Talk:Black Egyptian hypothesis/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mummy DNA info for Population article

There's a lengthy explanation of recent DNA study findings in the lead to the Black Egyptian hypothesis article. This DNA study has nothing to do with the black egyptian hypotheis, but is rather an attempted refutation of the black egyptian hypothesis.

This article is about the black egyptian hypothesis. For discussion of the scientific evidence relating to the race of the ancient Egyptians, see Population history of Egypt. Any mention of new DNA studies needs to be condensed into one sentence at most, so that it doesn't distract from the main purpose of the article, which is to explain the black egyptian hypothesis. EditorfromMars (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry, perhaps I’m missing something. Aside from condensing information to “one sentence”, are you proposing anything specific? The background information is necessary to discuss the hypothesis in the article, and thus it can’t be condensed to a single sentence. The article explains the scientific consensus, but in short, the hypothesis is incorrect, with some exceptions. The DNA evidence establishing both ancient populations and their relation to modern Egyptians is part and parcel of explaining why this is the case. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I'm proposing condensing discussion of the DNA findings to one sentence in the lead. It gives undue weight to this study, which its own authors indicate is not representative of the entire Ancient Egyptian civilization. The study has no mummies from the Old and Middle Kingdoms (oldest mummies are from 1400 BC) and all mummies came from the same area of Northern Egypt. Extrapolating the race/origin of Ancient Egyptians by examining mummies from a single site in Northern Egypt gives undue weight. Many of the most important sites in pre-dynastic and early dynastic egypt were in the middle and south. Many of the most important site in the middle and new kingdom were in the middle and the south of egypt. It would be wise to examine some mummies from more than a single northern site before making such a profound extrapolation. Furthermore, there are numerous competing DNA studies that refute this finding, such as the 2012 DNA Tribes study or https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9158841/. This topic is also discussed by other contributors on the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy talk pageEditorfromMars (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The DNA study pretty much puts a hole in the bottom of the boat so to speak for this theory, it sunk. The same exact town in Egypt has mummies that are less than 1% black during Roman times, and it was the same percent for mummies during pharaonic periods a thousand years before that. This only changed when the Arab Muslims conquered Egypt around the year 650 and began to bring black slaves the area in large numbers. If anything, the DNA should be made front and center since it is what it is and that is a fact. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:8CB:B0D2:1A88:AC02 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't use sources such as DNA tribes, we need peer reviewed sources - but most importantly, this is about the hypothesis, ie not about whether Egyptians were black or what - we have other articles for that. User:EditorfromMars, I think this is what you are saying? Or I hope it is - the population article is the place to actually discuss the issue itself. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's my proposal, move the couple of sentences regarding the 2017 DNA study to follow the sentences about the National Geographic DNA studies in the Position of Modern Scholarship section. That improves flow and addresses the undue weight in the lead from the 2017 study, which didn't study any mummies from the Old and Middle Kingdoms and also took all of its mummies from the same place in Northern Egypt. It's plausible and conceivable after reading the 2017 study that many of the mummies were actually Greeks and Romans, since Ptolemaic Egypt was considered fair gameEditorfromMars (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

That's your OR^. Also, it's some weird back-projection of modern anti-immigrant sentiment to separate out the "real" Egyptians" from foreigners who integrated (mummification is of course, a mark of acculturation). Or maybe I misunderstood you. But in any case, this page is not about presenting data. --Calthinus (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Remember this article is about the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy and specifically the Black Egyptian hypothesis portion of that controversy. This is not the population history of egypt article. Please cite some sources (articles, peer reviewed books, etc.) that demonstrate a controversy around the 2017 DNA study, as it relates to Ancient Egyptian Race. It would be the original research of the contributors that the 2017 DNA study is controversial and that the public is debating the study and its implications on Ancient Egyptian race. Since most of the authors writing about the black egyptian hypothesis and most of the controversies that showed up in books and the media happened before 2017, I would like for a contributor to demonstrate how the 2017 DNA study has played any part whatsoever in the controversy. Contrast that with the back and forth debates between scholars in support of this hypothesis and mainstream egyptologists in books, or the debates between the public on both sides of the issue in magazine and website articles.EditorfromMars (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We'd need sources stating specifically that it's part of the hypothesis. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree too, it shouldn't be mentioned here unless there are sources that link it to the subject. Mohamed^Talk 07:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I found at least one source that connects it to the controversy, so should it be returned? Mohamed^Talk 10:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Some editors said the rebuttals are not fit for the article. If the rebuttals are not fit, then there is no controversy and it should be deleted. If it remains, it needs balance.EditorfromMars (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

New section on Physical Variation

I'm open to different titles for the new section: Maybe "Definition of Black", or "Racial classifications" or "Physical Variation"

In reply to a comment above that the new section is irrelevant, it's your opinion. In the peer reviewed books of the people that built the black egyptian hypothesis, some central points were:

• the modern construct of race is typically defined as black/white/yellow and that's the terminology used by historians. This was discussed at UNESCO and was controversial.
• the black category is comprehensive enough to absorb dark red Ancient Egyptians. Others have too narrowly defined the black category. Sub-saharan africans, nubians, ethiopians, egyptians, etc. should all be in the black category using the modern construct of race
• Others have given the white category wide latitude to absorb blonde/blue eyed scandinavians and dark haired/eyed and olive skinned southern Europeans into the same group. Why is black defined so narrowly?
• Most mainstream scholars throughout the last 200 years admit to significant nubian/negro/black admixture in Ancient and modern Egypt. How does this mixed society get classified as white/hamite/caucasoid?
• Others are just using race in a new guise when they invent terms like Middle East, Near East, Hamite, brown race, red race, etc. and in fact these groups are mixes between the defined white/black/yellow groups.
• Therefore, it is a position of the hypothesis that category of black is defined too narrowly, or improperly, and ancient egyptians fit into a properly defined black category.

As always, on this topic area, there are numerous critiques, such as: race is not scientific, Egyptians were mixed (from light in the north to dark) and mixed can't = black, genetic studies from Mummies, race is anachronistic to Ancient Egyptians, etc. Not my positions or beliefs, this is the hypothesis as stated in the peer reviewed books. I can add citations, if it's helpful.EditorfromMars (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

EditorfromMars (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• I made general improvements to the section to keep it directly related to the subject. The section is mainly about the argument of racial affinity vs biological affinities, so the first paragraph is about racial affinity with arguments for and against, while the second one is about the arguments concerning biological affinities. Mohamed^Talk 12:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I have doubts over whether this is useful. We are talking about having a section over whether definitions that are non-scientific to begin with are too narrow. Doesn't anyone else see the implicit POV being pushed -- that "black people" and "white people" are legitimate categories, and further that they are legitimate to apply to ancient Egypt? --Calthinus (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, the whole article is about a pseudoscientific subject that is only related to cultural and ideological concepts, so I don't think it's a problem as long as it's made clear that Since the second half of the 20th century, most scholars have held that applying modern notions of race to ancient Egypt is anachronistic, and that multiple mainstream scholars believe ancient Egyptians shouldn't be classified as black or white as races are conceived of today. The second part which is about biological affinites instead of racial ones is a bit more scientific and further elaborates the race question. The only issue is the undue weight given to Afrocentric scholars in their defence of race. Mohamed^Talk 23:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Memelord0 what I am concerned about is if we have -- in WP:WIKIVOICE statements talking about the "diversity of x race", that is a statement, again in Wikivoice, that asserts the existence of x race. --Calthinus (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I support the edits and the section. It's not possible to explain this hypothesis without "for the sake of argument" accepting the social construct of race that was used to classify Ancient Egyptians for the last 200 years.

