Talk:Appearance of the ancient Egyptians/Archive 1

Why was this created?

Don't we have enough racialist articles here? - Jeeny ^Talk 22:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but the article itself is ludicrous in the extreme. Some of the claims in it are pure POV with no basis in reality. One of the administrators should just delete this obviously biased piece. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.158.191.125 (talk • contribs). 05:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a fine point. Even the "experts" are not sure; there are only assumptions as of now. DNA and cranial measurements, etc. are not anywhere close to figuring it out...yet. Oh, well. - Jeeny ^Talk 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys should take this up with User:Urthogie as he's the one who made the split and added a lot of the content.... Hello Jeeny..Taharqa 18:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny, this article is not "Racialist." The article used to be called race and ancient egypt. Which one sounds more concerned with race to you?--Urthogie 14:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The spilting of the articles makes no sense as it all revolves around the same damn thing, WHO WERE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS!!!Louisvillian 18:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

^I agree with your reasoning, but after some thought, I actually might prefer the splits as the intention behind it was good. You see, the other article has more to do with scholarly research, while this one covers controversy and appearance, meaning that since "race and appearance" isn't notable on the other page other than the scholarly/scientific view of it, people shouldn't have to worry about as many content disputes and same with this page considering that the information isn't as elaborate.. My only concern is having a clear distinction between the other page and the Origin of the Nilotic peoples article, even though of course that covers people of the Nile Valley in general and the other one is specifically about Egypt. Shouldn't be a big deal.. But if I'm off in my reasoning, please let me know, it is healthy to discuss the issues..Taharqa 18:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Louisvillain isn't "reasoning", he's shouting without supplying a reason.--Urthogie 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well at least Taharqa thought enough of other's opinions to exdplain the reasoning behind the split in the first place, unlike youself. Louisvillian 19:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, Louisvillian is right in asking for clarity. Even if your intention of spliting the article was good, the fact is that you like doing thing uncontrolled. But you will not continue cheating people. I am very busy with the French WP about the interpretation of Kmt, but I will be closely watching this article. And as soon as I will have time, I will contribute for the section "Afrocentrism and Egyptology". Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Too many names

the splitting of the article will just cause more confusion since their appearance and ethnicity are related. This is one of the articles that has undergone the most name changes ever. It is time to find one name and stick to it.

• Controversy over racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians
• Racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians
• Race and ancient Egypt
• Ancient Egypt and race
• Racial origins of Ancient Egypt
• Appearance of the ancient Egyptians
• Population history of ancient Egypt

It feels like OCD or 50 First Dates, every time you wake up there is a new name. A variation of Occam's razor is "The simplest explanation is usually the best". In this case, the simplest title is the best. In my opinion the simplest title is the shortest title, that is Ancient Egypt and race- four short words.Muntuwandi 02:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what Urthogie says, I have to remain neutral as I don't want to go back on what I said when I told him that I didn't mind if he do this as long as it will resolve and limit disputes and not attract vandals, but we aren't the only editors either. I see what you mean also..Taharqa 03:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope we can find one name that can stand the test of time.Muntuwandi 03:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope so too. That's why I was dumbfounded when yet another was created. I agree with Ancient Egypt and race, as it can contain all of the above, and as Muntuwandi said, it's the shortest title. LOL @ 50 First Dates!

Hi Taharqa, you are allowed to change your mind, yanno. :) Anything about race is going to attract vandals and disputes. My first time as an editor on Wikipedia was when I just happened to stumble on the article Black people. I was shocked that one could exist and then my blood started to boil at all the disputes and vandalism. I've calmed down, since. There's not much one can do but stick to the policies, keep a level head, and keep articles you're interested in on your watch list to revert the vandals. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

^Haha, I know.. You know what? I'm indifferent, If you guys still feel that the articles should stay merged, be my guest and merge them back, I have nothing at stake. If you guys can do it while avoiding dispute, even better. Taharqa 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I still propose merging the two articles before the diverge too far.Muntuwandi 01:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

intro

Mary Ann Roth says

"In most cases, our reaction to Afrocentrism is avoidance: we deal with the issue by dismissing it as nonsense, by disparaging the knowledge of its proponents, and by getting back to "real" Egyptology. "

"There has been a scholarly conspiracy among Eurocentric Egyptologists to suppress evidence about the blackness of the ancient Egyptians, their greatness, and their influence on European and other African civilizations."building bridges to Afrocentrism".Muntuwandi 00:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's disinginuous to post this and not post the rest of it

