Were the Cushites ethnically linked to the ancient Egyptians, and do Somalis share ancestry with them?

[Cali Maxamed]

There is a common misunderstanding in public discourse that equates Ancient Egyptians with the Kushites, as if they were one people. While both civilizations were African and interacted through trade, warfare, and alliances, the idea that they were ethnically the same is neither historically nor genetically accurate. The Kushites were not Ancient Egyptians—just as the Hyksos, Ptolemies, Romans, and Arab conquerors were not. All of these were foreign powers that ruled Egypt at various times, but none were of native Egyptian origin.

The dominant genetic haplogroup among Kushitic peoples is A, commonly found among Nilotic, and Omotic populations.

In contrast, Ancient Egyptians predominantly carried E-V12, a subclade of E-M78, which remains common among the peoples of the Horn of Africa and Copts today. According to biblical and Arab genealogical traditions, this lineage traces back to Mizraim, son of Baysar, son of Ham.

See Al-Mas‘udi’s Akhbar al-Zaman, where he cites older Coptic and Christian sources.

One major cause of confusion stems from inaccurate historical naming conventions, particularly in the field of linguistics. For example, the term “Cushitic languages” has been misapplied to a group of languages that were not spoken by the ethnic Kushites, but rather by descendants of Baysar. These languages should be more accurately classified as “Baysaric languages.”
Conversely, the term “Kushitic” should properly refer to the languages spoken by Nilo-Saharan peoples, such as the Nuba—who are the actual descendants of the historical Kingdom of Kush. Therefore, the current classification misrepresents the ethnic and genetic reality of these groups.

Ancient Egyptian wall paintings and reliefs clearly distinguished Kushites through distinct physical features, darker skin tones, and different clothing styles. These visual cues indicate that the Egyptians saw the Kushites as a foreign people, much like the Libyans or Asiatics. The appearance of the Kushites in these artworks resembles modern Sudanese and South Sudanese populations.

Summary Points
• The Kushites were of Nilo-Saharan origin and carried haplogroup A, making them genetically and geographically distinct from Ancient Egyptians.
• The so-called “Cushitic languages” are misnamed and should instead be called “Baysaric languages.”
• The true Kushitic label belongs to the Nilo-Saharan languages spoken by the actual descendants of Kush.
• The confusion between the civilizations is largely due to outdated linguistic classifications and modern ideological narratives, not accurate historical or genetic evidence.

 

[Riftvalley]

Too simplistic to explain it that way. Kushites and Nubians were never fully Nilotic population. BTW this discussion has been had hundreds of times on this section. Maybe check those…..,,,

 

[Cali Maxamed]

Too simplistic to explain it that way. Kushites and Nubians were never fully Nilotic population. BTW this discussion has been had hundreds of times on this section. Maybe check those…..,,,

The Nubians located between Egypt and Sudan mixed with the Baysaric people—even ancient Egyptian wall paintings depicted this, showing that there were two types of Nubians: the pure and the mixed. However, those who founded the Kushite civilization were the pure ones, and their features attest to this. They resemble the people of Sudan, South Sudan, and even parts of western Ethiopia.

 

[The Oponian Guild]

The Nubians located between Egypt and Sudan mixed with the Baysaric people—even ancient Egyptian wall paintings depicted this, showing that there were two types of Nubians: the pure and the mixed. However, those who founded the Kushite civilization were the pure ones, and their features attest to this. They resemble the people of Sudan, South Sudan, and even parts of western Ethiopia.

The rulers of kush would’ve spoken the meroetic language which is hypothesised to have been a cushitic language distantly related to the modern Beja language. however towards the 6th century this language is supplanted by Coptic, old nubian, and koine Greek.

My thinking is that Nubia and kush has been a hierarchical society ruled by a Cushitic speaking elite with a settled and agricultural eastern sudanic speaking people. The elites then adopted the language of the masses as time went on.

 

[Aurelian]

There is a common misunderstanding in public discourse that equates Ancient Egyptians with the Kushites, as if they were one people. While both civilizations were African and interacted through trade, warfare, and alliances, the idea that they were ethnically the same is neither historically nor genetically accurate. The Kushites were not Ancient Egyptians—just as the Hyksos, Ptolemies, Romans, and Arab conquerors were not. All of these were foreign powers that ruled Egypt at various times, but none were of native Egyptian origin.

The dominant genetic haplogroup among Kushitic peoples is A, commonly found among Nilotic, and Omotic populations.

In contrast, Ancient Egyptians predominantly carried E-V12, a subclade of E-M78, which remains common among the peoples of the Horn of Africa and Copts today. According to biblical and Arab genealogical traditions, this lineage traces back to Mizraim, son of Baysar, son of Ham.

