Posted on 12/08/2025 5:29:56 PM PST by Ezekiel
What is sad is that it was the ancestors of today’s Mohammedan Egyptians who built the pyramids.
they are the inheritors of the ancient Egyptians, but tossed it aside for a bedouin’s mish-mash belief system (or rather they were conquered and ground down and forcibly converted over centuries)
For the record........ I first learned of these large stones from Richard Halliburton’s Book of Marvels that I discovered when I was 11 or 12.
The Book of Marvels became a standard reference leading to other authors as time went by. I tried to interest my grandson but it was a printed book, and he doesn’t read books.
What is sad is that it was the ancestors of today’s Mohammedan Egyptians who built the pyramids.
—
I doubt that the modern population of Egypt is descended from the Ancient Egyptians because Muslim conquerors had a habit of slaughtering entire populations when they invaded in the 620s.
Un the 620s the Arabs were not “Muslim” when they conquered the Ummayyad empire. Islam o Ky was created later in the 700s by the Abbassid dynasty.
The arabs took over lands without slaughter. In Egypt they were aided by the local Egyptians and Jews. Even as recently as the 12th century, the majority of Egyptians were Christians, but that changed with the Mamluks
Funny how all scholars and even muslims claim different. They all must be grossly mistaken and bow to your vast historical knowledge.
Let’s break this down into two parts.
The first - the original point, that modern-day Egyptians are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians — I say they are, you say no, that the invading Mohammedans slaughtered the EGyptian population and replaced them.
Multiple DNA studies confirm significant genetic continuity (80–90%) between ancient and modern Egyptians, with modern populations showing only modest increases in sub-Saharan African ancestry (estimated at 6–15% more than ancient samples, likely from post-Roman migrations and the medieval slave trade). Ancient Egyptians were genetically closer to Near Eastern/Levant populations, while modern Egyptians retain this base but with additional admixtures from Arab, Turkish, and other influences over millennia.
Your claim of minimal descent due to slaughter is unsubstantiated; there was no evidence of genocide erasing the population, and continuity persists despite conquests.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5459999/
https://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2025/11/03/ancient-egypt-dna-modern/
The most direct way to answer the ancestry question is through genetics. Recent studies of ancient DNA (aDNA) have provided a robust, chronologically consistent picture of the Egyptian people’s origins, showing remarkable stability over thousands of years, followed by gradual admixture.
Genetic evidence shows that the foundational population of the Nile Valley was established long before the first dynasty. During the “Green Sahara” period (approx. 11,000 to 5,000 years ago), populations migrated towards the Nile from all directions as the Sahara dried, creating a unique, indigenous mix of Northeast African peoples and migrants from the Near East.
A breakthrough 2025 study successfully sequenced the whole genome of an individual who lived during the Old Kingdom (radiocarbon dated to 2855–2570 BCE). This individual’s gene pool was comprised of ~80% local North African/Nile Valley ancestry and ~20% from populations linked to the eastern Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia). This provided the first direct genetic evidence that this foundational blend was already established at the very beginning of the pyramid-building era. The sequencing revealed that ~80% of his ancestry derived from local North-African (and Nile-Valley)–adjacent populations, while ~20% traced to populations linked to the eastern Fertile Crescent (Mesopotamia/West Asia).
A landmark 2017 study by Schuenemann et al. confirmed this long-term stability. Analysing DNA from 90 mummies spanning a later period (~1,400 BCE to 400 CE), researchers found “complete genetic continuity” with a profile most closely related to ancient populations from the Near East and Anatolia, reinforcing the Old Kingdom baseline. The study analysed DNA from 90 mummies (spanning ~1,400 BCE to 400 CE) and found “complete genetic continuity” across this timeframe, with a profile most closely related to ancient populations from the Near East (the Levant) and Anatolia.
This deep-rooted ancient Egypt DNA genetic foundation is still dominant today. The 2017 study found that the ancient profile forms the bedrock of modern Egyptians, but with an increase of approximately 8% to 15% in sub-Saharan African ancestry introduced within the last 2,000 years. Furthermore, a 2020 study by Gad et al. on modern Egyptians confirmed the prevalence of both the ancient, foundational Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1b (of Northeast African origin) and later additions, illustrating a clear pattern of continuity with admixture.
