Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Two lands: Upper and Lower Egypt subsection, NPOV violations

The two lands subsection has NPOV violations. A non-negotiable rule on Wikipedia. This section shows bias by giving undue weight to Near East influences on Ancient Egypt, while mostly avoiding discussion of the substantial interactions between Ancient Egyptians and Nubians in the proto and pre-dynastic periods, as well as the role of Middle/Southern Egyptian Naqada culture in the formation of the AE civilization. There are 3-4 sentences discussing Near Eastern migrations, trade, and influences, although modern scholarship maintains that the AE civilization was built by individuals native/indigenous to the Nile valley. Here's an excerpt from the article as it stands today:

• It is now largely agreed that Dynastic Egyptians were indigenous to the Nile area. About 5,000 years ago, the Sahara area dried out, and part of the indigenous Saharan population retreated east towards the Nile Valley. An examination of ancient Egyptian skeletons and skulls in 2007 also suggests that there was in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley, particularly during the Early Dynastic Period and the Old Kingdom.[36] In addition, peoples from the Middle East entered the Nile Valley, bringing with them wheat, barley, sheep, goats, and possibly cattle.[37] Dynastic Egyptians referred to their country as "The Two Lands", Upper and Lower Egypt. During the Predynastic Period (about 4800 to 4300 BCE), the Merimde culture flourished in the northern part of Egypt (Lower Egypt).[38] This culture, among others, has links to the Levant in the Middle East.[39][40] The pottery of the later Buto Maadi culture, best known from the site at Maadi near Cairo, also shows connections to the Southern Levant.[41]
  • In migration to the Abydos region
  • peoples from the Middle East entered the Nile valley
  • Merimde culture...has links to the Levant in the Middle East
  • Buto Maadi culture..shows connections to the Southern Levant

The position of modern scholarship is that AE civilization is indigenous and therefore the excessive mention of the Near East is undue and overwhelms the position of modern scholarship that AE civilization is indigenous.

I offered the following edit to balance the multiple statements regarding Near East influence on AE civilization and was reverted by @wdford. Looking forward to information refuting this mainstream edit, regarding the non-negotiable bias and POV pushing in the "two lands" sub-section:

• The Naqada II culture formed an Upper Egyptian proto-state with Hierakonpolis, Abydos, and Naqada as its most powerful sites. The Naqadian's "expansion and warfare agenda proceeded to the north." The Naqadians were successful in their "subjugation of northern territories" and "termination of Maadi and es-Saff settlements." Sites, such as Buto, were "assimilated to Naqada culture, ideology, and values." The expansion of Naqada culture into the north was "permanent." Contrasted with the "chiefdoms" of northern Egypt, the Naqada culture "already approached the threshold of statehood" and there was a "striking difference in the iconography of power" and burial practices between the two regions. "All this, but not only this, makes very unlikely a scenario in which...state formation...had been laid in both parts of the country." "Dynastic culture evolved without interruption from the Naqada culture."

For every AE link to the Near East, there are equivalent if not greater links to Nubia, which is actually in the Nile valley. Mainstream sources maintain that Naqada culture conquered the north and gave rise to the AE civilization. Nearly all of the first dynasty kings are buried in their homeland of the Abydos/Hierakonpolis region. It's a non-negotiable NPOV violation to ignore Nile valley contacts, while promoting Near Eastern contacts.EditorfromMars (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Point One: You need to obtain consensus first on the talk page before you add your contentious edits. That is also a RULE - one which you seem to think doesn't apply to you.

Point Two: The material you added most recently is not universally accepted - in that same volume was a different chapter which said exactly the opposite. You moan freely about lack of neutrality, but why did you not also mention that other scholars disagree, and hold an opposite position?

Point Three: Your repeated POV-pushing edits are highly disruptive, and very transparent. That is also a violation.

Point Four: If you want to add material about Nubian contacts, please propose your edits first on the talk page, and seek consensus. Stop with the disruptive POV pushing please.

Wdford (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Point one, contentious is subjective. I see the edit as mainstream Egyptology. It's certainly not the type of book that is pushing a POV. It's certainly not a book involved in the race controversy. It's just a book on AE history.

Point two, provide some evidence that it's not universally accepted.

Point three, I would like a neutral arbitrator to speak to which edits are POV pushing. I have the exact same claim against you and other editors that keep adding more and more Near East content to an article about the race of people that are indigenous to the Nile Valley in Africa. This Near Eastern content is never balanced by similar content describing interactions/trade/intermarriages/etc with people that are actually indigenous to the Nile valley, like the Nubians.

Point four, NPOV is non-negotiable. I will not allow the Two Lands subsection to stand as it is with 3 or 4 sentences about Near East interactions with Northern Egyptians during the formative years of AE and no balancing sentences about the influence of Middle/Southern (Abydos/Hierakonpolis) peoples on AE civilization, as well as Southern Egyptian's interactions with indigenous Nile Valley Nubians. I am ready and willing to make my case about Near East NPOV violations during arbitration.EditorfromMars (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Point One: Contentious is anything which does not have consensus. SEEK CONSENSUS FIRST ON TALK.

Point Two: Start with that same Teeter book. Try Chapter 13, page 123. I will add more references as I read through it all.

Point Three: There is no rule that says every viewpoint must always be balanced by the opposite viewpoint - we add material based on reliable sources. You have an unhealthy obsession with counting sentences. The reliable sources support heavy influence from the Near East - its a fact. Re Nubia, not so much. If you have a reliable source with good info re Nubia, then PROPOSE IT ON TALK.

Point Four: You don't get to ALLOW things, you need to achieve consensus, based on facts and sources. DON"T EDIT-WAR, DISCUSS AND SEEK CONSENSUS. Wdford (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I copied the rules that I'm using as justification and understand them quite clearly. The excessive mention of the Near East does not maintain NPOV. There is no balance and it's not due to lack of Abydos/Hierakonpolis and Nubian content for balance, it's due to transparent Near East and Northern Egypt only POV pushing. That'a non-negotiable NPOV violation, which will be corrected, as it misrepresents the position of modern scholarship. The Teeter book is a reliable source. It's published by the Univ. of Chicago, which has a fine museum with AE/Nubian artifacts and a great track record of sending people to AE to perform groundbreaking work on AE.

A lay reader would gather from this article that the position of modern scholarship is that AE was from the Near East, which is at odds with the actual position of modern scholarship. Don't edit war as I correct the misrepresentation of modern scholarship regarding AE's formative yearsEditorfromMars (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Potential edits to fix the NPOV violations regarding Near East content in the Two Lands section:

• Not an edit. Comment: Teeter book is reliable. It's published by one of the world's best Universities, Univ. of Chicago. Univ. of Chicago has done extensive work in recent decades in the Nile valley. Non-negotiable position. If you disagree, let's go to arbitration. All statements below will be from the Teeter edited book, "Before the Pyramids."
• Proposed edit: Middle/Southern Egypt achieved proto-statehood in pre/proto-dynastic times. Abydos, Hierakonpolis, and Naqada were major centers in Middle/Southern Egypt. Social complexity was high (especially at Abydos), as attested by burial practices (tomb wealth, tomb differentiation, etc.) Pg. 123-125
• Proposed edit: Prehistoric, long distance trade existed between Middle/Southern Egypt and Nubia, in addition to trade with Mesopotamia and the Levant. Pg. 123-124
• Proposed edit: The Naqada II culture formed an Upper Egyptian proto-state with Hierakonpolis, Abydos, and Naqada as its most powerful sites. Abydos, Hierakonpolis, and Naqada distinguished themselves from other Middle/Southern Egyptian sites in terms of development and long distance trade, etc. Pg. 123-124
• Proposed edit: People from Abydos (and other Middle/Southern Egyptians) moved North and formed a new capital in the North. There was already a population center there, but the Naqadians still moved North and developed a proper unified territorial state with their new capital based at Memphis in the North. Pg. 125 There is literally nothing in pages 123-125 that contradicts my previous statement that Middle/Southerners moved North and unified the Nile valley.
• Proposed edit: The majority of 1st and 2nd dynasty kings were buried at Abydos in their homeland/home-area. "all the rulers of the First Dynasty and the last two of the Second Dynasty - built their mortuary monuments at the southern site of Abydos." Next, Laurel states "The tombs of these four rulers (Aha, Djer, Djet, and King Den's mother Merneith)...are adjacent to one another, just south of the already ancient cemeteries where Pre- and Protodynastic rulers were buried." She highlights a Dynasty 0 burial at Abydos. Pg. 127-136. She also highlights the wealth of these rulers and high quality of artifacts found in their tombs. Pg. 137
• Proposed edit: Mastabas and other precursors to Egypt's most famous architectural form (pyramids) can be found in Middle/Southern Egypt from pre-dynastic times. Petrie was excavating a previously discovered mastaba at Giza, "which is of similar construction to the royal tombs at Abydos and the Naqada mastaba" pg. 20
• Proposed edit: One of the earliest sites for the development of writing was Abydos around 3250 BCE. Pg. 125
• Proposed edit: About AE iconography "Its origin was considered African" while Petrie thought the true Egyptian art came from the Near East. Modern scholarship says in a Naqada IIC tomb, we find "a person wielding a mace above three bound captives", which is "a direct predecessor of the classic scene of smiting the enemy on the Narmer palette, which continued to be represented throughout Egyptian history." Pg.75-77
• Proposed edit: "In the formative years of Egyptian civilization, relations with northern Nubia were strong and reciprocal." Pg. 83
• Proposed edit: "In the neolithic, Sudanese tradition strongly influenced the Tasian culture of Upper Egypt. Pg. 83
• Proposed edit: Later, in the Badarian/Naqada periods Egyptian and Nubian material culture diverged. However, Egyptians traded "substantially" with Nubians and Egyptian/Naqadan goods can be found in uniquely Nubian graves. There was significant economic potential in Nubia to buy so many Egyptian/Naqadan goods. Pg. 83
• Proposed edit: Trade and travel between Egypt and Nubia intensified during the Nubian A-group period. Pg. 87. Rock art frequently showed Egyptian boats. Even ordinary Nubian graves contained Egyptian goods at this point. Wealthy A-grup Nubian graves contained numerous Naqada III Egyptian objects (e.g. at Qustul). Pg. 87,89 Uniquely Nubian objects (e.g. shell hook) are found in Egypt in Nubian style graves, indicating that Nubians moved to / traveled to Egypt. Pg. 87

