I've been reading archeological claims that say that the ancient Egyptians came from the South and that the first chiefdoms and kings were in the south.

Some also claim that there is a crown of Upper and lower Egypt, with the southern or white crown (Upper Egypt) being superior to the red crown.

If I take the Bible as a historical document, Ezekiel 29:14-15 says :

"After forty years, I will gather the Egyptians from all lands to which I scattered them, and they shall go into Pathros the land of their Nativity and they shall be there a base kingdom".....

So I want to know how this is possible. The Egyptians are middle Easterners, they are Semitic people. So how can archeologists claim that they came from the south.

So I would like to know:

  • Where Pathros is located historically

  • The pieces of evidence that argue for or against a Northern origin of the Egyptian civilization.

  • 1
    en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathros looks like it means upper Egypt i.e. the south. As to them being Semitic, as far as I am aware they weren't. – Orangesandlemons Jul 15 '18 at 13:19
  • 8
    The latest DNA evidence that I'm aware of suggests that ancient Egyptian populations may have more common ancestry with populations in the Near East and Europe than with those in Sub-Saharan Africa. That said, the available evidence is limited and future research may change our understanding. I'd be cautious about using the Bible as an historical document though. If I get time, I'll try to write a more complete answer later. – sempaiscuba Jul 15 '18 at 15:17
  • 2
    I have to downvote unreferenced claims. Provide references and I will upvote. "Some also claim..." – Mark C. Wallace Jul 17 '18 at 16:41
  • 2
    The quotation from Ezekiel has no relevance for your question. – fdb Aug 2 '18 at 18:40
  • 2
    @user20490 Then your presumption is that the Bible is a valid historical document? – guest271314 Aug 5 '18 at 18:56

The direct answer is that in modern Egyptian geographical terms, they came from central Egypt. In ancient historical terms, from "Upper Egypt".

First off, I need to address a misconception in the question. Modern Egyptians mostly speak Arabic, but the Egyptian language spoken by the Ancient Egyptians was not Semitic. It was part of another branch of the Afroasiatic language family (and lives on today only in the "dead" liturgical language of Coptic). Here's a very rough map showing the various branches' distributions at 500BC (prior to the Muslim/Arab Conquests).

Afroasiatic distribution circa 500BC

The first pharaohs of the dynastic period in Egypt appear to have hailed from upper Egypt (roughly the smack dab in the middle of what is modern Egypt). Archeologically, the precursor to Ancient Dynastic Egypt is called the Naqauda culture after the excavation site, which is a smidge further up the Nile, but still in the middle of modern Egypt. This site goes back to 4000 BC. Prior to that for a few hundred years in this same area was the Badari Culture. The latter was the first Neolithic (farming) culture in that area. So your best bet for the original home of Egyptian culture is in that general vicinity. However, there were even earlier cereal-based proto-agricultural societies further south (upriver) in what is now modern Southern Egypt and extreme Northern Sudan*, and was in ancient times known as Nubia.

If you want to go further back than that, we have to talk about the proto-Afroasiatic people. There are several disparate theories for where their original homeland was, including the Levant, the Horn of Africa, North Africa, and the Sahel.

Personally, I think the Horn of Africa theory is the most compelling because evidence from multiple disciplines points there, but I've certainly ended up wrong on such things before.

* - In absence of any good scholarly information on what peoples this society was composed of, I think Nilo-Saharans the most likely theory.

