I’m not Afrocentric, but first kings of the old Kingdom were clearly more SSA

[Angelina]

So, I just found out that the first king of the old Kingdom came from Upper Egypt- which is the South of Egypt near Sudan. Surely at that time period, their origins would have been more SSA with those from the Delta region having more Western Euroasian DNA.

I’m not a hotep or Afrocentric, but I’m beginning to think that obscuring the African origin of Egyptians is indeed being fueled by racism. I don’t deny by the end of the Old Kingdom, they probably were of mostly non SSA backgrounds, but I do believe In reality, early Egypt’s cultural and genetic base came from Upper Egypt & Nubia — firmly in Africa — and only later absorbed more Eurasian ancestry through the Delta.

I’m not an expert at all, never really cared for Egyptian history and kingdoms, but a book I’ve been reading has made me think. The experts here please give me your two cents and feel free to correct me ect. I’m a novice when it comes to these discussions.

My guess is that their SSA breakdown is very similar to modern day Horners and Nubians:


The SSA–West Eurasian mix of early Upper Egyptians was probably very close to what we see in modern Horn of Africa populations:

• ~50–70% Sub-Saharan African ancestry
• The rest ancient Levant/Egypt-related West Eurasian ancestry

Also: Cultural overlaps

• Some cattle cults, religious motifs, and pastoralist traditions in early Egypt have strong parallels in the Horn and Sudan, further reinforcing the shared heritage.

 

[Midas]

So, I just found out that the first king of the old Kingdom came from Upper Egypt- which is the South of Egypt near Sudan. Surely at that time period, their origins would have been more SSA with those from the Delta region having more Western Euroasian DNA.

I’m not a hotep or Afrocentric, but I’m beginning to think that obscuring the African origin of Egyptians is indeed being fueled by racism. I don’t deny by the end of the Old Kingdom, they probably were of mostly non SSA backgrounds, but I do believe In reality, early Egypt’s cultural and genetic base came from Upper Egypt & Nubia — firmly in Africa — and only later absorbed more Eurasian ancestry through the Delta.

I’m not an expert at all, never really cared for Egyptian history and kingdoms, but a book I’ve been reading has made me think. The experts here please give me your two cents and feel free to correct me ect. I’m a novice when it comes to these discussions.

My guess is that their SSA breakdown is very similar to modern day Horners and Nubians:


The SSA–West Eurasian mix of early Upper Egyptians was probably very close to what we see in modern Horn of Africa populations:

• ~50–70% Sub-Saharan African ancestry
• The rest ancient Levant/Egypt-related West Eurasian ancestry

Also: Cultural overlaps

• Some cattle cults, religious motifs, and pastoralist traditions in early Egypt have strong parallels in the Horn and Sudan, further reinforcing the shared heritage.

Just look at where all the capitals of the predynastic upper eygptian kingdoms are located . They are basically all located at the other end of wadi hammat which used to be a river few thousand years ago.

 

[Midas]

Every important city of ancient upper eygpt from abydos to hierakonpolis was basically located within 60-100 miles of the wadi hammat River.

People were bringing obsidian from ethiopia (spefically the afar region ) to the capital of Upper eygpt which was hierakonpolis.

 

[Midas]

As soon as you get further south than where the proto-somalis landed you get a sharp reduction in the e-v12 haplogroup. It goes from 75% of Upper eygptians having this haplogroup to only 15% of nubians.

Strange as it may seem the anicent eygptians were right to see the nubians as distinct. They seem to have far less actual ancestry from proto somalis then the upper eygptians even though they seem to look far more like us

 

[Angelina]

As soon as you get further south than where the proto-somalis landed you get a sharp reduction in the e-v12 haplogroup. It goes from 75% of Upper eygptians having this haplogroup to only 15% of nubians.

View attachment 370105

Strange as it may seem the anicent eygptians were right to see the nubians as distinct. They seem to have far less actual ancestry from proto somalis then the upper eygptians even though they seem to look far more like us

1. Linguistic connection​

• Ancient Egyptians spoke an Afroasiatic language (Egyptian branch).
• Ancient Cushites (ancestors of Horners) also spoke Afroasiatic (Cushitic branch).
• That means they share a more recent common linguistic ancestor than either did with Kushite Nilo-Saharan languages.
• This linguistic closeness reflects deep prehistoric connections along the Red Sea–Eastern Desert–Upper Nile corridor.