"This is probably the most offensive manifestation of Afrocentrism we encounter, implying as it does that Egyptologists as a group have routinely abandoned their scholarly integrity, simply in order to further some racist agenda. (As an epigrapher, I find the charge that we have recarved the faces of Egyptians represented in tomb reliefs particularly ludicrous.)"[1] Egyegy 07:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny you quote that since the person who wrote it, in the very same article says that ancient Egyptians most likely would have looked more like African-Americans than anglo-saxons, and they acknowledge it. Besides, your POV is irrelevant, we're discussing notable POV of various opinions in academia as it concerns the article. We can paraphrase roth's rebuttal to such charges aswell, just not yours.Taharqa 13:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

On melanin test

Jeeny, what you are saying about Diop is not true. Diop got a lot of samples for test from mummies found by Mariette. What he did failed to get was a piece of the mummy of Rameses from the Cairo museum. Please, find in this quotation what you need to know: "Melanin Dosage Test

In practice it is possible to determine directly the skin colour and hence the ethnic affiliations of the ancient Egyptians by microscopic analysis in the laboratory; I doubt if the sagacity of the researchers who have studied the question has overlooked the possibility.

Melanin (eumelanin), the chemical body responsible for skin pigmentation, is, broadly speaking, insoluble and is preserved for millions of years in the skins of fossil animals.20 There is thus all the more reason for it to be readily recoverable in the skins of Egyptian mummies, despite a tenacious legend that the skin of mummies, tainted by the embalming material, is no longer susceptible of any analysis.21 Although the epidermis is the main site of the melanin, the melanocytes penetrating the derm at the boundary between it and the epidermis, even where the latter has mostly been destroyed by the embalming materials, show a melanin level which is non-existent in the white-skinned races. The samples I myself analyzed were taken in the physical anthropology laboratory of the Mus'ee de l'Homme in Paris off the mummies from the Marietta excavations in Egypt.22 The same method is perfectly suitable for use on the royal mummies of Thutmoses III, Seti I and Ramses II in the Cairo Museum, which are in an excel state of preservation. For two years past I have been vainly begging the curator of the Cairo Museum for similar samples to analyze. No more than a few square millimetres of skin would be required to mount a specimen, the preparations being a few um in thickness and lightened with ethyl benzoate. They can be studied by natural light or with ultra-violet lighting which renders the melanin grains fluorescent.

Either way let us simply say that the evaluation of melanin level by microscopic examination is a laboratory method which enables us to classify the ancient Egyptians unquestionably among the black races.".--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 10:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny, maybe I did not get you well. Are you asking for a reference? Actually the link to the quotation I made above is not available. Maybe you are refering to the same problem. Sorry if I misunderstood you.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 13:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

^Thanx Luka, however, you should of reverted earlier since it was already cited.. The link is provided in citation#20, there was no need to post it twice.. This is directly from the citation(written by Diop himself)..

In addition to this, the relevant criticism was noted. Direct link: http://www.africawithin.com/diop/origin_egyptians.htmTaharqa 05:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Taharqa! I hope now Jeeny is satisfied.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry Luka, it's been awhile, and I don't remember exactly what I said or did to start this topic. I do agree with Diop. Maybe it was because he was denied to perform the test on the mummies, so there is no evidence for their race or color. Without the melanin test to confirm, it's speculation. Not that I am denying that the test would reveal the results Diop expects, just that it's not known, and we can't make assumptions without legitimate proof. - Jeeny ^Talk 19:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

^Jeeny, did you check the sources and heed what we have already presented to you above? I'm not sure where is the root of your assumption but he actually DID perform his tests and this is attested by him and he even has noted criticism of his conclusions. One such criticism was provided by French Bioanthropologist Alain Froment. No harm whatsoever if you weren't aware of these facts, but that's what we're looking to do is make people aware. This was already stated directly above you however, and I even provided the link..Taharqa 01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK, Taharqa, you're correct. I read the conversation on this page and saw what Luka wrote about me and didn't understand why he pointed me out, nor what he was referring to. I was thinking of the mummies Diop was denied to do the test on, such as Rameses, and a couple of other famous Ancient Egyptians and presumed those were the mummies being talked about. That was what my latest response was to, in this section of the talk page. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I did read the source, and understand. But still don't know what I said before for this conversation about me not getting it. <shrug> Good to see you, BTW. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you too Jeeny.. And I think what warranted Luka's post was merely the claim you made that Diop had no samples to test and he felt obligated to correct you on it. It wasn't a big deal, the intent was merely to get that point across.Taharqa 02:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Taharqa. I remember now my error. I did assume that Diop wasn't allowed to perform the tests on any of the mummies in the Cairo Museum. I just wanted to be accurate, but I was wrong. I know differently now. I just forgot about this article, as I'm having a horrible time on other articles with racialism, and POV twisting. I'll refrain from going further, because I've been warned about calling people a racist, even though it's obvious, and they've just about said so themselves. I'll just say, the "Aryans" are out and about and growing on Wikipedia. :( - Jeeny ^Talk 04:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