The new genomic data from the Old Kingdom provides powerful reinforcement against the population replacement myth. The individual’s gene pool (~80% local, ~20% West Asian) aligns with the idea that modern Egyptians carry a deep ancestral component traceable to the early pharaonic population, rather than being the result of later invading groups.
And some more proof that the Arabs didn’t “replace” the ancient Egyptians:
An international team of researchers have successfully recovered and analysed ancient DNA from Egyptian mummies dating from approximately 1400 BCE to 400 BCE, including the first genome-wide data from three individuals. The study found that modern Egyptians share more ancestry with sub-Saharan Africans than ancient Egyptians did, whereas ancient Egyptians were found to be most closely related to ancient people from the Middle East and Western Asia.
This study counters prior scepticism about the possibility of recovering reliable ancient DNA from Egyptian mummies. Despite the potential issues of degradation and contamination caused by climate and mummification methods, the authors were able to use high-throughput DNA sequencing and robust authentication methods to ensure the ancient origin and reliability of the data. The study, published in the journal Nature Communications, shows that Egyptian mummies can be a reliable source of ancient DNA, and can contribute to a more accurate and refined understanding of Egypt’s history.
Egypt is a promising location for the study of ancient populations. It has a rich and well-documented history, and its geographic location and many interactions with populations from surrounding areas, in Africa, Asia and Europe, make it a dynamic region. Recent advances in the study of ancient DNA present an opportunity to test existing understandings of Egyptian history using ancient genetic data.
However, genetic studies of ancient Egyptian mummies are rare due to methodological and contamination issues. Although some of the first extractions of ancient DNA were from mummified remains, scientists have raised doubts as to whether genetic data, especially the nuclear DNA which encodes for the majority of the genome, from mummies would be reliable, and whether it could be recovered at all.
“The potential preservation of DNA has to be regarded with scepticism,” said Johannes Krause, Director at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History and senior author of the study. “The hot Egyptian climate, the high humidity levels in many tombs and some of the chemicals used in mummification techniques, contribute to DNA degradation and are thought to make the long-term survival of DNA in Egyptian mummies unlikely.”
For this study, the team, led by the University of Tübingen and the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Germany, and including researchers from the University of Cambridge, looked at genetic differentiation and population continuity over a 1,300 year timespan, and compared these results to modern populations.
The team sampled 151 mummified individuals from the archaeological site of Abusir el-Meleq, along the Nile River in Middle Egypt, from two anthropological collections hosted and curated at the University of Tübingen and the Felix von Luschan Skull Collection at the Museum of Prehistory of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Stiftung Preussicher Kulturbesitz.
In total, the authors recovered partial genomes from 90 individuals, and genome-wide datasets from three individuals. They were able to use the data gathered to test previous hypotheses drawn from archaeological and historical data, and from studies of modern DNA.
“In particular, we were interested in looking at changes and continuities in the genetic makeup of the ancient inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq,” said Alexander Peltzer, one of the lead authors of the study from the University of Tübingen.
The team wanted to determine if the investigated ancient populations were affected at the genetic level by foreign conquest and domination during the time period under study, and compared these populations to modern Egyptian comparative populations.
“There is literary and archaeological evidence for foreign influence at the site, including the presence of individuals with Greek and Latin names and the use of foreign material culture,” said co-author W. Paul van Pelt from Cambridge’s Division of Archaeology. “However, neither of these provides direct evidence for the presence of foreigners or of individuals with a migration background, because many markers of Greek and Roman identity became ‘status symbols’ and were adopted by natives and foreigners alike. The combined use of artefacts, textual evidence and ancient DNA data allows a more holistic study of past identities and cultural exchange or ‘entanglement’.”
