Let Us Look at Some "Black" Ancient Egyptians

She look Black to you? If anything, she looks like someone from India! Or possibly an Arab, an Armenian, an Assyrian or a Kurd.
She look Black to you? If anything, she looks like someone from India! Or possibly an Arab, an Armenian, an Assyrian or a Kurd.

Here is another famous “Black” person from ancient Egypt.
Check out this hot Black chick! What's with the paleface? Is she using skin lighteners again?
Check out this hot Black chick! What’s with the paleface? Is she using skin lighteners again? Check out that straight hair! Were Black girls using hair straighteners even way back then? This is a race of people who no longer exist, but you can see some modern Egyptians who look something like this. I also think that Assyrians look a bit like this.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

13 thoughts on “Let Us Look at Some "Black" Ancient Egyptians”

  1. Although these pictures do speak 1000 words about the phenotype of the ancient ones of Egypt, I doubt if anything at all will wake up the hardcore “Afro-centric” folks…(like the many that have barraged your previous Egypt posts).

    1. The skin color of the images you show us is subterfuge. The skin color you see was an is art canon. The women were painted in flesh tone regardless of how dark they really were. Long flowing hair does not equal white, it equals wig. Both men and women shaved their head and wore wigs. If the two women above were a true representation on how the ancient Egyptians looked, the Egyptian males would have the same skin tone.
      Skin color is not the only phenotype, look at mouths of both women. They both have full lips and very large eye which are African phenotype. The two women may be the same person and the latter was the daughter of Snefru or his son Khufu. Look for images of those two kings and your argument will dissolve like coffee in hot water.

  2. Sorry to bust your bubble mate, but these statues you’ve brought up were simply created by modern people in exibits and not by the ancient egyptians. And no, i’m not saying there weren’t these type of people around at this time but they were mainly women taken from other countries as wives, maids, or servants. You will never see any statues or painting of men/pharaohs, and most the other inhabitants, portrayed in those paintings, as this type of complexion. Nor will you ever get a DNA evidence like this:
    http://dnaconsultants.com/king-tut-gene
    But whatever keep on with your delusion and your obsession of wanting those people to be white.

    1. They have new DNA genome done on over 150 mummies and guess what… He is exactly right. No black in them, though modern Egyptians have that mix, they were really surprised to find none in those mummies. They are trying to figure out where and when the 8% black in modern Egyptians came from. Do a web search on ancient Egyptian dna.

  3. Saying that the Egyptians were white is like saying New Yorkers are white. The wer a health mix of Central, East, North African, and Mediterranean.

  4. The original Egyptians WERE White as they were during the height of their civilization when the Great Pyramid was built around 2500 BC, which is when the statues come from that you pictured. However, those Whites imported negro slave labor from the south, and over the centuries, the population became significantly mulatto, which is why depictions of Akhenaten, Nefertiti, their children look mulatto, neither pure White nor pure negroid. At the end of the civilization (before the takeover by White Greeks), there were no longer any Whites, instead a population much the same as it is now, an admixture of semitic and negro.
    The important point is that Whites built the high civilization, which only declined from there as the population became less and less White, until eventual collapse.

  5. Wait, the are people who truly believe ancient Egyptians were black? It’s the funniest joke I ever heard.

  6. They now, in 2017, have found enough DNA to run the genome of over 150 mummies. They are have no black African in them. Modern Egyptians have black African mixed in, but not those mummies. They are more like indoeuropean or Kurds.

    1. Ancient Egyptians had some Black in them (but only a little on average) but less than modern Egyptians. They were, in a lot of their ancestry similar to Levantines (like Syrians) and some Anatolians (Kurds are pretty close to Anatolians, but the original Indo-Eiropeans came from near Ukraine and were likely closer to Eastern Europeans.
      Ancient Egyptians had about 6-15% on average (likely always more in South Egypt and less in North Egypt), that’s 8% less than modern Egyptians on average.
      https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694
      “Both qpAdm35 and the f4-ratio test39 reveal that modern Egyptians inherit 8% more ancestry from African ancestors than the three ancient Egyptians do…”
      “Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% depending on method and choice of reference populations”

  7. Modern Egyptians in Cairo are a mixture of Arab and Berber with some Greek and other Mediterranean influences.
    They speak Arabic, look Arabic, have an Arabic religion.