It's stated repeatedly that applying modern notions of race to ancient Egypt is anachronistic. However, the people that wrote this hypothesis said 1) historians use race to write about history 2) some, like Obenga, said race is scientific 3)Egyptologists have used race in various guises to prove that ancient egyptians are not black (see hamite, asiatic, caucasian theories), it's logical that race can be used to prove that they are black EditorfromMars (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• I get what you both mean. Yes, it has to be discussed for the sake of the argument, but Calthinus has a point that per NPOV, a majority position should get more weight and coverage than the minority view. The afrocentric view of race in the section should be summarized. Mohamed^Talk 12:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Egyptologists have used race in various guises to prove that ancient egyptians are not black (see hamite, asiatic, caucasian theories), it's logical that race can be used to prove that they are black -- this is a logical fallacy, equivalent to "if we use the fact the world is flat to prove that Africa is the center of the world, we can use the fact that the world is flat to prove that India is the center of the world." --Calthinus (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

let's try a different approach:

"Mr Glele, the representative of the Director-General of Unesco,...it had not been the intention of (UNESCO)...to give rise to tensions between peoples or races...but rather...clarify..the question of the peopling of Ancieng Egypt from the point of view of ethnic origin...What was needed, therefore, was to compare the alternate theories, to assess scientific arguments...drawing attention, where appropriate, to any gaps." He then goes on to mention all the racial terms that have been used in scientific studies and states, "it remained true that these words, as used in both scholarly and popular works, were not devoid of meaning and were inseparable from value judgements, whether implicit or otherwise." ..."UNESCO had not repudiated the idea of race;...the Organization had drawn up a special programme to study race relations and had stepped up its efforts to combat racial discrimination." ..."It was therefore 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 traditionally been used by Egyptologists to classify the people of Egypt. Furthermore, if the traditional vocabulary currently used by historians needed revision, it should not be revised merely for the history of Africa but for the entire world;" ..."Pending the introduction of new terms, the terms black, negro, negroid and Hamitic, which were currently used, should be more clearly defined." ...Then the participants debated this topic.

Vercoutter said "more specific criteria" were needed "to provide a scientific definition of the black race." He suggested blood criterion.

Some participants hoped that race "would be used with circumspection." Obenga said, "the notion of race was recognized as valid by scientific research..."

Some experts pointed out that "basic answers on this issue could not be expected to come from historians and archaeologists, but only specialists in physical anthropology."

Diop did not support the criteria used by physical anthropologists to characterize the black race...

Mr Glele said, "if the criteria for classifying a person as black, white or yellow were so debatable, and if the concepts which had been discussed were so ill-defined and perhaps so subjective...this should be frankly stated and revision should be made of the entire terminology of world history in the light of new scientific criteria, so that the vocabulary should be the same for everyone and that words should have the same connotations, thus avoiding misconceptions and being conducive to understanding and agreement."

In summary, 'mainstream scholars' in fact did NOT disavow race at UNESCO in 1974, but instead reaffirmed their commitment to continue using race and racial terms when studying the peopling of Ancient Egypt. The only other option provided was to abandon race for all societies all over earth in all historical writings. Therefore, according to the 'mainstream scholars' at UNESCO it's actually NOT anachronistic to talk about race in Ancient Egypt. :::::::::::Using race is the 'mainstream' and accepted way of writing about history. If you don't want to talk about race in Ancient Egypt, then there cannot be an Asian/yellow China, or white Europe in Wiki history articles, or history books. Just a location, a geography, with no respect paid to the appearance of the people living there.EditorfromMars (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Culture/Circumcision Section: Origins of Sudanese and Ethiopians

An editor has claimed that the mainstream view is that Sudanese and Ethiopians originated in Arabia. I contend that the mainstream view is that Nile valley inhabitants are indigenous to the Nile valley in Africa. This is supported by all disciplines studying Egyptology, as well as the broader Out of Africa theory for human migrations.

Finally, in the context of articles about Ancient Egypt, Kush, Napata, and Meroe, the concept of Ethiopia=Abyssinia is devoid of all meaning and historically inaccurate. It's anachronistic to speak of Abyssinia during Ancient Egyptian times, as Abysinnia did not exist as a kingdom. Therefore, any reference to Ethiopians in this context must mean Nubians/Kushites/Meroe/Wawat/Yam/Irtjet/Setjet etc. No mainstream scholars believe that the inhabitants of Nubia/Kush/Meroe/Wawat/Yam/Irtjet/Setjet etc. originated in Arabia.

The article currently misleads the public into believing that early Nile valley inhabitants are non-indigenous with the following paragraph and should be clarified:

Circumcision was practiced in Egypt at a very early date. Strouhal mentions that "the earliest archaeological evidence for circumcision was found in the southern Nile Valley and dates from the Neolithic period, some 6000 years ago". The remains of circumcised individuals are cited as proof.[109] Similarly, Doyle states "It is now thought that the Egyptians adopted circumcision much earlier" (than the confirmed 2400 BC date), "from peoples living further south in today's Sudan and Ethiopia, where dark-skinned peoples are known to have practised circumcision". These people[weasel words] are thought by anthropologists to have originated in the Arabian Peninsula and been in regular contact, trading or fighting,with the Egyptians.[112]EditorfromMars (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Minor point but the "Sudanese" originated from the Arabization of Nubia, which occurred in the last millennium -- way, way out of scope of this article. Obviously the source cannot possibly refer to the "Sudanese", nor should we. --Calthinus (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• I just made the statement more in line with what the reliable source literally says. Studies of Ethiopians belonging to Semitic and Cushitic ethnic groups mostly from the north of the country (the Oromo, Amhara, Tigray, and Gurage) estimate approximately 40% of their autosomal ancestry to be derived from an ancient non-African back-migration from the near East, and about 60% to be of local native African origin. See here Mohamed^Talk 23:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

People living in Abyssinia (modern day Ethiopia) have no place in an article about the theories concerning the race of Ancient Egyptians. Abysinnia was not a kingdom during Ancient Egyptian times and had no interaction with or connection to Ancient Egyptian society. When Greeks/Romans speak of Ethiopians during the AE time period, they are talking about Nubians and Sudanese. People from Abyssinia do not belong in this discussion at all.EditorfromMars (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Romans and Greeks do talk about Ethiopians. Anyway, that's not the point. The source discusses the accepted origin of cirumcision in Egypt (The main controversy) "accroding to anthropologists", even if it was from China it's relevant. Why would you think it's okay to distort what the source says by only mentioning the part that it came through Sudan and Ethiopia without mentioning the origin of these people (and circumcision) IN THE SAME SOURCE. Mohamed^Talk 10:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Mentions for Editors who have participated in recent discussions on the controversy for more opinion: @Wdford:, @Dimadick:, @Doug Weller:, @PericlesofAthens:, @Trans-Neptunian object: Mohamed^Talk 11:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not certain why the cultural practice of circumsicion is used as an indication for racial origins. Culture can be transmitted to other people through interaction. The origins of Sudanese and Ethiopian populations from the Arabian peninsula would only be directly relevant here if it affects the origins of Egyptians as well. Does the source address that concern? I would disagree, however, with EditorfromMars that it matters what Greeks and Romans called Ethiopians. We are discussing one (or more) modern source which covers the origins of current Ethiopian populations, not those indicated by classical sources. Dimadick (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Well, to any rational person, it is indeed difficult to see why the cultural practice of circumsicion is used as an indication for racial origins. Yet, that's what Diop and his followers do. The section gives particular focus to this specific practice, and assumes it -not only indicates general cultural affinity- but 'racial affinity' too. The whole circumcision argument is hardly relevant to the topic. Mohamed^Talk 14:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

In Herodotus the Histories, Herodotus is trying to demonstrate that Colchians, Egyptians, and Ethiopians are related (the same people). For his demonstration, Herodotus states that all 3 groups are black with woolly hair...and practice circumcision. Therefore, Diop follows Herodotus and states that color of the skin, the hair type, and circumcision indicate that Egyptians and Ethiopians (and Colchians) are the same group of people with the same phenotype (and all practice circumcision). In the Herodotus passage that Diop quotes, the Greek Herodotus was not referring to Oromo, Tigray, etc. Abyssinians, as that is not how Herodotus was using the word "Ethiopians."EditorfromMars (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• I only mentioned the Studies of Ethiopians belonging to Semitic and Cushitic ethnic groups that estimate approximately 40% of their autosomal ancestry to be derived from an ancient non-African back-migration from the near East to responed to your claim that all Nile valley populations are 100% indigenous, which isn't true, and the whole argument has nothing to do with the section.

