Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Mixed race

I believe the statement needs to be removed or rephrased since the mainstream consensus is disputed.

"Mainstream consensus is that ancient Egypt was a mixed-race gestalt of African and Middle Eastern ethnicities, with varying skin tones and other physical characteristics.[3][4][5][6] "

furthermore the external links make no reference to a mixed race societyMuntuwandi 22:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

They do make reference to it, and this is the consensus.

[3]

The biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians were tested against their neighbors and selected prehistoric groups as well as against samples representing the major geographic population clusters of the world. Two dozen craniofacial measurements were taken on each individual used. The raw measurements were converted into C scores and used to produce Euclidean distance dendrograms. The measurements were principally of adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similarities based solely on genetic relationships. 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, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World. Adjacent people in the Nile valley show similarities in trivial traits in an unbroken series from the delta in the north southward through Nubia and all the way to Somalia at the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selective forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur. An assessment of race is as useless as it is impossible. Neither clines nor clusters alone suffice to deal with the biological nature of a widely distributed population. Both must be used. We conclude 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.

This is what a gestalt is: a configuration, pattern, or organized field having specific properties that cannot be derived from the summation of its component parts; a unified whole. (Dictionary.com)

[4] Page 42: "...the Egyptians were of mixed race"

[5] Slavery in ancient Egypt encompassed a wide range of skin colors, as did the Egyptian population itself, at all social levels...

[6] Look at the title :)

This proposal is somewhat ridiculous. You clearly haven't looked at the sources in depth. The most notable Afrocentrists have even gone out of their way to point out how the mixed-race hypothesis "unfairly" dominates science. That is to say, even the opposition acknowledges that these views are mainstream in science.--Urthogie 22:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream consensus sounds like a weasel word. Who is the mainstream.

It's not a weasel word-- its a word used by afrocentrists, eurocentrists, and plain old scientists to describe what the mixed-race view is. There is noone in the scientific literature, afrocentrist, eurocentrist, or whatever adjectives you want to apply to them, who thinks that the mixed race hypothesis isn't the mainstream view. There's nothing weasely about stating it as such. In fact, its bold an direct and factual and based on sources. The complete opposite of weaseldom.

[4] - One sentence in the whole book is insufficient to be considered mainstream

Your criticism of this source is that it doesn't repeat itself. You don't need something said twice in a book to cite it. Please read Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Nowhere in there does it say something must be said twice to be cited to a given source.--Urthogie 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[5] - the book is about race in general not about ancient egypt.

Yes, its about race, and discussions of race include discussions of race in Egypt. This is like saying a book about mammals can't be cited for saying anything about bears because its about mammals, not bears.--Urthogie 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it can be cited but does it fit the criteria of being mainstream.

[6] - The book presents a counter argument to afrocentrism and therefore cannot be considered mainstream.Muntuwandi 23:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so despite this book being cited by at least 34 other scholars, you are somehow able to a priori deny that its mainstream because it is opposes afrocentrism (a view that is not part of the scientific mainstream).

If someone dedicated a whole book solely with the intention of trying to dismiss afrocentrism they are not mainstream but eurocentric.

Like I said, it's ridiculous to push this issue. Even the afrocentrists call this view mainstream, even hough they disagree with it. --Urthogie 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not necessarily disagree with the mixed race hypothesis but I believe it has been oversimplified. food for thought.

• what is implied by mixed-race. The Mestizo population of the americas started about 400 years ago with mixing of europeans and native americans. After 3000 years or 10000 years would the population still be considered a mixed-race.

• Mixed race and having varying skin tones are not the same. Black africans have varying skin tones so do caucasians and asians.

• Throughout ancient from the pre-dynastic period to the end of the civilization did the egyptians look the same. During the 10000 years it is likely that their appearance did change.Muntuwandi 04:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

These are specifics that will be made clear as we add more research. The lead is not meant to discuss specific, only a general summary of the article.--Urthogie 14:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I find this "egyptians are egyptians" line hilarious...Amercans are Americans but that doesn't tell me much about their genes. --Vehgah 16:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Dear Urthogie, I would like first of all to come back to the issue of the picture number 3 of the article. I told you that this man is not a Nubian, but an Egyptian. You are questioning the reliability of the picture I indicated you.

• Actually the picture of the article and that what I am mentioning are from the same wall. You can notice it very easily. To be convinced, go to another site which has the reputation of not being afrocentric, but whose purpose is to distroy afrocentrism. The site is www.geocities.com/enbp/ Go to section ""Black" Africans in Egyptian Art". And once there, widen the picture "Foreign "races" from Ramesses III tomb". You will see in the middle 2 Blacks beleived to be Nubians. There are the last 2 of the series of 4. The one of the article is number 1 as I told you already. Now, look carefully to those 2 Blacks. Above them you can read the word "rmT" which means "man", "Egyptians" as indicated Faulkner, "A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian", p. 149). You can also see the determinatives between the 2 and after the 2nd. They are part of the name "rmT" written between the 4 Blacks. This picture is a great testimony of the racist mentality denouced by the egyptologist Maurizio Damiano-Appia. "Ancor più precisamente, con mentalità razzista, la civiltà doveva essere bianca per definizione" (Maurizio Damiano-Appia, "Egitto e Nubia", p. 8).

Ok, I did my research and I think I can prove you wrong on this point. Description of this picture from the Theban Mapping Project: "Book of Gates, fourth division (P)/fifth hour (H) lower register, scene 30: Nubian, one of the "four races of mankind," erroneously labeled as an Egyptian."[1].

De façon exceptionnelle, dans le tombeau de Ramsès III où une vignette identifie une figure de Nubien comme égyptienne, l'image des Ret et des Nahasu est identique en tous points, y compris les vêtements. Les tenants de la thèse afrocentriste y voient une preuve que les Égyptiens étaient identiques aux autres Africains. Les autres égyptologues considèrent que les artistes ont mal étiqueté les images parce que les vignettes sont également inversées pour TMHHW (les Libyens) et AAMW (les Asiatiques/Sémites).[2]

English translation from Google Translate:

In an exceptional way, in the tomb of Ramsès III where a label identifies a figure of Nubian like Egyptian woman, the image of Ret and Nahasu is identical in all points, including clothing. Holding of the thesis afrocentrist see a proof there that the Egyptians were identical to the other Africans. The other Egyptologists consider that the artists badly labelled the images because the labels are also reversed for TMHHW (Libyans) and AAMW (the Asian ones/Sémites).

As you can see, your point is addressed in the literature, and the mainstream view is that it was mislabeled. (Do the guys on the right look Libyan to you??)--Urthogie 17:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Egyptians are just part of Black people who joined the Nile valley following the climatic change in the Sahara. "In seguito al lento dissecarsi del Sahara (fra il V e il III millenio a.C.), le bande di raccoglitori-cacciatori (e, per il Neolitico, pastori e proto-agricoltori) cominciano a convergere verso le oasi e verso la Valle del Nilo, uniche fonti d'acqua perenni dell'Africa nordorientale" (Maurizio Damiano-Appia, "Egitto e Nubia", p. 17).

Please put the quote in context. "le bande di raccoglitori-cacciatori". Which hunter-gatherers are we referring to here? Please put it in the full context. Also, remember that this is one man, and after you provide the quote we'll see what other scientists have to say... But first provide the full context of the quote.--Urthogie 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Black Africans had had deep and varied contacts between them since the remote past. "Senza arrivare ad estreme conclusioni quali origini dall'Africa Occidentale degli Egizi o dall'Egitto per i popoli occidentali, e senza fantasticare di immani migrazioni, è tuttavia evidente un commune substrato culturale in popolazioni lontane nel tempo e nello spazio. La spegazione sta in una serie di eventi e processi che comprendono cambiamenti climatici, piccole migrazioni successive, scambi culturali, vie commerciali ed altri fattori" (Maurizio Damiano-Appia, "Egitto e Nubia", p. 16).

This passage doesn't seem to disprove the mixed-race view. Noone disagrees that there was trade and contact ongoing. By the way, friend, I know you are from Italy by your IP address, but you must know I am very weak in speaking Italian and French. Translator tools on the internet only work to a certain degree. Please translate what you can (being honest as possible, of course :)).--Urthogie 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• According to the anthropologist Ernest Chantre, all the human remains found in Egypt may not represent the true Egyptians. "mais ces matériaux anatomiques constituant ces nombreuses suites (...) parmi lesquels les anthropologistes ont choisi les éléments de leurs études, sont-ils bien véritablement les anciens sujets des pharaons?" (Quoted by Aboubacry Moussa Lam, "L'affaires des momies royales", p. 62).

This is an issue of a certain degree of error. Chantre doesn't seem to be saying that all of the remains are historically unrepresentative/inaccurate, but rather that possibly some of them are.--Urthogie 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• For better investigations into the Egyptians, says Chantre, one has to turn towards the south. "Mes recherches anthropologiques sur les peuples anciens, comme sur ceux des temps actuels, ont porté presque exclusivement sur la Haute-Egypte (...). C'est donc à dessein que j'ai laissé de côté l'étude de la majeure partie des habitants d'Alexandrie, de Tanis, de Bubaste et du Caire. Dans tous ces grands centres, dont la rivalité passagère des princes a fait des capitales, ont afflué - à toutes les époques - des flots de population de toutes origines. Et de nos jours - comme dans l'antiquité - Juifs, Arméniens, Arabes, Turcs, Grecs et Européens finissent par y constituer une population plus considérable que celle des autochtones. C'est donc au sud, et jusqu'au frontière du Soudan, qu'il faut aller pour étudier les véritables Egyptiens, Coptes et Fellahin, ainsi que leurs voisins et parents les Bedjah" (Quoted by Aboubacry Moussa Lam, "L'affaire des momies royales", p. 63). Your maintream scholars, Urthogie, maybe have done their investigations in Lower Egypt where there is little chance to do a good job on the race of the ancient Egyptians. So I begin to understand the reason why they speak about anthropological links between Europeans, Indians...and Egyptians! That's what your "mainstream consensus" is about.

As much research as possible is done-- the historical record is of course limited. But evidence from both higher and lower egypt support the mixed race hypothesis. Here is a google search on "Lower Egypt" to show you some skin tones from the art of the region: [3]. Notice how they are mainly brown, but none of them blue black as we would expect. This is what Chantre would call ";es véritables Egyptiens, Coptes et Fellahin". --Urthogie 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• To make a comparison. People from Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece are made of Black Africans, White Europeans and White Asians. Are they no longer white? Do they form a particular race? Eurocentric scholars are writing a lot of absurdities about African people and their morphologies. These absurdities will turn one day against Europe and America. Judging from the growing awareness of Black people around the world, it is just a matter of time.

These are mixed societies that are mainly white Europeans. However, Egypt was not just a mixed society. It was a society where most individuals were of a distinct Egyptian type-- a type influenced by North African, Mediterranean, and some other Asian and European ancestries. In The entire idea of race is not scientific-- that's why we use "racial characteristics". As far as racial characteristics, the average egyptian was in some ways similar to his north african neighbors, and in some ways similar to his mesopotamian neighbors.--Urthogie 20:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the appearance in the photo their complexion is akin to many sub-saharan africans.Muntuwandi 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I readded the photo from before, this time with even lighting throughout, without the grayness towards the edges. The photo is not modified to make it lighter, it is simply uniform and clean now.--Urthogie 00:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Appearance

Four peoples of the world: a Syrian, a Nubian, a Libyan, and an Egyptian. An artistic rendering, based on a mural from the tomb of Seti I.

Based on this picture the egyptians had a brown complexion. By standards of today would be considered a person of color. Basically if King Tut were alive today and were to go for dinner at a restaurant in New York, he would be served late and they would get his order wrong.Muntuwandi 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture has pretty bad lighting on the edges, but you're basically right. Then again, couldn't a dark enough (Asian or Indian or Arab) also be thought of as black in race-retarded America-- a land where the one drop rule has a huge history?

Afrocentrism is essentially cultural appropriation at its worst-- claiming that the pharoahs and almost all of the citizens of ancient egypt were of predominantly of sub-saharan african ancestry goes against mainstream science.

Though some may feel Afrocentrism is too extreme, it serves a necessary control over the cultural bias that is inherent in the scientific community. The images in western media of ancient egypt were always very white. eg the mummy, or liz taylor in Cleopatra (1963 film). This is contrary to "mainstream consensus" that egyptians were dark to medium tone.Muntuwandi 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Science is the antidote to flawed portrayals, not ideology. This is why the most influential afrocentrists haven't been talking heads who write book on cultural theory, but rather actual researchers like Diop.--Urthogie 21:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I went and added a picture with better lighting, which shows 4 egyptians, meant to represent the Egyptian race. They're from the same place as the previous image: The Book of Gates. --Urthogie 19:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look at a statue (and when I find the photo I will upload it) of a husband and wife pair from Dynasty III. The wife has stark white skin, while the husband's is a darker brown - presumably because he spent most of the day outside and developed a tan in the hot egyptian sun, while the wife stayed indoors and kept a fair complexion. This would suggest that the "dark-skinned" Egyptian in the above photo could also just be very tan. Or that Egypt had multiple "races" of people in it. Like America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiwara (talk • contribs) 06:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

I think it might be because of the fact that the Egyptian style was to always drew women lighter.--Urthogie 18:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Its Rahotep. He very much resembles an african and his wife looks european.[4], [5] Muntuwandi 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Urthogie. Egyptology is profoundly rooted in its racist origins. “Egypt will be studied considering the passage of the human spirit from the east to the west, but it does not belong to the African spirit (L’Egypte sera examinée au passage de l’esprit humain de l’Est à l’Ouest, mais ne relève pas de l’esprit africain)” said Hegel. (Hegel, “Leçons sur la philosophie de l’histoire”, Paris: Vrin, 1954, p. 93). Egyptologists feel obliged to reject every proof of the blackness of the Egyptians.

