Talk:Black Egyptian hypothesis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reversing the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt citation without justification

The 2001 Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt states that "Any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as "blacks", while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans.”

Some people proceed to remove the second part of the citation, the "thus" part without making any reference to any reliable sources or wikipedia guidelines. For example Dougwellier undid the edit of Dailey78 with only: "I also disagree, maybe an RfC?". Another person said they didn't want it in the lead but the whole justification was this: "It's not appropriate to include this in the lead.".

Another editor, said the quote was expressing the US point of view. For one, even if true, I don't know which English Wikipedia guidelines it would violates. Secondly, the Oxford Encyclopedia citation doesn't express the US point of view. For example, the US doesn't think Ancient Egyptians could be classified "as "blacks" taking into account their physical diversity". That's ridiculous, it's not the US point of view or the position of its government. Basically, it takes into account that race is a social construct (based on "modern cultural definition"), and use the American racial category of "blacks" as a comparison.

So there's no reason to undo the completion of the Oxford Encyclopedia quote. In fact, cutting the quote in half, misinterpret the Oxford Encyclopedia statement. As they don't mean it's impossible to classify the race of Ancient Egyptians because race is a modern cultural definition. On the contrary, they say, it's possible to do so if we use modern cultural definition. Taking the American definition of black people as an example. It then also proceed to describe other linkage between Ancient Egypt and the rest of Africa (among other subject matter).DrLewisphd (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC

I agree that the second half of the quote does not violate any Wiki rules or norms. However, it violates the POV of some editors and that's why it is being repeatedly deleted. This argument about the Oxford Encyclopedia expressing the USA point of view is incoherent, as it is a UK publication. Since at least 1776 AD, the USA has not needed the UK to express its viewpoint. If we follow Wiki guidelines, the opposing editors can add to the lead to enrich it, but said editors shouldn't be able to delete a cited quote from a reputable and peer reviewed source because they disagree with the finding. Furthermore, why is this sentence being reverted so many times without discussion on the Talk page in violation of Wiki policies. Finally, multiple editors support the addition of the quote in the lead and therefore it should remain until the discussion on the Talk page has concluded. For the record, the USA does not classify Egyptians as Black, even when they look exactly like every other person that is classified as Black within the country. See this article: http://thegrio.com/2012/09/04/detroit-immigrant-wants-to-be-classified-as-black/ Rod (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I was one of the people who reverted. My reasoning is that sentence:

• Is factually erroneous, if for nothing than the fact that modern Egyptians are classified as White in the States,
• Is factually erroneous; most scholars agree that ancient Egyptians were probably like modern Egyptians. Modern Egyptians, save for Nubians, are not classified as black (nor white, for that matter),
• I couldn't find it in the copy of OxEnc I tracked down. I'll go through the history at some point and try to find the editor who added it to check the reference, edition, etc.
• For an article about "controversy," it seems oddly strong in its assertions in the lead.

Now, you may disagree with some of my reasoning, and I'd respect that. For instance, for #4: you're right in that we can add more viewpoints to balance it out. However, other concerns stand.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The creator of this thread claims that I reverted "without justification" and "without talk page discussion". That is a false accusation. In fact before reverting I made sure to leave a note on the first page I reverted, and when I reverted here, I left a hyperlink to that note (here: Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy#United_States_culture). Since clicking on a hyperlink is too tedious for some apparently, I would add here that in addition to the excellent points brought up by Aua, including it also has the following problems:

• It constitutes a huge simplification of the concept of "blackness" in the US (which always means different things depending on teh speaker and context).
• It violates the idea that wikipedia should have a global viewpoint, giving equal airing to cultural notions of all parts of hte world, rather than just (alleged) ones that supposedly come from the US.
• Its legitimacy as even an accurate representation of United States cultural notions can be called into question as the book is neither from the United States nor about the United States.

And that in addition to all the POV and even factual issues it has.--Yalens (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Great points! I'll add to that WP:LEAD states that the intro should generally summarize the article and its main points. The main point is that almost all scholars, save for Diop and his afrocentrist cronies, refuse to even dabble in "blackifying" ancient Egyptians. The Oxford sentence, even if it somehow didn't have the problems outlined above, still fails to summarize a major point in the article.

Now, would truncating the sentence misrepresent it? Maybe and I guess that's a valid concern. As a compromise remove the whole thing.

The Oxford Encyclopedia is a reputable source and you should just deal with it! True, but sometimes even good sources can make mistakes and we shouldn't quote them when we know other sources and modern scholarship disagree with them.

Saying OxEnc is wrong is OR. Not really. Other sources prove them wrong, and not us.

Why not add other viewpoints to balance out this one? We could, but I see that quickly escalating to people just adding more and more to counter the other viewpoints in the lead.

If I had it my way, I'd remove the OxEnc sentence and put the conference consensus there. Obviously, no one in the academic community entertains the Black Egypt theory except whacky AfAm prof's, and that should be the view here at Wikipedia. However, I know many people are somehow attached to the idea of black Egypt and for now, I'd be happy to meet them halfway and remove the extreme POV from the lead.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Modern Egyptians do not equal Ancient Egyptians. Modern Egyptians equal Egyptians after thousands of years of pressure from Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Turks. The fact that Egyptians are classified as White by the USA is the reason why this article exists and the reason why there must be a Black hypothesis. It would defy all logic and common sense (even in a flawed social construct as race) to group modern or Ancient Egyptians with Whites when all mainstream scholars agree that A.E. was an indigenous civilization (meaning not from Europe or any place where whites predominate) and the people ranged from dark brown/red to black skin. Yet, a leading nation in the world has chosen to legally classify Egyptians as White. It is equally valid in this rather elastic social construct to classify them as Black, as you can see in the Oxford dictionary quote.

Let's all try to be civilized here, but clearly there are two opposing viewpoints. It is your opinion that no one in the academic community entertains a Black Egypt. I think that opinion was formed because of selective reading from one camp of this controversy. The painstakingly researched evidence from the other camp makes a rather compelling case to combat your opinion: Some examples:

Professor Massoulard concluded that Ancient Egypt was over one-third "negroid." Falkenburger's anthropological study said that the Egyptians were "36% negroid." Flinders Petrie described the Anu as blacks. Volney called the head of the sphinx, "characteristically negroe." Professor Davisse's iconographic study found "black Egyptians" (especially in the 11th dynasty) and he stated "there remained a variable proportion of Egyptians with negro features." Professors Vercoutter and Leclant highlighted the onset of "negro representation" in 18th century Egyptian iconography. Professor Leclant recognized an "African character in the Egyptian temperament and way of thinking." Professor El Nadury "did not deny that there were black elements in the population of Egypt during the Old Kingdom." Professor Vercoutter "did not dispute that there might have been black elements throughout Egyptian history" and Vercoutter "conceded that there were representations of black people in Egyptian sculpture during the Old Kingdom , and he gave supporting examples." (All quotes in this section from "General History of Africa", Mokhtar, Chapter 1 and Annex to ch.1) I'm quoting authors so don't shoot the messenger about their word choices.