  8. I am white and I know that all races exhibit racism to some extent. I also know that a people’s story defines the psyche of that people. Hence this controversy over the color of Ancient Egyptians cannot be wholly interpreted on scientific terms alone as race allegiance will enter the debate to possibly skew beliefs.
    For many whites it is difficult to accept that a black race may have given birth to one of humankind’s greatest civilizations not just because it may affront their comfortable view of white superiority, but also because they have grown up on white actors playing the part of Ancient Egyptian rulers in scores of films.
    They have also grown up on the belief that black Africans only lived in grass huts. Unfortunately, a simple search of African metal art and of African civilizations will dispel those ideas for many, but not all.
    Having said that let’s look at the known facts of the gene study: “Scientists took 166 bone samples from 151 mummies, dating from approximately 1400 B.C. to A.D. 400, extracting DNA from 90 individuals”.
    That sample is far too late for an accurate genetic investigation of the Ancient Egyptians.
    Remember, mummification was a costly process. The best mummies have been preserved in the best tombs – also expensive. Therefore, the mummies under study represent the upper class(es) which during the period in the above study were not the same as the general population for a very good reason – invasions.
    Egyptians were involved in many wars to protect itself.
    From about 1650 BC Egypt was invaded by different groups: the Hyksos, Libyans, The Sea Peoples, Nubians, Assyrians; Persians, Greeks and Romans. All this before the arrival of Islamic invaders in 641 AD. These invaders become the rulers of varying degrees over ‘the people’. That is, any genetic investigation after 1400 BC has to be suspect.
    The Great Pyramids (2670 BC – 2500 BC.) were built 1200 years before the studied mummies were made. That is a massive period of time. The Egyptians had a flourishing civilization well before the Great Pyramids were constructed – you do not go from mud hut to a colossal stone structure in a few years. Since two Nile kingdoms developed around 5500 BC and were united around 3200 BC, a more accurate idea of the racial origins of these mighty builders would involve a study of mummies from at least that time.
    (I take ‘building’ as an expression of civilization as it involves advanced tools, wealth, social organization, administration, art, math, planning, etc, as well as religious belief at times.)
    The only study of Tut whose “genome suggest more sub-Saharan links. Tutankhamen actually carries a “double dose” of the allele named for him. Like most of the other genes in the family, it is Central African in ancient origin, but unlike the other markers it has a sparse distribution outside Africa with a worldwide average frequency of 4%.”
    That study has its detractors – of course – but at least Tut is closer in time to the founders of Egyptian civilization than the bulk of mummies explored in the debated study above.
    Herodotus visited Egypt around 450 B.C. He did not meet Pharaohs, but did see the “people” as he traveled for several months up the Nile. He had no understanding of Egyptian writing, but he did not need to since he was not a historian in the modern sense. His list of over three hundred kings includes eighteen Ethiopians. Modern scholars count five Ethiopian Pharaohs. Well that is something in itself, but it does not prove a black African origin of the Ancient Egyptians.
    Herodotus simply described what he saw and heard: the people are “dark-skinned and woolly-haired.” He obviously wrote in Greek so many contrarians argue that the Greek terms at that time did not necessarily mean BLACK or WOOLLY. Fair enough.
    For those who offer white statues and paintings to disprove a black spring for Egyptian civilization, there are far more statues and paintings that are indeed black with “woolly hair”.
    Even practicalities need to be taken into account since at that time painting a black face with black hair would render the subject ‘lifeless’ – so a red, brown or even yellow skin tone was used.
    (Black faced Anubis was given a cloak/hair of varying colors – blue, orange, white – so the observer could make him out)
    There is also an ‘idealized’ input into the paintings as everyone seems to be young and without wrinkles. Lips are full, body fat is low and breasts are pert.
    As with many Asian cultures today did the ancient Egyptians see too dark a skin as reflecting an outdoor lifestyle, such as a laborer? That at a guess would be abhorrent to the wealthy – and a guess is not history, let alone science.
    This issue is very worthy of debate. Personally, I’m on the fence because there is far too much evidence for both sides without anything being irrefutable at this stage.
    To end, if we want more accurate History, then Science needs to advance more: but so do we since we are too often guilty of seeing things through biased eyes.
    Any conclusive answer one way or the other is bound to upset one group – and that should never be because in the end WTF should the color of a pyramid builder’s skin have. Surely, it’s the pyramid – and the fact that an ancient human built it – that are the cause of wonder!
    The skin color issue is only considered important because a sense of pride or humiliation is dependent on the outcome. All that shows is that we are divided by race.
    This debate is not just about the color of Ancient Egyptians, it is about us and the way we view each other.
    A study of this debate proves that History does matter because History can be used to subvert or enhance truth; foster or harm international relationships; welcome or disdain others; enslave us or free us.
    Because History is the color (pun intended) that we in the present give to the past, we need to be objective so that History will be employed to enlighten us instead of keeping us ignorant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.