Diop and Herodotus think this cultural practice is an indication of race (and he also said that about Colchians who are known to have nothing to do with Egyptians). The reliable source cited in the article says that it was transmitted through Sudan and Ethiopia but said in the same sentence that it's originally from Arabia, so to take only one part of what the source says and ignore the rest clearly distorts it. Mohamed^Talk 15:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Diop mentions the Herodotus passage in a chapter called "reply to a critic." He debates Mauny on the Herodotus passage, which both indicates that this discussion is applicable to the AE race controversy and indicates that this point supports the black hypothesis. Diop uses the Herodotus passage to argue on behalf of the black hypothesis and against the critic Mauny that takes a different view. Pages 241-242 of African Origin of Civilization. The problem with your cited statement is that it was added to the article in a fashion that conflates Abyssinia with Ancient/Classical Ethiopia (Sudan) and these are two different places.EditorfromMars (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page confirms this, as you explain that Ethiopia in your source's sentence equals Abyssinia. Then, you mention that the "originated in Arabia" statement applies only to Abyssinia but not the Sudanese, per your source. So what your source is saying that Sudanese did NOT originate in Arabia, but Abyssinians did...and Abyssinians AND Sudanese taught Ancient Egyptians about circumcision. This passage is contradicted by modern scholarship as no one believes that the Sudanese originated in Arabia and modern scholarship does not believe that Ancient Egyptian civilization and culture came from Abyssinia. Modern scholarship believes that Ancient Egyptian civilization came from Abydos in southern Egypt.EditorfromMars (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, it's not up to us to say who is right or wrong. Diop quoted Herodotus as Egyptians=Ethiopians(Sudanese)=Colchians in his peer reviewed book. Critics replied and Diop actually included the critics reply in his book. Then, Diop responded to the criticism in his book in a chapter called "Reply to a critic." That's peer review. It's on topic for both AE race controversy, as they are discussing black skin, woolly hair, and circumcision using the same contiguous Herodotus passage.EditorfromMars (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Modern scholarship believes that Ancient Egyptian civilization came from Abydos in southern Egypt, yes, That didn't stop us from adding Diop's controversial claims. Literally no one talked about Abyssinia except for you. The term Ethopians applied to all the peoples south of Egypt, not only Sudanese, because Sudan is a modern state, not an ancient one. There have always been migrations from Arabia to East Africa, indicated in genetic research and The passage didn't claim Ethiopians or Sudanese all descend from Arabia, it's about the origin of the practice and the people that transmitted it. Mohamed^Talk 15:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The entire article is about the black theory, which Diop basically wrote in modern times. If you don't include Diop's controversial black theory claims, there will not be an article.EditorfromMars (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Why not just quote someone that is directly contradicting Diop's claim that Egyptians=Ethiopians=Colchians=black skin and woolly hair=circumcision, like Mauny? That will both push back on the circumcision claim and the black skin and woolly hair claim.EditorfromMars (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not the one who added that source, I just made the statement more representative of what the source literally says. So, either the paragraph is faithully representative of what the source says, without cherry picking, or it should be removed and replaced with another source that deals directly with the claim of cultural affinity = racial affinity. Mohamed^Talk 16:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I just added a non-Diop citation that explains the entire situation. http://www.jstor.com/stable/543940 EditorfromMars (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have doubts about this source, starting from its title with Khazars and deepening with the uncritical reading of Herodotus and publication in 1959........ calling Herodotus noted as a "meticulous" observer and leaving it at that while ignoring the mountain of controversy around his testimony (and any Greek and Roman writer, for that matter...) is a severe red flag. Indeed, RS mainstream viewpoints on Herodotus, Egypt and Colchis: German historian Detlev Fehling questions whether Herodotus ever traveled up the Nile River, and considers doubtful almost everything that he says about Egypt and Ethiopia. < cite > Fehling states that "there is not the slightest bit of history behind the whole story" about the claim of Herodotus that Pharaoh Sesostris campaigned in Europe, and that he left a colony in Colchia. Fehling concludes that the works of Herodotus are intended as fiction. Boedeker concurs that much of the content of the works of Herodotus are literary devices < cite >< cite >--Calthinus (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• I had a hard time finding out who the author is or his authority on the matter. Moreover, I fail to see how the adding of this source changes anything about the cherry picking of the other source in the paragraph below. Mohamed^Talk 17:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• If the circumcision argument rests mainly on what Herodotus wrote, then there should be a summary of the controversy over his reliability such as the other section on greek writers. Mohamed^Talk 17:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care to argue who is right or wrong. The citation demonstrates that Diop is not the only person stating that there's a relationship between Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Colchians and using Herodotus' passage as proof. I can add further examples from black theory advocates that this is indeed a central position of the black theory. That's easy, because most black theory authors repeat what Diop said. There's an entire section of these articles on the reliability (or lack thereof) of Herodotus. We've covered that ground and yet, Herodotus is used as a source for numerous Wiki articles, including the article on Pythagoras, as an example.

Are you really suggesting that we expand the following Herodotus reliability discussion, as the following is already in this article?

Reliability of Herodotus Many scholars (Aubin, Heeren, Davidson, Diop, Poe, Welsby, Celenko, Volney, Montet, Bernal, Jackson, DuBois, Strabo), ancient and modern, routinely cite Herodotus in their works on the Nile Valley. Some of these scholars (Welsby, Heeren, Aubin, Diop, etc.) explicitly mention the reliability of Herodotus' work on the Nile Valley and demonstrate corroboration of Herodotus' writings by modern scholars. Welsby said that "archaeology graphically confirms some of Herodotus' observations".[77] A.H.L. Heeren (1838) quoted Herodotus throughout his work and provided corroboration by scholars of his day regarding several passages (source of the Nile, location of Meroe, etc.).[78] To further his work on the Egyptians and Assyrians, Aubin uses Herodotus' accounts in various passages and defends Herodotus' position against modern scholars. Aubin said Herodotus was "the author of the first important narrative history of the world" and that Herodotus "visited Egypt".[79] Diop provides several examples (e.g. the inundations of the Nile) that he claims support his view that Herodotus was "quite scrupulous, objective, scientific for his time". Diop also claims that: Herodotus "always distinguishes carefully between what he has seen and what he has been told"; "One must grant that he was at least capable of recognizing the skin color of inhabitants."[20]:3–5" For all the writers who preceded the ludicrous and vicious falsifications of modern Egyptology, and the contemporaries of the ancient Egyptians (Herodotus, Aristotle, Diodorus, Strabo, and others), the Black identity of the Egyptian was an evident fact." Strabo corroborated Herodotus' ideas about the Black Egyptians, Aethiopians, and Colchians.[30][20]:2 Many scholars regard the works of Herodotus as being unreliable as historical sources. Fehling writes of "a problem recognized by everybody", namely that much of what Herodotus tells us cannot be taken at face value.[80] Sparks writes that "In antiquity, Herodotus had acquired the reputation of being unreliable, biased, parsimonious in his praise of heroes, and mendacious".[81][82][83][84][85] Najovits writes that "Herodotus fantasies and inaccuracies are legendary."[86] Voltaire and Hartog both described Herodotus as the "father of lies".[87][88] Alan B. Lloyd states that as a historical document, the writings of Herodotus are seriously defective, and that he was working from "inadequate sources".[89] The reliability of Herodotus is particularly criticized when writing about Egypt. Nielsen writes that: "Though we cannot entirely rule out the possibility of Herodotus having been in Egypt, it must be said that his narrative bears little witness to it."[90] About the claim of Herodotus that the Pharaoh Sesostris campaigned in Europe, and that he left a colony in Colchia, Fehling states that "there is not the slightest bit of history behind the whole story".[80] Fehling states that Herodotus never traveled up the Nile River, and that almost everything he says about Egypt and Aethiopia is doubtful.[80][91]EditorfromMars (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)EditorfromMars (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. From this very technical paper, I learned the following:

1. In contrast to the situation for Bantu speakers, it has been proposed that both Khoisan and Ethiopians share some Caucasoid features, which were acquired at very different times (∼20,000 or more years ago for Khoisan and beginning as recently as 3,000 years ago for Ethiopians).
2. The first known inhabitants of Ethiopia were hunting peoples whose scattered descendants remained in southern Ethiopia. A Negroid element only appeared later, and probably only reached the southern part of the country.
3. On the basis of historical, linguistic, and genetic data, it has been suggested that the Ethiopian population has been strongly affected by Caucasoid migrations since Neolithic times (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994, p. 174).
4. By ∼4,000–5,000 years B.C., Afro-Asiatic peoples (proto-Cushites, proto–Omotic speakers, and protoSemites) were present in Ethiopia, arriving possibly from the Sahara or from Arabia.

