RoyalGovnaWatts

I have a hard time believing this considering the amount of years that have passed from the actual migrations to modern day. You can see, most Egyptians, Libyans, Algerians, and Morrocans look very Arabic nowadays.

LuciusCorneliusSulla

I'm glad someone represented the fallahin in their post, poor farming folk, abused, and yet, so pivotal to the success of all great nations, Egypt or otherwise.

EpicHistory360

I think they were a great and very interesting civilization, who contributed much to modern society. I like that most people had a relatively good lifestyle compared to other civilizations and have a very rich history of pharaohs, treasure, and mystery. They would be my third favorite behind Rome and Greece.

Zeno

Had there only been a small brooklet, watering off in the Mediterranean, things would have been different, but like the mighty Nile draws water from many sources, the unified Egypt had deep roots, stretching to the dawn of man, perhaps? For how long has man wandered along the muddy banks of this giant river?

The poor workers were being kept alive, and some of them had the meagre consolation of building their master's grave... They probably felt better off then the Assyrian, or the Sumerian, with their incessant warfare, and the uncertainties this brings. Any peasant would prefer the security of the Nile, with its annual floodings.

sylla1

The "Pure blood" Egyptians & Arabs is of course pure nonsense in genetic terms; the available archeogenetic & anthropometric data suggest that at least from the beginning of the Dynastic period onwards the populations was similar to its modern counterpart, i.e. in general terms intermediate between the Eurasian and the sub-Saharan clines (as it would be expected from its geographic position).

Kemet was one of the mother civilizations par excellance with Sumer, and the exact origin of many ancestral civilization traits is unclear and probably shared by both nations.

Kemet tended to be extremely conservative, but probably not as much as some sources tried to make us bekieve; after all, this civilization spared more than three millennia.

That the average daily life was not so bad relative to the contemporary standards was suggested by the repeated migrations (or at leasy attempts) from neighboring populations.

Kemet had traditionally an extremely stratified and hierarchical society; the condition of most of the population seems to have been more or less analogous to Medieval European serfdoom, free but with few rights. Slavery seems to have been a late developement (well attested since the XVIII Dynasty onwards) and always a low proportion of the population.

wlundgren

Egypt and Sumer surely did share many traits as Sylla points, although they emerged from a different older culture stratum.
I dont know much about Sumer but as for Egypt, it had its roots in a cultural continuum that spread in North Africa during the neolitization process and indeed, as anthopology showed some time ago, some of this older culture traits were still visible in some modern "primitive" societes in north africa.

Satuf

That is false.

As an Iraqi, for example, I can tell Egyptians from Iraqis by looks. I could tell Iraqis from Saudis by looks. Only Iranians and Iraqis are really hard to tell.