Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Ancient Egypt is not a black civilization or white civilization

As an Egyptian I think this absurd to claim that ancient Egyptians are blacks. What exactly did rest of sub-Saharan Africa took from Egypt, almost nothing no central government or Gods or anything else. Some African Americans are presenting fake pictures from some pharaoh’s tombs. Also they ignore the fact that modern Egyptians Copts don’t show any Negro feature at all.

Were the Egyptians black, white, or indigenous Africans?

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

The reason I bring this up is because I see this dispute on whether or not the Egyptians were "black" (which is a fallacious, Eurocentric concept) as a ploy. It is apparent to point out that this is a political debate that has nothing to do with science, even when/if Egyptologists argue about it (which they hardly do). Using the word "black" as a label for any population group from Nigeria to southern India is a misnomer.[1] It is easy to see that once the arbitrarily defined barrier that comprises distinct "races" is collapsed, one can immediately lay out a coherent case which makes sense... This is what we're clear on:

AE are not shown to have come from anywhere other than the Nile valley and/or early Sahara. Not Europe, not Southwest Asia, not West Africa.. These are the words of Yurco, Keita, Boyce, Ehret, Zakrzewski, Wilkinson, Shaw, and countless others aside from Basil Davidson..

People indigenous to this area, have been found to be overwhelmingly indigenous, hence, no indication of invaders from the near east or Europe. We know that near easterners and Europeans are indigenous to the near east and Europe, and not the Nile valley. They (AEs) possessed southern haplotypes shared with Saharo-tropical africans that have been in place since first dynasty times.[2] Again, these genes have a much higher frequency in Africa than anywhere else and are mostly only shared among other Africans.

To emphasize that point, I will refer back to Zakrzewski and Keita. Keita notes a tropical morphology among the Egyptians, consistent with tropical africans. Zakrzewski confirmed the results in 2003. Keita stresses the implication that a tropical body is a reaction to heat stresses from tropical environments and differs drastically from different climactic belts, hence, the AE were not cold adapted Europeans (in his words, more or less).. According to Hiernaux, those most frequently seen with this body type are Nilotes of the Nile valley or east Africans from the horn..

Keita reports continuity between Badari, Naqada, and first dynasty crania from Abydos (seat of the founding dynasty), and found them all to cluster closest with Kerma Nubian crania, while the Badari even overlapped Kenyan and Bushman groups..

Studying crania from these same periods, Zakrzewski found continuity stretching into the early dynastic and also noted a relationship between Badari and later Egyptian groups..

Chris Ehret of course places the Egyptian language to the south

Yurco emphatically refers to Egyptians as Africans, closely related to Nubians, Somali, and other Nile valley peoples.

Trigger refers to them all as African who need not be arbitrarily defined or seperated

The data and consensus seems to suggest that they were Africans.. Since race is a fallacious concept, it is clear that arguments by way of racial identity will remain cyclic, when what is of value is that the AEs were biologically and culturally African.. Taharqa 19:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing the same things over and over at every chance you get. Could you summarize the following into 2 or 3 sentences? You continue to say that "Ancient Egyptians were black" yet you also say that "race is a fallacious concept" and ""black" as a label for any population group from Nigeria to southern India is a misnomer". So I don't know what you're trying to say. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Once you quote where I've advocated such a term ("black") in any biological context, I should be able to better elaborate. But as of now, your Straw man comments will only lead to distraction since I've never asserted what you attribute to me and what I've stated is what I meant, which is attributed to the various sources produced.Taharqa 19:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well let's forget about my comments. Elaborate in 2 or 3 sentences what you're saying. Summarize it for me. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay.. What I am addressing and what also seems to be the mainstream consensus are summed up in at least 5 parts that come from empirical research..

AE language/culture is seen as having indigenous roots in continental Africa, elements of which can be found through out the Sahara, Nile Valley, and Eastern Africa.. The most notable of scholars place AE civilization along with the people themselves, within this context

Biological data suggests population relationships with groups who inhabit these regions, notably the nile valley and the horn of Africa (Somalia, etc.)

State formation is seen as being overwhelmingly indigenous, notwithstanding trade and external contacts, which did occur

Race is considered obsolete by most physical anthropologists and native Africans are seen as comprising generally the most phenotypical variant populations, despite relationships

"Black and white" only obscure the implication of this African diversity since by standards of nomenclature, the AE were Africans, culturally and biologically coextensive with other indigenous African populations of which they shared spatial origin and lasting contact

In other words, I will quote Bruce Trigger:

all of these people are Africans. To proceed further and divide them into Caucasoid and Negroid stocks is to perform an act that is arbitrary and wholly devoid of historical or biological significance.

So those who keep lashing out at the idea of a "black egypt" are totally misguided in their aims and it is ultimately futile to refute as it is a subjective social construct. What matters is the raw data on the ground.Taharqa 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Then what point would it be to use old references to the supposed race of the Great Sphinx as modern for instance? Right now as the article stands, It seems like a long essay using weak arguments to support the idea that the Ancient Egyptians were "Black". That's how the article reads. Sort of like an essay opposed to an encyclopedia. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the argument is "weak" is your opinion, not to be confused with an objective fact or even a notable view. The sphinx section, of which I wasn't even discussing at this point, merely records views from notable sources of the past and present, no one has made any argument by simply not choosing to suppress relevant information to the section. It is pov and OR to impose yourself or your views onto the said citations of which merely record pov themselves, along with one empirical study. One lacks the credentials to apply their own interpretation and expect it to be notable.. But this isn't about that, that one example is trivial and doesn't express nearly what you have charged..Taharqa 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is having the section formed in a way that is using centuries old opinions as somehow contemporary or modern. The entire section fails to provide context. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've always been willing to compromise on that section as I suggested to Zerida, but Muntuwandi and Luka are opposed. I think maybe you should direct your concerns more so in that direction to get a better justification for the context of the section, and as I see fit, I can add input when relevant..Taharqa 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

appart from a few minor attempts at restoration, the great sphinx is essentially the way it has been for the last thousands of years. Since it is a monument, there can be no genetic tests on it. what I am getting at is that with regards to the sphinx even historical accounts have some credibility. But nevertheless recent scholars have expressed the same thoughts. Muntuwandi 21:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is well known that ethiopia and kenya were members of the egyptian empire and trade routes. however you overlook the deductive capability of such populations, they are, mind you, different from subsaharan and west african "indiginous people", or as some people put it "black people", you seem to be overlooking a great opportunity in your quest for the ethnicity of the acient egyptians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.123 (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't well known.. Though seeing as how no one African is the same in reference to another, and seeing as how this article isn't about west Africans, I'm not sure how this is relevant? Sure, Kenyan and Ethiopian ethnic groups are different in a lot of respects from some west African groups, while Kenyan groups differ in many respects from Ethiopians (diversity!), but they all have entirely much more in common with each other than say they do with Northern Europeans. You've created an arbitrary standard by which to evaluate, not to mention that this is irrelevant..Taharqa 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Very true they are, after all, both black gypies as opposed to white gypsie, arab gypsies or the egyptians themselves. When you take into account the large "family" of gypsies {you do know that means light of egypt don't you}, it would seem your quest to find the ethnicity of the ancient egyptians would become much easier than you appear to be making it. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 207.14.129.123 (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It means that "black and white" are subjective terms, but you will be hard pressed to find a "white Ethiopian" or Kenyan that fits any of the world's modern social standards. Though diversity has always been the rule, especially as it concerns Africa..Taharqa 20:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

 So is the term "african"  you would be in all senses including morroco, lybia, tunisia,

and algeria. Predominantly non "black" communities {countries}. Some people believe that the name itself Africa in indicitive of egypt. But the continent was only so modernly named due to the egyptian shores of the mediterranian being in "africa" of course the same could be said for Europe {the ep phonetics in the name}, being modern in name that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.123 (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

 Heroditous um are you people thinking that melano is the same as melatho/melado they aren't

one means darker{to an extent] the other means white [uhh don't it] so herouditous said the ethiopians were white????? maybe he was speaking in that the darker ethiopians were at that time more similair to whites that black africa, in a phrenologial way????? And heck who was white at that time everyone was farming or hunting or working out side getting a tan.--207.14.129.123 21:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 As for taharqa Use of the word "black".  Your argueement in the inital posting of my

queery "why is this article in the africa deaspora" in favor of such a placement in and of itself removes all except black africans from the statments you say. Have you seen the african deaspora page? The page make no reference to their being anything other than black africans, it is a though the entire northern 3rd of the continent ceases to be in existance. You would be able to see this accept someone deleted the inittial posting. I am not sure why my name ,and possible location, are so important to you taharqa. Is not the information what is important?--207.14.129.123 00:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Egyptians and foreigners in the tomb of Ramesses III

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Wikidudeman, have a look at this: Physionomie de l'Egyptien Ancien. In the Foreign "races" from Ramesses III, Egyptians are said to be Nubians by some commentators, because these Egyptians are dark!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep.. Manu Ampim has basically refuted all those opposed by actually taking photos of the tomb and posting them. The dark skinned figure to the far left who looks exactly like the Nehesi, or Nubian to the right, is clearly labeled "rm.t" by the glyph which corresponds to him, r.mt of course meaning 'Egyptian".[3]Taharqa 16:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That doen't acount for the rest of the figures in the drawings! The picture states that at that time nubia was part of the egyptian empire. The picture in no way states that the egyptian "ethnicity" were or is black nubian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.123 (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a typical stormfront argument.. But one thing we're not here to do is debate the unsubstantiated opinion of a random editor. One thing is certain though, and this is that the person in that tomb seen portayed in almost identical fashion as the Nubian, is labeled as an Egyptian, and the tomb photos confirm it.. But yes, it is not conventional, which means nothing by way of proving your case either since both kushites and puntites were depicted as dark reddish-brown aswell.. It is a complexion seen quite frequently among African horners and the Nile valley.. And please sign your comments.. Taharqa 20:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't accuse people who oppose your views with much stronger evidence as being "Stormfront". These photos are taken from an amateur website and clearly have been distorted. Just because they agree with your extreme, un-supported views does not mean they are more accurate. Many of the pictographs clearly show lighter skin tones than that of of those known to be portraying Nubians, not to mention different facial features. The photos are also subject to the mercy of those supplying them and one of an Egyptian may be in fact of an Ethiopian or Nubian. The fact remains Ancient Egypt was a large Kingdom and Empire encompassing peoepls with varying origins, not just indigenous Egyptians. Epf 00:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  so basically you agree with me but, have backed yourself into a corner, so you feel that your
words don't admit that you agree with me.  Did you just delete my state-ment about wooly hair
being no tight and kinky but more open curls than even michelangelo's david, like the hair of
a ram or sheep?  Just wondering because some just did that.

     Holy dingleberries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I just foundout what stormfront is!!!!!  That

pretty interesting alligation. WHWWHOOooaaa. How exactlly did you know that I were white? My statments could have been made by any ethnicity. Your powers are strong young jedi. To obtain all of that sympathy in just a few short words. To write off an extremelly ,even if I do say so myself, intellegent and learned assertation of a multiethinict picture in such a fashion would not be of any benifit if you ever were suspect of using wikipedia for

propoganda purposes.  At least the stormfront page is an article not a membershipdrive.--207.14.129.123 21:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

postscript

 An extremelly interesting allegation indeed.  Considering what I posted on October 7,

Two days before your foul weather "ranting and contention". Who deleted my origional "Why is this in the African Deaspora" Querry????--207.14.129.123 21:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for unprotection

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

The administrator Pedro noted that the page can be unprotected as soon as we show that we're all on common ground. I'd like to see what others feel will improve the article and prevent so much conflict. Please participate and I'd like editors to describe their take in at least 4 parts..

Why are you concerned with editing such a controversial topic and what do you seek to promote?

^This can mean merely to prevent edit wars or push neutrality, or because you're interested in the topic, or because you have a strong opinion on it. What is your aim?

What content is disputed?

In your opinion, what parts of the article do you have a problem with, wording, undue weight, organization/format, unreliable sources, etc. Please pin point what you have a problem with and what you feel needs to be revised. It may be easier to cover it all in one swoop, and then we can go over it one by one.

How to prevent disagreement/encourage compromise

Suggestions on ways to compromise? For example, when material is hotly disputed, should it be best to remove it, pending discussion to avoid edit warring? Maybe this can be an unspoken rule? That is only one example o compromise

Dealing with new editors, unaware of consensus..

Do we immediately rvv them, or explain to them that discussion is pending and only rvv them if their edits are in bad faith or misguided? How do we deal with the unruly?

Just some thoughts. I'll be back in a bit to add my take, but in the meantime, please participate so we can continue the process of coming together, in order to finally come together and at least somewhat resemble a team, as the appellation "editing team" implies.Taharqa 16:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudemans answers

Why are you concerned with editing such a controversial topic and what do you seek to promote?

I'm concerned because the article is in bad shape and needs improving.

What content is disputed?

Generally it's not the content itself that is disputed but the way it's presented and worded. Many sections need rewritten and better presented.

How to prevent disagreement/encourage compromise

Don't make edits that you think are controversial until you get consensus on talk page. If you think an edit might be reverted, Don't make it. Discuss it first.

Dealing with new editors, unaware of consensus..

Revert them once. Leave note on their talk page. If they revert again then don't revert back, simply try to get them to discuss their edits. If they fail to discuss them then revert their edits and report them to WP:AIAV. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

I think like Wikidudeman. I will add trust or good faith.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

I think all parties should make suggestions on what they think the direction of the article should be. I have noticed that when the article is protected Zerida and Egyegy disappear. When it is unprotected they reappear without much discussion and edit wars follow. This is unhelpful in achieving a consensus. Muntuwandi 23:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have expressed my views ad nauseam and have engaged in a lengthy dialogue with Taharqa and reached consensus on the aforementioned additions, only to have many of them substantially reverted/POV-ly rewritten. There is a point in the discussion when it becomes a form of terrorizing editors into having to state their positions a thousand times after having repeated them a thousand other times when consensus had earlier been reached in order to justify another round of reverts and tendentious editing, under the pretext that editors did not take part in the discussion. That Taharqa continues to renege on our previous agreement and to engage in this type of tendentious editing [4], in addition to your equally inappropriate revert [5] of previously agreed upon material, do not change the fact that we had come to consensus on the main issues, and more importantly, that we had agreed *not* to delete reliably sourced information from the article (I had left Taharqa this note [6] about it). The latter should not be hard to do nor requires lengthy discussions -- simply stop deleting whole portions of the article, particularly those representing mainstream/academic scholarship, to advance one POV.

Unfortunately, I really don't have much hope that this article will ever achieve stability due to its history. Needless to say, having the article express a particular POV will inevitably attract the kind of edit wars that happened in the last 24 hours (although everyone would do well remembering WP:AGF and WP:BITE with newcomers, at least to avoid making the situation worse). If we were to really give this article a chance to remain balanced with information from different sides, I don't think it would be subject to so much heated dispute. As I have never seen this article remain stable in the last two years, I have no doubt that the tendentious editing will quickly resume following unprotection, with each side attempting to overwhelm the article with one side of the debate or undue weight of fringe opinions, and the cycle will simply continue. I, however, am not planning to fight an uphill battle to maintain this imaginary stable version -- I have neither the heart nor the time nor the patience for it. This article has proven time and again to be an exhausting exercise in futility. I've never seen an article go from one long protection period to another in such a short span of time (though that might be because I don't get around much). At any rate, I have already stated my position and have come to consensus on the issues that I felt needed addressing. The current version meets my biggest concerns. Whether this material remains, gets deleted, or substantially altered/distorted, only time and the ability of other editors to respect consensus will tell. — Zerida 02:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Zerida, please, cool down! Don't you see any positive point in what Muntuwandi is saying? This is a common work. We have to prepare ourselves to accept other views than what we like the most. Muntuwandi is speaking about separating sections between pro and against. You and everybody can edit having this separation in mind. But always using reliable sources. Muntuwandi is very clear. If you want to see only your school of thought taken into account, it won't work.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 08:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lusala Luka, why don't you cool down? Muntuwandi wrote his suggestions after Zerida posted her response to his accusations. Assume good faith, this is getting old. Egyegy 16:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to Zerida. But Muntuwandi is repeatedly making this suggestion of pro and against. Look at his past interventions. I think that is the just way to go.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 12:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  Yes Yes  I too am outraged the sincere lack of accountablility during such critical

discusions lead me to belive that the lone gunman the delete button wielding savior has struck again. If only we had someway of thanking such a noble person saving the world from intelegent discusion and intellegent minds. Truly an unsung hero of the modern day. How come you decide what reliable sources are?? hmmmmmm just a thought just a question.--207.14.129.123 20:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi

Why are you concerned with editing such a controversial topic and what do you seek to promote?

I would like to see an article that is the reflection of the truth.

What content is disputed?

Material that is "Afrocentric" is disputed. Material that is anti-Afrocentric is also disputed. This is what is causing edit wars

How to prevent disagreement/encourage compromise

The only way this article can ever achieve some stability is if both sides of the debates are given a voice. I don't know what race the Egyptians were for sure, though my personal opinion leans toward a black/African egypt. I am also pretty sure that Egyptology in the past and present has been affected by racial bias and the African presence in Egypt has been understated. However I am not in favour of deleting anti-Afrocentric material if it is relevant or reliably sourced. The only way the article can have any credibility is if it gives an opportunity to dissenting views. My suggestion remains the same, to have distinct "for" and "against" sections of a black african egypt. The "Africanists" can edit the "for" section, and the non-africanists can edit the "against" section without deleting each others' material. The only checks that we need to make on all sections should be reliability, relevance and verifiability.

Dealing with new editors, unaware of consensus..

To be taken seriously they need to earn credibility. Muntuwandi 05:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa

Why are you concerned with editing such a controversial topic and what do you seek to promote?

I seek to repel abuse and encourage accurate information. Of course with the prevailing views of politics, but this is what I'd like to mainly limit and such articles while having it reflect genuinely verified research from empirical data, variability of opinion notwithstanding. In such an article, I'd also like to prevent undue weight given to obscure authors in order to push a view or refute another.

What content is disputed?

Similarly to wikidudeman, I'm not so much concerned with the "content" per se since no one as of yet has been able to offer a formidable rebuttal to the peer reviewed or reference material cited, only that such data isn't subject to distortion or rejected by emotionally invested editors with a point to prove. That is honestly not aimed at any one in particular, though it has been noted..

How to prevent disagreement/encourage compromise

I'd think that me and Zerida's earlier compromise (before things got out of hand again) was a decent one. To simply remove material that is so hotly disputed that edit wars seem inevitable. Though if we'd all practice restraint (including myself), that wouldn't be necessary.

Dealing with new editors, unaware of consensus..

This is honestly what I have trouble with dealing with and it was more of a personal question. I appreciate your answer wikidudeman, and admit that it is something that I need to work on as it has been hard in the past. Even as applied to resident editors who don't make much of an effort to communicate rationally on the talk page.

Taharqa 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

Latest comment: 16 years ago37 comments7 people in discussion

Wikipedia consensus process flowchart

I plan on getting this article to be unprotected however this can only happen if EVERYONE involved agrees to a preset of rules that will prevent edit warring. Here are the rules:

If you make an edit, please think twice before making it. If you believe the edit might be controversial or might be reverted then don't make the edit. Instead propose it on the talk page and reach consensus.
If an edit that you made was reverted then, if possible, revert that revision and make an alteration so that the initial reverter might be satisfied with it. If it is reverted again then DO NOT revert it back. Take the discussion to the talk page. Never revert more than once.
Only reapply your initial edit after consensus is reached or after a few days and the reverter(s) have failed to justify their actions.
If reverters continue to revert and do not justify their actions on the talk page after given warnings to do so then report them to WP:AIV
If an edit is made that you disagree with. Revert it. If it is added back with a change that you agree with then don't revert it. If it is added back without any change then advise the editor making the edit to justify their actions on the talk page.

Everyone who agrees to these rules simply say Agree. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the content is too controversial for people to restrain themselves from reverting others. We were beginning to make some headway before the article was protected. Now that it is protected, some of the other contributers have disappeared again. I suggest that we create a sandbox, and work on a version from there. We can request all interested parties to make their contributions and suggestions. If we find a stable version that we all agree on, we can request for unprotection.

Alternatively we can ask that the protection expiry be brought backwards, say to next week, because one month is too long. Muntuwandi 23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why everyone just can't agree to the above rules so as to prevent edit wars. Here is a flow chart describing the basic process I'm putting forth...Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, only that in special circumstances when edits are clearly seen as disruptive to prove a point or is original research under the same guise, other editors shouldn't be discouraged to revert, however, again, I agree overall that each editor should limit him/herself to one revert, unless there is a complete debauchery of the article by newer editors who won't comply with the talk page. If it is not blatant vandalism, it isn't so simple to merely report an unruly editor to WP:AIV. Nonetheless, once more, if it doesn't concern a mass distortion of the material already included, then I agree to this with no strings attached.Taharqa 20:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion still is the content should be reorganized to "please everyone". There are probably six or seven editors interested in this article, so i don't believe that limiting reverts will have any success if editors are unhappy about the content. Wikidudeman had began a process of rewriting the article that had some consensus, before the article was protected. Instead of waiting for the article to be unprotected, we can simply copy all the text into a sandbox and continue trying to build a consensus from all participating editors. Then we can have a good case for unprotection. As it stands now when the protection expires we will be back to square one. Muntuwandi 21:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of waiting for the article to be unprotected, we can simply copy all the text into a sandbox and continue trying to build a consensus from all participating editors.

Best idea yet! Yes, make edits into the sandbox or something until we can get a draft that shuold be subject to less contention.Taharqa 21:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandboxing it is generally a bad idea in this case since most of the editors would be unwilling to participate in a rewrite. With my proposal, we streamline the process and rid ourselves of the truly disruptive editors as they would be weeded out fairly quickly if they make changes, refuse to discuss and continue to revert. Also, As far as these rules go, The ONLY exception should be to vandalism. If someone adds Original research, revert it and explain why you reverted it. If they revert your revert then don't revert again, discuss it on the talk page. If they fail to discuss then in a few days revert them and if they revert again, notify them to the Admin noticeboard. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, nothing usually happens at the admin notice boards, and I've been there several times. The most they'll do is advise dispute resolution or something similar. But I'm still open to whatever should work the best, and I'm willing to comply with both you and Muntuwandi, though given that there is somewhat of a disagreement, I feel the difference in opinion needs to be reconciled. I'm quite sure Muntuwandi would be willing to further justify or maybe you can bring him around to yours. I'm on board wherever it takes us though and regardless, I'm willing comply to those rules put fourth.Taharqa 22:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules will always take precedence over any kind of informal agreements we make about editing. Thus in the long run only rules such as the 3RR can have any validity. I think we should make an attempt at sandboxing, we can ask Zerida, Egyegy and Luka to have their comments on a balanced version. If we come to some kind of consensus, we can request unprotection. Muntuwandi 22:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If an editor continues to make a revert but fails to discuss the reverts on the talk page then we would be justified in re-reverting that specific editor and I would back anyone up doing so. If after relevant notification, the user disregards attempts to discuss the dispute and instead simply reverts then I will make sure that anything the editor adds will be reverted. We can all do that as the editor, not us, would be breaking wikipedia policy and thus the reverts on our part would be justified and the single editor would then be reported upon violation of 3rr, if the editor went that far. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a draft where we can discuss and alter the article until consensus is met:

User:Wikidudeman/RaceEgyptdraft.

Please don't start an edit war on the draft. Follow the above rules when editing it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think sandboxing is the way to go but put the draft at Talk:Race of Ancient Egyptians/Draft so everyone watching this page can see and edit it if they want. Egyegy 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As per Wikidudeman, no need to edit war on a draft since it is a proposal.Muntuwandi 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Article subpages like that aren't supposed to exist and with my tools and setup I am unable to edit them. That's why I made User:Wikidudeman/RaceEgyptdraft so that I could edit it, but it's also just as visible as any subpage of this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

When you guys figure it out, let me know. I'm not sure why it matters which draft should be edited, as long as one is edited on to encourage progress.Taharqa 16:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying I simply can't edit that other one. Only the one on my userpage. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

^My fault.. Well then, I see no harm in editing the draft that you set up. If that's true then it should limit our choices to which draft that we edit, in which case, I guess that it should be yours. Hopefully Muntuwandi and others will agree since as I've stated, I don't see the big difference.

As far as unruly editors who don't abide by the consensus on the talk page, we really need to work together in repelling them since in the past it seems as if no one really showed any real concern.Taharqa 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

location is not a big issue, we can even have more than one draft. Muntuwandi 19:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

this article is suc a bloated mess that such a step by step procedure will only make sense if we start over from scratch. Move the present version to a subpage, turn the live article into a substub, and then only transfer paragraphs from the subpage to the live article if consensus has been reached. There are simply too many things wrong with the present version to attempt anything else. --dab (𒁳) 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

^^I disagree and am not sure how valuable this proposal is mainly seeing as how it doesn't make any sense and is overly in general..Taharqa 00:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start editing the draft on my userpage here:User:Wikidudeman/RaceEgyptdraft. Those of you interested please add it to your watch list and make any changes that you think should be made. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

first edit made More will come. Improvements will come, additional info, etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, what you are doing now is not good at all. We better ask for unprotecting the actual page than to try to escape from it in order to create another page. What we cannot solve here can hardly be solved elsewere!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I could get the page unprotected but I think that edit wars would just start again immediately. I'm just doing what Muntuwandi and Taharqa suggested and am making a draft and editing that until the protection expires. If you and the other editors agree to the above rules of a 1 revert rule then we can get it unprotected, otherwise I see no alternative. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the meantime, I've made some edits to the draft..

Corrected a distortion or two by the anonymous IP. Firstly attributing genetic affinities of moderns from one study to dental affinities of ancients in another with out reading either. This was corrected for better reflection (from the intro).

Removed the distorted section on "White Egypt" in which the only source provided takes no stance either way, nor cites any demographic influences, not the mention the problematic name of the section and the fact that others have disputed it and its very presence is rooted in a blanking of a previous contribution and removal of reference sources. So it is better to be kept out period.

Corrected the claim that Ammianus Marcellinus wrote 'Astronomica, when he wasn't even alive. That was Marcus Manilius and I gave a better source for that in Frank Snowden.

Corrected some of the rewording by wikidudeman. Some of it indicated to me that you didn't read the studies (namely the Keita study from 1992) and how it was reworded by Zerida is just fine since a quotation went along with it. So I simply restored that without the citation.

Same with the mtdna studies, some weasel worded statements replaced terminology that was actually used in the study. Particularly "influence" over "ancestral heritage" or "link"..

Reference to the 2007 Zakrzewski grammar wise didn't sound right and what was inferred initially. Phrases like "continuity occured" and "genetic differentiation was sustained" are not phrases used or reported by Zakrzewski.

Removed both the Minoan picture (which is completely irrelevent anyways) and the punt photo, simply because its relevance was also disputed.

Added a bit more info, corrected redundancy in Cleopatra section, and that's basically it.Taharqa 17:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my wording was accurate. The study says "The predominant craniometric pattern in the Abydos [First Dynasty] royal tombs is "southern" (tropical African variant)... However, lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I see what the problem was, you took focus off the theme of the study and cited northern trends. I've reverted what I previously wrote because I was confused. The problem here still is cherry picking since it doesn't elaborate on what the Northern modal pattern consists of and leaves room for distortion.

"The Lower Egyptian pattern is 'intermediate' to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan" - Keita 1992

The Maghrebian affinities may be difficult to interpret, given that this series contains a range of variation from tropical African to European metric phenotypes (Keita, 1990). It is not possible to say, because of the complex geometry of the multivariate method (Blakith and Reyment, 1971), what more specific affinities individual crania may have. The Maghreb series does have a modal pattern most similar to late lower dynastic Egyptians - (Keita, 1990).

The “European” metrics of some of the crania clearly emphasize the contrasts found in the tombs. This may **denote the range of variation encompassed by the coastal northern pattern**, given its intermediate position, or reflect the presence of middle easterners. There is no archaeological, linguistic, or historical data which indicate a European or Asiatic invasion of, or migration to, the Nile Valley during First Dynasty times - Keita 1992

In summary, the Abydos First Dynasty royal tomb contents reveal a notable craniometric heterogeneity. **Southerners predominate.** The suggestion of previous work, namely that crania with southern and coastal northern patterns might be present in these tombs, has been demonstrated and explained by historical and archaeological data.” - KeitaTaharqa 20:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You also mentioned that the 2004 study doesn't mention Ethiopia when it clearly does. I recommend that you read it. I've provided a link to the full PDF.[7]Taharqa 20:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The intro also needs a lot of clean-up. There is a problem with summary and attribution. Studies on modern Egyptians for instance wasn't reported accurate as someone reworded it in such a way as not to reflect the relationship with East Africa, by way of the Mitochondria studies which were used as references but not given any weight. Dental and crania studies aswell, seeing as how I just elaborated on summarizing Keita's main points directly from the paper/s, and it being notable that Zakrzewski 2007 reports the same thing. We can discuss it a bit more later but I suggest that if you're going to rewrite the intro and cite sources, make sure that you've read and understand all of them.Taharqa 21:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to ONLY reflect the sources. If something in the article is said that doesn't come from the sources it cites then it needs to go. Also remember that we must summarize what the studies say. If the studies say both northern and southern populations relations then we mention BOTH of them, not just one or the other. We can continue discussing the draft on it's talk page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

While discussing issues, I only ask for two things in order to avoid repetition.