• So Herodotus is wrong when he says that the Egyptians have black skin and woolly hair; so Aristotle is wrong when he says that the Egyptians and the Ethiopians are very dark; so the Hebrews are wrong when they say that Egypt and Nubia are sons of Ham, the ancestor of the Blacks in the biblical literature; so the Arabs are wrong when they state that the Egyptians and the Nubians are part of the Sudan, the black race. These are neighbouring and almost contemporary sources to the ancient Egyptians. Egyptologists are puting the sources of the European culture (Greece, Rome and Israel) in danger of being considered as useless and meaningless in any field because of the way they are treating the traces of black history found in them.
• Egyptologists are going so far as to teach the Egyptians the way they have to understand themselves. When the Egyptians write that they call themselves KMT, meaning “the Blacks”, Egyptologists say on one hand that it can be a mistake, and on the other hand that it has to be translated as “people of the black land” (even if there is no determinative of the land in the hieroglyphs), or as the “Egyptians”, knowing well that the word “Egypt” is Greek and that it does not derive from the Egyptian “kmt”.
• Not only Egyptian scribes are crasy. Egyptian artists are crasy too! They drew four Nubians and they wrote that they were Egyptians! Egyptologists are more intelligent than the Egyptian scholars. So, correcting the Egyptian artists, because they know better than the Egyptians themselves how they have to look like, they drew an “artistic rendering” of the Egyptians. The same thing happened with the people of the tomb of Seti. The Egyptians of the “artistic rendering” are brown. Yes, it is not easy to make falsifications. With their brown color, Egyptians are still part of the black race! Commenting the translation of the "Book 2" of Herodotus, Ki-Zerbo writes: “The term mélanokroes is translated for example by Legrand: “having brown skin”. This does not change anything because many Blacks have brown skin (Le terme mélanokroes est traduit par exemple par Legrand : “ayant la peau brune”. Cela ne change rien puisque bien des Noirs ont la peau brune)” (Joseph Ki-Zerbo, « Histoire générale de l’Afrique Noire, d’Hier à Demain, Paris : Hatier, 1972, p. 80). Western Egyptologists depreciate the black race, and of cause the black people. Now their racist mood is being denounced by scholars like Maurizio Damanio-Appia in its book “Egitto e Nubia”.
• Actually, Egyptology is not an objective, descriptive, analytical, critical discourse, but a subjective, normative, prescriptive, discriminative discourse. It is not a science but a philosophy. It is time to study carefully the epistemology of Egyptology, one of the racist discourses still existing in colleges and universities.
• Dear Urthogie. Afrocentrists are not saying that the Egyptians are offspring of Africans who inhabit the south of the Sahara. Can you mention some? It is the other way round. The Nubians came from the Sahara. The Egyptians are from Nubia, and many black societies found south of the Sahara are from Egypt. Africans brought in the Americas are from these societies, heirs of the Egyptians. (Read Théophile Obenga, « Pour une Nouvelle Histoire », Paris : Présence Africaine, 1980 ; Aboubacry Moussa Lam, “De l’origine égyptienne des Peuls”, Paris: Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1993 ; Aboubacry Moussa Lam, « Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l’Egypte ancienne et l’Afrique Noire », Paris : Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1997).
• Why do the we have to read in the section “The great sphinx of Giza” of this article the following warning: “An editor has expressed the opinion that this article or section is unbalanced”? Is it because it shows how honest people like Volney spoke of the blackness of the Egyptians?
• One has also to see if some Egyptians identified by Egyptologists like Caucasians are not just albino. Because among Blacks albino look like Whites.
• An "Egyptian race" doesn’t exist in the classification of the races found in the world. This strange invention of the Egyptologists must be denounced. Egyptians, "with their varying skin tones", are just part of the Sudan. They are just black people.

Best regards! (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka).

• On kmt/"the black land":

Based on your logic, should we assume those living in the surrounding desert (the "red land") were of Red skin color?

• On supposed racism of modern Egyptology and Egyptology's qualifiaction as science:

Your argument is weakened by appealing to racism. If we prove that you are right about the race of Egyptians, then we will prove the Egyptologists of today must be racist. But you continue to appeal to racism. You say "It is not a science but a philosophy." But pure philosophy is not guided by the gathering of evidence. It is not guided by genetic studies, and archaelogical expeditions. By historical analysis of demographics. That is not philosophy, that is science. Much of early Egyptology was grounded in racism, ethnocentrism, etc, but today the work of those such as Diop is openly requested by science journals. Afrocentrists serve major roles at all of the major US universities. Egyptology is science.

• On being part of the "black race":

There is no such thing as race. The Egyptians, with their brown color, are a mix of ancestries from Northern Africa and the Middle East. You say: "An "Egyptian race" doesn’t exist in the classification of the races found in the world." Neither does a black race, in science. All that matters is geographical ancestry, scientifically speaking. And that is what we are discussing now. Not how to group them, but what there origins are and whic origins they are most similar to and branched from, and what phenotypes they had.

• On your view that "Nubians" weren't mislabeled:

Four "nubians"? We only discussed one that Egyptologists thought was mislabeled. Where are the other three? And how do you explain the Libyan being mislabeled??

• On connection to Nubia:

You say: "Afrocentrists are not saying that the Egyptians are offspring of Africans who inhabit the south of the Sahara. Can you mention some? It is the other way round. The Nubians came from the Sahara. The Egyptians are from Nubia, and many black societies found south of the Sahara are from Egypt. Africans brought in the Americas are from these societies, heirs of the Egyptians." I agree with this partially. There surely were nubians in Egypt-- it was a mixed-race society. There surely was some Egyptian mixing influence-- but not much-- on West Africans

• On Herodotus and other secondary sources:

Scientists don't ignore these sources. I was reading a book today, a mainstream Egyptology book, which said part of the reason so much investigation was done into race was because of the doubts laid on by the Herodotus and Aristotle quotes. But it is very biased to simply pick the secondary sources that backup your view and not consider all of the other evidence that may adjust or even counter it. Secondary sources are not as authoritative as primary sources-- thats important to remember I think.

• On the Sphynx of Giza section in the article:

It has the unbalanced tag on it because we have not added views from both sides. I've been putting much time into discussing your points and I will add other sources to that section when I get a chance.

• On albinos:

There probably were some albinos, although as you can see from the article the consensus is that Egyptians were varying shades of brown, with minority populations of the very light and very dark.

• On connection to Sudan:

I will have to research this further. Please provide evidence for now, and I'll do research in the mean time.

• A general note to you:

I do not want to be cruel by arguing against this belief which is very important to you and other Afrocentrists. I understand that it is more than just science to you-- it is also a response to the evils of racism and the actions that have followed as a result of it. But it is my honest belief that it's actually utilitarian to not defend such a point of view for the following reasons:

• A mixed race society being so great will be a reminder to people of a past not of seperatism but of working together towards greatness.
• It is unfair to the modern day Egyptians to culturally appropriate all they did, if it is not scientifically proven.
• The proper response to racism is not to look to the past but to the present. If people can cope with the reality of their past, they can become great in the present.
• When people recognize Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism to not be true they wll be in a world that denies the value of group membership and focuses on the accomplsihments on creative individuals.
• The scientific idea that race does not exist will become more popular among blacks.
• and other reasons, perhaps...

So I do not mean to be cruel, and I would be much happier to argue with a Eurocentrist or a racist. But it is out of my respect for your opinion, not out of disrespect, that I disagree. I just want you to know that, --Urthogie 05:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Urthogie. In your last intervention, you raised a certain number of questions.

• I have the impression that because of the “mixed race society” of Egypt of today, we have to accept that Egypt has always been “a mixed race society”. That’s what I am calling doing philosophy. We have to arrange the results of ours findings to adapt them to the need of our today’s world. The Egyptologists can dig the Egyptian soil as long as they want. They can read the hieroglyphics and look for paintings as long as they want. It is the way the interpret that makes them being nothing more than philosophers.

You are correct to say it would be unscientific philosophy to use modern day egypt as unquestionable evidence. That would be illogical, as the current day look of egyptians is not necessarily what they used to look like. But this isn't my argument, and neither is it the argument of serious scientists of today. If it was, they wouldn't bother gather evidence. Your claim that Egyptology is philosophy is therefore extremely questionable.--Urthogie 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• You are saying that scientifically speaking, race does not exist. But you are speaking all the time in term of Egypt being a “mixed race society”. Does it make sense to you?

When I say "race doesn't exist" what I'm saying is the strict distinctions between races, like black, white, asian, etc. aren't scientific. I was exaggerating by saying it doesn't exist scientifically. In science, it's useful as a vague description, similar to someone being tall or short, etc. I was just saying that it's a concept that can't be pinpointed. My mistake for overstating that point, I recognize that might make me look foolish.--Urthogie 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Egypt has been often invaded by people from Europe and Asia. When these invasions took place, Egypt was already a nation called KMT, literally the black nation. This KMT is feminine. The land in the sense of soil is masculine in the Egyptian language. The invasions did not certainly modify the racial and cultural foundations of Egypt. Such a way that the neighbours of the Egyptians without exception put them together with the Nubians in the same group following their phenotype: black skin. This is not my invention. I even found it in an article you asked me to read. The one on “Early Jewish and Christian Views of Black”. I think that you knew well that article before asking me to read it. It is said inside that Islamic literature also range the Copts, i.e. the Egyptians among the Sudan. Please read it well if you have not done it.

Early in the discussion I was somewhat in an immature rush to provide sources. To be honest I don't think anything religious can be used as proof. The bible is not scientific, and neither is the Torah or the Koran.

• If the Egyptians are a mix of Semites and Africans, why according to you does the Semite literature put the Egyptians among the Blacks? Mizraim with Cush are sons of Ham, of Sudan. And why according to you, did it put so closely Egypt (Mizraim) with Nubia (Cush)? You will say: “The ancient religious sources are not at all scientific”. This literature is used by historians to study the successive occupations of the lands in Palestine, Syria and Arabia. You will not tell me the contrary. So these sources become only “non-scientific” when they deal with the race of the Egyptians. There is something wrong here!

You fail to recognize a key distinction: the occupations of Palestine, Syria, and Arabia could have been recorded in real time, while knowledge of where groups are descended thousands of years back cannot be known with exactitude--especially with the tools of the time in which these religious documents were written. This is why scholars rely on religious documents for events recorded soon after they happened, but don't rely on them for histories that occured much before their writing.--Urthogie 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• You asked me if people living in the “red land” are “Red people”. I don’t want to do philosophy like some western Egyptologists. I am speaking about hieroglyphics. Go to Adolf Erman und Hermann Grapow, “Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache”, Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, vol. 5, 1931, pp. 487-494, or to Rainer Hannig, „Die Sprache der Pharaonen“, Mainz; Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1995, pp. 987-988, or to Raymond Faulkner, “A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian”, Oxford: Griffith Institute, 2002, p. 316, you will not find such hieroglyphics as “dSrt” followed by seated man and woman plus the three strokes indicating the plural. So I cannot discuss about something which does not exist. I am discussing about something which exists, “kmt” followed by seated man and woman plus the three strokes indicating the plural. You find this word in Erman und Grapow, vol. 5, p. 127, or in Hannig, p. 883, or in Faulkner, p. 286. It is translated by “Egyptians”. Egyptian is not Kemetic, it is Greek. “Kmt” means literally “the Blacks (les Noirs)” (Aboubacry Moussa Lam, « De l’origine égyptienne des Peuls », Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1993, pp. 181, 262 ; Aboubacry Moussa Lam, “Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l’Egypte ancienne et l’Afrique noire”, Paris: Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1997, p. 82).

"you will not find such hieroglyphics as “dSrt” followed by seated man and woman plus the three strokes indicating the plural." Why is this necessary to prove anything? Why does a word have to appear with a seated man and a woman plus a three stroke plural to be deemed by you to be a valid consideration? Deshret is used several times to refer to the red land, and yet there were no red people living in the egyptian desert. How does your response address this exactly? The only real point I saw here was that you refused to do "philosophy". Linguistics-- looking at what people mean by words, is not philosophy. Its the science of language.--Urthogie 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• The qualification of Egyptology as being a racist discourse, mostly in the Anglo-Saxon world, is not mine. It came from Maurizio Damiano-Appia. You know already his book. And I think that this accusation can be well documented. Cheikh Anta Diop also spoke about it at the Cairo Conference in a gathering of Egyptologists and in his interview in Guadaloupe.

First let's deal with the evidence. If it turns out the afrocentrists are completely right, then I'll agree with you that there must be some serious prejudice in the scientific community. Until then, I think bringing up racism and calling egyptology a philosophy is just a way of sidetracking the main conversation of the evidence.--Urthogie 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• You wrote: “There surely was some Egyptian mixing influence – but not much – on West Africa”. “some…but not much”. Who told you that? They are many and varied (Aboubacry Moussa Lam, “Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l’Egypte ancienne et l’Afrique noire”. Read all the book), and in many parts of Africa (see “Les chemins du Nil”, especially p.65, 125). Speaking about the king of Congo in Central Africa who bears the name “Mni” (Menes) and who conducts the war like the kings of Egypt, Lam said : “the Mani-Congo is really one of the heirs of the great Méni, first pharaoh of Egypt (le Mani-Congo est bien l’un des héritiers du grand Méni, premier pharaon d’Egypte)” (“Les chemins du Nil”, p. 122). This common culture between ancient Egypt and the rest of Africa is another proof that Egypt belongs to black Africa. That is what Sauneron meant when he wrote: “For Egypt, it (the Mediterranean see) marks the end of a world – an African world (Pour l’Egypte, elle (la Méditerranée) marque la limite d’un monde africain – d’un monde africain)” (Serge Sauneron, “Les prêtres de l’ancienne Egypte”, Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1998, p. 11).

I will have to read about this. It would be an exciting fact to learn and spread if it is true!--Urthogie 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am convinced, dear Urthogie, that truth will liberate the world. Best regards! (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka).

you too, and if you want to present the evidence for the connection with sudan at any point that'd be great.--Urthogie 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

these might be helpful.

http://archaeology.about.com/library/glossary/bldef_khartoummesolithic.htm

Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badri by Professor S. O. Y. Keita (2005) National Human Genome Center at Howard University Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution

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

Viola76 04:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)viola76

What does he look like

Rahotep

Muntuwandi 07:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Libyan mislabelled?