"In the formative years of Egyptian civilization, relations with northern Nubia were strong and reciprocal." "Sudanese tradition strongly influenced the Tasian culture of Upper Egypt" Objects at Khor Bahan point to the "substantial trade" between Nubia and Naqada I Egypt. "Rock drawings in Lower Nubia depict many boats of Naqada type." Egyptians and Nubians had a "thorough knowledge of each other." "Nubian pottery and A-group sites in Upper Egypt indicated that A group Nubians went north" Finally, "Qustul, however, had images associated with the rising Egyptian dynastic culture on unmistakably A group objects, namely royal symbolic facades and sacred boats depicted on A group incense burners...Typical of the culture...unparalleled in type, materials, or workmanship in Egypt, there is no reason to believe they were imported, so they must represent Nubian participation in Dynastic culture in its most complex developments." "The incense burners, seals, painted pottery, and rock art suffice to show that A-group Nubia supported the same emerging culture as Egypt...this participation by Nubia in dynastic culture should come as no surprise, since nubia and Egypt were not only deeply intertwined, they also both belonged to the 'great east african substratum.'" (All quotes in this section from "Before the Pyramids", Emily Teeter, pages 83-90, University of Chicago's Oriental Institute)Rod (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, it cannot be maintained that only AfAm professors are discussing a Black Egypt. The Oxford dictionary is discussing it, Massoulard, Falkenburger, Petrie, Bernal, Davisse, Vercoutter, Leclant, El Nadury, etc. admit that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was at least part Black. Scholars, such as Diop, connected the dots and concluded that 1/3 Black (agreed by most mainstream scholars), plus 1/3 dark red/brown, would equal "Black" in most Western societies. This debate was created by and continues to rage primarily in Western societies and that's why we must use the Western world's concept of race when writing this article.

Getting back on topic, do we have a consensus to keep the sentence and move it from the lead to the body of the article?Rod (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it. DrLewisphd (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I oppose including the full quote in the lead, for the reasons above and more. I recall, though I can't find it now, that we previously discussed this entry, and determined that this "Oxford Encyclopedia" is a collection of essays rather than a true scholarly consensus. This quote is from somebody named Tyson(?) and it is merely the opinion of that one contributor, not the scholarly consensus. We can thus include somewhere a comment that "one scholar writing in the Oxford Encyclopedia states that ....", and then put other quotes from other scholars who disagree so as to achieve balance and NPOV. PS scholars have long since determined that Nubia/Qustul mrely copied Egypt and this is not evidence of anything etc etc - it gets boring when POV-pushers resurface every few months to repeat the same tired claims. Wdford (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Dailey's comment that "This argument about the Oxford Encyclopedia expressing the USA point of view is incoherent, as it is a UK publication." is simply insulting. It's also a worry - that quote doesn't represent a UK view, it represents the view of an American Egyptologist, Stuart Tyson Smith - Dailey should have known this. To attribute it to the Oxford Encyclopedia is obviously an NPOV violation and appears to be giving it some sort of authoritative weight that perhaps simply the actual author's name wouldn't give it. It also doesn't belong in the lead and I see it is in the body of the article as well. The lead should use the first sentence from the section that has Tyson's quote, "Since the second half of the 20th century, most (but not all) scholars have held that applying modern notions of race to ancient Egypt is anachronistic." Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty common for Encyclopedia and academic works of a high level to be written by many experts in the field. It is still a peer-reviewed process and it is still the point of view of the Oxford Encyclopedia. You then talk about putting a particular quote in the lead. Why do you want to give more WP:WEIGHT to that particular quote? Since that page is about the Black Egyptian Hypothesis (and not the Ancient Egypt article), it's should include critics of it, but it should also mainly include its major proponent and the main argumentation in favor of it. Because the page is about the Black Egyptian Hypothesis (which could indeed be completely wrong...or not. Since it's an hypothesis) DrLewisphd (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Tyson wrote the comment, so it must be attributed to him, to avoid misleading readers who don't know that this work is a collection of personal opinions. The article must certainly describe the hypothesis in full, but it must also include the fact that the hypothesis is broadly rejected so as to achieve NPOV. The lead must summarize the article, including therefore the criticisms as well, so that readers who only read the lead section are able to get a proper and balanced summary of the topic. This quote happens to sum up the position quite well, but we can paraphrase it if you would prefer. Wdford (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. NPOV in the lead can only be achieved if the broad rejection of the theory is mentioned. Some scholars might discuss it, but lest we fool ourselves, most contend it is anachronistic and false. To Daily's comment above, no one is claiming AE were white. But they were not black, either. That's the whole point.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Aua, you say: To Daily's comment above, no one is claiming AE were white. But they were not black, either. That's the whole point.. The truth is that it's NOT the whole point at all. The whole point is presenting the scholar point of view on the subject of the Black Egyptian Hypothesis, if you put more WP:Weight to one POV than to another without using reliable sources as information then you're only exposing your own bias toward the subject and it constitutes at best WP:Synthesis. Here you give more weight to a dubious "voting process" at Unesco (I would like to see the full citation) from 1974 than a 2001 quote from the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. But since 1974, there's been a lot of new findings and analysis in and about Ancient Egypt which could affect the scholars point of view in relation to their possible black origin. If fact, we know it did by reading the Oxford Encyclopedia article about that subject (not just the citation above but the full text). So why do we put more WP:Weight to a 1974 supposed Unesco vote, than to a 2001 Oxford Encyclopedia citation. Either both POV must be presented in the lead or none of them or a reliable source must be used. A supposed 1974 voting process at Unesco can't be used as a reliable source about current consensus about the black Egyptian hypothesis. DrLewisphd (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I see how it can be viewed that way, but honestly, I'm really open to the idea of a black Egypt and if there were scientific consensus on that, I'd be screaming my lungs off here to include that in the lead. However, from what I have seen and what I have read, it seems this idea is only entertained by fringe scholars, whacky afrocentrists (about as bad as White Nationalists), and a few WP editors. The fact that Diop, whose contributions are questionable at best, makes an appearance at every single section in this article says something.