  • 1
    Naqada I was proceeded by the Badari culture. In Lower Egypt you have the Faiyum and the Merimde. – John Dee Jul 17 '18 at 2:27
  • 4
    @user20490 - Genetics can often be an interesting addition to the story, but I would warn you away from the idea that it is determinative. In history its a people's culture that we care about, and language is a far better indicator of that. (Any French football fan will tell you this) That being said, genetic studies were part of this answer, and for ancient Egyptians, there's good evidence there supporting the Horn of Africa theory. That's part of why I leaned on it a bit. – T.E.D. Jul 17 '18 at 14:00
  • 3
    @JohnDee - I'd say influence is certain. At first they were just harvesting wild grasses, and this is (my personal theory) likely what Afroasiatics were doing special that allowed the population increase that made them A Thing. However, few of the crops Egypt used once it hit the Neolithic were domesticated in Africa. Of course useful plants are among the things human societies are quickest to borrow, but this still shows some connection, however tenuous, with the levant. Given the logistics of the area, that stuff almost certainly at least transited through lower Egypt. – T.E.D. Jul 18 '18 at 13:20
  • 2
    Mummy genetics is liable to be pretty divergent from what you'd find in common subjects anyway though. For example, Cleopatra was a descendant of a Greek general. Likely very few of her subjects were. – T.E.D. Jul 18 '18 at 18:15
  • 4
    @user20490: Ignoring facts that conflict with what people want to believe is hardly unique to modern Egyptians :-) Also note North African != Egyptian, and North Africa itself hardly seems likely to be a shining example of genetic/ethnic purity. Phoenecians, Greeks, Carthaginians, Romans, the Islamic conquests, the French... Not to mention several millenia of Mediterranean trade: you really think sailors coming into a foreigh port remain celibate? – jamesqf Aug 4 '18 at 17:20

I understand why these statements may appear to be contradictory, but - as with many things - much of the confusion probably stems from the terminology being used. So, firstly, let's be clear about definitions.

The Ancient Egyptian civilisation is generally accepted to have originated in the Neolithic with the Faiyum A culture in Lower Egypt (with evidence dating back to about 6000 BCE), and the Badari culture, which has given us the earliest evidence of agriculture and permanent settlement in Upper Egypt dating to around 5000 BCE. These were followed by the more-familiar Naqada Neolithic cultures, also located in Upper Egypt.

Upper Egypt is broadly defined as the Nile valley between the Cataracts of the Nile (above modern-day Aswan), downriver (northwards), roughly to the area of modern El-Ayait.

The Ancient Egyptian name for this region was written in hieroglyphs as:

tA Smaw

which transliterates as tA Smaw, and might be translated - rather appropriately - as "the Land of Reeds".

[Lower Egypt] is, broadly speaking, the Nile delta. It runs from modern El-Ayait north to the Mediterranean.

The Ancient Egyptian name for this region was written in hieroglyphs as:

tA mHw

which transliterates as tA mHw. Literally, "the land of papyrus".

Just to complicate matters, the northern part of Upper Egypt, between the city of Sohag and El-Ayait is also known as Middle Egypt


There were indeed two crowns associated with Upper and Lower Egypt. The White Crown, (ḥḏt) or Hedjet was the crown of Upper Egypt:


and the Red Crown, (dSrt) or Deshret was the crown of Lower Egypt:


After the unification, these crowns were combined to create the sḫm.ty or "Pschent" double-crown:


In the combined crown, sḫm.ty, the White Crown appears above the Red Crown, and I suspect that this is what you are referring to when you say that:

"... there is a crown of Upper and lower Egypt, with the southern or white crown (Upper Egypt) being superior to the red crown".

Although, as we'll see below, the unification of Egypt was achieved by the kings of Upper Egypt, who then became the kings of the new unified kingdom, so the ḥḏt crown might also be considered 'superior' in that sense.

The Origins of the Ancient Egyptians

This is actually one of the hot topics in modern Egyptology.

As I mentioned above, the earliest evidence we have for permanent 'settlement' and agriculture in Ancient Egypt is from the Neolithic Faiyum A culture. This dates from about 6000 BCE and located in the Faiyum basin in Lower Egypt.

The Faiyum A culture has also given us the earliest evidence for weaving in Ancient Egypt. Unlike the later Neolithic cultures of the Nile Valley, there is no evidence to suggest that the Faiyum A culture ever developed anything that we would recognise as a permanent village or town. The only permanent, fixed, features that we have been able to identify are hearths and granaries.