---

2. Genetic connection​

• Ancient DNA shows early Egyptians had a mix of:
  • Ancient Northeast African ancestry
  • Ancient Levant/Egypt-related West Eurasian ancestry
• Ancient Cushites had a very similar mixture, likely in comparable proportions during the Bronze Age.
• Ancient Kushites (Nubians) also had this blend, but with a stronger East African/Nilotic component and slightly less West Eurasian input, making them a little more “southern-shifted” genetically than Egyptians and Horners.

---

3. Cultural connection​

• Predynastic Egypt and early Cushitic communities both had:
  • Cattle-based pastoral traditions
  • Religious symbols (e.g., cow-goddess motifs) with deep NE African roots
• Trade across the Red Sea and along the Nile tied Cushitic areas and Egypt together for millennia — long before Kush’s political rise.

---

 

[Angelina]

This is what I believe occurred:

1. Common roots​

• Ancient Egyptians and ancient Cushites (proto-Horners) both descended from the same broader Northeast African population base — a blend of:
  • Deep East African ancestry (shared with Nilotic/Nubian peoples)
  • Ancient West Eurasian–related ancestry from the Nile–Levant corridor
• This Afroasiatic-speaking population probably formed before Egypt became a state, somewhere in the Nile Valley/Red Sea Hills corridor.

---

2. The split​

• Before Egypt unified (c. 3100 BCE), branches of this population moved east and southeast into the Horn of Africa — these were the ancestors of Cushitic-speaking Horners.
• Others stayed in the Nile Valley and became the core population of early Upper Egypt.
• So, yes — proto-Cushites left before Egypt’s kingdoms formed.

---

3. Slight Eurasian shift in Egypt​

• By the time Narmer and the early pharaohs ruled, Egypt — especially the Delta and even parts of Upper Egypt — had already absorbed additional Levantine/Egypt-route West Eurasian ancestry from millennia of contact along the Mediterranean and Sinai.
• This made them slightly more Eurasian-shifted than the proto-Cushites who moved toward Punt.

---

4. Punt as “land of the ancestors”​

• If Punt’s people were closely related Afroasiatic-speaking kin of the Egyptians — descended from the same ancestral population — it makes perfect sense that Egyptians would mythologize Punt as Ta Netjer (“God’s Land”).
• They weren’t just trading for incense — they were visiting a living connection to their own deep past.

---

5. Timeline in simple form​

• Before 4000 BCE → Afroasiatic-speaking Northeast Africans live from Upper Egypt to the Red Sea Hills.
• 4000–3000 BCE → Some move toward the Horn (proto-Cushites), others remain in the Nile Valley (proto-Egyptians).
• 3100 BCE onward → Egypt unifies, slightly more Eurasian-shifted due to ongoing Delta-Levant contact.
• Old Kingdom → Egyptians send expeditions to Punt, possibly seeing it as a homeland of gods/ancestors.

 

[Midas]

This is what I believe occurred:

1. Common roots​

• Ancient Egyptians and ancient Cushites (proto-Horners) both descended from the same broader Northeast African population base— a blend of:
  • Deep East African ancestry (shared with Nilotic/Nubian peoples)
  • Ancient West Eurasian–related ancestry from the Nile–Levant corridor
• This Afroasiatic-speaking population probably formed before Egypt became a state, somewhere in the Nile Valley/Red Sea Hills corridor.

---

2. The split​

• Before Egypt unified (c. 3100 BCE), branches of this population moved east and southeast into the Horn of Africa — these were the ancestors of Cushitic-speaking Horners.
• Others stayed in the Nile Valley and became the core population of early Upper Egypt.
• So, yes — proto-Cushites left before Egypt’s kingdoms formed.

---

3. Slight Eurasian shift in Egypt​

• By the time Narmer and the early pharaohs ruled, Egypt — especially the Delta and even parts of Upper Egypt — had already absorbed additional Levantine/Egypt-route West Eurasian ancestry from millennia of contact along the Mediterranean and Sinai.
• This made them slightly more Eurasian-shifted than the proto-Cushites who moved toward Punt.

---

4. Punt as “land of the ancestors”​

• If Punt’s people were closely related Afroasiatic-speaking kin of the Egyptians — descended from the same ancestral population — it makes perfect sense that Egyptians would mythologize Punt as Ta Netjer (“God’s Land”).
• They weren’t just trading for incense — they were visiting a living connection to their own deep past.