I itemized these topics for clarity and will obviously summarize, condense, and organize before introduction to the article. These statements are needed to achieve NPOV, as currently the "Two Lands" section leaves the impression that AE only interacted with the Levant/Near East and had no interaction with Nubia. It also leaves the impression that Abydos/Hierakonpolis/Naqada played a minor role in the formation of AE civilization, which is not supported by modern scholarship.EditorfromMars (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think the whole subsection has no value in an article about the race conrtroversy on ancient Egyptians. Cultural ties and connections with the Levant or Nubia don't have a direct relation to the subject and don't neccessarily equal "racial affinities", the section gives the impression that Egyptians were a mix of these peoples and were closer to them than to eachother, while using the wrong assumption that cultural ties = racial ties. The newly added subsection gives a good idea on the genetic ties and origins of Egyptians. So, The "Upper and Lower Egypt" subsection should be removed, and the Keita paragraph moved to the main section. Mohamed^Talk 12:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Most relevant sections/rules that apply to the Two Lands section of this article, copied from the non-negotiable NPOV :

• Achieving neutrality and NPOV is non-negotiable. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
• Prefer nonjudgmental language. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. ---- There is currently editorial bias towards Near East interactions in this passage
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]---- Currently, undue weight is being given to Near East interactions with AE. I just read the entire Teeter book and Abydos/Hierakonpolis primacy was mentioned in nearly every chapter. It's a fact, or at a minimum a strongly supported opposing view to any other theories. I will be adding due weight to the importance of the indigenous Abydos/Hierakonpolis people during the formative period.
• As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. ---- I will soon be adding to this passage to achieve a neutral tone.EditorfromMars (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't argue there's bias (and the fact that there's more content on Near eastern ties in the section isn't neccessarily bias by the way, There is something called "False balance" in NPOV policy, which is trying to give every claim or view point equal representation regardless of its level of acceptance, which is what you've been trying to do in this article). What I said is that the whole subsection isn't directly related to the race controversy, and should be removed, except for Keita's paragraph which should be moved. The article isn't about the cultural ties of ancient Egyptians or from which city state formation started. Mohamed^Talk 13:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

That was not a response to your post. There was an edit conflict as I was adding the NPOV article content, so I had to add it below your statement. It's just a general explanation of the edits that I will make in the near future, if this section remains in the article.

• I forcefully disagree with your assertion of false balance. I just reread Teeter's entire book yesterday and in practically every chapter, which were all written by different authors, again and again the various authors mentioned the importance of Abydos/Hierakonpolis/Naqada to the formation of AE civilization. They also repeatedly mentioned interactions with Nubians.
• If anything, the bias should be in favor of Naqadian culture, as mainstream Egyptologists agree that Naqada culture was critical to the formation of AE civilization, moved North, and made their capital at Memphis. If other editors can refute this view, provide some sources. @wdford's first attempt wasn't very convincing. He pointed me to the chapter around pg. 123 in the Teeter book and there was literally nothing in the chapter refuting the view that Abydos/Hierakonpolis/Naqada were extremely powerful sites in the predynastic age and that Naqada culture moved North to Memphis. No one is saying that the Delta region was empty, or that they didn't have any culture of their own. We are saying that most of the 1st and 2nd dynasty kings were from the Abydos/Hierakonpolis area, moved North to rule at Memphis, and were buried in their homeland in the South. We're also saying that Naqada culture is consistent with Egyptian 1st and 2nd dynastic culture.
• Regarding the Nubians, interactions between Proto/Pre-dynastic Nubians are well attested. You're going to have a hard time arguing against the academic weight of Torok and others that wrote lengthy books covering Egyptian and Nubian interactions. These interactions were just as significant as the interactions with the Near East and Mesopotamia.
• As it stands today, a lay reader would read the section and believe that AE civilization could not have happened without Mesopotamian influence or that it was strongly influenced by Mesopotamian culture. The reality is, there are no connections between Egyptian writing and Mesopotamian writing. Egyptian writing is completely indigenous and unique, being in two forms (not my words, read the Teeter book). Also, some of the trade with the Near East is disputed, see section of Teeter book about wine jars found at Abydos that some authors believe are reproductions by local people of Near Eastern style jars, especially considering the wine jar stoppers were made with local Egyptian mud/clay (again not my words, read the Teeter book).EditorfromMars (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Memelord0, I agree with your comment that I can't find a rationale for this section in this article. Is it to explain the position of mainstream scholarship regarding AE trade and international interactions? How is that relevant to an AE race controversy article. AE people trading with Near Easterners or Nubians doesn't speak to race, using the modern construct that this article is based on, (or even genetics) anymore than Scandinavians trading with Chinese people speaks to the race (or genetics) of Scandinavians. It just seems like superfluous extra information about AE society. If it remains, I will balance it with even more extra information about AE society, like where the centers of power were during the proto/pre-dynastic period and ALL of the groups with whom they traded, not just groups that support one POV or another. The only rationale that I can think of is to provide more detail on where in the Nile valley AE civilization is from. Mainstream scholarship maintains that AE civilization is indigenous to the Nile Valley, but doesn't say which part of the Nile valley in this article. Is this section to provide additional detail regarding locations in the Nile Valley that led to the formation of AE civilization? If so, Abydos/Hierakonpolis/Naqada need to be featured prominently, as all aspects of Egyptian culture are on full display in the aforementioned sites at the dawn of the Dynastic age and they actually moved North to Memphis to disperse their Naqadan culture in other parts of the Nile ValleyEditorfromMars (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• As Wdford said above "Nobody disputes that the 1st & 2nd Dynasty kings were from Upper Egypt – although there are views that some of them may have married Lower Egypt wives as often happened in mergers of this nature (Lesko pg 49). There are also views that the merger may have been more gradual and less military than was originally supposed.[16] However that doesn't mean that all of what followed in Lower Egypt was purely the work of Upper Egyptians. There is evidence of Upper Egyptian artefacts in Lower Egypt, but no evidence that the local population was swamped out by Upper Egyptians migrating wholesale (And any notion of a depopulation of lower Egypt or that its culture was deleted after the unification is wrong of course and not supported by any mainstream scholar). Actually From the Tasian period onward (predynastic period), it appears that Upper Egypt was influenced strongly by the culture of Lower Egypt.

As I said (and as you said you agree), the whole subsection (and the subject of cultural affinities or the origin of state formation) isn't directly related to the controversy and should be removed. We don't need to open the door for Cultural ties and info and stray away from the topic Mohamed^Talk 17:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not know why this section was added – it was here when I arrived. I agree that the information is interesting, but that the relationship to the race controversy is unclear – as this info is not controversial. I would not object to it being deleted in its entirety, provided the material does not simply crop up elsewhere in the article.

Meanwhile, using phrases such as "I will not allow" does not help achieve consensus, it is disruptive in itself.

The Teeter book is a fine source. However the book consists of many contributions from many different authors. They don't all agree with each other, and more recent findings are over-turning more traditional findings.

You have made it clear on talk that you believe the Upper Egyptians were black, and that you are now going to "prove" that Upper Egypt founded the AE civilization, thereby "proving" that the AE civilization was black. That is hardly a neutral approach, now is it? Once again, you have quoted various lines from the Teeter volume, but have conspicuously left out other lines that point in opposite directions.

Nobody is arguing against Naqada rule having spread into Lower Egypt. However political domination does not mean that they replaced the local population. Just as the Ptolemy's took control of an existing thing and let it carry on functioning, so too seemingly did the unification proceed. Modern sources agree that the unification was not a military conquest as such.

"Nile contacts" is a vague term. If you mean Naqada trade with Nubia then fine, if you mean Naqada political expansion northwards then fine, if you mean Naqada population expansion northwards then not fine, if you mean the Upper Egyptians were black then nonsense. Please be more specific.

Predynastic Near Eastern population flow and subsequent trading links are well-supported in the scientific evidence. We have just hashed that out in detail. Your personal interpretation of the word "indigenous" is causing problems. If you read the entire Teeter volume, you must have read Chapter 5 - the PreDynastic Cultures of the Nile Delta? Yes?

The pyramids of Lower Egypt are nothing like the primitive structures of Upper Egypt, and are much more similar to the monumental structures of Asia. Other sources state that pit tombs and mud-brick architecture etc originated in the Delta. One of the largest Pre-dynastic tombs at Hierakonpolis was full of paintings with strong Mesopotamian influence, as well as Mesopotamian-type cylinder seals. A lot of the Naqada monumental architecture featured the "niched palace façade" motif, which was also "borrowed" from Mesopotamia – as the Teeter authors readily admit. Petrie's large mastaba at Giza (G5) contained 1st Dynasty items, and could thus even have predated the Abydos mastabas. Who copied from whom?

The sources are confident that much pre-Dynastic evidence has been lost under the mud and the water-table. Due to all the destruction, the evidence that remains is not representative of what once was. For instance there is no evidence of where writing was "invented" or developed. The written "scripts" in the cited tomb in Abydos indicate that writing was already well developed by the time that tomb was originally sealed up. The earliest examples of a serekh also featured the Mesopotamian "niched façade" style.