According to the picture the scientific consesus is that the libyan was mislabeled, would people mind expanding that topic because I don't know what that is suppose to mean. Does that mean that the Libyan is really the guy with the very black skin or is the libyan the guy from syria, or is the libyan the guy with brown skin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.138.142 (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

It means the Libyan was probably meant to be marked as an Asian/Middle Easterner, but the hieroglyph was off.--Urthogie 01:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, the brown skin Egyptian is an authentic black man. As Joseph Ki-Zerbo put it, "many Blacks have brown skin (bien des Noirs ont la peau brune)" (Joseph Ki-Zerbo, "Histoire générale de l'Afrique Noire, d'Hier à Demain", Paris: Hatier, 1972, p. 80). This brown skin color is also found among the Nubians (Cf the image of Nubians in the tomb of Huy published by Georges Posener, Serge Sauneron, Jean Yoyote (Redatto), "Dizionario della civiltà Egizia", Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1961, p. 297) (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka)--195.110.156.38 09:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hooknose sentence

This sentence doesn't make sense. The implication of this is that only caucausians/whites have hooknoses. This contradicts everything known about biological anthropology. We know that people with the so called hooknoses are simply people who have lived in high elevations. For example, Persians have hooknoses, but so do Ethiopians, many south africans and sudanese people, as well as even native americans who come from the andes or other mountain ranges. The shape of your nose is indepedent of race and totallly dependent on elevation. Ie. people from the chinese lowlands have flatnoses but this is because they come from dry desert climates like many africans. Of course we would never say this makes chinese black. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.138.142 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Good eye... the guy who added it used geocities as his source!--Urthogie 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

no more discussion

It was nice discussing this with you two. Unfortunately it's against the rules for us not to discuss the article for such a lengthy period of time. Anyways, best regards, --Urthogie 02:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

o.k since we both have a interest in ancient egypt we can continue to discuss it on our personal pages ive left some questions on yours

                  194.176.105.40 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)viola76

No more discussion! Is it because I brought a chronological argument? This is unfair. If it helps the readers to make a scientific evaluation of the article, I think my contribution is worth mentioning. You are free to respond to it or not.

• First, let’s be clear that the Semitic people are not involved in the genesis of the Egyptian people. This following the birth of the Semitic people (2500 or 2400 BC with the Akkadian) which took place later after the unification of Egypt (3150-2700, cf Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford UK, Cambridge USA: Blackwell, 1992, p. 389) . To state otherwise is to fall into anachronism.
• Second, let’s put Obenga aside. For me is of cause credible. But we can still quote another source. For now I am referring to the article found in the site www.herodotus.net/motEurope2005politique.htm This site is not afrocentric, as far as I know. If by Europeans, we are thinking about people we call “Indo-Europeans”, according to the article, their migration from central Russia took place during the second millennium BC. “The continent was essentially peopled during the II millennium BC by successive waves of Indo-European immigrants (let us remember that at the same epoch the city of Babylon was prospering in Mesopotamia!) (le continent a été pour l’essentiel peuplé au deuxième millénaire avant JC par plusieurs vagues d’immigrants indo-européens (songeons qu’à la même époque prospérait en Mésopotamie la cité de Babylone !)) ». This correspond in Egypt to the second intermediate period (1674-1553) when Egypt was invaded by the Semite people. Actually Egypt enters into relationships with Indo-European people during the New Kingdom: the Hittite kingdom and then the invasion of “the people of the see”. If this site is credible, and if in our minds white Europeans mean Indo-European people, one can say that it is impossible to find them at the genesis of the Egyptian people because they were still absent from Europe.
• When the article states: “Mainstream consensus is that ancient Egypt was a mixed-race gestalt of African and Middle Eastern ethnicities”, it is wrong if this means that Egypt is formed by a mix of Semites, White Europeans and Black Africans as Urthogie once said. At the time of the birth of Egypt, there were only Black people around the Mediterranean see. The Bible is right when it says that Canaan is a son of Ham, the ancestor of the Blacks. So I agree with Muntuwandi who questioned in the past this consensus.

Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 14:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Our discussion was removed not because of what it said but simply because all discussion must be not for the readers but for the editors of the article. This is the rule of Wikipedia. Also, noone is saying that Ancient Egypt in the very beginning had semites. I never said this, only you said this in misquoting me. The first dynasty was already a mix between Mesopotamians and Northern Africans. This is my view. Please don't misquote it.--Urthogie 17:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Urthogie. Am I misquoting you? Who wrote this: "My point isn't that the Egyptians were as light as the semites, but rather that they were a mix between the semites and the Africans. If we divide the world into three groups, we'll have very rigid guidelines, and of course group people incorrectly. The Egyptians were a unique mixed race, and a three-way division doesn't address this fact. The ancient religious sources are not at all scientific. You are trying to argue a basically scientific point with a history given by religions, which are not scientific in nature. If we accepted religion as scientific we'd say we're all descended from Adam and Eve, materialized by god, when the scientific reality which proves this myth wrong is evolution. This is an example ofwhy modern science is more powerful than ancient religious myths in answering questions such as the one this article deals with.--Urthogie 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)"? Best regards! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The very first Egyptians weren't mixed with Semites (Narmer, for example). Later ancient Egyptians who interacted with Semites were. Make sense?--Urthogie 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

you are wasting your time with this discussion nkuka what ever evidence you bring urthogie will not accept it. look on his personal page and look at the discussion i am having with him regardsViola76 21:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)viola76

Good!

Mainstream consensus is that ancient Egypt was a mixed-race gestalt of African and Middle Eastern ethnicities.[3] There are alternative views, however. Afrocentric scholars such as Martin Bernal and Cheikh Anta Diop claims that dynastic Egypt was from its inception--and remained throughout several millennia-- a primarily black, African civilization.

I think this part is fair and shows both sides of the story in a balenced way. Let's keep it like this. futurebird 20:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

fair enough futurebird but can we really say martin bernal is afrocentric? it seems to me from the paragraph that any one who reckons the original A.E were black african are labelled afrocentric and i mean the negative terms that the label entails.Viola76 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)viola76

« The first dynasty was already a mix between Mesopotamians and Northern Africans. This is my view. Please don't misquote it.--Urthogie 17:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)”. Was there a Mesopotamian presence in Egypt before the genesis of the Egyptian civilization as Urthogie states? Based on logical and chronological arguments, this is difficult to prove. Because,

• The Egyptian civilization is better known than the Mesopotamian civilizations, in such a way that it might be more convenient to explain Mesopotamia by Egypt than the contrary! “The Egyptian history extends in a period of time of more than three thousands of years and – thanks to a written and monumental documentation which is surely the most rich of any other civilization of these times – can be studied, at least in the main lines, with much more accuracy” (La storia egiziana si stende su un arco di tempo di oltre millenni – grazie a una documentazione scritta e monumentale che è certo la più ricca fra quelle di ogni altra civiltà di quei tempi – può essere tracciata, almeno nelle grande linee, con sufficiente sicurezza » (La storia, 1. Dalla preistoria all’antico Egitto, Novara: Istituto Geografico De Agostini SpA, UTET, 2007, p. 621). Egyptian history ignores any ancient connection with Asia. But it shows that Egypt is rooted in the south, in Ta-Seti. "Tз-Sti, Nubia, properly Ist nome of Upper Egypt; Styw Nubians" (Alan Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar. Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, 2001, Third edition, p. 593)
• Egypt inaugurates his first dynasty in 3185 (La storia, p. 733). In Mesopotamia, the first proto-dynastic period takes place in 2900-2800. “2900-2800. Proto-dynastic period I: it is a period of insufficient archaeological documentation (2900-2800. Periodo protodinastico I: è una fase di scarsa documentazione archeologica)” (Storia, p. 615).
• Let’s be more realistic. The African cradle can in itself explain the emergence of the Egyptian people in continuity and in conformity with its leading role in the birth of humanity. It is not necessary to go as far as Asia (Mesopotamia being in Asia), which is younger than Africa (Egypt being in Africa) in the line of History for explaining the genesis of ancient Egypt. “Africa not only gave origin to humanity, but also was a melting-pot of civilizations (as are demonstrating Saharan Studies) (L’Africa, oltre ad aver dato origine all’umanità, fu un calderone di civiltà (come stanno dimostrando gli studi sahariani)” (Maurizio Damiano-Appia, Egitto e Nubia, Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA, 1995, p. 8).

Thank you Viola76 for your knowledge and for your wisdom. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 14:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would discuss this further with you here, but we can't discuss anything unrelated to editing the article. If you want to contact me directly, use my talk page, thanks.--Urthogie 21:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha!!! I never thought of "afro centric" as negative before. I mean ... unless they are lumping it together with extremist stuff like black supremacy, which is negative. Guess that's what I get for living in Harlem for two years. :P

I think it's pretty clear that egyptians were mostly "brown people" of mixed african ancestry and that there were people of other races around in egypt. As long as this article isn't strictly denying that egypt was an african civilization I don't think there is any big problem. futurebird 22:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

add image

Rahotep

Rahotep looks like my uncle, can we add him back? :) futurebird 22:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess... I'm just worried that all of the pictures being art will give people the idea that Egyptians actually looked the same color as the art... The best scientific evidence isn't from art: there's plenty of Egyptian art with green people in it. The art indicates very much less than is commonly supposed:

"It is apparent that the ancient Egyptians did not make racial distinctions themselves, but rather ethnic distinctions based on nationality. Tomb paintings depicting captive Nubians may show them as being very dark, but this is an artistic convention stereotyping a nationality, and to conclude there were therefore no very dark Egyptians would be a non sequitur. Similarly, the skin tones in art depicting the Egyptians themselves adhere to convention rather than an absolutely accurate description of reality. Tutankhamun is variously shown as being black as in the guardian statues found in his tomb, and brown or beige as in the lotus bust."[6]

I won't revert you though.--Urthogie 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Following Eurocentric Egyptologists, this article is trying to show that ancient Egypt was a « mixed-race society ». To prove this theory, the article affirms that ancient Egyptians had “brown skin”. In their tentative of falsifying the black history, Eurocentric Egyptologists are multiplying errors. Actually the fact that many ancient Egyptians had brown skin is a prove that Egypt was a Black country.

• In the past, I quoted Joseph Ki-Zerbo who said “many Blacks have brown skin (bien de Noirs ont la peau brune)” (Joseph Ki-Zerbo, Histoire générale de l’Afrique Noire, d’Hier à Demain, Paris: Hatier, 1972, p. 80). Eurocentric Egyptologists are incapable in African Studies while Egypt is an African society! They even ignore Nubia or they try to ignore it. But they are wrong.
• The brown skin colour is also quite normally found among the Nubians. I have already referred to the image of the Nubians in the tomb of Huy published by Georges Posener, Serge Sauneron, Jean Yoyote in the Dizionario della civiltà Egizia (Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1961, p. 297). Yes, Eurocentric Egyptologists are making people laugh! When are they going to begin doing science? This is a big question!
• Aboubacry Moussa Lam studied this question closely. He wrote: “If we get interested to individuals, we notice an interesting phenomenon: some Egyptians were called so-and-so the red and so-and-so the black. These cases are present in all the periods of the long Egyptian history. We saw, from the census we did thanks to the works of Ranke on the personal names, that the Egyptians who added the qualification “black” to their name were more numerous than those who added the qualification “red” (…). / In our investigations, we came across two brothers who bore the same name, the first rname of their great father ; one was called Hapi-the–black and the other Hapi-the-red. These two Egyptians belonged to the high nobility of the end of the Old Empire. To distinguish them, their neighbours chose a significant element: the difference of the colour of the skin. / The analysis of these facts (the use of km and of dSr for distinguishing the Egyptians) brought us to make a sensible question: is it possible to make such a distinction in a race other than the black race? Without excluding totally that possibility, let’s recognize simply that it is within the black race that we meet skins which vary from very dark to very light, giving thus real possibilities of differentiation. Within white races, it is the hair which is exploited. There also one encounters a vast range which goes from very dark to golden blond. Then, it seems that the fact of encountering Egyptians with the qualifications of km and dSr for distinguishing them , is another prove of the belonging of the Egyptian people to the black race. The skin of other races do not obey easily to such a distinction (Si nous descendons maintenant au niveau des individus, nous constatons un phénomène digne d’intérêt : certains Egyptiens se faisaient appeler Untel le rouge ou Untel le Noir. Ces cas s’étalent sur toutes les périodes de la longue histoire égyptienne. Nous avons remarqué, à la suite du recensement que nous avons opéré essentiellement à partir des travaux de Ranke sur les noms de personnes, que les Egyptiens qui avaient ajouté l’épithète « noir » à leur nom étaient plus nombreux que ceux avaient ajouté l’épithète « rouge » (…). / Dans nos investigations, nous avons eu la chance de tomber sur deux frères homonymes, qui portaient en fait le prénom de leur grand-père ; l’un s’appelant Hapi-le-noir et l’autre Hapi-le-rouge. Ces deux Egyptiens appartenaient à la haute noblesse de la fin de l’Ancien Empire. Pour les distinguer, leur entourage a tout simplement retenu un détail significatif: la différence de carnation de la peau. / L’analyse de ces faits (l’utilisation de km et de dSr pour distinguer les Egyptiens) nous a amené à nous poser une question de bon sens : peut-on utiliser ce genre de distinction dans une race autre que la race noire ? Sans exclure une telle possibilité, reconnaissons tout de même que c’est au sein de la race noire que nous trouvons des peaux qui varient du noir charbon au brun le plus clair, offrant ainsi de réelles possibilités de différentiation. Au sein des races leucodermes, c’est surtout la chevelure qui est exploitée ; là aussi on trouve une gamme assez vaste, qui va du noir de jais au blond doré. Ainsi, selon toute vraisemblance, le fait de trouver des Egyptiens avec les épithètes km et dSr pour les distinguer, est un autre indice de l’appartenance de la population égyptienne à la race noire, la peau des autres races humaines ne se prêtant que difficilement à ce type de différenciation) » (Aboubacry Moussa Lam, Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l’Egypte ancienne et l’Afrique Noire, Paris : Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1997, p. 83).
• Despite the fact that Eurocentric Egyptologists often hide the pictures of the Egyptians who are found to be very dark or call them depiction of Nubians, they forget that the presence of the brown skin in a given population is an indication of the existence of the dark skin in the same population, and vice versa. The days of the Eurocentric Egyptologists are being reckoned. This type of Egyptologists is clearly doomed to failure in face of the amount of mistakes they have been intentionally making in order to discredit the achievements of the Black race. These mistakes are bit by bit coming to light thanks to the works of honest scientists like Maurizio Damiano-Appia and Francesca L. Nera (cf. Egitto e Nubia, Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1995).