Question: If these new-comers were in Ethiopia by the dynastic period, they probably passed through Egypt even earlier?

I also found this paper - Ritual Male Circumcision: A Brief History by D Doyle, published by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh in 2005 – see [1] It also states some interesting things on the specific topic of male circumcision, including:

1. Ritual male circumcision is known to have been practised by South Sea Islanders, Australian Aborigines, Sumatrans, Incas, Aztecs, Mayans and Ancient Egyptians.
2. There is evidence that it was common practice in the Arabian Peninsula from where, in the fourth millennium BCE, two groups of people migrated into what we today call Iraq.
3. Evidence exists that ritual circumcision was being performed by the Egyptians as early as 2300 BCE, confirmation of this being a wall painting from Ankhmahor, Saqqarah, Egypt (dated in the eighth Dynasty, 2345–2182 BCE) clearly showing adult circumcision.
4. It is now thought that the Egyptians adopted circumcision much earlier, from peoples living further south in today’s Sudan and Ethiopia, where dark-skinned peoples are known to have practised circumcision. These southerners, genetically related to the Sumerians and Semites, are thought by anthropologists to have originated in the Arabian Peninsula and been in regular contact, trading or fighting, with the Egyptians, just as some of their number spread North from Arabia into Mesopotamia.
5. It is now accepted by most anthropologists that many of the original inhabitants of today’s Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia and Abyssinia were people of Semitic and Sumerian origin who came from Arabia.

Hope this helps Wdford (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Copied from the article on Greek history: Herodotus is used as an authoritative source on Greek history. There is even a picture of Herodotus' bust in the article on Greek history, where he's called "a historian." There's is not a single mention of Herodotus' lack of reliability in the Greek history article. I wonder why we need multiple paragraphs to discuss the reliability of Herodotus when discussing the black theory, but not a single word when discussing white/Greek history??? Same for the Pythagorus Wiki article. Readers of white/Greek history, would have to follow the link to Herodotus' Wiki page before they ever saw text stating that Herodotus is thought by some to be unreliable.

Persian Wars: Two major wars shaped the Classical Greek world. The Persian Wars (499–449 BC) are recounted in Herodotus's Histories. By the late 6th century BC, the Achaemenid Persian Empire ruled over all Greek city states in Ionia (the western coast of modern-day Turkey) and had made territorial gains in the Balkans and Eastern Europe proper as well. The Greek cities of Ionia, led by Miletus, revolted against the Persian Empire, and were supported by some mainland cities, including Athens and Eretria. After the uprising had been quelled, Darius I launched the First Persian invasion of Greece to exact revenge on the Athenians. In 492 BC, Persian general Mardonius led an army (supported by a fleet) across the Hellespont, re-subjugating Thrace and adding Macedonia as a fully-subjugated client kingdom.[10] However, before he could reach Greece proper, his fleet was destroyed in a storm near Mount Athos. In 490 BC, Darius sent another fleet directly across the Aegean (rather than following the land route as Mardonius had done) to subdue Athens. After destroying the city of Eretria, the fleet landed and faced the Athenian army at Marathon, which ended in a decisive Athenian victory. Darius's successor, Xerxes I, launched the Second Persian invasion of Greece in 480 BC. Despite Greek defeat at Thermopylae, after which the Persians briefly overran northern and central Greece,[11] the Greek city-states once again managed to comprehensively defeat the invaders with naval victory at Salamis and victory on land at Plataea.EditorfromMars (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Exactly @Wdford: User:EditorfromMars wants to cherrypick from the Doyle source, choosing only the part that states it was transmitted through Sudan and Ethiopia, without mentioning the rest of the statement, "These southerners, genetically related to the Sumerians and Semites, are thought by anthropologists to have originated in the Arabian Peninsula and been in regular contact, trading or fighting, with the Egyptians, just as some of their number spread North from Arabia into Mesopotamia". Mohamed^Talk 17:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Mainstream scholarship believes that Nile valley inhabitants are indigenous to the Nile Valley. Any paper claiming they arrived from anywhere else will be contradicted by a mountain of other papers, books, etc. saying that they are indigenous to the Nile valley. I am ready and willing to balance the erroneous statement that basically the entire Eastern Africa came from somewhere else with a mountain of statements, citations, quotations from all disciplines supporting the "out of africa" human migration theory and the indigenous nature of nile valley inhabitants. From @Memelord0's own statement, "Studies of Ethiopians belonging to Semitic and Cushitic ethnic groups mostly from the north of the country (the Oromo, Amhara, Tigray, and Gurage) estimate approximately 40% of their autosomal ancestry to be derived from an ancient non-African back-migration from the near East, and about 60% to be of local native African origin." Therefore, you have people that supposedly migrated into East Africa from Arabia, but are magically 60% black/local African. Illustrating the absurdity of trying to disprove that black people living in the entire east africa are actually semitic/fair skinned people from Arabia. Nubians/Sudanese/Ethiopians are some of the blackest people on Earth and your actual position is that they came from fair skinned Arabians? Wow! EditorfromMars (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• For the 3rd time, the source didn't claim all theses peoples descend from Arabia, neither did I, "These southerners" refers to the people that transmitted the practice. It didn't say all of East Africa is descended from Arabia. Mohamed^Talk 17:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

From @wdford's post, he clearly states that basically the entire East Africa is from Arabia, which is in direct opposition to the universally accepted 'out of africa' theory of human migrations, a mountain of fossil evidence indicating that homo sapiens originated in east and southern africa, east africans and nile valley inhabitants are indigenous to the Nile valley, etc. East Africans are from East Africa. Period. End of discussion. It's unscholarly and frankly silly to try to argue that East Africans originated in Arabia:

It is now thought that the Egyptians adopted circumcision much earlier, from peoples living further south in today’s Sudan and Ethiopia, where dark-skinned peoples are known to have practised circumcision. These southerners, genetically related to the Sumerians and Semites, are thought by anthropologists to have originated in the Arabian Peninsula and been in regular contact, trading or fighting, with the Egyptians, just as some of their number spread North from Arabia into Mesopotamia. It is now accepted by most anthropologists that many of the original inhabitants of today’s Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia and Abyssinia were people of Semitic and Sumerian origin who came from Arabia.EditorfromMars (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

By all means, please add the statement back to the article and I will copy/paste from Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans to disprove the source's silly assertion that Africans are from Arabia. Copied from Recent African origin of modern humans: In paleoanthropology, the recent African origin of modern humans, also called the "Out of Africa" theory (OOA), recent single-origin hypothesis (RSOH), replacement hypothesis, or recent African origin model (RAO), is the dominant[1][2][3] model of the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens). It follows the early expansions of hominins out of Africa, accomplished by Homo erectus and then Homo neanderthalensis.EditorfromMars (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• What does the out of Africa theory have to do with this subject? The back to Africa migration (which was later than the out of Africa migration) actually implies that the out of Africa origin is accepted and doesn't refuse it. The article has nothing to do with this topic Mohamed^Talk 17:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@wdford's source indicates that essentially all East Africans are Semitic and Sumerian people from Arabia. See the quote above. Conversely, the entire world's academic establishment believes:

By some 50-70,000 years ago, a subset of the bearers of mitochondrial haplogroup L3 migrated from East Africa into the Near East. It has been estimated that from a population of 2,000 to 5,000 individuals in Africa, only a small group, possibly as few as 150 to 1,000 people, crossed the Red Sea.[49][50] The group that crossed the Red Sea travelled along the coastal route around Arabia and the Persian Plateau to India, which appears to have been the first major settling point.[51]

• Again, for the 4th time, no one claimed all of East Africa descended from Arabia. Secondly, what is the contradiction between the out of Africa and Back to Africa migrations? The out of Africa migration was very early and the back to Africa migration happened tens of thousands of years later. Mohamed^Talk 18:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• see here: [2], and here [3] Mohamed^Talk 18:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The record is right there in this Talk page discussion. @wdford quite clearly quoted a source that said all East Africans are from Arabia. :::#It is now accepted by most anthropologists that many of the original inhabitants of today’s Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia and Abyssinia were people of Semitic and Sumerian origin who came from Arabia. Now you want to pretend that you aren't arguing the impossible, when that is exactly what you're doing. East Africans and Arabians have different mitochondrial DNA markers. They are not the same people on a mitochondrial DNA level. Therefore, it's IMPOSSIBLE for Arabia to have founded/settled East Africa in any era.

Copied from Recent African origin of modern humans The first lineage to branch off from Mitochondrial Eve was L0. This haplogroup is found in high proportions among the San of Southern Africa and the Sandawe of East Africa. It is also found among the Mbuti people.[67][68] These groups branched off early in human history and have remained relatively genetically isolated since then. Haplogroups L1, L2 and L3 are descendants of L1–L6, and are largely confined to Africa. The macro haplogroups M and N, which are the lineages of the rest of the world outside Africa, descend from L3. L3 is about 70,000 years old, while haplogroups M and N are about 65-55,000 years old.[69][56] The relationship between such gene trees and demographic history is still debated when applied to dispersals.[70] Of all the lineages present in Africa, only the female descendants of one lineage, mtDNA haplogroup L3, are found outside Africa. If there had been several migrations, one would expect descendants of more than one lineage to be found. L3's female descendants, the M and N haplogroup lineages, are found in very low frequencies in Africa (although haplogroup M1 populations are very ancient and diversified in North and North-east Africa) and appear to be more recent arrivals. A possible explanation is that these mutations occurred in East Africa shortly before the exodus and became the dominant haplogroups thereafter by means of the founder effect. Alternatively, the mutations may have arisen shortly afterwards.

I'm not going to debate this on the Talk page anymore. It's a waste of time. Please add the statement back to the article and I will balance it with the position of mainstream scholarship, mitochondrial DNA evidence, etc.

Map of early diversification of modern humans according to mitochondrial population genetics (see: Haplogroup L).

EditorfromMars (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: hmm So, you're just gonna repeat the irrelevant out of Africa facts that have absoutely nothing to do with the article and ignore everyone. It is a waste of time indeed then. Don't add any disruptive edits without consensus here. I'll wait for more opinions since this is hopeless. Mohamed^Talk 18:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

For the eleventh time, the source did NOT say that ALL Ethiopians are descended from Arabians, it said "These southerners, genetically related to the Sumerians and Semites, are thought by anthropologists to have originated in the Arabian Peninsula and been in regular contact, trading or fighting, with the Egyptians, just as some of their number spread North from Arabia into Mesopotamia." Also, it said "It is now accepted by most anthropologists that many of the original inhabitants of today’s Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia and Abyssinia were people of Semitic and Sumerian origin who came from Arabia.". It says "MANY", it doesn't say "ALL". In other words, a large number of Arabians came to East Africa way back, and their bloodlines are still visible today in Ethiopia - and probably other places too. Compare that to the first source, which said that something like 40% of the DNA was Arabian and 60% was "African", and they seem to agree with each other. The first source also seemed to say that most of the Arabian DNA was originally male and that most of the "black" DNA was originally female. That sounds more like a military raid than a migration, which also gels with the mainstream belief that the Nile civilization grew in-house - raiding armies are different from colonizing missions, and they don't really bring civilization along with them, although they obviously do bring ideas and culture etc. Since the blacks were no more or less indigenous to the Nile Valley than the Arabians, this study actually gels with the other mainstream conclusions quite well. Why should we doubt the science?

"Diop quoted Herodotus as Egyptians=Ethiopians(Sudanese)=Colchians in his peer reviewed book." Firstly there were never any black Colchians - score zero for Herodotus - and second, I don't believe Diop's book/s was ever "peer-reviewed".

As regards Diop's mate Herodotus, the wiki-article clearly states at [4] and at [5] that he was ridiculed for his nonsense stories, and was called the "father of lies". Your eyes really do have a massive problem seeing things that contradict your POV, do they not? Wdford (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@wdford apparently, you have a problem with critical reading and reading comprehension. My words verbatim, which are still recorded in this thread above:

• I wrote this earlier: "Herodotus is used as an authoritative source on Greek history. There is even a picture of Herodotus' bust in the article on Greek history, where he's called "a historian." There's is not a single mention of Herodotus' lack of reliability in the Greek history article. Readers of white/Greek history, would have to follow the link to Herodotus' Wiki page before they ever saw text stating that Herodotus is thought by some to be unreliable."
• So although I clearly said that "readers would have to follow the link to Herodotus' Wiki page before they ever saw text stating that Herodotus is thought by some to be unreliable", you distort my words and invent a fairytale exchange that never happened, which reflects poorly on you.
• Way back are weasel words. When exactly did the mass migration/invasion of Arabians into East Africa happen? When exactly was East African DNA/race/phenotype overrun by "many" Arabia people, significantly altering the East African DNA/race/phenotype?????????
• Finally, Herodotus isn't the only person saying there were black Colchians https://www.jstor.org/stable/543940EditorfromMars (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@memelord0 as I said earlier, I am not debating this nonsensical "Out of Arabia" theory with you anymore. If you want to quote sources that claim "many" Nubians, Sudanese, Ethiopians, and Somalians" came from Arabia (during the time period covered by the Ancient Egyptian civilization), go right ahead. I will balance it with the weight of the entire world academic establishment, which follows the "dominant Out of Africa view" which states that mass homo sapien migrations happened from East Africa to Arabia (not the other way around), East Africans have mtDNA markers (L1, L2, and L2) that are largely confined to Africa, the mtDNA markers (M an N) that are found in the rest of the world descend from the African L3, and the consensus among modern Egyptologists is that Ancient Egypt is an indigenous Nile valley civilization and the Ancient Egyptian people are indigenous to the Nile valley (meaning they didn't come from anywhere else).