^OMG Jeeny, you just don't know, I've almost given up so many times, lol.. I understand exactly how you feel. I told Luka when you first did it that your intentions were good so not to worry about it, you weren't deliberately trying to undermine anything. Wikipedia is so chaotic at times and that "good faith" rule in more of a pain sometimes, especially when your intuition tells you different. That's why it's good to know who certain people are on here and try mostly to work with them. I appreciate you watching the article also, that's a very good sign.. Just stay cool and try not to lose your mind on here, like I have at times, lol..Taharqa 04:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes I do know. LOL. I'm about to lose it myself now. And you know how "cool" I seemed to be before, trying to help you stay neutral. LOL. Now I'm having the hard time. I'm not a violent person at all, but the thoughts that cross my mind scare me sometimes. I've been trying to work on silly stuff, like the Big Brother show. LOL. Yes, I like the show and my friends think I'm bonkers. Even though it's supposedly a "reality show" it gets me away from reality. LOL. Oh well. It may be good if I get blocked. Many times I think I should take those other articles off my watch list, but I can't because the number of "them" are ganging up on one or two others, if you know what I mean. :( - Jeeny ^Talk 04:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

^Yea, I can dig it. Another reason I'm glad you're here is because apparently we have people on here trying to contribute their own original research, screaming racial absurdities in the edit summary. Then they just keep trying to revert and it is very disruptive and if I'm the only one watching the page, then there will be an edit war because this person isn't even willing to discuss but just rv over everybody else for no valid reason. This is the type of stuff that is sickening. Just so chaotic. Maybe I should go edit something like the big brother show also, lol..Taharqa 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Research

I feel the "research" section should be renamed to something like "academic view" etc..(?)Taharqa 03:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Black soil, black land

The following sentence which I added (to the disucssion about km.t) was deleted by Taharqa, who pointed out quite correctly that I had no reference. I don't intend to pursue the matter, but perhaps someone with better access to the relevant books and journals would be able to source this statement and re-add it, and thus throw another fact into the debate. Best wishes BrainyBabe 15:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Egypt for millenia depended on the flooding of the Nile to bring fertility to the land, and the resulting soil was very black.

^Not sure why this is relevant to the correct translation of 'Km.t' tho, which literally means 'black country'. Even the word "land" is emphasized by "ta", as in Ta seti, land of the Bow or Ta Khent, land of the beginning, or Ta deshret, Red Land.. Black land would be something to the effect of "Kem Ta"? The 't' in Km.t is actually silent so literally Kem.t translates to "Black (something) or (something) Black".. "Something" being indicative of a noun (person, place, or thing).. Given the context of a place, obviously it would be the "Black place" or "black nation', community, settlement, whatever. Land is a thing. In order to even logically include the word into the translation it would have to read "Land of the Black"(feminine singular)..Taharqa 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

BrainyBabe, according to Herodotus, the land of Egypt is black (Histories, § 12). Plutarcus agrees with him (Isis and Osiris, § 32). This Balck soil come from the interior of Africa. This means that it not only the Egyptian soil which is black. Even the soil of Ethiopia, etc. Eurocentric Egyptologists (like Pierre Montet, Géographie de l'Egypte, première partie, Paris, 1957, p. 4) think that it is because of the black soil that Egypt is called Black (land) [here I agree with Taharqa that the translation is not good, it must be Black country]. Aboubacry Moussa Lam thinks that it is because of the color of the inhabitants which is also black (Aboubacry Moussa Lam, "L'Egypte ancienne et l'Afrique", in Maria R. Turano et Paul Vandepitte, sous la direction de, Pour une histoire de l'Afrique, Lecce, 2003, p. 50). Here we have examples with Black Africa or Ethiopia. But all these are interpretations. The translation must be Black country. Do you want to add the reference to the soil? I gave you the sources. But I lean towards what Taharqa said. His arguments are solide. Besides, there is already the reference to the black soil in Black land. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Luka.. Have you also noticed that Kem coincides with the Hebrew word, "Ham" (which also translates to "Black/burnt")? Assuming that we take heed to Lam's translation, "Land of the Black/s", it should be notable that the biblical text referred to Egypt as the Land of Ham.

Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham - Psalm 105:23

Ham was a person and had no relation to soil, you'll never find a reference to soil in the word/phrase Km.t.. This is an obvious distortion of the literal translation. It is also ironic that some people refer to Herodotus when citing that Egypt had "black soil" when ironically, Herodotus also described its people as "black skinned".. LOL. And yes, it is already mentioned in the article that Egypt had black land and it is redundant to mention it any further as to emphasize some kind of point.Taharqa 03:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, I agree with you that this Ham is a person. Pierre Montet I already quoted states that Kmt-O49 (the Egyptian name for Egypt as a country) is also one of the many names of the capital of the nome jh (or kȝ) km "The Black Cow" in Lower-Egypt (p.119). Now if we reason a bit we will remember that the Black Cow is a name for Osirus. Plutarcus and even Herodotus refer to the incarnation of Osirus as a Black Cow. It is Osirus as the River Nile, according to Plutarcus, who makes everything turn black: the soil (symbol of Isis) and the hair of the Egyptians. Plutarcus states also that Osirus had a black complexion. Osirus is the ancestor of the Black people. Seth (the Red) of the non-Black people, and in particular of the Semites, according to the Egyptian mythology reported by Plutarcus. Of Isis, Mayassis says that she is Black, a "Nubian". Is not the first Egyptian nome of Upper-Egypt, thus of all Egypt, "TA Seti: Nubia" (Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar)? Eurocentric scholars are clearly on the wrong side. Behind this name of Kemet-O49 stands Osirus, the Black, the King of Egypt, the husband of Isis, herself a Black lady; both of them progenitors of the Egyptians, who were black (Herodotus), and of all the Blacks. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 17:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Question to Lanternix

Lanternix, do you have a problem with the article as it stands now or do you have something to explain to the other editors? Please come here to discuss the issue!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Eurocentrism in Egyptology

Somebody is saying that this section contains original research. Did he read the books of Lam and Damiano-Appia or listen to the interviews of Diop and Davidson mentioned here?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 23:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

^^They're not going to respond, that's the problem with wikipedia.. We have kids editing articles that can't hold a debate.Taharqa 23:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I put tags in front of the statements that were either pov or sounded like original research before they were reverted by the sockpuppet or you. They need to be checked for neutrality because they are trying to advance the afrocentric position which is not accepted by the Egyptologists. It's not enough to say this what he says. If he claims something not supported by scientists, then it needs to be removed. Egyegy 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

^^You have no basis to call anything Afocentric, that is childish and one can easily reply that anything contrary to Afrocentrism = Eurocentrism. You are polarizing and imposing a biased POV with no source to your claims. And please stop wikistalking and making accusations. Thank you.. It isn't our fault that most Africanist historians believe many modern day northern Egyptians to be a result of incursions and miscegenation over the centuries and not a product of Km.t, not my fault and doesn't make anyone "afrocentric", a term worn out and misused bordering crack pot conspiracy theory..Taharqa 23:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop making personal attacks? Egyegy 23:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as the sources.. The video is from Basil davidson, so maybe it would be better to cite the video instead of providing the link..Taharqa 00:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of "POV-statement"

I've removed several instances of the "POV-statement" tag where it was used inappropriately. As Template:POV-statement says, it is intended "to signify that just that statement may not be entirely without bias".

If a statement says "George Bush said Bill Clinton is a liar", that isn't a POV statement. It is a statement that describes what George Bush said. It should be cited to a good reliable source, but the statement by itself — so long as it accurately summarizes that George Bush said — is not a POV statement.

There were several such statements in the article that had been tagged as POV statements. Each one of them began "Joe Smith says..." or "John Doe believes..." So long as the sentence can be backed up by a reliable source, those are not POV statements.

In most cases, those sentences were not referenced, so I replaced the "POV-statement" tag with the "fact" tag. Some of the assertions were unusual, and "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" per WP:RS.

This doesn't mean that a section loaded with statements such as these doesn't have POV problems. A section full of statements that Bush called Clinton a liar, Gingrich called Clinton a Liar, Lott called Clinton a liar, etc. probably would still present a POV problem even if each sentence were well-documented. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Some sanity!! Ok, the page is protected until we can discuss these issues. I will respond to this in a sec.. Thanx for your reply and concern for the article..Taharqa 00:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is different. I added them to extremely biased claims like "he KNEW they were black" and other ones like that. He claims they are Blacks, which we already know, so that's what needs to be made clear. But you also removed the tag I added about the "Sengalese Egyptologist" and the only reference you gave was his personal web site. We all know this is not a reliable source. Egyegy 00:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Because Lam is an Egyptologist, what more can be said about that? I agree that you have abused the tag for claims that don't sit well with you for whatever reason. A lot of it was referenced, regardless of how obscure the reference was, it isn't a matter of anyone's POV, unless you're making that accusation, in which that will not be entertained.Taharqa 01:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Egyegy, you're wrong. It isn't different. The statement is an assertion made by Diop. He may have been right, or he may have been wrong, when he said that Egyptologists "knew very well that the Egyptians were Black people". But the statement is either a good summary of his views or it isn't. It's not a POV statement, it just summarizes his POV, and that's a completely different matter. A sentence that summarized Diop's views is either a statement of fact that can be cited to a reliable source, or it can't be verified and should be removed from the article.