1)Please address me point for point if you're going to address me.

2)Please do not misrepresent what I say.

Of course we only need to reflect accurately what the sources say, which I've done in citing him directly, including his definition of what the Modal pattern is and his comments that the tropical variant dominated in the south, while the northern patterns were intermediate. The problem is that you omit the details..

Also, you again, reworded the 2004 study of the Gurna population, giving conclusions that were not reached or emphasized by the authors. Putting your own emphasis onto another's work is a form of original research since you mislead by misquoting and mis summarizing. Please address your concerns with direct quotes and bold for emphasis. The focus was on the M1 haplotype which is identified as East African in origin. For instance, the abstract summarizes the entire thing:

The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers. This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations. ***Our results*** suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population.[8]

The "western Eurasian" component merely addresses further similarities with Ethiopians who possess the same haplotypes (though in relatively lower frequencies compared to M1), so this in fact/actually reinforces a link with Ethiopian populations, which was their point. You made your own point based on a misrepresentation of the paper and/or selective reading.. Remember, initially you said that they didn't even mention Ethiopians..Taharqa 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting study in terms of its comments and conclusions regarding the Egyptian population, and it is ludicras to think that such a huge replacement of the Ancient Nubian/East African elements of Egpytians, most present in and Ancient times and today in Upper Egypt, was down to more recent settlements of Greeks, Arabs and Middle Easterners which are known to have settled very little in Egypt or anywhere else they conquered such as in North Africa (most peoples of NW Africa are Berber in origins, whether Arab-speaking or Berber-speaking). Clearly there was a significant indigenous population in Egypt most similar to Berbers that althogh more isolated in pre-history, neighboured and mixed with the population in Upper Egypt that was more similar to Nubians and Eastern Africans, although this element was smaller than that of the former in the populations but nevertheless clearly present. These elements are still found in Egyptians today, especially from Upper Egpt, as well as in the Nubian populations that still inhabit parts of Upper Egypt. Epf 00:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Using your own cited quote from above, notice its a trace of East African (Nubian) markers:

"...Our results suggest that the Gurna (Upper Egypt, near Luxor) population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population." [9] Epf 03:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research Taharqa 05:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no original research in any of my discussions or in this response. Most of my discourse is based on references found in the article itself. My quote here is takenfrom one you just used above, but apparently did not understand correctly. Do you ever take the time to read ? I'm not even bothering with another detailed response below because your agenda has been so weaved into your arguments, you deny and attack anyone who challenges your extremist, fringe ideas that barely anyone, and especially barely any Egyptians, support. Overwhelming genetic, archaeological, anthropolgical, and historical evidence is against yours or any unsupported Afrocentric claims to the the enitre Ancient Egyptian populace. Epf 22:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for misreading the study. I've been busy lately. I'll try to read more carefully what the sources say. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Khafra

Latest comment: 16 years ago52 comments4 people in discussion

Statue of Khafra vs the Sphinx

Unlike the giant Sphinx which has been constantly weathered and eroded for centuries, this statue of Khafra was recovered and dates to between 2558 BC and 2532 BC. This statue (and practically all others) has little or no Negroid craniofacial features whatsoever and does not have the so-called "protruding jaws" of the Sphinx. I think we need to bear in mind also that pictographs and statues of Pharoahs and other ancient Egyptians (all which show a predominantly North African appearance in cranio-facial features, rather than sub-saharan African) are more accurate depictions than some giant half-human, half-lion statue exposed to the elements.

(Many scholars debate whether the Sphinx was built at the time of Khafre, including Robert M. Schoch who has stated that the sphinx has a distinctive "African," "Nubian," or "Negroid" aspect which is lacking in the face of Khafre.^[1]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epf (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case, we know Ancient Egypt was divided both into Upper and Lower kingdoms, with the former bordering the clearly "black" (or darker skinned) African kingdom of Kush/Nubia (but still quite distinct in features themselves from other non-eastern, sub-saharan African peoples) and was even controlled by the Kingdom for a few centuries (Kushite dynasty). With this in mind it is even possible that it resembled an Egyptian leader who had origins in Nubia/Kush, but was a minority of the Upper classes and did not resemble the general population. As we have seen in anthropology and genetics, there have been many cases of elite ruling upper classes conquering populations, but forming a small miority in the population (eg. the spread of the Arabs over North Africa and parts of the Levant such as Lebanon, where only a small few are wholly or even mainly descended from ethnic Arabs today, mostly Bedouin)

Afrocentric nature to "black" claims of ancient Egypt

Afrocentrists have pretty much no basis for their claims that Ancient Egypt was primarily "black", especially when both the Nubians, Ethiopians and other ancient peoples of North-Eastern Africa were themselves not fully "black"/Sub-Saharan in the same sense as those those in West, Central and Southern Africa. Most of these Afrocentrists pushing this are themselves generally West, Central or Southern Africans distinct from both the modern and ancient "black" peoples of North-Eastern Africa, with the Nubians, Ethipoians, etc. having some simlar cranio-facial features to "white" populations not shared by other Sub-Saharan Africans (Western, Central, Southern Africa).

Most common held view amongst scholars and Egyptians themselves

Overwhelming, archaeological, anthropological and genetic evidence, as well some less-reliable historical evidence clearly shows the ancient Egyptians were an indigenous and relatively homogenous population that was most similar to other North Africans (Berbers) with a smaller but significant affinity to the neighbouring peoples of the Horn of Africa (Nubians, Ethiopians, etc.). Their Kingdom and Empire however encompassed many other peoples with varied origins during different periods, as did most other Empires and Kingdoms of the Ancient World. With this in mind, there was obviously Nubians, Ethiopians and other groups present in Egypt apart from the the indigenous Egyptians, athough clearly the Nubian element was much more integratred and part of the populatoin (and Egyptians themselves) due its origins in (or bordering) Upper Egypt.

Epf 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Djoser6.jpg

I'll address this sentence by sentence, even though it is completely irrelevant babble full of original research and fringe views. The numbers correspond to each paragraph..

1) Firstly, wasn't this handsome gentleman to the right (Djoser) an earlier predecessor of Khafre? Judging from the Cheek bones, lips, and brow ridge, I'd think it safe to say that he was a southerner (euphemism for "Negro"), which is also implied by Keita and in fact he was from the south, hence, a southerner. To suggest that an eroded sphinx would overtime give it a profile reminiscent of many mainland Africans, as is indicated by the noted prognathism, lips, etc, is both original research and absurd. Erosion is a process of reduction, not addition, therefore a protruding jaw cannot possibly be the object of erosion. Sorry, but you make no sense there.. As far as Khafre not showing any "Negroid" traits, your subjective opinion on that is immaterial to expert testimony:

“

Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.

”

- Keita and Boyce, 1996

2) This is pseudo-scientific babble that has no reflection in current scientific discourse pertaining to the subject. Hassan, Wilkonson, Keita, Ehret, Williams, Wendorf, and Vogel, among others all place their origins to the south (exactly where you place the so-called "black" populations). Keita and Zakrzewski note a predominance of the very modal pattern (Africoid/Southern/Tropical) that you give minority status, in upper Egypt, still apparent by first dynasty times. Yes, there is evidence of endogamy, with early rulers at Naqada resembling Northern Sudanese more so than the rest of the southern Egyptian populace, as is indicated by the Lovell and Prowse study; however, one has to be familiar with biology to understand exactly what endogamy means within an anthropological framework, when used by biological anthropologists.

Endogamy - Biology Reproduction by the fusion of gametes of similar ancestry.

In other words, they were already related in the first place.. Nice try tho..

3) Afrocentrists have every right to claim what they choose since you don't seem that capable of deconstructing an arbitrary social construct denoting skin color to fulfill your purposes of rebuttal. Also, what you are pushing by suggesting that northeast Africans were never "fully black" is both a false dichotomy and an appeal to popular ignorance by repeating an already debunked myth. Cranial studies of early remains have shown closest similarity with Somalis (concerning East Africa), who are in fact overwhelmingly indigenous with only 15% paternal ancestry from extra-African sources. This is less admixture than even African Americans who generally possess 20% European ancestry, along with Native American. Biohistorical East Africans whom differ phenotypically from many West Africans are still completely indigenous and are a part of indigenous Saharo-tropical variation. They are of the elongated morphology which has nothing to do with non-Africans..

Hiernaux Writes:

The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa [resemble] several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia.. - The people of Africa, 1975

Keita Writes: Much of the previous work focused on “racial” analysis. The concept of race is problematic, and (‘racial” terms have been inconsistently defined and used in African historiography as noted recently (MacGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Vercoutter, 1978).. There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual. - 1990

4) I do agree that the consensus does seem to cite an indigenous origin among Egyptians, but not among modern day Berbers of North Africa, and this is for two reasons, one of which is critical..

A. The Ancient Egyptians did not speak Berber, therefore, they were not a Berber people since Berber is a linguistic classification.

B. There is a noted heterogeneity in lower Egyptian (as opposed to Upper) remains that resembled Maghrebian patterns, but are noted to not be as homogeneous since it contains more southernly patterns.

It is also worth noting that the Egyptians had tropical body plans, or as Robins calls it, "super-negroid".. Hence, the Egyptians were tropically adapted. Comment: Egypt is not in the tropics.. Figure out the implications yourself..

In conclusion, you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about..Taharqa 01:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Response:

1) You did not respond accurately or even read accurately any of the widely-supported information that I had just entered above. Notice how you compeletely ignore Khafra in your response here and jump right to another example which has been damaged and which the cranio-facial features are by no means precisely deciphered (compared to the relatively decent condition of the Khafra statue). I also admitted that the Nubian element (as in a partial element) of some indigenous Egyptians, mostly from the south, as well as Nubians themeselves inhabiting the Kingdom of Egypt. Djoser may have pre-dated Kafra (not by much though) and may have even been of Nubian or mixed Nubian-Egyptian ancestry/origins himself, especially since he was of the ruling classes which in various Kingdoms are known to be of heterogenous origins, especially due to royal mixed marriages and conquests. You also erroneously are claiming statements I did not enter in my discourse above, and I did not say anywhere that erosion caused the protruding lower jaw of the Sphinx, I merely said that due to factors such as erosion and the elements (amongst other factors), features of giant statues like the Sphinx are not reliable in assessing facial features, especially regarding a whole ancient population. You also completely ignored the fact that it is a monument depicting a half-human, half-lion mythical creature with exaggerated features of many sorts. Even if it did reflect a ruler, and one who was either of Nubian or mixed Egyptian-Nubian origins, it would have been remniscent of a member of the ruling classes (in Egypt or Nubia), not the population itself. Clearly my comments did make sense, but you need to read them accurately first in order to understand them. As for your excerpt from one researcher (notably, you seem to over-rely on a few specific ones, especially Keita; as well as others who are known Pan-Africanist or Afrocentrists), this comment from Keita does not answer anything regarding specifically Kafra and merely states the fact that you cant rely on any of these artifacts wholly, and especially not a massive, damaged statue like the Sphinx. The characteristics also mentioned about East Africa are also found in Middle Eastern and Egyptian populations and Keita is only admitting that these features which were once attributed to elements originating from non-Africans, are indigenous to East Africa since all non-African humans migrated out of this region over 100,000 years ago, spreading to the rest of the world.

2) I have no idea what you are labelling as pseudo-scientific, but you could be no further from the truth. I very much doubt most of those researchers place all of Egyptian origins in the south (no one has claimed this whatsoever apart from Afrocentrists), and only that portion of their origins came from Upper Egypt or from Nubia. The darker-skinned populations are today still found in parts of UE, and as is shown by your own genetic studies you cited in previous discussions, is where the Nubian or East-African associated markers are most common (approx. 20%) in indigenous Egyptians. You also do not need to define endogamy to me, but I do not understand your point here. I agree that the populations were endogamous, but that the populations in Upper Egypt that originated from Lower Egypt (similar to Berbers) mixed with the Nubian elements present there (more similar ot East Africans). Most studies have stated that the East African elements (those most common there anyway) in UPPER Egypt are still smaller there than that compared to other markers more common in Lower Egypt and North Africa. You also need to take in mind that Upper Egypt is much less densely populated today than Lower Egypt and that the Nubian populations which still exist are primarily in Upper Egypt.

3) I do not know what arbitrary social construct regarding skin colour you are referring to, but defining aspects of "race" involve cranio-facial features, skin/hair/eye pigmentation, stature etc. Afrocentrism has no right whatsoever to claim all the indigenous ancient Egyptians were "black" since these views are motivated by political, extremist opinions and are insulting to most modern Egyptians today since it ignores theeir predominant non-sub-Saharan (non-Nubian) Ancient Egyptian ancestry which is indigenous to mainly Lower Egypt. Above all, they do not hold a neutral prespective on the subject matter and have been criticized by numerous Egyptologists, anthropologists, and other academics for corrupting data to weave into their own agenda. Science is suppsoed to discover facts and truth from an un-biased perspective, and clearly Afrocentristm is far from this. I never said anywhere that North-east Africans were never fully "black" and again you misinterpret my argument. I only said that they have never been the same or as closely related as other Sub-Saharan Africans of Western, Central and Southern Africa are with each other. East Africans have long been a distinct branch within Africa that has some physical and genetic features similar to non-Africans that is not shared or seen with the other divergent groups in Sub-Saharan Africa. They are of course completely indigenous and sub-saharan African, but they still show clear affinities with those populations which migrated out of Africa from that region and have a closer relation to non-Africans than those from other parts of Africa do.

Your excerpt by Hiernaux dates to 1975 and pre-dates much of the modern anthropological, archaeological and especially genetic studies regarding human populations. The Tutsi themselves originated from East Africa (the Horn), and although East Africans obviously differ from non-africans significantly, at the same time they are also the Africans most closely related to non-Africans as has been shown by population genetics (eg. Haplogroup L3 (mtDNA)). As for Keita (again your main source) it is from 1990, disagrees with more modern and complete analyses on both remains and genetics regarding the population of Upper Egypt. In anyc ase, I have not denied the significant presence of the Nubian or "East African" element in Upper Egypt, only that it was not the only ancestral indigenous group in Egypt as awhole and that the indigenous populations of Lower Egypt were more closely related to the Berbers. Upper Egypt was essentially a crossing point (between these populations and this has been shown with most sutdies. Remnants of the ancestral Nubian population are sitll found in UE to this very day, but they were not the only indigenous group in this region as it was likely a "crossing point" between the people of Lower Egypt/North Africa and the peoples of Nubia/Kush/East Africa (a singificant cline in genetic variation, which has also been clearly documented in genetic studies).

4) a) The language of the ancient Egyptians, as well as it's descendant, Coptic, was not Berber language but was most closely related to Berber: "Egyptian is an Afro-Asiatic language most closely related to Berber, Semitic, and Beja. (Loprieno 1996)" (taken from the Egyptian language article).

b) this comment here is somewhat confusing, but the population of Lower Egypt has indeed been shown to be more heterogenous than that of Upper Egypt, and both have been regarded as fairly homogenous populations retaining mainly indigenous genetic markers. The presence of East African/Nubian markers in Egypt, although still smaller compared to those more similar to the Berbers, merely shows that ancient Egypt (especially Upper Egypt) was a mix of people with origins indigenous to Nubia/Kush (which it directly borders) and with peoples indigenous to mostly Lower Egypt and North Africa (most closely related to Berbers). The cline here again has been noted by the huge majority of genetic studies since the Sahara has been shown to be a significant genetic barrier which separated the populations of Sub-Saharan Africa from those of North Africa except in the Nile Valley, which is obviously the site of Ancient Egypt.

Image of Narmer, founder of the first dynasty and unifier of the Lower and Upper Kingdoms, in the traditional pose of smiting the enemies of Egypt from the Narmer Palette.

Graywacke statue of the pharaoh Menkaura and his consort Queen Khamerernebty II. Originally from his Giza Valley temple (circa 2548-2530 B.C), now on display at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

I do not know what or from where you are reffering to regarding Egyptians having tropical "body'plans" and in this very article, there are numerous references as to why many quotes from ancient historians are not deemed as very reliable. You also needo take in mind that the writer who wrote such comments may have been referring to Nubians or Nubian-descended people within Egypt or merely exaggerating the Mediterranean or mixed Mediterranean-African features of a certain example. Also, what constitutes "tropical adaptation" in human variation apart from a very dark skin tone and who deciphers this ? I am going to conclude here that you may be pushing some elements of an Afrocentric agenda with little scientific validity, and in fact you clearly recognize that I do "know what I am talking about". Next time, I recommend you READ more carefully what I discuss and try not to get angered by the fact I'm only stating opinions and facts that are most widely held amongst scholars, and especially Egyptians. Please try to appraoch this from a more neutral perspective. Epf 03:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)).

Unfortunately you are dealing with the paragon of all Afrocentric mythology. The study about body proportions is being Afrocentrically manipulated to distort the facts... What we see is: "Stature and the pattern of body proportions were investigated in a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the biological effects on human growth of the development and intensification of agriculture, and the formation of state-level social organization. Univariate analyses of variance were performed to assess differences between the sexes and among various time periods. Significant differences were found both in stature and in raw long bone length measurements between the early semipastoral population and the later intensive agricultural population.... The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations."[10] There was LATER mixing in the southern area of Upper Egypt with Nubians that led to this body proportion, that's all. Most indigenous Egyptians were not affected by this. This needs to be corrected in the article. 80.58.205.49 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I will follow the same format, and respond by number.. Though first I'd like to say that posting random, pre-selected images after ignoring the anthropological testimony does nothing for your case. I can do the exact same thing with tiye, whom imo has striking Ethiopian features. But instead I've cited experts to say it for me instead of reducing myself to your level of sloppy original research..

"Random, pre-selected images" ? You really are starting to not make snense in alot of statements. I did not ignore anthropological or genetic testimony whatsoever and I posted sources from Keita and others below which you completely ignored. I have not posted any original research and it is you who has been quite sloppy, but very ignorant and abrasive, not even responding directly to my own sources. Epf 03:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are posting images and giving us your bunk, biased opinion of them, disregarding what the citation stated, as if we're to give undue weight to your antics. You have cited not one geneticist nor anthropologists who in any way support your distorted view. No mention of Berbers, Mediterraneans, none of that. Just intermediate/variable phenotypes and tropical variants. Your original research is extremely sloppy and easily exposed, and your reverse logic is fooling no one.Taharqa 05:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am posting images supporting the facts and opinions I have stated which are widely held among researchers. You of all people can not accuse others of bias, especially when it simply is not the case here. "You have cited not one geneticist nor anthropologists who in any way support your distorted viees". This basically proves my point that you have not read or responded to the facts and quotes I entered in this discussion which clearly DO support this widely held viewpoint. There is no original research and my quotes do specifically mention the Egyptians being closely related to the Berbers, especially Lower Egypt (and in the pre-dynastic period). Epf 06:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Tiye

Also, citing Robert Schoch' (a non-anthropologist) opinion of one statue as evidence over me citing Keita's (an anthropologist) opinion on the great bulk of Egyptian statuary really says nothing..

I already citied examples from anthropologists and geneticists as well, and I cited Keita much more thoroughly than you (and from more recent excerpts), however you completely ignored this information because it completely refuted your extremist claims. You also leave out much of Keita's excerpts to suit your biased agenda. Epf 03:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not one person out of the two (one of which was initially cited by me) has commented on your "north African Berber" or Mediterranean statuary, yet now you go off on a tangent because a noted anthropologist says most of them look like east Africans. How typical.. You are overstating your miserable case to counter anything I've given you. Your paranoia of extremism has mind rapped you of any logic you may have possessed.Taharqa 05:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you read my quotes, Keita did comment repeatedly about the relation between the indigenous people of Lower Egypt and the Berbers. My quotes from Keita were also more extensive and recent than most of those you entered. What noted Anthropologists says who looks like East Africans ? Again, almost all of what limited anthropological data you gather is from samples in Upper Egypt. You have over-stated your case and completely ignored the facts and opinions I have presented, focusing ONLY on repeating your close-minded unsupported opinions, rejecting and denying everyone and everything else. Ask anyone from a neutral POV who reads this discussion and believe me they will tell you that it is 'your paranoia of extremism' that has in fact 'mind rapped you of any logic you may have possessed' (again, you keep up with the 'ad hominem' attacks btw). Epf 06:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

1) You are seriously grasping at straws and there are so many holes on top of desperate speculation in your argument that I don't know where to start. I'll start with the ad hominem attack against Keita I guess. You assert that Prof. S.O.Y. Keita, who publishes in the most prestigious journals, was a student of Larry Angel, and is a current affiliate of the smithonian institute and foremost expert on North African biohistory, is an Afrocentrist? Let's see what a reliable source/non wikipedia editor has to say about that.

The contributions by Keita are outstanding exceptions to the general lack of both demographic study and objectivity (Keita 1990; Keita 1992). DNA research is expected to transform this debate, though self-critical consciousness is not always displayed by proponents.[11]..

In other words, that's just another asinine comment from you that can easily be disregarded as nonsense.

As far as your "expert' opinion that such sustained damage to the Sphinx should render it unreliable for analysis, funny how a Harvard Orthodontist and Senior Forensic investigator in Sheldon Peck and Frank Domingo begs to differ, in that they did just that, while drawing the relevant conclusion that the Sphinx has an African physiognomy.[12]

Funny how the scholars seem to unanimously disagree with you and all I have to do is cite them.

No its funny that you think I said it was totally unreliable for analysis. I only said that in terms of it being a half-lion, half-man creature, and subject to extensive damage, it isn't the MOST reliable when deciphering the appearance of ancient Egyptians. Also, it would be reflecting a ruling class/elite, not the general population. Regardless, there are still more numerous examples of the ruling elite (in both the Old Kingdom and the New) which did not have such "African or Nubian" features, such as Khafre.Epf 03:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

^Your opinion doesn't matter since Keita, Drake, and Petrie says most of the Old Kingdom statuary looks like East africans from the horn.[13].. In addition, Peck and Dominigo commented on the African nature of the Sphinx. Your opinion is immaterial. Not to mention that you contradict yourself by conceding earlier that art objects aren't a reliable source, yet and still refuted by the experts when you choose to rely on it as a last resort..Taharqa 05:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have nowhere contradicted myself and I still maintain that they are mostly unreliable, especially when compared to other sorts of evidence. I have never relied on it as a last resort whatsoever, and only used them as small examples since that was part of the initial topic of the discussion.Epf 06:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Pertaining to Djoser and his family having been probably of Nubian/Egyptian admixture, again, I'll address you by direct quotation:

Drake reviewed numerous volumes of photographs of Egyptian portraits and statuary; using either (old) anthropological or North American social criteria, he found large numbers of "Negroids". Petries interpretation of Dynasty III as having come from the Sudan is based on portraiture. Dynasty III can be seen as having terminated the Thinite period or having begun the Old kingdom, and had Upper Egyptian origins. - Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships

2) You are again lying to yourself and appealing once more to the all too convenient ad hominem fallacy. You claim that those who place Egyptian origins in the south are Afrocentrist? Is that right? Among the people I cited for you, not one of these people are considered by any stretch of the imagination, Afrocentric, nor are the vast majority ethnically African American.

Hassan, Wilkonson, Trigger, Keita, Ehret, Williams, Wendorf, and Vogel, etc..

At least one of those, Ehret, actually is an Africanist/Afro-centrist, but most of those, as well as most Egyptologists place the origins of Egyptians from both the Upper and Lower Kingdoms, hence the dynastic period did not begin until both were unified. Epf 03:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ehret is no where near Afrocentric, stop grasping at straws and defaming scholars.. You are so lost in your own confusion.. In any event, the citations are clear..Taharqa 05:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

'Ehret is nowhere near Afrocentric', how about Africanist then ? Don't tell me your going to be foolish enough to deny his Afrocentric opinions on Ancient Egypt, documented significantly by most Egyptologists and academics involed in this subject area. I am not 'defaming' any scholars whatsoever and not grasping at any straws, only pointout the unreliablilty of some of your sources. In any event, you seem to be lost in your own world, ignoring everyone but yourself. My citations are very clear, but you still choose to ignore them and not respond to them. Epf 06:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

^There are plenty more, and for your information, the consensus in Egyptology is that is was not from the north, so ultimately they came from the south. As a matter of fact, concerning your constant appeals to Afrocentrism, this is what the world's leading Africentric critic has to say:

On the Origin of The Egyptians

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

Wow, you're on a roll.

In addition, your claim that upper Egyptians diverged from northern Egyptians is false. The earliest ancestors and cultural forbearers to the AE were the Badarians (4000 B.C.), who were found craniometrically to be much more similar to tropical Africans than to northern Europeans, clustering very closely to the Kenyan series.[14] In other words, they were already tropical african variants to begin with.

Zakrzewski notes continuity between this group and later Egyptians.[15]

3) Hiernaux is far from outdated and is in fact supported by mainstream anthropology and cited by various anthropologists. His elongated African is well established in anthropological discourse as noted by Brace, Keita, and others. He remains generally undisputed. You were also shown another source reinforcing what Hiernaux said. Adversely, Hiernaux was the one debunking outdated anthropology. You are a wikipedia editor with no means to dispute valid research.

Claiming that the Keita source from 1990 is erroneous and is an appeal to novelty.. You've cited not one genetics study yet you feel encouraged to disputed the work of a noted professional?

How about Keita 2005, which addresses the genetics issue?

A review of the recent literature indicates that there are male lineage ties between African peoples who have been traditionally labeled as being ‘‘racially’’ different, with ‘‘racially’’ implying an ontologically deep divide. The PN2 transition, a Y chromosome marker, defines a lineage (within the YAPþ derived haplogroup E or III) that emerged in Africa probably before the last glacial maximum, but after the migration of modern humans from Africa (see Semino et al., 2004) This mutation forms a clade that has two daughter subclades (defined by the biallelic markers M35/215 (or 215/M35) and M2) that unites numerous phenotypically variant African populations from the supra-Saharan, Saharan, and sub-Saharan regions based on current data (Underhill, 2001) - S.O.Y. Keita, American Journal of Human Biology (2004)

He notes that even modern Egyptians are overwhelmingly of the PN2 derivation. Again, these variants have nothing to do with non-Africans, but unites populations throughout.

4) The Egyptians spoke Afro-asiatic, which is a language phylum indigenous to Africa, with particular origins south of Egypt, most likely in Ethiopia. Relationships notwithstanding, many consider it to relate closest with that of Chadic and Berber, Beja and/or Semitic, depending on the linguist; however, most concur that the entire language phyla its self originated in Africa, with ancient Egyptian being on a variety that never left, and with Semitic being the only one that did.

Ehret groups Egyptian, Berber, and Semitic together in a North Afro-Asiatic subgroup
Paul Newman (1980) groups Berber with Chadic and Egyptian with Semitic, while questioning the inclusion of Omotic;
Fleming (1981) divided non-Omotic Afroasiatic, or "Erythraean", into three groups, Cushitic, Semitic, and Chadic-Berber-Egyptian; he later added Semitic and Beja to the latter, and proposed Ongotá as a tentative new third branch of Erythraean;
Lionel Bender (1997) advocates a "Macro-Cushitic" consisting of Berber, Cushitic, and Semitic, while regarding Chadic and Omotic as the most remote branches;
Vladimir Orel and Olga Stolbova (1995) group Berber with Semitic, group Chadic with Egyptian, and split Cushitic into five or more independent branches of Afro-Asiatic, seeing Cushitic as a Sprachbund rather than a valid family;
Alexander Militarev (2000), on the basis of lexicostatistics, groups Berber with Chadic and both, more distantly, with Semitic, as against Cushitic and Omotic.

“

The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian.

”

- - Professor Christopher Ehret. "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture", Egypt in Africa, (1996), pp. 23-24

Your simplistic method at presenting correct information is less than sufficient..

B) There is no such thing as a "Nubian marker" and the African markers that are found among modern Egyptians are most consistent with Ethiopians, etc, with a few variants in common with lower Sudan by way of paternal ancestry. As a matter of fact, Lucotte and Mercier 2003 shows that judging from the haplotypes observed, southern Egyptians shared genetically closer ties with Northern Sudan than with Northern Egypt, indicated by high frequencies of E3, or V, XI, and IV. With XI and IV being far more dominant in southern Egypt and lower Nubia but relatively scarce in lower/northern Egypt, while V was far more dominant in lower Egypt, but relatively scarce in southern Egypt and lower Sudan, respectively. The outliners in this study were the lower Egyptians.

5) Your problem is that you don't pay attention. I inform you of the fact that ancient Egyptians had tropical body plans/limb ratios, and you go off on a tangent about the reliability of ancient accounts. I'm referring to modern science my confused friend, simply ask for a citation. And no, they were Nubians, the subjects of the studies were all Egyptians. Skeletons were examined from the predynastic all the way into the dynastic, and the results were the same, with only a slight change in stature (not limb ratio) due to diet, suggesting the the ancient Egyptians generally had tropical body plans.