To your point about the conference, as far as I know the UNESCO vote is the most recent scholarly consensus on the topic. It captures what most scholars think and is thus appropriate for the lead. If you have something more recent, we can replace the UNESCO. The OxEnc is one essay by one person; good as a source maybe, but definitely not in the lead. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we've finally gotten to the crux of the matter. The so called "scholarly consensus" from 1974 is getting dated and it wasn't much of a scholarly consensus even in 1974. If you read the annex to the Gen. History, you will clearly see that the "mainstream" scholars that formed the "consensus" were woefully unprepared to debate the topic with Diop. Most of the "mainstream" scholars agreed with Diop on numerous points. Because they wouldn't accept Diop's theory in its entirety, many Wiki editors are summarizing the UNESCO conference as not agreeing with the Black theory on any points. This is not true and contradicts the text in the annex. Furthermore, if Diop is such a fringe scholar, why was he invited to write the opening chapter to the Gen. History of Africa (after the conference)??? UNESCO could have chosen to have any one of the "mainstream" scholars at the conference write the opening chapter to the Gen. History of Africa and yet they chose Diop. Do you think it could have anything to do with the POV of some editors that they are constantly slandering Diop although he was respected enough by his peers to be featured prominently in their scholarly works? The mainstream scholars agreed with Diop that Ancient Egypt would be classified as at least 1/3 Black by modern Western societies. The mainstream scholars also conceded that A.E. was at least another 1/3 dark brown/red, which doesn't have a proper classification in the social construct we know as race. Diop and other SCHOLARS concluded that the "mainstream" scholars are using euphemisms to avoid the common conclusion drawn when societies are 66% dark brown to black and located on the African continent since the beginning of time. Now we add to this highly contentious 1974 "consensus" the DNA evidence and scholarly work since 1974. The pendulum is shifting and we're giving too much weight to the hotly debated 1974 "consensus."Rod (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Following the approach of Diop, I apologize for having to discuss race at all. I don't believe that race is a scientific classification for humans. I think that all humans are practically genetically identical. However, for several hundred years "scholars" have been publishing works that attempted to classify A.E. in the framework of the flawed social construct known as race. It is the position of many scholars, that those works were created not only to spread knowledge about A.E., but to push a political agenda for European colonialism. We all know that the social construct of race is flawed, but we find ourselves dealing with it because the public is very interested in perpetuating this social construct. Therefore, we must ask ourselves if the information is viewed objectively (and in the absence of a racist agenda) where would the A.E.'s race best fit in the flawed social construct? We must also ask ourselves can we trust the results regarding this topic from the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries? Finally, we must ask ourselves has new evidence become available to alter the conclusions drawn previously. Then we must present on all sides of the debate to the lay reader, so that the lay reader can gain a better understanding of this very popular topic.Rod (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Conclusions of the UNESCO conference

A tremendous amount of weight is being given to the conclusions of the UNESCO conference in several articles regarding Ancient Egypt. Therefore, I would like to review the conclusions of the conference so that we can ensure that statements (on Wiki) regarding the conference do not misrepresent the actual conclusions drawn by the participants.

From General History of Africa, G. Mokhtar, pages 31-61:

*Summary of the conferences's two opposing theories:

• The Ancient Egyptians were white, even though their pigmentation was dark. Some believed the population was the same throughout A.E.'s history and others believed it was altered by foreign penetration, page 35
• Ancient Egypt was peopled from the Neolithic to the end of native dynasties by black Africans., page 35

• Professor Vercoutter acknowledged that the conventional idea that the Egyptian population was equally divided between blacks, whites, and half castes could not be upheld. He then concluded that Egypt was African in its way of writing, culture, and way of thinking. page 31 He stated firmly that A.E.'s had always been mixed. page 45 He stated that blacks were represented in Old Kingdom sculptures and wondered why Egyptians didn't paint themselves as coal black instead of red if they were black page 53-54.
• Professor Leclant recognized the same African character in Egyptian temperament, page 31. He stressed culture over race, page 38, 46.
• Professors Vercoutter, Leclant, and Ghallab noted the appearance of negro representation in Egyptian iconography from the 18th dynasty onwards. page 48-49, 53
• As it regarded linguistics, the topic had a large measure of agreement and the reports by Diop and Obenga were regarded as "very constructive.", page 31
• The symposium rejected the idea that the Pharaonic Egyptian language was a Semitic language, The genetic and non-accidental relationship between Egyptian and the African languages was recognized, page 32
• Regarding physical anthropology: Little reliable data was avaiable for A.E. The info was insufficient to draw conclusions. The methods were being called into question and it was agreed that craniometry did not meet the requirements of such research, page 34
• Mrs Blanc indicated that the Nile valley facilitated communication with West Africa and sub-Saharan Africa and that it was reasonable to put forward the hypothesis that the civilizations that emerged there might be authentically African. page 35-36
• Professor Massoulard concluded that A.E. was over 1/3 negroid. The other 2/3's were Mediterranean and Cro-Magnon. page 37
• Diop gave an extensive account and concluded that A.E. was an indigenous and mostly black (during non-intermediate periods) civilization.page 37-38. He agreed with other professors that A.E. was certainly 1/3 black. He went further to state that the 1/3 of agreed half castes were also black and that the 1/3 called whites (with dark skin) by some were also black. page 43
• Participants suggested solving the problem of the peopling of A.E. through separate precise studies.
• Professor Ghallab found six ethnic groups in the Mesolithic, however they had a homogeneous culture. In the late Palaeolithic he found the black race from the Atlantic to the Red Sea., page 39 He said the human race was homogeneous and white during Palaeolithic. page 39, 44
• Professor Abdalla did not think it important to establish whether the A.E.'s were negroe or black. He said that iconographic evidence made it clear that Napatans and Egyptians had nothing in common. He said KM did not mean black. He didn't find Diop's examples convincing. page 39-40
• Professor Sauneron, Obenga, and Diop concluded that KMT and KM meant black. page 40
• Obenga tried to provie the relationship between Ancient Egyptian, Coptic, and modern negro-African languages, page 41
• Professor Gordon-Jaquet stated that Egyptian population had not been subjected to massive immigration since at least Neolithic times
• Professor Devisse showed through an iconographic study that there remained a variable proportion of Egyptians represented with negro features and coloring. He saw the negroes as clearly differentiated from the Egyptians but the documents showed that A.E.'s population was not consistent with the "white skinned" theory. page 42-43
• Professor Shinnie said that according to American specialists skeletal studies were not enough to characterize race and that the criteria regarded as adequate by Diop were no longer considered to be so by American specialists. page 52

*Conclusions:

• One participant rejected Diop's theory in its entirety.
• None of the participants voiced support for the earlier theory of dark skinned whites. There was no more than a tacit agreement to abandon this old theory.
• Numerous objections were made to the ideas propounded by Diop, page 43
• Professor Sauneron concluded that none of the evidence gave ground for doubting that the A.E. population was mixed. page 46
• Those that did not agree with Diop concluded that A.E. was settled, since the Neolithic, by people from the North and South that were differentiated by color. Vercoutter, Sauneron, and Save-Soderbergh disagreed with Diop concerning the color of Egyptians and concluded that the subject needed more study.
• Diop and Obenga concluded that the Nile valley was uniformly peopled by black people and that the the movement had been from south to north. page 46. Professor Vercoutter and Diop agreed that the Egyptian Nile valley population was homogeneous until the southern extremity of the Nile delta. These two "experts" were in partial agreement on the theory of migration from the north to the south (Diop completely rejected it and Vercoutter found it difficult to accept).page 47 Not all participants prepared communications comparable with the painstakingly researched contributions of Diop and Obenga and therefore there was a real lack of balance in the discussions.
• In general, participants considered the large scale migration to the Nile valley theory as no longer tenable. Broad consensus could not be reached about later periods, but it was generally agreed that A.E. absorbed the migrants of various ethnic groups.
• Professor Debono and others concluded that archaeological excavations in the delta region are far fewer than in Upper Egypt. This may have led to the participants's reservations and unwillingness to draw conclusions.
• Mr. Glele, the representative of the Director-General of UNESCO reminded the participants "It was out of the question for the symposium, in studying problems bearing on the peopling of Ancient Egypt, to reject out of hand, and without proposing any new system, the generally accepted classification of peoples as white, yellow, and black - a typology which had been traditionally used by Egyptologists to classify the people of Egypt." page 50

I see here agreement on some points, confusion and contradictory discussion on others, disagreement on yet others. There was a call for further study. If there was a conclusion drawn, it was that the A.E. population was indigenous to the area and free of mass immigration since the Neolithic, was mixed (but participants did not support the theory of dark skinned whites), that blacks had always been a part of this civilization, and that UNESCO would continue to use race in discussions regarding the peopling of Ancient Egypt.Rod (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion needed on the following article sentences/passages:

"At the UNESCO "Symposium on the Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script" in Cairo in 1974, the "Black Egyptian" theory was rejected by 90% of the delegates.[10][11]" Citation #10 mentions a full 129 pages of the book. In which chapter can we find the statement that 90% of the delegates rejected the "Black Egyptian" theory? I feel that this is original research, as my reading indicates that only one delegate rejected the Black theory in full. The other delegates agreed with some parts of the theory and disagreed with other parts of the theory. As it is written, the statement is misleading.