Nevertheless, if you want to define the origin of the Egyptian civilization as the earliest 'settled' culture, then the Faiyum A culture in Lower Egypt (i.e. the North of the country) would be a contender.

On the other hand, many - perhaps most - people would include permanent villages or towns among the hallmarks of a 'civilisation'. In that case, you would probably have to consider the Badari culture to be the origin. After all, this is the culture for which we have the earliest evidence (dating to around 5000 BCE) for agriculture and permanent settlement in Upper Egypt (i.e. the South of the country).

If you are looking more generally for the origins of the Ancient Egyptians as a people, the latest DNA analysis that I'm aware of (involving 166 samples from 151 mummified individuals), which provides:

"the first reliable data set obtained from ancient Egyptians using high-throughput DNA sequencing methods and assessing the authenticity of the retrieved ancient DNA via characteristic nucleotide misincorporation patterns and statistical contamination tests to ensure the ancient origin of [the] data."

found that the ancient Egyptians actually most closely resembled ancient and modern Near Eastern and European populations, especially those in the Levant.

Although only 3 complete DNA sequences were obtained (largely due to the difficulties of recovering uncontaminated ancient DNA), the team also recovered mitochondrial DNA from 90 of the individuals tested. The study included samples from individuals from Upper Egypt, Lower Egypt and the Faiyum. The DNA analysis did not indicate any significant differences between the origins of the peoples of any of the parts of Ancient Egypt.

This last finding agrees with the results of a 2007 study into craniometric variation, titled
Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State and published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, which indicated:

... overall population continuity over the Predynastic and early Dynastic, and high levels of genetic heterogeneity, thereby suggesting that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process.

At this point, it is probably worth mentioning the oft-quoted (or, more accurately, 'oft-misquoted') study of the DNA of the Pharaoh Ramesses III. Reports in the popular press have frequently claimed that he was of "African descent" because the analysis showed the presence of the E1b1b haplogroup.

The analysis was carried out by the company, DNA Tribes, and their findings were reported in the the DNA Tribes® Digest February 1, 2013. Their conclusion actually states:

These results indicate that both Ramesses III and Unknown Man E (possibly his son Pentawer) shared an ancestral component with present day populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. This preliminary analysis based on eight STR markers does not identify the percentages of Sub-Saharan African ancestry for these ancient individuals. This preliminary analysis also does not exclude additional ancestral components (such as Near Eastern or Mediterranean related components) for these ancient pharaonic Egyptians.

In addition, these DNA match results in present day world regions might in part express population changes in Africa after the time of Ramesses III. In particular, DNA matches in present day populations of Southern Africa and the African Great Lakes might to some degree reflect genetic links with ancient populations (formerly living closer to New Kingdom Egypt) that have expanded southwards in the Nilotic and Bantu migrations of the past 3,000 years.

This is entirely consistent with the results of the study by the Max Planck Institute, discussed above.

[In this context, it is also worth mentioning that haplogroup E-M2 (formerly referred to as E1b1a) is believed, on present evidence, to have originated in the Horn of Africa around 42,000 years BP. Frankly, given the proximity to the Nile Valley, it would indeed be remarkable if this haplogroup were not represented in Ancient Egyptian populations].

However, rather than describing the Ancient Egyptians as "middle Easterners" or a "Semitic people" (neither of which are correct), on the basis of the best currently available evidence, it is perhaps better to think of them in their contemporary context as simply an "Eastern Mediterranean people".

The Unification of Egypt

We have good archaeological evidence for a number of conflicts in the Predynastic Period in Ancient Egypt.

These initially resulted in the emergence of the two 'kingdoms' of Upper and Lower Egypt (tA Smaw and tA mHw). These two kingdoms were eventually unified into a single kingdom with a single ruler. The evidence at present is incomplete, but the process of unification seems to have taken a number of years, and appears to have been completed during the reign of King Narmer. This is probably the event famously commemorated in one of the best-known artefacts from Ancient Egypt, the Narmer Palette:

Narmer Palette

Since Narmer was the king of Upper Egypt (i.e. the South of Egypt) before unification, this meant that the first kings of the new unified kingdom were, indeed, 'from the south'.