Gay Robins writes:

An attempt has been made to estimate male and female Egyptian stature from long bone length usingTrotter &Gleser negro stature formulae, previous work by the authors having shown that these rather than white formulae give more consistent results with male dynastic material. Evidence is presented that the tibia length should include the spine in the later (1958) formulae and should exclude it in the earlier (1952) formulae. It is also shown that better results are obtained if the constants in the stature formulae are modified so as to conform more exactly with the basic data published byTrotter &Gleser. When consistency has been achieved in this way, predynastic, proportions are founded to be such that distal segments of the limbs are even longer in relation to the proximal segments than they are in modern negroes. Such proportions are termed «super-negroid»[16]

Similarly, Boyce and Keita point out:

Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans. - S.O.Y. Keita & A. J. Boyce. Egypt in Africa, (1996), pp. 25-27

Zakrzewski confirms these results while also assessing continuity throughout the dynastic. She writes:

The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; (data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations. - Sonia Zakrzewski (2003)

^You see, the problem is not that I didn't read what you wrote, but that what you've written is totally irrelevant to the facts.. I wish you well nonetheless..Taharqa 04:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Taharaq, I don't have time to fully answer to all this manipulation of quotes and evidence to suit your agenda. You claim to have all this evidence thats widely supported, but you compeltely ignore a larger amount of evidence, shown even in the article, which either coincides or completely refutes alot of the evidence you posted. You also completely misinterpreted much of what I entered into my discussions above, and again you have misinterpreted your own data. Btw, there are a few markers very common to Nubians, but I never said "Nubian markers", I said patterns most common to Nubians, which also happen to be most similar to other East Africans. This is just one example why it's probably not even worth my time to respond to you anymore since you don't accurately read my arguments. Another example is how you claim I labelled Keita as an Afrocentrist which I did not, and haven't researched this academic's background, but only stated that you tended to over-rely on evidence from this source and afew minority of others (clearly I see now that Keita is a reliable source and we have both a variety of sources. The thing you need to realize is that both your fringe evidence and the supported evidence which you have somewhat manipulated into your arguments, almost entirely deal with the indigenous inhabitants of Upper Egypt rather than Lower Egypt. You also completely ignore the fact that not all of Ancient Egypt originated in the south/UE, and the two pre-dynastic Kingdoms were UNIFIED either by Narmer or Menes. In any case, no evidence and none you have provided has shown that the Upper Egyptian populace was dominated by a people 'most similar' to the Nubians and most scholars agree that it was likely a mix between the indigenous population most similar to Berbers (most common in Lower Egypt) and those more similar to Nubians and East Africans, just as there is today in Upper Egypt (too a much lesser extent though).

IF you know anything about Egyptian history, you would know that although the Badarian culture is the oldest pre-dynstic society to have been found (so far) in Upper Egypt, it doesn't negate the fact that the Lower Kingdom arose independently itself until the two were unified.

"Most archaeological sites in Egypt have been excavated only in Upper Egypt, because the silt of the Nile River was more heavily deposited at the delta region, and most delta sites from the predynastic period have since been totally buried. (Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. (Princeton: University Press, 1992), p. 10.) Although Lower Egypt seems to have had a significantly different culture, its nature is still unknown. (Redford)"

(This quote was as taken from the Predynastic Egypt)

Now, throw in the genetic evidence on this very article showing the greatest genetic similarities between people in Lower Egypt to the Berbers of North Africa, with little relation to Nubians or other groups more related to EAST Africans, and you can see how the indigenous populace of Lower Egypt was distinct in many ways from Upper Egypt, just as it is today (though to a lesser extent). All of the modern population genetics studies of this region and others in Europe/Middle/Asia East clearly show the the dominant continuation of indigenous populations over time. In Lower Egypt, the indigenous element has shown to be a population most related to the Berbers of North Africa which have aways inhabited the land there, not to Greeks, not to Arabs, not to Nubians or any other recent settlers which left little demographic impact in the lands they conquered. The main traces in the Egyptian populace to Nubians or peoples more similar to East Africans are in Upper Egypt. The vast majority of anthropologists and geneticists agree there was significant difference between the Lower and Upper Egyptian populations, with those in Upper Egypt still retaining markers more similar to Nubians, Ethiopians etc. compared to Lower Egypt where there is little presence of these markers.

"Beginning in the predynastic period, some differences between the populations of Upper and Lower Egypt were ascertained through their skeletal remains, suggesting a gradual clinal pattern north to south. (Batrawi A (1945). The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, Part I. J Roy Anthropol Inst 75:81-102.; Batrawi A. 1946. The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, Part II. J Roy Anthropol Inst 76:131-156.; Keita SOY (1990). Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa. Am J Phys Anthropol 83:35–48.; Keita SOY (1992). Further studies of crania from ancient northern Africa: an analysis of crania from First Dynasty Egyptian tombs. Am J Phys Anthropol 87:245–254.)"

"Some biological anthropologists such as Shomarka Keita believe the range of variability to be primarily indigenous and not necessarily the result of significant intermingling of widely divergent peoples. (Keita SOY and Rick A. Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544). Keita describes the northern and southern patterns of the early predynastic period as "northern-Egyptian-Maghreb" and "tropical African variant" (overlapping with Nubia/Kush) respectively. He shows that a progressive change in Upper Egypt toward the northern Egyptian pattern takes place through the predynastic period. The southern pattern continues to predominate in Abydos, Upper Egypt by the First Dynasty, but "lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity. (Keita 1992, p. 251)"

Above taken from Egyptians article.

I believe that will end whatever agenda or goals you may (or may not) have had in this discussion, or claims of dominance in the whole Ancient population of peoples most similar to Nubians, Ethiopians etc., when clearly there was a significant distinction between the indigenous Lower and Upper populations, and in Ancient Egypt there was more of a gradual cline in the genetic variation from north (more similar to Berbers) to south (with increasing similarities to Nubians, etc). Epf 23:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"A review of the recent literature indicates that there are male lineage ties between African peoples who have been traditionally labeled as being ‘‘racially’’ different, with ‘‘racially’’ implying an ontologically deep divide. The PN2 transition, a Y chromosome marker, defines a lineage (within the YAPþ derived haplogroup E or III) that emerged in Africa probably before the last glacial maximum, but after the migration of modern humans from Africa (see Semino et al., 2004) This mutation forms a clade that has two daughter subclades (defined by the biallelic markers M35/215 (or 215/M35) and M2) that unites numerous phenotypically variant African populations from the supra-Saharan, Saharan, and sub-Saharan regions based on current data (Underhill, 2001) - S.O.Y. Keita, American Journal of Human Biology (2004)"

"He notes that even modern Egyptians are overwhelmingly of the PN2 derivation. Again, these variants have nothing to do with non-Africans, but unites populations throughout." Taharaq

He does note that the marker emerged in Africa after migration of modern humans out of Africa, but he only states that the marker "unifies" some of the populations of Sub-Saharan, Saharan and supra-Saharan Africa, but not to which extent. Most of these populations cited have mixed, (eg. the Tuaregs of the Sahara) to varying degrees, but the presence of the marker in supra-Saharan/North African populations, although present, is very minimal.

An example of the connection, although minor, from sub-saharans in North African populations, resembling a steep gradient (compared to a more gradual one in Egypt).

"Rando et al. 1998 (as cited by[17]) "detected female-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa to NW Africa" amounting to as much as 21.5% of the mtDNA sequences in a sample of NW African populations; the amount varied from 82% (Touaregs, group of mixed sub-Saharan and Berber origins) to 4% (Rifains, Berber/Arab-Berber people). This north-south gradient in the sub-Saharan contribution to the gene pool is supported by Esteban et al." Epf 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

80.58.205.49, I think you're lost. Putting your own spin on the said study does not in reality distort its implication, it merely shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. There is no mention of admixture with Nubians (only a possible Nubian sample in the MK), the preceding populations still had a tropical morphology that clustered along side later Egyptians more than any other population, and the implication is verified by both Keita and Robins just in case you're confused. The only thing that needs to be changed is your attention to detail. Thanx for your concern anyways..Taharqa 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Epf, your main problem is that you expect me to let you get away with your feeble rhetoric and lies without calling you out on it. You indeed asserted that Keita is a well-known pan-africanist and afrocentric, which is laughable and shows how this little discussion was a far gone conclusion from the start. You indeed did use the term "Nubian markers", though when I call you out on the shear ignorance of that statement, you try to save face. The last resort for someone in your situation is to basically babble and accuse, yet not defend or demonstrate. Your claim was that I've shown no evidence that Upper Egyptians were most closely related the East Africans, when I did by direct quotation. The problem is that you conveniently choose not to read what is presented to you. You've shown nothing but sloppy, scatter-brained original research and I will reiterate the point:

No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; (data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. - Sonia Zakrzewski

A review of studies covering the biological relationship of the ancient Egyptians was undertaken. An overview of the data from the studies suggests that the major biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical Africans. The range of indigenous tropical African phenotypes is great; and this range of variation must be considered in any discussion of the Nile Valley peoples. The early southern Egyptians belonged primarily to an African descent group which gained some Near Eastern affinity through gene flow with the passage of time. - Dept. of Sociology-Anthropology Anatomy and Plastic Surgery, Howard University, 20059 Washington, D.C., USA

^There is no way for any fair-minded person without a nefarious agenda to take this out of context, there is nothing to take out of context. Only those in denial, obsessed with distorting relevant facts for their own self-esteem will be able to so overtly spin something that is otherwise so clear..

I find it funny you claim this here when you yourself ignore my evidence from Keita and others which shows that Lower Egyptians are quite distinct from this and show more affinities to Berbers, compared to the affinities to Nubians in Upper Egypt. I have not misinterpretd this excerpt here whatsoever and never refuted or disagreed with it, but you have completely ignored the evidence which shows the largeer affinities in mostly Lower Egypt, but also Egypt overall (on average) to the Berbers (though in specifically Upper Egypt there is much more affinities to Nubians). Epf 01:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

1) Upper Egyptians were an early African descent group who received gene flow from the near east overtime. If you'd read Keita, he emphatically states that if any admixture happened by the first dynasty, it did little to effect the population in Upper Egypt.

2) The AE were tropically adapted like more southernly Africans, as can be inferred by their elongated limb ratio.

I've also already addressed Northern Egyptians as well..

"The Lower Egyptian pattern is 'intermediate' to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan" - Keita 1992

I know that breaks you heart, but it turns out that they weren't any more similar to Northern Europeans phenotypically than they were to West Africans and Khoisan. While the Southerners were Tropical variants. This stuff isn't as hard as you make it out to be, lol..

Actually, if YOU knew anything about Egyptian history you'd know that Badari culture was the predecessor to Naqada, Naqada was the predecessor to all culture which defined Egypt as Egypt was unified from the south. Southern culture = Egyptian culture as Northern culture conformed. All Egyptologists are very aware of this, while you're the only one who isn't.[18]

It is also funny now how you change the entire premise of your argument to the lower Egyptians. You're reporting to me what I've already been over and have never denied.

Also, your straw man argument is more than apparent. I've never climed that the entire Egyptian population belonged to one fixed architype, that there can be effectively ignored as a logical fallacy to weasel away from the fact that this entire time you've had no point and oppositely, you're the one who was trying to box Egyptians into your little "North African Berber" category, which has been easily proven to be fallacious. You had a nice run though..Taharqa 00:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Response:

Again, you are misinterpreting my discussion and claiming things I did not say. I NEVER said Keita specifically was a pan-africanist or an Afrocentrist, and only stated that other sources you used were (I didnt specify then, but an example is Christopher Ehret, a known pan-Africanist and Afrocentrist). Yes I did say "Nubian markers' but I intended it to be as a 'short form' for a pattern of markers that are most commonly found in Nubian or other similar East African populations. I did not 'babble and'accuse' whatsoever, and nowhere near to what you have (and are doing now), but made a clear and concise argument with more evident sources.

"Your claim was that I've shown no evidence that Upper Egyptians were most closely related the East Africans, when I did by direct quotation."

I NEVER claimed this and I would like you to actually find where I made any claim of the sort, and again, do you even READ my discussions clearly and thoroughly ? OBVIOUSLY NOT. I have by no means cited "scatter-brained, sloppy" original research and merely summarized that data from most sources I was reffering to in the matter. In my last discussion I actually entered much of thiese sources for you to actually read, but clearly you have ignored them. Again, your quotes prior to this last entry here were ALL DEALING WITH UPPER EGYPT.

"I've also already addressed Northern Egyptians as well..

"The Lower Egyptian pattern is 'intermediate' to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan" - Keita 1992"

This is the first time you've really addressed Lower Egypt, and you also compeltely IGNORED all of the sources and evidence I posted above, including alot from KEITA about the differences between Lower and Upper Egypt in the pre-dynastic period.

"I know that breaks you heart, but it turns out that they weren't any more similar to Northern Europeans phenotypical than they were to West Africans and Khoisan. While the Southerners were Tropical variants. This stuff isn't as hard as you make it out to be, lol.."

What are you talking about ?? This statement makes little or no sense, and again my own evidence, including from Keita completely shows that Lower Egyptians in the pre-dynastic period (and the present day) were far more similar to other inidigenous North Africans such as the Berbers. I also NEVER mentioned "Northern Europeans" and the fact you keep entering this in the discussion CLEARLY shows your AFROCENTRISM.

"Actually, if YOU knew anything about Egyptian history you'd know that Badari culture was the predecessor to Naqada, Naqada was the predecessor to all culture which defined Egypt as Egypt was unified from the south. Southern culture = Egyptian culture as Northern culture conformed. All Egyptologists are very aware of this, while you're the only one who isn't"

And if you actually would take the time to READ my discussion and evidence above, I clearly showed that both Naqada and Badari were confined to Upper Egypt, not to Lower Egypt. My evidence and most academics agree, that the origins of Lower Egypt are still mainly unknown since: (I am re-posting this since you decided to ignore it)

"Most archaeological sites in Egypt have been excavated only in Upper Egypt, because the silt of the Nile River was more heavily deposited at the delta region, and most delta sites from the predynastic period have since been totally buried. (Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. (Princeton: University Press, 1992), p. 10.) Although Lower Egypt seems to have had a significantly different culture, its nature is still unknown. (Redford)"

Lower and Upper Egypt had distinct cultures, and aspects of the Dynastic period originated from both Kingdoms. You also need to take in mind that Egyptologists currently dont even know who actually unified the Kingdoms in the first place (Narmer?, Menes? or others?), but that tablet of the Narmer Palette I showed previously shows him with BOTH the symbols of Upper Egypt AND Lower Egypt.

"Also, your straw man argument is more than apparent. I've never climed that the entire Egyptian population belonged to one fixed architype, that there can be effectively ignored as a logical fallacy to weasel away from the fact that this entire time you've had no point and oppositely, you're the one who was trying to box Egyptians into your little "North African Berber" category, which has been easily proven to be fallacious. You had a nice run though"

The fact you keep saying I have a [[straw man] argument shows what little validity you have in this, especially when you just compltely ignored the evidence I stated. You actually have been claiming that the Ancient Egyptian population was dominated by a poulation more similar to the Nubians, East Africans, etc. with various examples, including the (old) quote from Keita which I refuted with more recent evidence ALSO from Keita showing the actual significant distinction between Lower and Upper indigenous Egyptian populations. I have just shown with the evidence I posted, not to mention overwhelming other sources not shown here, clearly stating that Lower Egypt, including the indigenous people there during the pre-dynastic period, were most similar to other people of North Africa, such as the Berbers, and is no where near being "fallacious". This also goes to shows again that you deny the significant evidence showing that indigenous Lower Egyptians and a few Upper Egyptians had more similarities to the Berbers. Clearly you are advocating some domniance of Ancient Egypt by people more similar ot he Nubians when no evidence and few researchers support this, including KEITA. Epf 00:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Beginning in the predynastic period, some differences between the populations of Upper and Lower Egypt were ascertained through their skeletal remains, suggesting a gradual clinal pattern north to south. (Batrawi A (1945). The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, Part I. J Roy Anthropol Inst 75:81-102.; Batrawi A. 1946. The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, Part II. J Roy Anthropol Inst 76:131-156.; Keita SOY (1990). Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa. Am J Phys Anthropol 83:35–48.; Keita SOY (1992). Further studies of crania from ancient northern Africa: an analysis of crania from First Dynasty Egyptian tombs. Am J Phys Anthropol 87:245–254.)"

"Some biological anthropologists such as Shomarka Keita believe the range of variability to be primarily indigenous and not necessarily the result of significant intermingling of widely divergent peoples. (Keita SOY and Rick A. Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544). Keita describes the northern and southern patterns of the early predynastic period as "northern-Egyptian-Maghreb" and "tropical African variant" (overlapping with Nubia/Kush) respectively. He shows that a progressive change in Upper Egypt toward the northern Egyptian pattern takes place through the predynastic period. The southern pattern continues to predominate in Abydos, Upper Egypt by the First Dynasty, but "lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity. (Keita 1992, p. 251)"

I cited this again, because you completely ignored it before. Epf 00:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I swear, you're doing nothing now but babbling. I saw no new citations presented so I'll make this short..

It seems that you have done a complete 180 and you now have completely focused your attention on lower Egypt, which I was never concerned with, and you keep citing a statement that I helped contribute to the article as if it is evidence against me; surely you make no sense, in addition to your straw man arguments.. Bullet points..

You claimed that Egyptians as a whole are most closely related to modern Berbers,

I called you out on the strangeness of that claim by pointing out to you that Egyptians didn't speak a Berber language, that Upper Egyptians overlapped more southernly Africans, and that lower Egyptians were more heterogeneous than modern day Berbers.

Unable to refute any of it, you continue to babble and misrepresent my position.

^Point and case: you have no point.. Thank you for your time..Taharqa 01:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I did put new citations, but you chose to completely ignore those above because it removes much of whatever points you were trying to make. I have by no means made a complete "180" and YOU were the one who focused nearly ALL of your evidence on UPPER EGYPT. I have made no 'straw man' arguments and you sound ridiculous by continuing to assert this. I also have no idea what you mean by you 'citing a statement...as if its evidence against you', I don't know what you are getting at there. I was, from the start, concerned with Ancient Egyptians as a whole, but you could only support your extremist views and agenda on the matter with evidence only regarding Upper Egypt.

"You claimed that Egyptians as a whole are most closely related to modern Berbers"

I claimed that on the whole, most of the indigenous Egyptians have more genetic affinities with other peopels of NOrth Africa suc has the Berbers. This is very true for modern Egyptians, but in the pre-dynasti c period, there was more distinction between Lower Egypt (more related to the Berbers) and Upper Egypt (which had more affinities with Nubians than those in Lower Egypt)

"I called you out on the strangeness of that claim by pointing out to you that Egyptians didn't speak a Berber language, that Upper Egyptians overlapped more southernly Africans, and that lower Egyptians were more heterogeneous than modern day Berbers."

There was no 'strangeness' and I actually acknoledged these claims and agreed with that there were more Nubian elements in upper Egypt. I also agreed the Egyptians did not speak a Berber language, but a language that was most similar to Berber than to other languages, especially dialects in Lower Egypt. I also agreed that Lower Egyptians were slightly more heterogenous than the Berbers, with minor other Nubian influxes from Upper Egypt and the middle east, but clearly showed they were still a largely homogenous and indigenous population to Lower Egypt, most similar to the Berbers. I also stated that the Kingdom itself had people of different origins, but the majority Egyptians were indigenous to Lower Egypt, and were distinct in genetic affinities from the peopel fo Upper Egypt showing a gradual cline in variation between north and south (more gradual now than in pre-dynastic times).

"Unable to refute any of it, you continue to babble and misrepresent my position"

In fact I did refute much of it, and did not 'babble' whatsoever. Anyone who reads this debate will clearly see that it is you who did not read much of my arguments, misinterpreted much of what I stated, and also re-worded numerous statements to try and undermine my position.

Point and case, I obviously made very good points that you were annoyed by or had difficulty responding to directly because of your own extremist viewpoint and agenda on the issue (as other users in discussions with you have also pointed out). Your arrogant, abrasive, and complete rejection of other facts and viewpoints which refute your opinions without even considering them did not help what support you had in this debate. Ciao, Epf 01:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Quote: I did put new citations, but you chose to completely ignore those above because it removes whatever points you were trying to make. I have by no means made a complte "180" and YOU were the one who focused nearly ALL of your evidence on UPPER EGYPT. I have made no 'straw man' arguments and you sound ridiculous by continuing to assert this. I also have no idea what you mean by you 'citing a statement...as if its evidence against you', I don't know what you are getting at there. I was, from the start, concerned with Ancient Egyptians as a whole, but you could only support your extremist views and agenda on the matter with evidence only regarding Upper Egypt.

The so-called "new citations" that you've presented are nothing more than sources that I've already used initially to refute your initial bogus claims. If you'd notice, my evidence is merely to debunk this nonsense section, and to do that all I need to cite is studies from Upper Egypt, so what's your point? Upper Egypt was the driving force behind dynastic Egypt as well, though at the end of the day, as noted, neither group was closely related to Northern Europeans. The only extreme views have obviously come from you as none of it is backed by the evidence.

Actually, you never used the specific sources I entered and you only used one similar author of the sources I cited (Keita). I subsequently posted more detailed evidence from Keita which you omitted anad ignored completely because it refuted your claims. You only cite evidence from Upper Egypt because that is the only evidence which shows populations similar to Nubians and others in Ancient Egypt, completely ignoring the distinct people and culture of Lower Egypt. Both Lower and Upper Egypt were driving forces behind Dynastic Egypt and "from the Tasian period onward, it appears that Upper Egypt was influenced strongly by the culture of Lower Egypt. (Grimal, Nicolas. A History of Ancient Egypt. p.35. Librairie Arthéme Fayard, 1988.)" Also, you erroneously stated earlier that the Naqada culture pre-dated the Badarian when in fact, it followed it.

Epf 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your circular reasoning will not suffice here. You merely re-quoted a source that I'm already aquainted with and used it as a red herring. That's not going to work. The point is that your Berber claims have been dismantled by way of lingustic and skeletal evidence, along with your claims of "caucasian" affinity, seeing as how the northern pattern is intermediate, while the southern is tropical variant.

Intermediate - lying between two extremes in time or space or degree

Saharo-tropical variant - Patterns which subsumes the range of morphologies of great time depth found (exclusively) in Africa. - See Keita, 1993

Circular reasoning ? do you even know what that means ? I did not re-quote ANY of YOUR sources (but did not respond directly to them, unlike you with my quotes) and again you are re-wording entries and making false accusations towards my arguments because they easily refuted yours. My Berber claims have by no means been dismantled, did you even read the references I cited by Keita stating that indigenous Lower Egyptians were most similar to Berbers ? You provided no linguistic evidence that refutues the BErber connection, only enhanced it and your skeletal (and most other evidence) is restricted to UPPER EGYPT. KEita has never said the northern pattern was intermediate and if you read my quote correctly, you wil lsee that Lower Egyptians were most related to Berbers, not Nubians, East Africans, etc. Keita also states that the Maghrebi-Lower Egyptian affinities were also present in Upper Egypt, though to a lesser extent than in Lower Egypt. Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I also reiterate, southern culture totally replaced northern culture during the process of unification. Common knowledge..

The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. - Joseph O. Vogel.Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, AltaMira Press, (1997), pp. 465-472Taharqa 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice how he specifies UPPER Egypt and makes no reference to any sort of connection between the Sudanese transplant and that of Lower Egypt which was distinct from Upper Egypt. Dynastic Egypt only began when Lower and Upper Egypt unified, and both Kingdoms contributed. As I have already stated, nowhere do Egyptologists belive that Upper Egypt "replaced" northern culture, especially when I already quoted Redford stating that from the Tasian period onward (the preiod that PRE-DATES the Badarian culture), Upper Egypt was strongly influenced byt he culture of Lower Egypt. Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I claimed that on the whole, most of the indigenous Egyptians have more genetic affinities with other peopels of NOrth Africa suc has the Berbers. This is very true for modern Egyptians, but in the pre-dynasti c period, there was more distinction between Lower Egypt (more related to the Berbers) and Upper Egypt (which had more affinities with Nubians than those in Lower Egypt)

Your claim was shown to have been bunk when I showed you the study of Badari crania, showing them to cluster closest along side tropical Africans. We all know that Badari culture is the predecessor of Egyptian culture while northern Egypt was not. I've also shown you that there was continuity in upper Egypt that lasted into the dynastic and that Egyptians as a whole had tropical body plans, while Berbers do not.

If you would have READ my sources and arguments, that claim is what is mostly held and what has been most shown by both genetics and anthropology. Again you only focus on evidence (Badari crania) from Upper Egypt. What most Egyptologists know is that the Tasian culture pre-dated and overlapped with Badarian culture, and ultimately it was the predecessor of Egyptian culture since, and as I already quoted, from the Tasian period onward, it appears that Upper Egypt was influenced strongly by the culture of Lower Egypt. You have by no means showed that "Egyptians as a whole" had "tropical body plans" since practically all the evidence citing this comes from Upper Egypt. The evidence from Keita and others I stated has also shown that the indigenous Lower Egyptian popultation was most cloesly related to the Berbers, so this in turn would also refute your claim.

Epf 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, Zakrzewski clearly shows that Badari is related to later Egyptians in her 2007 paper[19], while the body plan is found to remain stable through out time, from the samples studied (PD to MK).

Re-quoting:

The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; (data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations[20]

I've addressed lower Egyptian culture vs. southern above by citation..Taharqa 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You actually didn't address anything in Lower Egypt vs. Upper Egypt, only pushing some completely unsupported POV that Upper Egyptian culture was solely or even mainly responsible for Dynastic Egypt and heavily influenced Lower Egypt. This ridiculous claim is barely supported whatsoever and as I have shown with the quote from Redford, the opposite was true from the Tasian period onward. Both Lower and Upepr Egypt formed the culture of Dynastic Egypt. In terms of the evidence of Zakrzewski, I have already staed evidence from numerous sources, including Keita which contradict this, but the quote above is again specifically referring to mainly Upper Egyptian samples.Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no 'strangeness' and I actually acknoledged these claims and agreed with that there were more Nubian elements in upper Egypt. I also agreed the Egyptians did not speak a Berber language, but a language that was most similar to Berber than to other languages, especially dialects in Lower Egypt. I also agreed that Lower Egyptians were slightly more heterogenous than the Berbers, with minor other Nubian influxes from Upper Egypt and the middle east, but clearly showed they were still a largely homogenous and indigenous population to Lower Egypt, most similar to the Berbers. I also stated that the Kingdom itself had people of different origins, but the majority Egyptians were indigenous to Lower Egypt, and were distinct in genetic affinities from the peopel fo Upper Egypt showing a gradual cline in variation between north and south (more gradual now than in pre-dynastic times)

1) "Nubia' was never a unified state, remember that Egypt is older than Kush and the first state in the Sudan was Ta-seti, which was actually the first nome of Upper Egypt. The element in Upper Egypt was an Egyptian element since they were the first people there and ones who dynastic culture is attributed to, I have demonstrated this by citation against your ranting.

2) Egyptian was not most similar to Berber and I'[ve even listed linguists who've cited a closer relationship to Chadic, spoken by the people of Chad.. Also scholars have made a notable connection with the Beja.

Quote: Many scholars believe the Beja to be derived from early Egyptians because of their language and physical features. They are the indigenous people of this area, and we first know of them in historical references in the Sixth Dynasty of ancient Egypt.[21]

Typical Beja girl

When did I claim that Nubia was a unified state ? I was merely referring to the indigenous people of that region. The element related to Nubians in Upper Egypt was an 'Egyptian' element in the sense it was an ancestral population of Upper Egypt, but it still was closely related to the peoples of Nubia and had origins stemming from there. Dynastic culture is attributed to both Lower and Upper Egypt as I have shown, and again began with the unification of those two kingdoms. Read the article on Ancient Egyptian language and you will see how Berber is considered by most linguists to be the most closely related to Ancient Egyptian and especially the Lower dialects. I also admit that it was closely related to Beja and Chadic.

Epf 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you keep referencing "Nubians" as if people whom lived in southern Egypt from the Neolithic until the dynastic were "Nubians" when there was never a state called "Nubia" in antiquity. Territory of Naqada peoples overlapped that of the A-group, but at the same time, neither of these people can be defined as "Nubians". What you mean to say is that Upper Egyptians had tropical relationships, like other southernly Africans.. The rest of what you're saying is redundant..Taharqa 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, actually I keep referring to the affinities between indigenous people in Upper Egypt with the bordering Nubians to the south of that region. The Nubians were the indigenous peoples of these lands, and as you know eventually formed the Kingdom of Kush. Whati mean to say is what I said, that Upper Egyptians had genetic affinities with specifically Nubians, Ethiopians and other peoples of East Africa, not other sub-sharan Africans who are quite distinct from these groups (divergent groups as has ben shown by Y-chromosome and MtDNA analysis, eg. MtDNA haplogroups L1, L2 and L3). ALso, Keita still clearly shows that even in pre-dynastic times, Maghrebi-Egyptian genetic affinities were also found in Upepr Egypt, but no where near as dominant or as common as in Lower Egypt. Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

3) Your claim once again that the majority of Egyptians descend from lower Egypt is clearly proven false by the archaological data seeing as how the first urban centers were at Abydos, from whence Egypt was united. Of course being proven wrong and all, this is your last resort, At the end of the day, the most renowned Egyptologists don't agree with you, even as it concerns Egypt as a whole.

When did I ever say the majority of Egyptians descend from Upper Egypt ? I thought that was the point you were wrongfully pursuing ? I have constantly mentioned the contribution of both Upper and Lower Egypt, but with a slightly larger emphasis on Lower Egypt since that is where the bulk of the population came from, and the indigenous peoples who had more affinities to other North Africans/Berbers. Abydos is indeed in Upper Egypt, but although it was one of the oldest sites, it still doesn't negate the presence of equally old sites in Lower Egypt, or the fact that when Narmer (or Menes or who else) unified the two kingdoms, Memphis in Lower Egypt was chose as the capital. Rememeber as I stated from my previous quote by Redford, "most archaeological sites in Egypt have been excavated only in Upper Egypt", and "although Lower Egypt seems to have had a significantly different culture, its nature is still unknown".