Peace! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is poor

I just skimmed the article and I can't figure out what the controversy is about. Doesn't it just depend on how you define black? What exactly do Afrocentrists mean when they say Egyptians were primarily black? Do they just mean they had dark skin or are they claiming a genetic relationship with the peoples of sub-Saharan Afica? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TVismute (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

You have the response here :

• « Dear Urthogie. Afrocentrists are not saying that the Egyptians are offspring of Africans who inhabit the south of the Sahara. Can you mention some? It is the other way round. The Nubians came from the Sahara. The Egyptians are from Nubia, and many black societies found south of the Sahara are from Egypt. Africans brought in the Americas are from these societies, heirs of the Egyptians. (Read Théophile Obenga, « Pour une Nouvelle Histoire », Paris : Présence Africaine, 1980 ; Aboubacry Moussa Lam, “De l’origine égyptienne des Peuls”, Paris: Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1993 ; Aboubacry Moussa Lam, « Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l’Egypte ancienne et l’Afrique Noire », Paris : Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1997) ».
• « You wrote: “There surely was some Egyptian mixing influence – but not much – on West Africa”. “some…but not much”. Who told you that? They are many and varied (Aboubacry Moussa Lam, “Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l’Egypte ancienne et l’Afrique noire”. Read all the book), and in many parts of Africa (see “Les chemins du Nil”, especially p.65, 125). Speaking about the king of Congo in Central Africa who bears the name “Mni” (Menes) and who conducts the war like the kings of Egypt, Lam said : “the Mani-Congo is really one of the heirs of the great Méni, first pharaoh of Egypt (le Mani-Congo est bien l’un des héritiers du grand Méni, premier pharaon d’Egypte)” (“Les chemins du Nil”, p. 122). This common culture between ancient Egypt and the rest of Africa is another proof that Egypt belongs to black Africa. That is what Sauneron meant when he wrote: “For Egypt, it (the Mediterranean see) marks the end of a world – an African world (Pour l’Egypte, elle (la Méditerranée) marque la limite d’un monde africain – d’un monde africain)” (Serge Sauneron, “Les prêtres de l’ancienne Egypte”, Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1998, p. 11) ».

To these quotations, one can add the following taken from Aboubacry Moussa Lam:

• « Cheikh Anta Diop who understood earlier that on a sensible subject like this, one needed a irrefutable proof, studied more closely the skin of the ancient Egyptians; these are his conclusions: « Egyptians had black skin exactly like the Negroes of today, statistically speaking. I say this on the basis of my own investigations. For that, I took samples which I carefully numbered. These samples came from the Egyptian mummies found by Mariette. They are kept in our laboratory in IFAN and are at the disposal of any researcher who will be interested on that issue. The scientific examination of these samples proves easily, beyond the so-called differences of representation of the « Negro type » and of « the Egyptian type », that the pigmentation of these two races is the same. It is possible « to clean » the skin of the mummies, even the most ancient, and find the pigmentation of the skin if this really exists. That what I have effectively done with all the samples I had on my disposal. But all of them reveal, without exception, a black skin of the species of all the Negroes we know today (Cheikh Anta Diop qui a compris très tôt que sur un sujet aussi sensible, il fallait une preuve décisive, a étudié de très près la peau des anciens Egyptiens; voici ses conclusions: « Les Egyptiens avaient la peau noire au même titre que les Nègres actuels, statistiquement parlant. J’affirme ceci sur la base de mes propres investigations. A cet effet, j’ai fait des prélèvements dûment numérotés, sur les momies égyptiennes trouvées par Mariette ; ils sont conservés dans notre laboratoire de l’IFAN et à la disposition de tous les chercheurs qui s’intéresseraient à la question. L’examen scientifique de ces échantillons prouve aisément, par-delà les prétendues différences de représentation du « type nègre » et du « type égyptien », que la pigmentation des deux races est la même. Il est exact qu’on peut « décrasser » la peau de momies, même les plus anciennes, et retrouver la pigmentation de la peau si celle-ci existe vraiment. C’est ce que j’ai réalisé effectivement avec tous les échantillons dont j’ai pu disposer. Mais tous révèlent, sans exception, une peau noire de l’espèce de tous les Nègres que nous connaissons à l’heure actuelle) » » (Cité par Aboubacry Moussa Lam, Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l’Egypte ancienne et l’Afrique Noire, Paris : Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1997, pp. 83-84). At the Egyptological Cairo Conference of 1974, Cheikh Anta Diop presented these results to the best Egyptologists of his time, no one dared to contest him. Diop said explicitly that as long as no body will prove the contrary to what he found, one can say that we have here the latest result on the issue of the race of the ancient Egyptians. But maybe you are not aware of this findings. All these happen because the Western Media to which you are used cannot publicise them. These results go against the Western education and mentality which think that whatsoever is great in the world belongs to the White race, or at least cannot be the product of the Black race. But science does not function like that. And for the moment, on the issue regarding ancient Egypt, science is on the side of the African Black people, as Cheikh Anta Diop put it in a TV interview in Guadaloupe. Compared to other sciences, Western Egyptology has created and accumulated too much contradictions and misinterpretations. Western Egyptologists are really not doing science, but some ideology or philosophy.

I tried to answer to your question which is actually tendentious. Can one really ask if the ancient Greeks and Romans share the same White race with the people from north Europe of today? Racism is not always too far! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 13:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am having a really hard time to figure out what the characteristics of the ancient egyptian were from this article. OMG why are we talking about black/white here????? They didn't care , they were doing business with everyone then!!! It was a multicultural state, and after all ended up with nubian and greek rulers. I learned NOTHING from this article and wish someone could delete it and start over. February 2007

What I removed/Who's writing this article?

Well excuse me, but this is a very controversial topic, and if you're to provide an argument, please make sure that your sources agree or at least acknowledge the argument being present. For example, I deleted the genetics section because it was extremely biased and was absolutely irrelevant to the argument on rather the Ancient (not modern) Egyptians were native to Africa and can be deemed as "Black African". You also didn't bring up the issue on what exactly a "Black African" is. Is it only exclusive to sub-saharan Africans, or any native dark skinned African? Also, how does a DNA chart clarify anything? These are modern studies and results and there's been a period of over 5,000 years since the inception of Egypt to present day.. According to Dr. S.O.Y Keita (P.H.D, biological Anthropology) a lot of today's descendants can trace a lot of their recent genetic heritage most likely back to the Arab invasion, and to a lesser extent Greek and Roman occupation, among other things. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.html

I also don't see why the writer assumes that Ethiopians are mixed with "Caucasoid", which is a misnomer, though he doesn't make a point that possibly modern day Egyptians are also mixed, or explains why he thinks they were mixed, and when did the majority of "mixing" go on. His sources did not back his statements, these were his opinions. And if all of this "mixing" has been going on, what does that tell us about the racial characteristics of the ancient Egyptians (this doesn't prove them to be a mixed people from its inception)? If we're to talk about racial characteristics, and when race gets problematic, talk about origins and lineage. mtDNA tests on the oldest populations in Egypt (those with some of the oldest cultures) shows that they can be linked with people from Ethiopia and Eritrea.

"The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14748828

^So somewhere down that line these people must of been predominantly East African in ethnicity, or to be conservative (even though this is the same opinion of my source), at least a lot of their ancestors were. So imo that whole gentic table and section was a distraction and in no way brings clarity to what the racial characteristics of the ancients were, it's just biased to someone's opinion and is irrelevant to the facts and method that should be taken to answer these questions. Also, quoting a non-qualified psychologist (Arthur Jensen) doesn't help that argument either because what does Jensen have to do with the "racial characteristics of the ancient Egyptians"? It's almost absurd that he was quoted; he is in no way qualified to answer that question. Taharqa 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No matter how you define a black person, ancient Egyptians couldn't have been black. If you define a black person based on genetic clusers, then you need to define the geographic barrier that divided people into different genetic clusters, and that's the Sahara desert. If instead you define a black person based on skin color, then still no way were the indigenous inhabitants of Egypt black because the climate of Egypt does not produce dark skin. If you define black based on craniofacial anthropology, ancient Egyptians had white skulls not black ones. So the only way ancient Egyptians could have been black is if a population of sub-Saharan descent somehow ended up North of the Sahara (and this happened prior to ancient Egypt but recently enough for them to have not had enough time to evolve into a different race, since all humans were originally negroid) The Sahara desert is such a geographic barrier that it's unlikely blacks were there in significant numbers. Influencey

Exactly. There's no evidence that any black person lived outside of sub-Saharan Africa prior to the slave trade. TVismute

This is the entire point. More evidence suggests a migration from the south. It has also been addressed in updated research that the outdated technique of skull measurements to determine "race" is inadequate (especially concerning Africa).. To do that you would have to also cluster them (Europeans) with Ethiopians, Somalians, the Sudan, and tribes like the Beja. They are all considered indigenous to Africa and referred to as "Nilotic Continuity" according to Frank Yurco and others.. Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review" in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, eds. Black Athena Revisited. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. p. 62-100

There is no sufficient archaeological evidence to suggest a mass migration from the North, as can be seen from the Badari culture, the predecessor of the Egyptians. Also, studies by S. Keita of Badarian cranium and under close comparison suggests more affinities with East African Teita and tropical Africa than anything else. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/badari.pdf

Also, it's important to note that evidence suggests the Sahara wasn't always a desert and at the end of the Ice Age between 8000 BC to 6000 BC, it was habitable, as can be seen on rock paintings from around that time. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~e118/Fezzan/fezzan_palaeoclim.html

These stereotypical notions of "European skulls" in native Africa are outdated and have been highly criticized.

Keita writes: "In general, this restricted view presents all tropical Africans with narrower noses and faces as being related to or descended from external, ultimately non-African peoples. However, narrow-faced, narrow-nosed populations have long been resident in Saharo-tropical Africa... and their origin need not be sought elsewhere. These traits are also indigenous. The variability in tropical Africa is expectedly naturally high. Given their longstanding presence, narrow noses and faces cannot be deemed `non-African.'" (S.O.Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993), page 134)

It is also important to note minor differences between the Northern populations and Southern populations of Egypt. Upper Egyptian crania had more affinities with the tropical African series. S.O.Y. Keita Journal of Human Evolution, 2000 Sep; 39(3): 269-88. Department of Surgery, Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC

Also, old kingdom Giza skulls had more affinities with Nubians than Europeans.

"Cephalometric work on Old and New Kingdom remains demonstrates variability in the ancient period, as noted in observations by Harris and Weeks (1973:123) of a Seventeenth Dynasty pharoah:

His entire facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs (it is closest to that of his son Ahmose) that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian-that is, non-Egyptian-origin for Seqenenre and his family, and his facial features suggest this might indeed be true.

MacGaffey (1966) comments on variation in ancient Egyptian portraiture. 'Negroid' and 'Egyptian' were not mutually exclusive" [see Petrie, (19061, plate xix.]

"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."

The full article in its context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Nilotic_peoples

It seems people post what ever they want on wikipedia, I'm giving you mainstream and up to date scholarship on this very issue. Until you define "Black African" you have no case to judge weather or not the ancient Egyptians were "Black African" or not. As to play with words at its very literal meaning, if the ancients who first migrated to Egypt were indigenously African and from the south, then it certainly wouldn't be illogical to believe that they were "Black Africans" who maybe later were subject to invasions, etc (which explains the foreign DNA lineages of the Moderns), yet remained uniquely African also as can be seen in the mtDNA study I provided. I still don't see how some quotes from a psychologist and a comparative DNA chart of modern populations pleads the case that the Original Egyptians weren't just as African as any other African.Taharqa 21:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The "skin color" section reflects bias imo, and doesn't take into consideration that the original inhabitants of Egypt originated from some where south of Egypt and didn't settle until after the Ice Age, which is reflected in mainstream archeology/Egyptology and all over this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Nilotic_peoples Taharqa 22:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that if the DNA of ancient Egyptians is extracted, it will cluster with sub-Saharan Africans instead of with caucasoids as the DNA of today's Egyptians does? When did the first humans set foot in Egypt? Was it during a time when the Sahara desert was easily crossable? Removeor

You guys need to quit arguing over your own correctness and start talking about what the sources say. Arguing about it is all in vain, it's all OR, and the article should reflect the sources, not your own opinions. -Wooty Woot? contribs 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

^Exactly, and there are no sources for these opinions on the Skin Color and Genetics sections. None.. He quotes a psychologist (A psychologist for crying out loud!) for the genetics part, and shows a modern day skin color map with an accompanying opinion. As for your question on if the mummies will clump closer to sub-saharan Africans, well obviously, that's what the mtDNA study I posted would seem to say as they have a common ancestor from East Africa. And if you don't know where the Egyptians who started the classical civilization came from look up the Badari culture. Everyone knows, if you believe that they were "dark or light skinned" that they came from the south and the Sahara, and their skulls, even under old racial classification were considered "Tropical African". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badarian Taharqa 23:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with giving a genetic overview on the difference between negroids and caucasoids, the genetics of Africa, skin color in Africa, and the importance of the Sahara as a racial divider. Simply add information explaining why today's genetics might not be relevant to the genetics of ancient Egyptians and add all your sources to the article, not talk page. Removeor

Ok, I did that.. Thank you for keeping it fair and balanced! That was my only issue, and thanx for cleaning up my edits.Taharqa 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

nilotic peoples?

what's the deal with the Origin of the Nilotic peoples? How accurate is that term anyway? Someone is trying to push a heavy afrocentric agenda with that fork, it's written like a high school paper. 207.195.246.86 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Read the article boy.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Nilotic_peoples

^Nothing Afrocentric about it, Nilotic refers to the indigenous people of the Nile valley. It's a way to avoid racial terms since these people are all native to North/East Africa and outdated racism has only confused our perception of these people in the past, by calling them "Caucasoid, Negroid, or Medit. They are all native Africans, Ethiopians, Ancient Egyptians, Nubians, Beja, etc, are all native to the area. Cut the racist crap, If I'm afrocentric then you're racist, so I'll accept that.Taharqa 17:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Genetics

Taharqa is right in his interventions. Genetics cannot really help to solve the issue of race. Within any race, genetics can bring notable differences. This is the case among the Whites like among the Blacks. Genetics is only good in the issue of origins. In this regard, even Whites are from Black African origins. Because the modern man is proved to be from Africa. Still, Whites are white even if their ancestors were black ! The section on genetics is really confusing. About the Caucasoid type. It has to be noted that it refers to Europeans who now people Europe, America, Australia and New Zealand. They have light skin and sleek hair. Encyclopaedias agree on this. If somebody has doubts I can still provide sources. Ancient Egyptians cannot come from them because these Europeans came from Central Russia during the 2 millennium BC. Egypt was united in the 4 millennium BC! Let’s not speak about the Semites who reached Palestine and then invade Egypt also around the second millennium BC. Mesopotamia is for no help. While Egypt was already in his dynastic period, in Mesopotamia they were not yet in the proto-dynastic period which is known to be of insufficient archaeological documentation. In the past, I provided sources to Urthogie about what I am saying now. If we turn to Africa itself, we encounter all the elements we need to justify the rise of Kmt as the first nation in human history. There is no empty place which can call for a foreign justification. Are these Egyptians black? The melanin test done by Cheikh Anta Diop on the mummies confirms the observations of the Greeks who are actually Indo-Europeans and white, the Jews and the Arabs who are Semites and white. All of them said without exception that the ancient Egyptians are black. If the Eurocentrist scholars cannot believe these ancient sources, that is their problem. Those sources are published, and anybody can see from himself how really accurate they are, and who is wrong and why, the ancient or the modern schoolars. Besides, if somebody knows any melanin test which states that the ancient Egyptians did not have a black skin like the Blacks we know today, let him bring that documentation here for evaluation. Finally, there is no way to oppose the Nubians with the Egyptians. The very first Egyptian nome is Ta-Seti “Nubia”. Egypt begins with Lower Nubia. Quite normal, because the Egyptians are Nubians who followed the Nile while new lands were gained from the see thanks to the Nile deposits and to the down fall of the see level. The most ancient sites of Egypt are in the south. Peace! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 00:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians

Egypt in Africa, 1996, pp. 23-24

Professor S.O.Y. Keita Department of Biological Anthropology Oxford University

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

What was the primary geographical source for the peopling of the Egyptian Nile Valley? Were the creators of the fundamental culture of southern predynastic Egypt—which led to the dynastic culture—migrants and colonists from Europe or the Near East? Or were they predominantly African variant populations?

