My assumption of how the ancient Egyptians looked

[Lik3]

I am writing today about the ancient Egyptians. Why is there such a big deal as to what "race" they are? According to drawings, I doubt that they were European even European Mediterranean peoples like that Spanish and Italian. Egypt is a North African country, where you will find black Africans and Middle Easterners who are North Africans. I say this because the Arabs came later. The ancients were a brown-skinned North African people, yet the Nubians were, and still are, a black African people. Interestingly enough, why are they pictured as Europeans in Hollywood movies? Is it because ancient Egypt was an advanced empire often shrouded in mystery? The Greeks knew about the Ethiopians and Egyptians and that was an extremely long time ago. I would picture the ancient Egyptian to look like they did in their illustrations:

Nubian woman

Nubian children from Egypt and Sudan

Nubian children

Young Oromo Girl (eastern African)

Lady from the Horn of Africa ( (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia)

Young lady of Eritrean and East European descent

Yemeni Jews

Young man of Turkish Cypriot and Turkish descent

Egyptian woman

Indian Woman


I know that the ancient Egyptians are an African-Semitic people and not even Indian, Greek, Turkish, or a Cypriot. I am not sure if they were fully black as us Americans see them. I doubt that they were fully European since they were an African-Semitic people. They would not look like Elizabeth Taylor, Billy Zane, or Christian Bale. They would look more like the people above. I also doubt that they looked African American since our ancestors are mostly West and Central African. There is a world of difference, especially since Africa isn't a big country but a large continent with a lot of diversity. That is how I imagine the Ancient Egyptians look.

 

[Albion]

I know that the ancient Egyptians are an African-Semitic people and not even Indian, Greek, Turkish, or a Cypriot. I am not sure if they were fully black as us Americans see them.

Except for a certain few periods in the long history of Egypt, they weren't black at all. And the reason that "Americans see them" as black, if they do, is because Hollywood defers to the African-American community which likes to think that the ancient Egyptians were black, i.e. Negroid. The evidence is almost totally lacking, but it's common to hear representatives of that community misrepresenting the Bible in order to make their point, or else saying, with even less credibility, "Egypt is on the African continent, so they had to be black."

 

[Lik3]

Your point is fair enough, but I imagine that Cleopatra could have been of Greek-North African origin, like these people:

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Your point is fair enough, but I imagine that Cleopatra could have been of Greek-North African origin, like these people:

Sorry, Cleopatra was the descendant of Ptolemy I, one of Alexander's Generals. She was of mixed Macedonian and Greek heritage entirely, which would mean by today's standards a full blooded Greek. In fact, there is a good chance she was blonde as both her father (Ptolemy XII Auletes) and ancestor Ptolemy I were.

The ancient Egyptians recognised four races: The black Nubians, the reddish peoples of Palestine and Babylonia, the Yellow Libyans and themselves. They always made themselves a shade between the Libyans and the Semitic peoples of the middle east.
They aren't semitic by the way, but Afro-Asiatic or to use the old term Hamito-Semitic, so they and the Semites are cousins, but the Egyptian language is closer to Nubian and the languages of Ethiopia than to Arab or Hebrew.
The most popular hypothesis at the moment is a admixture of a pastoral people from the Sahara Basin when it dried into desert from savannah and a sedentary population caused the Ancient Egyptians to come into being. So basically, they are a mixed population of East Africans and Middle-Easterners by today's standards. This would also explain where there language fits in the Hamito-Semitic language family as it is sort of halfway between those two groups. The Modern Egyptians had significant added Arab and Greek blood from later conquests so don't match the old racial make-up that well.
That being said, the Nubians and Horn of Africa peoples aren't negroid, but dark Caucasoid peoples. Negroids are mostly sub-saharan, so African-Americans claiming Egyptians or Nubians as kindred makes little sense.

 

[Lik3]

Sorry, Cleopatra was the descendant of Ptolemy I, one of Alexander's Generals. She was of mixed Macedonian and Greek heritage entirely, which would mean by today's standards a full blooded Greek. In fact, there is a good chance she was blonde as both her father (Ptolemy XII Auletes) and ancestor Ptolemy I were.