The Location of Pathros

As regards the quotation from Ezekiel, I would generally be cautious when citing the Bible as an historical document. When considered in isolation, it is at best, an unreliable historical source. That is not to say that it is entirely without value as an source (and it is most certainly not "just a work of fiction"!). I would recommend taking a look at Converting the Past: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography, by K.A.D. Smelik (especially the first paper, titled 'The Use of the Hebrew Bible as a Historical Source: An Introduction') if you can get hold of a copy. Professor Smelik identifies many of the challenges we face when trying to use the Bible as an historical source and several of the ways in which these challenges might be overcome.

On the more general question of the identification of "Pathros" as "Upper Egypt", @LangLangC has already dealt with this in some detail in his answer.

However, I'd just like to add a link to a 1959 paper, Egypt and the Bible: Some Recent Advances, by the Egyptologist and Bible scholar, Kenneth Kitchen, which includes some additional observations on the etymology of the name "Pathros" for "Upper Egypt" and which you may find interesting.


As with many ancient genealogies the attempts to trace back any ancestry is often very overzealous in trying to reach back as far as possible, thereby leaving behind any firm footing provided by evidence quite too often.

If the "civilization of ancient Egypt" is the focus of a question it seems logical to compare ancient sources with contemporary understanding of the meaning of those sources. When those sources diverge – or start for that matter – into mythological terms and times they have to be taken with quite a few grains of salt regarding their reliability.

That means for this question: we likely have to start by first looking at what Egyptian civilization might mean. Are 'Adam and Eve' part of the Egyptian civilization? – No. Are Y-Adam or mtEve part of that civilization? – No. Those concepts are trying to reach back too far.

Ancient Egyptian civilization followed prehistoric Egypt and coalesced around 3100 BC (according to conventional Egyptian chronology) WP: Ancient Egypt

Going back much further is probably quite senseless if the topic is "civilization". Yes, there were people on earth before that, there were some in the Nile valley before that, but these peoples were not what is commonly understood as civilization of Egypt.

Predynastic Egypt is conventionally said to begin about 6000 BCE.

But enough of the commentary, this post is here to address another aspect from the question:

Where Pathros is located historically

That is: what did the writers of the relevant biblical texts mean by that?

the name generally given to Upper Egypt (the Thebaid of the Greeks), as distinguished from Matsor, or Lower Egypt (Isaiah 11:11 ; Jeremiah 44:1 Jeremiah 44:15 ; Ezekiel 30:14), the two forming Mizraim. After the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, colonies of Jews settled "in the country of Pathros" and other parts of Egypt.

Or: פתרוס:

Etymology and meaning of the name Pathros The name Pathros is probably a transliteration of the Egyptian pe-te-res, meaning South Land. The writers of the Septuagint transliterated the name Pathros with Pa-athyris, meaning Belonging to Athor, but who Athor is remains a mystery.

The name Pathros may have reminded a Hebrew audience of the verb פתר (patar), meaning interpret (dreams):

פתר The root-verb פתר (patar) means to interpret dreams. This verb's sole derivation is the masculine noun פתרון (pitron), meaning interpretation. Both the verb and the noun occur in the Bible only in Genesis 40 and 41, where Joseph interprets the dreams of his fellow inmates and finally the Pharaoh.

BDB Theological Dictionary reports a basic meaning of dissolve, hence solve and interpret, based on similar words in cognate languages. In post-OT texts this word became commonly used to denote explanations of or commentaries on Scriptures.

But that verb neither contains nor explains the letter ס (samekh).

Some words of interest: פתה (pata), meaning to entice, deceive, persuade. Derivation פתי (peti) means simple, foolish. פת (pat) means fragment, bit.