The POV problem arises when assertions such as Diop's — assuming that his views are being summarized accurately — are not balanced by other views. The solution to that is to find other specialists who disagree with Diop's opinion and summarize their views. "Professor Joe Smith says that Egyptologists in the past were unaware of the color of the ancient Egyptians, or that they considered skin color unimportant to their research".

With regard to Lam, I showed that he is an Egyptologist. His educational background is in Egyptology, he's a history professor, and his books are chiefly in the field of Egyptology. Are you saying that he's made up his credentials? What more would you like? Here's his academic c.v., which has additional detail and is published on the University's website. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, this is not a quote of Diop, it's pov original research added by the afrocentrics who wrote these sections. Diop is considered an afrocentric crackpot by the real Egyptologists. Real Egyptologists would never "KNOW" that Egyptians are black. They KNOW they are not. Wikipedia doesn't allow fringe ideas to dominate an entire article, I'm sure you know that. Egyegy 23:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Egyegy, I think we agree here. If it isn't a quote from Diop (or an accurate summary of his views), that's exactly the purpose of the "fact" (or "cn" [citation needed]) tag. An editor will have to produce a reliable source within a reasonable period of time that indicates that the statement is a good summary of Diop's views, or else the statement should be deleted.

2) Arguing about Diop is pointless. He is well-respected by some scholars and despised by others. By the very nature of his criticism of other Egyptologists, it is easy for his supporters to dismiss his critics as "wounded egos". A bunch of Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to agree about whether Diop or any other scientist is or was a "real Egyptologist". Whether you like it, whether I like it, Diop is considered a real Egyptologist by many scholars and his views should be included.

3) You're absolutely right: fringe ideas shouldn't dominate the article. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." WP:WEIGHT But as far as I know, Diop's assertions are not generally considered "fringe ideas". I think that even many of those who disagree with him have read him.

Unfortunately there is no numerical test to determine the "proportion" of how prominent different viewpoints are. I'm sure that you can produce plenty of sources that support your views and criticize those with which you disagree, and I'm sure that other editors can do the same. That process will lead us nowhere. Unless somebody has a better idea how to write about viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each", I think we (the editors who care about this article) are going to have to reach a consensus among ourselves. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why Egyegy is being entertained. He is obviously on a POV-driven crusade in his futile attempt to stand up against "afrocentrism" and "disprove" the notion of a Black Egypt. He goes through many lengths to do so..

He's reverted a long standing image of Coptic saint Maurice, who is noted to have been a black-skinned moor by numerous scholars, and replaces it with an image of some European looking rendition of some imaginary man and tries to revert anyone who stands by the original images displayed. As can be seen here.. [2].. Here he reverts a dubious tag that I put on the Fayum Mummy portraits page, to show that scholars don't agree with the Original research claims of the article, and I've provided sources by way of britannica and egyptologyonline, yet his POV undermines them so he tries to replace it with some obscure reference with no page number, link, quote, or title. [3], and refuses to discuss.

Then he follows me to the population page, moving people's entries around just to be spiteful and requests that an entire article be moved. [4], then comes here with his babble. He's followed me to every article I've been to, articles he's never even dealt with. He is obviously trolling and should be reported for harassment.Taharqa 01:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Green skin color

"Egyptians are often portrayed in impossible shapes and colors. For example, in some paintings they are green."

I thought only the deceased are shown in green? DrKiernan 10:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

^It is still an impossible color.. They are depicted in all kind of symbolic ways, which is the point. Though the convention was of course, dark reddish brown..Taharqa 15:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pharaoh Ramses II was Caucasian

Cranial measurements show that clearly and I propose that this 3d rendered picture based on them will be added to the article: http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/041129/041129_coslog_bcol2_2p.standard.jpg The article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6614215/ MoritzB 11:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

^^"Caucasian" is a debunked racial classification, there were no "Caucasians" in ancient Egypt, not even the most Eurocentrically depended on ramses was, sorry. This was covered in the "difficulties in forensic reconstruction" section. Digging up any obscure reconstruction that artists for whatever reason chose to color light complexioned doesn't make it notable and is redundant, I'm not sure where the motivation comes from. If we're to add this to the article, then why not add the so-called "Negro" reconstruction of king tut, 2002 by discovery channel and the "negro" image of queen Nefertitti, reconstructed by NG, posted in USA today..