The ancient Egyptians recognised four races: The black Nubians, the reddish peoples of Palestine and Babylonia, the Yellow Libyans and themselves. They always made themselves a shade between the Libyans and the Semitic peoples of the middle east.
They aren't semitic by the way, but Afro-Asiatic or to use the old term Hamito-Semitic, so they and the Semites are cousins, but the Egyptian language is closer to Nubian and the languages of Ethiopia than to Arab or Hebrew.
The most popular hypothesis at the moment is a admixture of a pastoral people from the Sahara Basin when it dried into desert from savannah and a sedentary population caused the Ancient Egyptians to come into being. So basically, they are a mixed population of East Africans and Middle-Easterners by today's standards. This would also explain where there language fits in the Hamito-Semitic language family as it is sort of halfway between those two groups. The Modern Egyptians had significant added Arab and Greek blood from later conquests so don't match the old racial make-up that well.
That being said, the Nubians and Horn of Africa peoples aren't negroid, but dark Caucasoid peoples. Negroids are mostly sub-saharan, so African-Americans claiming Egyptians or Nubians as kindred makes little sense.

So what you are saying is that the Ancient Egyptians are dark Caucasian?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

So what you are saying is that the Ancient Egyptians are dark Caucasian?

No, dark Caucasoid. Like lighter East Africans, but darker than the current Egyptians.
Caucasian is a subtype of Caucasoid as in Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Australoid. So its not exactly the same, they are a different subtype. Their features were closer to Middle-Eastern features than European. However, remember these subtypes must be taken with a pinch of salt as there are always outliers and groups that don't follow the trend in the population or have other genetic admixtures as well.
If you go back to your original pictures, your Nubian children and East African woman mixed with those Yemeni Jews is essentially how they would have looked.

 

[Dave-W]

Look at the heiroglyphs. They show a variety of skin tones. Some are light and very arabic looking while others are much darker. IMO migration and conquest made for a changing look over time.

 

[Lik3]

Thank you for all of your answers. I have a few questions that I asked you. Would you please give your opinion on this portion on this article. Those were my thoughts at the time. You gave me the answers and I will keep those in mind. I believe that these were based on history, even though some of it is wrong. Is there anyone else who can answer this article for me? You all who answered have given me some great responses. Oh yeah, I admit that I am late, but I just want to know. I would think that it is an extension of my views. So they seem to repeat what you have responded to me. I wasn't so sure about this, but I have always wondered why, ironically, people write about the 'race' of the ancient Egyptians. Some even believe that the Sumerians were a blond haired caucasian people. Other believes that the Sumerians, were more of a Semite, black African, or a Semite/African mix.

What is so ironic is that the Ancient Egyptians didn't have the 500 year old concept of race that we have today, especially in the United States. I asked about the race of the Ancient Egyptians a while back and you have provided some good answers. Well, are they a Caucasoid people, a Negroid people, or a mix of both? From mummies, genetics, drawings, and statues, they look to be a mix of Caucasian and Negro peoples. Nefertiti could easily pass for a Horner, or one from the Horn of Africa. Ramses looks to be mostly Caucasoid. King Tut could pass for a North African, which the Egyptians are, Middle Eastern/North African.

Could anyone post true genetic and other information to support your claim or at least my claim. I guess it is ironic for me to post this, but I just want to know. Also, what is the big deal with what race or color they are? The same goes for the Jews, which is a culture and religion. There are many black Jews as well as white Jews as well as North African/Middle Eastern Jews. So what is the big deal about them as well? The Ancient Egyptians look to be a Semitic/Caucasian/Negro(Horner) mix or each combination of the three to me. By the way, are Semites Caucasoid or are they a separate race from European Caucasoids; or are they intermediates between Europeans and black Africans?

Many Eurocentric racists believed that it isn't a black empire but a white empire. It has to be white because there is no way that black Africans in particular could have been that intelligent enough to build such sophisticated empires. Many Afrocentrists conclude that because the Ancient Egyptians were Africans, and there was an 80 year rule by blacks, that Ancient Egyptians were black or must have been of African ancestry. Kemet is a word for Egypt, but it also means black, either for the land or for the people. There are pics of blacks, rather Nubians in Egypt today.

Why are the Nubians so little known in Ancient Egypt? Is it because they were blacks? Why does it matter if it is a black or white empire (I believe it was neither just black or just white)? Are there any sources that are not corrupted by the centrists' mindset? Are there any scientific objective, historical data on them?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Not sure what you are asking, too many colours, so I am not sure what are your words and what is a portion of the article.