If we keep this section, I have no problem with adding a few sentences on trade links etc with Nubia. We should also emphasise more that Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt traded extensively with each other too – Canaanite goods in Naqada probably came upstream from Lower Egypt. However trading with Nubia does not make Upper Egyptians black, not does the importing of some mercenaries or slaves.

Wdford (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: Of course in principle if Egypt's links with the levant and the rest of the near east are mentioned, then the relations with Nubia should be mentioned too, especially lower Nubia. However, we all agree that the section isn't directly related to the controversy and opens the door for more irrelevant info on Egyptian culture and trade and its ties with other regions, so it should be removed. I agree with Wdford that We can't cherrypick random sentences from sources to come up with a conclusion not reached by the sources, or to link two different subjects together without direct conncection in the source. Mohamed^Talk 10:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with EditorfromMars. Its almost ridiculous to exclude Nubia from Egypt. Everyone. Even the most Eurocentric early 20th century scholars even agreed that their religion came from Africa. I'm referring to EA Wallis Budge. Who was a Eurocentric scholar, but nonetheless gave Africa credit Allanana79 (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The reason why this is important is because imagine for a second you are a young black American kid, all you know about your history is slavery and colonialism. Egypt WAS African, in everything, culturally, religiously, linguistically, and obviously phentotypically. So if I were that black child I would look at Ancient Egypt as a role model for proper behavior, and civilized conduct. Or do you wish them to remain thugs and robbers and addicts? Allanana79 (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to exclude Nubia from Egyptian history yes, but the same can be said of Hatti, Greece, Libya, Canaan. Some people can actually imagine being a black kid growing up in America (or anywhere else that African American descended individuals live), and being proud of a rich African American history that involved inventing jazz, rock, blues, RnB and rap, a critical role in the American political tradition of the 20th and 21st centuries, and indeed a global reverence for African American culture, the envy of many peoples across the world, including in Europe. Obnoxiously implying to modern Egyptians that their ancestors must be solely Arabs who must have committed genocide against the much more numerous Egyptian natives rather than being absorbed into them... is not necessary (let alone factual). --Calthinus (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

References

What's the conclusion?? OneNation666 (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Genetic Testing

New genetic testing seems to have confirmed that the earliest peoples who established the Egyptian culture did not come from the West but from the East and the region of the Levant. Maybe the peoples in the South were more Native but DNA sequencing is proving that this isn't true in the North.

References

In detail: "The Royal male lineage was the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b that was passed from the grandparent [Amenhotep III] to the father [KV55, Akhenaten] to the grandchild [Tutankhamen]. The maternal lineage, the mitochondrial haplogroup K, extended from the great-grandmother [Thuya] to the grandmother [KV35 Elder lady, Queen Tiye] to the yet historically-unidentified mother [KV35 Younger lady] to Tutankhamen (38, 55).". 38 doesn't mention haplogroups at all. Note 55 [1] states: "Due to the incomplete profiles observed for Tutankhamun and Amenhotep III, analysis led to different probability figures, despite their concordant allele results. The haplogroup for these two mummies was thus predicted based on the full KV55 data, particularly since the relationships were confirmed through a previous study (Hawass et al.2010, 638–647)." In other words, in the sources referred to in 2020, the haplogroups of Tutankhamon and Amenhotep III were not directly measured but inferred from 1) KV55 and 2) prior assumptions about their relatedness. 2001:1C00:1E31:5F00:28EC:B59A:3A21:94B7 (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Graphic showing DNA origins reflects a contested study (Schuenemann et al.) - best to delete it

Under the heading "Near-Eastern genetic affinity of Egyptian mummies" a graphic appears showing the affinity of ancient Egyptian mummies with other ancient and modern and populations.

For readers who browse what is a very detailed page, this graphic will catch their eye and convey an impression that much of the text may not.

It lends credibility to the 2017 Schuenemann et al. study, which - as the section points out - is contested (e.g. because of its narrow empirical base).

_______________________

Solutions:

(1) remove entirely (preferable if the study is unreliable or narrow in focus) (2) at very least label it accurately as representing disputed findings AND add graphic / visual material which communicates the views listed later in this section expressed by • Keita, Gourdine, and Anselin • Quirke e.g. if the graphic was retained, a new graphic could be added portraying what Schuenemann et al. LEFT OUT of their study

D1M2 (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)D1M2

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

change "the NEHESU are the black races" to "the NEHESU are the Nubians" under the "Table of Nations controversy" section
The former is unnecessarily anachronistic and "taking sides", the latter is consistent with the caption for the table. Prime Paladin (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That section is a quote directly from a source, so should not be altered. — IVORK _Talk 06:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Stop denying history and logic

You continue to argue something that is moot at this point. Please correctly remove all depictions of Egyptians as white. They were not. They were never. They are black. Their closest descendants are in South Africa. Black people. Bantu.

Thank you 105.184.88.148 (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Gourdine yet again

This Gourdine/Keita "paper" has been argued here before. See eg here [2], where this POV was being pushed by EditorfromMars. Gourdine/Keita did NOT actually perform DNA tests on mummies, they merely uplifted "data" from another paper, specifically the well-known pop-briefing by Hawass re the so-called "harem conspiracy". This genetic "data" is contested, and is considered unreliable. This is therefore not a reliable source.

Crawford is NOT a reliable author on this topic, being instead an AIDS specialist and a member of a Department of Pharmacology. His "paper" includes images such as "Scene from Sarcophagus of Ashayet, wife of Mentuhotep, Eleventh dynasty", at [3] even though this image clearly illustrates that the Ancient Egyptians looked nothing like the Nubians, and they clearly distinguished themselves physically from the Nubians. Wdford (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Wdford this is at WP:RSN where the consensus is against it. Among other things it’s a preprint. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of discretionary sanctions for the area of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy is under discussion

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

When will sanctions be removed ?. The bias in this article is ridiculous. A quoted single critic is featured in the introductory paragraph with the statement, "Most scholars believe that Egyptians in antiquity looked pretty much as they look today, with a gradation of darker shades toward the Sudan". This is wildly misleading as one noted critic of Afrcan-centred studies who is arguing this position without reference to specific scholars. In fact, other scholars across Egyptology, anthropology, history disciplines have noted the strong biological and cultural affinities between Ancient Egyptians and Saharan and Sudanese regions. The sentence at the very least should state that "Bernard Montellano has argued that most scholars believed" this or removed as it is repeated in the scholarship sub-section. This is selective referencing as other scholars would have differing views. In fact, a contradiction is made later in the same wiki article that "Modern scholars who have studied ancient Egyptian culture and population history have responded to the controversy over the race of the ancient Egyptians in different ways". Other scholars such as Frank Yurco and Nancy Lovell have suggested Ancient Egyptians had body types in the range of tropical, localised African populations. Similarly, the sub-section "Near Eastern genetic affinity of Egyptian Mummies" is grossly misleading as it cites a single study that examines a particular site from mostly northern half of ancient Egypt when variation across the regions (South-North) has long been noted by scholars. This section should merged under the DNA sub-section. Also, DNA studies should also cautioned for readers due to the controversy over methodology, classifications and sampling bias for general readers. This entire page needs to be re-worked20:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)WikiUser4020 (talk).

"This entire page needs to be re-worked" Are you volunteering to work on it? Dimadick (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dimadick: oh he's been doing that. See [4] (is there a better way of linking the history?). He's clearly searching for stuff backing his views, but at least he didn't restore the text I removed. User:Wdford reverted asking him to get consensus on the talk page.Also see [5] and Talk:Cheikh Anta Diop#Mass removal of content where User:TrangaBellam, User:Generalrelative, and User:Austronesier have discussed the article with WikiUser4020. And why would an editor ask for sanctions to be removed? There was no restriction on editing the article. In fact Arbitrators said that the AErc sanctions could be replaced with the pseudoscience sanctions, which I did a while ago. Today I've alerted this user to them. Doug Weller talk 11:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Dimadick, I can volunteer to rework this article to present a far more neutral tone but Wdford keeps reversing all the edits made.If other editors permit consensual changes, then I can revise all the sections and additional editors can review it. 11:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)WikiUser4020 (talk)

No, Dougweller and Wdford are clearly presenting a biased view to support their perspectives and maintain the facade of neutrality. Please do not project your blatant behavior onto others.The biased tone has been mentioned previously on this page in relation to the sub-section on the 2017 contested study which presents a highly misleading view to general readers as it is a single study and cannot be extrapolated or generalized onto the Egyptian mummies. The article has undergone revisions over the decade and is long over-due for another set of revisions. WikiUser4020 (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiUser4020, please do not violate our WP:CIVILITY policy by casting unsubstantiated WP:ASPERSIONS. In this case I know you to be dead wrong about the "bias" you imagine you can detect. This kind of speech also makes it very difficult for those of us who might agree with some percentage of your edits to work with you. WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on the talk page will very likely result in all your contributions being reverted. Generalrelative (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Lol. I've made it clear I don't give a fig about who the Egyptians were related to when, I only want the article to comply with policy. In any case, I haven't edited that section. @पाटलिपुत्र, Nihlus1, and Wdford: you all seem to be still around at least in the last 8 days, although EditorfromMars and Memelord0 don't seem to be. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative:, I will comply with the guidelines on policy and avoid any [[WP:BATTLEGROUND] to make further contributions. Could I still get consensus on the need to remove the quote "Most scholars believe that Egyptians in antiquity looked pretty much as they look today, with a gradation of darker shades toward the Sudan" from the introductory paragraph. The introductory section should summarise without quotations from any particular scholar to maintain neutrality. My view is that this is the view of a single critic of African-centred studies and should only remain in the sub-section on modern scholarship.Also, I have a few other recommendations for the modern scholarship sub-section, can we include Christopher Ehret (historian and linguist) and a recent anthropologist reviews which notes the regional variation. See below:

Christopher Ehret, historian and African linguist states "Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots. The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east”

Nancy Lovell, an anthropologist outlines in the 'Encyclopedia of the Archeology of Ancient Egypt' that "There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa. The distribution of population characteristics seems to follow a clinal pattern from south to north, which may be explained by natural selection as well as gene flow between neighboring populations. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas. [...]”