Also, this statement is duplicated in the lead and "Position of modern scholarship sections. I will immediately delete the duplication.Rod (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This Black Hypothesis was not the only item on the agenda of that 1974 symposium – it was a part of a bigger agenda. Mokhtar’s comment that the bulk of the delegates were not properly prepared to debate Diop on this hypothesis is one man’s opinion – certainly it was not the consensus of the group! Furthermore, most of them did not see it as an issue needing to be discussed at all - if I recall correctly there were 20 delegates participating, Diop raised many different angles and see how few delegates have bothered to make comments at all on even some of Diop’s angles. That doesn’t mean they conceded he was right, it means they thought he was wasting time and they didn’t bother to argue with him.

Re Rod’s claim that there was a lot of support for Diop’s theory, please re-read pages 43 & 44: “Numerous objections were made to the ideas propounded by Professor Diop. These objections revealed the extent of a disagreement which remained profound even though it was not voiced explicitly”.[1] I shall add this to the various articles as soon as I get the chance.

Please also re-read pages 48 & 49: “Two main facts became very plain during the discussion and were not seriously contested: - The human remains so far discovered dating from prehistoric times and from the archaic period are different from those found in Upper Egypt. – Secondly, it appears certain that human factors which affected life in Lower Egypt or the Delta, in so far as they can be discerned prior to the dynastic period, differ from those which were operative in the valley south of this region.”[2]

Rod notes that on pg 31 the report states “As it regarded linguistics, the topic had a large measure of agreement and the reports by Diop and Obenga were regarded as "very constructive." Rod however omits that at the bottom of page 32 the editor has inserted a footnote stating that these are Diop’s opinions and that they were not accepted by all the experts participating. This is also relevant to Rod’s statement that Diop was chosen to write that chapter – and this key information should be included in the article as well.

This consensus is not dated, in that there have not been any further symposia with different outcomes. The occasional paper by Keita or the occasional challenged DNA result do not constitute a “scholarly consensus”.

Please note they did NOT “agree” that the AE’s were 1/3 black, some of them agreed that about 1/3 of the AE’s were black – which is not at all the same thing. Nobody denies that black people lived in Egypt as well, but that doesn’t make the Egyptians a “black race”. Large numbers of black people live in the USA and Germany as well, but those are not regarded as “black countries”, now are they? Nobody is claiming that the AE’s were white, but that doesn’t automatically make them black. (The Berbers and Arabs were once classified as Caucasian, which may account for the confusion, as many Americans still tend to use the term Caucasian to mean white.) Once again we have Rod arguing the old and discredited “less than 100% white equals black”, which is totally rejected by almost everyone, especially the Egyptians themselves.

Vercoutter and others noted that the AE’s distinguished themselves from Sub-Saharan black people in paintings and prose. This is clearly backed by evidence, and it received substantial support. More recent scholars have also pointed out that, while the “red” of the men in the paintings might allow some people to claim “red equals brown equals black”, the women were painted a lot lighter.

Rod does however highlight a most important issue, namely that a Mr Glele demanded the retention of “the generally accepted classification of peoples as white, yellow, and black…” This system obviously does not accommodate “races” such as Arab, Berber, Moor etc, which are not actually black but which must now get lumped as black just because they are neither white not Mongoloid. Since the Ancient Egyptians (like the modern Egyptians) were largely a variant of the Berber and Arab “races”, this imposition from Mr Glele has ensured that the conclusions of the symposium would automatically have gridlocked inconclusively. This wasn’t helped by Diop’s insistence that the blacks were black, the mixed race people were black, the whites were black and everyone else was black as well. Other scholars resorted to terms like “Mixed”, “Mediterranean”, “North African” etc to get around this, but clearly there were officials present who wanted it to be a straightforward Black vs White debate.

PS: The lead is supposed to summarise the material in the article, so a degree of duplication is both inevitable, and desirable.

Wdford (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the lead should summarize the article and there will be some duplicate content or meaning, but not word for word duplicated sentences in the lead and body. That's unnecessary.

I'm glad that more editors are realizing that this debate and the history of it took place in the context of a flawed social construct that acknowledged black, white, and yellow. As you can in the Ancient Egyptian Race controversy article, the other intermediate "race" theories were discredited by mainstream scholars leaving only black, white, and yellow. If one subjects himself to this flawed framework, which "race" best describes the A.Es? That's what this debate is about. You say that no one is saying that the A.Es are white. Actually, that was the position of mainstream scholarship for most of the history of this debate. It is often mentioned in these articles that mainstream scholars indicate that modern Egyptians are much like the Ancient Egyptians and yet the USA (sorry to mention the USA) legally classifies modern Egyptians as white. So yes, people are still effectively calling Egyptians (and therefore A.E.s) white.

Much attention is drawn to the inconographic distinctions drawn between the red Egyptians and black nubians/africans. However, there is much more similarity in the phenotype of the red Egyptians and black africans than the whites and asians pictured in the table of nations. Also, one can find numerous representations of red africans wearing traditional "southerner" dress (animal skins, etc.) in Egyptians iconography, which nullifies this argument that red vs black can be the dividing line between black africa and mixed race lower egypt. Snowden mentions that Greeks and Romans knew of "negroes of a red, copper-colored complexion...among African tribes",[75] Also, let us not forget the words of Davidson, which recall the jet black pharaonic queens of the New Kingdom:

British Africanist Basil Davidson stated "Whether the Ancient Egyptians were as black or as brown in skin color as other Africans may remain an issue of emotive dispute; probably, they were both. Their own artistic conventions painted them as pink, but pictures on their tombs show they often married queens shown as entirely black, being from the south : while the Greek writers reported that they were much like all the other Africans whom the Greeks knew."[77]Rod (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So yes, the A.Es sometimes painted their women as a lighter color (which is typical of many societies and "races"), however the Ancient Egyptians also painted their Queens as coal/jet black. Where can we find a similar representation of a white or asian pharaoh or queen in Ancient Egyptian painting? We know what the Ancient Egyptians thought whites and asians looked like from the table of nations drawings. I've never seen (before Egypt was colonized by Persians, Greeks, and Romans) an image of an Ancient Egyptian that looked like the whites and asians in the table of nations. However, I've seen numerous images of powerful Ancient Egyptians that look like coal/jet black africans (Ahmose Nefertari, etc.). This is why I (following Diop and others) conclude that if the Ancient Egyptians had to be forced into the black, white, yellow framework that was created by Europeans, the best choice would be black. That's the western world's position. There are people that are called black today (by Western societies) that are essentially yellow (e.g. Beyonce). There are people that are called black that are brown (Kobe Bryant, Denzel Washington). There are people that are called black that are black. (Wesley Snipes). The flawed social construct of race is elastic enough to handle these slight phenotypical variations of africans and their descendants. However, as stated in the UNESCO findings, no one agrees with the dark skinned whites theory, so where does that leave the A.E.s???Rod (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice and all, but mostly your own OR. Doesn't belong here. Moving on.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree it should be taken out of the lead at the least. It is extremely outdated as evidence of current consensus on the issue as it most of this article. A great deal has changed in the field of Egyptian studies since then. So I would agree to first take it out of the lead and then clarify the actual results based on the report in the body of the article. But it is far too outdated to be included in the lead. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay I edited the lead to give a general idea that the issue of the phenotypical characteristics of ancient Egypt is still relevant today-someone perhaps can add some more references to that. So now someone needs to dig into that analysis as the editor above did and give a balanced summary of what was decided at the conference now that it has its own section. I also recommend some updating of this article in terms of recent genetic, linguistic, archeological etc. evidence and shifting of the debate on certain figures and the current proponents of the theory since the mid-1970s. This article is extremely outdated and, for example, is using old sources from the 1970s to claim current controversies that are in fact no longer controversial. That is fine to keep in the history section but the position of modern scholarship actually has to represent modern scholarship. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you for POV pushing. The idea that Egyptians are not black is the well-accepted current theory. Even half-decent academics agree with that. Now, we need something in the lead to express this current view, and this scholarly consensus. The UNESCO conference does just that (Rod digging for support for Diop's theory's been debunked above). Now, if you have something new on this, say, a more recent scholarly conference, go ahead and include it. Otherwise, don't remove without having us onboard.

I suggest we model this article kinda like Flat Earth: it's important to show how fringe the view is and how current science goes against it.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

People, this article is about the Hypothesis itself, its not a forum for POV-pushers to "prove" that the Ancient Egyptians were black. Diop was a leading player in formulating and punting the Hypothesis, Diop punted his Hypothesis at the UNESCO symposium, and the Hypothesis was shot down by 18 professors. It seems Diop even resorted to gross exaggeration in his drafting of the discussion for the record, to the extent that an editor saw fit to correct in a footnote the false impression he was trying to create. We cannot now decide to ignore the UNESCO outcome, just because its inconvenient to a certain POV - what fresh info has since become available to overturn those conclusions?

Several participants at UNESCO objected to the Three-Races-Only Rule, because they all know that the AE's did not fit into any of those 3 races, but an official insisted they work with only those three races. Rod etc think this is a great opportunity to annex the AE's as black, but actually the Arab and Berber people are classified into the Caucasian grouping by that antiquated rule, so if we are limited to only those three groupings the AE's will have to be Caucasian - which many Americans interpret (wrongly) as white. The professors knew that and tried to correct it, but were told they were not allowed to do so. Whose fault I that?

Once again, the red color of the AE males is not supposed to be an accurate rendering of their actual skin color. It's not going to help to continually ramble on about how the real skin color was red and they painted the females a pale color instead just for fun, because clearly the people were not actually half red and half beige/yellow etc. The red skin is not a physiological representation, so let it go. It could as easily have been that the real skin tone was pale like the women in the paintings, and that the men were sunburned by working outdoors. Yes there were white women in Egypt as well - Khufu's wife was reportedly a blue-eyed blonde, which Diop claimed is the exception which proves the rule (whatever that means). Ramesses II had red hair, as did a few mummies from the New Kingdom, and some were also blonde (Diop of course claimed that black people also have red and blonde hair). Yes there were also a handful of black queens and concubines - this is well known and never disputed, but the point is that they were foreign women, not Egyptians, and in their tomb paintings those foreign women were clearly shown to be physically distinct from the Egyptian women. On that fascinating point, the melanin samples Diop was bragging about at UNESCO (from the Mariette excavations) are quite probably from those very foreign women, as Mariette excavated the graves of those dynasties (among others), so quite possibly Diop searched about until he found the mummies of those foreign black women, took samples from them and then pretended they were representative of all AE's. Nice. Wdford (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I am unclear what the point of this discussion is. I am simply trying to move a 40-year old vote of a political body on a historical subject to its proper place: out of the lead and into the history section with its own section. Also when did a vote of a political party (and UNESCO is political) define history? Is there any example in any other region or era of the world where 40-year old votes of representatives in a section of a political body like the UN is accorded such weight to be placed in the lead of an article? If it was a recent vote of leading Egyptologists or Historians in one of the Egyptology of Historical professional associations like the International Association of Egyptologists or the American Research Center on Egypt that would be fine. But the UN is neither. Include references to your various points in the body in the relevant sections if you have time. That is irrelevant to this discussion here and my recent changes to the lead. Please do not drown out the simple point of this conversation with your copious notes. The UNESCO vote needs to be in its own section, not in the lead. It is 40 years old and extremely outdated. My previous version of the article was that attempt to do that. I do not know why you are writing about tangential matters that does not address the fact that this 40-year old UNESCO vote is WP:UNDUE in the lead. Simple as that. It really is not very hard to understand with those with a rudimentary knowledge of how historical knowledge and the scientific method works (and yes, for those without even a rudimentary knowledge of how the writing of history works,even history uses the scientific method: just like I would not cite theories or scholar votes or consensus from a professional physics association from 40 years ago in the lead of a subject, same with the UNESCO vote from 40 years ago. And again UNESCO is neither a professional historical or Egyptology association. If UNESCO was in fact a credible professional historical or Egyptology association like the International Association of Egyptologists and there were no subsequent votes on the issue, then yes putting it in the lead may be appropriate. But that is indisputably not the case. Or are you arguing that UNESCO is a credible professional historical or egyptological association? This is extremely obvious for anyone with more than an amateurish training in the historical and scientific method to understand.). Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Andajara120000 that too much weight is being given to the findings of the UNESCO conference and that the conference is not a professional organization. Also, the outcome of the conference is being misstated in various articles.Rod (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed for Deletion: 90% of delegates statement:

"At the UNESCO "Symposium on the Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script" in Cairo in 1974, the "Black Egyptian" theory was rejected by 90% of the delegates.[10][11]" Citation #10 mentions a full 129 pages of the book. In which chapter can we find the statement that 90% of the delegates rejected the "Black Egyptian" theory? I feel that this is original research, as my reading indicates that only one delegate rejected the Black theory in full. The other delegates agreed with some parts of the theory and disagreed with other parts of the theory. As it is written, the statement is misleading.