View attachment 361829

See Al-Mas‘udi’s Akhbar al-Zaman, where he cites older Coptic and Christian sources.
View attachment 361830
View attachment 361831

One major cause of confusion stems from inaccurate historical naming conventions, particularly in the field of linguistics. For example, the term “Cushitic languages” has been misapplied to a group of languages that were not spoken by the ethnic Kushites, but rather by descendants of Baysar. These languages should be more accurately classified as “Baysaric languages.”
Conversely, the term “Kushitic” should properly refer to the languages spoken by Nilo-Saharan peoples, such as the Nuba—who are the actual descendants of the historical Kingdom of Kush. Therefore, the current classification misrepresents the ethnic and genetic reality of these groups.

Ancient Egyptian wall paintings and reliefs clearly distinguished Kushites through distinct physical features, darker skin tones, and different clothing styles. These visual cues indicate that the Egyptians saw the Kushites as a foreign people, much like the Libyans or Asiatics. The appearance of the Kushites in these artworks resembles modern Sudanese and South Sudanese populations.

View attachment 361832


Summary Points
• The Kushites were of Nilo-Saharan origin and carried haplogroup A, making them genetically and geographically distinct from Ancient Egyptians.
• The so-called “Cushitic languages” are misnamed and should instead be called “Baysaric languages.”
• The true Kushitic label belongs to the Nilo-Saharan languages spoken by the actual descendants of Kush.
• The confusion between the civilizations is largely due to outdated linguistic classifications and modern ideological narratives, not accurate historical or genetic evidence.

View attachment 361833

Genealogy is pseudoscience. That genealogy tree from Nuux to Samaale is nonsense.

Another thing you need to know is that the Kingdom of Kush and the Cushites are not the same. Cushitic is a linguistic term used to refer to a group of people who migrated from northeastern Sudan to the Horn of Africa, and from there to southern Africa. The term was inspired by:

The biblical name of the Kingdom of Kush which happened to be a real kingdom, since parts of the Bible are based on historical facts.

The mythological genealogy of Nuux's offspring.

There was no actual person named Kush from whom the people now called Cushites descended.

The Kingdom of Kush and the people we now refer to as Cushites were not connected. The Cushitic-speaking peoples had migrated thousands of years earlier to the east and south of Africa, long before the Kingdom of Kush was established.

I get that you're trying to highlight the confusion between Cush and Kush, and that's understandable. But my issue with your post isn’t the genealogy part—it's that you're implying the Kushite language was Nilo-Saharan. My question is: how do you know that? What evidence is there that the Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language? As far as I know, the language of Kush (Meroitic) hasn’t even been fully deciphered. So saying it was Nilo-Saharan as if that’s a fact doesn’t seem right.

 

[Cali Maxamed]

Genealogy is pseudoscience. That genealogy tree from Nuux to Samaale is nonsense.

Another thing you need to know is that the Kingdom of Kush and the Cushites are not the same. Cushitic is a linguistic term used to refer to a group of people who migrated from northeastern Sudan to the Horn of Africa, and from there to southern Africa. The term was inspired by:

The biblical name of the Kingdom of Kush which happened to be a real kingdom, since parts of the Bible are based on historical facts.

The mythological genealogy of Nuux's offspring.

There was no actual person named Kush from whom the people now called Cushites descended.

The Kingdom of Kush and the people we now refer to as Cushites were not connected. The Cushitic-speaking peoples had migrated thousands of years earlier to the east and south of Africa, long before the Kingdom of Kush was established.

I get that you're trying to highlight the confusion between Cush and Kush, and that's understandable. But my issue with your post isn’t the genealogy part—it's that you're implying the Kushite language was Nilo-Saharan. My question is: how do you know that? What evidence is there that the Kushites spoke a Nilo-Saharan language? As far as I know, the language of Kush (Meroitic) hasn’t even been fully deciphered. So saying it was Nilo-Saharan as if that’s a fact doesn’t seem right.

There are scientific studies—most notably the work of French scholar Claude Rilly—which suggest that the Meroitic language, used in the Kingdom of Kush, may belong to the Eastern branch of the Nilo-Saharan language family. This hypothesis is based on certain morphological and syntactic patterns found in inscriptions. While the language has not yet been fully deciphered, Rilly’s view represents a serious linguistic hypothesis grounded in partial analysis, and it should not be dismissed simply because the evidence is not yet complete.

As for the claim that there is no connection between the term “Cushitic” and the Kingdom of Kush, it's important to recognize that early linguists and orientalists—such as Carl Lepsius and others in the 19th century—did in fact believe there was an ethnic or cultural link between the Cushitic-speaking peoples of East Africa and the ancient Kingdom of Kush. That is precisely why they chose the term “Cushitic,” based on the then-popular assumption of a shared ancestry. Later research has questioned the accuracy of that assumption, but such mistaken associations are not uncommon in the early stages of linguistic and anthropological classification, where biblical ideas often influenced academic terminology.