Tut: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/tutankhamun/111.asp

Nefertiti: http://www.usatoday.com/life/graphics/nefertiti/flash.htm

^It would later be better to merely include it in the external links like we have done with these. Obviously we weren't committed to littering these all over the page merely to bring home a point, the controversy over the tut reconstruction is the most mainstream and most notable.

Also, while not source material, this here is a good read explaining the delusions of some who rely on two or three mummies from the 19th dynasty like ramses and Seti as "proof" of "Caucasians" in Ancient Egypt. White folks' Egyptian Madness

Taharqa 15:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The question in the 19th and early 20th century was whether the Egyptians looked like Swedes or Italians. The modern consensus is that they looked like modern White North Africans. It's absurd to doubt that they were Caucasians. Even a child can see that a woman who looks like Nefertiti is considered white today.

And it is beyond me why you doubt the existence of the Caucasian race when you obviously believe in the black race.

MoritzB 16:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nefertiti looks just like Iman (model) imanMuntuwandi 16:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Give us all a break. Anyone with two eyes can see why this wishful thinking is not true. I don't like the whole black-white thing either, but neither is the moon is made of green cheese. Egyegy 07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No that is not! and there is no such thing as "white north africans"!! Why are you making up fake consensus and applying false racial terminology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E88vuo.gif See this chart for modern day berbers by Cavalli-Sforza.. If you could see the rest, the original white inhabitants of North Africa, the Berbers are intermediate between the extremes of so-called "white" and "black", in between tropical africans and European nordes. Not even today's so-called "white North Africans are "white"..

Not to mention that Northeast Africans differ from Northwest..

And the Egyptians were white and even a child can see? Nefertiti was white? OMG, if that's the case, then why does her husband's mother and her proposed aunt (queen tiye) look so "black"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:QueenTiy01-AltesMuseum-Berlin.png

C'mon now, I'm not here to argue "race" and subjectivity here, the empirical data suggests that they migrated from the south and had tropical body plans like Somalis and Ethiopians, so-called white people do not have tropical body plans nor did they migrate from the south..

This is from the biggest afrocentric critic (Mary Lefkowitz) on earth and her conclusion after reviewing the mainstream evidence. And she hates "Afrocentrism, I can't emphasize that enough..

Lefkowitz writes: On the Origins of the Egyptians Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54. http://www.wellesley.edu/CS/Mary/contents.html

^Now that is what's mainstream!

Sonia Zakrzewski writes (after studying various egyptian remains): The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the ‘super-Negroid’ body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many ‘African’ populations.

^Study is from 2003..

Renowned Egyptologist Frank Yurco writes:

Certainly there was some foreign admixture [in Egypt], but basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times... [the] Badarian people, who developed the earliest Predynastic Egyptian culture, already exhibited the mix of North African and Sub-Saharan physical traits that have typified Egyptians ever since (Hassan 1985; Yurco 1989; Trigger 1978; Keita 1990; Brace et al., this volume)... The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East Africa, Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic (i.e. Nile River) continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions (Trigger 1978; Bard, Snowden, this volume). Language research suggests that this Saharan-Nilotic population became speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages... Semitic was evidently spoken by Saharans who crossed the Red Sea into Arabia and became ancestors of the Semitic speakers there, possibly around 7000 BC... In summary we may say that Egypt was a distinct North African culture rooted in the Nile Valley and on the Sahara.

^So obviously you're merely confused of what this consensus consists of, ancient Egypt is seen as an African civilization, coextensive with other more southernly Africans in the Nile valley. Not far-fetched at all and actually supported by the data.. But again, I will not be debating subjective aspects of race, like "black" or "white", they painted them selves dark brown and were indigenous Africans, related to Ethiopians, Somali, and maybe some in northern Egypt had Berber affinities, but no ties with Europe or the Middle East are noted.

For the record, I don't believe race can be separated into fixed archetypes, there is no marker. Only race I believe in is the human race, but I do believe that "black people" exist, doesn't mean I adhere to race.

Black person - a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa) - thefreedictionary.com

^If AEs fit that criteria, it has nothing to do with race..Taharqa 16:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And please, no more "race" debates.. In the future I will not indulge other than pointing out that race is a bunk concept....Taharqa 18:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is all so ridiculous. "Even a child can see that Nefertiti was white". That is absurd. Maybe from movies, were she may have been portrayed by a white actress, like Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra, (as a lot of "racial" or "ethnic" types were), yes children would think so. But, that's the movies, not reality. Nefertiti was not a white European. Sheesh. - Jeeny ^Talk 18:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

http://faculty.evansville.edu/rl29/art105/img/egypt_nefertiti.jpg

Enough said.