---

5. Timeline in simple form​

• Before 4000 BCE → Afroasiatic-speaking Northeast Africans live from Upper Egypt to the Red Sea Hills.
• 4000–3000 BCE → Some move toward the Horn (proto-Cushites), others remain in the Nile Valley (proto-Egyptians).
• 3100 BCE onward → Egypt unifies, slightly more Eurasian-shifted due to ongoing Delta-Levant contact.
• Old Kingdom → Egyptians send expeditions to Punt, possibly seeing it as a homeland of gods/ancestors.

I agree that this was the common census amongst most of us who have read about this.

But when you look at the geography and the distribution of e-v12 it shows a completely different picture. E-v12 peaks in southern eygptians and declines drastically the further south you go into nubia. Then, it suddenly spikes again when you get to somalia.

Also here in red is the traditional nubian homeland. The blue is baiscally where the nilosahran pouplation lives.

 

[Midas]

It gest even weirder when you realize the only people outside of somalis who have e-v32 (which is a somali specfic subclade of e-v12 ) in high amounts is the beja. Which occupy the territory i circled in yellow. Then it doesn't appear until you cross all of Ethiopia/eritrea and get to somalia again where 70% of us have this haplogroup.

 

[Angelina]

I agree that this was the common census amongst most of us who have read about this.

But when you look at the geography and the distribution of e-v12 it shows a completely different picture. E-v12 peaks in southern eygptians and declines drastically the further south you go into nubia. Then, it suddenly spikes again when you get to somalia.

View attachment 370108

Also here in red is the traditional nubian homeland. The blue is baiscally where the nilosahran pouplation lives.

Yes but, Ancient Nubians may have had fewer E-V12 males but still shared plenty of autosomal DNA with Upper Egyptians and Horners. Different paternal haplogroups can dominate for social or cultural reasons. For example, a few clans of influential men reproducing at higher rates can skew Y-DNA frequencies without massively changing the whole gene pool. Maternity is invisible in this view. Nubians could have had many Cushitic-related mothers, which wouldn’t show up in E-V12 counts.

 

[Angelina]

@Midas

Why the Beja and Somalis kept it high​

• Beja: Stayed in the original Red Sea pastoralist zone, maintaining continuity.
• Somalis: Became a major pastoralist hub in the Horn; the E-V32 lineages went through a founder effect (a few successful male clans fathering a large proportion of the population).
• Both groups also had less elite-driven replacement from foreign male lines compared to the highlands or Nubia.

What do you think of this theory?

 

[Midas]

@Midas

Why the Beja and Somalis kept it high​

• Beja: Stayed in the original Red Sea pastoralist zone, maintaining continuity.
• Somalis: Became a major pastoralist hub in the Horn; the E-V32 lineages went through a founder effect (a few successful male clans fathering a large proportion of the population).
• Both groups also had less elite-driven replacement from foreign male lines compared to the highlands or Nubia.

What do you think of this theory?

The problem with this is that founder effects cant really explain why upper eygptians and Nubians who are both mainly farmer pouplations dont have equal amounts of e-v12. As soon as you leave aswan and go down to nubian territory the decline isnt gradual but goes from 75% e-v12 to 15% . That is an extremely sharp and weird decline and not at all the hypothetical spectrum we should have seen.

Also upper eygptians haven't been as impacted by later migrations from foreign invaders coming from the Nile. Thats why the last hold out of coptic Christian communities was in upper eygt.

 

[Midas]

Also the extremely sudden apprence of ancient eygptians is extremely weird. If you go back to 5000 b.c which is the date of the earliest upper eygptian culutres. We have skulls found in lower eygpt which look exactly like modern nilosahran skulls . But just a few hundreds years later you have these extremely different looking skulls pop in upper eygpt.

 

[Angelina]

Another theory of mine is that early Egyptologists saw a link between the Beja and the other Horners which is why they classed us as being of the wider Caucasian family tree. They also believed that ancient Egyptians were Hamitic as were Somalis and other Horners since the idea of SSAs being the founding fathers of a great civilization was too much for them.

 

[Angelina]

Also the extremely sudden apprence of ancient eygptians is extremely weird. If you go back to 5000 b.c which is the date of the earliest upper eygptian culutres. We have skulls found in lower eygpt which look exactly like modern nilosahran skulls . But just a few hundreds years later you have these extremely different looking skulls pop in upper eygpt.

So what is your theory. Walk me through it.

