary source then they can be dubious.

      • pepperroncini

        There is no evidence of the Ancient Egytians being wholly exterminated. Their dominant y-dna is E1b1b, which is dominant in North African and Horn of Africa .

        • Dave Mowers

          There is no evidence of ancient Egyptians left. To find them you must go to Europe as Phoenicians colonized Europe around the Mediterranean Sea. The Phoenicians were known as the, “Sea People,” this is confirmed everywhere there is archaeology or history of their presence. The Egyptian dynasties where not Phoenician as they warred with the Sea Peoples therefore the first Egyptian cities were Phoenician and in fact in cuneiform they are named in Sumerian writing with Sumerian names AND Phoenicians came from Lagash in Sumer. That is where they first began the science of ship building.

          As I said before by the time of Carthage most of that, “Phoenician,” city were no longer Phoenician at all and those that still identified with Phoenician gods and culture were merely minorities in a diversified city-state they no longer controlled. In fact, the last mention of Phoenicians is in Holland after they were driven out of Africa by Rome.

          Hence, the founding name of Egypt, “Mitzraim,” cannot be translated using Egyptian and it is not translated using Egyptian. It is translated in Sumerian and Phoenician. There is ample evidence that Sumerians and Phoenicians were white Caucasians. All ancient Egyptian cities were named after Sumerian mythological constructs and gods just as all the Sumerians cities were thusly named.

          There are descriptions, histories, artwork, statues and testaments to descendants living during the time of the Greeks and Romans in Syria and they are white men.

          Mitzraim roughly means, “Places (cities) around the Sea (Mediterranean).

          “Egypt, from the most primitive times, was said not to be a country but a universal sea.” -Diodorus Siculus

          Your move…

        • pepperroncini

          @Dave Mowers
          Egyptian origins were not Phoenician. Ancient Egypt already existed by the time of the Akkadians, who were the first Semitic speaking people we know of. Phoenician was a Semitic language .

          Ancient Egytian language is a language isolate within the Afro-Asiatic language group. It is not a Semitic language.

  2. Paul Vann

    Can the origin of any of these other peoples be traced to the Caucasus Mountains? If not Why call them by an invalid term?

    • https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/fayum-portraits/

      search around here, she could likely make a valid term.

      OVerall, there skull features and genetics resemble those who originated from the Caucasus.

    • Dave Mowers

      Philology, linguistics, language, archaeology, history and myth all trace Caucasoids to Southern Russia.

      It doesn’t matter what name or tribe you call them or what time period they all come from a root Celtic language and share distinct cultural traits.

      Traits traced back as early as 4,000 B.C. but with evidence now going back as far as 20-40,000 B.C. None of that matters though since ancient Romans and Greeks were obsessed with tracing their roots and taken together there is an unbroken historical narrative that goes back to 6-4,000 B.C.

      It’s the equivalent of astronomers studying math for four thousand years and people claiming they have no idea of what they are talking about.

  3. pepperroncini

    Modern Egyptians have some admixture from West Asian invaders, from the Hyskos, Greeks, Persians, Arabs, Berbers, Levantines , Mamluks etc.. So they will look lighter and more Caucasoid than the Ancient Egyptians. There is also some Black admixture , they were afterall conquered by the Nubians and later Islam brough slavery, but looking at some of the pre Nubian statues, there already was some Blacks in Ancient Egypt in high positions.

    The best representation of Anicent Egytians is from the mural in the Tomb of Seti . In the Book of Gates the Races of Man is portrayed by the Ancient Egyptians , and they portray themselves as brownish while the Semites and Berbers are portrayed as White and the Nubians as Black.

    Anceint Egyptians in my humble opinion are their own distinct group.

    • Paul Vann

      You use the term Caucasoid, yet the origin of none of the people named can be traced to the Caucasus Mountains, why use the term Caucasoid?

      • well, actually, they share physical affinity with those that do indicating ancient ancestry to such population.

      • pepperroncini

        Caucasoid is a scientific term to refer to a particular group of people, it is not a misleading term like Caucasian.

      • Dave Mowers

        The Greeks termed them Caucasoid. They were the first to use that distinction tying Aryans to the Caucasus mountains which they claimed were inhabited until animal populations dwindled and there was a need for agriculture. It was said that the region was devoid of plant life, harsh and cruel, subject to horrible weather patterns which are the source of the storm god mythology which Indians claimed was introduced to them by the Aryans.

        If you follow the mega fauna period you can follow human migration which still happens today with roaming wild animals. Hunters relied on these large beasts until they were exterminated. Those animals moved seasonally from Sumer up to Russia so the logic is that the humans simply followed them down.

        • pepperroncini

          Greeks never said anything about Aryans being Caucasoid. Caucasian came about in the late 1700s.
          Not sure when Caucasoid came about but it along with Negroid, Mongoloid,Australoid and Capoid were terms created for what people presumed were distinct races.

  4. Paul Vann

    The term Caucasoid belongs to a set of terms introduced by 19th-century anthropologists attempting to categorize human races. Such terms are associated with outdated notions of racial types, and so are now potentially offensive and best avoided.
    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/caucasoid
    The term has no validity in science.

  5. Paul Vann

    Why not post the quote and the source?

    • From the link I sent Abstract
      “Biological research on race has often been seen as motivated by or lending credence to underlying racist attitudes; in part for this reason, recently philosophers and biologists have gone through great pains to essentially deny the existence of biological human races. We argue that human races, in the biological sense of local populations adapted to particular environments, do in fact exist; such races are best understood through the common ecological concept of ecotypes. However, human ecotypic races do not in general correspond with folk racial categories, largely because many similar ecotypes have multiple independent origins. Consequently, while human natural races exist, they have little or nothing in common with folk races.”

      “Lewontin and Gould have made much of the fact that there is relatively little genetic variation in Homo sapiens (compared at least to other mammals; see Templeton 1999) and that most of what genetic diversity is known to exist within Homo sapiens exists within (rather than between) local populations (see, for example, Gould 1996; Lewontin et al. 1984), and these facts are cited repeatedly in arguments concluding that there are no biologically significant human races. But the idea that this data might imply something about the existence of biologically significant human races emerges from a focus on the wrong sort of biological races.

      The question is not whether there are significant levels of between-population genetic variation overall, but whether there is variation in genes associated with significant adaptive differences between populations (see our discussion in Kaplan and Pigliucci 2001).

      But while skin color is not well correlated with other phenotypic traits of interest in humans, there is, despite Gould’s claims (Gould 1996) to the contrary, no guarantee that particular populations of humans will not, due to particular features of their environment, share particular distributions of adaptive behavioral (including intellectual) traits, as opposed to simple physical traits. To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence that such populations exist, nor are there reasons to suppose that such populations must exist.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s