Alexandra Klales, forensic anthropologist notes in 2014 that "Lower Egyptian groups have tended to pool more with European and Mediterranean groups, while Upper Egyptians are biologically more similar to southern African groups. The geographic proximity of Lower Egyptians to the Mediterranean Sea and of Upper Egyptians to Nubia likely explains the phenotypic and genotypic differences between the two areas"[41]

This would present a far more balanced and updated view in the modern scholarship sub-section. Cleaning and updating this article will be my final contribution.16:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)WikiUser4020 (talk)

@WikiUser4020 and Generalrelative: I don't think we should use Christopher Ehret given the comments in his article, his work seems disputed. Nancy Lovell seems ok. As for Klales, although please understand that I'm not disagreeing with her, that was just a PhD and not cited for that finding (indeed only cited 4 times), and says ". Lower Egyptian groups have tended to pool more with European and Mediterranean groups, while Upper Egyptians are biologically more similar to southern African groups (Morton 1844 as found in Keita 1993, Howells 1973, Hillson 1978, Kieta 1990). The geographic proximity of Lower Egyptians to the Mediterranean Sea and of Upper Egyptians to Nubia likely explains the phenotypic and genotypic differences between the two areas". So it seems to be based on her reading of some old sources. Nor does she seem to be working in this field now. I'd prefer something more authoritative and recent. And as I have often commented, I wish this article would stick to the history of the dispute and not try to argue the issues. As it says at the top of the article, "For discussion of the scientific evidence relating to the race of the ancient Egyptians, see Population history of Egypt." And this issue is covered there where the sources back a north-south gradient. I'm not sure about the looking the same now, that should probably be dropped. I think that's the only change needed in the lead. In fact I don't know if we need more quotes, we can use sources from the population article to back the gradient. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Doug that a statement about what "most scholars believe" from 1993 should not be quoted in the lead. Ordinarily we love statements about scholarly consensus, but genetics has advanced a whole hell of a lot since then. It would be good to get an authoritative source on the matter, but for now I'll be happy to go along with deleting the sentence outright. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I will delete that quotation and include Nancy Lovell in the sub-section for modern scholarship. I have a few other discussion points for the article that I will raise below17:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)WikiUser4020 (talk)

Further points:

The sub-section "Near-Eastern genetic affinity of Egyptian mummies" is misleading. It derives from one, contested study and implies Egyptian mummies generally have this affinity (1) when an exhaustive DNA study has yet to be completed across all periods/regions, (2) scholarly criticism of DNA methods, group classication bias and (3) north-south gradient has been noted in preceding scientific/anthropological evidence. Can this either be renamed to a more specific title or removed/moved to the DNA sub-section ?.

Black Egyptian Hypothesis: This section is missing another piece of evidence discussed in the UNESCO Vol 2 which is the anthropological limb proportions (p20). Could a sentence include "Other claims used to support the Black Hypothesis included anthropological measurements of bodily proportions in Egyptian mummies which Diop described as "negroid or negrito type" just before the summary of melanin samples, language affinities etc.

Also, can the partial agreement among UNESCO scholars during the symposium report be noted as Diop's views were not uniformly rejected such as the partial agreement among scholars on the early migrations from the Sahara, cultural linkages and linguistic affinities with other African populations (p34-61)

Lastly, discussion of the Qustul artefacts. This was not discussed at the UNESCO symposium and the recent findings/sources on the Nubian-Egyptian links do not discuss the race controversy or ethnicities. It lacks relevance and arguably original research from a third party source. Could this sentence be deleted "Artifacts found at Qustul (near Abu Simbel – Modern Sudan) in 1960–64 were seen as showing that ancient Egypt and the A-Group culture of Nubia shared the same culture and were part of the greater Nile Valley sub-stratum, but more recent finds in Egypt indicate that the Qustul rulers probably adopted/emulated the symbols of Egyptian pharaohs."18:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)WikiUser4020 (talk)

"In fact I don't know if we need more quotes" We probably do not need direct quotes, but summaries of the views expressed. Dimadick (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

In the process of doing that. I think another user will complete that. Views on the other points ?WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is blatant cherry-picking. You want to down-play the 2017 Schuenemann study on the basis of it failing to be "exhaustive", but at the same time you use Lovell (from way back in 1999) as "modern scholarship", when her "hypotheses" have long since been overturned.

A study in 2013 by Bleuze et al concluded as follows: "The results presented in this study suggest that body shape and intra-limb proportions among ancient Egyptian populations cannot be generalized as “tropically adapted” or “Negroid” as previously suggested (Robins, 1983; Robins and Shute, 1986; Zakrzewski, 2003). Although certain aspects of the Kellis 2 physique conform to ecogeographical expectations (e.g., brachial and crural indices), their body mass relative to stature is greater than expected, and does not fit the “tropically adapted” scheme." See here [6]

Lovell also seemingly neglected to consider Arabian comparatives. Since the hypothesis was that limb ratios were a function of climate and latitude, the Arabian samples would have fallen into the same "range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa", and would have been as good a match for Ancient Egypt as the Africans – if not better. Talk about sampling bias.

While the UNESCO scholars accepted some of Diop's views, they rejected his CONCLUSIONS about the race of the Ancient Egyptians.

The Qustul artefacts were often cited by persons supportive of a Nubian origin for Ancient Egyptian civilisation. The more modern scholarship soon proved that the reverse was the case. When we removed this material, POV-pushers soon put it back, so best to keep it – in the correct detail and context.

Wdford (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I have clearly stated that neutrality is the purpose of these revisions. I have not "cherry-picked" but provided missing pieces of evidences to provide broader context and from authoritative sources. Nancy Lovell wrote in the authoritative "Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt" and the focus is on the ethnicity of Ancient Egyptian. Her result have not been over-turned, the 2013 Bleuze study simply states generalisations cannot be extrapolated. Bleuze is referring to specific limb proportions whereas Lovell discusses the general skeletal studies (implying the inclusion of crania). Upper Egyptian-Nubian biological affinities have long been documented across a range of studies. The Khales study above (2014) notes this regional variation with North clustering with Mediterranean but South clustering with Nubian/tropical African remains. Also, the Bleuze study derived 'from a Late Roman-Era cemetary', that is hardly representative/authoritative of all regions/periods whilst Robins and Shute study examines remains from the pre-dynastic Egyptian era and Zakrzewski examines remains in Upper Egypt from Badarian period to the Middle Kingdom. Also, Bleuze concedes that the intra-limb indices are "not significantly different from those in the Egyptian, Upper Nubian, Lower Nubian, West African, and East African groups, although Kellis 2 males have significantly lower brachial indices than West African males" so affinities are still evident with particular African groups. Also, Bleuze does not cite Lovell and does not make the conclusion "Arabian samples would have fallen into the same range of variation", only generalisations on tropical, "negroid" body plans cannot be made. However, Douglas Weller,@Generalrelative:, Firefangledfeathers and myself have agreed that Lovell is sufficient but should be summarised.

Another source,although not a journal/book and cannot be cited in the article, but provides further context in the consensus change among UNESCO scholars, is a BBC-UNESCO sponsored documentary "History of Africa" 2017 series. This is an update to the 1974 book series and notes that “UNESCO scholars now say that the matter is settled and that the Pharaohs and their people must be placed firmly within the Black African context”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4EjZpIF71Y&t=574s (9:34).

The 2017 study title should be removed as it is a single, study of a particular region from a particular era (northern half of Egypt, one nome and samples are not representative of the Predynastic, Early Dynastic, Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom eras). This is not an exhaustive DNA study and has already received extensive criticism from the Keita source. The title should be renamed or moved to the DNA section so it does not mislead general readers that a conclusive study has shown that Ancient Egyptians have "Near-Eastern Affinities". DNA evidence remains controversial (methodological bias) and a premature source of evidence compared to the established body of scholarship. Lovell is cited among several scholars including Bernard R. Ortiz De Montellano whose source is older (1993) and not in an authoritative publication i.e. Encyclopedia under the neutral headline of "Position of modern scholarship". The problem with the 2017 study is the heading which has a misleading title "Near-Eastern genetic affinity of Egyptian mummies".

On a separate point, the Black Hypothesis sub-section is missing a key piece of evidence that was presented by Diop which was the anthropological body proportions, this would provide a full account of the evidence for general readers. What is the view of others ?. WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

No, the Diop bit is not a key piece of evidence. And are you really arguing that the American Journal of Physical Anthropology which is the journal in which De Montellano published isn't an authoritative source? I'd say it's better than most encyclopedias. How would you like the section heading changed? Except for that I'm not convinced by your comments, and I've already commented on Khales. Doug Weller talk 11:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, anthropological evidence is a key part of Diop's argument in both UNESCO Symposium and his written works i.e 1974 "African Origin of Civilization". In the UNESCO Volume 2 he references microsopic analysis of melanin levels in mummies, osteological measurements (limb ratios), blood groups, primary accounts from Greek writers, language affinities and cultural data (anthropological traits) such as totemism, circumcision, cosmologies with other African communities. Osteological measurements are missing and should be included to provide full account of the arguments presented in that sub-section. Otherwise, incomplete information is being provided.

Khlas is among several authors that has refered to the north-south gradient, you stated youself that you did not disagree with her findings, only she cannot be added into the article as it was a PHD thesis and she has not been cited widely. My point about the Lovell and Montellano, is that Wdford was suggesting she was an out of date source although Montellano is several years older.