However, the Caucasoid range from East Africa to India to Europe has gradual change. Each town's inhabitant looks similar to the neighbouring town but incremental change sets in. So an Indian looks vastly different from a Norwegian, but looks similar to his neighbour, who looks similar to his neighbour and so on and so on until these two neigbours are Norwegians. It is not perfect though as population shifts took place, but mostly it follows the pattern within a type. So Semites aren't really a mix, but an arbitrary section of a spectrum of caucasoids. We could extend this spectrum to take in account all of humanity, but then we would lose the nice gradual change we see as there are some abrupt changes in type that occur between them. This is likely on account of expansion of the subtypes from separate urheimats or original homelands. Hypothetically it was assumed Caucasoids expanded from the Middle-East, hence the name, but this would have occured millenia before our first records.

Sumerians had likely a middle-eastern appearance as nowhere in their writings do they differentiate their appearance from the Akkadians, although they did not speak a Semitic or Indo-European language, but a complete language isolate.

The 25th dynasty of Egypt was a black Nubian dynasty who claimed to restore Egypt to her past greatness, but they were foreign conquerors and not native Egyptians. They were eventually driven out by a native Saite dynasty (26th). When people read or stress Ancient Egypt, they tend to focus on the Old and New Kingdoms (the Middle Kingdom to a lesser extent) as these periods saw the height of Egyptian Civilization. They ignore the First, Second and Third Intermediate and the Late period, because these aren't so great, with Egypt in turmoil and often more than one dynasty claiming to be Pharoah. The Nubians fall in the Third Intermediate and are themselves a product of Egyptian weakness at the time, so it is understandable if those who want to wonder at the glory of the Ancients would ignore them and their epoch. For genuine students of the period, they are a fairly well known dynasty since they are an oddity as the only Nubian dynasty.

I think the racial classifications of Ramesses (which one of the eleven?), Tutankhamun and Nefertiti are quite arbitrary especially as the latter two are probably closely related (mother and son?).

Kemet (km.t) does mean black, but from the hieroglyphic determinitives this clearly refers to land or soil. So it means the 'black land' referring to the fertile black silt deposited by the nile as opposed to the sterile desert surrounding it (deshret). Likewise the Egyptians called themselves the people of the 'black land', not black in and of itself.

No, Egypt is not a black or white empire as there is no such thing. I would class it as an Afro-asiatic empire based on language and a probably Caucasoid one based on phenotype, but skin colour has nothing to do with either of these classifications.

 

[Lik3]

Thank you, Quid for answering my questions.

 

[thehehe]

Funny, I was wondering exactly about the same thing and spent my sunday making researches about that!

There was even more complicate than that. For what I found, in the Archaic Egypt, some people had extraordinary dolicocephalic skulls.
I give you my link with all the pictures and explanations of races. This is truly fascinating! They even say that Ramses II was blond/red-haired. Ramses red-haired, I did not imagine it in my pre-conceive ideas of Ancient Egypt.
http://gigalresearch.com/uk/publications-pharaohs.php

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Funny, I was wondering exactly about the same thing and spent my sunday making researches about that!

There was even more complicate than that. For what I found, in the Archaic Egypt, some people had extraordinary dolicocephalic skulls.
I give you my link with all the pictures and explanations of races. This is truly fascinating! They even say that Ramses II was blond/red-haired. Ramses red-haired, I did not imagine it in my pre-conceive ideas of Ancient Egypt.
http://gigalresearch.com/uk/publications-pharaohs.php

Sorry to tell you, but Antoine Gigal is not a recognised Egyptologist, holds no degrees in Egyptology but is a fringe theorist far outside the pale of accepted history. She studied Chinese, not Egyptian history except as a 'explorer' and can most likely not read Hieroglyphics. You can see this yourself if you read her self-published bio on her website which mentions her 'groundbreaking translations overlooked by standard Egyptology' and her 'never before seen discoveries', so she is basically a charlatan plugging Egyptian topics to sell books and not a serious researcher.

In fact, in that article there are several historical errors, most notably when they show a frieze reportedly showing four different 'Egyptian Races' which is in fact a frieze from Luxor showing foreigners bringing tribute.
Its part of this mania to try and connect the Egyptians to the Monolith builders of Europe (hence the claim of red hair for Ramesses II, which is possible based on his mummy but has zero racial significance and likely is due to Middle-Eastern blood). Alternately they plug a Afrocentric claim which is again baseless.