• This is the Black Egyptian hypothesis article. Not the Black Abyssinian/Punt article (although it would be exceedingly easy to prove that Abyssinians are black)EditorfromMars (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@memelord0 don't add any disruptive edits without consensus hereEditorfromMars (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: First of all, that's not how mentioning a user works. Secondly, There is no debate here, there is you repeating the same irrelevant out of Africa theory that has nothing to do with migrations that happened thousands of years later, and on the other hand there are 3 editors that contradict your claims. So, yes, the way I see it there is no debate. We'll wait for a summary of this discussion. Mohamed^Talk 21:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

When did the Arabian to East African migrations happen, 7th century CE/AD??? Why won't you and @wdford commit to a timeframe for the imaginary "Out of Arabia" theory for the population of East Africa during the timeframe involved in a discussion of Ancient Egypt?EditorfromMars (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. There is consensus for you to reintroduce the Out of Arabia sentence and I will add modern scholarship for balance. The position of modern scholarship is not controversial and doesn't need consensus to be added to the article.EditorfromMars (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• There is a consensus for the addition of what the source says yes. There isn't a consensus for anything about out of Africa theory because it literally has nothing to do with the subject and no source suggests there is any contradiction between the out of Africa theory and later migrations back to Africa. See the sources that you ignored above. They answer your question about when these migrations supposedly happened. Mohamed^Talk 22:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• This is maybe the tenth time you are repeating the same irrelevant argument that other editors here don't agree with. Don't claim there is a consensus for you to add irrelevant info. Wait for a summary of this discussion from another editor or admin. Mohamed^Talk 22:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Re the dating "challenge", my original post already pointed out that the original source states that proto-Cushites, proto–Omotic speakers, and proto-Semites were present in Ethiopia by 5000BC to 4000BC (obviously they didn't all arrive in a single weekend.) These people had "probably derived from the Sahara or from Arabia". This dating neatly encompasses the Naqada culture in Egypt. This also gels neatly with the actual hard evidence, such as Mesopotamian cultural and architectural styles in the Naqada culture, and the Naqada tomb-illustrations of Mesopotamian boats being dragged through the desert.

The same source notes that migration from Arabia continued thereafter as well.

Scientific papers on the earlier migrations from the Near East back into Africa, can be found here [6] and here [7].

The History of Greece article mentions Herodotus exactly twice - one of which was a caption on a photo. He is hardly the bedrock of modern scholarship. However if you want to know about Herodotus, you go to the Herodotus article, where his credibility (or lack thereof) is reported in detail. You don't look for info on the reliability of Herodotus in the History of Greece article (or the Afrocentrism article,) any more than you would look for info on the cultivation of tomatoes in the Salad article.

Wdford (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Finally, a reasonable position. If you don't look for info on the reliability of Herodotus in a history of greece article, why are there several paragraphs on the reliability of Herodotus in a history of Egypt (black egyptian hypothesis) article? Why not just quickly mention it and link to Herodotus' page?EditorfromMars (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Dating challenge rebuttal:

• Mainstream scholarship says the AE civilization and people are indigenous to the Nile valley. Period. Full stop.
• At UNESCO, the symposium "rejected the idea that Pharaonic Egyptian was a Semitic language." Period. Full stop. Of the 6 branches of the AfroAsiatic language group, 5 of the 6 are almost completely confined to Africa, this includes Ancient Egyptian. The language group should be called North African. That would be more descriptive. It's a misnomer to add "asiatic" to the group as Asia doesn't add much to the language group, which is thoroughly African.
• In 2008, S. O. Y. Keita wrote that "There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa.... The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time, although researchers vary in the details of their explanations of those influences."[43] Kathryn Bard, Professor of Archaeology and Classical Studies, wrote in Ancient Egyptians and the issue of race that "Egyptians were the indigenous farmers of the lower Nile valley, neither black nor white as races are concieved of today".[44] At the 1974 UNESCO conference, most participants concluded that the ancient Egyptian population was indigenous to the Nile Valley, and was made up of people from north and south of the Sahara who were differentiated by their color.[45]
• Your source states that all of these groups "probably derived from the Sahara or from Arabia." That's like saying they probably derived from Earth as it's an enormous region.
• the DOMINANT Out of Africa view disagrees with the proposed out of arabia theory. Any homo sapiens arriving from arabia would just be africans returning home. East African mtDNA doesn't match Arabian mtDNA for the majority of ppl living in East Africa.
• By some 50-70,000 years ago, a subset of the bearers of mitochondrial haplogroup L3 migrated from East Africa into the Near East. It has been estimated that from a population of 2,000 to 5,000 individuals in Africa, only a small group, possibly as few as 150 to 1,000 people, crossed the Red Sea.[49][50] The group that crossed the Red Sea travelled along the coastal route around Arabia and the Persian Plateau to India, which appears to have been the first major settling point.[51]
• L3's female descendants, the M and N haplogroup lineages, are found in very low frequencies in Africa (although haplogroup M1 populations are very ancient and diversified in North and North-east Africa) and appear to be more recent arrivals

Let me read the articles posted by wdford and respond later with alternate viewpoints from mainstream scholarship.EditorfromMars (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Out of Arabia scholarly article rebuttal continued:

• The current position of modern scholarship is that the Egyptian civilization was an indigenous Nile Valley development (see population history of Egypt).
• Matthias Krings, "mtDNA analysis of nile river valley populations" concludes bidirectional migrations from northern egypt to nubia to southern sudan occurred and said this is consistent with the historical record from AE
• Templeton, "Human races: a genetic and evolutionary perspective: argues that a race/subspecies must be a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species and that the subspecies must be genetically differentiated due to barriers to genetic exchange that have persisted for long periods of time; the subspecies must have historical continuity in addition to current genetic differentiation. Following the logic in this paper, AE can't be a race because of genetic mixing with Nubians throughout their history, Hyksos for 100's of years, etc.
• Brace argued that the "Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations".[103]
• All of the following authors support the theory that AE civilization started in Upper Egypt. Using mainstream scholarship's theory "Most scholars believe that Egyptians in antiquity looked pretty much as they look today, with a gradation of darker shades toward the Sudan".[5], that would make the creators of AE civilization fairly dark brown. "symbols of Egyptian pharaohs."
• Diop AOC 1974, about upper egypt where brown ppl live "from the paleolithic to the present, that material evidence has been found to attest the successive stages of (AE) civilization: Tasian, Badarian, Amratian, protodynastic. In contrast to Upper Egypt, no traces of continuous evolution exist in the Delta. The Merimde center disappeared at the end of the Tasian; there is nothing north of Badari."
• Amelineau while debating Moret about the Osiris/Isis legend, Moret tries to claim that the earliest Egyptian gods (Osiris, Isis, etc.) were from the Delta (using Greek texts). He also says Amelineau explains that the Osiris/Isis cult was almost localized to Upper Egypt, Osiris' head was found in a tomb in Abydos, and why would the cities of upper egypt have claimed the most important parts of Osiris/Isis' body, if these were gods that were born and died in the Delta? Again, we have the most important aspects of AE religion/culture residing in the darker brown part of upper Egypt.
• Edouard Naville says that southern Egyptians conquered northern egyptians and that the Delta didn't exist until Menes. He says Menes reclaimed the Delta from the swamp by building a dam around 3200 BCE. Since the Egyptian calendar starts in 4236 BCE, we know Lower Egyptians didn't develop it. From other modern scholarship, we know that the society originated in southern Egypt around Abydos. Of course, Naville cites the unanimous testimony of Greek historians in saying Egypt was a colony of Ethiopia. He also says the Egyptian gets his bearing by looking south, so west is on the right and the east is on the left. As mentioned by mainstream scholarship, these Upper Egyptians were dark brown.
• We all recall Petrie's embarrassment while trying to prove that his Naqada's finds were from a "new race" that emerged from outside of Egypt. Don't repeat his mistake.
• Patricia Spencer writing in the book Before the Pyramids, which is edited by Teeter. While Petrie was excavating a previously discovered mastaba at Giza, "which is of similar construction to the royal tombs at Abydos and the Naqada mastaba" pg. 20 Petrie "maintained that AE was the product of a dynastic race who had entered Egypt in the Predynastic period from Elam via Punt and the Red Sea and became her (AE's) rulers, even though evidence for a direct evolution of civilization was already well attested (Hoffman 1991)." Don't be desparate and try to prove AE came from somewhere else, because modern scholarship doesn't agree with that theory.
• Alain Anselin, "Some Notes about an Early African Pool of Cultures from which emerged the Egyptian Civilization", concludes vocabulary shared by Chadic, Cushitic, Nilotic, and Ancient Egyptian speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt, or earlier, in the Sahara.
• Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania from Northern Africa" states early southern predynastic egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal African pattern.
• Yann Tristant writing in the book Before the Pyramids, which is edited by Teeter, "the Delta assumed its present form in 12,000 to 8,000 BCE. Transformed into a gigantic lake during the annual flood, it has long been considered a marshy area, an inhospitable wetland, in which human occupation could take place only at the cost of great investment." Therefore, it's impossible that the fairer skinned, northern egyptians started the civilization in this inhospitable marshy, lake area.
• Stan Hendrickx writing in the book Before the Pyramids, which is edited by Teeter, says about Petrie's Predynastic Naqada finds, "Its origin was considered African" while Petrie thought the true Egyptian art came from the Near East. Modern scholarship says in a Naqada IIC tomb, we find "a person wielding a mace above three bound captives", which is "a direct predecessor of the classic scene of smiting the enemy on the Narmer palette, which continued to be represented throughout Egyptian history." Don't be like Petrie. Don't embarrass yourself.
• Bruce Williams writing in the book Before the Pyramids, which is edited by Teeter, states "in the formative years of Egyptian civilization, relations with northern Nubia were strong and reciprocal. In the earliest stages, the Neolithic of Sudanese tradition strongly influenced the Tasian culture of Upper Egypt as illustrated by the famous calyciform beakers of the Sudanese Neolithich that appear also in the deserts, Lower Nubia" he then goes on to say that A group Nubian and Egyptian burials and objects diverged approaching the Naqada period. He goes on to talk about extensive trade/interchange/interactions between A-group Nubia and Naqada Egypt and conflicts in Upper Egypt, where it was "quite likely the Nubians were enlisted in various forces, which could account for the Nubian's wealth." Finally, he states "A group Nubia supported the same emerging official culture as Egypt, while the use of the bow also shows that it was self consciously Nubian." There is ZERO MENTION of Arabia or people from Arabia in this paper.
• Quite odd that none of these scholars are mentioning the Out of Arabia invasion that peopled East Africa and gave them their culture/religion/civilizations? Quite the opposite, they are chastising Petrie for holding onto these debunked out of arabia viewsEditorfromMars (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@wdford Your scholarly article #1 leads with:

• "The out of Africa hypothesis has gained generalized consensus." I almost stopped reading, but kept going and saw, "the most ancestral M1 lineages have been found in Northwest Africa and in the Near East, instead of in East Africa." So they conclude "M1, or its ancestor, had an Asiatic origin." Couldn't one just as easily conclude from this source's results that this M1 ancestor was indigenous to Northwest Africa, since all of homo sapiens are indigenous to Africa, and the M1 ancestor spread from Northwest Africa to Asia and elsewhere? Wouldn't that be a more obvious conclusion? It doesn't really matter because this source admits in sentence #1 that this paper is about a minority view and the Out of Africa view "has gained generalized consensusEditorfromMars (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• @wdford your source #2 says in the discussion that "Northwest Africa is left as the most probable place from where the African U6 subclades radiated. Another point is to decide whether the proto-U6 ancestor was also of African origin. Although it cannot be completely excluded." Therefore, this study cannot rule out Northwest Africa as the origin of the proto-U6. Furthermore, they indicate that about 30,000 years ago these people could have come from the Near East (if they didn't come from Northwest Africa, which this study can't rule out (the loss of variability in this area (East Africa) is puzzling)). To that I say, 50,000 years ago, or more, those homo sapiens left Africa to populate the Near East in the first place according to the Out of Africa theory, which has gained generalized consensus. This would be a story of Africans temporarily moving to the Near East and coming home. Bringing us back to Ancient Egypt, all of the time periods being discussed in this paper are too far removed from even the protodynastic period to be relevant to this article. Finally, the study says that U6a coincides with the probable AfroAsiatic language expansion. The Egyptian U6a % in this study is almost nil at 1%. It's the same as Diop's Wolof at 1%.EditorfromMars (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@calthinius's edit summary states, "well-known migration of the Semitic-speaking Habesha into Ethiopia from Yemen. You are also conflating: that was referring to Egyptians and their environs. The Habesha like all groups have mixed origins but the well-established circa 800 BC migration from Yemen is not disputed "

• This is the black theory article. The black theory maintains that AE was a black civilization (using the modern construct) from its inception in roughly 3000 BCE.
• Please explain how disputed migrations of Arabians to Abyssinia in 800 BCE are relevant to the race of AE in general and specifically the black theory's view of AE race. AE civilization would have been thousands of years old before this 800 BCE migration into Abyssinia.
• Furthermore, modern scholarship doesn't provide any meaningful contact/invasion/migration from Abyssinia into the Nile valley until roughly 300 CE/AD (specifically in the far south at Meroe). The composition of Abyssinia's population is completely and utterly irrelevant to an article on AE race, especially the sub-article which discusses AE race from the viewpoint of adherents of the black theory. We all know that the adherents of this theory state that AE is an indigenous African development, which is the mainstream scholarly view. It's a fringe/absurd theory that Arabians came to Abyssinia in 800 BCE and then changed/impacted the race of a several thousand year old AE civilization that was about to reach another imperial peak under the 25th dynasty. If Abyssinians came up to/through Napata during the 700's BCE they would have been crushed, the same way that the Napatans/Kushites conquered the entire country of Egypt.
• just to set the record straight on Abyssinia's history: Copied from Ethiopia's history article:
  • Around the 8th century BC, a kingdom known as Dʿmt was established in Tigray, in northern Ethiopia, and Eritrea. The polity's capital was located at Yeha, in northern Ethiopia. Most modern historians consider this civilization to be a native Ethiopian one, although Sabaean-influenced because of the latter's hegemony of the Red Sea. Other scholars regard Dʿmt as the result of a union of Afroasiatic-speaking cultures of the Cushitic and Semitic branches; namely, local Agaw peoples and Sabaeans from South Arabia. However, Ge'ez, the ancient Semitic language of Ethiopia, is thought to have developed independently from Sabaean, one of the South Semitic languages. As early as 2000 BC, other Semitic speakers were living in Ethiopia and Eritrea where Ge'ez developed. Sabaean influence is now thought to have been minor, limited to a few localities, and disappearing after a few decades or a century. It may have been a trading or military colony in alliance with the Ethiopian civilization of Dʿmt or some other proto-Aksumite state.
• As you can see, it's pointless to try to prove that Africans are not from Africa. This is why the Out of Africa view has gained generalized consensus, because it's indisputable. There are no holes in the view. It cannot be discredited.EditorfromMars (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment: I think you're intentionally making this impossible to read for any editor. You have made 18 edits here since the last person commented. It's like you're writing your own original research here. And all of that for a sentence. Is it really worth it?

You used entire pages from Diop's book, as if that's not the basis of the hypothesis that has been rejected and ignored by mainstream scholars.

You are for the 100th time using the irrelevant "out of Africa" theory to prove there hasn't been back to Africa migration, while the reliable sources that do suggest a back to Africa migration to the horn of Africa region actually build on the out of Africa theory, not contradict it. [8]

The current state of the paragraph in the article is a clear case of cherry picking. You can't pick the part you like and ignore the rest of the same part from the same source. It's either the source is reliable or it isn't.

As I have said before, this discussion is pointless as you'll just keep repeating your comments and copying entire pages from Diop. This discussion went for long enough already. Mohamed^Talk 14:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Most of what you have typed here actually makes no difference. Quantity vs quality.

The "Ethiopian" DNA tests are relevant because the Asian back-flow was not limited to Ethiopia – at the same time we also see copious evidence of Asian back-flow into Naqada as well. Considering how much "black" inter-mingling has taken place in Ethiopia in the 5000 years since then, it is amazing that modern Ethiopians still have as much as 40% Asian DNA.

ACTUAL SCIENCE has used DNA testing to get a truer picture of events. The "Out of Africa" theory still holds true – nobody is refuting it. Once again you are on a straw-man rampage here. However according to the "Out of Africa" theory, all humans are descended from African ancestors – so we are all blacks together, even the Nordics etc. By this standard there are no "races", thus there can be no racism, and when the British invaded Kenya and the French invaded Senegal, they were merely "Africans coming back home".