These questions can be addressed using data from studies of biology and culture, and evolutionary interpretive models. Archaeological and linguistic data indicate an origin in Africa. Biological data from living Egyptians and from skeletons of ancient Egyptians may also shed light on these questions. It is important to keep in mind the long presence of humans in Africa, and that there should be a great range of biological variation in indigenous "authentic" Africans.

Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.

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.

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.

The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kushites and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.

There are few studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, including not surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993). The other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin. More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA of African peoples.

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).

Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.

This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.

The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.

The various genetic studies usually suffer from what is called categorical thinking, specifically, racial thinking. Many investigators still think of "African" in a stereotyped, nonscientific (nonevolutionary) fashion, not acknowledging a range of genetic variants or traits as equally African. The definition of "African" that would be most appropriate should encompass variants that arose in Africa. Given that this is not the orientation of many scholars, who work from outmoded racial perspectives, the presence of "stereotypical" African genes so far from the "African heartland" is noteworthy. These genes have always been in the valley in any reasonable interpretation of the data. As a team of Egyptian geneticists stated recently, "During this long history and besides these Asiatic influences, Egypt maintained its African identity . . ." (Mahmoud et al. 1987). This statement is even more true in a wider evolutionary interpretation, since some of the "Asian" genes may be African in origin. Modern data and improved theoretical approaches extend and validate this conclusion.

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.

References Cited:

Angel, J. L., and J. O. Kelley, Description and comparison of the skeleton. In The Wadi Kubbaniya Skeleton: A Late Paleolithic Burial from Southern Egypt. E Wendorf and R. Schild. pp. 53-70. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. 1986

Brauer, G., and K. Rimbach, Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implications, Journal of Human Evolution 19:789-807. 1990

Drake, St. C., Black Folk Here and There, vol 1. Los Angeles: University of California. 1987

Keita, S.O.Y., Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships. History in Africa 20:129-154. 1993

Mahmoud, L. et. al, Human blood groups in Dakhlaya. Egypt. Annah of Human Biology. 14(6):487-493. 1987

Paabo, S., and A. Di Rienzo, A molecular approach to the study of Egyptian history. In Biological Anthropology and the Study of Ancient Egypt. V. Davies and R. Walker, eds. pp. 86-90. London: British Museum Press. 1993

Petrie, W.M., F. The Making of Egypt. London: Sheldon Press. 1984

Thoma, A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khaterman. Journal of Human Evolution 13:287-296. 1984

^^End of debate, any person with a half of a brain can sit here and tell that the Egyptians weren't white. The real argument is how "black" they were and if it was black enough to be considered 3/5 of a human being in 18th Century America. I think so, seeing as how it was a diverse mix of different African populations from its inception.Taharqa 06:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What is evident from the work is that ancient peoples do not fit easily into modern "race" politics, of either a "Eurocentric" or "Afrocentric" variety. As I recall Keita et al's prior articles have tended toward emphasizing that ancient Saharan North Africa was non-homogenous in terms of physical morphologies (races), with genetic evidence supporting work as early as the 1960s highlighting both "caucosiod" and "negroid" (to use to somewhat archaic terms) as well "intermediate" skeletal types being found dating to the "wet period." The evidence suggests, it would appear, Saharan to mountainous North Africa was inhabited from an early date by quite diverse populations, some of which in modern popular perception would be 'white' "European" in appearance, some intermediate and some "black African." The argument about what 18th century Americans would percieve as to these ancient populations race is modern American race politics, not science. It should be discussed under such articles, not loaded on the backs of long dead Egyptians, whether "white" middle or otherwise. collounsbury 13:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

The Facts

The Egyptians were not "mixed". They were indigenous Africans who migrated from the south and south/west from near the Sahara and the Sudan, this is the most widely accepted theory. The theory of "Mesopotamian" admixture has since been discredited by the mainstream. Dynastic Race Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynastic_Race_Theory

These skull measurements that people cite have since been strongly challenged, as early Egyptian crania had more similarities with other Africans be it North or East Africans than Europeans. That wouldn't even make sense (that they have European crania) unless Europeans invaded Africa, which they did not until the Greek and Roman eras. 85% of genetic variance happens with in localized populations and natural selection pressures are causes for variation. It is of my opinion that these people, prior to foreign admixture, looked no different than any other Africans. As far as recent geographical ancestry, both Berber and Egyptians have traces of more ancient (yet recent evolution wise) East African ancestry, which is expected..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_people#Genotype_by_region http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14748828

Also, the way they depicted themselves is overrated to say the least. They drew them selves red and women yellow, what race is literally red and yellow? These were only to make a distinction of nationality. People are hypocrites, first Eurocentrics argue that the Egyptians didn't see race the same as we do, then use those pictures as an argument that Egyptians saw themselves as a different "race". This simply comes from a misunderstanding of African culture. Ethiopians draw themselves blue sometimes and other Africans black. Some west Africans draw themselves very light brownish yellow to differentiate them selves. And all in all, most red people in the world live in Africa, and are just as authentically African, or "Black" (since no one is literally Black) as any other Africans. These are some of the people modern day Egyptians can trace their mtDNA to.. http://www.joshuaproject.net/profiles/photos/p110051.jpg

^^This Eritrean woman looks red to me, and more authentically African or "Black" than 80% of African Americans.

I don't see why people choose to pick on outdated radical Afrocentrism instead of arguing the facts, that these people were native to Africa, and migrated from the south and southwest. Since terms like Negroid and Caucasoid are obsolete in Anthropology, especially concerning Africa's diversity, the only question left is were these Africans dark skinned or light skinned? Seeing as how they (Egyptians) have a recent common ancestor in East Africa, 5,000 years ago, before any significant foreign admixture, I'd be inclined to believe that they looked a lot closer to their African counterparts in East Africa and the Nile Valley. Frank Yurco, Egyptologist, Affirms that the Egyptians were closest ethnically to the Nubians out of any of the other foreigners. And if the Nubians were artistically and stereotypically portrayed as jet-black, what would that tell you about their relationship with the Egyptians? Even to take those wall pictures literally, one would have to admit that at least they thought of themselves as the second darkest race in the ancient world.Taharqa 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we delete this article

There is no way that people will ever come to common terms on this article because everybody thinks that they're right, and that they can over rule the sources with weak arguments that seem as if they were written by a child. All of my edits keep getting changed around and reworded in favor of Eurocentrism. Not to mention that people are deleting entire sections just because they have no arguments to refute them. Too many racists on the internet in general, if anyone has an opposing view to a Eurocentric one it's automatically deemed "Afrocentric" when more than likely it just reflects the truth. Radical Afrocentrism is saying that the greeks were black, the first Asians were black, blacks are Gods, etc. Now that's nonsense, but what is not nonsense is that the Egyptians were native Africans from Africa, and weren't subject to serious foreign influence for the first 1,000 years. But no one is going to post that no matter how many peer reviewed studies I post from different mainstream scientists and Egyptologists. Too much of a political agenda on here. Answers.com has this very same article and it is perfect, no bias what so ever and they come at it from all angles, including genetics. This article is pure crap and I request a deletion. Taharqa 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A RfC is probably the best option. I'm sorry you keep getting reverted - from your edits it seems as if what you're saying is all backed up with sources but since I know nothing about the topic I can't really comment. -Wooty Woot? contribs 23:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• I reverted at least once, maybe twice, but that was my mistaken belief of vandalism. I apologize, but please provide edit summaries for all editing to minimize confusion. --黒雲 user:Qaddosh 00:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a few because you removed massive and cited sections of the article because you disagreed with the information. If the info is supported by reliable sources and you have other information, also supported by reliable sources, then they both go into the article. This article is a POV cess pool and it will continue to be until it is deleted. The last time it went to AfD I voted to revert it to a simpler explanatory version but I've now come to realize that people will always come here to push their own ethnic bias (both Euro and Afrocentic) making this article the shit pile that it is and will always be. NeoFreak 01:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And I have reverted you once because you blanked the page (never a good move) - also I checked the Jablonski quote from the source cited and the version you kept reverting to was not correct as it gave the lead paragraph of the site and not the block quote from the authors. This certainly made me suspicious of the quality of your edits so maybe you should move a bit slower and communicate on this talk page more when there is a problem. It could just be that others on't understand the angle you are coming from - I would ask you to AGF and not asume that these reverts are racially motivated. Sophia 08:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

there are better sources available than...

Cavalli-Sforza and Diop and Jensen. Their projects are heavily criticized by mainstream scientists. I'm going to add more mainstream sources, as this article is getting to polarized in the Genetics section. My opinion is that sources such as Diop and Jensen are too fringe/radical in their Afrocentrist and Eurocentrist views to get such attention over mainstream science. Wikipedia:NPOV backs me up on this, as this could be considered giving undue weight to the extreme positions rather than the most weight to the mainstream,m and only some mention of extreme views. USE GOOGLE SCHOLAR! Find more modern, more mainstream sources. That's what I'll be doing, as I have a couple minutes to spare at work.--Urthogie 03:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

original research removed

The paragraph accusing the HGDP of "cultural insensitivity, neocolonialism, and biopiracy" is Original Research, meaning it introduces an opinion unrelated to the discussion of the genetics of ancient egypt. This quote is appropriate for the page on the HGDP, but not for this page.--Urthogie 03:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

removed text

Some ignore genetic research showing the Sahara desert to be the dividing line between Negroid and Caucasoid populations, and instead define the ancient Egyptians as Black for the simple reason that they may have been dark skinned African natives. However this argument is strongly challenged by research showing that the original inhabitants of Egypt were unlikely to have dark complexions for the simple reason that the skin color of indigenous populations are adapted through natural selection to the climate where they live, and Egypt is not a region that produces dark skin.

Others however argue that the Von Luschan scale of skin color is not an effective way of determining "polygenetic relationships".

Skin coloration in humans is adaptive and labile. Skin pigmentation levels have changed more than once in human evolution. Because of this, skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups.(N. Jablonski and G. Chaplin, J Hum Evol, 2000)

Mainstream consensus is that the first settled inhabitants of the Nile valley arrived there relatively recent, so Afrocentrists argue that their skin color didn't necessarily always need to reflect North African/Middle Eastern climate since they claim that migration was from the south near Saharan/Sudanic zones. Even renowned Afrocentric critic Mary Lefkowitz attests to this theory.

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."

The meaning of skin color and race are supposed to be covered in the Background: Race section. Please don't get the article muddled in definitions in the middle, people. Thanks, --Urthogie 03:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

White Europeans did not inhabit Africa from an early date

« The evidence suggests, it would appear, Saharan to mountainous North Africa was inhabited from an early date by quite diverse populations, some of which in modern popular perception would be 'white' "European" in appearance, some intermediate and some "black African." The argument about what 18th century Americans would percieve as to these ancient populations race is modern American race politics, not science. It should be discussed under such articles, not loaded on the backs of long dead Egyptians, whether "white" middle or otherwise. collounsbury 13:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC). » Collounsbury, you are making very strange affirmations. You are speaking about Africa being peopled from an early date by populations we would call « in modern popular perception (…) ‘white’ « European » in appearance ». « in appearance ». Are you not so sure? Please document your affirmations. The European type, called also Caucasoid is not first of all indigenous to Africa. Africa being totally peopled by Black people. Whites in Africa are invaders. Secondly, this European type reached continental Europe from central Russia during the second millennium BC. They entered Egypt during the same millennium, corresponding to the New Kingdom. They are know as the « people of the see ». The Semites entered Egypt before the Indo-European speaking people. It was during the second intermediary period. Actually, you are already contaminated by the modern racist ideology you are criticizing. It is the one which fabricated the white man of early Egypt! The ancestors of the modern Europeans and Asians knew a black Egypt, and they spoke about it. The Egyptians did not see themselves otherwise than black people (kmt + rmT). But you are going to say: « They are brown Egyptians ». You are right. Up to now, they are brown Black people. It is not a contradiction. The black race covers a large range of colors. Besides, the melanin test done by Cheikh Anta Diop on mummies showed that the ancient Egyptians had a rate of melanin incompatible with an idea of a white skin. Cheikh Anta Diop has not yet been contradicted on this point. I spoke about it to Urtogie in my past interventions. He will remember. If you know any counter-proof, please bring it forward. To finish, I agree with you that we have to do science, not ideology. Many Europeans have a problem, a psychological one as Cheikh Anta Diop put it in 1974 at the Cairo Conference on the peopling of ancient Egypt and the decipherment of the Meroitic scripts. Because of their education marked by a racist background, these White people, and among them well trained scholars, are unable of recognizing Egypt as a Black civilization. They became impermeable to proves against a so called « white » or « mix-race » society. It is time to move forward without them. Thus, we can reshuffle this article following the arguments given by Taharqa. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 16:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Silly Debate Continues

The article is heavily biased right now with obvious racist views that it doesn't even make sense any more. I read that Nubian aren't black and that Ethiopians have strong Caucasian admixture. Nubians are about the blackest people you will find, and Ethiopian look the way they do because of their environment. Mountainous, that is why Somalis look so different than Ethiopians, Mountains make you lighter, straighter hair, longer nose, but not 'mixed' with caucasian necesaarily. By that logic native americans with flat noses and dark skin are black.