The points I made on Bleuze are factually correct. She does not overturn Lovell's findings which are not a study but a summary/commentary on the general field of work on skeletal remains. Bleuze examines limb proportions from a Roman-era cemetary and is not a re-evaluation of the exact findings from other scholars to determine their reliability. She states generalisations cannot be made, not their previous studys on specific regions are invalid.

On the question of 2017 study, I will recommend a number of choices below:

"Ancient Egyptian Genomes from northern Egypt" "Abusir el-Meleq 2017 study" "Schuenemann 2017 Genome study"

Other suggestions would be constructive, but it should be left without a misleading, general title "Near-Eastern genetic affinity of Egyptian mummies" for general readers that are uninformed about the lack of conclusive, comprehensive DNA evidence and associated controversies over sampling/methodological bias. WikiUser4020 (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Diop made many contributions, but the conclusive determination of the race of ancient Egyptians was not one of them. His conclusions were rejected then, and they are rejected now.

Youtube videos are clickbait, not scientific sources. Very entertaining on a slow afternoon, but not WP:RS.

Neutrality does NOT mean treating all arguments as equal. Some of these "encyclopedia's" are actually just collections of essays by a range of subject matter specialists. They are certainly authoritative, but they are opinions and are not necessarily "true".

Lovell is a Nubian specialist, and her work was focused accordingly. It is also not really very "modern" anymore. Putting an excessive amount of emphasis on Lovell, is hardly neutral.

I reordered all these "comments" chronologically.

I have relocated the 2017 study.

Wdford (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It appears you removed the title "Near-Eastern genetic affinity of Egyptian mummies", clearly an acknowledgement on the misleading title. Video sources are cited among academic work but as I stated, previously it cannnot be used for the purposes of Wikipedia, but provides context on the shifting attitudes among UNESCO scholars. It clearly states that UNESCO scholars now agree in 2017 with Diop's original position that Ancient Egypt needs to be placed "firmly within the Black African context", an updated publication in the pending future will all but confirm this. Also, it is UNESCO-BBC associated programme with commentary from a range of scholars so should not be dismissed as clickbait entertainment. Lovell is still more recent than De Montellano and no-one stated an "excessive ′amount of emphasis" should be on Lovell, in fact consensus was that her views should be summarised/condensed for the purpose of the article. Likewise, should the Yurco quotation should be summarised ?. WikiUser4020 (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Removing the sub-sub-heading "Near-Eastern genetic affinity of Egyptian mummies" is not an acknowledgement of anything, since the title is perfectly accurate. I did it to simplify the article, in a spirit of good faith. Your wilful mischaracterisation of my edit is decidedly confrontational.

There is a big difference between scholarship, and popular Afrocentrism. If UNESCO scholars ever produce a publication claiming that Ancient Egypt existed in a "Black African context", they will need to provide evidence and face scholarly scrutiny, like everybody else. If that day ever comes, we will deal with it then. Do you have any actual scholarly publications to rely on, or just a TV show by the woman who called Trevor Noah a racist?

Lovell's writing is quite ancient now, and her writings were based on field-work that was even more ancient. Science has moved on a lot since then, and a lot of different discoveries have since been made. For example I cited a recent paper which proved the opposite of what Robins, Shute and Zakrzewski had concluded on this very topic. Since Lovell was basing her conclusions in large part on the work of people like Robins, Shute and Zakrzewski, that is important. We know it is important because of the lengths you are going to in an attempt to dismiss this paper.

Bleuze et al are specialist scientists, and they know how sampling works. They compared the Kellis 2 samples against various controls, including other ancient Egyptian samples. They stated two separate conclusions: that the Kellis 2 samples do not fit the “tropically adapted” scheme, and that the latest evidence does not support the previous conclusions that ancient Egyptian populations were “tropically adapted” or “Negroid”. If a group of specialist scientists, publishing in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, state such a conclusion, then it is a reliable source. You cannot dodge it because it doesn't support your POV.

We also note that you loaded in a huge quote from Lovell, even though you could see that your addition was unbalanced, and that even after a consensus was reached that this needed to be summarised like all the other "sources", you didn't do so. Quite revealing.

The Yurco quotation/s have been summarised. A lot.

Wdford (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The title is very misleading and the study has been critised by other scholars such as Keita etc. You changed the title after I raised the issue due to the misleading undertones as this is not a comprehensive, DNA study. You accused me of "cheery-picking" after I have repeatedly emphasised the need for a neural tone.

No-one has mentioned woke culture. You are inter-jecting your political views. The documentary makes no reference to "woke culture" so where did that conclusion stem from ?.

The paper did not make that claim, did you not read what I written beforehand. It just stated that over-generalisations cannnot be made from those previous sstudies. The Kellis 2 samples still noted affinities with other African groups and derived from a Late Roman era cemetary. Bleuze is a biological anthropologist. Bleuze did not state it does not support those conclusions but generalisations from those studies cannot be made. This seems evident given the fact that those studies examined remains from particular sites and regions. This parallels the criticism of the 2017 study, in that it is froma particular site at a particular period and cannot be generalised to the entire population but a specific region at best.

This is the concluding paragraph: "The results presented in this study suggest that body shape and intralimb proportions among ancient Egyptian populations cannot be generalized as “tropically adapted” or “Negroid” as previously suggested" (Robins, 1983; Robins and Shute, 1986; Zakrzewski, 2003)15:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)WikiUser4020 (talk) That is not "overturning" as you asserted but suggesting that those terms cannot be generalised.

Criticism of DNA studies have long been noted for contamination, sampling bias, methodological issues with group classifications i.e "M" haplogroup "African" or Asian" in origin as noted in the Keita criticism. The genetic data has to be combined with archaeological, anthropological, linguistic and historical evidence.

I agreed with the consensus but there is not a specific deadline for when the quotation needs to be summarised. Firefangledfeathers had suggested the quote would be summarised by either himself or others, so I left it to them.

I have just seen your Yurco summary and disagree with the selection. The quotation below better summarises his academic view on the peopling of Ancient Egypt: "The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East African Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with a wide range of physical variability." OR

"Basically a homogeneous African population [that] had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times"

WikiUser4020 (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I second WikiUser4020's concern about use of the term "wokeness". Wdford, if you're not aware, that term is considered insensitive because it trivializes the trauma experienced by people of color. The more accurate term in that context would have been "Afrocentrism" anyway. On a more general level, both sides of this discussion need to remember that strict adherence to WP:CIVILITY is most necessary precisely where we disagree most strongly. I don't have time to comment more at present, but suffice it to say that I find things to agree with in both of your statements. And I believe that we can work toward consensus here in a spirit of collaboration. Generalrelative (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Starting on a 24 hour fast for a colonoscopy tomorrow afternoon. Coupled with extreme laxatives I shall be hungry and busy, so my edits until Monday will hopefully be focused on a couple of other projects I have. Doug Weller talk 16:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, in light of the inclusion of recent scholars. Could this source be included, as it is relevant to the discussion. Both Egyptologists note p11( "It seems very likely, however, that the majority of the Ancient Egyptians will eventually be shown to be genetically closely related to some populations in other parts of Africa")

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Ancient_Egypt_in_Africa/JN5mDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ancient+egypt+black&printsec=frontcover

WikiUser4020 (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an article about the race controversy. The "Yurco summary" specifically focuses on the race controversy, so it's actually very appropriate. We should avoid cherry-picking individual lines in an attempt to "prove" a specific POV.

The "Keita, Gourdine, and Anselin" challenge has been dealt with in detail previously. See here [7]. It was being brandished as "evidence" by an edit-warrior called EditorfromMars, who was highly confrontational. In summary, the issues are that the 2017 study was performed by reliable specialist sources, and published in a reliable scientific journal. Keita et al are not specialist scientific experts on the same level, and they did not publish their "rebuttal" in a peer-reviewed journal. To the extent that Keita et al used DNA testing at all, they relied on the older PCR tests, which are known to produce unreliable results.

Your desired new source is hardly relevant. Although David O'Connor is a reliable source, his use in your cherry-picked sentence of phrases like "it seems very likely" and "will eventually be shown" and "related to some populations" is hardly definitive. Especially since your cherry-picked sentence is followed by "Genetically different groups can and do occupy different, and even the same, parts of any continent, but geographical propinquity often does promote a high degree of genetic similarity over quite vast areas." This is a very vague and arbitrary statement, which has no bearing on the actual state of scholarship on this topic. Furthermore this source disagrees with the conclusions of Diop and Bernal regarding the race of the ancient Egyptians, and on page 16 it states: "Despite much contact, Nubia was relatively culturally distinct from Egypt until 1700BC."

See also our Wikipedia article here [8] re the UNESCO source.

Wdford (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: has already re-iterated to stop making assertations and accusatory language such as "confrontational" and "cherry-picking". You summarised Yurco's quotations which emphasised his personal view on the political undertones of the debate rather than his academic judgement of the weight of evidence which is that a Nilotic continuity existed with variation across the Nile Valley. This seems more relevant to the sub-section. I provided several quotes on that point.

Keita has produced several peer-reviewed sources over decades which are widely cited and he remains an authoritative bio-anthropologist. Keita has produced past criticisms of DNA methods in peer-reviewed sources. Also, the PCR method tests have been cited in peer-reviewed papers (read their discussion of the PCR Methods). That said, DNA evidence have been noted to have several limitations as I have repeatedly stated. The authors of the 2017 study themselves note the limitations of their study (lack of southern regional samples, omission of data from previous periods) which are repeated and elaborated further by Keita et al.

David O'Connor and his colleague clearly state that they expect most of the genetic studies to show affinity between Ancient Egyptians and other parts of the African continent. How is that cherry-picking ?. The quote you cited emphasises my point that genetic flow was expected due to geographical proximity. I don't think you read the full chapter, (p11) discusses how Nubia was "culturally independent". This is a reference to traditional views which misrepresented Nubia as a periphery colony that imported Egyptian values without agency. Past scholarship has shown strong cultural ties between Egypt and Sudan-Saharan regions (pottery, religious ceremony, kingship etc). The criticism of Diop and Bernal is nuanced and does not reject the notion of African origin of Ancient Egypt but rather Diop's sources were out of date.