Examples of this include:

• The term “Semitic” derives from “Shem, son of Noah.

• Similarly, terms like “Hamite” and “Japhetic” were once used in racial or biblical contexts but later evolved into linguistic or ethnographic terms.

Since this assumption is inaccurate, then what is the problem with revising the classification and renaming it “Baisaric,” after Baisar son of Ham, instead of Cush son of Ham? This would be a more historically precise designation and would eliminate the confusion between the peoples who speak and look Similar to us and the Kingdom of Kush, with which there is no conclusive evidence of a direct connection.

 

[Aurelian]

There are scientific studies—most notably the work of French scholar Claude Rilly—which suggest that the Meroitic language, used in the Kingdom of Kush, may belong to the Eastern branch of the Nilo-Saharan language family. This hypothesis is based on certain morphological and syntactic patterns found in inscriptions. While the language has not yet been fully deciphered, Rilly’s view represents a serious linguistic hypothesis grounded in partial analysis, and it should not be dismissed simply because the evidence is not yet complete.

As for the claim that there is no connection between the term “Cushitic” and the Kingdom of Kush, it's important to recognize that early linguists and orientalists—such as Carl Lepsius and others in the 19th century—did in fact believe there was an ethnic or cultural link between the Cushitic-speaking peoples of East Africa and the ancient Kingdom of Kush. That is precisely why they chose the term “Cushitic,” based on the then-popular assumption of a shared ancestry. Later research has questioned the accuracy of that assumption, but such mistaken associations are not uncommon in the early stages of linguistic and anthropological classification, where biblical ideas often influenced academic terminology.

Examples of this include:

• The term “Semitic” derives from “Shem, son of Noah.

• Similarly, terms like “Hamite” and “Japhetic” were once used in racial or biblical contexts but later evolved into linguistic or ethnographic terms.

Since this assumption is inaccurate, then what is the problem with revising the classification and renaming it “Baisaric,” after Baisar son of Ham, instead of Cush son of Ham? This would be a more historically precise designation and would eliminate the confusion between the peoples who speak and look Similar to us and the Kingdom of Kush, with which there is no conclusive evidence of a direct connection.

why you insist on using biblical terms? As you said, linguists thought there was connection between kingdom of Kush and the people we refer to as Cushites.

 

[Cali Maxamed]

why you insist on using biblical terms? As you said, linguists thought there was connection between kingdom of Kush and the people we refer to as Cushites.

I clearly said:

Later research has questioned the accuracy of that assumption, but such mistaken associations are not uncommon in the early stages of linguistic and anthropological classification

Frankly, I'm the one who doesn't understand why you insist on appropriating other nations' histories and attaching them to ours, when we possess our own distinguished history that's no less significant than theirs.

 

[Maakhri2024]

According to biblical and Arab genealogical traditions, this lineage traces back to Mizraim, son of Baysar, son of Ham.

This is not a biblical tradition but rather books written in Arabic such as The book "Meadows of Gold "by an Abbasid scholar al-Masudi
( كتاب مروج الذهب و معادن الجوهر للمسعودي )
and كتاب اخبار الزمان للمسعودي

 

[Cali Maxamed]

This is not a biblical tradition but rather books written in Arabic such as The book "Meadows of Gold "by an Abbasid scholar al-Masudi
( كتاب مروج الذهب و معادن الجوهر للمسعودي )
and كتاب اخبار الزمان للمسعودي

The Bible has undergone multiple stages of abbreviation and textual variation. Al-Masudi, in his writings, stated that he derived these genealogies from the holy scriptures of the Christians and from Coptic sources—who, according to the consensus of historians, are descendants of the ancient Egyptians.

In its current form, the Bible refers to Mizraim as the son of Ham, omitting the intermediary ancestor, Baysar.

Such omissions are not uncommon in genealogical records. It is often the case that lineages are shortened for various reasons. For instance, in Somali tradition, one might say “Baadicadde son of Gugundhabe,” leaving out the ancestor in between, who is known to be Jibade.

 

[Karim]

So this post says that SAMAALE, IS 6 GENERATIONS away from prophet Noah?!

 

[Cali Maxamed]

So this post says that SAMAALE, IS 6 GENERATIONS away from prophet Noah?!

No, that’s not accurate. The chart does not claim that.

As clearly shown in the chart, there are dotted lines between Hiil and Barbar, between Barbar and Punt, and between Punt and Misraayim. These dotted lines indicate that the number of generations between these individuals is too numerous and historically distant to be counted with certainty.

Only the solid lines indicate direct father-to-son relationships.