ArbComm: Editing Lead and Body - 4 Proposed Edits- Adding Sentence on Continuing Importance of Phenotype and Genetic Affiliations in Lead, Removing UNESCO from Lead into Own Section in Body, Adding DNA Studies Section to Body, Adding Photos to Body in Appropriate Sections

I propose two edits to the lead:

* Proposed Edit #1-The addition of this sentence: /ref> However, the question of the phenotypical characteristics (skin color, facial features, hair texture) and genetic affiliations of the ancient Egyptians in relation to Black Africans remains a point of study, discussion, and debate. because currently it does not indicate that even if race is seen as a social construct and that is all well and good, the phenotypical characteristics and genetic affiliations are still highly important to many people, especially in African scholarship. The UNESCO conference said just as much.

*Proposed Edit #2 (see above discussion)-Removing the information of the UNESCO conference-which was 40 years ago before the proliferation of DNA and other archeological studies and as a vote of a non-professional non-Egyptology or Historical association political body on a historical subject hardly representative of current consensus of scholars or the general population today out of the lead an into its own section under "History"

I propose two edits to the body:

*Proposed Edit #3-Adding a section on the recent DNA studies of the Ancient Egyptians from 2011 and 2012 which was not available to earlier scholars of the Black Egyptian hypothesis

*Proposed Edit #4- Adding photos of Ancient Egyptian Art that is specifically used by proponents of Black African hypothesis in the "Art" section and in the "Sculptures and Sphinx" section and in the "Artifacts" section.

Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead section must be a summary of what is in the body of the article. We therefore cannot mention stuff in the lead unless it first appears in the body of the article.

* Proposed Edit #1- I agree to this, provided we first agree on the wording of a single coherent sentence. The proposed wording above would not be suitable, as its too long and a bit garbled.

*Proposed Edit #2 I think it might be an idea to include a paragraph on the UNESCO symposium in the History section (not a whole regurgitation of every cherry-picked comment that might infer some iota of support, just a summary of the outcome re the Black Hypothesis.) Note also that the UNESCO symposium was not a gathering of politicians, it consisted of 20-odd historical professors, 18 of whom rejected the Black Hypothesis. There were obviously some politicians present, such as Glele who insisted they limit themselves to only 3 races when everyone else knew that was unscientific nonsense. It is very relevant to the lead in that it was the last time the Black Hypothesis was ever put to a symposium of knowledgeable people. There has not been a "proliferation of DNA and other archeological studies" - there are very few DNA "studies", which are heavily disputed by a large percentage of the relevant experts. The current mention of the UNESCO outcome in the lead has become a bit rambling, as certain editors attempt to cram in their full POV. I think this should be limited to a single coherent sentence.

*Proposed Edit #3-Adding a section on the recent DNA studies is OK, provided it is worded as a hypothesis rather than a claim to have proven anything, and provided it includes a strong mention that the reliability of these studies is heavily disputed by about half of DNA experts. The current wording is blatant POV. See also the many discussions about the RS of DNA-Tribes. I see an editor is relentless pushing this POV at all related articles, some of which are also on probation. I propose that we agree on a paragraph on this matter, and that the same wording be used on all the related articles where this POV is currently being pushed.

*Proposed Edit #4- I strongly oppose photos, as this leads to cherry-picking and a contest to see who can find the most photos to support their POV. This has been debated and agreed upon at Ancient Egyptian race controversy as well, where photos have been banned for exactly this reason.

I think its premature to submit all this to mediation. Mediation is a process of facilitating discussion on the talk page, which has not been concluded yet. Mediation is also unlikely to result in general agreement to support a POV which is clearly not supported by scholars. Finally, this article is under probation - there is presumably a limit to how long we can go on with this relentless POV-pushing - I suggest that all proposed additions to the article be discussed first on the talk page going forward. Wdford (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

* Proposed Edit #1- I agree to the content in #1.

*Proposed Edit #2 I agree with moving the UNESCO info to its own paragraph. I would like some editors to provide a peer reviewed secondary source that confirms that 18 scholars disagreed with Diop/Obenga. In my reading of the Gen. History of Africa, it states that one scholar rejected Diop/Obenga's theory in full. The rest agreed with them on some points and not on others. If you cannot provide the citation, I will consider your statements inaccurate original research.

*Proposed Edit #3-I agree with adding the DNA evidence to the article. There have been numerous attempts by numerous editors to add this content, but it is constantly deleted, as it doesn't agree with the POV of some. In most matters of modern life, DNA evidence is viewed as indisputable. However, as it concerns the "race" of Ancient Egyptians, euphemism is the rule and up is always down, black is always white, and left is always right. If DNA tribes had published the same results about any other topic, it would have been non-controversial and fit for inclusion in Wiki. DrLewisphD pointed out that DNATribes has been used as a source in numerous Wiki articles without any discussion. To DNATribes, we add peer reviewed secondary sources providing the indisputable DNA data that was made plain for lay readers by DNA Tribes.

*Proposed Edit #4- I strongly favor returning photos to the article. The photos were included in the article before. The whole point of modern media (like web articles) is to enjoy the rich and diverse content (text, photos, videos, maps, etc.) afforded by this type of media. It is a disservice to the public that they are robbed of the opportunity to know what Ancient Egyptians looked like (and admire A.E.'s manner of dress, jewelry, etc.) because some editors cannot accept the appearance of world famous Egyptian Queens like Ahmose Nefertari and Tiye. Queens that gave birth to the Kingdom that produced one of A.E's most famous pharaohs, Tut.

Photos and DNA evidence have been added and reverted for months and months now. There has been months and months of discussion on the Talk page (please review the history). If there is POV pushing, it is coming from those that don't want to allow a picture of an Ancient Egyptian Queen (Ahmose Nefertari) in an article about Ancient Egypt.Rod (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Aun Deletions of Lead

In revision history :"cur | prev) 21:46, 4 January 2014‎ Aua (talk | contribs)‎ . . (55,362 bytes) (-480)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 589170325 by Dailey78 (talk): Previously agreed on including UNESCO. Please wait for discussion before reverting. This article is under ArbCom. (TW)) (undo | thank)" he deleted the revisions of Dailey78 which was the stable version of the article before my edits. Please do not make any more changes Aun or you will be in violation of 3RR of different editors until we hear back from the mediation committee.

Aun told me that he actually wanted to go back to before you AND Rod edited the article. To that extent, the stable version was before Rod layered the UNESCO sentence with his own interpretation. In any case, I will convey your feelings to Aun.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The current version works for me. At the UNESCO "Symposium on the Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script" in Cairo in 1974, most participants concluded that the Ancient Egyptian population was indigenous to the Nile Valley. The "Black Egyptian" theory was rejected by 90% of the delegates, none of the participants voiced support for earlier theories which claimed that Ancient Egyptians were dark skinned whites,[10] and some participants agreed that at least 1/3 of the Ancient Egyptians were black.[11][12].

Keep in mind that the first sentence is open for discussion on the Talk page and I plan to delete it soon if someone doesn't provide a chapter or page of a peer reviewed secondary source corroborating the "90% of delegates statement." My reading of the Gen. History of Africa states that one delegate disagreed in full and the rest agreed on points and disagreed on other points. My reading is also that the scholars in disagreement were woefully unprepared to comment or disagree.Rod (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolving the DNA issue once and for all

I propose the following as a first draft of a standard paragraph on the DNA issue, having included all the salient points but removing the WP:OR and the WP:SYNTH. Please help to build on this, so that we can resolve the DNA issue once and for all.