MoritzB 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

^Thank you!Taharqa 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the "experts" adding the facial features can be very flawed. I've seen where a recently dead person's skull was reconstructed by a forensic expert and put out for the media for identification, after being found in the Ohio River, but when they found out the person's identity, the family's photo did not resemble it (the family noticed the jewelry, not the facial reconstruction that they also showed to the public. Heck, how can they determine that much flesh of the nose area, or the size of the lips? Ramses II could have easily looked like this:my own sketch - Jeeny ^Talk 23:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger

I think before we proceed into the discussion the two articles need to be merged. The same editors ar e discussing the same points on two different pages. I suggest we revert to Ancient Egypt and race or Ancient Egypt and race (controversies). Muntuwandi 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, I have been very busy with the French Wikipedia, so not knowing always how are things going on here. I agree with the idea of merging the two articles. Do Louisvillian and Urthogie know about the idea? What are they saying? But they have to merge as soon as possible in order to respond more easily to questions people are now raising.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pages are protected due to the recent intensity of trolling. When things cool down I'd have to agree. Oh, and Louisvillian never wanted this article to be split and Urthogie hasn't commented in ages..Taharqa 23:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Were there any black people in Egypt?

It's true that this question deserves examination.

The Question of Negrid Admixture

Egypt was neither very far away from Negrid areas nor isolated. Egyptians often expanded towards the South for various reasons (business, ressources, slave trade, political expansion etc.) On the other hand attracted the rich country inhabitants of the South in the rich land of the Lower Nile. Its not surprising that even in the primitive times (Badari-Culture) Negrids appear in Egypt (STROUHAL 1971), which numbers decreased later but rose again in the time of the New Empire (JUNKER 1927) and because of the Arabian slave trade. Negrid immigration determined the anthropological history of Nubia. In Egypt itself was the proportion of Negrids much lower, in contrast to the claims of DIOP (1962, 1967) about a predominantely Negrid character of the Old Egyptian civilisation. After the anthropological record we can estimate it about 1 to 5 percent, together with a proportion of mixed individuals.

MoritzB 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

^What is a "Negroid" and why are you citing outdated work that has no basis in today's scholarship? Around that time, Somalis and Ethiopians weren't considered "Negroids" to some pseudo-scientists, yet those were the closest relatives to the AEs.. Keita found a modal pattern in first dynasty tombs similar to Nubian Kerma, and this actually did predominate in early times. Since there is no such thing as a "Negroid or Caucasoid", Diop was indeed wrong in his categorization however, he was right in his initial notion that Old Kingdom and predynastic Egyptians were Africans, in no way separated from more southernly Africans.Taharqa 20:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fringe and notability

1) Egyegy, I think we agree here. If it isn't a quote from Diop (or an accurate summary of his views), that's exactly the purpose of the "fact" (or "cn" [citation needed]) tag. An editor will have to produce a reliable source within a reasonable period of time that indicates that the statement is a good summary of Diop's views, or else the statement should be deleted.

2) Arguing about Diop is pointless. He is well-respected by some scholars and despised by others. By the very nature of his criticism of other Egyptologists, it is easy for his supporters to dismiss his critics as "wounded egos". A bunch of Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to agree about whether Diop or any other scientist is or was a "real Egyptologist". Whether you like it, whether I like it, Diop is considered a real Egyptologist by many scholars and his views should be included.

3) You're absolutely right: fringe ideas shouldn't dominate the article. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." WP:WEIGHT But as far as I know, Diop's assertions are not generally considered "fringe ideas". I think that even many of those who disagree with him have read him.

Unfortunately there is no numerical test to determine the "proportion" of how prominent different viewpoints are. I'm sure that you can produce plenty of sources that support your views and criticize those with which you disagree, and I'm sure that other editors can do the same. That process will lead us nowhere. Unless somebody has a better idea how to write about viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each", I think we (the editors who care about this article) are going to have to reach a consensus among ourselves. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Malik, your comments betray a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies with regard to undue weight and notability. It does not really matter if someone claims to be an Egyptologist; if s/he has no academic training in mainstream Egyptology and is not recognized as such by the Egyptological community, then s/he is not. Saying that he is well-respected by some scholars and despised by others is misleading -- no serious Egyptologist or scholar accords weight to Diop's work on Egypt. He is, however, often cited as an example of bad scholarship, which is why he is never published in any peer-reviewed journals or other mainstream sources. According to you, Diop's assertions are not generally considered "fringe ideas". In fact, his ideas are considered little more than fringe Afrocentrism. The fact that he is frequently described as an "Afrocentrist" and "a leading Afrocentrist" in academic literature (Palter, Yurco, Snowden, etc.) by definition makes him fringe.