Similarly the claim that Manetho is somehow ignored on early dynasties, which is simply not the case. In fact, much research is being done on possibly even earlier dynasties than his scheme although they cannot really be considered as Pharoahs before Narmer.
The claim of Aunu as a black dynasty is again nonsense. This is based on a poor reading by Flinders Petrie more than a hundred years ago, which he himself later corrected. The very plaque of Terineter shown is misquoted and misunderstood and nowhere references this in its hieroglyphics. Neither does it show the race of the figure, for Egyptian art is representational, not literal.

While Ancient Egypt was likely a very mixed group with a spectrum of skin tones, these types of researchers just confuse people and do harm to those interested in actual history. Whenever I want to check up something, I can't just google or I need to wade through oceans of these type of nonsense articles. Luckily reputable Archaeological Journals exist as well.

Be wary of what you read online. Follow up their sources especially when making bold claims. Check for Academic credentials as well.

Attached a website with a list of some reputable journals, but this is by no means exhaustive and sometimes dubiousness still sneaks in, but tends to be corrected eventually.

http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/er/journals.html

 

[thehehe]

Thank you for telling me! I will tell my Latin teacher, she is the one who recommanded me this site. Thanks again!

 

[Lik3]

Could anyone post true genetic and other information to support your claim or at least my claim. I guess it is ironic for me to post this, but I just want to know. Also, what is the big deal with what race or color they are? The same goes for the Jews, which is a culture and religion. There are many black Jews as well as white Jews as well as North African/Middle Eastern Jews. So what is the big deal about them as well? The Ancient Egyptians look to be a Semitic/Caucasian/Negro(Horner) mix or each combination of the three to me. By the way, are Semites Caucasoid or are they a separate race from European Caucasoids; or are they intermediates between Europeans and black Africans? Maybe I did use too many colors. Do those who are "Horners" refer to Sub Saharan Africans as "Bantus"?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

For Ancient Egyptians as a mixed group between Nubia and the Middle-East. But as I said before, it is really irrelevant.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707631826

For Caucasoids as a spectrum of genetic drift. Also shows the clear differentiation between the Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid Sub-groups

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7163193

Good explanation of Caucasoid haplogroups, just ignore their scepticism of the Out of Africa concept.
http://www.academia.edu/1809315/Re-...ropeoids_Caucasoids_in_Light_of_DNA_Genealogy

Semitic Haplogroups as subtype of Caucasoids.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987219/

Bantu is a language family and not really a racial classification, like Hamito-Semitic or Indo-European language families.

 

[Lik3]

I see what you are saying, Quid. I agree that they don't look West or Central African (our concept of black) or European (our concept of white). What is or would be the difference between mulattoes (sorry if this word offends anyone) and Hamito-Semitic peoples? The Yemeni and Ethiopians could be Caucasoid according to bone structure, but don't the Hamito-Semites be considered black or white in the United States. In fact, what would the modern Hamito-Semitic speakers look like? To me, they would look like a mixed Caucasian Negro people from the tribe of Ham. I know that they were descendants, but where can I find out information about Ham and what he looked liked outside of the Bible. From the pics that I have seen about Hamito-Semitic speakers, they look like so-called intermediates between "Caucasian" North Africans and "Caucasian" black Africans. That is how I see them. I have to learn how to classify the concept of race differently as they did generations and centuries ago.

After all, the US is the only nation where some people see Latinos as a "race" instead of the diversity of nations where they are from in "Hispanic", "Franco", and "Luso" America. To me, as an American of West African descent, they look more "black" than "white". Many of us in the US don't see Arabs and other Middle Easterners as "white"; they are a different "race" to us. Our census illustrates this fact. Here, "white" people are European, some West Asians, and most North Africans. "Black" people have ancestors from Sub Saharan Africa, and so on.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I see what you are saying, Quid. I agree that they don't look West or Central African (our concept of black) or European (our concept of white). What is or would be the difference between mulattoes (sorry if this word offends anyone) and Hamito-Semitic peoples? The Yemeni and Ethiopians could be Caucasoid according to bone structure, but don't the Hamito-Semites be considered black or white in the United States. In fact, what would the modern Hamito-Semitic speakers look like? To me, they would look like a mixed Caucasian Negro people from the tribe of Ham. I know that they were descendants, but where can I find out information about Ham and what he looked liked outside of the Bible. From the pics that I have seen about Hamito-Semitic speakers, they look like so-called intermediates between "Caucasian" North Africans and "Caucasian" black Africans. That is how I see them. I have to learn how to classify the concept of race differently as they did generations and centuries ago.