The same applies to the generations between Noah and Adam—no one knows the names or the exact number of ancestors in between. Still, it is known that that Noah was a descendant of Adam.

In other words, this is a broad ancestral lineage, not a strict generational timeline. The chart shows ancestral descent, not a precise count of generations.

 

[Maakhri2024]

Al-Masudi, in his writings, stated that he derived these genealogies from the holy scriptures of the Christians and from Coptic sources—who, according to the consensus of historians, are descendants of the ancient Egyptians.

In its current form, the Bible refers to Mizraim as the son of Ham, omitting the intermediary ancestor, Baysar.

Such omissions are not uncommon in genealogical records. It is often the case that lineages are shortened for various reasons. For instance, in Somali tradition, one might say “Baadicadde son of Gugundhabe,” leaving out the ancestor in between, who is known to be Jibade.

Al-Masudi's book is full of myths. He evokes stories from the beginning of creation with Adam and Eve, stories that are thousands of years before his time. He simply collected stories and narratives common in his time, and there is no tangible evidence to support the authenticity of these stories.

 

[Maakhri2024]

The Bible has undergone multiple stages of abbreviation and textual variation. Al-Masudi, in his writings, stated that he derived these genealogies from the holy scriptures of the Christians and from Coptic sources—who, according to the consensus of historians, are descendants of the ancient Egyptians.

In its current form, the Bible refers to Mizraim as the son of Ham, omitting the intermediary ancestor, Baysar.

Such omissions are not uncommon in genealogical records. It is often the case that lineages are shortened for various reasons. For instance, in Somali tradition, one might say “Baadicadde son of Gugundhabe,” leaving out the ancestor in between, who is known to be Jibade.

قال المسعودي :
وقد ذكر جماعة من الشرعيين أن بيصر بن حام بن نوح لما انفصل عن أرض بابل بولده وكثير من أهل بيته غرب نحو مصر ،
وكان له أولاد أربعة :
مصر ابن بيصر ،
وفارق بن بيصر ،
و ماح و ياح ....


Al-Masoudi said:
A group of scholars have mentioned that when Baysar bin Ham bin Noah left the land of Babylon with his son and many of his family members, he went west towards Egypt. He had four sons:
Maysar bin Baysar , Fariq bin Baysar,
Maaḥ and Yaaḥ ....

Observe the harmonious rhymes:
Baysar and Maysar,
Maaḥ and Yaaḥ.
This is the artistry with which ancient storytellers crafted names,
weaving them into the very fabric of their legends and tales.

 

[Maakhri2024]

The Bible has undergone multiple stages of abbreviation and textual variation. Al-Masudi, in his writings, stated that he derived these genealogies from the holy scriptures of the Christians and from Coptic sources—who, according to the consensus of historians, are descendants of the ancient Egyptians.

قال المسعودي : وسألت جماعة من أقباط مصر بالصعيد وغيره من بلاد مصر من أهل الخبرة عن
تفسير « فرعون »
فلم يخبروني عن معنى ذلك

[ Al-Masoudi said:
I asked a group of Copts from Upper Egypt and other parts of Egypt, who were experts, about the interpretation of the word "Pharaoh," but they did not tell me its meaning ].

One cannot help but recognize their limited grasp of the ancient Egyptian language, despite their claims of possessing extensive knowledge of human history, from the era of Adam to that of Al-Masoudi.

 

[Cali Maxamed]

Al-Masudi's book is full of myths. He evokes stories from the beginning of creation with Adam and Eve, stories that are thousands of years before his time. He simply collected stories and narratives common in his time, and there is no tangible evidence to support the authenticity of these stories.

Blind skepticism toward every narrative and historical source does not lead us to the truth—it leads us to nothingness.

This stance is known in philosophy as "radical epistemological relativism," a view long refuted by philosophers because it collapses under its own logic.

If such a mindset were applied universally, we would end up rejecting all of human history—except for the Qur’an and the Hadith, which were preserved through a uniquely rigorous and systematic method of transmission.

Human history—especially ancient history and oral traditions—was never built solely on physical evidence. It has always relied on accumulated knowledge, widely accepted reports, and sound reasoning. That’s precisely what historians like al-Mas‘udi did.

True, some stories may be mythical or symbolic, but they still reflect how people of their time understood their origins and the world around them. That alone gives these accounts cultural value and makes them worth preserving.

Al-Mas‘udi compiled stories and knowledge from various traditions—Arab, Biblical, Coptic, Zoroastrian—and often commented on them, pointing out what was strange, what was common, and what was questionable.

As someone previously mentioned

since parts of the Bible are based on historical facts.

Imposes modern standards on pre-modern contexts, which is both unfair and unscientific.

The right approach is not to reject everything, but to extract what is most likely to be true. That is what wise historians have always done—and continue to do.