The verb רסס (rasas) means moisten. Derivation רסיס (rasis) means drop of dew. The identical but unused and not translatable root רסס (rss) yields identical derivation רסיס (rasis), meaning fragment.

Hence to the Hebrews the name Pathros may have sounded like Bits And Pieces, or even Wet Lands, and Entreaty For A Drop, or any combination of the above.

That means: a supposed geographical accuracy of that very term is probably less strict than most dictionary entries would imply. It is identified as Upper Egypt, around Thebes, but it is not established fact that all authors of the bible confirmed to this definition and very probable that at least early readers and listeners would identify this simply as "along the Nile."

Pathros (region of the south), a part of Egypt, and a Mizraite tribe whose people were called Pathrusim. In the list of the Mizraites the Pathrusim occur after the Naphtuhim and before the Caluhim; the latter being followed by the notice of the Philistines and by the Caphtorim. (Genesis 10:13,14; 1 Chronicles 1:12) Pathros is mentioned in the prophecies of Isaiah, (Isaiah 11:11) Jeremiah (Jeremiah 44:1,15) and Ezekiel. (Ezekiel 29:14; 30:13-18) It was probably part or all of upper Egypt, and we may trace its name in the Pathyrite name, in which Thebes was situated.

According to Fausset's Bible Dictionary it gets even more colourful:

PATHROS or PATHRUSIM. A "district" (the Pathyrite nome) of Egypt near Thebes; named from a town called by the Egyptians Ha-Hather or with the article Pha-Hat-her, "the abode of Hather" the Egyptian Venus. Originally independent of Egypt, and ruled by its own kings, In the Mosaic genealogy the Pathros were the inhabitants of Upper Egypt; originally in the Bible view a colony of Mizraites from Lower Egypt (Genesis 10:13-14; 1 Chronicles 1:12). Isaiah (Isaiah 11:11) foretells Israel's return from Pathros (Jeremiah 44:1; Jeremiah 44:15; Ezekiel 29:14.) "Pathros the land of their birth" (margin Ezekiel 30:13-18). The Thebaid was the oldest part of Egypt in civilization and art, and was anciently called "Egypt" (Aristotle): Herod. 2:15. Tradition represented the people of Egypt as coming from Ethiopia, and the first dynasty as Thinite. "Pa-t-res" in Egyptian means "the land of the South".

  • 1
    Wow!! Such a neat, concise and well written answer. You dwelt on biblical commentaries and only sprinkled bits of secular sources. You also kind of left the reader to his own conclusions. You wrote with some ambiguity. If the Greeks are right about their claims (Conventional archeology says they aren't), then the Egyptians were neither Semitic nor middle Eastern. If they came from the South, then T.E.D's horn of Africa position seems very plausible. But then we only have relatively recent pyramids in Sudan. We have non in the horn or anywhere else in Africa. – user20490 Aug 3 '18 at 21:23
  • @user20490 Well, deliberately. I think the Horn-theory goes back too far for these q's purposes. The cultural ethnogenesis is multifactorial: drawing in people from all directions, then focusing on the Nile, probably around Thebes (being the first region to become able to dominate), and there the civilisation emerged (or was created by them?). I fear the direction of the Q aims too much for a more monocausal, unidirectional and almost linear development explanation that is IMO unlikely. Going back so far is entering sketchyland. South is relative, now: I'd say that is central modern day Egypt. – LangLangC Aug 4 '18 at 0:37
  • Nabta Playa has the oldest astronomical stone circles that predate stone henge by more than a thousand years. The people of Nabta Playa had cattle cults all through out the Sahara and they had proto-hieroglyph sketches which constitute Saharan rock art. The horn of Africa is in North eastern africa. The Nile originates in Ethiopia which is in North eastern africa. So the distances btw Egypt and these regions are not too far. The Sahara according to Robert Bauval was fertile. In Saharan art, they have pics of lions, tigers, and even swimmers. So it isn't too far back as you say. – user20490 Aug 4 '18 at 12:17
  • @user20490 +Saharan rock art is also far more West than the Horn. And that is just my point: there were possible predecessors all over the place. Megalithic structures alone do not make a civilization (or even culture). It's when the Sahara dried up that people from all over converged into the place of our interest and transformed into sth new: what we'd recognise as ancient Egyptian. But that's not a fixed point, not a linear process, nor unidirectional. People coming from far S or SE were not alone, nor coming into empty land and very probably not even the majority or all dominating 'force'. – LangLangC Aug 4 '18 at 12:29
  • @user20490 As you seem to have a knack for DNA based reasoning: couple "Ancient Egyptians were most closely related to ancient populations from the Near East" with the mythological conception of "water as the source of life" and you get 'we come from the water' mangled down to 'we came from where the water comes from' – You can read numerous ancient sources in which it is almost admittedly that the ancient authors have had no real clue about true origins. – LangLangC Aug 4 '18 at 15:06