After all, the US is the only nation where some people see Latinos as a "race" instead of the diversity of nations where they are from in "Hispanic", "Franco", and "Luso" America. To me, as an American of West African descent, they look more "black" than "white". Many of us in the US don't see Arabs and other Middle Easterners as "white"; they are a different "race" to us. Our census illustrates this fact. Here, "white" people are European, some West Asians, and most North Africans. "Black" people have ancestors from Sub Saharan Africa, and so on.

Mixed race peoples in the Americas are combinations of West European or South European peoples with West or Central African peoples. These are different populations than the populations that would have created Ancient Egypt which would be Middle-Eastern and East African.
It is difficult to reconstruct the exact appearance, but the current population of East Africa and the Middle East would be the closest parallels. I don't think there is a specific modern population group we can point to as an example of the Egyptian phenotype.

 

[Lik3]

Mixed race peoples in the Americas are combinations of West European or South European peoples with West or Central African peoples. These are different populations than the populations that would have created Ancient Egypt which would be Middle-Eastern and East African.
It is difficult to reconstruct the exact appearance, but the current population of East Africa and the Middle East would be the closest parallels. I don't think there is a specific modern population group we can point to as an example of the Egyptian phenotype.

I did take a look at the drawings of the ancient Egyptians. They did see each other as a darker-skinned people with reddish skin tones, like this man from Egypt

and the lady from the Horn

. The problem with Yemen is that they are as much of a mix as people from the Horn are. Where can I find online the history of Yemen as it relates to Ancient Egypt? Are Yemenis and North Africans in general Hamitic, or have you answered that? When some of us here see an East African (regardless if they are classified as "Caucasian" or "Negroid"), we see them as "black African or "Negroid", not a "Caucasoid". We in the States see "Caucasians" or "Caucasoid" we see them as "white". While race is a construct, I admit that I am too stuck on that concept. Blacks, including black Americans, most Caribbeans, and Africans are only 10-15% of the US population, depending on a few estimates. Whites, including those of European, Central Asian, Arabs, and North Africans, account for the majority, ~ 60-70% of the US population. Latinos, regardless of race are about 13-16% (Latin America, including Mexico, most of Central America and South Africa, and much of the Caribbean). Americans often see Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Filipinos, and Vietnamese as Asians and Indians and Pakistanis as South Asians. Along with "Pacific Islanders, they make up about ~5% of the population). Native Americans and Alaskan Natives make up about 2%. So that is why it is so confusing to me. I know of "black" Americans who would disagree on the people of the Horn of Africa and Egypt being Caucasoid because of how we see who is black and who is white. Anyway

I asked this because of the pics below:

Caucasians/"Whites"

Egypt

United States

Saudi Arabia

Turkey

Negroids/"Blacks"

Ethiopia

Brit of Nigerian descent

African-American woman

American "Latinos"

Afro-Cuban man

White Cuban man

Mexican Man

Brazilian Woman (Gisele Bundchen)

Asians and Pacific Islanders

Indian woman

Korean-American

Samoan American

Native Americans and Alaskan natives

Najaho women

Lumbee pageant queens

Apache-Yacqui model

I know that that is a lot of pics, but I was trying to illustrating what many of us here think people in every group look like. There are people from other nations who know this and are frustrated with us and our classification of race. I realize that I am guilty, but how we classify people is different from how one classifies people in other nations. So to us, the idea that an Ethiopian is not black, but "caucasoid" would either be insulting or laughable. This would be based on Eurocentrist notions that anything or anyone "white" is better or more advanced than anything or anyone "black". Hence there is Afrocentrism, a view that I don't necessarily agree with. I believe that there have been a small amount of "Caucasoid" North African blood since we are told nothing about her mother. Rumor has it she is African and African in the US mainly means "black". From what I have seen from a coin or a sculpture, she looks more like a Semite or a Southern European or a mix of both. (I realized that the elites tend to marry among one another, so she is of mainly Greek or Macedonian origin.)So it would be hard for some in the "African-American" community to see Cleopatra or even the ancient Greeks ("white") or Ancient Chinese ("Asians"), or Fijians ("Pacific Islanders") as anything but black not just on Afrocentric history and appearance.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I did take a look at the drawings of the ancient Egyptians. They did see each other as a darker-skinned people with reddish skin tones, like this man from Egypt