Epf 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I edited myself; I meant lower Egypt. The first and most complex centers were in Upper Egypt and as the state began to unite, southerners moved north, adding to the populace. This is all mentioned in much of the work I've cited. Upper Egypt is the seat of the founding dynasty.Taharqa 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well actually, based on the number of sites that have been uncovered so far, there were more complex urban centres in Upper Egypt. Also, its typical of yoru arrogance that you admit southerners moving north, while same time ignoring the movement of northerners to south (unless they were already indigenous to that region as well), as has been shown by Keita. Upper Egypt was the seat of the founding dynasty ? based on who and what exactly ? Narmer, Hor-Aha or Menes ? because from the information I've read, they not only dont know who unified the two kingdoms, they don't know the kingdom of origin of these leaders. Again, I also stress the fact that the culture of Lower Egypt significantly affected that of Upper Egypt from the Tasian (pre-dating Badarian) period onwards. Both Lower and Upper Egypt were responsible for the culture of the Dynastic period. Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Frank Yurco.. "Among the foreigners, the Nubians were closest ethnically to the Egyptians. In the predynastic period, the Nubians shared the same culture as the Egyptians and even evolved the same Pharaonic structure"[22]

I don't dispute this since Nubia bordered Upper Egypt, but 'ethnically' encompasses culture as well as ancestral origins and physical appearance, and clearly the quote is referring more to cultural relations. Also, was Yurco specifying relations between Upper Egypt to Nubia or Egypt as a whole during the unified, dynastic period ? Epf 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Spin it as you will, but the article is dealing with whether or not the Egyptians were "black or white", which is irrelevant and subjective. Ethnic groups are related by way of similar ancestry as well as culture, there's no need to distort the connotation.Taharqa 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not spinning anything here, but the article and relation it speaks of seems to be mainly from a cultural perspective, not an ancestral one. There's no distortion here whatsoever and I already stated above that both ancestry and culture encompass ethnicity. When you speak of ethnicity though, it doesn't automatically include both and this quote clearly mentions that the Nubians shared the same CULTURE as the Egyptians, but is specifically referring to Upper Egypt, not Lower (since the number of archaeological sites has been far less and the origins of Lower Egypt more obscure). Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact I did refute much of it, and did not 'babble' whatsoever. Anyone who reads this debate will clearly see that it is you who did not read much of my arguments, misinterpreted much of what I stated, and also re-worded numerous statements to try and undermine my position.

Appealing to imaginary people will not help make sense of your garbled rhetoric and lack of substantiation. You have clearly been refuted on almost all acounts and the most you can provide is boring semantics.

What do you mean by appealing to 'imaginary people' ? You mean like the other people in this discussion ? How about the examples posted here about you from Egyegy ? I do not need this to make sense of my valid and much more widely held facts and opinions. You in fact are the one who has been soundly refuted and who's extremist, Africanist, Afrocentric viewpoints have clearly been exposed. Epf 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Egyegy is the last person you'd want to personally attack me with. Personal attacks are a sign of petty desperation reflective of a disorganized and unprepared presentation of an extremely sloppy argument. It is a lack luster response to a situation that you find your self humiliated in, thus, you resort to ridiculous ad hominems like "Afrocentrist" this and that, appealing to ethnicity, while conceding within your self that you have ultimately accomplished nothing whatsoever.. That's not going to work..Taharqa 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know that user, but I was only using it as one example (which itself inluded many examples of your abrasive, arrogant and agenda-fuelled behaviour). I find it amusing you say "that personal attacks are a sign of petty desperation reflective of a disorganized and unprepared presentation of an extremely sloppy argument." I couldn't agree with you more, so why have you resorted to such personal attacks ? Your behaviour in this discussion has been ridiculous, its evident your pushing some agenda with extremist viewpoints, you ignore to respond to any of my quoted material and facts, and you are most guilty of what you ignorantly accuse me of (such as personal attacks). There is no lack luster response and its maazing how you keep describing the format of your own arguments when criticizing mine. You are the one who has most likely been 'humiliated' and embarrassed yourself here, again with your extremist viewpoints now exposed. You by far have resorted to more ad hominem attacks than anyone,and in fact you prove that I have accomplished much by engaging you in this to debate to expose your ridculous, unsupported opinions. Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Point and case, I obviously made very good points that you were annoyed by or had difficulty responding to directly because of your own extremist viewpoint and agenda on the issue (as other users in discussions with you have also pointed out). Your arrogant, abrasive, and complete rejection of other facts and viewpoints which refute your opnions without even considering them did not help what supprot you had in this debate.

Point and case, you once again have no point and have effectively reduced yourself to the status of conspiracy nut, while not addressing the numerous citations and facts put before you. But hey, who can blame you?Taharqa 02:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again you keep asserting I have no point when the truth of the matter is that I have clearly made my points. The issue is that you simply ignore all of the evidence I have posted and still have not responded directly to them, because no evidence that supports your extremist views comes from Lower Egypt. You continue to focus solely a few examples from Upper Egypt and reject any other evidence that easily refutes your ridiculous claims. You are guilty of everything that you accuse me of when I have consistently and directly responded to your evidence and opinions (you have not reciprocated this). You also again resort to personal attacks which is against Wiki policy (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). You have been refuted and you still haven't responded to the evidence I posted, so there is little left for ou to say unless you change your abrasive style of discussion. Epf 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

^^This is an prime example of what modern day Eurocentrism has been reduced to.. Ignore facts, chase red herrings, make up phony charges of conspiracy, and basically whine that he has wasted his and everybody else's time with his senseless diatribe. Oh well, back to the drawing board..Taharqa 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

and another example of an accusation and "ad hominem" attack of your own that has NO basis whatsoever. There is no Eurocentrism in my arguments and I have approached this from a neutral, scientific perspective. The same can not be said about you however, and clearly you have a biased, fringe viewpoint. "Ignore facts, chase red herrings, make up phony charges of conspiracy, and basically whine that he has wasted his and everybody else's time with his senseless diatribe": I have done none of this but again I find it amusing that you are guilty of all these things you accuse me of, especially when you have ignored and not responded to my facts and quotes whatsoever. Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

For Pete's sake Taharqa stop attacking and insulting everyone who doesn't agree with you!! The man cited his sources and is contributing to the consensus discussion like everyone else. There is no basis for your harassment of him on his talk page and calling him stormfront and that nonsense, you could get reported for this. Of course Egyptians are closely related to Berbers which is cited in the studies that you yourself on this page quote over and over and over and over again, both the cranial ones and the genetic ones. Quit being so damn aggressive and carry on the discussion without all the attacks. Egyegy 06:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I stopped reading all comments after I realized that certain people do not like to heed information or use practical logic and constantly chase straw men while torturing us with their inane rhetoric. At the end of the day, EPf has changed his argument at least 3 times, has contradicted himself on numerous occasions, and has been soudly rebutted and even embarrassed during this engagement. So If it doesn't pertain to improvement or what we've been discussiong initially, then it shall be ignored.Taharqa 16:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Wikidudeman/RaceEgyptdraft

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Please see User talk:Wikidudeman/RaceEgyptdraft for further discussions on the progress of this article. Any opinions on that draft should be expressed there, not here. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research - just a reminder

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This talk page contains a tremendous amount of original research, which I hope you all know may and will absolutely not be included in the article. Not only the facts but the conclusions drawn from them need to have been previously covered by reliable sources to be eligible for inclusion in the article. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions. If the preceding statement sounds unfamiliar to you, please read Wikipedia:No original research, especially the part about synthesis, very carefully. Thank you. Picaroon (t) 03:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There definetly is a tendency to regard original research acceptable in this article. In some cases I think its hard to avoid, but you are absolutely correct, it has to be removed. SenseOnes 08:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was just a senseless debate that really had nothing to do with the article, and was rooted in someone else's personal views, in which I inappropriately responded to..Taharqa 16:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

diop melanin test

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The web page cited as footnote 48 refers to the wrong paper as (Diop 1977 without a full bibliographic citation). The primary source for Diop's claims about a melanin test is Diop, C. A. 1973. “Pigmentation des anciens Egyptiens. Test par la Mélanine,” Bulletin de l’IFAN, XXXV, B: 515-531.Itzcoatl 04:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC) {{edit protected}}Itzcoatl 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request that footnote 48 be repaced by the citation to the primary source as provided.Itzcoatl 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is currently protected due to disputes about its content. Therefore, could I ask that a couple more editors post here whether they would agree that this change is uncontroversial and beneficial to the article, since I do not know much about this topic and cannot judge the reliability of the sources cited. Tra (Talk) 16:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why replacing a third hand reference (in a web site no less) to a secondhand reference by a citation to the original paper where Diop published his claims about melanin in mummies (which easily checked by looking at the bibliography in Diop's [I}Civilization or Barbarism[/I]) should be controversial. But being new to Wikipedia, what do I know :-)Itzcoatl 16:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One long single view section (Sphinx)

Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

I have no interest in the race of the ancient Egyptians; to me it is rather unimportant. However reading the Sphinx section, I found the source selection incredible selective. Let me just run this section down in a short summery: first a paragraph about specific travellers remarking on the Sphinx Negro features, Volney - Flaubert - Du Bois. Short discredit of Volney, follower by discredit of the discreditor (Budge)!!! Then a paragraph of Budge stuff I can’t actually decipherer the meaning of, followed by a Shavit comment, which is immediately discredit and lastly some forensics stuff, I also cannot really decipherer what it is meant to say.

Puhaaa…. To me this is scarcely a section worth the bits it occupies. It’s ok to draw some race similarities to the Sphinx, but at least make it a good reading (and understandable), and for all try to put it in a somewhat balanced perspective. For example, Volney is good, but what about those numerous other contemporary (and prior) travellers that does NOT comment on any Negro features of the Sphinx, like Sicard, Norden, Pococke, de Bruijn, de Maillet, de Monconys Sonnini, Vansleb, Granger (Tourtechot), Thévet Thévenot, La Boullaye, Savary, Browne, Bruce, Lucas, Greaves, Sandys etc.. this is just a small selection of 16th - 18th century travellers. There are literally 100s more and when you get into the 19th and 20th there are 1000s more, not one receiving a single word in this section. Of course many noted Egyptologists cautiously, and maybe even wisely, refrain to comment directly on such matters; after all it is a 300 year old subject. But a silence of the masses is also a saying. Please put some balance into this section. Twthmoses 01:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

the sphinx was a black African. Everybody who looks at him says so.Muntuwandi 01:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not – and who is everybody? I can pick 20 random 19th century European/American Egyptian travel works and will find no such view. I look at him (the sphinx) and I don’t see it. Consequence it’s a point of view. The Sphinx does not have any obvious Negro features, cause if it were that obviously there would be a near consent though 800 years of European Egyptian travels litterateur. There is no such thing, actually quite to opposite. Even the Arabs before (and simultaneously) do not say such a thing. This section lists only those that comment on Negro features and displays a total disregard for anybody else. It is a near 100% bias section, listing the views of a minority, while ignoring the plurality that says nothing on the issue or the other minority that talks about non-Negro feature.Twthmoses 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The sphinx is a statute with the body of a lion and the head of a pharaoh Khafre. Khafre other intact statutes do not have any black features and also the statute of his father Khufu and his brother Menkaure. This is a just a hoax that some people are trying to sell. Why there is no mention of the fact that most of the pharaoh mummies do not show any West African black feature? --24.136.161.44 04:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this article conflates a bona fide topic (population history of Ancient Egypt) and "Black pride" ideology (Afrocentric Egyptology). The only solution is splitting this into an Egyptological part and an Afrocentrist part, I don't see any other way to make this "debate" stop going in circles. dab (𒁳) 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia very specifically forbids that, as it would be a definite POV fork.--Ramdrake 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For those of you interested, We are totally rewriting this article. Please see this link for the current rewritten version of the section about the Sphinx. If anyone has any issues with it, please feel free to reword it for clarity or comment on the talk page on how to improve it. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All that is important with regards to the sphinx is that some notable people have stated that the sphinx looks Africoid. Because the identity of the sphinx is unknown, we may never know for sure. What is factual is that many people have made similar observations. Whether this is just opinion, or whether the sphinx was constructed deliberately or accidentally to look Africoid we do not know. Muntuwandi 23:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Sphinx looks black according to testimonies. Twthmoses failed to mention what people is quoting said about the Sphinx. But here is another testimony. It comes from Dominique Vivant Denon, an artist who was part of the expedition of Napoléon Bonaparte in Egypt (1798-1799): "Je n’eus que le temps d’observer le Sphinx qui mérite d’être dessiné avec le soin le plus scrupuleux, et qui ne l’a jamais été de cette manière. Quoique ses proportions soient colossales, les contours qui en sont conservés sont aussi souples que purs : l’expression de la tête est douce, grâcieuse et tranquille ; le caractère en est africain : mais la bouche, dont les lèvres sont épaisses, a une mollesse dans le mouvement et une finesse d’exécution vraiment admirables ; c’est de la chair et de la vie.". Trying to explain what he meant by "le caractère africain", he says this speaking about the Egyptian art: "Quant au caractère de leur figure humaine, n’empruntant rien des autres nations, ils ont copié leur propre nature, qui était plus gracieuse que belle. ... en tout, le caractère africain, dont le Nègre est la charge, et peut-être le principe". If you don't read French, Denon is saying this: the Sphinx has an African appearance. The African appearance is negro. You can read Denon in his book Vivant DENON, Voyage dans la Basse et le Haute Égypte pendant les campagnes du Général BONAPARTE, Paris, 1ere édition Didot l’Aîné, 1802 ; réédition, Pygmalion/Gérard Watelet, 1990, p. 109.. The problem with many people writing here is that they ignore the different phenotypes of the Black Africans. Please, listen to Ivan Van Sertima Ivan Van Sertima on FTP-Part1C: Human Beings Are Equal--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(to Lusala) I fail at no such thing. As I have already said it is unimportant to me what race the Sphinx is, I’m merely concerned with the absolute one sided view that is presented in this section. I do not in any way dispute that some people sees a black character, I’m asking you to put that into perspective of the masses who does not. If I was unfamiliar with the Sphinx and came to wiki and read this section, I would leave with the opinion that there is centuries of consent that the Sphinx’s face is clearly Negro and that thinking otherwise is an abnormality. That is not the fact. The fact is that the vast masses have nothing to say on the issue, and a minority is indeed to describe the face as “obvious” Negro.

Vivant Denon is a great man, second to non in observation skills and sense for details, and it would be far from my nature to try to discredit this man. Denon do see an African character (and nothing wrong with that), but I have actually read Vivant Denon and to the story goes a little more. Denon had two hours at Giza, of which he spend 1 ½ on the pyramids (yes that is in the very same book you quote from) the remaining minutes he use on the Sphinx and surrounding monuments. As you can see from the copperplate made from his quick sketch he made in 1797, the sphinx is all Negro looking, grossly inaccurate Negro proportions, pretty far from the actual look of the Sphinx. When he wrote his text in 1801/02, what do you think influenced him more, his wage 30 min memory 4-5 years back or an all looking Negro sketch he made? What is really important to Denon is the gracious expression of the Sphinx (and what he actually speaks about), and it is exactly this that concerns most (and they write about it) that sees the Sphinx, not any Negro appearance. You will also find a large number of references to the head, as being that of a woman. In what world does an “obvious” Negro (male?) face gets confused with the face of a woman? What is obvious here is that points of views are colliding. It is that I want to be addressed in the section, not just this one sided minority view the section now relates.

Johann Michael Vansleb systematically reporting anything he knows about Egypt, not shy of running with dubious explanations; he even has a full chapter on the Egyptians and nobody receives any favours in that, black, brown, white, moors or Copts, says on the “obvious” Negro features of the Sphinx – nothing! Claude Sicard, the all knowing and unmatchable Claude Sicard. The expert, not an expert, but the expert in all Egyptian matters in the early 18th century. His remarks on the “obvious” Negro features of the Sphinx amount to – nothing! Benoît de Maillet visited the Giza Plateau 40 times, during 1692-1708, and behold he is an anthropologist and nothing short of an early Charles Darwin, explores the site, even calls for a systematically survey of all monuments in Egypt, remarks on the “obvious” Negro features of the Sphinx with – nothing. Frederic Louis Norden, the one and only primary source to the looks of a whole horde of Egyptian monuments prior to 19th-20th century excavations, systematically takes every ancient authors comments up for review, as to what is really there today (1737-1738) – from Alexandria to short of Abu Simbel, including a couple of modern authors. Makes the first near accurate drawings of the Sphinx, front and profile. His remarks on the “obvious” Negro features of the Sphinx – nothing. The undisputed master of systematically Egyptian research, the alchemist of research and details, the one and only, Edward William Lane. I know of nobody that can pump out a master work – twice (“Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians” and “Description of Egypt”), some 170 years ago, which only fault today is that it’s not up to date on current events. Let me quote him about the Sphinx "The face (see plate 18) is much mutilated; the nose being broken off. The loss gives, to the expression of the face, much of a Negro character; but the features of the countenance of the ancient Egyptian (as well as the comparative lightness of complexion) widely distinguished him from the negro; and the nose of the former particularly differed from that of the latter, being slightly aquiline, and rather rounded at the end"

Jean-François Champollion, Giovanni Battista Belzoni, Giovanni Caviglia, Richard William Howard Vyse, Karl Richard Lepsius, Flinders Petrie etc… on the “obvious” Negro features of the Sphinx - nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing… Let’s try the more common man, the more casual travellers, who does not explore and interpret (at least not as much), but rather tells his/theirs travel tale, Eliot Warburton, Thomas Rees, John Stoddard, D. A. Randall, Robert Hichens etc… on the “obvious” Negro features of the Sphinx - nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing ….

Quoting is good, quoting only those that suits your view is not. There are people that sees an obvious Negro features in the Sphinx, and that is ok and it should definitely be included, but there are many more that does not, and they too have a voice. Perspective, ladies and Gentlemen, perspective.Twthmoses 17:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Twthmoses, you are stressing your "nothing". I am not asking you about their silence. You have to report if they said that the Sphink looks something else than a Negro. Let us say if he looks Caucasian for example. If they did not say anything about this, maybe it was obvious to them that the Sphinx is Negro! So don't speak about what is not said. Denon said what he said. He did not need months to say if what he has before him is african or not. Once more, your notion of the Negro race is too restrictive. It has to include all the ranges of Blacks. Even today, all the Blacks do not look alike. It depends from the region they are from. Quite the same with the so-called Caucasians. They don't look alike. But they are still Caucasian. I understand, micro-anthropology is still alive when it comes to Black issues. Now, if you know somebody who said that the Sphinx looks something else than a Negro, nobody, I think, forbids you to add such an information to the article. But have you already found one?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm this was surprising, actually very surprising in light that this is an article about race, you do not seem to have rudimentary understanding of basic terminology used by (travel) writers. Never mind that the term “Caucasian” (and why would the Sphinx be Caucasian?) is a mid 19th century invention (maybe earlier, but not much used), it would be rather difficult to find 13th-19th century travellers using it. But that beside the fewest people use a race term to describe a person (or statue) if it is not radical different than the people that lives in that country. It is automatically understood that it is the same. Example I don’t go to Germany and say “what a wonderful Caucasian statue of Hermann”, I say “what a wonderful statue of Hermann”, because it is automatically understood that I believe he is of the same breed as those that live there now. Now if I did not think this was the case, and I might well, then I would state my observations, like “what a wonderful Negro statue of Hermann”. There is nothing new in this, this is basic terminology. You do exactly the same today. When was the last time you saw Champollion described as Caucasian or Muhammad Ali as Caucasian? Never? Does that mean that the 50.000 that has written about them does not think they are? You will rather find Muhammad Ali described as a light-coloured Egyptian, the unusually here being a light-coloured Egyptian. You state the unusual and often do not make many notes of the obvious. Everybody does that.

13th-20th travellers believe that the ancients Egyptians was “Egyptians” (whatever race you want to apply to that), they believed that they looked like they do today. They will expressively state when they think otherwise, and they use terms like “Negro”, “African” and “Nubian”. There absolutely isn’t any doubt to what is meant when a 16th-19th century writers use the term Negro, it isn’t someone from southern Italy, the Middle East or a light coloured African, - we are talking black centre Africa. So when those writers don’t use such terms in their descriptions, there is little to none chance that they actually mean a very black African. They mean “Egyptians” (again you can apply any race you want to that). An “Egyptian” is (Vansleb, 1677) “The Egyptian generally are of Olive-colour, and the farther their country is distant from Cairo towards the south, their skin is the more tawny; such as live next to Nubia are all Blackish, as the Nubians”. You will find that explanations near mirrored in a whole horde of later travel-literature. Again you can apply whatever race to that you want; it is of no importance to me.

So when a traveller do not make any racial comment in there descriptions in regards to the Sphinx, it is fully obvious that they do not think it looks like a Negro. They would have stated so, because it would have been an unusual observation.

I am interested in the Sphinx only, and as such have no interest in the article as a whole. What is currently related in the Sphinx section is simple not the plurality view. Twthmoses 17:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the rewrite underway. Comment on that if you have any comments. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

^^Even though the user who brought up the issue is using original research to distort what is already presented, wikidudeman is right, the other version is more neutral, please comment on that. One thing I will say is that it doesn't have to be a "single view" if anyone has noticed anything differently. Apparently, the first person you cite Twthmoses, actually agrees, but doesn't share the same sentiment on the ancient Egyptians themselves, which points to original research since the section isn't about the AE population, since there are many different views on that alone. Not to mention modern orthodontists and forensic artists have commented echoing the same thing, so even the application of scientific methodology repeats the same thing. There is one thing to present a view and there is another thing to force neutrality simply because you want it to be there, but that doesn't mean that we should bury these other comments under the sand because you're uncomfortable with them. Simply cite a contrary view (about the sphinx) and this thread would be unnecessary.Taharqa 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice Taharqa, at what point did it become original research to quote books? Never mind useless pointless comments like that; I can hardly be forcing anything, since I have never edited the article. This is a discussion if you have not noticed. If you have nothing useful to add then why are you in the discussion? Try and stay on point please.

Neutrality is not my concern for this section of the article, correctness is however. Currently the section list (fills the entire section) with a minority view. For ever view in the section, there is a 1000 that does not say so, including a whole list of otherwise prominent Egyptologist / travellers / visitors. If the Sphinx is so “obvious” black in appearance, why did all these people not say anything in that matter? Did they forget? Did they just think “well the reader already know it to be Negro, so why bother”? Flinders Petrie, a much more esteem Egyptologist you can nearly not find, he even lived at Giza for months, and systematically surveyed the area; his work is today still a primary source to Giza, yet is says nothing about the “obvious” Negro Sphinx. Did he take a day of or what? Twthmoses 17:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Twthmoses, Feel free to E-mail me your arguments, or leave them on my talk page and I'll examine them and figure out what to do from there. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

African Studies vs Egyptology?

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

how on earth would it be a "pov fork" to treat Afrocentrism at Afrocentrism, as Afrocentrism, and Egyptology at Egyptology as Egyptology?? What is against policy is, much rather, the constant attempt to pass Afrocenrism for Egyptology and vice versa. This needs to stop. dab (𒁳) 12:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, saying that, when speaking of the Ancient Egyptians, that if one concludes they might have been black (or that some of them were, at least)it's Afrocentrism, and if one concludes they were White or Middle Eastern it is genuine Egyptology, that is definitely a POV fork. Both opinions belong in the same article.--Ramdrake 13:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

that's nonsense. nobody even says they were "White", the entire "black or white" non-issue belongs on Afrocentrism, while serious discussion of population history belong on the Egyptological article. We don't separate between "pro-white" vs. "pro-black" sources, we distiuish academic WP:RS, dividing Egyptology (Yurco, Budge, Hawass) from African American Studies (Lefkowitz, Asante) and Afrocentrist ramblings (Diop). Saying Egyptology and African American Studies are two unrelated subjects does not qualify as "pov-fork". dab (𒁳) 14:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, ancient Egypt is an African civilization. Thus, Egyptology, the science that studies ancient Egypt, like Nubology, Congology, Lubology, etc., is just part of Africology (African Studies). --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a pov fork and original research. Dab is trying to redefine academia in order to fit his argument. Plenty of credible academics cite Egypt as a Northeast African, North African, or merely African civilization, while many past scholars cited it as a Near Eastern or Mediterranean society (some still do, but with the death of the dynastic race, it isn't the consensus). These are not political views as they are based on population movements and geography, in addition to culture and language. Please see the section entitled, "academic view".. As far as 'black vs. white", in an article about race, it deserves some brief mention since it is notable to the topic (See WP:Notability), whether or not it is notable to Eurocentrism and Afrocentrism as well.. Trying to change/control the format of the topic by splitting it up is the ultimate pov fork (this has been tried more than once and articles were deleted and remerged).. Also, why would you cite Budge as an "Egyptologist" when he is considered outdated (why? I have no idea) and used by many Afrocentrists (which is probably why he is now called outdated)? You certainly contradict yourself..Taharqa 17:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Africa" is a continent, alright? A geological entity. A landmass. So, yes, Egypt is "African", of course. Needless to say, "Near East" isn't a geological term, it's a cultural term. Egypt is, culturally, a Mediterranean civilization. Why? Because trade and cultural contact in ancient times was by naval contact. The trip from Memphis to Cyprus was a pleasure cruise, while finding the sources of the Nile was a hairy adventure as late as the 19th century. "African" in the geographical sense has little to do with "African" in the cultural sense as used in terms like "African diaspora". These are valid terms, but they relate to current "Afro-American Studies" and are useless for ancient history. You know that perfectly well, and yet you keep on muddying the issue. Really, guys, who are you trying to fool? Yourselves, maybe? Because you bloody well aren't fooling anyone else. --dab (𒁳) 12:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, you come across as trying to say that culturally, Egypt is Mediterranean, but not African, while the logical stance would seem to me that it is in fact part of both. In this context, you cannot dissociate Egypt from its African roots, no more than you could say it was a typical African civilization, given its numerous contacts throughout the Mediterranean Sea. In that sense, trying to drive a wedge between Egyptology (especially classical Egyptology) and the African part of the nature of Egypt seems like a futile, POV-ridden attempt.--Ramdrake 13:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I am almost sure that you don't know well the Egyptian civilisation. Please read Jean-François Champollion, the father of Egyptology, especially his book Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens. Is Egypt an African civilization in cultural sense? Yes, says Serge Sauneron, a French Egyptologist who was director of the Institut d'archéologie français du Caire from 1969 to 1976. Is the Egyptian civilisation a Mediterranean civilization? No, says Sauneron. So you see, an Egyptologist contradicts you. Here is in French something from him. If you don't understand French, I can later translate for you: "Nous aimons parler de "civilisation méditerranéenne", et y inclure tout ce qui s'est fait de beau ou de grand à proximité de cette mer. Mais lorsque le Nil, par ses sept embouchures, se déverse en elle, il laisse loin derrière lui toute la civilization égyptienne dans ce qu'elle a de plus original... Pour la Phénicie, Carthage, la Grèce ou Rome, la Méditerranée est une voie de liaison, de rapports humains, d'échanges commerciaux, de conquêtes; un peu le centre commun d'un monde qui s'observe d'une rive à l'autre. Pour l'Egypte, elle marque au contraire la limite d'un monde - d'un monde africain; aussi les révélations d'Ogotemmêli, ou la "la philosophie bantoue" apportent-elles de précieux éléments qui nous aident à mieux comprendre certains aspects de la pensée religieuse égyptienne: mais nous ne devrons rien attendre, dans ce domaine, ou fort peu de chose, de la lecture de Platon..." (Serge Sauneron, Les prêtres de l'ancienne Egypte, Paris, édition du Seuil, 1998, pp. 10-11). This sentence is important: "elle (la Méditerranée) marque au contraire la limite d'un monde - d'un monde africain (on the contrary, it (the Mediterranean sea) marks the limit of a world -of an African world)". So, Dbachmann, instead of insulting people, in particular African Americans, try to learn more about ancient Egypt, one of the oldest African civilizations - in the geographical and cultural sense. Hotep!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

what the hell? OF course Egypt is both African and Mediterranean, just like Greece is both European and Mediterranean. The entire point is that discussion of this has to be based on Egyptological sources. Afro-American Studies is to be left out as unrelated. If you want to discuss the cultural impact of Ancient Egypt on Afro-American ideologies, do it somewhere else. Now what is controversial about this? We don't discuss the Nordic theory under Germanic Iron Age, and we well not discuss Pan-Africanism under Ancient Egypt on precisely the same grounds. --dab (𒁳) 14:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostafa Hefny and Egyptian view

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

There was a dispute at the draft page, mainly between me and Egyegy[23] about Mostafa Hefny's inclusion in Egyptian views. It is based on the article cited here, called Black or white? Egyptian immigrant fights for black classification.. He did a google search and claims that Mostafa, although an Egyptian whose family is native to the area around Aswan since ancient times, is Nubian by ethnicity and therefore has no say so in the section entitled 'Egyptian View", even though Hefny is an Egyptian. This is similar to an African American not being able to represent the view of Americans. Not to mention that the article is about Ancient Egypt, while modern Egypt (which the article is not about anyways) its self has no one single ethnicity that defines modern Egypt, so why exclude particular ones?Taharqa 01:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly not like an African American not being able to represent the view of Americans, it's more like an African American trying to represent the view of Hispanic Americans just because both groups have Americans citizenship. They are two different ethnicities just like the Egyptians and the Nubians, even though the Nubians don't have their own independent country and so must carry Egyptian and Sudanese citizenship. The article is about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians themselves, not the ancient Nubians, ancient Berbers who were present in ancient Egypt too, so modern Nubians, Berbers and other ethnic minorities in Egypt do not represent ethnic Egyptians themselves. Egyegy 01:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

^^Your logic is absurd imo since your claim only makes sense if you're arguing that modern Arabic-speaking or lighter skinned Egyptians are somehow more native to the country than so-called Nubian Egyptians (which is original research and contradicted by the press releases which says his family lived around Aswan for thousands of years), or if you're claiming that Mostafa is not an Egyptian, therefore doesn't represent an Egyptian view, as an African American can't represent an American view unless they are Euro-American, even though the indigenous populations are the aboriginals now confined to the reservations. Both suggestions make no sense. Ancient Egyptians weren't semities, or in other words, didn't speak semitic, so why is the opinion of a few semitic-speaking ethnic groups who now inhabit Egypt, somehow more noteworthy than Mostafa Hefny, an Egyptian who is descendant from the ancient people of Aswan[24]. In those days there were no such ethnic group called "Nubians" and Aswan wasn't a part of Nehesi territory since that was south of Elephantine.Taharqa 01:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostafa Hefny himself identifies as a Nubian like I proved on the draft talk page, so you original research is irrelevant. Your tone toward the Nubians also smacks of colonialist mentality, which is typical of afrocentrics, that denies the Nubians the right to define themselves how they want, independently from Egyptians. The Nubians have been fighting to do that for a long time because they are proud of their unique culture, even though a lot of them speak Arabic now. Stop imposing your warped racialist views on them. He's a Nubian, get over it. Egyegy 01:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

He's an Egyptian citizen and is described as such by the relevant source, which also describes him as being proud of his "Egyptian culture", which I have gone over with you. The very first paragraph states:

Mostafa Hefny was born in Egypt and has always been proud of his Egyptian culture and his African ancestry. But when Hefny immigrated to America, the U.S. government told him he was no longer a black man.[25]

Here, it is reported in a condensed version of a Chicago symposium:

Dr. Hefny, a very dark-skinned Nubian Egyptian native, descendant of a people who have lived at Aswan for thousands of years, wrote a four-page, single-spaced response on January 14, 1988. Among other things, he said:

“

I am a black man at five levels, the biological, social, psychological, political and ideological levels. I want to reconcile my strong black identity with my classification. ... As a black man and as an African, I am proud of this [my African] heritage. My classification as a white man takes away my black pride and my black heritage.

