My argument that they are multi-toned is not taken from any DNA evidence but from the art depictions themselves. You yourself actually used some of those depictions. The gods are multi-toned and people depicted in everyday life situations have various degrees of skin colour. This doesn't even account for the 25th Dynasty, thanks for clarifying that for me; this dynasty is recognised as being foreign. If the two peoples were so incredibly closely related I find it odd to single out a single dynasty in such a way.
As for the depictions of the armies I cannot be sure, much as any historian can be sure. I suspect the reason being something along the lines that they were all depicted as the same in a military setting. I don't doubt that the Egyptians had dark skin and this shows in much of their art but I think especially further to the north they are more likely to be of a lighter skin tone similar to their neighbours.
Finally, we are looking at this period as stable. There must have been so much variation. Exactly what time period has everyone settled on as being the 'dark' period? We know there were invaders who most certainly interbred with the locals. Was this to enough of a degree to dilute the population? If so, when did this happen? And if it did, does it stop the decendants from being fundamentally still egyptian? We know that in a much later period the Ptolemy's resettled people of celtic decent into the fayuum depression enough to cause a genetic difference that persists to this day. Are they less eqyptian than their neighbours?
My point is, nobody is disputing that they originally came from the south. Your DNA evidence is pretty big support for that. But did they occupy a barren wasteland devoid of other peoples? Did they never once have any change genetically over the course of their several thousand year history? Or, if they did change then at what point have we stopped classifying these different decendants as non-egyptian?
Bookmarks