Further I see the silly equation of negroid with blackness. Negros are only one type of blacks, like Germanic is only one type of white. With all likely hood the Egyptian had dark brown/black skin as we see in their painting. They weren't as black as the Nubians but they obviously had brown skin. They obviously weren't white cause we syrian and the egyptian is nowhere near him in skin color. The Egyptians weren't Bantus for sure, Bantus may not have even existed then, they most likely were like the Nubians in physical features but lighter cause they lived further North. We know as a fact that Egypt gets to 130 degrees hot on average in the summer, so I just can't fairly argue that they were caucasian cause it doesn't make sense. They would get sunburn everyday. They would have looked like Nubians but lighter cause they have similar climates and terrian just nubia is further south. We know in Egyptology that ancient Egyptians came from the South anyways because it was a migration pattern. To argue that they are even part causian, you have to believe thaat man after leaving africa and going all the way to persia came back and displaced the black who settled in egypt in large enough numbers (millions) to change the populations characteristics. Did this happen? Yes it did, but not likely until the new kingdom or perhaps the middle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.138.142 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Negro or negroid is not actually a scientific term. I therefore don't think you know what you're talking about.--Urthogie 01:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

^What is your point? That just gives fuel to the argument that the original Egyptians were "Black African" since negroid is a misnomer and you accept the extreme variation in African phenotypes (like Elongated East Africans like the Tutsi, so-called "Capoids" in south Africa, Senegalese people who lack Prognathism, and the lighter skinned Berbers, but that can be from admixture, look at the Taureg). Obviously these people were not "Caucasoid" or native to Europe, or even native to the middle east. They were native to Africa. Seeing as how the only light skinned inhabitants of North Africa are all either foreign or mixed (Berbers, and this is confirmed, look up "origin of the Berbers"), what do you assume they were before the admixture and foreign occupation? Not to mention so many "dark skinned Africans" still live in and are indigenous to North Africa. It is extremely silly to me that North/Western European Caucasians even argue over Egypt, this is between the various ethnic Africans and maybe middle eastern people have some pull to join the debate, but I never understood why Anglos argue this so passionately. The debate is "how black" were they, not "how white".. What do white people have to do with this? I'm tired of people brain washing these kids, wikipedia step your game up and just tell the truth!! You're not sure if they were predominantly dark skinned or light skinned (given Africa's climate I doubt that) but they definitely weren't "White Anglo-Saxon" and even today modern Semite Egyptians (who are right under berbers) cluster closer to other Africans (yes, sub-saharans too) than Anglos! tell the kids that! I dare you.Taharqa 20:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"How black" "how white"? No, that's not the debate at all. The debate is over their demographics, and their genetics. Black and white are not scientific terms whatsoever.--Urthogie 22:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

suggested move

To: Race and ancient Egypt. Why? Because "Racial characteristics" is not a good title-- it suggests that such "racial" characteristics truly exist, a sentiment most anthropologists would disagree with.--Urthogie 00:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. 71.142.103.87 01:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick question on that pigment map, What the Hell does it have to do with the "ANCIENT" Egyptians. As it has been mentioned during 600-700A.D. Egypt was invaded by Arabs and people of lighter complexions that were mixed with the Native Black Africans of that region. I second that comment about to post above whites have nothing to do with this argument. 74.128.200.135 03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is debate over the influence of Arabs on the indigenous Egyptians. It's not clear cut that the Egyptians looked a lot differently before they were invaded. Therefore, the modern skin map (according to some theories) would indicate a similarity to ancient Egyptians. Read the section on Demographics for more on this.--Urthogie 03:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

False, the skin map only tells us what the indigenous people look like now, as far as skin color goes. I guess it tries to estimate what skin colors a particular region would produce, given the nature of its "current" indigenous population, they took samples from live modern indigenous populations, not the ancients Egyptians. Just look at the Beja who inhabit the same region and has for thousands of years, almost unaffected by Arab invasions. http://www.4egypt.info/images/bejakids.jpg

Not to mention that the classic Egyptians did not adapt fully in the land mass that we call Egypt, it is thought instead that they migrated some time after the start of the Neolithic from some where south and south/west, basically closer to the equator than any northern populations.Taharqa 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"False?" According to you. Wikipedia present various reliable opinions, not just what you deem correct.--Urthogie 18:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I can and have provided sources for everything that I say.. Read carfully, this is a quote from the biggest Afrocentric critic of all time, you know, the one who wrote "Not Out Of Africa"..

The Egyptians didn't adapt to Egyptian climate, this is "mainstream" opinion, not just mine.

Saharan-Sudanic inheritance of Nile Valley settlers. Data on the peopling of the Nile Valley do not appear to support earlier historical notions of an initial wave of Caucasoid invaders entering from the North to introduce civilization. Mainstream data shows gradual movement and peopling from the south- the Saharan zone and associated parts of the Sudanic region, fusing with indigenous Nilotic elements already in place, leading into the development of the well-known Egyptian kingdoms, not sweeping insertions from the Mediterranean, Mesopotamia or elsewhere.(AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990) See Wiki article Predynastic Egypt for the now discounted Dynastic Race Theory. As to the Saharan movement even Afrocentric critics such as Mary Lefkowitz note:

"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."Taharqa 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What I removed

I removed this quote from the demographics section..

"This does not indicate what race the Egyptians were, but if true, it would disprove both the Dynastic Race Theory and the Afrocentric theory of Ancient Egypt (which both argue that Egyptians used to look more like sub-saharan Africans before demographic effects from Mesopotamia effected the region):"

^First of all, it does refute the Dynastic Race theory, but anyone familiar with "afrocentric claims" knows that this is not what the afrocentrics argue. The argument is that first of all, there was no true brick wall barrier between sub-saharan Africa and the rest of Africa, that's a racist term(sub-saharan).. Look up saharan pump theory, there was no barrier during these migrations to Egypt. Secondly, the main argument is that there is no definitive sub-saharan look. A lot of Egyptian cranial studies have clustered the Egyptians closer to Somalis. This is adaptation to micro-climates according to C. Loring Brace. That these drier regions produce slimmer features, but these people are still at the same latitude of those in West Africa. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/brace.pdf

Keita's argument..

Keita writes: "In general, this restricted view presents all tropical Africans with narrower noses and faces as being related to or descended from external, ultimately non-African peoples. However, narrow-faced, narrow-nosed populations have long been resident in Saharo-tropical Africa... and their origin need not be sought elsewhere. These traits are also indigenous. The variability intropical Africa is expectedly naturally high. Given their longstanding presence, narrow noses and faces cannot be deemed `non-African.'" Afrocentrics argue a full, biologically African Egypt that has nothing to do with outside influence, and that most likely they had darker complexions and more genetic affinities with other localized populations on the Nile Valley Taharqa 17:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't know if it's fair to call Keita an Afrocentrist. Where does he call himself this?
2. You fail to recognize why it contradicts afrocentrism if true. Egyptians today look like arabs, a small minority of them look black. How do Afrocentrists explain this change? Arabization. Please find me one *confirmed* afrocentric source which does not say Egypt has been "arabized" in appearence.
3. Until you can supply a satisfactory answer to #2, I'm reverting your removal.--Urthogie 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

^First of all, you'd have to define "Afrocentric", Bernal claims not to be Afrocentric, yet he's labeled one in this article. Second, did you read Keita's argument? 3rd, you provide a source, I'm not the one making this baseless claim and speaking for "all" Afrocentrics in academia. I also removed some obscure claim about Egyptians not looking "sub-saharan" because of the sahara, even though I provided a source claiming that the Sahara was not a barrier, you people decide to keep the one with out a source for what ever biased reason, so I removed the un-cited opinion of some editor who's using desperate arguments to confuse people of the real issue here.Taharqa 18:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

First off I want to apologize for writing before thinking, I was wrong on points numbers two and three because arabization happened after the period this study dealt with. I apologize for that.

So I support adjusting this to only say it would disprove dynastic race theory.--Urthogie 18:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

^Thank you! I'm actually surprised, thought that you were being biased, but that's very reasonable of you. Commendable.. Taharqa 18:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome... thank you for showing character by not pouncing on me for making a mistake, as some would.--Urthogie 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, why did you remove the map? Lukas19 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The map is of little significance, it turns out, because not a single study argues that Egyptians haven't changed significantly in skin color over time. In fact, the map is misleading, and Taharqa is right on removing it.--Urthogie 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed this from the genetics section.

"A 2005 study[10] of ancient Egyptian craniofacial characteristic published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology found that:

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, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World.

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, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World."

^^I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with genetic research on the origins of the ancient egyptians, I'd be glad if someone can explain. Maybe this should be put in a different section?Taharqa 01:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say we should merge the demographics and genetics sections together because they overlap so much. The study you removed is related to both.--Urthogie 01:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

^Alright, great.. I added another study to it then as well, that sheds relevant light on this situation.. Keita found that early predynastic crania had more affinities with Tropical Africans than Europeans, also emphasizing that any perceived population shift isn't due to migration into Egypt.Taharqa 02:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The mainstream consensus seems to be that the predynastic egyptians were mixed between Mesopotamia and Africa, but bearing greatest similarity to their African neighbors. It's reasonable to say that they would be considered "black" by US standards if they time-traveled to today. But by the time of the dynasties, the ancient Egyptians were various shades of brown or as some would say "mixed-race." Various degrees of Mesopotamian and African appearance would have characterized what they looked like.--Urthogie 02:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

^I don't know about all of that, that actually contradicts the studies. Mesopotamian influence is considered "limited".. I agree that the Egyptians were "probably" various shades of brown, but that's due to the variation in Africa more so then due to admixture. At least that's the common consensus among most scholars recently.

Taharqa 02:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The influence of Mesopotamians is debated (not consensus yet), but you have to consider that changes in appearence can occur by selection as well, and not just by demographic effect like migration/war/etc.--Urthogie 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

^The influence of the Mesopotamians is actually an old theory that's been debunked basically. But yea, more people just point to the variation in Africa as an explanation for different features and previously perceived population shift.

Oh, and I removed the last paragraph from the intro that stated something about mainstream consensus being that "a small minority" looked like what we'd call black today. Not true, never heard that argument. Anthropologists try and eliminate racial stereotypes if anything.

As far as the language section, what does KM.t meaning "something black" have to do with racial characteristics?

Taharqa 03:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple quick points to make. First off, you were right in saying to remove "small minority". It's all very subjective. How does one define black? If we go with the average americans and what they would recognize today we're going to have to say that it was a mixed bag. Some would be seen as blacks, others as middle easterners, others as just plain different looking (see cover of National Geographic). The influence of Mesopotamians hasn't been debunked-- in fact, its thoroughly established by all serious shcolars in the area. The question is the extent and effect. (in fact, even the 2007 study you added establishes, based on cranial measurements that mesopotamia had some influence) Studying skulls is not a direct indicator of skin color, by the way; keep that in mind. We would expect only minor changes in craniums and larger difference in skin color when changing climate.--Urthogie 15:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I'd like you to quote one shlolar who says that there was Mesopotamian influence, that is not in any of the sources, none. They all said maybe some, but the majority was indigenous.

2. We're not concerned with how some people may view ancient Egyptians. The fact is, Anthropologists don't say the Egyptians were different shades of brown, and some looked like this "race" and some looked like that race". Quote someone who says that. That is your opinion honestly, none of the sources say that.

3. The dynastic race theory is practically debunked sir.

"The Dynastic Race Theory is no longer the dominant thesis in the field of Predyanstic Archaeology, and has been largely replaced by the theory that Egypt was a Hydraulic empire, on the grounds that such contacts are much older than the Naqada II period," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynastic_Race_Theory

4. If you had read the sources, the changes in the crania measurements were due to variation inside of Africa, not outside! These people were just different kind of Africans, the debate is weather all Africans can be considered black, that's what people are still holding on to.

I have to remove this because it supports nothing in this article and it attacks Diop when Diop was in no way proven wrong, Eurocentrics were. We're still debating over skin color, but their origin isn't a big question any more. Please read the sources before you write these opinions, it's so contradictory. For someone to "look" middle eastern, you're speaking for people who don't believe in any specific racial look, specifically since Africans have different features, go back to my Keita quote, please.

I have to remove this, it's wrong..

The current mainstream scientific view is that Egyptians came in various shades of brown.(Not True, no one said that, it's your own inference) Based solely on their appearence, American society today would view many of the ancient Egyptians as "black" ( Maybe, maybe not, you're speaking hypothetically)--

others would be viewed as Middle Easterners(Hypothetical, this is unscientific, how do we know what they'd think?). However, Afrocentric scholars claim that dynastic Egypt was a primarily "black", African civilization, with most inhabitants being similar in appearence to other sub-Saharan African peoples(there is no definitive look in sub-saharan Africa. All of them don't have big lips and noses, go back to the Keita quote, this is unscientific and baseless).

Although the vast majority of Egyptologists and anthropologists today do not support the Afrocentrist view of ancient Egypt(What is the overall Afrocentric view"? Diop is dead, and he only claimed them to be "black" or Negroe which are old racial designations"), Afrocentric research by Cheikh Anta Diop definitely had a significant effect on Egyptology, debunking Eurocentrist theories of Egyptian history. There is also a seperate, but related debate, concerning the extent and effect of Mesopotamian migration into Egypt.(this is not a big debate, you're confusing the issue)

^This tells lies to confuse people, probably unintentional, but you speak for the majority of academia yet this is not reflected in the sources. Quote some of your sources who says any of that.

And for those who believe in race, this doesn't mean "mixed race" even if race were valid. How? There's no source for that. They'd all come from this branch.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africoid Taharqa 15:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What you've just written is based on the following fallacies:

• That there is no source for the claim that society was "mixed-race". There are four mainstream, scientific sources supplied.
• That the mainstream view isn't that Egyptians were various shades of brown. This is in fact the mainstream view. Even you accept this view, and you are an Afrocentrist.
• That one needs to accept the Dynastic Race Theory to acknowledge a mesopotamian influence on the demographics of Egyptians, and that the question of Mesopotamian influence is not seriously debated among Egyptologists. The Dynastic Race theory is not the theory that Mesopotamians had an influence, but rather that all of Egyptian society is owed to demographic factors coming from Mesopotamia. You are correct in saying the Dynastic Race Theory has basically been thrown out the window. However, the view that Mesopotamians had an influence is not disagreed upon by any mainstream academic in this field. The only questions that remain in this regard are the degree to which Mesopotamians effected the demographics of Egypt. Different studies come to different conclusions.
• That Keita is an afrocentrist. The man doesn't even believe races exist. He differs significantly from the Afrocentric platform. Most Afrocentrists actually attempt to reinforce the concept of race. Keita is not an Afrocentrist, it would seem.
• That there is no solid Afrocentric view on Egypt. There is a certain element common to all Afrocentrists on ancient Egypt: that it was a primarily black civilization. Find me an Afrocentrist who disagree with that.
• That the articles claim the Egyptians were a certain race. The article goes out of its way to say that only the mainstream scientists who view race as a valid construct would call the society "mixed-race". The article goes out of its way to make this clear.
• That Africoid is a valid term used by scientists today. Wrong. First negroid got debunked, then africoid got debunked.