Mainstream scholarship ALSO accepts that there was a major back-flow from the Near East into Africa at a more recent point. By this time, genetic profiles had diverged, and it might perhaps be possible to speak of "races" – although at a more diversified level than the "whites-yellows-and-us" approach of Diop etc. This does not clash with the "Out of Africa" theory at all. This well-attested back-flow is proved by DNA evidence, as discussed. Remember that at the time of UNESCO in 1974, DNA testing was not even imaginable – science advances over time, and new things are learned. Remember that I cited you TWO scientific papers, not just one, and that both were genuinely peer-reviewed, and published in respected scientific journals. That gives them much more credibility, and thus weight, than the musings of Herodotus.

I won't go through every point of your wall of text, but take just as one example the well-known Egyptologist Edouard Naville. It is generally agreed – although not proven - that southern Egyptians invaded northern Egypt. Fair enough. However it is utter rubbish to suggest that people couldn't live in the Delta until Menes "drained it" – are you sure you are quoting him correctly? There is ample evidence of cultures developing, and thriving, in the Delta area long before Menes. You cannot "reclaim" a giant swamp by building a dam – that water has to all go somewhere. A dam large enough to hold back the Nile River would have to be as huge as the Aswan High Dam, and nowhere around the long length of the Nile River is there any evidence of such a huge ancient dam, or evidence of any dam at all, or evidence of the huge lake that such a dam would have created, or any mention of a gigantic drainage canal to divert the Nile around the Delta to some other coastal outlet, or any mention in records of building the dam or drainage system, or of maintaining it for 5000 years until Lake Nasser was created. Ergo, either you have seriously misquoted Naville or, despite his credentials, we need to seriously question the quality of Naville's "evidence".

On the other hand, modern texts instead tell that Menes (assuming he was even real) built dykes to divert the Nile flood AROUND his chosen city site, (not the entire Delta, just his little city), after which the Nile continued to drain along the usual delta channels as before. It is not clear why he chose to build his city in the flood plain, on top of valuable farming land and in a place where it was guaranteed to be flooded regularly, when he had ample high ground a stone's throw away. There is also no evidence of these legendary dykes today. However this info comes originally from Herodotus – and we all know how reliable he was …..

Modern texts also tell that Menes found a wealthy, thriving culture in Lower Egypt, and he adopted their gods and customs. The northern barbarians may have conquered Rome eventually, but they did NOT create the Roman civilization.

Per "Ancient Egyptian Science: A Source Book, Vol II" by Marshall Clagett, writing in 1989, page 1: "However it originated, the civil calendar of 365 days was securely in place by the time of the Old Kingdom. An investigation of the origins of this calendar and its relationship to one of more lunar calendars is fraught with uncertainty and difficulty .." It seems that there is no proof that the calendar originated in Upper Egypt either.

etc etc etc Wdford (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so @wdford and I agree that the Out of Africa theory has gained generalized consensus and is the mainstream view. The Out of Africa theory states:

• the M and N haplogroup lineages, are found in very low frequencies in Africa. Therefore, any backflow from the Near East is minimal and hasn't changed the genetic profile for the majority of Africans. The out of africa mainstream view is built on DNA science. It's indisputable.
• The Asian backflow text is a theory from a minority/fringe viewpoint that goes against the Out of Africa mainstream view that the vast majority of migrations and genetic material movement was from Africa to the rest of Earth (including the Near East) and not the other way around. Any backflow into Africa during the AE period was not significant enough to change the genetics of the entire East Africa, as mentioned in the original quote. Both of your scholarly articles concluded that the proto-U6 and ancestral M1 genetic material could have originated in Northwest Africa. They both could not rule out that possibility. This means, it's just as likely, plausible, possible that the backflow came from Northwest Africa, as the Near East and both articles admit that they can't rule this out.
• The Arabian backflow theory is also at odds with the mainstream Egyptologist viewpoint that the AE civilization is an indigenous nile valley creation and the population was indigenous to the nile valley. Indigenous to the nile valley does not equal from Arabia. These ideas are diametrically opposed to each other.
• Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't write these theories about Menes, the inhospitable nature of the Nile Delta during the Protodynastic period, etc. Just copying text from books and letting you know that there are authors stating that civilization was not possible in the Nile delta during the protodynastic period.
• I'm assuming that we all agree that the disputed 800 BCE migrations into Abyssinia from Arabia are not relevant to a Black Egyptian theory article, as that migration is about 2200 years too late. Furthermore, 40% Arabian Abyssinians are 60% black and definitely black, per the modern construct. It is an absurdity to say that modern Ethiopians are not classified as black.
• Multiple editors now agree with the mainstream Egyptologist view that AE civilization started in Upper Egypt, near Abydos. Abydos is in middle to southern Egypt and per the mainstream Egyptologist view, people get darker in color the farther south that you travel in Egypt, which brings us back to the black theory. These dark brown, indigenous to the Nile valley of Africa people that started, built, maintained, and the sustained the AE civilization would be considered black, or usefully black as Bernal put it, using the modern construct of race on which the last several hundred years of history books have been written.EditorfromMars (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@memelord0 half of the bullets above are from Teeter's book. Some are from other Wiki articles. Some are a summation of the 'scholarly' articles that @wdford posted. Your assertion that all of the text above is from Diop's book is inaccurate.EditorfromMars (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Once again, the "Out of Africa" theory is uncontested in mainstream scholarship. However, the more recent backflow into Africa from the Near East is also mainstream, it is also based on solid DNA evidence, and it does not in any way contradict the Out of Africa theory at all.
• The backflow into Africa from the Near East happened from about 5000 BCE onwards, in successive waves. It is not an event of 800 BCE alone.
• The extent of the backflow is not precisely quantifiable, as the DNA being studied is modern DNA which has been influenced by millennia of further admixture. However based on the known subsequent histories of the areas and the peoples concerned, and based on the MASSIVE percentages of Asian DNA still present in these populations, the backflow into those particular areas must have been very significant indeed.
• These multiple scientific papers concluded that the people concerned had large amounts of Asian DNA. It is against wiki-rules to sift through scientific papers to cherry-pick lines which seemingly support a contrary conclusion. If the experts believed that the data supported the contrary conclusion, they would have said so themselves.
• Nobody is saying that modern Ethiopians are not black. However a 40% DNA presence in CURRENT populations would indicate that the influx 5000 years ago must have been massive. The scientific papers did specifically include the word "Caucasian".
• The Arabian backflow theory is not at odds with the mainstream Egyptologist viewpoint that the AE civilization is an indigenous Nile Valley development. These are two separate issues. Naqada I clearly got started before the Mesopotamian influence arrived. The Mesopotamian influence at Naqada gave the Nile Valley development a significant boost, but it did not initiate it. The equivalent migration back into Lower Egypt was also significant, and included new varieties of livestock etc, but there was already a civilisation in place.
• Any books which genuinely state that civilization was not possible in the Nile Delta during the protodynastic period are clearly unreliable, since there is copious archaeological evidence of civilization in the Delta area during the pre-dynastic period. See here [9] and here [10] for starters. Also try "An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt", by Kathryn A. Bard, pg 95 onwards. She also notes that Northern Egypt has much less surviving burials and ruins due to the water table being shallow, and the regular floods etc, but that advanced stuff has been found, including evidence that they traded with Palestine and Jordan.
• There is also zero evidence that anybody ever terraformed the Delta in ancient times.
• They don’t agree that AE civilization started in Upper Egypt, only that the Upper Egypt army eventually overwhelmed the Lower Egypt army, and established a combined "government", which has since been labelled as Dynasty I. However ancient records list hundreds of "mythical" kings and rulers going back before that time as well. The fact that Lower Egypt even had an army would indicate that they were already highly functional on their own. They also had their own crown etc, and they had long-established trade relationships with Palestine and Jordan. Finally, plenty of scholars think the "unification" was a propaganda exercise, and that the two kingdoms merged gradually for economic reasons.
• Wdford (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)