 

[Angelina]

Also the extremely sudden apprence of ancient eygptians is extremely weird. If you go back to 5000 b.c which is the date of the earliest upper eygptian culutres. We have skulls found in lower eygpt which look exactly like modern nilosahran skulls . But just a few hundreds years later you have these extremely different looking skulls pop in upper eygpt.

Breaking down what they’re seeing​

1. ~5000 BCE (Lower Egypt)
   • Early Lower Egyptian sites (in the Delta) often have skeletal traits resembling Nilo-Saharan–related populations from the south — broad nasal apertures, robust facial bones.
   • This makes sense because before large-scale settlement from the Levant, the Nile Valley north and south had more genetic continuity.
2. ~4000–3500 BCE (Upper Egypt – Naqada culture)
   • Suddenly, in Upper Egypt (south), you see more narrow-faced, longer-headed skulls — closer to what’s often found in modern Afroasiatic-speaking Northeast Africans (Beja, Somalis, some Ethiopians).
   • This shift is associated with the Naqada culture, which expanded north and south and became the foundation of the Egyptian state.
3. Why this “sudden” change happened
   • Around 4500–4000 BCE, there were pastoralist and farming expansions from the eastern Sahara and Red Sea Hills into the Nile Valley.
   • These groups likely brought Afroasiatic languages and distinctive physical features — they were closely related to the ancestors of modern Cushitic speakers and Beja.
   • They mixed with the existing Nile Valley populations, creating the biological profile that became common in early dynastic Egypt.

 

[Midas]

So what is your theory. Walk me through it.

Basically what happened was that around 5000 b.c proto somali cattle pastoralists living in modern day somalia domesticated the donkey. These guys then by taking their boats went up the red sea and found this wadi hammad river.

they then decided naturally to explore it and when they reached the other end of the wadi hammad river they setup settlements and brought their cattle and donkeys with them. From their they quickly expanded in both directions . Those first settlements at naqada and badrian a little beyond it are the first predynastic upper eygptian cultures .


The reason why the domestication of the donkey is so important is that cattle require an immense amount of water and in dry climates this amount of water increases quickly. Whereas donkeys can go 1-3 days without water. They are also much better at transporting goods. Which is why you see people all over the poorer parts of thr world still use donkeys.

 

[Midas]

Another theory of mine is that early Egyptologists saw a link between the Beja and the other Horners which is why they classed us as being of the wider Caucasian family tree. They also believed that ancient Egyptians were Hamitic as were Somalis and other Horners since the idea of SSAs being the founding fathers of a great civilization was too much for them.

Most people would find it hard to believe. Since how would a bunch of nomads thosuands of miles away from eygpt establish one of the greatest civilizations known to mankind

 

[Midas]

I mean just look at this tomb model from 2000 b.c which is during the old Kingdom. Do these people not look like somalis holding our traditional waran spears with a traditional somali hairstyle.

These people were likely upper eygptians. Since lower eygpt at the time was way more diverse . For contrast Here is how nubians were depicted at the time. Look at how different the kind of skirt there wearing is.

Then these more yellowish people were the lower eygptians

 

[Angelina]

Most people would find it hard to believe. Since how would a bunch of nomads thosuands of miles away from eygpt establish one of the greatest civilizations known to mankind

I don’t believe Somalis or Horners did. I believe that people that were of the same origins did but we went South Eastward.

 

[Angelina]

Basically what happened was that around 5000 b.c proto somali cattle pastoralists living in modern day somalia domesticated the donkey. These guys then by taking their boats went up the red sea and found this wadi hammad river.
View attachment 370110


they then decided naturally to explore it and when they reached the other end of the wadi hammad river they setup settlements and brought their cattle and donkeys with them. From their they quickly expanded in both directions . Those first settlements at naqada and badrian a little beyond it are the first predynastic upper eygptian cultures .


The reason why the domestication of the donkey is so important is that cattle require an immense amount of water and in dry climates this amount of water increases quickly. Whereas donkeys can go 1-3 days without water. They are also much better at transporting goods. Which is why you see people all over the poorer parts of thr world still use donkeys.

Yes, it’s a coherent theory that fits known migration patterns, linguistic links, and anthropology.
The donkey domestication part is actually a clever angle — mobility tech changes like that do explain sudden expansions in prehistory.
The only thing missing is more direct archaeological evidence tying early Horn cultures to Naqada/Badarian sites.