If you'll stop relying on these fallacies, we can discuss the issues from there.--Urthogie 16:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Can you please quote one of your sources, I've read through them and none of them say anything about them being "Mixed".. That's not true, quote them please, please do. I'm asking politely.

alk:Ancient_Egypt_and_race#Mixed_race. You clearly haven't read the sources thoroughly.--Urthogie 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Again, call me Afrocentric if you want, which isn't an insult anyways, but none of your sources say anything about skin color neither does it sum up the mainstream view from any journal or poll or anything.

They don't need to. The sentence in the article refers to "mixed-race" and a source is provided. You are not allowed to reject a source because you think it's wrong. All that matters is that it makes the claim.--Urthogie 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Call me an Afrocentric if you keep wanting to, but I've exposed your biased Eurocentrism earlier (that you call a mistake) already so that doesn't bother me. Besides the point though.

That's funny, I thought you actually chose to show some character my allowing me to make a mistake. I suppose that you to sacrifice your character for an argumentative point. Sometimes, a mistake is a mistake.--Urthogie 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Since you're making the claim that there's a debate about the extant of "Mesopotamians" genetic influence that impacts demographics, you post the source, please. You have no source, the sources say that there was minimal demographic shift as a cause of outside migration, read the 2007 study. The conclusion was that "It seems more so to be indigenous", that's the mainstream view.

Uh, the very source you added argues for one view on Mesopotamia. If everyone agreed with its claim then it wouldn't have to attempt to prove it. You seem to not understand how science works. A new research paper doesn't establish fact. In fact, the 2007 study hasn't even been responded to yet, as far as I know. Most papers are critiqued, but since you chose such a recent study it hasn't been as of yet.--Urthogie 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

5. What article goes out of its way to say "mixed race"? How old is the article? Is that the mainstream view from qualified anthropologists? This isn't making any sense now. The sources contradict a mixed race theory, all of them. Your sources don't concern themselves with answering the question of race.

See Talk:Ancient_Egypt_and_race#Mixed_race. These are mainstream sources.--Urthogie 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, read Keita's quote, that says nothing about "mixed race", different sized crania does not = mixed race. And that study was from 1993, the dynastic race theory and misconceptions of race was more prevalent then. That's the variety of Africa, not racial admixture.Taharqa 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

6. Diop is dead, and you find a "qualified academic" Afrocentrist who claims that Egyptians were "Black Africans", even though there is no difference between a darker and lighter skinned African in the eyes of Afrocentrics because they all adapted in Africa, that's their more recent arguments. You provide the source since you're making the claim, it makes no sense that you put that burden on me. Also, no one says that they migrated from North Africa to North Africa, it says they most likely migrated from Sudanic and Saharan zones, so the Sahara or Sub-Sahara, that's more of a debate. Mesopotamian migration is debunked. Taharqa 16:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is they think they were black people. That is the point. "Mesopotamia migration is debunked"? No, it's not. It's solidly established. Questions of extent and effect still exist.---Urthogie 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

^Okay, you stopped talking like a scientist a long time ago. What is a "Black person", what are they racially. How different were they from any other indigenous Africans who were dark? That makes no sense, anthropology doesn't agree with that. Again, read this.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africoid

And read this. The Dynastic Race Theory is no longer the dominant thesis in the field of Predyanstic Archaeology, and has been largely replaced by the theory that Egypt was a Hydraulic empire, on the grounds that such contacts are much older than the Naqada II period, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynastic_Race_Theory ^Mainstream consensus!Taharqa 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You completely ignored what I said. I don't think "black" people even exist. It's afrocentrists who argue that. Africoid has also been debunked, and I'm NOT saying Dynastic Race Theory has consensus. I'm saying Mesopotamian influence has consensus. The Dynastic Race Theory, as stated before, is not the view that the Egyptians were demographically influenced by Mesopotamians, it's the view that the main factor in Egypt's development was Mesopotamian demographic factors. Please address my points. You asked for a source that says Egyptians were mixed race, I supplied you with 4. You asked for a source that says Mesopotamian influence is still debated, I referenced the 2007 study you added to the article, which gives a given conclusion on the subject. There are other studies besides this 2007 one, which give other nuanced views, you can find them with a basic Google Scholar search. What other points do you have to make in this regard? Will you continue to say what we both already agree on, that the Dynastic Race theory has been debunked? I've already admitted this, so why continue with that? I've also said that races don't exist. However, some scientists disagree. Most of the mainstream scientists who think Races exist say Egyptology was mixed-race. Everything has been sourced and proven, and I'll revert you unless you have something more to say...

The fact is that you're trying to get me into a debate on the subject matter. I could care less about debating with you unless it helps the article. You are asking me to read about the Dynastic Race Theory and give you some definition of black people. This is not the question at hand. The question is why you removed sourced sentences. Your answer to this question was that the sources weren't adequate. In response, I showed you that 4 mainstream sources exist for the "mixed-race" claim and several more exist for the Mesopotamian influence. Once again, do not try to argue with my views as I could care less about what you think about Egypt. Please just try to justify your edits.--Urthogie 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not debating with you, just trying to stop unsourced opinions from getting into the article. Be objective, make this article scientific, don't litter it and confuse the issue with words like "Americans may view them as", or they were a "Mixed race", but I don't know what they were mixed with. Just keep it neutral and scientific. Oh, and Egyptologists don't study race.

I didn't ignore what you wrote, I'm having a hard time seeing what you're saying and it seems as if you're ignoring me. Africoid isn't debunked, how can an arbitrary racial category be debunked? Wow, anyways Negroid was a term used to describe so-called blacks, but given the variety in Africa, that classification has fallen apart. Caucasoid is also now obsolete and certain biases of the past have been exposed due to these racial categories. If you would please read what I posted I think it's obvious that Mesopotamia was not so much a factor in Ancient Egypt and we can stop talking about them as much. This is between the Africans so to speak. Just read what I posted, you respond so quick I know you didn't check this source. I can't go back and fourth when you're not even trying. My main point is this, we both agree then that the dynastic race theory is basically debunked, so little to no middle eastern genetic influence. Now we're arguing racial characteristics, a mixed race would have to belong to a separate race and no where do these people indicate what race the Egyptians are, let alone if they were mixed, this is the inquiry, should we even assign anyone, including them to any race? Are they Africoid? Caucasoid(that word is obsolete, so no)? Those broad statements that were in the intro just didn't touch on anything relevant to this conversation and confuses the issue, and is not backed by the sources, especially the 2007 study. It would contradict that study, no one qualified argues for a "Mixed" society from onset, that used to be the argument, that's what the dynastic race theory isTaharqa 16:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. If a scientist says "mixed-race" it doesn't matter if its true or false. What matters is that they said it. Wikipedia, like every encyclopedia, isn't based on truth. It's based on sourcing what people say, individuals. According to X, "blah". It doesn't matter if "blah" is flase or true. Not one bit. And you seem to think it can be argued. It can't. All that is needed is a mainstrem source saying something and we say they said it. That is all their is to wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't written by writers arguing and finally coming to "truth". Lastly, dynastic race theory is not the "mixed-race" theory-- its a theory of how Egypt developed. (it's possible to be mixed-race without being dynastic race theory) But it doesn't matter. Because any argument you make doesn't matter. You aren't a reliable source. You are a non-notable individual doing (false) original research. All that matters are sources, and you aren't one of them. From Wikipedia:Attribution (Wikipedia policy):

Original research introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

This is precisely what you're doing. You're analyzing the sources and saying that "mixed-race" is false. You aren't allowed to do this, because you aren't a Wikipedia:Reliable source. It's against Wikipedia policy, so I'm reverting you. Please read the policy page Wikipedia:Attribution.--Urthogie 17:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And there is no "original research" on my part, I've cited independent researchers and anthropologists who are all renowned, nor did I give any of my opinions, let the data speak. I don't speak for the mainstream, especially when this isn't mainstream view.

^The point of the whole matter is choice of words. You wrote "Mainstream consensus", that isn't mainstream consensus, mainstream consensus is that the dynastic race theory is debunked and that Egypt was indigenous. None of your sources study anything about Egypt's racial affinities nor draw precise conclusions that can be attributed to mainstream anthropology. I can give you a source that said they were all "black", from a scientist, two or three, but this doesn't make it a mainstream view. You're trying to confuse the world with your nonsensical personal inferences that don't reflect the sources, which isn't right. You've already made numerous mistakes, now I guess you're using ad hominems and trying to save face. Who are you to speak for the mainstream and why can't you give me a quote from one of those sources that backs up a mixed race theory? I've read and there's no racial research done nor does it sum up mainstream opinion.Taharqa 17:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

4 mainstream sources are given for mixed race. It is your original synthesis of other sources which leads you to disagree with them, and remove them because you disagree. Original research. You are using source to make your point, yes, but you are using an original synthesis of them to come to your conclusions to remove the text. The mainstream consensus is that global warming exists, yet you could find scientists who disagree. This doesn't change the fact that it's mainstream consensus.--Urthogie 17:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

1. No where do the sources indicate a "gesalt of mesopotamian and north african ethnicities"

All of the genetics and demographics sources make clear that they were mixed, although they disagree on the degree. All of them also agree that Egypt was unique, and that race isn't a seperatable concept. This is a gestalt-- something that can't be broken down into simple parts.

Not true..

2. "Black African" isn't a race, Diop is dead, and this isn't what Afrocentrics argue. Provide a source that says otherwise, that "all afrocentrics" fall into this category, or even most.

Ok, you're right on this point. Go ahead and adjust the afrocentrist sentence but leave the rest as it was. I'm not an exper on afrocentrism, but if you know more, go ahead and define their view more clearly.

3. No one says what they were mixed with and no anthropologist in "today's 2007" mainstream view believe that these people were "mixed", provide a source for that, otherwise you're hurting the integrity of the article and putting in sourceless opinions and material. Especially the last paragraph. Taharqa 17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, several sources say they were mixed with Mesopotamians. In fact, every serious source say dynastics were mixed to various degrees. Look in the genetics and demographics sections. --Urthogie 17:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not true in updated scholarship.

We're talking about Egypt's onset and actual research, not from looking at portraits, or 2 or 3 people's opinions. The demographics section says nothing about being mixed with Mesopotamian, nor do the intro sources, quote where you saw that please. Mainstream view = more than 2 people agree, someone that is qualified enough to speak for the majority of the field. Not some obscure person making a claim, choose your words carefully please, this is not mainstream view.Taharqa 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Where do anthropologists and scientists say that the original egyptians were different shades of brown? 2. Where does it say that they were mixed with Meso-middle eastern? I think this is just what you want people to think honestly, I don't know why you insist on putting up unsourced material.Taharqa 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see the source of our disagreement. You're right to say that the term "gestalt" is too controversial, as it might have been a very small effect from migration. I'm going to adjust this, tell me what you think.--Urthogie 17:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For now, I don't have that big of a problem with what you wrote, besides the last paragraph.. About them being various shades of brown and bringing up a dead scholar from 50 years ago to disagree with, and using a broad term like "Black African" which has no scientific basis and means different things to different people. Also this paragraph was not sourced and can hurt the article and reputation of diop when this is still in debate. Also Egyptologists aren't qualified to determine the race of the Egyptians, only Bio-Anthropologists can tell us that so that's suspect too, but I'll lay off that for now.Taharqa 17:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know much about Afrocentrism. Please update that. Otherwise, you like the lead?--Urthogie 18:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Various shades of brown though, isn't controversial. Why remove that? Even you and other afrocentrists acknowledge they were various shades. Why censor this fact?--Urthogie 18:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

^Because it isn't a proven fact and has no source, no one thinks or takes issue with that. A lot of so-called black people have different shades and so do a lot of middle easterners. But we never seen an ancient egyptian nor have we done melanin tests. Well Diop did, but let's leave that out.

^How about if you don't know much about Afrocentrism, just leave it out until someone qualified, with a source can post the view from Afrocentrism and what Diop was trying to get across? And I put a lack of importance banner above the section because Egyptologists aren't concerned with race. Their opinions on race is no more valid than ours. I know that you know the definitions but I'll post them for others so they see what I mean.

Egyptology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptology

Anthropology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology Taharqa 18:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I said you were right about the "black Africans" part. What I said here is that they were brown skinned in various shades. You can take this however you want, and Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists can take it however they want. And they do. But they all agree there were various shades of brown. The article doesn't force people to take this a certain way, such as in saying they're black or middle eastern or anything. It just says they're various shades of brown-- a non-controversial fact.--Urthogie 18:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

^How is this a fact? Name one anthropologist who has studied Egyptian remains that agrees with that? The only way to possibly know is through a skin dosage test. You're just talking now, again, this has no source. This is your personal inference and maybe the view of one or two Egyptologists, but that's just an opinion not based on science. Although I do agree somewhat with how you reworded things, I just have a problem with opinions being displayed as facts. I won't blank it though, I simply added a "citation needed" stamp. Oh, and I appreciate your neutrality, even though at first it seemed like some sort of bias but I just see that you're trying to understand different view points and act accordingly. Can't fault you for that.Taharqa 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I found it strange you called me Eurocentrist, since I'm a)based on science, not Eurocentrism and b)not even European, ethnically. I don't have any stake in the Egyptians not looking a certain way. I'm just cautious of new viewpoints, as you said. But anyways, I'll get a source for you. There have been pigment tests on mummies which show various tones of brown. Just give me time to get the source, shouldn't take very long as the French wikipedia version of this page probably has it.--Urthogie 19:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

^Alright, Cool..Taharqa 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your Source did not support "mix-race"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alk:Ancient_Egypt_and_race&action=edit

^This isn't accessable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ancient_Egypt_and_race#Mixed_race

^And this is totally misrepresented as it does not support "mix-race", in fact, it's illusive and tells us nothing. Not to mention that it's an old study from 14 years ago, not to say it isn't valid, but perceptions of things were slightly different then anyways. Take the abstract with in its full context.