Ancient Egyptians were a mixture of Native Black Africans & Eurasian peoples from the middle east. In latter periods such as Hysko, Assyrian, Persian & Greco-Roman the Eurasian element increased.

The latest DNA study many mainstream sites point to was conducted on a site called El Al Busar. Al Busar was in an area heavily populated by technically immigrant populations. The grave site those mummies came from was heavily used by the Hyskos, Assyrians, Persians & Greco-Roman conquerors. All mummies dated from 1500 bce to the Roman era, so this is basically from Hysko rule, a brief resurgence & foreign rule until Arab culture fully erased any real remnants of Pharonic civilization. If you read the actual study itself, it cites these facts & even states the results might vary if they conducted test from another site.

Pharonic Egypt lasted for about 4k years & being at the cross roads of Africa,Asia & the Mediterranean heavy miscegenation & population flux took place. This is why the DNA Tribes test conducted on Amarna period mummies points to a preponderance of Sub Saharan & African Great Lakes DNA & the recent Al Busar study is practically the opposite.

If anyone looks at the Ancient Egyptian artifacts honestly you see both Caucasian & African phenotypes & many phenotypes that resemble bi-racial people today. enter image description here


The African Ancient Egyptian civilization started up south.

I've been reading archeological claims that say that the ancient Egyptians came from the South and that the first chiefdoms and kings were in the south.

That is correct.

Some also claim that there is a crown of Upper and lower Egypt, with the southern or white crown (Upper Egypt) being superior to the red crown.

It is not clear what you mean by "superior".

If I take the Bible as a historical document, Ezekiel 29:14-15 says :

The Bible is historically worthless. Especially when it comes to attempting to use those fictional accounts to substantiate any historical facts concerning the African Ancient Egyptians. The first "Bible" ("Old Testament") was not printed en masse in Europe until 1475 C.E. by Gutenberg; or rather, the individuals whom Gutenberg owed money to. The first Bible printed containing both the "Old Testament" and "New Testament" did not occur until 1537 C.E. Again, those dates have absolutely nothing to do with Ancient Egypt in Africa.

Importantly, an individual has to believe in the fictional stories in the so-called "Bible"

The Date of Noah’s Flood by Dr John Osgood

The question as to exactly when Noah’s Flood occurred has seen a variety of different answers from scholars through the years. The only possible way such a date could be obtained is if the documented evidence which exists provides enough clues to pinpoint the event. Now, while there are many documents and folk histories concerning Noah’s Flood, the most detailed description occurs in the Biblical text. Does the Bible contain sufficient chronological data to enable us to put a time on Noah’s Flood? I believe it does and I believe it does this so clearly that no doubt should remain either about the timing or the nature of this judgment by God upon this earth.

The art of the Biblical chronologist or Date-finder is a mystery to most, so let me explain how such a date can be found. Firstly, I will take a brief look at the assumptions or starting points which I will use.

I must assume or believe to be true that the information about dates does exist in the Bible (otherwise I would not start to look).