”

[26]

The racism expressed in your denial to include this doctor's opinion and claims as a "Nubian-Egyptian" from Aswan into a section relevant to "Egyptians" demonstrates the hypocrisy in what you seem so desperate to elaborate with the said venom and babblings towards me.

My point still stands.. We are still blessed with nothing but your hateful rhetoric and lack of substantiation and the same scholars you rely on, contradict you with the data. Somebody was so caught off guard by the new and improved 2006 Brace (yet still flawed, according to some contemporaries) for example, that they removed the study. Maybe because he actually has Modern Egyptians in his sampling this time in a much more comprehensive study, and they don't affiliate with the the ancient Egyptians at all, who fit in a NE African twig with Nubians (ancient and modern) and Somalia. - The Questionable Contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European Craniofacial Form (See fig.1, page 3 and fig. 3, page 4)..

^^Of course the irony is that you don't consider Mostafa Hefny a "real Egyptian" due to his ethnicity. Wow..Taharqa 04:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa try to keep your racist colonialism to yourself, this is a respectable encyclopedia. The man says he is a proud black African not Egyptian, and is proud of his black (meaning non-Egyptian) heritage. He never once calls himself Egyptian despite the cnn article that describes him as an Egyptian citizen, though that part is true. Stop trying to fit him into your afrocentric bubble world like you're desperately trying to do with the ancient Egyptians. Egyegy 04:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The sources say that he is proud of his Egyptian culture and is an Egyptian native from Aswan. There is nothing racist about that; your paranoia is distracting away from what's important.Taharqa 04:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Anybody knows that Nubians moved to Aswan after the establishment of the High Dam which led to the flooding of their native homeland south of Aswan. Some extremist Nubians want a separate country from Egypt. Portion of Nubians are now Egyptian citizens and the majority are citizen of Sudan where their civilization centers actually exist. Nubians are not ancient Egyptians they were mainly enemy of Egypt as shown on the walls of most Egyptian temples. Mr. Hefny has all the right to choose his ethnicity but he represents only himself. --ThutmoseIII 07:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ThutmoseIII, do you have some formation in Egyptology? Please, refrain from spreading ignorance about Nubians. Nubia is the origin of the Egyptian civilization. For a better understanding of this issue, read the father of Egyptology Jean-François Champollion, Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens, pp. 455-460. Nubia stands at the beginning of the Egyptian civilization. Read Alan Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, p. 594: "Ta Seti, Nubia, properly Ist nome of Upper Egypt; Styw Nubians". If Nubia is the Ist administrative region of Upper Egypt, this means it is of all Egypt. Because, Upper Egypt preceded Lower Egypt which was covered with water during a long period of time. Even in Lower Egypt, the Ist nome, White Walls, stands in the south, or just in the middle between Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. We have to deal with ancient Egypt scientifically, not politically.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 12:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The ignorance here is astounding. Once more, Nubia was not a nation-state that had conflict with Egypt, that was Kush. Everybody south of Elephantine were called Nehesi, "Nubian" is a modern ethnic group. ThutmoseIII is obviously ignorant of nile valley history to say the things that he does without a source. For instance, the Medjay Troops helped Ahmose battle the Hyksos and run them out of the Delta. They also later became the state police. In addition, during the Hyksos occupation, Manetho writes about how Egyptian armies fled to Kush and were given cities and villages to live in until things cooled down. Name one instance where Asiatics were employed to fight against "Nubians" or as state police? You can't.. Therefore, you don't know what you're talking about.

Seeing as how Yurco cites that Egypt and Nubia were closest ethnically to each other than anyone else, as well as culturally in the predynastic, seeing as how Bruce Williams, Nubianet, and archaology.org all say the same thing, as well as Keita and Trigger, and so does Brace, and seeing as how Ta-seti is the first Nome of upper Egypt, I'd have to say anyone making the claim that these people were either bitter towards each other or biogeographically distinct somehow, is obviously just a dishonest interloper. At the end of the day, this still hasn't addressed how Mostafa Hefny isn't Egyptian when he was born and rasied there and has for thousands of years. I don't see why an Arab Egyptian's opinion is more notable? It is discriminatory trash, plain and simple..Taharqa 18:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't speak about history this much but what I said it what Ramses II show on Abu Simbel walls. He shows his war with the Nubians. What ever are you saying is actually opposite to even what Wikipedia listed under Predynastic Egypt. I didn’t say that Mr. Hefny is not an Egyptian; Nubians is an ethnic group in modern Egypt. Your answer shows how ignorant are you about Egypt and the Egyptians. In Egypt there is a group called Copts far higher in number than the Nubians and they are the most pure genes to the ancient Egyptians and no one of them claiming to be a black. Big portion of Israel, Lebanon, and Syria were part of the Egyptian Empire for a long time. They also work and fight for the Egyptians Pharaohs. King Psamtik of Egypt (26th Dynasty) established intimate relations with the Greeks. He also encouraged many Greek settlers to establish colonies in Egypt and serve in the services of his army. Also, Arabs are not race simply it’s a language. If you speak Arabic you are an Arab this why Somalia is an Arabic country and so as Syria. You can try your best but what ever you are trying to accomplish with your aggressive and unscientific discussion will never happen. Your user name fits you well it’s for a 25 dynasties Nubian king who run away from the Assyrians to Nubia and left Egypt under their control. --ThutmoseIII 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration?

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I can see this is going nowhere. Your draft page still cannot make up its mind what it is about. The intro admits that "especially within Afrocentristc circles. The debate over the racial characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians usually occurs outside the field of Egyptology today", but then the article goes on pretending it is discussing Egyptology. This will not do. It is pointless to fiddle with particular phrasings as long as the very scope of this article isn't established. Make it either ostensibly about Afrocentrism, or ostensibly about Egyptology and we can begin fixing it. Lusala and Taharqa are quite obviously trying to prevent such clarification. Unless you back down and agree to follow Wikipedia policy, this article will see no land. After all this time, may I suggest we file an arbitration case on it? I really see no other way forward. --dab (𒁳) 13:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no need for arbitration, especially since a RFC or mediation hasn't occurred. Arbitrations are also for user conduct, not content issues. You haven't even contributed to the draft yet. If you see problems with it then please improve it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You haven't even contributed to the draft yet.

^He hasn't contributed to anything, all he does is complain and recommend the same thing over and over again that has never worked in the past. I am not trying to obscure clarification, I'm merely firm in the position that Dab's proposals are useless and repetitive.Taharqa 18:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"useless and repetitive" - lol, you must know all about that I suppose. --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of arguing who has contributed, we should get back to doing it. SenseOnes 18:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The page is currently unprotected and I've implemented the draft improvments that we've been working on. If anyone wants to improve it, please do. However do not edit war or else it will be protected again. Forget the 3rr rule, follow the 1rr rule. Don't revert something more than once per day unless it's blatant vandalism. If you revert it and it's reverted back then discuss it. Don't keep reverting. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Maiherpri image

Latest comment: 16 years ago46 comments6 people in discussion

File:Maiherperi2.jpg

Mummy of Maiherpri

File:Maiherperi.jpg

Maiherpri from the book of the Dead

How exactly is the Maiherpri image relevant to this article? Sure it shows a random mummy, but I don't see how it's relevant to this article, especially since many scholars believe that Maiherpri was of Nubian descent. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The scholars may believe he was of Nubian descent, but he was Egyptian. Egyptian texts refer to him as egyptian and no texts refer to him as Nubian. His picture is relevant because it is visual proof that at the very least some people in Ancient Egypt would be identified as black. And Maiherpri was a high ranking official. Muntuwandi 19:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of its relevance either.. Maybe it should be discussed first before inclusion, because the current draft is awsome and very neuutral imo, thanx a lot to wikidudeman, and I don't want to compromise that. I was having second thoughts on implementing the draft, but feel that it's a good idea as long as everyone is under control. As of now, I have no edits to make assuming that we can all be civil and discuss whatever insignificant problems are left, because there are no major issues apparent as far as I'm concerned. wikidude did a great job condensing the information and presenting it neutrally..Taharqa 19:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, That sounds a lot like Original research to me. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[27] not really. Muntuwandi 19:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just discussing how Nubian origins didn't prevent individuals from receiving rights to be buried in the valley of the kings and uses Maiherpri as an example. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll add my voice and say I don't think it's relevant either because we have pictures of other mummies like Ramesis II, so are we supposed to add all of them too so it's not selective? That's too much. I think it should be left out. Yes, that link discusses how Nubians could attain higher positions in office. The mummy is thought by many others to be Nubian [28] Egyegy —Preceding comment was added at 19:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

But he is not referred to as a Nubian by the Egyptians, it is modern Egyptologists who indicate that he was Nubian extraction. He was considered Egyptian, that is why he was buried in the valley of the kings. Muntuwandi 19:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that either a picture of a mummy of King tug or Ramses is most relevant to that section. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one became a citizen of Ancient egypt, but even if he was a citizen, and even if he was born in Egypt, neither imply that he was an indigenous Egyptian. The image really isn't very relevant. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Is there anything that seems to document whether Miherpri was considered a local or a foreigner in his time? We can't automatically assume that he was a foreigner (Nubian) since he has Black features, but we can't assume that he was considered a local either. Not knowing his "citizenship status" (so to speak!) prevents us from drawing any conclusions on the basis of this clue alone as to whether Ancient Egyptians included in their ranks people of obvious Black features such as him.--Ramdrake 19:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we have proper documentation as to what his local vs foreigner status was?--Ramdrake 19:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Two factors. One, Egyptologists tend to think that he was of Nubian extraction. Two, His image, whether Egyptian or not isn't relevant to the section unless somehow he was indeed of Nubian extraction and the forensic reconstructors pictured him as Caucasian or something, since the section explains the difficulties with reconstructions. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The egyptologists do think he was of Nubian extraction, however the egyptians do not use the term nubian to describe him. What is known is that he was treated as egyptian in every respect.Muntuwandi 19:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So? How is that relevant to the racial characteristics of the ancient Egyptians? This article doesn't elaborate on the Nubian influence of Ancient Egyptian culture and demographics, but perhaps it should. Since it doesn't, the image itself isn't relevant, and definitely isn't relevant to that section it was in. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yurco mentions this

Why would this royal family of Nubian ancestry ban other Nubians from coming into Egyptian territory? Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies. [29] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntuwandi (talk • contribs)

Yes, Many Nubians became Egyptians culturally and also took leadership roles. This source discusses the Nubian connection of Maiherpra. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And this other one http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/maiherperi.html is the same source about black African civilizations, which describes him as a "Nubian prince" educated in the Egyptian court. Egyegy 19:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

^He was most likely an Egyptian as Muntuwandi points out and Ian Shaw makes no mention of him being a Nubian, only that he had so-called "Negroid features" (others do make this assumption, though they have done the same with various 3rd, 12th, and 18th dynasty royals as well; all speculation).. Yurco does the same thing in the citation by Muntuwandi, though Yurco believes that southern Egyptians were more "Nubian-like" anyways. Shaw isn't an anthropologist so his terminology and anthropological reports should be taken with a grain of salt.. Though I'm still a bit weary about this inclusion given that it is already disputed and thus, controversial. If Muntuwandi insists, he shouldn't be shunned. Honestly, I don't mind either way, I only want to prevent conflict and if this will initiate conflict, then it should be left out and be discussed.. If it isn't that big of a deal and can be discussed for the time being, then that's fine too.Taharqa 19:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

all this is cultural baggage as Yurco says from modern times. There is no source in ancient egyptian that indicates he was Nubian, which means that he was considered Egyptian. It is only modern scholars who speculate that he was Nubian but they have not found any evidence of this in the written records. Muntuwandi 19:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not relevant whether he was "technically" an Egyptian citizen or not. It would be like having a picture of a German of African descent on the Germans article. The fact that Maiherpa was technically an Egyptian citizen doesn't mean his image is relevant about an article on the racial characteristics of indigenous Egyptians. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Several sources point out that he was likely the son of a Nubian official of some kind and unless we make a section detailing the Nubian demographics of Ancient Egypt, the image isn't relevant. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

All the sources are speculating on his origins. It is reasonable to speculate that he was of Nubian descent but they truth is they do not know what his origins are. The egyptians do not say.

I think it is relevant in discussing the social construction of race in Ancient Egypt. Shaw is directly discussing the race of the ancient egyptians when he mentions maiherpri. Yurco makes similar assertions when he states that People who were black were culturally egyptian enough to distinguish themselves from Nubians. Muntuwandi 19:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yurco says that people with Nubian origins could become citizens of Egypt if they adopted the egyptian traditions. No one is disputing this, but the same can be said about other peoples who became citizens like ancient Libyans and Semites. We all know this with the understanding that none of these people have Egyptian origins. Egyegy 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically even though they didn't distinguish him culturally from other Egyptians, his image shown in the book of the dead is clearly that of someone not of Egyptian descent, likely Nubian, as the sources have pointed out. So they did indeed depict him as differing from ethnic Egyptians. And again, Unless we actually discuss the Nubian influences on Ancient Egypt, it's not relevant. And in which case we did, I think that the painting of him would be more relevant than the mummy image. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if he was dark skinned, why should he be depicted any differently. I don't see this as being a big deal. He was a high ranking individual. He is a good a example of an ancient egyptian who would be identified as black today. His origins are debated but they are not known because it was not an issue with the ancient egyptians. The topic is relevant because shaw mentions it with regard to race. Muntuwandi 20:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Those links admit to much speculation concerning his origins as well (some say this, some say that) and the initial statement on homestead was written by the site editor, as opposed to a reliable source. Given that it is a wide-spread speculation though, makes it notable to this conversation on whether or not he is relevant.Taharqa 19:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And Muntuwandi.. Yurco doesn't subscribe to "Black vs. White", he is merely explaining the reasoning behind barring Nehesi from traveling north into Egypt. He states that Senusret, being from upper Egypt and more closely related to Nubians, that he was still Egyptianized, despite his supposed "Nubian" (even though he never says they were actually Nubians) ancestry.

When members of the royal family were descended from such foreign populations or from border areas, pharaonic sculpture and reliefs clearly display their ethnic features. For example, the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne. Especially interesting, it was a member of this dynasty- that decreed that no Nehsy (riverine Nubian of the principality of Kush), except such as came for trade or diplomatic reasons, should pass by the Egyptian fortress at the southern end of the Second Nile Cataract. Why would this royal family of Nubian ancestry ban other Nubians from coming into Egyptian territory? Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies. - Yurco (1989)Taharqa 19:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

his image shown in the book of the dead is clearly that of someone not of Egyptian descent

^This is original research.. Maybe you should search for Ahmose-Nefetari, plenty of Egyptians are drawn in that color (including Tut), even Gods (Osiris), as Black symbolizes resurrection. There's no telling what and what isn't authentic with Egyptian convention..Taharqa 20:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Yurco says;

Unfortunately, we don’t have Nefertiti’s mummy. But we do have the mummy of Pharaoh Ramess II who reigned from 1279 to 1212 B.C.E. He is a typical northern Egyptian; he came from the northeasternmost nome (governate) of Egypt. He had fine, wavy hair, a prominent hooked nose and moderately thin lips.This mummy may be contrasted with the mummy of Sequen-Re Tao, who died on the battlefield about 1580 B.C.E. He was from Thebes, much farther south. He had tightly curled, woolly hair, a slight build and strongly Nubian features. Incidentally, he was an ancestor of Nefertiti, although quite distantly related.Muntuwandi 20:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

^"Nubian" has merely turned into a byword for "Negro" so it seems, which is rather misleading. Though the theme is consistent. Most scholars associate southern Egypt closer to these said "Nubian" types..

Elaborating more on what I explained to wikidudeman and why his statement was understandably naive:

Because Egyptians and Nubians intermingled along the southern Egyptian Nile corridor, the southern population of Egypt naturally was quite dark and many people were perhaps physically indistinguishable from the Nubians. At least as early as the Old Kingdom (ca. 2700-2200 BC), many Nubians had also come into Egypt as hired soldiers and settled there easily. Many intermingled with the Egyptian population throughout the length of the country, since we know that Nubian soldiers were also very early employed by the pharaohs to help them fight their wars in Asia. A number of Egyptian funerary stelae (grave stones) belonging to Nubian warriors are known, and a few reveal that the owners married Egyptian women....................While it is clear that many Egyptians and many of the early Egyptian kings were very dark-skinned (we would say "black"), it would be a mistake to assume that every statue painted pure black was intended to indicate that the owner's skin was literally "black." The color black had other meanings for the Egyptians that it no longer has for us. - The People: Ancient and Modern Ethnic Groups of Nubia

Though the point to all of this I feel is that for now we should agree that the inclusion of Maiherpri for now, no matter his origins, is in bad taste simply for the fact that it is random, disputed, and so far, unjustified..Taharqa 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is up to the editors. However Maiherpri is often cited as an example of a dark skinned egyptian[30]. Yurco and shaw both take this approach of using examples.Muntuwandi 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, The statement that his image shown in the book of the dead is clearly that of someone not of Egyptian descent isn't Original research as the source that I previously posted states that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Maiherpri was Egyptian, and there is no source in Ancient egyptian that indicates otherwise. to say that he was not Egyptian is speculation on the part of some scholars. Even some of the scholars stated that he may have been a child of an egyptian and an nubian, that would still make him of egyptian descent. Muntuwandi 21:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you've been ignoring everything that has been said so far. It's not relevant whether or not Ancient Egyptian source specified him as being "Nubian" for two reasons. Firstly because there may actually be mentions that we are yet unaware. Secondly, Egyptians referred to individuals who were citizens of Egypt as Egyptians, regardless of ancestry. Moreover, All of the Egyptology and archaeological source state that he was Nubian, most likely a son of a Nubian chief. This article(as it stands) is about the racial characteristics of ethnic Egyptians. Even if Maiherpra was an egyptian citizen, the source say that he wasn't an ethnic Egyptian. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We cannot assume that there are sources that we are yet unaware. It is relevant in the context of how Egyptians constructed race. If it is western scholars insisting that maiherpri was nubian. this is consistent with whitening of the egyptians. Aside from his appearance, western scholars have no evidence of Maiherpri alleged nubian ancestry. They say that because he is black he cannot be Egyptian, he must be a foreigner. Yet based on the available information, the Egyptians did not view him as such. He is thought to have been a close friend of one of the pharoahs, he was buried in the Valley of the Kings and his name was written in the book of the dead. There is no available evidence that the Egyptians considered him anything else other than an egyptian. Muntuwandi 03:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me be brief. Unless you have proof that Maiherpri was an ethnic Egyptian then his image isn't relevant. The source say he was Nubian, and until this article discusses Nubian influences on ancient Egypt, his image is even less relevant. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

the burden of proof should be on those who say he was a Nubian, since the egyptians did not make any distinction. Even Shaw writes that his appearance was not unusual for the egyptians for him to be treated as an Egyptian. Yes scholars say he must have been a nubian not an egyptian because he was black and since they believe that it is impossible for a black person to be an egyptian. However in the article you stated

"Finally, many researchers note a wide range of variability in ancient Egypt and the nile valley, but assert that many Egyptians, especially southern, would be identified as "black" by American classification standards"

Therefore there should be nothing unusual about an ethnic egyptian who is black. Muntuwandi 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting. Some Egyptians can look black in America where blacks are diverse, that's not the issue. The issue is that all the reliable sources say he was a Nubian who became a citizen of Egypt. The other issue is that it doesn't make sense to include a random pic of a black looking mummy just bec it's black looking. Are we supposed to add random pic of white looking mummies bec we have these too? That's unnecessary clutter. Egyegy 19:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

all reliable sources speculate that he was Nubian. the Egyptians knew who the nubians were and had words for them like "nehisi". but they never referred to Maihipri as Nubian. Muntuwandi 19:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The same reason I wouldn't call Dwight D. Eisenhower a German. I'd call him an American, or in some rare cases a "German American", but for the most part simply an "American". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a contradiction because the article states that many egyptians, particularly southern egyptians would be classified as black by current convention. then why can't Maiherpri fall into the same category. Muntuwandi 23:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Because according to the sources he wasn't an "indigenous Egyptian" Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It is speculation by the sources, it is not definitive. the source you provided has about 3 different theories on the origins of Maihiperi, which basically means they do not know his true origins.

this is what the source you provided states

Many have speculated on his origins. Some suggest he was the king's son by a Nubian queen, although he does not mention a bodily connection. Perhaps was a son of a Nubian chief brought to the Egyptian court in accordance with the New Kingdom pharaoh's practice of indoctrinating the sons of foreign rulers to promote good relations with Egypt in the long term, although this practice is not documented until later in the New Kingdom. Alternatively, he need not have come from very far away, as our work is showing, he may have been the descendent of one of the wealthy Nubian families that had been resident at the Hierakonpolis for generations.

Your source clearly indicates that his origins are the subject of speculation. In short, they do not know. The ancient egyptians offered no evidence, according to them he was Egyptian. It is once again us who are imposing our cultural baggage from modern times[31]. Muntuwandi 20:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This one says "Maiherpri, a Nubian prince educated at court with the royal princes, one of which became Amenhotep II. Subsequently Maiherpri held office under that king." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That source is simply based on the speculation that he was Nubian. This is clearly how bias enters. He was not a Nubian prince. He was of nobility but he was not a prince, because if he were, there would have been a Nubian King who was his father. The writings say he was a nobleman with a variety of speculation on his origins. Egyptologists believe that because he was black he must be a nubian, some have made the mistake of interpreting this as a fact, just like your source says. But the major sources all leave the door open to other interpretations. Shaw does not even directly mention that he is Nubian but refers to him as Negroid looking[32]. I have no problem with scholars speculating that he was Nubian, but it is wrong to state that it was factual that he was Nubian. The egyptians simply treated him like other Egyptians. In fact the correct caption to the image should be "Egyptologists believe that because he was Dark skinned he was most probably a Nubian. However in the burial treatment of Maihiperi and in writings from the book of the dead, The Egyptians did not provide any distinction with other Egyptians."Muntuwandi 22:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

    Muntuwandi.  Don't you even see the contradiction of your arguement?  Your assumtion that

all that is egypt is "black", and a portrayal of a "black" individial equates to egypt, allows you to be seen as the very speculative propogandier you "claim" to be protecting this page from. I wouldn't be surprised if all entries of wikipedia were saved no matter what deletion occures, as part of somebodies sociology PHD. You would probbilely make a more interesting case study than myself Muntuwandi.--207.14.131.239 00:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hiding behind a false consensus

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Egyegy is trying to distort grossly the reports presented in the article.[33]

^Please check his revision and tell me who is distorting what, and please be honest. Firstly, he claims, based on 4 studies that cranial and dental characteristics show a relationship with Somalis only in predynastic upper Egypt, when Brace' study alone which contains Somalia, sampled both upper predynastic and lower late dynastic.[34] (see page 5 for samples and page 10 for cluster results).. Not to mention that Keita's study is on the first dynasty and he claims in his 1990, that they cluster closest with samples from Kerma (among the foreigners, among Egyptians with Badari and Naqada)[35]..

the Nagada and Kerma series are so similar that they were barely distinguishable in the territorial maps." They subsume the first dynasty series from Abydos.[p 40]

Keita also mentions, as part of his critique:

One approach, although limited, with which to explore the possibility of migration in earlier times, is through analysis of craniometric affinities. Previous studies have not specifically addressed the immigration of farmers from Europe into the NileValley. However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia. Brace et al. (1993) seemingly interpret these results as indicating a population relationship from Scandinavia to the Horn of Africa, although the mechanism for this is not clearly stated; they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat (incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims. Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity'.[36]

^Which leads to the original research statement about Brace not studying Badari crania. I'd like to ask now, since it is what he claims, but is there consensus for the inclusion of such a statement and has does it reflect on wiki policy, articularly the no original research one? The statement in question, pertaining to the "Population characteristics" section proceeding mention of Keita's 2005 Badari study, it says: However, the Brace et al. study did not examine Badarian crania... Of course what is of interest is exactly what "However" is supposed to mean, since the conjunction plays as a rebuttal or alternative, and why exactly is it relevant and non-redundant?

Again:

The unwarranted persistence of racial thinking and the idea of the 'fissioning' of one race from another was further developed by Keita in an article co-authored with Rick Kitties. Their attack centres not merely on the racial thinking still embodied in physical anthropology--despite the fact that this is the site where the idea of 'race' had been most thoroughly deconstructed in the past--but also, in a telling observation, on the use of racial categories in 'sampling strategies used in studies addressing the origin of modern humans'. In a direct attack on the study by Brace et al., 'Clines and clusters versus "race"' (1993), Keita and Kittles accuse its authors of distorting the picture of the true genetic diversity of Africans and, as a result, of complicity with the very thinking they appear to denounce:

“

Another example of the use of a socially constructed typological paradigm is in studies of the Nile Valley populations in which the concept of a biological African is restricted to those with a particular craniometric pattern (called in the past the 'True Negro' though no 'True White' was ever defined). Early Nubians, Egyptians, and even Somalians are viewed essentially as non-Africans, when in fact numerous lines of evidence and an evolutionary model make them a part of African biocultural/biogeographical history. The diversity of 'authentic' Africans is a reality. This diversity prevents biogeographical/biohistorical Africans from clustering into a single unit, no matter the kind of data

”

- Finally in Africa? Egypt, from Diop to Celenko, Kamugisha, Aaron. Finally in africa? Egypt, from Diop to Celenko. “Race & Class” 45 (2003): 31-60..

^So again, why is mention of this relevant, how is it not original research, and does it have any consensus, since that seems to be egyegy's only justification in reverting it back, even though it was obviously something never discussed and simply one of his random pov edits?Taharqa 21:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok so the link to the study does shows that he didn't study Badarian populations, so that part is correct. Also, the quote from Keita doesn't say that there was "misappropriation of data", so it IS libel if we put words into their mouths that they didn't say. He is talking about how Somalians are being excluded from other Africans. That's not the same thing. The other problem is that we have the lead saying that Egyptians show affinities primiarily with Nubia and citing the dental study which says that it was significantly different, and the Brace study shows that the Somalian and Egyptian skulls also cluster with Europeans, but the lead says "to a lesser extent". This other study [37] doesn't mention Sudan at all, but the figure on page 3 show that Nubia is far from Egypt and close only to the Naqada from Upper Egypt in the Bronze Age. So these are contradictions that need to be corrected. Egyegy 22:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

1) What does the fact that Brace didn't study Badari crania have to do with Keita's critique or anything for that matter? The question is, why is it relevant and mentioned randomly?