and the lady from the Horn

. The problem with Yemen is that they are as much of a mix as people from the Horn are. Where can I find online the history of Yemen as it relates to Ancient Egypt? Are Yemenis and North Africans in general Hamitic, or have you answered that? When some of us here see an East African (regardless if they are classified as "Caucasian" or "Negroid"), we see them as "black African or "Negroid", not a "Caucasoid". We in the States see "Caucasians" or "Caucasoid" we see them as "white". While race is a construct, I admit that I am too stuck on that concept. Blacks, including black Americans, most Caribbeans, and Africans are only 10-15% of the US population, depending on a few estimates. Whites, including those of European, Central Asian, Arabs, and North Africans, account for the majority, ~ 60-70% of the US population. Latinos, regardless of race are about 13-16% (Latin America, including Mexico, most of Central America and South Africa, and much of the Caribbean). Americans often see Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Filipinos, and Vietnamese as Asians and Indians and Pakistanis as South Asians. Along with "Pacific Islanders, they make up about ~5% of the population). Native Americans and Alaskan Natives make up about 2%. So that is why it is so confusing to me. I know of "black" Americans who would disagree on the people of the Horn of Africa and Egypt being Caucasoid because of how we see who is black and who is white. Anyway

I asked this because of the pics below:

Caucasians/"Whites"

Egypt

United States

Saudi Arabia

Turkey

Negroids/"Blacks"

Ethiopia

Brit of Nigerian descent

African-American woman

American "Latinos"

Afro-Cuban man

White Cuban man

Mexican Man

Brazilian Woman (Gisele Bundchen)

Asians and Pacific Islanders

Indian woman

Korean-American

Samoan American

Native Americans and Alaskan natives

Najaho women

Lumbee pageant queens

Apache-Yacqui model

I know that that is a lot of pics, but I was trying to illustrating what many of us here think people in every group look like. There are people from other nations who know this and are frustrated with us and our classification of race. I realize that I am guilty, but how we classify people is different from how one classifies people in other nations. So to us, the idea that an Ethiopian is not black, but "caucasoid" would either be insulting or laughable. This would be based on Eurocentrist notions that anything or anyone "white" is better or more advanced than anything or anyone "black". Hence there is Afrocentrism, a view that I don't necessarily agree with. I believe that there have been a small amount of "Caucasoid" North African blood since we are told nothing about her mother. Rumor has it she is African and African in the US mainly means "black". From what I have seen from a coin or a sculpture, she looks more like a Semite or a Southern European or a mix of both. (I realized that the elites tend to marry among one another, so she is of mainly Greek or Macedonian origin.)So it would be hard for some in the "African-American" community to see Cleopatra or even the ancient Greeks ("white") or Ancient Chinese ("Asians"), or Fijians ("Pacific Islanders") as anything but black not just on Afrocentric history and appearance.

Yemenis are Semitic by language and culture, but probably do have some Ethiopian blood.

We know the entire pedigree of Cleopatra. She was entirely Greek and Macedonian, as her line never intermarried with any Egyptians, but only married children of other Diadachi or amongst themselves.

I cannot comment on American views of race, because they are inconsistent, as I think you know. The same with traditional European ones. This was what the Mongoloid, Australoid, Caucasoid, Negroid classification was meant to address.

 

[Lik3]

Thank you for correcting me on the Yeminis and on Cleopatra. Our classifications of race I agree don't make sense sometimes. I guess in a way, everyone's is. Where are you from as you mentioned traditional European ones? Speaking of the classifications, what is or are the best genetic information and illustrations that I could look for? You mentioned the Ancient Egyptians were a Caucasoid people, no? Many Americans see Ethiopians, maybe even Yemenis, as Negroid or Semitics, not Caucasoid as I have mentioned before. Is Caucasoid about bone structure and/or genetics?