The study found that the inhabitants of Absur el-Meleq were most closely related to ancient populations in the Levant, and were also closely related to Neolithic populations from the Anatolian Peninsula and Europe. “The genetics of the Abusir el-Meleq community did not undergo any major shifts during the 1,300 year timespan we studied, suggesting that the population remained genetically relatively unaffected by foreign conquest and rule,” said Wolfgang Haak, group leader at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, and a co-author of the paper.
The data shows that modern Egyptians share approximately 8% more ancestry on the nuclear level with sub-Saharan African populations than the inhabitants of Abusir el-Meleq, suggesting that an increase in sub-Saharan African gene flow into Egypt occurred within the last 2,000 years. Possible causal factors may have been improved mobility down the Nile River, increased long-distance trade between sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt, and the trans-Saharan slave trade that began approximately 1,300 years ago.
I rechecked what I wrote - cross checked it with books on the Copitc church and I stand by what I wrote earlier.
The Arab conquest involved battles and some violence (e.g., sieges of Pelusium and Babylon Fortress, with reported killings during sacks like at Bahnasa), but it was not characterized by habitual or total slaughter of populations. Instead, it featured treaties, surrenders, and integration (e.g., the Treaty of Alexandria in 641 CE, where locals paid jizya tax in exchange for protection). Locals did aid the Arabs: Coptic Christians (persecuted by Byzantines) assisted in some areas, Bedouin tribes joined for booty, and figures like Pope Benjamin I (the Coptic Pope in Alexandria) cooperated post-conquest. Jewish aid is less directly documented in primary sources but plausible given alliances in other regions; overall, many Egyptians viewed the Arabs as liberators from Byzantine taxation and religious oppression.
Your portrayal of population-wide slaughter is exaggerated and not supported by historical accounts, which describe targeted military engagements rather than ethnic cleansing.
Egypt did remain majority Christian (Coptic) for centuries after the conquest, with gradual conversion driven by economic incentives (e.g., avoiding jizya), social pressures, and intermittent persecution rather than immediate mass conversion. Sources vary on the tipping point: some estimate majority Muslim by the 9th–10th centuries, others by the 13th–14th. The Mamluks (1250–1517 CE) did accelerate this through harsher policies, including forced conversions, church destructions, and job restrictions, leading to a major wave in the 14th century. By then, the Muslim-to-Christian ratio may have reached 10:1.
OR, perhaps you want to argue against my statement that Islam was created only in the 8th century and yeah, I’m going to say it - “Mohammed didn’t exist, he was an 8th century fabrication”
Yes, that is a controversial argument and one I’ve come to only about 10 years ago - and let me try and persuade you about it.
The Arab conquests HAPPENED - we know that for a fact.
The Arabs conquered a HIGHLY LITERATE SOCIETY - the Egyptians, Syriacs, Levantines, Mesopotamians wrote profusely. They also carved a lot of their thoughts.
Yet NONE, NOT A SINGLE inscription or writing in the 640s to 750s mentions “Muhammad”, “Islam”, “Quran”. The conquered people call the conquerors “Saracens”, and don’t consider them a different religion.
Even more so - the Muslim rulers issue coins with the Christian cross on them, and don’t use Muslim terms.
I especially like the Patricia Crone/Michael Cook Hagarism, Robert Spencer’s views and Tom hollands.
Tom Holland in particular, he argues Islam arose in a contested border region between Byzantines/Persians; traditional Mecca/Medina narrative is mythic, with religious solidification under Umayyads (e.g., Dome of the Rock, 691 CE).
https://vridar.org/2015/03/26/did-muhammad-exist-a-revisionist-look-at-islams-origins/;
Yeah I’m aware of all of those particulars - but they are beside the point and not worth arguing over.
well, I don’t see them as “arguing points” unless one is a Muslim.
But since you and I are not, this is interesting as:
1. Many people (anti-Christians, Christians and others) just thought that Islam had “arisen in the light of history” while Christianity did not
—> this is false - the earliest gospels date to within decades after Jesus and we have multiple copies across great geographies which tell us that it was not distorted
—> Islam in contrast gets written down only 150 years after M’s alleged death - that should give pause for thought
2. If M didn’t exist, that is an utterly different spin on how Islam arose, what it is about and truly speaking, how to end it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.