“Recent DNA studies of Ancient Egyptian mummies from both the Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) and Amarna (from 1353 B.C.) lineages claim to have found the Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup E1b1a, among others. However "half of the researchers" in the DNA field dispute these conclusions, and claim instead that DNA sequencing from ancient material is unreliable and prone to contamination. The E1b1a haplogroup is commonly found in Sub-Saharan African populations, but it is also present in North African Berbers, modern Egyptians and Middle Eastern populations, among others.”

Alternately, in order to better avoid WP:SYNTH, we can leave out the last sentence explaining what is Haplogroup E1b1a, and readers who are interested can follow the blue-link and read it up for themselves? Wdford (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it belongs here at all. Where do these discuss the "Black Egyptian hypothesis"? I've found it all to easy to wander off the subject of the article. "We need references that discuss the subject – directly, in detail" - WP:VRS. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, but the POV-pushers are determined to insert it everywhere they can, so attempting to exclude it completely is going to be counter-productive. Maybe its best to settle on a paragraph that is accurate, reliably referenced, neutral and avoiding SYNTH and OR, so that the point is mentioned in an acceptable manner and the matter can rest? Perhaps that paragraph could clarify that the reliable sources were working toward an unrelated goal and do not comment specifically on race? Wdford (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

We should add a section on DNA and stop censoring the DNA Tribe findings, as we have no reason to exclude them from this article while allowing DNA Tribes to be used as a source in various other articles. The rest of the first draft seems to be a great step in the right direction.Rod (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

DRN: Ramesses and Amarna Lineages Two Peer-Reviewed Studies

What is controversial about including the following on the nearly identical DNA history of Egypt, Population history of Egypt, Black Egyptian Hypothesis and Ancient Egyptian race controversy articles. The proliferation of articles was created specifically to try the patience and time of editors unable to conduct four separate talk page conversations on the same issue. I have already engaged in multiple talk page discussions on this issue on the separate talk pages and thought consensus had been reached at least on one of the articles with the same exact editors involved in the talk page discussions on the other pages. I have submitted a DRN on including the below on all four pages as the issues and editors involved are the same: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Population history of Egypt

Recent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty and the Armana dynasty of the New Kingdom state that these dynasties carried the Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup E1b1a.

Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind it, as long as we make it clear there are numerous objections to the study. Furthermore, I have a problem with characterizing E1b1a as "sub-Saharan." While it's true it originated from Africa (like every single other haplogroup out there) and some scientific articles would refer to it as so, some subclades of E1b1a are predominant in regions outside of SSA. In fact, many Northern African populations belong to this haplogroup (go figure; someone who lived in North Africa has North African DNA!). In this article, it's misleading to just go with that description when we need the greatest precision and clarity.

My 0.02c.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting comment because as the multiple genetic studies referenced shows, E1b1a has been found to : (1) originate in Sub-Saharan populations; (2) predominate in Sub-Saharan populations; (3) when it is found outside Sub-Saharan populations is found to be due to migrations of Sub-Saharan populations. The genetic studies set out quite clearly that this is a Sub-Saharan haplogroup, is used to mark out Sub-Saharan African admixture. E1b1a is in fact one of the haplogroups that are unique in being ascribed so clearly to just one population and their descendants. This is because of the Out of Africa migration, where those outside of Africa have just one subset of the DNA found in Africa. The genetic studies I have referenced make that pretty indisputably clear. Those North African populations that do have E1b1a are admixed with Sub-Saharan populations and the reason why we know this is because many of the peoples of North Africa are relatively recent back to Africa migrators with mutations in their DNA that occurred in Eurasia. As a result, the presence of E1b1a in these populations is due to Sub-Saharan populations. There is no evidence to the contrary and you have provided no references showing that E1b1a is not exclusively found in Sub-Saharan Africans and their recent (due to Out-of-Africa) descendants, wherever they may be. The reason why this is so clear is precisely because of the Out of Africa migration and the extremely unique nature of Sub-Saharan African DNA because of that. It doesn't get any more precise or clearer than that. If we are going to debate this particular issue which is so overwhelmingly clear in the scientific literature then it puts the whole point of genetic or DNA testing into the trash. It really is that clear and precise, for this haplogroup in particular which as I said is because of the Out-of-Africa migration and what that means for the uniqueness of what is classified as Sub-Saharan African DNA. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

For people who understand how haplogroups work, ascribing a certain type to a geographical reason makes sense because they are aware of the caveats that come with that. For the general public, this can be misleading. Let me try to re-state my objection another way: E1b1a is all over the place. There are numerous arguments for why labeling E1b1a as SSA might be misleading, but seeing that I'm traveling right now, I'm not going to bother with looking up scientific papers at this instant. Here is an illustrative example for your own edification though:

Suppose there is a bit of a controversy about the race of 18th century French people. Someone goes and digs up Napoleon Bonaparte's body and finds his Y-haplogroup to be E1b1b1c1 (true story). In an article discussing the race of French people, I come along and write "recent DNA studies have found that Napoleon Bonaparte belongs to the Levantine E1b1b1c1." A layperson might be quick to the conclusion that French people are therefore Syrian, while more knowledgable individuals understand how these anomalous results can come about.

Similarly, in the context of this article, it's misleading to go with the SSA description. Ramesses could have been as white as a polar vortex coming down on the midwest, but he could still have E1b1a from one extremely distant ancestor. This piece of information does little to help settle the debate. Including it "as is" does more to mislead than to inform.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As long as what you state is referenced and relevant what objection can I have to that? But I have yet to see any evidence that e1b1a is 'everywhere.' What you say sounds plausible but in fact e1b1a has very rarely been found outside of Sub-Saharan Africa or within the descendants of relatively recent African migrants. But go ahead, provide some sources to support your wording. But if you can find credible referenced, relevant quotes that are not WP:undue, go ahead and draft something. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Aua sounds like unconvincing original research. I will trust the peer reviewed secondary sources that indicate E1b1a can be used to characterize SSA populationsRod (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

DNA - still trying to resolve

Please can we keep the debate in one place - it doesn't help to keep churning out new sections that essentially address the same issue. I offer the following points re the DNA issue in answer to questions that are now scattered around all over the place:

1) Nowhere in the two reliable sources provided do I see any mention of the race of the mummies investigated here. The two studies were looking for something else entirely, and nowhere do I see any conclusion about race. Have a missed such a conclusion? In the absence thereof, this conclusion would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

2) A most reliable source states that “about half” of all DNA experts believe it is impossible to derive accurate DNA results from mummies to begin with. This is enough to undermine any conclusions drawn about haplotypes from the so-called DNA evidence, so it would be inappropriate again to use words like “proven” or any similar word.

3) Assuming the DNA was actually correct, which is heavily disputed, the 18th Dynasty could have picked it up from elsewhere as well. Today E1b1a is more common in SSA than elsewhere, but it exists elsewhere as well – including among Berbers and Arabs. The 18th Dynasty came after thousands of years of immigration – from the Asian immigrants who brought crops and livestock in about 8000BC to the Hyksos who left just before the 18th Dynasty was founded. Rameses etc could have got it from anywhere, perhaps thousands of years upstream.