2) The cranial studies show primary ties with Nubia, both with Brace and Keita. Irish studied a Neolithic Nubian desert sample, which is not the same thing as "a nubian sample", so that is actually putting words in Irish' mouth, while ignoring brace and Keita. In addition, you are misrepresenting page 3 and what Brace says and Keita says.. This is what you say:

but the figure on page 3 show that Nubia is far from Egypt and close only to the Naqada from Upper Egypt in the Bronze Age

Here is what Keita says about Brace 93 (again):

Brace et al. (1993)' find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia'.

So again, what you are doing is original research... Upper clusters with lower, and both groups are joined in a primary cluster with Somalians and Nubians. On page 3 as a matter of fact, in the 2006 study, the sample in question is Naqada Bronze Age, so mention of that is redundant (there are no other samples) and no where does Brace mention that Nubians cluster away from non-naqadans. This is what he says:

The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample - both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians - and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa.

^He even states that Niger-Congo speakers form a remote cluster that is closer to Nubians, who in turn cluster closest to Egyptians.. In fact, as seen in fig. 3, Nubians, Somalians, Israel Fellahin, and ancient Egyptians all form a northeast African twig which is separate from Mediterranean, European, or Algerian Neolithic twigs. Niger-Congo also has its own twig. So your claims are not reflected in the research cited.Taharqa 22:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

First, the Badarian one is not mentioned randomly. The critique was in a study about Badarian populations only, but the Brace study didn't even study the Badarian group. It's imp to clarify that in the article. And we all have two eyes to see the graph in the other study, we don't need you to spin it around and around for us. Only the Bronze Age Naqada group is close to it and this is what the study says: "there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component." The other Brace study which is even quoted under the Population Characteristics section says "The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa [except for Somalia]" Then it says this: "Our data show not only that Egypt clearly had biological ties to the north and to the south, but that it was intermediate between populations to the east and the west, and that Egypt was basically Egyptian from the Neolithic right on up to historic times."

So again you are misrepresenting the sources and adding your own original research. If we're going to summarize the sources, we have to add only what they say, not what we want them to say. Egyegy 02:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

1) you are again not addressing the relevance of the random statement about Brace and why it matters.. The critique was about Brace 1993, please pay attention to what you're talking about. Keita never mentioned Badari crania in his critique to Brace. My goodness!

2) please don't accuse me of misrepresenting when I always provide direct quotation for what I say, while you simply make things up and ignore data..

However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia' - Keita

If you're claiming that you're a have analyzed the study better than Brace and Keita, that's one thing, but don't accuse me of misrepresentation when you obviously don't even read what you cite. A "hint" of sub-Saharan" merely means that he found people who possess those limited all encompassing traits that in which he defines "sub-Sahara". He's already explained that as archetypes, they cluster remotely with Bronze Age Naqada, even though this is irrelevant to Nubians being in the primary cluster of both his 2006 and 1993, and not Europeans.Taharqa 05:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how break this to you since you seem to run to Keita each and every time like he is the final arbiter on everything ancient Egyptian. I don't need to read a study by Keita to understand a study by someone else. I can read the study for myself. LOOK at the figures on page 10 and 11 in the link [38]. The Wadi Halfa from Sudan is grouped with West Africans, but Egyptians, Somalians, North Africans and Europeans are closer to each other. That's all there is to it. You're just confused and misinterpreting Keita, although this is not the Race of the Ancient Egyptian according to Keita article either. And a HINT of sub saharan African means exactly that, no need to spin it. Egyegy 06:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is, personal attacks notwithstanding, that you have no business disputing a professional anthropologist. You are nobody. If Keita and Brace say that Europeans cluster secondarily, then that is what is to be reported. Not your Arab propaganda and social views on sun-Saharan Africa. Though again, fig1 and fig 3 both show Egyptians clustering with Somali and Nubians even before Modern Egyptians, who belong in the Modern Mediterranean cluster, and not the Northeast African twig. Brace clearly states that there is a relationship with the Niger-Congo speakers that gets diluted, though he says they cluster remotely in an unbroken chain. Simply because there were no Nigero-Congo speakers, or relatively few in the Somali sample means nothing as far as proving your case of what Brace and Keita did and did not say. I know I have probably led u to despise Keita since he refutes everything you say, but this is reality, where your original research is non-applicable. We don't report what people don't say and what they do say apparently breaks your heart. Not my fault and it isn't my fault that you aren't scientifically literate.Taharqa 06:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are so sadly confused you don't understand what you read. Brace never says anything about modern Egyptians, he groups ancient and modern Egyptians in one "Egypt" cluster, and the only separate group being the pre-dynastic Naqada from the BRONZE AGE which has a HINT of subsaharan African. Anyone with two eyes and two brain cells can see that in the graphs. Sorry if this bursts your afrocentric bubble again. FYI, this is what half the Saudi Arabian population looks like [39] (famous Saudi singer). This means the West Africans are more related to the Arabs than Egyptians. Maybe you and the other afroentrics should be fighting to claim that instead, there would actually be some sense to it. Egyegy 06:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And here is another one from the same study page 10[40]:

It is obvious that both the Predynastic and the Late Dynastic Egyptians are more closely related to the European cluster than they are to any of the other major regional clusters in the world.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. This is about Egyptian skulls and facial structure from the experts. It's time to face the facts. Egyegy 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Cherry picking isolated quotes that you don't understand will do nothing for you, since there is no contradiction here. Nubia isn't a world cluster and neither is Somalia, but both populations fit in the primary cluster while Europeans fit in the secondary, as noted by Keita. It is stated explicitly, yet you refuse to take heed. Also, statements like that is the basis for Keita (anthropologist) and Kittle's (Geneticist) criticism.

Again:

Keita and Kittles accuse its authors of distorting the picture of the true genetic diversity of Africans and, as a result, of complicity with the very thinking they appear to denounce:

“

Another example of the use of a socially constructed typological paradigm is in studies of the Nile Valley populations in which the concept of a biological African is restricted to those with a particular craniometric pattern (called in the past the 'True Negro' though no 'True White' was ever defined). Early Nubians, Egyptians, and even Somalians are viewed essentially as non-Africans, when in fact numerous lines of evidence and an evolutionary model make them a part of African biocultural/biogeographical history. The diversity of 'authentic' Africans is a reality. This diversity prevents biogeographical/biohistorical Africans from clustering into a single unit, no matter the kind of data

”

- Keita and Kittles (1997)

Of course neither Somali nor Nubians affiliate with Europeans genetically, but with East Africans, which is their point. The updated Brace (2006), again contradicts you and obviously needs to be re-quoted:

The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample - both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians - and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa. The other obvious matter shown in Fig. 3 is the separate identity of the northern Europeans. [pg. 4]

Previously in page 3, he describes him sampling method pertaining to the various clusters (twigs): About the Northeast African twig, he writes:

the Portuguese Mesolithic, Greek Neolithic, Italy Eneolithic, and Swiss Neolithic samples and the Italian and Greek Bronze Age samples were combined to make a ‘‘Prehistoric Mediterranean’’ twig. Then Naqada Bronze Age Egyptian, the Nubian, Nubia Bronze Age, Israeli Fellaheen (Arabic farmers), and Somali samples were lumped as ‘‘Prehistoric/�Recent Northeast Africa.’’ The Natufians and the Algerian Neolithic samples were run as separate twigs, and there were separate twigs for Basques and Canary Islanders. Figure 3 shows the results of running all of these twigs in a single neighbor-joining dendrogram. Only 18 of the 24 variables were used to construct Fig. 3, allowing us to add the Basque sample. When the Basques are left out and all 24 variables are used, the main twigs in the resulting - Brace (2006)

Concerning the affinities shared by the various twigs confirms what he says on page 4. On page 5, he writes:

When the Basques are run with the other samples used in Fig. 1, they link with Germany and more remotely with the Canary Islands. They are clearly European, although the length of their twig indicates that they have a distinction all their own. It is clear, however, that they do not represent a survival of the kind of craniofacial form indicated by Cro-Magnon any more than do the Canary Islanders, nor does either sample tie in with the Berbers of North Africa as has previously been claimed (38, 45–46). This is particularly well documented when the 18 variables are used to generate a plot of the first two canonical variates as shown in Fig. 4. In this figure, one can see a clear link between the Niger-Congo sample and the Natufians. The Prehistoric �ecent Northeast African sample also has a subsequent link to the Niger-Congo sample in Fig. 3. - Brace (2006)

No link with Europeans (or even any mentioned link with Modern Egyptians for that matter, who were sampled) here so I guess he slightly rearranged his methods and took heed to the criticism that he received. I mean, Brace has a lot of questionable views (particularly his Neanderthal theory, which he sort of argues for indirectly in this paper)..

Nuff said for now.. Your use of contextomy is in all honesty, miserably executed.Taharqa 01:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You think that if you keep posting the same 5000 megabytes of recycled half truths, you are going to muddle the issues so we don't notice that you have nothing against the undeniable evidence. You were wrong. It's that simple. The cranial structure of Egyptians, Nubians, and Somalis is more similar to Europeans. We know they're not GENETICALLY more related to Europeans, the article already says that anyway, so that's a red herring. I have clearly made my points. The issue is that you simply ignore all of the evidence i gave and cannot refute by dismissing it and try to find something that supports the afrocentric pov. The only thing the afrocentrics have for them is the tie with the pre dynastic people from Upper Egypt. Even Keita agrees with that, who says that it quickly changes as soon as you get to the beginning of ancient Egyptian civilization. Remember Upper Egypt from the start has this: "lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity." Even he with some of his questionable views doesn't have your extremism. Egyegy 02:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Are we back to edit warring. Let us exercise some restraint in editing this article. Muntuwandi 05:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Taharqa will ever be able to "restrain" himself from editwarring on this article. He has made a career of it ever since his very first edit. Egyegy 05:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, please check the revisions, I've only reverted him one time only and made edits that he didn't agree with, therefore reverted me. It is pov pushing at its finest and now he even resorts to lying about studies. I've already exposed him for saying that Nubians weren't in the cluster and now he's trying to save face by lying and breaking rules. Zerida is obviously a lot brighter..Taharqa 06:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just stop reverting. Please stick to 1 revert per day. That's it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is Taharqa will never ever respect the 1 revert a day rule, he will just take advantage of everyone who is behaving so he can continue make blanket reverts then make up hot air excuses. That's not fair and needs to be dealt with. Can anyone imagine this article without Taharqa? I can't bec that's the sole reason he's on wikipedia, but if I did imagine it, the article would be a lot more stable than not. The problem on this article has been always Taharqa, not that the subject is so controversial that we can't keep decent article for long. Egyegy 16:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If Taharqa agrees to 1revert per day then will you? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What he's doing right now is copping out, not accepting responsibility for his own actions. Seeing as how I've indeed only reverted him one time, it is hard to make sense of what he's ranting about. I've already agreed to the rules drawn out, just can't say the same for others who get off on baiting and edit warring over nonsense due to their own lies and distortions/lack of comprehension.Taharqa 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa has agreed to 1 revert per day. Do you? Egyegy? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is him agreeing to a 1 revert per day rule? All I read is a bunch of gobledygook dancing around the issue without committing to anything. You have to understand that some of us have experience with Tahraqa's tactics for a long time. He'll wait for a while then start editwarring and making huge changes without consensus. Obviously I won't revert if he doesn't revert me like he keeps doing, so let's see how long he can keep it up. Egyegy 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well he's just said that he agreed already to the rules drawn out (one of which was 1revert per day). Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ancient egypt magazine

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'll try to find a copy to verify the quote since taharqa refuses to post the full statements. Egyegy 18:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

If we're going to have external links then we need to use only the most reputable, reliable and relevant links. I don't think that the current link meets this critera. I was unable to find many good external links previously. All external links should follow WP:EL. I don't believe that the Google video does. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, who does not use google? And Basil Davidson is a good historian who wrote extensively on African related subjects. Egypt is one of the African civilizations! Basil Davidson is better than this Yaacov Shavit who wrote stupidity on the color of the Egyptians and Ethiopians according to Herodotus. But he is still there in the article. I don't see your problem.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a google video, firstly. They are generally discouraged for several reasons. Firstly, the copyright status of them is unknown. If the video is copyrighted (which it almost defiantly is) then we can't use it. See WP:EL. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Then you might be right. But let's wait and see if somebody else knows another site where to find to same link which according to me is very relevant to the subject. It offers a good summary of the article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Split?

Latest comment: 16 years ago20 comments8 people in discussion

User:Dbachmann, I don't believe a split is necessary and I saw no discussion of it on the talk page. The article actually doesn't even mention much about Afrocentric views. Splitting it would make absolutely no sense. How would that be done? What would we move to Afrocentrism? I see nothing that could possibly be moved there and removed from the current article. Also, The article presents all relevant views per their weight. We can't just remove all mentions of Afrocentric beliefs about the race of ancient Egyptians from the article if it's relevant to the topic. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

you "saw no discussion of it on the talk page"? Then you must not have looked very hard. I am sorry, but it is simply not negotiable that we cannot conflate two completely unrelated topics, Wikipedia is not a platform where you can roll your own ideology. --dab (𒁳) 14:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've only recently came to the article. Any of those discussions must have been archived. The information on King tut, Diop and Cleopatra are all relevant to the article. We can't just remove relevant information because it's afrocentric in nature. We must present all relevant info per WP:Weight. Getting rid of all of it and moving it to another article will do nothing but remove relevant info from the Race of Ancient Egyptians article. Moreover, There is no consensus for a split. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

how about this section, right above? --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What about it? it doesn't answer my objections to the split. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Diop and is irrelevant to Egyptology. Afrocentrist criticism regarding Cleopatra, the Sphinx, kemet, Tutankhamun etc. is irrelevant. Unless there is a debate in peer-reviewed Egyptological literature, it's not an issue here and belongs on Afrocentrism. WP:UNDUE is precisely the key: Afrocentrism is of no consequence whatsoever to Egyptology, it's a topic of US American sociology, period. --dab (𒁳) 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about the topic of Egyptology in genral, It's about the topic of the Race of the ancient Egyptians. Since that is the case, even fringe views concerning that topic must be mentioned if they are relevant. WP:UNDUE simply states that an article must not give "undue weight" to fringe views, not that it must totally ignore them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann can contribute in the way of improving the article. There was a work on a draft some weeks ago. Did he show up? Now, we have to look forward, not backward! The tag is senseless.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any consensus at all for a split? I see none. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, you are now provoking trouble in the article. Cheikh Anta Diop is a Scholar, an Egyptologist. The results of the studies on the mummies were presented at the Egyptological Cairo Conference in 1974. Do you know something about this conference? Maybe not! What is wrong about Kemet? Try to participate more positively to the building up of the article. Otherwise, you better write on Asia without quoting Asiatics and Asiatic points of view and call it doing science, or you better write on Europe without quoting Europeans and European points of view and call it doing science.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 15:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus for a split and in fact, we've all agreed on the draft that is seen now, and dab knows this. He didn't participate at all in the consensus process nor help on the draft, but now wants to drastically re-format everything, reword, and put up senseless tags as part. That is pov pushing and you're proposing that we create a content fork. We've already agreed by and large, more than once that your ideas are misguided.Taharqa 17:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

After reading the article in its current state, I can say that it comes across as having been hijacked for ideological purposes - perhaps more bluntly: like a cut-and-paste job from the 'scholarly works' of Aboubacry Moussa Lam et. al. I think either of the following two options would be best: (1) rip the article down to its bare bones - resulting in a solid stub - and get bi-lateral peer reviews for all future additions; or (2) split it - as has been suggested. As it stands, the article is a shining example of the kind of thing Wikipedia should avoid at all costs. Varoon Arya 22:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

there is no need to split the article, work on the content may be required but splitting will not resolve any disputes. Muntuwandi 22:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a bit more is needed than simply 'working on the content'. In fact, a good deal of the 'content' doesn't really seem to belong here at all. What does the self-perception bzw. self-categorization of modern Egyptians have to do with Race of Ancient Egyptians? Nothing, really - other than the common terms 'Egyptian' and 'black'. And the section on Language? Or the one on Mummy reconstructions? The bulk of this article can be either culled or moved somewhere more appropriate. Like I (and others long before me) have said, either reduce it to a respectable stub and move from there or split it.

Also, a good way to help reduce 'tensions' is to resort to reasonable-length quotes of potentially 'volitile' material instead of squabbling over the formulation of what are, in reality, nothing more than 'loaded' summaries. (e.g. Vogel?) Stick to the facts, and not subjective re-wordings of the same. Varoon Arya 23:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

At present we have some consensus on the content. This is the longest the article has gone without edit wars or protection in several months. The article still needs some work though. Much of the problem is the quality of the sources not the quality of the article. Muntuwandi 23:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The section on the way the Ancient Egyptians perceived themselves in relation to other peoples is VERY relevant to what their racial characteristics were. The language section deals with the possible relatedness of Ancient Egyptians via language to other peoples. The Mummy reconstructions were done to determine the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians and is thus also very relevant. This article actually contains very few quotes and is not a "cut and paste" of anything. Deleting relevant material simply won't work. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(1)A section on the way ancient Egyptians perceived themselves is relevant. This section, however, is mainly composed of the opinions of modern Egyptians, which is irrelevant. And the little information which should remain needs to be put into its academic context. (2) Language can be used as corroborating evidence in a scholar's theory regarding the main subject, and only deserves to be mentioned where this is in fact the case. (3) Some of the information under mummy reconstructions is useful, but the section on the squabble surrounding Tut's face is not. (4) As far as quotes go: My comment was that there should be more quotes and/or transparent references and less of these so-called 'editorial summaries' which, in some cases, patently distort and misrepresent the actual conclusions drawn by the authors cited. (5) Deleting irrelevant material is always a good policy. :) Varoon Arya 11:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't contain too many direct quotes, but SHOULD summarize the sources. If you think some of the summaries don't fit the sources then please fix them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The article should not be split. I removed the tag. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 10:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, and for the record: I still think splitting this article amounts to creating a POV fork, and so far nothing that's been said here has convinced me otherwise. Classifying certain theories as "Afrocentrism" or"Egyptology" depending on what is being proposed, and regardless of the qualifications of each proponent is very much a POV fork, IMO.--Ramdrake 18:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

An Objective Observer's Opinion

Latest comment: 16 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion

As I have not been involved in these 'debates' and have no plans whatsoever in becoming so, I thought it might be helpful to some of you to get a more or less 'objective' opinion of how the article stands. This is my brief evaluation with some suggestions. No need to bicker with me about it. Either consider it constructive feedback and run with it or ignore it and continue as though you had never read it.

In the discussion of this topic, as it is currently labeled, one should expect to find relevant information from reliable, duly qualified sources pertaining to the matter of establishing the racial make-up of the ancient Egyptians. Whatever falls outside of that scope either does not belong in this particular article, or needs to be placed under a suitable heading that clearly labels it as subsequent to the main subject.

The section Population Characteristics has what appears to be some good information, though this is presented in a very confused and confusing manner, with no apparent internal organization (e.g. verbal queues, ‘signposting’, etc.). Also, the data is obviously being treated in a very heavy-handed manner, and one gets the distinct feeling that the original authors would not approve of the way in which their work is being presented and/or paraphrased (to put it as politely as possible).

In the section on Egyptian Self-Views, statements like “the ancient Egyptians considered themselves part of a distinct group, separate from their neighbors, and thought of themselves simply as Egyptian people” need to be qualified with something more than a simple footnote. Put this kind of thing in its academic context, e.g. “According to Frank Yurco (1989) …” with a short summary of his rationale. Also, the opinions of modern Egyptians regarding either their own personal racial make-up or that of ancient Egyptians are irrelevant to the section. The section on Material Culture, though perhaps interesting, is out of place in an article on racial identification and/or categorization. Yes, such information may be used by a scholar as evidence corroborating his or her theories, but, of course, material culture in itself is not indicative of race, and no credible researcher will ever claim this. Thus the inappropriateness of a section devoted to it in this particular article.

Regarding the section on Language, a discussion of the inclusion of a particular language into a theoretical language family does nothing to elucidate the topic. This kind of thing would be welcome on an article devoted to the ancient Egyptian language, but, like material culture, it has little to do with racial classification, and is out of place. The sub-section on Kmt is interesting and has potential, though not enough has been done to establish a balanced presentation.

Under Mummy Reconstructions, the sub-section on Tutankhamun seems like nothing more than a sociopolitical anecdote that belongs somewhere else. However, the sub-section entitled Possible Difficulties of Forensic Reconstruction shows promise, though it needs reorganization and better integration into the main thrust of the article.

The section on Historical Perspectives is interesting, though there is practically enough here to warrant its own article. I would suggest having a brief summary with a link to a new article. Regardless, the section needs a structural overhaul. And the information in the sub-section on the Sphinx would be better off incorperated in some future incarnation into the actual Sphynx article.

A portion of the information currently under Other Views should be brought closer to the top and into a more transparent connection with the scholarly research presented there. However, the showcasing of pet-theories (as well as ‘whipping-boy theories') should be taken down to a notch or two with a view towards sorting out the truly relevant information from the sociopolitical commentary.

On the whole, I think the general reader would expect to see more organized documentation and intelligent differentiation of the methodology that has been applied to solving the primary question and the theories that have come about as a result. Also, the socialpolitical ramifications of the discussion - which seem to dominate the article at present - should be minimized as much as possible, condensed and placed in a proportionally justified section of their own with ample links to Afrocentrism and related topics.

Varoon Arya 03:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Population Characteristics - Could you please elaborate on this. Why do you say that it's confusing or is offered in a heavy handed manner? Could you give examples?

2. Egyptian Self-Views - I agree that the self view of modern Egyptians isn't very relevant. Perhaps we could cut some of the info down on modern Egyptian self views.

3. Material Culture - I agree.

4. Mummy Reconstructions - This section should ideally present the scholarly opinions about the physical and population characteristics of the mummies via reconstruction, the King tut info is fairly relevant though as it shows controversy around the subject.

5. 'Historical Perspectives - There is not enough info there for it's own article, perhaps shortening some of the section down could help. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The first thing that needs to happen to the Population Characteristics section is for it to receive a clear outline. I would suggest that individual theories and research findings be grouped according to result, though other methods of organization would be possible, I suppose. The 'conclusion' of this section should be very carefully considered with ample differentiation. After that, the use and interpretation of particular sources can be discussed here on the talk page in detail.

On Egyptian Self-Views, it would also be nice if someone with the time and interest would do more info-gathering to bolster the relevant information already in the article.

Regarding the Mummy Reconstructions: Indeed, everything relevant to establishing the racial identity of the ancient Egyptians is relevant, whether it be related to Tut or not. But it should stop short of elaborating on the social controversy. That kind of thing is interesting in its own right, but really belongs somewhere else.

On Historical Perspectives: Agreed. If the editors can agree on a more condensed version, then by all means, do it. Right now it is rather long, and lacks overview. If nothing else, at least it can be reorganized along the lines discussed above under Population Characteristics. Varoon Arya 12:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Population Characteristics - Agreed that it may be a bit cluttered, but it is definitely fine. I see no inherent problems with it other than maybe stylistically or slightly better etiquette for more proper cohesion. Though the raw info need not be touched.

2. Egyptian Self-Views - I also agree that Modern Egyptian self-view isn't at all relevant and have said it in the beginning. Those who added it were modern Egyptians themselves actually. The article isn't about Modern Egypt.

3. Material Culture - I don't agree at all, and it seems as if you're trying to define or characterize what evidence identifies "race" more than something else when race its self is considered obsolete by most physical anthropologists. And more importantly, the 'Material Culture' section was initially under 'origins', and geographical origins is a huge part in discerning the validity of race or narrowing down ethnicity. No one set of data alone is sufficient enough to answer these questions, so that's redundant.

4. Mummy Reconstructions - There has only been very few mummy constructions and opinion on those that were is too scant to address per Egyptologists/academics, except for King Tut, which is a noted controversy, and which is why it was emphasized with a subsequent section explaining difficulties in forensic reconstruction.

5. Historical Perspectives - I totally agree and feel that it is the worst and most disorganized section.

As far as the social-political aspect, I agree though they are indeed limited towards the bottom, I don't know why you'd suggest the top as that would seem to be giving them priority. A lot of the academic view is addressed as well, which is also notable though at the end of the day, anything concerning this controversy that can be presented in context is notable at least in some form.Taharqa 15:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Population Characteristics: There are (at least) two primary issues here: (1) Applying a clear and logical outline to the section’s content with readily identifiable ‘signposts’, and (2) making a critical evaluation of the cited works and how they are (re)presented. The first issue – which seems to be agreed upon at the moment – can begin immediately. I would suggest that a discussion heading is created on this talk page for the purpose of determining the ‘best’ strategy for organizing the given information, after which point the information can then be ordered accordingly. The second issue – whether all involved parties think so or not – will be examined after this ‘road-mapping’ process is reasonably concluded. The ‘conclusion’ of the section should then be written to not only to tie in with the section's lead (which could do with an expansion) but also to reflect the results of the systematic presentation of the data and its evaluation as done in the section’s body.

Material Culture: The point here is that references to material culture that are not made by competent scholars as corroborating evidence to support their theories regarding the main question do not belong in the article. Granting that all the information presented is indeed relevant as so defined, then said information should be presented as corroborative of theories of racial typology/categorization by these individual researchers – which would then belong in a different section of the article. In other words, if Lovell and Prowse, Wilkonson, etc. are not discussing material culture as a means to support their theories of the race of ancient Egyptians, then the existence of the section in this article plays the role of original research on the part of one or more editors, and should be dropped altogether. If they are discussing material culture in this way, then they should actually be placed under Population Characteristics (the title of which is actually on the narrow side, all things considered).

My point with Material Culture as well as Language is this: these are corroborative fields when discussing race, and not primary indicators of the same. This is a fundamental principle, and is observed by all credible researchers. Yes, they can provide additional support to a particular theory, but alone they prove nothing. Thus, the independent sections on Material Culture and Language in their current state (or at least that of a few revisions ago), as they violate this principle, are not justified.

Mummy Reconstructions: As I’ve said, everything relevant to the primary issue is valuable and should be included. However, the article is not about The Rammifications of the Controversy Surrounding Race in Ancient Egypt, but about the Race of Ancient Egyptians. Thus, this section should not be (mis)used to showcase the socio-political aspects of the controversy. The current edit seems to have come up with a workable solution: moving the Tut information to a Controversies section.

As for moving some of the Controversies/Other Views information up to the top: I think that Diop, for example, should get a brief mention in the Population Characteristics section, i.e. simply stating that he is a proponent of a particular theory relevant to that sub-topic, and a link to the Controversies section where his views are discussed in more detail. Also, if a ‘theory-based’ system of organization is indeed adopted for the Population Characteristics section, then the ‘other views’ deserve to be mentioned there as well (formally speaking; as suggested earlier, a critical evaluation of the actual material and forms of expression used in the whole article should take place after the overall structure has been settled). Varoon Arya 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The part about the Egyptian filmmaker comments, which has nothing at all to do with the subject, was very randomly added by the resident afrocentric on the article because he was threatened by the Ramesis II exhibit incident, which is obviously relevant. It is taken from the same study of ancient Egyptians published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, which shows that "the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well.". The Egyptologist Yurco, who the afrocentrics like, concurs "Certainly there was some foreign admixture [in Egypt], but basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times". It would definitely take a lot of self-contained ignorance to think that any statement about the ancient Egyptians ethnic characteristics or appearance doesn't automatically reflect on their modern descendants. This is why those who matter and who are actually qualified to determine the origins of the ancient Egyptians take these factors into account. Egyegy 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Egyegy, could you please rephrase the last two sentences of your last comment? I'm not sure what you mean to contribute to this particular discussion... Varoon Arya 19:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it notable to mention that Egyegy is a modern Egyptian[41] and Yurco himself in the said citation identifies them as African (sub-Saharan and North African) populations, something many Egyptians don't see themselves as (for whatever Socio-political reasons).

Keita and Boyce also brings home the point, concerning genetic testing on Moderns to determine the characteristics of those ancient populations:

“

The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).

”

- Egypt in Africa, (1996), pp. 25-27

The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians Professor S.O.Y. Keita Department of Biological Anthropology Oxford University

Professor A. J. Boyce University Reader in Human Population Oxford University

That is what I believe his comments are in concern to in his selective paraphrasing out-of-context.Taharqa 19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is notable to mention potential biases of others, as some parties seem to believe, I think it would be equally notable to mention possible other apparent biases displayed here. Also, a quote which says something may not be useful is a far cry from saying that it is not useful. I note the writer did not go further than to make the very weak statement he did. What the author did not say, in not making a less ambiguous statement than he did, may be at least as significant as what he did say. John Carter 20:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, however I'm not defending an inclusion of a section on "African American" views either, same way you're not trying to impose the opinions of a particular ethnicity like say, "Euro Americans". Also, your distortion of the citation doesn't at all reflect what is said. Cherry picking terms does not eliminate the intent and implication of the author in the said context. No one of course knows for proof, positive sure since ancient Egyptians aren't around, hence the subtle approach of most objective scientists and the scientific responsibility of not asserting absolutes; however, it is clear that he contends given more new age migrations that are well-documented (according to the source), that such testing may not be useful. It is more straight forward than you try and make if one merely adhere to the verbatim citations in the context of the English language. The author/s mean what they say, not what how you interpret it.Taharqa 20:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all we can go by is the exact words of the source themselves. We cannot attempt to read into them any more than they have said. As the quote is not presented in its full context above (and I'm not faulting anyone for not including the whole book or anything like that in the quote), and it is standard in science, particularly in cases like genetics, to say that the results can't be guaranteed, I'm not sure that the statement can, as reproduced, be given any real weight. Such a disclaimer is present in almost all scientific comments that I have encountered for the past 20 or more years. To lay more stress than the comment itself necessarily demands it receive, by saying things like "it is clear what he means", is something that often creates problems, because that is, to at least some degree, reading something into the text that may not actually be what the writer intended. John Carter 20:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so if someone of Yurco's caliber states:

Certainly there was some foreign admixture [in Egypt], but basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times"

As wikipedia editors, we must "certainly" take heed to that and not try and obsfucate what is stated in a desperate attempt to distort or undermine them and what they say. In addition, if two renowned anthropologists concur, but as scientists use the word, "may", though conclude the article with:

In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin.