The reviewer of UNESCO's Vol.II did not factual refute Diop's findings based on archaeological, anthropological and historical evidence. The reviewer simply characterises Diop as "idiosyncratic". Other scholars have criticised this approach for dismissing Diop's approach on semantics rather than the overall evidence. Even though the conclusions of the UNESCO symposium noted his "painstakingly researched contributions" and the unequal level of balance between Diop and the other scholars. I think it will better rather than going back and forth to get a consensus view from other editors. (1) Firstly should the Yurco quote be rephrased ?, (2) Can the anthropological evidence from Diop's chapter in UNESCO Vol.II be included in the Black Egyptian sub-section and (3) Can the quote from David O'Connor be included in any relevant sub-sections ?WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@WikiUser4020: No, I haven't asked anyone to stop speaking of "cherrypicking". Please be careful not to misrepresent me (or anyone else). Indeed, I agree that your use of sources here and recently at the Diop bio shows a real misunderstanding of WP:CHERRYPICKING, and of the core policy WP:NPOV which it comments upon. I do believe that you are acting out of a genuine interest in improving the encyclopedia, but please understand that you are on a learning curve, and that it is right for others to point out to you why they disagree. On that note, this essay may be helpful as well: User:Valereee/Having_a_clue. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative:, I will be more stringent with the policy, but the notion of collaboration rather than accusation should be upheld. On a separate note, it is interesting to see that other users such as EditorfromMars have echoed similar criticism on the perceived lack of neutrality in the past. Regardless, I'm looking for the consensus view on the 3 points I just raised above.

• Update: I'll drop the request for O'Connor's book to be added to this scholarship subsection (-although the full quote should be included in the genetic studies sub-section) in favour of a more recent peer-reviewed Egyptology article. Essentially, Uros Matic, Egyptologist at the Austrian Archaeological Institute summarizes in a 2018 journal that the development of racial anthropology and scientific racism during the 19th and first half of the 20th century has a strong reflection in the writings of Egyptologists who dealt with ancient Egypt and Nubia in that time. He refers to the fact although modern scholars such as Trigger and Torok distances themselves from racial science and anthropology, they "kept this approach to iconography" and recommends a rethinking of colonial legacy which has shaped present interpretations on Egypt and Nubia in scholarship. I think this self-critical approach to the discipline and notion that a neutral, non-racial thinking can be adopted when the entire discipline was shaped by this legacy for several centuries is a worthwhile addition. I could easily summarise this with consensus acknowledgement.WikiUser4020 (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

https://brill.com/view/journals/jeh/11/1-2/article-p19_2.xml?language=en

WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

There are better sources than Uros Matic who make that point. If you can find that point in a source like O'Connor it would probably be fine. Wdford (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Matic is an Egyptologist and his work is still reliable peer-reviewed. It should still be sufficient until another better source is found. What are the views of others?.WikiUser4020 (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Frank J Yurco

Here is Yurco's obituary. Seems like an expert source? Wdford (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-02-15-0402150278-story.html

Fair enough. It is not a very high level academic record but I won't stand in the way if others believe his opinion to be notable. A peer-reviewed source, however, would be highly preferable to an offhand comment in the popular press, especially when it comes to something as easily misinterpreted as phenotypic markers of "race", which the sentence I removed seemed to imply was the point. If there is any controversy as to whether Tiye "looked Black", I think we should be able to find peer-reviewed sources saying so. If not, I don't believe she should be included in the "Black queen controversy" section at all. Generalrelative (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yurco is cited in subject-matter works by, among others:

• Mary Lefkowitz [9]
• David O'Connor [10]
• Kathryn Bar [11]
• Stuart Tyson Smith [12]

He also wrote many works of his own. He may have chosen a career other than as a professor, but he was certainly a reliable source on this subject.

He was also a bible history scholar and author, and was much cited in related works as well, including by experts such as William G Dever [13]

I do however agree with you that it is NOT appropriate to say that somebody did or did not "look black", as this is very subjective. In the paragraph on Queen Tiye we mention also that some journalists thought that a sculpture of Tiye looked like a "black African".

Wdford (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. I have not seen any evidence that there is a real scholarly controversy here. Looks like WP:SYNTH. Generalrelative (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Revising Article

I think for the purpose of clarity, I have split the prior discussion into a new sub-section. I just have four additions that I want consensus on for the article. (1) (1) Firstly should the Yurco quote be rephrased (see alternative quotes above) ?, (2) Can the anthropological evidence from Diop's chapter in UNESCO Vol.II be included in the Black Egyptian sub-section and (3) Can the quote from David O'Connor be included in any genetic studies since commentary from Stephen Quirke is already included ? (4) the inclusion of a recent article from Egyptologist, Uros Matic for the scholarship discussion (Althought not the most prominent, he is still sufficient for scholarship sub-section) ?. https://brill.com/view/journals/jeh/11/1-2/article-p19_2.xml?language=enWikiUser4020 (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Should the Yurco quote be rephrased – I am happy to condense the wording a bit, but we cannot summarily remove the observation that "To take the terminology here in the United States and graft it onto Africa is anthropologically inaccurate". That is at the very heart of the controversy.

Can Diop's assertions be included in the Black Egyptian sub-section – the Black Egyptian hypothesis has its own detailed article. The idea here is to include a brief summary, not a detailed rehash of every theory and suggestion. Diop's hypothesis has been discredited, so it must not carry undue weight.

Can the quote from David O'Connor be included in any genetic studies – that would have to be raised on the talk pages of the other articles in question. However that particular O'Connor quote seems to be very speculative, which would not be really appropriate in a scientific article.

The inclusion of Uros Matic – I'm not sure that the article really needs a one-sided analysis of scientific racism in the colonial discourse utilising the concepts of "thought collective" and "thought style". Are there any other scholars who have participated in this line of inquiry?

Wdford (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I recognise your position but strongly disagree with all of your views above, especially the factually incorrect view "Diop's hypothesis has been discredited" when in fact anthropological, historical, archaeological evidence has in fact reinforced his original position, especially between Upper Egyptians and Sudanese-Saharan regions from which several Egyptian dynasties had emerged (1st, 11th, 12th and 18th dynasties) had their origins in the southern region. However, I do not want an endless debate on that point but rather the opinion of others for a consensus position on the proposal above.WikiUser4020 (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I will drop the first proposal for Yurco's quote to be summarised, as I agree with :@Generalrelative: position that the previous framing was strongly patronizing and the new summary highlights his academic view on the diversity of localised, Nile Valley populations.WikiUser4020 (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

On a separate point, why was the land of punt sub section removed and should it not be re-inserted?.WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, a possible alternative to Uros Matic, is this source: Egypt in its African Context (2011) which features a range of academics including Stephen Quirke. In the introductory chaper he states "I accept the explanation of commonalities shared by the Egyptians and other African cultures as being derived from a common origin outside the Nile Valley, dating probably to the Neolithic period as supported by archaeological and iconographic data" and "It would be foolhardy to think that the views of a pioneer professor of Egyptian Archaeology such as Petrie would not have impact on the media, Eurocentric academics, museum educators and the general public that seeks knowledge about Egypt"

file:///home/chronos/u-e85965ccc0f93c89ea513ef0868dacd3fc373e6b/MyFiles/Downloads/Book_Egypt_in_its_African_Context%20(6).pdf

https://www.academia.edu/1921955/Book_Egypt_in_its_African_Context

WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

SYNTH in the section "Ancient Egyptian genetic studies"

The topic of this article is "Ancient Egyptian race controversy". This means, it primarily is about a debate among racial essentialists, i.e. scholars who contextualize the population history of Egypt in a concept that has been abandoned by mainstream scholarship and which was based on a toxic folk classification. And it involves as a third party scholars who emphasize the utter mootness of the debate since it is based on the pseudo-science of human racial classification.

And yet, we have a section called "Ancient Egyptian genetic studies", even though virtually no modern genetic study contextualizes its findings in a racial framework (and hardly any study makes an effort to say that its findings show—as all genetic studies do—that racial classifications are BS). This includes the genetic studies cited here. So why are they here? They cannot be cited as supporting any view about the "race" of the diverse people of the Ancient Egyptian civilization. It may be that certain studies have been abused by "race controversy"-partisans, but then we should exactly say that. We cannot cite genetic studies in order to prove a point (i.e. about the "racial" affiliation of Ancient Egyptians, whether "black" or "white") which these studies simply do not make.

I contest that most of the section constitutes WP:SYNTH. Therefore, I suggest to TNT the whole section and only allow it to be rebuilt based on sources which actually talk about the "race controversy"–whether as participants (and thus as racial essentialists) or third-party observers who reject the pseudo-scientific agenda of racializing the Ancient Egyptians. –Austronesier (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse this solution. Generalrelative (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Me 3. I concur with all of the above. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed solution.WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. If anyone comes along who disagrees with this edit, let's discuss here. Generalrelative (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Volney and Flaubert

"An early description of the Sphinx, "typically negro in all its features", is recorded in the travel notes of a French scholar, Volney, who visited Egypt between 1783 and 1785 along with French novelist Gustave Flaubert."