4) I therefore suggest once again the following paragraph to summarise the issue: "Recent DNA studies of Ancient Egyptian mummies from both the Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) and Amarna (from 1353 B.C.) lineages claim to have found the genetic Haplogroup E1b1a. However "half of the researchers" in the DNA field dispute these conclusions, and claim instead that DNA sequencing from ancient material is unreliable and prone to contamination. The E1b1a haplogroup is commonly found in Sub-Saharan African populations, but it is also present in North African Berbers, modern Egyptians and Middle Eastern populations, among others."

5) Please can we thrash this out without creating any further digressions? Wdford (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your sentence is misleading and you have provided no evidence that E1b1a is not a Sub-Saharan Haplogroup. It originates in Sub-Saharan Africans and if it is found in non-Sub-Saharan Africans it is due to admixture with Sub-Saharan Africans period. What is your evidence to support this wording? You are playing semantic games. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So probably there was admixture - 50 years before or 5000 years before or 15000 years before - so what? The point is that you cannot pick up a claim about an E1b1a gene in a disputed study and claim it as proof of something completely unrelated to that study. Them's the rules. What you are doing is called Synthesis - Please read WP:SYNTH and then lets move forward? Wdford (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether E1b1a "is Sub-Saharan African" is not a thing serious geneticists would tend to debate. Generally most geneticists tend to refrain from associating genes so assertively with groups as often their relationships can be rather interesting. For example, did you know that E's closest relative, D, is not found among Africans but instead Tibetans and Japanese? A lot of other haplotypes seem to have patterns like that that confound beliefs that people had previously had about their being such things as these supposed "races". But regardless of all this, factoids about DNA definitely do not belong in the lede of an article, especially one about history, not genetics. --Yalens (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I also found a report that a Swiss company called iGENEA, reconstructed Tut's DNA profile and found that he belonged to haplogroup R1b1a2, which is very common in Europe - see here [3] How do we decide which of these conflicting studies is the most RS? If we include the one study, should we not also include the other for balance? Wdford (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, add them both.Rod (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rod, include them both, but only if both- you cannot include the disputed R1b which are disputed for fraud and then refuse to include the Amarna and Ramesses two peer reviewed studies which are not disputed for fraud. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool - now we're getting somewhere! So the latest proposal is as follows: Recent DNA studies of Ancient Egyptian mummies from both the Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) and Amarna (from 1353 B.C.) lineages claim to have found the genetic Haplogroup E1b1a. The E1b1a haplogroup is commonly found in Sub-Saharan African populations, but it is also present in North African Berbers, modern Egyptians and Middle Eastern populations, among others. A different study found instead that King Tutankhamun had Haplogroup R1b1a2, which is found in more than 50% of European men, but appears less frequently in North Africa. However "half of the researchers" in the DNA field dispute these conclusions, and claim instead that DNA sequencing from ancient material is unreliable and prone to contamination.

Are there any final comments, or can I upload this? Wdford (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

How is this to be sourced? As an aside, no one but Andajara is making accusation of fraud, are they? The source[4] certainly doesn't, and accusing people who can be identified of fraud anywhere on Wikipedia is probably a WP:BLP violation let alone a serious misinterpretation of the source. Also, replace 'claim' with 'state that they have". Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The only accusation came from a rival company - the very one that did the E1b1a tests! They merely accused iGENEA of being "unscientific" in that they didn't discuss the results with their rivals before publication.

The two sources quoted by Andajara do not conclude on race, so we will have a SYNTH problem. I have therefore dug into the DNA Tribes reports for the actual (secondary?) claims re race. I have tried to use their own wording as best possible, to avoid more accusations. The result would thus now look like this:

"Half of the researchers" in the DNA field dispute that DNA can be reliably sequenced from ancient material, as it is very prone to contamination.

A 2011 study using 16 autosomal markers found that King Tutankhamun had Haplogroup R1b1a2 genetic material, which is found in more than 50% of European men, but appears less frequently in North Africa. They speculated that this could indicate a link to the Hittites of the ancient Middle East.

A 2012 geographical analysis of the [[Amarna] mummies (18th Dynasty, including King Tutankhamun) indicated that these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world, although these regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry.

A 2013 preliminary analysis of DNA material from the mummy of Ramesses III (20th Dynasty) states that they found the genetic (Haplogroup E1b1a). E1b1a is today most commonly found in the present-day populations of Sub-Saharan Africa, although they state that this preliminary analysis does not exclude additional ancestral components such as Near Eastern or Mediterranean related components, or that the genetic material may have expanded southward from Egypt to the present Sub-Saharan populations.

Are you joking? Many researchers have found the R1b studies to potentially be fraudulent in that the pharoahs may not even have been tested. The results were deemed "impossible" Please include that as well. Furthermore you have provided no references for the wording you provided for E1b1a. If you want to use DNA tribes then I would like to also include information on the geographical groupings they found. Let me know if we can agree to do that. So based on the two peer-reviewed studies and other peer-reviewed studies we've agreed on so far I prefer this wording, I would also be open to using DNA tribes only if we can include the geographical groupings they found as well:

"Recent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty and the Armana dynasty of the New Kingdom state that these dynasties carried the Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup E1b1a. However many experts in the DNA field dispute these conclusions, and claim instead that DNA sequencing from ancient material is unreliable and prone to contamination."

"Earlier disputed DNA studies of King Tutankhamun (from 1332 B.C.) from 2011 resulted in scientists at a Zurich-based DNA genealogy centre, iGENEA, in a Discovery Channel documentary 2011 claiming Tutankhamun had Haplogroup R1b1a2, to which more than 50% of European men, but less than 1% of modern-day Egyptians, belong to. Although these findings were widely reported, the Y-chromosome of King Tut had never been published and the DNA profile displayed in Discovery Channel documentary may not actually have belonged to the Pharaoh. According to Carsten Pusch, a geneticist at Germany's University of Tübingen who was part of the team that unraveled Tut's DNA from samples taken from his mummy and mummies of his family members, iGENEA's claims are "simply impossible." R1b does show up in parts of North Africa, particularly some regions in Algeria, where tests have found it in 11.8% of subjects. It is also found in Central Africa around Chad and Cameroon, but the Chadic-speaking area in Africa is dominated by the branch known as R1b1c (R-V88)."

Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

After adding Andajara's balance to the IGENEA section, I think the DNA info is ready for addition to the article. The public will be happy to see some modern info on this topic finally introduced into the article.Rod (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would we include "R1b does show up in parts of North Africa, particularly some regions in Algeria, where tests have found it in 11.8% of subjects.[18] It is also found in Central Africa around Chad and Cameroon,[19] but the Chadic-speaking area in Africa is dominated by the branch known as R1b1c (R-V88)." What would this mean for your 'public'? Fe include onclusions, interpretations, etc from this sort of material, not bits of raw data that we select for some reason or another. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to include these highly disputed R1b reports that have been disputed due to the fact that they may not have even tested the pharaohs, were found to be "impossible" by researchers, and less than 1% of Egyptians carry that subclade we need this balanced additional evidence to explain what in the world is going on. That should be uncontroversial. What I've presented as the draft to include achieves that balance. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)