^It is clear what their contention consists of as well. That the origins of the Ancient Egyptians are to be found in Africa's nile valley where they are seen as coextensive with other African populations of the Nile valley. If moderns are not seen in his light, then it further reinforces the point.Taharqa 20:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the phrase "primarily African origin", out of context, cannot be said to be particularly clear, as no specific meaning is directly included. Also, regretably, and I really don't want to say how many times I've seen this, the mere fact that two respected scientists agree on something does not necessarily mean that the idea has merit. Many scientists, including Linus Pauling and others, make arguments that are, well, interesting, but not necessarily real proof of anything beyond their own beliefs. Pauling in particular has a thing for vitamin C. I deal with religious topics a lot, and I don't want to tell you how many times I've seen respected figures in the field put forward contentions/theories which are at best unusual, at worst delusional. To an extent, questioning existing beliefs is part of an academic's job, and certainly for an academic who wants to/has to get published. Without knowing what other leading figures in the field think, and I don't, I can't myself tell if this might not just be another of these "interesting" contentions. And, once again, the lack of any clear, absolutely unambiguous, terminology regarding the subject can be problematic, as even if two people use exactly the same, somewhat ambiguous language, it can't be asserted definitely that they are referring to the same thing, and in such cases saying they are violates WP:SYNTH or potentially some other policy or guideline. John Carter 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Threatened again when you see the quotes in bold, aren't we, so the best you can do is muddle the issue by posting your favorite Black American author? Well the genetics of modern Egyptians show that they have less of near east frequencies than Ethiopians, so so muchfor that. Now your favorite author has to embarrassingly clarify himself:

The peoples of the Egyptian and northern Sudanese Nile valley, and supra-Saharan Africa now speak Arabic in the main but, as noted, this largely represents language shift. Ancient Egyptian is Afroasiatic, and current inhabitants of the Nile valley should be understood as being in the main, although not wholly, descendants of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants (Keita 2005)

Of course because just before the start of Egyptian civilization "upper Egyptian series viewed collectively are seen to vary over time. The general trend from Badari to Nakada times, and then from the Nakadan to the First Dynasty epochs demonstrate change toward the northern-Egyptian". That was really desperate, even for you. Egyegy 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't mind Egyegy and his use of contextomy to prove his case. For instance:

The peoples of the Egyptian and northern Sudanese Nile valley, and supra-Saharan Africa now speak Arabic in the main but, as noted, this largely represents language shift. Ancient Egyptian is Afroasiatic, and current inhabitants of the Nile valley should be understood as being in the main, although not wholly, descendants of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants

^Current inhabitants is exactly what he says and exactly what he means.. As far as the proceeding out of context quote, let's put it in perspective, shall we?

From the same author:

"The Lower Egyptian pattern is 'intermediate' to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan" - Keita

Concerning the early lower Egyptian Maghrebian affinities: The Maghrebian affinities may be difficult to interpret, given that this series contains a range of variation from tropical African to European metric phenotypes (Keita, 1990). It is not possible to say, because of the complex geometry of the multivariate method (Blakith and Reyment, 1971), what more specific affinities individual crania may have. The Maghreb series does have a modal pattern most similar to late lower dynastic Egyptians (Keita, 1990).

Depending on "starting" orientation, the dynastic Lower Egyptians by convergence, secondary to gene flow and micro-adaptation, either became more African "Negroid" (Howells 1973) or became more mediterranean "White" (Angel 1972)." - Keita

Previous concepts about the origin of the First Dynasty Egyptians as being somehow external to the Nile Valley or less “native” are not supported by archeology. In summary, the Abydos First Dynasty royal tomb contents reveal a notable craniometric heterogeneity. Southerners predominate. The suggestion of previous work, namely that crania with southern and coastal northern patterns might be present in these tombs, has been demonstrated and explained by historical and archaeological data - Keita

From: Keita 1990. S. Keita. Studies of Ancient Crania from Northern Africa, in American Journal of Physical Anthropology 83 (1990). 35-48

Keita 1992. S. Keita. Further Studies of Crania from Ancient Northern Africa: an Analysis of Crania from First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs, using Multiple Discriminant Functions, in American Journal of Physical Anthropology 85 (1992), 245-254

To put it all into perspective, I will quote Prof. Keith Crawford[42]:

Studies of linkage disequilibrium and allelic variation at a mini-satellite locus suggests that Hamitic Africoids are descended from sub-Saharan Africans, the differences in trait probably due to genetic drift and environmental selection. Ancient Egyptian populations with ‘non-Negroid” facial features are most similar to these modern Hamitic (Elongated Africoid) populations of Northeast Africa. Preliminary studies with Mitochondrial DNA also suggest affiliations with sub-Sharan Africans for ancient Egyptians and some modern Egyptian groups. Within an evolutionary paradigm, differences between Upper and Lower Egyptians once thought to be racially-influenced differences, can now be alternatively interpreted as clinal variation, an expression of environmental selection. The ancient Egyptians have limb proportions and other features of their stature that are the same as all other African populations but different from "Caucasoids" in Europe and Asia. These adaptations indicate a long period of evolution in tropical regions. Since Egypt is not in tropical Africa, these observations reinforce sub-Saharan Africa as the region of origin for the ancient Egyptians. Collectively, all of these data strongly support an African bio-historical affiliation for the ancient Egyptians and their closest relationships with other "Africoids". The ancient Egyptians were most similar to populations inhabiting Northeast Africa, which included variants with Broad (Negroid), Elongated (Hamitic) and Nilotic facial traits. - Crawford, Keith. "The Biological Relationship of The Ancient Egyptians to Other Populations", JPASTaharqa 20:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words you decided to dump 4000 megabytes of irrelevant recycled stuff to muddle the points raised by others that don't agree with yours and which you cannot refute. Well then thanks for proving my point again and again. Egyegy 20:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No one has "raised" any points per citation. I have though and no matter how many times they have to be addressed for those who don't get it, it will be addressed. If you disagree with these said scientists, that's one thing but your point of disagreement is irrelevant to these said scientists and their process of attaining data. This is not a forum for us to scrutinize sources that we happen not to like as it may contradict our world view, directly or indirectly. In this case, it was only necessary to put into context what you took out..Taharqa 21:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Though at the end of the day, I am not going to argue someone's personal opinion or interpretation outside of what is stated in full, which is why it is for me to provide citations for what it is I'm trying to convey and this section has veered away from its intended course due to personal baggage. So I will refrain from such bickering and try to concentrate on how the article can remain stable from here on out.Taharqa 21:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I can understand your motivations, I should note that stability is not something we should ever seek in an article. The fundamental question which has been raised below is the matter of "Race", which for all the discussion put forward, is still an at least partially subjective matter. This is particularly true since there is no apparent accepted, clear-cut, definition of the term. And, with all due respect to those who have discussed this article for longer than I have, I also know from previous experience of similar arguments that over time I have begun to just repeat myself, without really noticing that someone actually said something new. Granted, the last doesn't happen often, but once in a while it does. I do believe that, if we were to perhaps seek input from some of the other relevent projects, possibly including Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora, Wikipedia:WikiProject Egypt, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, that there might be more input and more knowledgable input from outsiders familiar with the subject. And, as I personally doubt anyone really wants this discussion to continue interminably, maybe seeking some form of RfC with the potential of community enforcable mediation thereafter might be the best way to go. This is clearly a contentious topic, and that is just about the only way I can think of to have the article reach a point of stability, at least regarding the information which is already available. Obviously, none of us can know what new developments might occur which would require some sort of change in the content of the article later, but that would resolve how to deal with the currently known info on the subject. John Carter 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa: "it was only necessary to put into context what you took out"

Translation: it was only necessary that I confuse the reader with huge megabytes of irrelevant information that in no way refutes the citations entered by Egyegy, because I will not be disillusioned even by my favorite black anthropologist.'

Egyegy 21:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Translation: Aside from my personal attacks/appeals to ethnicity, and my frustration that there are no notable Arab Egyptian anthropologists to distort, thus having to distort one of another ethnicity, I must confess that my comprehension is lacking so when one acknowledges the African origin of ancient Egyptians, I mutter out incoherent babbles consisting of it being too much to read/digest.

He contradicts you in that you deny a predominance of the southerner in the south, while also denying the Northerners' relationship to these southerners, and while not elaborating on what the northern pattern consisted of in the first place. Even though Crawford (as well as Keita who cites no evidence of migration) explicitly notes any differences being due mostly to natural selection and not substantial foreign exchange, mainly due to genetics, some cranial similarities, and especially limb ratios:

The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; (data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians [all of them] generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations. - Sonia Zakrzewski (2003)

The overall relationship has always been noted as well, despite superficial trait difference north and south (again, attributed by many to natural selection/drift):

Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period - Batrawi, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.

Again, ignore the obvious and emphasize the inane if you will, but you were contradicted and exposed a long time ago by misattribution of your own ideas to these field scientists.Taharqa 21:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

lol you're nothing if not desperate. Batrawi is the same anthropologist who compared ancient and modern Egyptian skeletons and found them to be the same, and concludes "The study of the available measurements of the living [Egyptians], however, apparently suggests that the modern population all over Egypt conforms more closely to the southern type.[43]. lol so much for your "southern type" that's supposed to look like blacks. Seriously I'm embarrassed by the amount of idiotic mumbling and ignorance that you keep recycling on this page. Remember "This is an Egyptian heritage and an Egyptian culture 100 percent". I know this kills you and can be difficult for your afrocentric infested head to grasp, but nothing is going to change this simple fact, not your pathetic green-eyed jealousy and clearly not the facts that stare you in the face. You still have my offer to grab Arab history though since you're more related to them anyway. You certainly deserve each other. Egyegy 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, you can't be serious? You surely are an expert at distortion. Obviously your point would have more merit if they conformed more to the northern type, lol, since the southern is tropical variant. This obviously explains why moderns still possess East African haplotypes, with a predominance of southernly haplotypes in the south. Your Egyptian nationalism aside, you still deny the implications.

Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.[1996]..

This, in addition to Yurco's acknowledgement of Foreign admixture and Brace' recent study, showing Egyptians to affiliate with modern/ancient Nubians as well as Somali people, but not with his Modern Egyptian samples, alludes to the fact that you're in denial..

The southern affinities of the series are striking given that commonly held or stated classical ‘racial’ views of the Egyptians predict a notable distinction from ‘Africans’. Thus any scheme that labels Nubians and all Egyptians as a ‘Caucasian’ monotypic entity is seen to be a hypothesis which is easily falsified. Metric analysis in fact clearly suggest that at least southern ‘Egyptian’ groups were a part of indigenous holocene Saharo-tropical African variation. - (1993)

And:

Keita outlined four ways in which one can formulate an answer to the question of whether Egypt was an African culture, through evidence from geography, language, archaeology and biology. Geographical evidence suggests that 'Nilotic flora and fauna are well integrated into the culture of the early Egyptians; this suggests that the people were indigenous, or at least that the culture developed locally and was not an import'. Ancient Egyptian is universally accepted as part of the Afro-Asiatic language family, the origins of which are in the Horn of Africa. The archaeological record shows that 'the sequence of cultures which clearly leads to dynastic Egypt is found in southern Egypt' and that pre-dynastic Egypt 'arose most directly from a Saharo-Nilotic base'. Besides rehearsing his earlier arguments about biological relations, Keita adds two important points. In further exploding the paradigm of racialised thinking, Keita declares it 'conceptually wrong to say that "Africans" split from "Caucasians", "Mongoloids", "Australoids" etc. ad nauseam, as has sometimes been done, or even the reverse, because these terms carry certain stereotyped physical trait associations'. An understanding of this concept shows us clearly that 'there is no evidence that the region was empty and primarily colonised by non-African outsiders, who had differentiated outside and then returned to Africa' (emphasis in original). Keita's summary position is that 'It is not a question of "African" "influence"; ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not "Afrocentric," but simply correct' (emphasis added)[44] - Society for the Preservation of the Greek Heritage, Georgetown University, 16 November 1996.

Keita notes southerners to be "Saharo-tropical Africans", closest in relation to Kerma Nubians. Modern Egyptians being closer to the southern type merely says that they are closer to tropical variants than they are to early Northern Egyptians, which is again confirmed through DNA (noted by Crawford above). Though at the same time, it doesn't mean they ARE southerners and aren't variable, which is a corruption by you and not stated by Batrawi, who notes a larger nasal index as well as prognathism; both traits found more substantially in African ("black", for lack of a better term") populations, which you ignore. Also, do modern Egyptians have tropical body plans as well? You seem to avoid that piece of data pretty conveniently.

Of most importance to your dynastic claims, Zakrzewski states in her 2007:

the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or \Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material, (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972)[pg. 506].....................the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts[pg. 507].

^With the conclusion of the paper being that of population continuity with these groups from the predynastic into the dynastic. You once again, strike out..

Nationalism will get you nowhere as it will mind rape you of any objectivity you may have initially had.Taharqa 23:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoken by the resident African Nationalist Propagandist. That gets more hysterical every time you dump the same recycled and completely irrelevant material that in no way refutes the facts that debunk all the afrocentic nonsense, which comes straight from you own favorite anthropologists. If Egyptians are closer to the southern types, and Egyptians are NOT blacks, then the southern type is NOT black. Period. Logic 101. Certainly none are black like Nubian and certainly not the utterly unrelated West Africans and their modern African American descendants. Of course we know why that's the case, but it's worth repeating that the southern type CHANGES right before the beginning of ancient Egyptian civilization: "The centroid values of the various upper Egyptian series viewed collectively are seen to vary over time. The general trend from Badari to Nakada times, and then from the Nakadan to the First Dynasty epochs demonstrate change toward the northern-Egyptian centroid value on Function I with similar values on Function 11. This might represent an average change from an Africoid (Keita, 1990) to a northern-Egyptian-Maghreb modal pattern...." (Keita) So the southern type is already a hybrid that converges more on the northern and overtime becomes more like it. That's what Batrawi found too.

Nice try, you can dance around this until you are in blue in the face, and it sill won't change the facts. And you can keep trying to distort Brace until you're blue in the face but it won't change the fact that they only found a hint of subsaharan African component only in the pre-dyanstic population, before ancient Egyptian civilization began. As far as Egyptians having tropical body characteristics, it would be no different from the east Indians who also have these characteristics. Plus this is what the study actually says[45]:

(i.e., the EDyn and OK samples) may represent higher ranked individuals than the (smaller) MK sample... The MK sample may also be affected by the presence of male Nubian mercenaries at Gebelein, and is supported by the greater coefficients of variation in computed adult stature of the MK male sample than the MK female sample (Fig. 4)....This change was a relative decrease in the length of the humerus as compared with the ulna, suggesting the development of an increasingly African body plan with time. This may also be the result of Nubian mercenaries being included in the sample from Gebelein....This position suggests that, together with its links with the early pharaohs, the cemeteries may not be truly representative of the periods from which they originate. Together with the known presence of Nubian mercenaries in Gebelein (Fischer, 1961), the MK sample may represent a Nubian rather than Egyptian population.

Egyegy 23:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

John Carter. What I am actually waiting for is some elaboration. Which sources do you have a problem with, are they given undue weight, and how are they not reliable? I still don't see the drastic problem that you do and you continue to talk over the requests for this said elaboration. Extra opinions notwithstanding, it is you now, who has the problem and whoever else proposes such a split (which we have went over time and time again)..Taharqa 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This bickering is not really getting anyone anywhere, and wasting the time and energy of those of who are willing to work on the article in a constructive manner. Can we please get back to working out some kind of basic plan for reorganizing the information that is already present in the article? The critical evaluation of that information can (and, I would say in this particular instance, must) be carried out at a later date if any serious progress is to be made. Up to my last comment under this heading, I feel we were making some steps in the right direction. Let us please continue from there. Varoon Arya 22:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You have the elaboration below. The article is already at 60kB. I know of several articles which have been split when they were smaller than that. This is particularly relevant to this article considering that there seem to be several sources which could be elaborated upon at greater length than they currently are because of the undue weight and other factors. At this point, my primary reason for seeking to separate the article is to allow full elaboration of all the relevant available content, based on the idea that the undue weight restrictions limit the inclusion of that content in a single article. And, again, I have noted that several other articles already exist regarding "alternative views" of subjects, however that would be defined in this case. Historicity of Jesus and similar articles are some examples of this. The articles could be linked together, probably in the introduction of one and a "for more information, see (X)" in the other. However, basically, at this point, it looks to me like there is enough content on this subject to make two articles. Doing so would allow inclusion of more in-depth discussion of all the matters involved in the article. John Carter 22:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that Varoon Arya, it is just hard to concentrate when you're being pestured. I'll refrain.

John Carter. You're still not being specific and are generalizing. What exactly is given undue weight, why is that the case, and who are the sources? What are they saying that is so controversial, how is it controversial, and are these controversial views given undue weight?Taharqa 23:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Is dab bringing disorder?

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

I suggest dab to be blocked. He is changing by force the form and the content of the article obtained through consensus days ago. He is being disrespectful to people. Wikidudeman did a good job here because he tried to bring views together. A working on a draft was proposed. dab was invisible. Now he comes bringing disorder. He must comply and agree to contribute more positively to improve the content of the article. For now, the article seems to be semi-protected. But dab has to be reverted as soon as possible. He cannot impose himself on a consensus where all of us made concessions.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know about a block, but Dab is certainly disruptive and seems to think he is the ultimate authority on these subjects. I don't know how do deal with such personalities. From his own user page: "In most cases where fruitful collaboration breaks down, except for patent silliness, at least one party is strongly motivated either by an irrational sentiment of either religion, nationalism, or, psychologically probably related, the cranky (nerdy, ADHD[5]) mind caught in pseudoscience" ~Jeeny ^(talk) 09:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

excuse me, how is it "disruptive" to insist people follow Wikipedia policy? You cannot cook up some "consensus" between a tag-team of editors somewhere in userspace: not if it violates policy. Policy always trumps consensus, until and unless there is consensus to change policy. In case you really are deluded enough to believe that Afrocentrism is a subfield of Egyptology, I suggest you request support at WP:RSN. I fail to see how that quote from my userpage can be taken to be somehow incriminating to me: I keep it there for everyone to see. This article indeed suffers badly from ideologically motivated disregard for policy. Help rewriting this article based on WP:RS if you want to make yourself useful, please. Until the involved editors recognize they are bound to follow policy, regardless of their own convictions, there can be no debate, and this will just escalate to another round of protection, ultimately arbitration and bans pronounced on those who have disrupted this article (where disruption translates to: unencyclopedic pushing of fringe views). --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dab, that is your POV that they are fringe views. Do you not understand that things and views change over-time? Also, please don't blindly revert my edits. I spent a lot of time formatting the images. Also, do not threaten me or others with bans and arbitration, that is disruptive. Thanks. ~Jeeny ^(talk) 11:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

can you show a minimum of good faith and stay on topic for one minute? good. Now, if it is my "pov" that these are fringe views, that's no problem then, is it? WP:RS says the burden is on you to establish the validity of views you want to discuss, by citing peer-reviewed academic literature. This is all I am asking. Discuss this topic by clinging to peer-reviewed literature. I will of course continue to point out non-academic sources as non-academic sources and ask for their removal. Happy editing and thankyou. dab (𒁳) 11:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many that you call "fringe theories" that actually do source to peer-reviewed academic literature. Although, I haven't gone through all of them...yet...so instead I'll say some do. I agree that if statements made don't follow WP:RS then they should be removed. But, again, views change over-time because of new technology and findings, and just because they do not follow that which has been the "standard" for years... does not mean they do not meet RS policy. The Earth was flat for many years, too. ;p ~Jeeny ^(talk) 11:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dab, The only problem is that there is totally no consensus for a split. You keep adding the tags back despite lack of consensus. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll also chime in: Dab seems to be insisting that his view is the correct one against consensus. When asked to back up his claims that alternate views are fringe and/or irrelevant to the point of not deserving inclusion, he challenges back by saying it is others who should prove their views aren't fringe. He also says policy trumps consensus, and that his opinion is the one which respects policy, even after numerous editors point out to him that his suggestion is the one which is in direct violation of policy (POV-fork). I believe this is blatant tendentious and disruptive editing, and nothing else. If Dab wants to start his own article, with his own kind of truth, I say let him try, but don't let him destroy the consensus that's been achieved here.--Ramdrake 12:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the afrocentric views are fringe. That's not the problem, they are relevant. Dab however seems to be endorsing moving most of the info to another page which won't work. I'm all for condensing the info, but moving relevant info somewhere else won't work. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of afrocentric views are indeed fringe, as well as Eurocentric; however, the article in no way is about afrocentrism, nor are the views of afrocentrists given undue weight, just one or two happens to be referenced in similar fashion as the views of modern Egyptians. These socio-political views cannot be categorized as "fringe" for the simple fact that they are subjective (socio-political); meaning that they can't be proven or disproven by current scientific data, as far as who is "black and white" and who isn't. Eiter racial categories are all encompassing or they are not and don't exist; it is that simple. In this case, it seems that most would agree that racial categories are inapplicable in any context since "race" its self is a disputed terrain.Taharqa 22:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

They are somewhat relevant. There is however the official policy of WP:Undue weight to consider. That policy would seem to indicate that the majority of the admittedly fringe theories should not receive disproportionate weight in the central article on a subject. The title and apparent leading subject of this article are such as to indicate that this article discusses the race of Ancient Egyptians per se, not the various theories about the subject. As such, I can and do think that the content related to existing, admittedly fringe, theories should not receive particularly great emphasis within this article itself. This is not to say that the content cannot be placed somewhere. However, particularly as the majority of the content in question is in fact sourced by individuals whose qualifications regarding this subject are apparently poor, I think that such content should probably be only included here in summary form, and the majority of it, which does not directly relate to the factual race of the Ancient Egyptians but rather to poorly qualified opinions by non-experts, should not be included here, but rather placed in a separate article. Articles relating to the modern concept of Afrocentricism, which seem to be where most of these sources are closely related to, seems to me to be probably the best location for the bulk of such content. John Carter 14:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree and always have..

1)Dab never contributes to the consensus process and while we were formulating the accepted draft, he was missing for weeks on end.

2) He then suddenly pops up after we've reached a consensus and tries to distort and reformat anything possible, by imposing his own original research of what he thinks about some of the citations and proposing a content fork of a non-existent article that he completely made up and redirected.

It has always been hard to address accusations with no elaboration. When one says something like, most of these sources are closely related to [a particular ideology or academic view] , with out providing details on exactly who, how, and who says so, then there is almost nothing to discuss besides one person's point of view and unsubstantiated opinion, which has nothing to do with wiki's notability and reliable source policy. At the end of the day, no on in here is saying that we aren't willing to talk, but a consensus has been reached and to go against it with no regard is being very disrespectful and dab has been doing that on and off for a while and no one has ever brought themselves to agree since a lot of us have been here through the former multiple splits and mergers that never work out, and now per consensus and thanx in part to wikidudeman, we actually have something that is working for us. So yes, I agree with Luka and the title of this thread.Taharqa 15:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that consensus, according to policy, can change. Not saying that it necessarily will in this case, just mentioning something that might wind up mattering. In that case, then what needs to be worked out, to everyone's satisfaction, is what the explicit subject of this article is. Is the subjet what the reliable sources on the subject say about the ethnicity, or race, of the ancient Egyptians, or is it about what the recent arguments or discussions about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians? If it is about the latter, then I would think that changing the title to Controversy regarding the race of Ancient Egyptians or something similar and the introduction to reflect that change might be in order. However, there does seem to be some disagreement about what the specific focus of this article is. Resolving that would seem to be the first consideration regarding this article, as the bulk of the existing discussion seems to hinge on that. And I do believe that attempting to make the article cover both the reliable sources' opinion and the currently popular discussion does seem to be bordering on conflation, which is against policy in several ways. John Carter 15:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

1) Obviously just because consensus CAN change, doesn't mean it has while at the same time, wikipedia is not a democracy, where people feel they can show up out of no where and underine consensus merely because they have numbers. There is no adequate explanation as to why we should violate wiki policy by creating a pov-fork, why we should base these changes on someone's unwilling ness to elaborate or provide details, or why we should mereg part of an article with a non-existent article completely made up and redirected to a sub-section of another article. As far s the theme of the article, it has been discussed during the consensus process and previously, though we can indeed continue to addres that. In the meantime, this still doesn't answer which sources are and are not unreliable pertaining to what and how. Only blanket statements with no accompanying examples or details. No discussion can come from someone's pov blanket statements or sweeping critique.Taharqa 15:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There are two articles here, not one

Latest comment: 16 years ago38 comments5 people in discussion

Per WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, this article needs to be separated into two articles. One article should be about the academic studies of the origin of ancient Egyptians and the other one should be on the fringe theories regarding the race of ancient Egyptians. We should settle on appropriate names for the two articles. ScienceApologist 15:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That would create a POV fork. They must be presented in a single article neutrally while stile abiding by WP:WEIGHT. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

^I agree totally with wikidudeman and there is no need to argue over someone's pov blanket statement devoid of elaboration either.. We need to abide by iki policy.. I know dab has a lot of seniority on here also, which really leads into question where you guys were during the consensus process?Taharqa 15:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

- We do need to abide by wikipedia policy of WP:Undue weight, which seems to be the central issue here. Right now, it seems to me that the fringe theories have significantly more play in this article than could be reasonably expected under that official policy. If that policy were to be enforced, most of the content relating to those theories would be removed completely, which I think is something everyone would seek to avoid. However, as it stands, the article as it is currently constructed is already in violation of policy. John Carter 15:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that will not create a POV fork. The idea is akin to separating creationism from the evolution article. One article is about science the other article is about a religious belief. Similarly here, there is material in the article which is mainstream and there is material that is pseudohistory.

To put it another way, it has been suggested on the fringe noticeboard that a new article on race mythologies or race pseudohistories be started that can include subsections of the following ideas:

Noachian racial pseudohistories
Nazi racial pseudohistories
Christian identity racial pseudohistorionics
Afrocentrism/Black Israelite racial pseudohistories
Japanese ainu racial pseudohistories

etc.

Much of the material in this article would fit in well into such a discussion.

Note that race is considered by most mainstream academic sources to be an external subjective category (as compared to ethnicity which is a self-subjective category). As such, there is no way to determine who is or isn't a particular "race" except by consent or decree of relevant societies. The racial genealogies purported by the above groups are decidedly fringe because they are counter to the mainstream understanding of the biological markers of populations studies. That is to say that anyone who claims to have a biological basis for their claims to racial purity, superiority, inferiority, or ancestry are outside the current understanding of what determines race. ScienceApologist 15:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Evolution article does summarize the religious controversies. The only reason that Creationism has another article is because it's a totally different topic. The discussion of the race of the ancient egyptians is a single topic and thus both the scientific and the fringe ideas need to be discussed there. The only problem is WP:Undue weight, which suggests condensing the afrocentricism elements, not totally removing them since they are indeed relevant to the discussion of the race of the ancient Egyptians. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying that a summary of racial pseudohistories must be totally excised from an article on population studies of ancient Egyptians, only that it be relegated to its properly weighted status. That is clearly not being done in this article, nor may it be possible given that the very name of the article is problematic for the reasons I outlined. I'm not sure that Wikipedia should even have an article like this, but if we do, we need to make sure that whatever academic controversies that exist are not entangled with fringe theorists who have other agenda. ScienceApologist 16:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no material here according to the sources that is "pseudo-history", that is only you imposing your own original research and pov. Again, no examples are provided that would warrant such a drastic change. Nothing. Just offhand comments and inapplicable examples and black hebrews or something else irrelevant. 'Race' will always be subjective though this is what that article is about so an opinion on it or two is notable per wikipedia notability. It in no way overshadows most of the article as it is separated by section. Your opinion on whether or not a particular group were black or white is your opinion and that fact that your opinion isn't in the article shouldn't warrant suppression of a notable opinion in the said controversy or topic, especially when you're not qualified enough to prove either position wrong and Yurco has a paper actually cited in the article called 'are the Egyptians black or white", while he, Roth, Nubianet, Williams and others indeed make the the claim per professional opinion that many would indeed be considered "black" by American classification schemes, especially in southern Egypt, so your claims of pseudo-history will always be subjective and YOUR view, but the academic views are cited.. It is covered neutrally and we've gained consensus to make sure of it. For a purely scientific approach to this topic, see Origin of the Nilotic peoples. This article covers what the title suggests and changing the names in order to separate content is a pov fork, as has been noted, especially since it is based on someone's pov.Taharqa 16:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Any claim to a racial identity of a people is a pseudohistory, technically. This is seen in most scholarship on race. ScienceApologist 16:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy regarding POV forks is verbatim, from the WP:NPOV page, "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." The suggestion to separate the content into two articles does not seem to me to meet these criteria. What this article is as is stands is already two articles, although the content has been shoehorned into one. As such, I have every reason to believe that the material regarding the fringe theories already violates WP:Undue weight. In this case, there is a great deal of such fringe theory content, which would seem to be enough to allow it to have its own article. This, also, is standard procedure. If the articles reference each other in such a way as to make it clear that one article presents the view as per what are generally considered to be the reliable sources on the subject, while the other presents the other opinions, that is also something that has been done repeatedly regarding situations like this and thus seemingly in complete keeping with policy. I cannot see how separating out the fringe theories into a different article violates any policy. And, as noted above, this is not the only instance of pseudoscientific opinions regarding race, and joining all such theories into a single article or related articles, is consistent with policy. John Carter 16:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: As such, I have every reason to believe that the material regarding the fringe theories already violates WP:Undue weight

^That is a pov-fork most definitely unless you can substantiate your assertions, which you have not. This is exactly the justification behind pov-forkers and dab has been invplved with a fork of this page before.