The way it reads now is unfortunate. You could read it as stating that Volney and Flaubert traveled together, an impossibility! The notes make clear that Flaubert simply shared the same judgment. Could someone fix that? No need to have them both in one sentence, too. 195.169.52.46 (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Additions are ridiculous

This article is about the history of the controversy. Most of this crap doesn’t need to be in the article. Somebody needs to be bold and reign in this bloat. Dkspartan1835 (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dkspartan1835 Agreed. But I'm still in very poor shape from secondary liver cancer surgery. This is a recurring problem here. Take it to the talk page of the AE wikiproject? Doug Weller talk 08:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and @Dkspartan1835 I disagree and content does not need to be deleted/omitted. Perhaps create another article page for modern scholarship and discussions on bias in Egyptology/genetic studies? There was previous consensus on the recent additions. WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus about this article deviating from the encyclopedic standard of WP by indiscriminately amassing statements without considering due weight. Some of these statements come from important sources, while others are ephemeral opinions that have been uttered and never cited again. –Austronesier (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier The problem is that this is heavily reliant on a subjective judgement on which sources are "important" and which are regarded as "ephemeral opinions". It would be easier to split the article into two with one article focusing on the history of the controversy and the other having a focus on modern scholarship and ongoing views on ethnicity/bias. Otherwise, much of the key content would be omitted and this was part of the original criticism that was raised about ensuring the information is not misleading, or there is lack of balance in the content presented.

A key example at the start of this year. The article featured genetic studies including the 2017 genome study with the sub-title "Near Eastern genetic affinity of Egyptian mummies" but this would seem misleading to the average reader without any contextual discussion on the limitations of the study and the broader criticisms of DNA studies that have been applied to ancient Egypt to determine the ethnicity of the mummies. DNA studies are an ongoing source of debate among modern scholars about their reliability and applicability to this topic area.

WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Has it ever occurred to you that the lack of applicability of DNA studies to this topic area is a direct consequence of the fact that modern DNA studies have rendered racial essentialism (the cornerstone of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy) obsolete and relegated it (and all controversies based on it) to the garbage dump of the history of science? The Ancient Egyptian race controversy is a historical controversy, and only kept alive by fringe pushers who still believe that ancient people can be subject to the paper bag test.

This was a key edit. –Austronesier (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier Please maintain civility in language and I am very familiar with the discourse on the DNA studies. Several scholars have noted that modern DNA studies still adhere to these traditional, obsolete racial categories hence the extensive criticism i.e. 2017 genome study, the misclassification of haplogroup labelling. I have provided several sources that criticised the misuse of modern DNA studies to reinforce racialist essentialist views as cited in recent 2022 publication featuring Danielle Candelora and S.O.Y. Keita who make these same criticisms. Please in future ground all your statements with examples and cited publications as that would be more constructive in helping to produce better quality articles/contents on a public encyclopedia. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I have maintained civility and will continue to do so. A main feature of a quality article is not to rely on indiscriminately assembled quotes, but to present the mainstream view in Wikivoice, and additional present controversial, but notable views with attribution. Sections like "Position of modern scholarship" do not do this. The mainstream since the 1900s is of course easily visible in that section, and it could be cited to dozens of scholars, maybe with an exemplary quote from Yurco, with puts it in a nutshell (Mertz and Bard are also good).

I have read Candelora's very enlightening and thoughtful chapter in the 2022 volume co-edited by her. She does not criticize genetic research in the way you have "paraphrased" her. She criticizes the sensationalist echo in the media by people who don't understand or wilfully don't care about the methodological limits of the study ("potential media and political cooption (or misreporting)", in Candelora's words). She does not argue that Schuenemann's study served to legitimise racist conceptions of ancient civilizations with “scientific evidence”, as it reads now, but she explains how it is wilfully misused by white supremacists. This needs to be fixed. –Austronesier (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier You are factually incorrect. She does make a criticism of the methodology of the 2017 genome study and the media coverage as she explicitly states: "The new (untested) sampling methods, small smaple size and problematic comparative data" on page 107. She states it ultiamtely provides "scientific evidence" for white supremacist understandings. How does my interpretation differ from what she said as it is a paraphase. All the comments I made earlier in the year about issues with DNA studies such as the low sample sizes, sampling/regional bias have been repeated by Candelora.

Keita, is referenced in her chapter and expands later in the discussion. He provides a very explicit criticism of their methodology and notes that "sometimes there is a default racialist or racist approach" with genetic approaches. He criticises the 2017 genetic study for its use of a Sub-Saharan sample of as representative or the racio-typological "Negro" group construct which echoes the earlier point I made about DNA reproducing these old, typological constructs.

We can differ in our interpretations but Candelora and Keita do criticise the methodology of the DNA studies. Keita provides a far more in depth criticism due to his position as a biological anthropologist.

My issue with the listing of modern scholarship is that this depends largely on a subjective judgement. Why Yurco and not Smith or Keita as the latter have published more recent information ?

Considering I made most of the revisions to both sub-sections. I will reduce the content in both sections to the most authoritative voices. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"Factually incorrect": how is this not uncivil ;) Here is what she writes in full (part 1): "This study was then sensationalized in the media as proof that Egyptians were not black Africans, ignoring the new (untested) sampling methods, small sample size, and problematic comparative data [emphasis added]". Obviously she criticizes the media. "New (untested) sampling methods, small sample size, and problematic comparative data" is not criticizism, but (I have to repeat it again) an observation on the methodological limits of the study. Part 2: "...ultimately providing “scientific evidence” for white supremacist understandings of the achievements of this ancient civilization." This is ambiguous. The antecedent could be either "study" or "media". For "ignoring", the antecedent clearly is "media", and since "ignoring" and "providing" are lined up in a parallel manner, I read it with the media as agents providing “scientific evidence” for white supremacists. –Austronesier (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier Yes, I have just paraphased that sentence and already posted it in the article. However, she is still technically noting a methodological limitation of that study and she references Keita's section later in the book for the reader who elaborates on his criticism of the study. Either way, my original point on methodological limitations and criticisms of DNA studies remains valid as Keita, Boyce, Kittles, Calendora have all highlighted issues with DNA studies in relation to this topic which I stated several months ago. DNA studies are not a conclusive, objective area of evidence as has some users have suggested due to methodological issues and unrepresentative, biased sampling. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I still owe you an explanation why I prefer a quote from Yurco as iconically representative over one from Smith: Smith considers it reasonable to apply modern American standards to ancient Egyptians, whereas Yurco says "to take the terminology here in the United States and graft it onto Africa is anthropologically inaccurate". Call it POV, but I can't help but to opt for the latter. Keita of course is a giant in this topic area, and I'd be happy to see him quoted here in a highlighted box if you have something by him that is as pointedly and powerfully worded as Yurco's criticism. –Austronesier (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier I've reduced the content to the most authoritative scholars on the topic matter. Although, I still think the choice of selection is wildly subjective but Yurco and Keita would be suitable choices. I'm not sure what type of quote you would need from Keita but his views on the ethnicity of the Ancient Egyptians is currently listed in the article. WikiUser4020 (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@WikiUser4020: To be fair, abominations like this one from 2021 do still get published, but obviously, this happens at the very fringe of current "scholarship" (written by three orthodontists!). –Austronesier (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier That remains debatable but a multi-disciplinary approach i.e. archaeology, biological anthropology, linguistics, genetics and historical texts seems to present a more comprehensive picture than over-reliance on one source of evidence. DNA evidence although more reliable than some other sources of evidence such as iconography still have a number of limitations such as 1) Contamination 2) Methodological Bias i.e. haplogroup misclassification, selective sampling 3) Limited Samples 4) Lack of verificiation i.e. "untested sampling method" as mentioned by Calendora.

In relation to the point on Yurco and Keita. How about these ?

""the peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of North-East Africa are generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types)". - Yurco 1996

"Egyptian society never seemed to be "closed"...However, it is important to emphasize that, while the biology changed with increasing local social complexity, the ethnicity of the Niloto-Saharo-Sudanese origins did not change". - Keita 1993 WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier In light of recent comments, I think it will be better not to proceed with your recommendations of including Yurco and Keita in highlight quotes. The article has been condensed so that should be sufficient. WikiUser4020 (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a grave misunderstanding. It is certainly important to mention in WP that "several scholars listed here clearly acknowledge that Egypt emerged from the Saharan-Sudanese region". But not here. This article is about the historical Ancient Egyptian race controversy. It is about, not engaging in it or – even worse – reviving it by citing research that hasn't been conducted in a racial framework to support either camp (="black" vs. "white"; "Negroid" vs. "Caucasoid"). This is also why we have thrown out the aDNA section, since no aDNA-researcher (at least since the "era" of David Reich) has talked about the "race" of Ancient Egyptian samples (or of any other sample for that matter). Maybe it's time to disentangle the topics Ancient Egyptian race controversy (a historical topic like Aether (classical element) or Phrenology) and Origins of the Ancient Egyptians (a subtopic of Prehistoric Egypt). –Austronesier (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier I understand the points made and hence why I made the original suggestion of splitting the article (above) as the article covers such a broad topic and much of the content does not need to be simply deleted but could be moved into a new section or article page. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You say in your edit summary: "... this article covers a much broader topic than a narrow history of controversy from the 18th and 19th century." Sure, the controversy extended into the 20th century in scholarship (remember our discussion's about Diop?) and persists in public discourse up the present day. It will persist as long as people continue to think in racial categories (with US Americans as notable die-hards) and also as long as outsiders (i.e. non-Copts and non-Egyptians) try to appropriate Ancient Egyptian history for the glory of their own social group, with skin color ("race") as primary tool for that purpose. And note: there is no such thing as a "broad topic" for a race-based topic. This muddies the waters between science and pseudoscience. –Austronesier (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier There were a number of problems with the statement made above (faulty assumptions etc).

"It will persist as long as people continue to think in racial categories" - Firstly, seeking to contextualise Egypt in an African setting is not the same and cannot be equated with the fixed, racialist frameowrk which dominated Egyptology in the early modera era. This false dichotomy between Eurocentric and African-centered perspectives presents a misleading view. This view tends to be characterised as "correct" and "neutral" which is that the ancient Egyptians were neither "black" or "white". However, the biological and cultural evidence shows they emerged from the Sudanese and Saharan region which has been attested by various mainstream sources cited. (Davidson 1995, Morkot 2005, Smith 2018 and Keita 1993, 2022).