I must assume that such information is reliable and the writers did not set out to deceive. (This assumption must be made about any historical document before it is examined.) Therefore if I find apparent contradictory evidence in the text, I will first assume that a problem exists in my understanding rather than the text.

Thirdly, I assume that since the Bible is God’s revealed word to man, it is accurate and therefore will not conflict with true historical information derived from outside the Biblical text.

Lastly, I assume that the best way of using information from one part of the Bible is to use it the way the Biblical writers used it or referred to it in other parts of the Bible.

... The placing of a catastrophic global flood in the year 2304 BC means that all civilizations discovered by archaeology must fit into the last 4,285 years. The significance of this fact will be pursued in later articles. [Ed. note: — for more information, see TJ 2 (1986), pp. 56–87 and TJ 3 (1988), pp. 96–136.]

The belief in "a catastrophic global flood in the year 2304 BC" is inconsistent with the actual historical evidence (even that presented by western academia) that there is an unbroken line of African Ancient Egyptian "kings" from at least 2649 B.C.E. through to at least 653 B.C.E. (so-called "Nubian"), see List of Rulers of Ancient Egypt and Nubia; for more details see Working with Egyptian King-lists

Order of Discussion Considering Neferefre’s Anchor Date of 2750 BCE Having determined the nature of the information in the king-lists prior to the reign of Neferefre, I will next discuss the kings from Neferefre down to Unas — the remainder of the 5th Dynasty, and the kings of the 6th and 8th Dynasties. Beginning with Neferefre, whose w3gy date fell in 2750 BCE, these kings are able to be dated through a combination of data from the Turin Canon, lunar dates, other sources such as mason’s inscriptions, and the census counts as provided by the South Saqqara Stone.

enter image description here

enter image description here

(Temple of Seti I, at Abydos)

Thus, the Bible is totally irrelevant to

So I want to know how this is possible. The Egyptians are middle Easterners, they are Semitic people. So how can archeologists claim that they came from the south.

The term "middle Easterners" or "Middle East" is a modern geopolitical term having nothing to do with the African Ancient Egyptians.

The term "Middle East" may have originated in the 1850s in the British India Office.7 However, it became more widely known when American naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan used the term in 19027 to "designate the area between Arabia and India".8 During this time the British and Russian Empires were vying for influence in Central Asia, a rivalry which would become known as The Great Game.

Similarly, the term "Semite" is also a term which was not used in Ancient Egypt in Africa.

Semitic most commonly refers to the Semitic languages, a name used since the 1770s to refer to the language family currently present in West Asia, North and East Africa, and Malta.

Where Pathros is located historically

Am not certain about fictional accounts or stories in the Bible. They are not related whatsoever to actual history which can be verified.

The pieces of evidence that argue for or against a Northern origin of the Egyptian civilization.

It depends on which period of time you are talking about. If we use the western academic "Out of Africa" theory

In paleoanthropology, the recent African origin of modern humans, also called the "Out of Africa" theory (OOA), recent single-origin hypothesis (RSOH), replacement hypothesis, or recent African origin model (RAO), is the dominant1 model of the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens).

The model proposes a "single origin" of Homo sapiens in the taxonomic sense, precluding parallel evolution of traits considered anatomically modern in other regions,7 but not precluding limited admixture between H. sapiens and archaic humans in Europe and Asia.[note 1] H. sapiens most likely developed in the Horn of Africa between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago. The "recent African origin" model proposes that all modern non-African populations are substantially descended from populations of H. sapiens that left Africa after that time.

they were no other people on the planet besides those in sub-Sarahan Africa.

That means, according to western academia, the origin of humanity is sub-Saharan Africa. The Ancient Egyptian civilization is at least 26,000 years old, as reflected in the procession of the equinoxes encoded into the so-called "Giza complex", where the Great Pyramid of Khufu still stands, see Astronomical Alignment in Egyptian Pyramids; Precession and the Pyramid Astronomical Knowledge in Ancient Egypt; Giza – the Time Machine; Is the Fall Equinox the Secret to the Pyramids’ Near-Perfect Alignment?.