Unfortunately there is no numerical test to determine the "proportion" of how prominent different viewpoints are. That's irrelevant, it is still policy. Your claim suggests that Wikipedia was wrong all along, and that we should take you as the arbiter on questions of notability. If it were such an impossible undertaking, it would not have made to policy. The editors on this article will need to find a way to work within it, and stop violating it, if they don't want their contributions challenged. That's a way to start finding consensus. — Zerida 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand WP policies well enough. I also understand that calling somebody an Afrocentrist doesn't "by definition" make her or him fringe. (And you might want to brush up on Wikipedia:Notability, because it has no relevance to this discussion.)

Perhaps you don't realize that your statement about Egyptologists is a tautology: If somebody is trained as a "mainstream Egyptologist", he or she is recognized as a "mainstream Egyptologist". And people who are outside the clique are not recognized by "mainstream Egyptologists", especially when they have the temerity to criticize them.

By the way, Diop isn't published in peer-reviewed journals because he's been dead for more than 20 years. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me; he is not recognized by the Egyptological community period. Non-mainstream "Egyptology" of the Afrocentric and New Age variety is not Egyptology. Keita is a scientist who has clear Africanist leanings, but he is an acknowledged and respected scientist nevertheless -- that's a fundamental difference. Second, I have never brought up WP:Notability in terms of who should or should not have an article on Wikipedia; I spoke of notability in terms of credentials, which is relevant. And you should know that peer-reviewed journals have been around for longer than 20 years. — Zerida 06:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Shomarka Keita is not an Afrocentrist. If we use the definition by Dr. Molefi Kete Asante, who coined the term, an Afrocentrist is someone who views history in general from an African perspective (i.e. "How do I as a person of African descent fit into this equation") in defiance of the Eurocentric Western establishment. Keita neither self-identifies as an Afrocentrist nor views the world from such a perspective.

He is a Biological Anthropologist with a Phd from Oxford University in that field. His professor was Dr. Larry Angel, one of the most reputed anthropologists in history. His speciality is the biological relationships of ancient North Africans. He comes to the subject of the bio-affinities of the Ancient Egyptians as an authority and any serious debater would recognize him as such if they hope to refute his claims rather than hurl Ad-Hominem attacks.

This is what a webpage on Egyptology has to say about his place in this discussion.

Quote: The contributions by Keita are outstanding exceptions to the general lack of both demographic study and objectivity (Keita 1990; Keita 1992). DNA research is expected to transform this debate, though self-critical consciousness is not always displayed by proponents.

Source: The Question of Race in ancient Egypt

Louisvillian 17:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Malik Shabazz for pointing out the irrelevancies and inconsistencies within the discussion. A lot of this is pointless as it is merely centered around Diop, when the proper criticism is noted. People in here are appealing to Ad Hominem as Diop isn't even used as an authority here, but his views are merely covered with the accompanied criticism. There is no point here in my opinion.Taharqa 20:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Shomarka Keita is not an Afrocentrist. No one said he was. Reread the discussion. — Zerida 00:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So what's the problem then? You come here and criticize this article for it's mention of diop, as a main stream egyptologist and you basically say he shouldn't even be mentioned, without even recognizing that the man was one of the first to bring attention to the concept of ancient Egypt being white washed, which basically paved the way for this disscussion! He basically turned the tides on those eurocentric maniacs, and as a result you now have extensive research being conducted to determine these ancient people's race. Not to mention with this new research it's even further discrediting the early eurocentric views of ancient Egypt.74.128.200.135 01:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

^Yes, he's notable of mention, but I believe Louisvillian misunderstood Zerida. That is one thing I've noticed, Zerida doesn't sit around trying to discredit respected scholars like Keita, who is cited by fellow anthropologists as a respected authority in the field. Keia has answered Diop's challenge, but not in an overtly racialist, something to prove kind of way. I personally never suggested that Zerida considered Keita an afrocentric, he is definitely not, but I am merely confused about the emphasis on Diop in here, because he's actually not even used as an authority here, his views are merely cited. When we get everything squared away though, I don't mind someone noting a bit more criticism concerning his melanin test or some of his views, but to take him fully out of the article is something that doesn't sit well with me for reasons the user addressed above and because he had a very strong view about the appearance of the ancient egyptians, and criticized or not for certain methods, he's notable and deserves mention as he was such an important figure in this area of study. But I reiterate and agree, he shouldn't be used as an authority even if users here agree or disagree with his views, same as Carelton Coon(who I am not comparing Diop to in any way, lol) or anyone else who based their research on a now discredited racial paradigm..Taharqa 03:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)