Another problem with the statement is the notion of "outsiders i.e. non-Copts and non-Egyptians" trying to "appropriate Ancient Egyptian for the glory of their own social group". This presumes that Egyptian nationalists have not done the same when Ancient Egyptian was very much appropriated during the hey days of Nasser nationalism until the modern regime.

Also, it presumes or at least suggests anyone interested in the ethnic origins of the Ancient Egyptian history is doing so for those specific reasons. Ancient Egypt, as I have mentioned, in previous threads been claimed along with several African civilisations such as Nubia, Great Zimbabwe and Benin artefacts to be the product of external groups including Europeans and Near Easterners as "civilizing" forces rather than the indigenous, African populations. There has been reflected in the construction of several racialist, elaboratte theories including Hamitic hypothesis and Dynastic race hypothesis.

"Copts and Egyptians" which is a nationality/ethno-religious group and not an strict ethnicity which is a conflation of terminology. The earliest Egyptians would have migrated from the Saharan and Sudanic region (especially in the southern region) and evolved in a similar climate. Hence, many of them would have been indistinguishable from the Sub-Saharan communities. All of the major dynasties emerged from the southern region and many scholars have found strong biological affinities with Nubian groups as with the 1st, 17th and 18th dynastic pharoahs/elites via biological anthropological studies.

Although, there is some genetic evidence for continuity between ancient Egyptians and modern populations (not withstanding bias in DNA methodology), the archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, historical and genetic evidence situate the early Egyptians firmly within the interior region of Africa and modern egyptians share the haplogroup E which has its ancestral origin in East Africa.

Another distinction that needs to be made is between ethnicity and traditional, "racial" categories. The notion that the ethnicity of Ancient Egypt should not be recognised is problematic and viewed by some scholars as disingenuous. The ethnicity of ancient Rome, China, Mesoptomaia are widely recognised without any controversy yet this standard cannot be applied to an Ancient Egypt ? Although, Egypt was multi-ethnic this is still disingenuous as all the major dynasties (1st, 11th, 12th, 17th and 18th) originated from the southern regions (Aswan, Thebes etc) which had the strongest biological and cultural ties with Nubia (Lovell 1996; 1999, Keita 1990, 2005, 2008 and Godde 2018, 2020). Nubia was a neighbouring region and it has often been characterised as a "black" civilization without much dispute. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"Firstly, seeking to contextualise Egypt in an African setting is not the same and cannot be equated with the fixed, racialist frameowrk which dominated Egyptology in the early modera era." But then why on earth are you doing exactly that? Why do you contextualize modern anthropological and historical-cultural research within a presentation of the "Ancient Egyptian race controversy"?

"The ethnicity of ancient Rome, China, Mesoptomaia are widely recognised without any controversy". Please specify. The ethnicities of the Mesoptomians were a patchwork of tribal and dynastic identities, and the demic origins of these peoples are still much in the dark.

I can sense the common tendency here to use "ethnicity" as a backdoor term for "race", otherwise I can't follow the rejection of the "Copts" as an ethnic group. "Copts" are an ethnicity in the proper sense by group identity, a group identity that is the only one in the world that has some kind of continuity from the Ancient Egyptian civilization.

And stop belittling modern anthropological DNA research by inflating the narrative of bias, some of which you have produced by an equally biased reading of selected sources. And FWIW, it is just as biased to present skeletal morphological studies of the 1990s as the epitome of physical anthropology. Even Keita doesn't do that even when it's his core expertise by training. Skeletal morphological data is just as problematic and context-dependent as aDNA data, and additionally has many pitfalls (environment, convergence etc.) known since the days of Boas. –Austronesier (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier

"Why do you contextualize modern anthropological and historical-cultural research within a presentation of the "Ancient Egyptian race controversy ? - This is because the AE race controversy is grounded in these disciplines and much of the previous Eurocentric, racialist hypothesis has been discredited by these modern anthropological/cultural findings hence the sub-section of "Modern scholarship".

There are again a number of presumptions. Ethnicity and race are the not same and hence it is perfectly legitimate to feature discussion and explore the ethnic origins of the Ancient Egyptians. That is not pseudo-science.

My point on other other civilizations is that there is no dedicated page of controversy with these civilizations. Rome was also a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural civilization which was in close proximity with North Africa and Asian regions. Yet, the cultural representations of the majority demographic group lack any controversy. Highlighting the simple biological-geographical fact that Egypt emerged from the Saharo-Sudanese region (especially the dominant southern region) does not mean that one subscribes to a racialist view.

I never rejected the "Copts" as having some continuity as I mentioned there was some genetic evidence to show linkages between modern Egyptians and early Africans via the shared ancestral, paternal haplogroup E. However, the fact remains that the bulk of the earliest Egyptians emerged from the interior African region and not from Mediterranean or Middle Eastern regions and hence would have appeared indistinguishable from the African communities in the Sudan and the Sahara.

I never "belitted" modern DNA but highlighted several limitations with its application as the academic sources have already established (Gourdine et al 2020, Candelora 2022, Keita 2022). Citing experts who highlight these limitations is not an "equally biased reading" that is your POV.

I cited the biological anthroological studies not only from the 1990s but 2000s (Keita 2008, Godde 2020) as those are the only modern studies from what I'm aware that have been applied to early predynastic southern Egyptian remains. DNA tests currently have not been applied to the predynastic or early dynastic mummies. (I may be incorrect on this) hence these are the latest studies which can be cited to show the biological affinities of the earliest Egyptians which I have been discussing in the previous post. Yes, the limitations of biological anthropological studies are already covered in the "Population history of Egypt" article but the reliability varies depending on the methodology utilized as like DNA studies. Hence, my earlier point that a comprehensive approach needs to be included i.e. archaeology, linguistics, biological anthropological, historical texts, DNA studies which collectively show that the earliest Egyptians emerged from the Sahara and Sudanic regions. WikiUser4020 (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The race controversy is based on racial classification. To contextualize modern anthropological/cultural findings of demic and cultural origins within an outdated framework as if the race controversy still has a scientific base is pseudoscience when the authors themselves still have an axe to grind in the race controversy, and inapproriate WP:SYNTH when done by a WP editor. –Austronesier (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

"@Austronesier I think you misunderstand the point which was established. The modern anthropological/cultural findings are cited to discredit the old, Eurocentric racialist models (not legitimise those views). Also, please do not make suggestions of bad faith as I have provided an abundance of evidence across various disciplines and from a range of mainstream authors (Ehret, Keita, Smith, Morkot, Lovell, Hassan, Godde, Davidson). We can disagree on various points but I've backed all my views with sound evidence and citations. The scholarly conclusions on the ethnic/demographic origins of the Ancient Egypt is clear and should be visible to all readers. I would rather us avoid any further back and forth on this topic and draw this to a close. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

That is why we have the article on Population history of Egypt. Wdford (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"Population history" is restricted to the demic aspect. But much important modern research (including much the material presented here by WikiUser4020) is about the cultural environment/background of the emerging Ancient Egyptian civilization. These things – when done without an identity axe to grind – need their place in WP in an article devoted to modern mainstream research. –Austronesier (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The realistic Fayum mummy portraits show the diversity of Egyptians in the Roman period

Would be like showing pictures of Brits during the Colonial period of India, Brits are obviously no Indians, just as Roman Colonizers of Egypt were no Egyptians... 109.131.60.100 (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Diversity is becoming an instrument for revisionism. 109.131.60.100 (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Romans did not practice mummification. Just like British coloners did not convert to Hinduism Knoterification (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Prove it, OP. SinoDevonian (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

repeated quotation inconsistently cited

Seems like there's some redundant text in this article: the insufficient data "to enable provisional conclusions to be drawn with regard to the peopling of ancient Egypt and the successive phases through which it may have passed" appears in two different places. The two places where the quotation appears have different references given. Which one is correct? Are both necessary? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The references are both derivative of the 1974 UNESCO Symposium report. The former reference is a condensed version included in the UNESCO General History of Africa second edition. I will remove the quotation in the Black Egyptian hypothesis subsection and amend the references in the modern scholarship sub-section. WikiUser4020 (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

One version is from the report of the symposium which was published a few years later in 1978. The other is from a book published in 1990. The quotation currently included in the Black Egyptian hypothesis subsection makes it clear that Diop's Black Egyptian hypothesis was rejected with "profound disagreement". It is cited from a quality source, and removing this would not be neutral. Wdford (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The 1990 publication is just an abridged (condensed) version of the 1981 Volume II edition. Diop’s hypothesis was indeed met with disagreement from several scholars but the view on the peopling of Egypt from the Symposium were inconclusive. Several scholars requested further research into the dynastic chronology and physical anthropological remains of ancient Egyptian mummies. Also, Diop was credited in the conclusion and there was varying areas of agreement on other areas with scholars. Regardless, the views from the other scholars are already included under the “Black Hypothesis” sub-section hence this does not warrant any further discussion. The forthcoming UNESCO volumes should provide the conclusive view on the peopling of Egypt rather than us having pointless debates on the subject. WikiUser4020 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The UNESCO symposium considered multiple issues. The issue of the peopling of Egypt ended in a call for more studies to be done - as is often the case with scientific conferences. However Diop's personal hypothesis that the ancient Egyptians were black, was met with "profound disagreement". The phrase "several scholars" as used above, obscures the fact that only one scholar supported Diop on this particular issue - Théophile Obenga, a politically active proponent of Pan-Africanism and an Afrocentrist. As usual, an editor is trying to fudge away this reality. We all look forward to seeing the "forthcoming UNESCO volumes". Wdford (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)