Your argument is based on a logical fallacy called Proof by assertion..

Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.

I will also repost what I've written concerning your unsupported and blanket claims..

Your opinion on whether or not a particular group were black or white is your opinion and that fact that your opinion isn't in the article shouldn't warrant suppression of a notable opinion in the said controversy or topic, especially when you're not qualified enough to prove either position wrong and Yurco has a paper actually cited in the article called 'are the Egyptians black or white", while he, Roth, Nubianet, Williams and others indeed make the the claim per professional opinion that many would indeed be considered "black" by American classification schemes, especially in southern Egypt, so your claims of pseudo-history will always be subjective and YOUR view, but the academic views are cited.

^Other than that, I'm sure most have no idea what you're talking about given the lack of elaboration.Taharqa 16:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, this kind of argument is one that is best handled as a question in African American history and racial identities/categories of the United States. Roth, Nubianet, Williams, and others you cite are making a very important point that the racial identities of the ancient Egyptians who have pseudohistorically been labeled as "white" is not only dubious but offensively misguided. I think that their scholarship deserves a place in this encyclopedia, but it is better to have it in an article on racial identifications in general rather than on this or that group in particular. ScienceApologist 16:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The pages linked to make it quite clear what the existing scientific consensus on issues of race are. However, it seems to me that you are now requesting that all of this be explained to you on this particular page. It seems to me that you are attempting to demand that we reinvent the wheel for you because you seem to not accept current theory. However, to attempt to achieve some sort of clear opinion, I believe what seems to be required to address your own opinions is an expert opinion on the subject of race as it relates to human beings. Such a request can be filed. I, and I believe the other recent newcomers to this discussion, would be more than willing to abide by whatever they say. Would the rest of you? John Carter 16:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, what I am actually saying is that you're double talking and not providing details for your claims. If providing at least a few examples entails "reinventing the wheel", then so be it, but the topic title is spelled out for you and what you're requesting is that we take race out of the entire article and change the entire theme, even though this is a noted controversy in academia on many fronts.[46].. Attribute its cause to who you will, but it is there and a part of academia..Taharqa 16:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But Taharqa, I don't think there is a controversy at all. Are there any modern academics who seriously argue that the ancient Egyptians were white? I only know of academics who argue that, given the (relatively) modern racial pseudo-theories imposed by white male hegemonic powers the ancient Egyptians would have been considered black. This is an important point, but it isn't really about the ancient Egyptians but more about racial identification in general. ScienceApologist 16:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist , I understand a lot better what you're saying, but wouldn't this still be connected to the article's title/name? It is obvious that you guys are proposing a split/name change for the article, but as long as 'race' is in the title of the article, wouldn't it be notable to touch on such things and as demonstrated, if it is notable enough of a subject in academia, then why not a wiki-based encyclopedia?Taharqa 16:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The title is problematic because it indicates to the general public that there is something "external" which can be considered "race" can be applied to the ancient Egyptians. In order to write a truly decent article on the subject we have to first deconstruct the idea of a "racial identity" and then say "if we go by the standards imposed by the old white idiots, then Egyptians are clearly not white". That's the key: the way the title of the article is right now will confuse most readers who are not up on race-scholarship or African American studies, for example. That's why I say we should include this discussion under a different heading because the people who talk about the racial identities of ancient Egyptians aren't really talking about the identities of the ancient Egyptians but are rather commenting on contemporary racist constructs. ScienceApologist 16:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Reasonable history clearly indicates that the ancient Egyptians were not "white" in any modern sense of the term. However, it also makes it clear that many of them did not possess characteristics such that they could be described as "black", either. And the Pre-Adamite belief and such are ludicrous and not even worth addressing here. North African would seem to be the most accurate, but it is far from clear. Vagueness like that is one of the reasons "race" is so little entertained scientifically today. I also note that there are several other instances in the world where ethnicity is mischaracterized for the benefit of certain subgroups. The discrimination against the Ainu and the whole idea of the Aryan race come to mind here. I do think that addressing all these issues in a single article, which might well be linked to by other articles, might be the best and most effective way of dealing with the ignorance regarding this subject we often see, particularly as that type of presentation would make it clearer that it is fairly widespread. It would also be a good place to discuss exactly what reliable information is available on the subject, and what unreliable sources say, and why they are now seen as unreliable. John Carter 16:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the United States "black" means something very different than it does in other parts of the world. The history of the one-drop rule comes into play, and passability has a lot to do with it. It is an extremely charged subject and the dichotomy of white/black is pronounced. This is in comparison to Europe where there are additional categories that come into play and the black/white distinction is not as historically/politically significant. In any case, this is a question of current scholarship on racial identification rather than a question on the ancient Egyptians, per se. It's like asking what race is a particular color found on the color table of a computer is. The subject obviously isn't the color table, it's the whole business of classifying a race in the first place. ScienceApologist 16:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been at least a dozen previous attempts at renaming this article and all have failed. I think that most people have an idea of what "race" means and won't be confused by the use of it in the article title. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree. As someone who has been exposed to a lot of scholarship on race and ethnicity I think that most people have only a vague understanding as to what race actually is. I don't think we should try to rename the article at all. Rather I think we should include some of the more salient points of the article regarding racial categorization in an article explicitly about racial categorizations and pseudohistories. Likewise, the stuff about the demography of the ancient Egyptians should be put somewhere else. The two are entirely separable ideas. ScienceApologist 16:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

However, the concept itself is clearly one which is not widely held by modern experts in the field. That would call into question whether we should be addressing such "fringe theories" as race at all. "Ethnicity" would be a much less loaded word, and would convey the same point. And it is clear policy that consensus, and thus attempts, can and do change. I believe that may be happening here now. John Carter 16:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So should the article be named according to what is most accurate from a scientific standpoint or what would be clear to most laymen (most readers)? If "race" is just a social construct then how can people be confused about what races are? They define them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, individuals do not define race because race is necessarily an external imposition by the society. Individuals self-identify their ethnicity, but generally not their race (unless we're talking about empowerment, which is a totally different matter). Race is generally considered something that is externally imposed by the society. Thus individuals are often confused as to what race is because they are not necessarily aware of how society handles such things. In order to "reliably" determine the "race" of an individual, we can only go on racist tests (such as the paper bag test, phrenology, limpieza de sangre, etc.) that discriminate. ScienceApologist 16:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In most cases, language which is clearest, most unambiguous, and least emotionally loaded should be used. "Race" and its variantions are all clearly emotionally loaded words, and do not have any sort of clearly defined meaning given that emotional content. "Ethnicity" or some similar variation on ethnic group is basically clearly defined in the intro of that article, and thus presents a more objective, less emotional, and generally clearer definition than "race" does. Also, most people will know that the general consensus meaning of "race" is held by "ethnicity" or some similar word as well. John Carter 16:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So how should the article reflect the debate about what many consider to be the debate about the race of the ancient egyptians? Were they black, brown, white, etc? What did they look like? These questions are debated by afrocentricists, egyptologists, etc. Even Hawass, a non-American has stated that King Tug "was not black", seemingly aware of what "black" means. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Having an article on the appearance of ancient Egyptians might be advisable. This would include such things as height, weight, hair, eyes, facial features, as well as skin tone. Any discussion of racial identification could then be relegated to a single duly weighted section. Hawass is definitely working under the preconception of a racial characterization that is not American and his testimony is probably not reliable because he is not a race scholar. ScienceApologist 17:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

To put this another way, the current title of the article indicates to all but the most sophisticated readers that the ancient Egyptian society had a definition of race that is parallel to our modern understanding. This is, flatly, a complete misconception. What this article is actually about is taking modern societal definitions of race and post hoc applying them to an ancient peoples. Modern scholarship along these lines is important because a lot of time was wasted in academia in the past arguing over precise psedoscientific and pseudohistorical racial markers that are not only wholly inconsistent and contradictory but can lead to some rather profound conclusions in terms of group identification. How we communicate that nuance to a reader in a title is not at all apparent to me. Such a subject cannot be succinctly summarized because the terms themselves are too loaded.

What I believe we are looking at, therefore, is a case study in post-hoc racial identification. It is an interesting subject, but it is not really about the "race of ancient Egyptians" but rather about "Racial classifications" and how we identify with history.

ScienceApologist 17:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I understand your last comment, and I think it is more or less true in regards to the current state of the article. However, I don't think that the current title indicates "that the ancient Egyptian society had a definition of race that is parallel to our modern understanding". As it stands, I think the general reader expects to find a balanced narrative profiling the documented theories regarding the 'race' of said nation. That such a notion is a modern construct goes without saying. And despite the fact that this notion is currently the subject of intense positivistic deconstructionalist effort, more than a few scholarly works have been written to date discussing this subject in this, i.e. the received manner. Might such scholarship be criticised on the grounds you mention? Of course, and should be done in the appropriate context. But this is not it. At most what would be needed is a caveat explaining that 'though very notion of 'race' is contested in academic circles, notable work has and continues to be done in this direction (i.e. to determine the 'race' of ancient egyptians)'. The remainder of the article should discuss that work, and leave the discussion of the appropriateness of the very subject matter to an article of a 'higher' order. Varoon Arya 17:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My contention is that the very title of the article indicates that. Note that the "theories regarding race" are necessarily contextualized to racist tests of today: not to anything that approximates actual demographic scholarship. It is quite impossible to find a mainstream academic these days who actually believes that a "nation" has a singular "race", such ideas died a long time ago. So not only is this a modern concept: it's a debunked modern concept. That's why the title is so problematic: it is doubly removed from modern academic reality. I am not arguing that we should criticize any scholarship on this subject. I just think that proper contextualization of the subject needs to occur. It seems to me that this subject is not, per se, about the ancient Egyptians. Rather it is a controversy that is used to illustrate the fallacy of racial theories in general. That's why I say we need to rethink the entire approach of the article starting with the title. The way to think of it, in my mind, is to say to yourself "What will the average reader who knows nothing about ancient Egyptians or race think upon coming across this page?" I think that the first thing they will think is "Aha, there is controversy as to what race the ancient Egyptians were." This is patently untrue: this is not what the controversy is about. Rather the controversy is about what we mean by race in the first place and how one might apply such definitions to an ancient people and to what purpose. ScienceApologist 17:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And, as noted elsewhere, this kind of controversy isn't even remotely limited to just the Egyptians. John Carter 17:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wikipedia is a means to communicate the results of scholastic research to the general public. As such, it is bound to reply to questions which the general public wants answered, though it makes a point of doing this in an educated, neutral manner. Now, 'What race were the ancient Egyptians?' - as removed as it may or may not be from certain circles of academic discussion - remains a topic which deserves due treatment. To derail this inquiry into a discussion about the inappropriateness of the inquiry itself seems to be a misuse of editorial power.

I agree in principle that there are two sides to this issue, and I have been and remain a supporter for a split in the article. But to make the article primarily or even exclusively about the misconceptions and misappropriations of the notion of 'race' in the context of historical reflection would completely eclipse the original intent and designate the initial inquiry as 'unanswerable'. If another article were to be created examining this very complex and interesting issue, I would certainly support it, and would like to see the appropriate material from this article moved over there. This article, however, should remain devoted to discussing the material which addresses the original premise, presenting the theories which have been and are currently entertained regarding the racial composition of the people of ancient Egypt. (Of course, I do not expect there to be a one-word answer such as 'black', 'white' or any other such designation. There is certainly room to mention the controversy regarding the very notion of race, particularly in our examination of history, with ample references to the new article ScienceApologist and John Cater seem inspired to create. But I'm not about to, in so many words, tell a user that he's a "closet bigot" for wanting to know if an answer can be given to the question as it is formulated in layman's terms.) Varoon Arya 18:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As a fololow-up, though, can any real answer be given? So far as I can tell, from what I know of the subject, the answer is "No". I'm not sure we need a whole article to say that, though. I could see a section of Ancient Egypt devoted to the subject, and maybe links there to an article on racial perceptions, whatever name it might ultimatley have, but to an extent this discussion seems to be based on what are now thought to be inaccurate initial assumptions, like some of the other cases mentioned above. At this point, it might be giving the whole concept of "race" undue weight to have a whole article devoted to how to apply that now-outdated concept to a group of people. One might as well ask what the genetic heritage of Zeus is. John Carter 18:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

John Carter, your original research rationale is non-applicable. I paraphrase a few noted scholars who are cited in the article and expressed a professional opinion indicative of "black" being applicable in many contexts in concern to ancient Egypt, and you give us this contradictory statement:

However, it also makes it clear that many of them did not possess characteristics such that they could be described as "black", either. And the Pre-Adamite belief and such are ludicrous and not even worth addressing here. North African would seem to be the most accurate, but it is far from clear.

What makes this clear and according to whom? You? That depends on your definition of "Black" as it usually simply denotes dark-skinned people of notable African Ancestry, and in America there is other criteria. It seems that you hypocritically assign your own racial beliefs and attribute certain attributes to it in this context, hence this confusing statement. Your concepts cannot overrule the academics cited for instance, since you can't base changes on your own world view or opinion on the subject, especially when it isn't repeated by the sources cited. Of course Egypt is situated in NorthEast Africa, but so were Nubians, Ethiopians, etc.. Northeast Africa isn't a "race" and today comprises many different ethnic groups. Interesting enough, most of the indigenous haplotypes found in North Africa are East African in origin and most certainly these said NorthEast Africans did not sprout from the soil and must have migrated from somewhere at some point, which is why this sort of original research classification by way of modern geography in concern to 'race" doesn't apply. We merely report what the sources say and such proposed changes are not consistent with the sources who make note of 'race', ethnicity, or biogeographic origins in their approach to it, hence the title of the article (along with the fact that many academic papers have been written about this subject and I've provided a citation attesting to that)...Taharqa 18:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Your own statement makes it clear that the terms like "black" and "white", in this content, have no clear, uniformly agreed upon meanings. Why anyone would insist that creating an article which uses such poorly defined terms, and very easily violate the official policy of WP:SYNTH in the process, is an open question. If we could find a specific definition of the terms that all of these parties referenced clearly and explicitly agreed to, that might be different. However, seeking to say that several people use the same word, when the definition of that word is itself at best unclear, could very easily be a violation of policy in itself. As you made clear, there is no apparent clear consensus among any parties as to the exact definition of the words, which very likely could make using such ambiguous words in a way which might be seen to indicate that there is a standard definition, at least perhaps, at least a bad idea in and of itself. John Carter 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, I understand your frustration, but I also think you need to extend a little good faith. I contend that those who argue that ancient Egyptians were not "black" are referring to racial classifications that are decidedly not of the United States. I have yet to see an American scholar comment on this who has similar views except for, possibly, some lunatic white supremacists. This probably belongs in the article. Currently it isn't found. Why not? ScienceApologist 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, whatever is not in the article has not been found noted by those reliable. Hawwass' has his own opinions on AE and race, which is cited in this article from a modern Egyptian perspective as well as an entire section on Egyptian views; maybe you missed these? In any event, I'd also like to comment that Varoon Arya is spot on imo and I practically agree with everything he/she says several posts above. It is what I've been trying to elaborate a long with others.Taharqa 18:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are arguing that the article is "complete" which is a very dangerous thing to do at Wikipedia. Obviously there is a lot that is incomplete in this article because, mainly, it doesn't really contextualize the issues properly according to the very sources we offer. The "debate" on the "race" of "ancient Egyptians" is not a debate about ancient Egyptians at all but rather one on racial identity. With Hamanite nonsense made by slave-owners to the later arguments over whether Cleopatra was Greek or Egyptian, this whole imbroglio has more to do with the asshole tendencies of white Orientalists than it does to do with what ancient Egyptians actually looked like. ScienceApologist 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Name of article

Latest comment: 16 years ago35 comments8 people in discussion

I want everyone here to list the name that they think this article should be and why. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Race of ancient Egyptians- there is nothing wrong with the current title. Yahel Guhan 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that BTW, I would also not oppose Ethnicity of ancient Egyptians Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity of ancient Egyptians makes no sense as a concept. ScienceApologist 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Appearance of the ancient Egyptians. This is a much less loaded term and would avoid the problems that are bound to continue to come up. ScienceApologist 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I could agree with all of the above. "Appearance" probably more closely approximates the meaning of "race" than "ethnicity" does, so that might be my own favored alternative. John Carter 17:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I might also point out that an article on the appearance of ancient Egyptians would properly begin by discussing the lines of evidence for what the ancient Egyptians looked like including all the relevant physical attributes (not just their skin color). We could have a section in the article about what "race" the ancient Egyptians were and properly contextualize it something like the following

Race

Though modern academic scholarship no longer recognizes consistent definitions for racial characteristics, a number of scholars have pointed out that the past writings of Egyptologists and historians have erroneously identified ancient Egyptians as being "white" when their skin tone was very different from the racial classifications often associated with that term.

etc. etc.

ScienceApologist 17:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Like Yahel Guhan says, there is nothing wrong with the present title and as wikidudeman and others have been saying for the longest, the titles get changed every other month when some new editor happens to come along and complain. It is waaaaaay too chaotic and I can't stress this enough. It is ridiculous that editors must keep going through this same cycle and if we want to keep everything stable, I suggest few changes as possible. I am totally against a name change. These proposed changes are too sporadic, abrupt, and just unjustified.Taharqa 18:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's basically counter to the basic idea of Wikipedia. You seem to be advocating dragging your feet simply because you don't like the fresh attention being paid to the article. That's too bad because Wikipedia has a number of policies which encourage editors to be bold in their suggestions for improving articles. I understand, Taharqa, your perspective on the article. Maybe you've felt attacked in the past for what you perceive to be a systematic bias in the editing of certain editors. I suggest you put this aside and try to realize that there are many people here that are on your "side", as it were, who want to see these ideas explicated in an improved way. If you think that the current article is as good as it gets, then I'm afraid we're not going to get anywhere. Part of being a Wikipedian is being willing to see your edits mercilessly changed. ScienceApologist 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I like your approach to this conversation ScienceApologist, I really do. If you only understood what I mean when I say that this has been tried over and over again, new attention or not. Not once has it gained consensus for the fact that it created pov-forks and topics not notable to any section of academia. "race" comprises appearance. It covers it, so why make an article about something that deals with an artifact of something else? This is why it is a pov fork. Appearance, along with genetics is the main problem with race, as appearance is so subjective and genetics are variable and don't support any concepts of "race". There is an article on "race" its self, but why isn't that topic being split to appearance? Do you see the contradiction? It is just an over view of the subject, whether or not its validity is disputed by some (which in that case, should be noted in the article), we have an obligation to present what's notable.Taharqa 22:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ℳ==Any objections?==

Are there any objections to taking the Appearance of the ancient Egyptians redirect and making it into a new article? I won't touch this article with a ten-foot pole. ScienceApologist 18:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are! Haven't you read the replies other than you and John Carter? We've already changed it back from that name after a previous split, it is ridiculous to un-merge it to this (what i feel to be) nonsense title again as it is a definite pov-fork..Taharqa 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But certainly there is more to appearance than just race. ScienceApologist 18:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

^The title is random and not notable per academic notability, which violates wikipolicy, while this topic is[47]. Not to mention that we've already merged that article because the overwhelming majority found it to be useless. Appearance is the most 1-dimensional topic one can address, even more so than 'race' or biogeographic origins..Taharqa 18:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The topic you reference from the digitalegypt cite is not really about "race of ancient Egyptians" but rather "Racial classifications applied to ancient Egyptians". Note how they contextualize the question by stating, up front, that it is a racial question not a question about ancient Egypt per se. ScienceApologist 18:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This quote is relevant: "Out of this genocidal experience, race has become a dominant category for uniting and dividing people in modernity. Within the race debate, ancient Egypt has become a terrain contested." The context of this entire discussion needs to be switched from Ancient Egypt to the "race debate". ScienceApologist 18:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

All you're doing is analyzing the source I've provided, yet fail to provide one of your own which demonstrates that your proposed forked topic is notable for an encyclopedia.. The point is that the topic is notable, and varied opinions on it are also noted, though I feel we have restricted ourselves to those most neutral, professional, and/or verifiable (though of course this its self, that nothing to do with something as drastic as a name change or split).Taharqa 19:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive:

ScienceApologist 19:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability isn't the only criterion, however. It has often been the case that articles which grow too long are broken up on that basis alone. As it stands, it is 60 kilobytes long. Many articles are split up into separate articles at shorter lengths than that, particularly when, as seems to be the case here, there is abundant other information which could be added if the length of the article were not made problematic by doing so. John Carter 19:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It was obviously a bad idea from the start to change the title from the more realistic Race and ancient Egypt, because any way you square it this whole topic has nothing to do with the ancient Egyptians themselves, but first, the racial conflicts between blacks and whites (especially in America) and second how the ancient Egyptians are getting caught up in the middle of the modern racial conflicts. I mean there is no other "race of" article about any other ancient people, or "appearance of" or anything like that. At the end, it doesn't matter how many splits or title changes you do because people motivated more by their own racial ideology will flood all the article with their povs. The best you can hope for is for one article to stay stable on a consensus version for longer than a week. The only other option is to open an WP:AFD deletion discussion to find out if it's a notable subject enough to have its own article and if it's worth the efforts from all the editwarring and pov pushing. You need to look at this article's history before coming right in the middle of things thinking that you can make the article work. It never has. Egyegy 19:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, can anyone tell me why I see no evidence of there ever having been any prior RfC or any other sort of request for outside input in this article? The only one I've seen to date is dab's own request on the fringe theory noticeboard. The article might be more stable if there were a real effort to try to bring in other, hopefully objective and qualified, editors to assist in the article. John Carter 19:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been many many if you've watched this page or dig into the history. Requests for Comments, Third Opinions, Mediation, everything you can probably think of. Like I said, nothing works for long. Egyegy 19:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd looked over the archived talk pages before I made that comment. I see evidence of page protection, one request for a third opinion, and even evidence of dispute resolution. Maybe binding arbitration might be the only way to resolve this. John Carter 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think mediation might work. ScienceApologist 19:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I found the failed mediation link for you [53]. It was finally closed because Taharqa claimed he was "done" editing the article, which of course never happened since he started editing it as soon as the mediation was closed. Egyegy 19:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If at first you don't succeed.... Maybe community enforcable mediation might work here. John Carter 19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, none of those links qualify as notability for an entire topic as they only deal with the implications of both "race" and "appearance", and where you apply it is your own prerogative, but there is no subject by that explicit name/title or even one alluding to it. As far as pov/edit warring, I think both Egyegy and dab need to reevaluate their own contribution to that, but either way that alone doesn't warrant a name change, as is attested by such articles as race and intelligence..Taharqa 19:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by notability for an "entire topic". Are you advocating some sort of topic-level standard for how to title articles? If so, what policy, guideline, or principle are you using to guide yourself? ScienceApologist 19:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that according to the General notability guidelines, it doesn't qualify notability and is completely made-up and random, as far as a suitable topic. The title its self in no way warrants replacement of the current, seeing as how the current does fit these guidelines of reliability in sources, Significant coverage, etc, and has also met consensus for at least 2 years, while your random proposal has not.Taharqa 19:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You need to calm down as your prose is fast degenerating into angry comments that don't seem to really address the points being made. First of all, I am not arguing for deleting this article, I'm only saying that redirecting appearance of the ancient Egyptians to this article is misleading at best and offensive at worst. Secondly, I have no idea what general notability guidelines you are talking about. Obviously the appearance of ancient Egyptians is not "completely made-up and random". The ancient Egyptians had an appearance, right? I see that there is plenty of significant coverage on the question of what the appearance of ancient Egyptians was (e.g. the National Geographic article on reconstructing King Tut's face). The "consensus" for the last 2 years seems spotty at best and controversial at worst judging from the rocky history of the article. So, I'm really at a loss for how to evaluate your incendiary remarks. ScienceApologist 20:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, find me an academic subject topic overviewing the non-existent article that you wish to create. If not, it is obviously original research since you're basing your topic from an implication and not an actual subject in academia, such as this.Taharqa 22:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The solution to the problems facing this article is simply to agree to disagree. We should just accept that this is how the article will be and do the best to try to find the most stable version. Let us forget about deletions or name changes because they have all been tried before and failed. The topic is notable but controversial and is one of the most popular articles on wikipedia. Let us just move for stability and agree to disagree. We can continue to edit war but we should tone it down enough to avoid getting the page protected. Muntuwandi 22:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Or alternately, as I think would be the best options, split out the article into multiple articles, like was done with Historicity of Jesus, History of Pennsylvania, and however many other articles. Doing so allows for inclusion of more of the available data without compromising POV, as long as the articles contain introductory content to the effect that what follows in whichever article holds the more controversial information does not necessarily reflect the consensus view of experts in the field. And, again, I think that community enforcable mediation, and greater involvement from other parties who may have knowledge of the subject, like the 4 projects I mentioned above, might be the best way to decide how to "finalize" the existing content. John Carter 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Muntuwandi's stance should be adopted for the present. Before anyone can decide whether the article indeed warrants a split, a new title or whatever, let's first get it into a shape that most contributors can 'agree to disagree' on. Granting that participants can relenquish the desire to have 'control' over the article (which is only illusionary anyways), they should be given the chance to voice their opinion on important matters and the community should then be able to find a way to incorporate opposed views into one cohesive article so as not to offend either the sensibilites of the participants nor the truth. The most important thing right now is to establish a cooperative work-atmosphere where people feel their views and contributions are at least being taken seriously by the other members. If that is lacking, then the edit wars and snide comments will just go on and on. Varoon Arya 22:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree also with Muntuwandi since I don't think a split is the main priority as of now. Nothing will come from such drastic changes in the middle of such heated dispute. There are still things that needs organization, maybe a bit of condensing and formatting or better grammar/wording, and etc.; then maybe some of the complaints will go away in the process, but for now I strongly suggest that we need to be discussing that and how we can cooperate and make it a lasting cooperation.Taharqa 16:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of sub-Saharan Black populations are from ancient Egypt

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I think Racial affinities of ancient Egyptians makes more sense. The problem with the current title is that it seems comically self-obvious: they were ancient Egyptians! Seriously, establishing continent-level racial groups is a very subjective and potentially biased process. To give an example, the idea of a "white" race is obviously very recent - the notion that people from Ireland and England were the same race would certainly have come as a surprise to them a century ago, much less further separated nations. In ancient times I imagine that people surrounding the Mediterranean must have felt more affinity with one another than with people from Germany or sub-Saharan Africa, though that's just a guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.116.59 (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

IP 70.15.116.59. Ignorance can become a sickness. Don't you know that those people called sub-Saharan are from the Nile Valley, including ancient Egypt? They speak, even today, Neo-Egyptian languages. They are the only people in the world who speak languages derived from the Egyptian. And these people are said to be Black. Herodotus, Aristotle said the same thing about the ancient Egyptians, ancestors of the sub-Saharan populations. They are Black (Herodotus), even very Black (Aristotle). Read Aboubacry Moussa Lam, Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l'Egypte ancienne et l'Afrique Noire, Paris: Khepera/Présence Africaine, 1997. Else, do you know that ancient Egyptians are from ancient Soudan? Do you know that they spoke a langue also spoken in ancient Soudan? Read Jean-François Champollion, Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens, 1828. Speaking or speaking out of ignorance and in hiding can turn into a sickness. Be careful! Learn more and well!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 13:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The latin word senator is devrived from egyptian! Derived from the EXACT same word, Senator.

Memphis, Philladelphea, Cincinate, While all names of american cities are from latin words derived from egyptian. Yeah I think I am going to be sick also. After all reference any one of hundreds of generic history texts and their will be hundereds of references to the egyptians being mediteranian cullters and people. I mean after all what do those people know its only been 2 hundred some odd years since some french guy decided to declare the egyptians as black. they should have really taken the time to dig up some artifacts or maybe even do extensive research on the egyptian language so as to be able to understand what the egyptians writings themselves relay to the reader. what were they thinking?--207.14.131.239 00:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan Africa is a big place with many different peoples - peoples representing all three major genetic branches of the human race, for example. I'm sure there has been some Egyptian influence southward, but trade and migration on horseback (before the landscape demanded camels) can never have been as easy as it was via ship. (Even so, I was speaking primarily of culture and trade; while the lumping of vast racial groupings is arbitrary, I don't doubt Egyptians are Africans) 70.15.116.59 03:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

^ The great sphinx controversy

[1] The great sphinx controversy

[1]