The first humans did not know how long a solar year was until the first solar year that they observed completed. The same reasoning applies to procession of the equinoxes being encoded into the so-called "Giza complex".

That is, the only way for the African Ancient Egyptians to accurately or approximately calculate the procession of the equinoxes, or the Great Year, is the have actually have observed the entire cycle.

Since there has been confusion as to the reasoning for drawing the above conclusion, to avoid such confusion, attribute that portion of this answer to this user: guest271314.

Those same original people went across the globe, populating the planet. At some point western academia states that those original African people mated with the different species Neanderthal, and Denisovan. Those resulting matings are what is considered to be modern Europeans.

See There’s No Scientific Basis for Race—It's a Made-Up Label by Elizabeth Kolbert

All non-Africans today, the genetics tells us, are descended from a few thousand humans who left Africa maybe 60,000 years ago. These migrants were most closely related to groups that today live in East Africa, including the Hadza of Tanzania. Because they were just a small subset of Africa’s population, the migrants took with them only a fraction of its genetic diversity.

Somewhere along the way, perhaps in the Middle East, the travelers met and had sex with another human species, the Neanderthals; farther east they encountered yet another, the Denisovans. It’s believed that both species evolved in Eurasia from a hominin that had migrated out of Africa much earlier. Some scientists also believe the exodus 60,000 years ago was actually the second wave of modern humans to leave Africa. If so, judging from our genomes today, the second wave swamped the first.

Neanderthal Sex Could Explain Why Europeans And Africans Have Different Immune Systems by Peter Dockrill

In addition to measuring how effectively the macrophages combated the pathogens, the researchers analysed the gene activity of these immune cells, and found evidence linking the European samples – but not the African blood – with Neanderthal DNA.

The team's hypothesis is that when early humans migrated out of Africa and into Europe around 100,000 years ago, they would have encountered a continent colonised by Neanderthals.

For thousands of years, it's possible that these two species did more than just co-exist alongside one another. The researchers suggest they also bred, which would account for why traces of Neanderthal DNA can be found in European blood.

That still means the original humans came from the up south. Along the way down north several hundred pyramids and temples were built (for example, the hundreds of pyramids in Sudan), including the step pyramid of Imhotep.

Even if the recent claims of "crossing the Red Sea" are taken literally it would mean that African were capable of building sea-faring ships - long before Columbus - originating from sub-Saharan Africa.

There is no evidence in Europe that suggests people came from Europe to Africa to contribute to the African Ancient Egyptian civilization. Similarly, there is no evidence that people from the so-called "Near East" came into Ancient Egypt bring their knowledge to the civilization of Ancient Egypt in Africa. What is clear is that the deities Bes

enter image description here

and Ptah enter image description here

are from up south in sub-Saharan Africa, which are physically representative of the Great Lakes Twa people

The Great Lakes Twa, also known as Batwa, Abatwa or Ge-Sera, are a pygmy people who are generally assumed to be the oldest surviving population of the Great Lakes region of central Africa

The origin of the African Ancient Egyptians is the highlands of Ethiopia, Uganda (if DNA evidence satisfies your inquiry, notwithstanding the issues with the use of CSR, see Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs related to Ugandans - DNA by David Sepuya Kalanzi (Saturday August 16 2014) "The conclusion of the tests were that the mummies autosomal profiles would be most frequent in the present day populations of the African Great Lakes region and Southern Africa. Subsequent analysis of the autosomal profile of the mummy of Pharaoh Rameses III also concluded that this matched the genetic profiles of the population of the Great Lakes region as well." ), Sudan, Kenya, Congo, Chad, Somalia, Eritrea - as those cultures combined and moved down north to contribute to the Ancient Egyptian civilization.

Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Mark C. Wallace Aug 3 '18 at 10:52
  • What is the reason for the "delete" vote at this answer? – guest271314 Aug 23 '18 at 23:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.