ABSTRACT The biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians were tested against their neighbors and selected prehistoric groups as well as against samples representing the major geographic population clusters of the world. Two dozen craniofacial measurements were taken on each indi- vidual used. The raw measurements were converted into C scores and used to produce Euclidean distance dendrograms. The measurements were prin- cipally of adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similar- ities based solely on genetic relationships. 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, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World. Adjacent people in the Nile valley show similarities in trivial traits in an unbroken series from the delta in the north southward through Nubia and all the way to Somalia at the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selec- tive forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur. An assessment of "race" is as useless as it is impossible. Neither clines nor clusters alone suffice to deal with the biological nature of a widely distributed population. Both must be used. We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either inva- sions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well. o1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

I'm still not satisfied with your sources and feel that you're unintentionally misrepresenting them. This study has nothing to do with skin shades or racial admixture, and doesn't tell us anything of interest..

^Source#4 is this one

Source#5 doesn't even mention a mixed race, the words race and Egypt were simply highlighted. No mention of "mix race", just Egyptian.

Source#6 Is simply about race as a social construct and mentions "modern" Egypt and the case of Mostafa Hefny who considers himself "black". They make no mention of Ancient Egypt and these people are not Egyptologists or Anthropologists, it has nothing to do with the topic at all.

Source#7 Is just a critique of Afrocentrism, makes no mention to shades of brown or "mixed race" of ancient Egypt. Who ever wrote this wasn't interested in Egyptology or Anthropology either, it's just a write up by a writer... I Seriously went through it all, I don't know what's going on but those sources truly didn't bring home the point that was trying to be made in no way. Let's just leave the "Mixed" stuff out for now, it's easier. Taharqa 21:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove source #4 for this.

Source #5 does say "egyptians were of mixed race" on page 42. Read that page, thank you.

Source #6 doesn't just talk about race as a social construct. It talks explicitly about how slaves were of multiple races on page 4.

^What do they say about "Ancient" Egypt?

I don't know the complete history of Egypt, but wasn't slavery in ancient Egypt only?--Urthogie 00:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Source #7 On page 133 it talks about both skin color and mixed ancestry.

--Urthogie 23:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie.. Source#7 has no page 133, there is no review from pages 89 - 212.

Source#5 page 42 indeed makes this claim, but take into consideration who the author is. Paul Johnson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(writer)

^He is neither an Egyptologist nor an Anthropologist, you're sourcing writers. This is not mainstream view in Egyptological Anthropology or in academia. I'm a writer too, what difference does that make?

Again, what does source#6 "Race" say about the Ancients? Nothing I suppose? How is that a source for mainstream qualified opinion on "Ancient Egypt"? What do slaves have to do with anything? This articles needs a big clean up, there's a lot of sloppy and unqualified sources being presented to try and prove something that isn't supported by the data. Why would you say that, and then contradict the studies right below?Taharqa 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Use the search function to view pages you can't otherwise reach.
• Paul Johnson is an acredited historian. His study of history includes Egypt. He is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. A historian who writes a book on Egypt is a reliable source, even if he doesn't devote all of his research to egypt.
• The slaves were part of Egyptian society, even if they were oppressed. They had sex with non-slaves as well, meaning they must have been part of the demographic framework as well.

^Who were the slaves and what race were they? Were they a part of Ancient Egypt? And how does that reflect mainstream view of a mixed race Ancient Egypt? This isn't making sense anymore, come on Urgothie.

• Here's another source for the "mixed-race" claim: [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/race.htm] --Urthogie 00:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Urgothie, no it does not support that, just read it. And why are you posting non-Anthropologists and old website articles? You're searching too hard to find something that fits your beliefs. They mention that Egypt was a melting pot, which is obvious and tells us nothing of who the original people were. And I'm sorry, but there is no page 133 for the source on Afrocentrism, there just isn't. At least it isn't visible to anyone accept you. If I'm wrong, please feel free to post the quote, any short quote from that page that deals with Ancient Egypt and raceTaharqa 00:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll search for the other page, but is one source truly fit to represent mainstream opinion? Especially when the studies disagree? What if I were to post an opposing mainstream view that says they weren't mixed? Could you accept that, or are we only relying on a historian that has the same racial concepts of the layman?Taharqa 00:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you find me two scientists (each having at least one article, on any subject, published in some mainstream scientific journal within the last 5 years), who have said/written within the last 5 years that race is a valid construct and written that Egypt was not "mixed-race"?

By the way, as far as the slaves and what "race" they were, the source makes clear they were various mixed "races"/skin tones.

I'll add the quote to the page in a second. Feel free to check out a local library or something, or once I add the quote just google it.

By the way, don't assume I'm trying to make this fit my view. What I'm doing is making sure that both sides of the coin are represented. It's good that I'm challenging you with sources, remember that. Don't be mad because I search for sources against what you say. This just indicates my respect for your argument.--Urthogie 00:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's end this right now then, these are actual qualified sources and updated studies. They agree that variety in early Egypt was not due to admixture, but suggests continuity just like the 2007 study suggests.

Continuity of Nile valley populations over extended periods

Some current dental studies of ancient Egyptians as a whole over the millenia show continuity between early racial or cultural types peopling Egypt, well into the dynastic period, and show that these peoples had a wide range of characteristics including Nubian, Saharan, Nilotic and Levantine. Such variability makes make rigid racial taxonomies, or selective highlighting, grouping and labeling as "Middle Eastern" or "Mediterranean" or sweeping genetic claims of outside influence problematic. The issue of continuity with past Egyptian racial stocks has also been raised in older scholarship since the 1960s, most notably the case of the fellahin in Egypt, which are referenced as an indicator of a more ancient genetic strand associated with Negroid or Sudanic/Saharan influences.

Some older studies also suggest continuity of racial stocks in Egypt. A British analysis of craniometric traits from several Egyptian predynastic gravesites showed a wide range of physical variability, making it difficult to establish a rigid taxonomy of races. However the same study compared craniometric traits found on the Egyptian samples, to samples from other areas such as Caanan and found limited matches with the predynastic crania. It thus concluded that at no time did any non-Egyptian group provide a significant change to the Egyptian gene pool for the length of the Pharaonic monarchy. As noted with the example of the fellahin above, the genetic or racial elements on the ground (whatever the unique mix of racial types that made up Egypt), at least in the early millenia of Egyptian civilization, were thus not significantly affected by any influx of distant outsiders from Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean or elsewhere. Such outsiders, like the well known Hyksos, were to appear in significant numbers on the scene much later, about 1000 years after Eygptian dynastic civilization had been established. ("Genetical Change in Ancient Egypt," Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1967).

^If you know how to read anthropological jargon, then there's no need for the precise words "they weren't mixed race" to be written. This is a break down as to why they were not and the view from mainstream science, not some historian (not being rude).

Continuity extends into dynastic period of kingship and nation building This continuity holds into the early dynastic period, in that elements from the South, (a region closer to the Sahara and the Sudan), brought about the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt, ushering in the early Egyptian dynasties. This union is of monumental significance in Egyptian history, and was considered as such by the Egyptians themselves. It does not appear to be a crude tribal polity awaiting inspiration from Mediterranean or Near Eastern outsiders, as asserted by the now discredited Dynastic Race Theory. Union provided a stable umbrella that helped shape the creative and productive energies of their civilization for millennia to come. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1984 ed. Egypt, History of," p. 464-65)

Actually, source 3, or paragraph 2 says something about "whatever the mix of racial stocks were", they weren't affected by outside influence like the Medit or Meso-Middleeastern. So if there was a "Mix", it was between Africans. But other interpretations are that it wasn't so much of an admixture as it was population variation and continuity, as is reflected in the other sources. I just strongly feel that the Middle East or Mes-potamia needs to be tooken out of the equation unless the dynastic theory can revive its self. Taharqa 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't satisfy what I asked for. And no, it doesn't need to say "they weren't mixed race." I asked for those who believe in race, though. The sources you provide must hold race to be a valid category. Because the claim on the page is: "For those who believe in race....". This qualifier is very important, you see! Also, continuity doesn't indicate they weren't mixed race. Race can be defined as a platonic category, and some definitions would hold that Egyptians were similar to other "races", but also their own distinct race, or perhaps even a "mix" of characteristics. Lastly, most of these sources don't seem to have been written in the last 10 year, let alone 5. Anyways, you still haven't satisfied the criteria I requested, which would seem to be somewhat easy for a mainstream view.--Urthogie 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

^Well at least this proves that Mesopotamia wasn't a factor. And continuity generally is another way of saying that they were basically the same people and were unchanged or not changed very much genetically through its civilization. No one from a scientific point of view will tell you that the Egyptians were "Mixed", so if you're going outside of science, then you're speaking socially, someone's social point of view. You ask someone else they'd say something different, that's why we rely on empirical data to answer these questions, for those who are considered authorities on the subject, which are Anthropologists, Archaeologists, and some Egyptologists. There really is no argument unless we can get some straight foward sources. And If anything you simply have to admit that the large majority is against any "outside" (Meso-Middle Eastern) contributions. So we should agree to leave Mesopotamia out of this unless we're to add other debunked theories from all sides also.Taharqa 01:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The influence of Mesopotamia was likely minor, but this has not been solidly proven. Even the 2007 study hasn't received any replies yet. And Keita said in that link you gave me that a small amount of migration even 1% has huge effects. This theory isn't debunked, I'm reverting you, because I have 4 sources for the phrase "mixed-race" and you have none.--Urthogie 01:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Come on now, your sources are unworthy. None of them are Egyptologists, yet you claim that this is the view of "Mainstream Egyptology". And no one supports Mesopotamian influence if any at all, how many times do I have to direct you to the Dynastic Race theory page? And Keita says 1% over a "long period of time" causes a huge different, stop taking him out of context please. The conclusion was not that of a "Mixed race", but of genetic and cultural continuity of indigenous people, no mention of Mesopotamia. And the 2007 study concludes that it was mainly indigenous, with maybe limited migration from elsewhere, but she doesn't mention from where, especially Mesopotamia. Let's be rational here.Taharqa 01:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Egyptology is the study of Ancient Egypt and Egyptian antiquities and is a regional and thematic branch of the larger disciplines of ancient history and archaeology." Note, the article doesn't say Egyptologists, it says Egyptology. All of them are practicing mainstream egyptology.
• it's funny, because Keita's findings (of saying migration over a "long time" is the reason for the appearence of modern egyptians) contradict the 2007 study which says there was very little effect from such demorgaphics factors. Which one is right? I dknow?! Perhaps there's no consensus on migration yet, eh?
• Mixed-race does not require Mesopotamians, either. See this model Race#The_displacement_from_Africa_model_and_the_rise_of_cladistics. Genetic distance is one way of defining a race, and you could say a race is mixed if you define certain races based on genetic distance and it falls in between them to a great degree, even if by selection.--Urthogie 01:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

^None of them are "Egyptologists" as you claim them, so you should have to prove that they are Mainstream Egyptologists or come from Egyptology and that they didn't just do research on it and wrote a paper. The section on "Race" has nothing to do with Egyptology. Neither does the Afrocentrism article, that's and Afrocentric critic. And the one written by the historian, is what it is, written research from a historian, but Paul Johnson is not an Egyptologist or part of the field. Prove otherwise please. Taharqa 01:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for them to be Egyptologists. Any mainstream scientific study or book on a given subject is a reliable source for that subject, per Wikipedia policy. Policy trumps opinion here. If you want to continue arguing this point you're arguing against Wikipedia:Reliable sources, not me.--Urthogie 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

^Then stop claiming that "Egyptologists say this and say that, just say some mainstream scholars, then give another view. That's misrepresentation and not being neutral as studies from the actual qualified people in question, deny such claims.. Plus, no one mentions Mesopotamia except you.Taharqa 02:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not Egyptologists, it's the field of mainstream Egyptology. Also, I'm not the only one who talks about Mesopotamian influence.[7] This took me 5 seconds to find. You should have checked it before you woofed about it.--Urthogie 02:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

^No it isn't, I've explained that, these are researchers and secondary sources relying on "primary sources".

Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.Taharqa 02:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Secondary sources are allowed-- see Wikipedia:Attribution. There is no rule about no secondary sources. You don't know what primary sources he used. Can you prove it? Can a google search prove that you know of every primary source as far as studies? You are not allowed to just call them false and ignore them. A book is a reliable source if its scientific and mainstream. Hell, even a scientist is in a sense a secondary source, synthesizing a study of primary sources (craniums, culture, etc). You can believe Mesopotamian influence is insignificant, but you can't claim it's not debatable, based on these sources. You also can't claim that "mixed-race" isn't the term used by those mainstream scientists who do believe such a thing as race exists.--Urthogie 02:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The fact is that these people are not "Egyptologists nor do they specialize in it, yet you referr to them as "Egyptologists and not researchers.

I fixed this, sorry bout that.--Urthogie 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

2. 2 of your sources have nothing to do with answering the question of what race the Ancients were, especially the "Race" article.

It's not an article, it's a book, if I'm correct in thinking what you refer to. And it says mixed, check it. It also refers to variou skin tones.--Urthogie 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

3. You are simply just being stubborn you believe and choose to ignore the data, so you search high and low for old articles just to save face I guess so that you can be right in some way.

Am I stubborn? How many times have I changed my mind already when you've made good points? Many times.--Urthogie 02:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The real issue is this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Improving_weasel-worded_statements

Oh, so this is the real issue? Why didn't you say so earlier. Start up a new section in which you say what is weasel worded and why. Remember: wesel words are to be adjusted, but not whole sentences removed as you did.--Urthogie 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it at that, I can't go back and fourth when some one is just being stubborn or just doesn't know how to interpret data. And again, none of your sources say anything about Mesopotamia, they really don't, you really just need that in there for some reason, but whatever, go ahead and lie, I'm tired.Taharqa 02:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I already found one demographics book which does. I'll find more sources if you give me more than 5 seconds. Don't get disheartened. I'm not trying to lie to ya :) --Urthogie 02:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Study not from 2005

I had to change the description of the first study in the Crania section accordingly. It's a 1993 study, not from 2005 as it was previously stated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt_and_race#_note-10

Clines and clusters versus "Race:" a test in ancient Egypt and the Death on the Nile http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/brace.pdf

C. Loring Brace, David P. Tracer, Lucia Allen Yaroch, John Robb, Kari Brandt and A. Russell Nelson. 1993. Clines and clusters versus "race:" A test in ancient Egypt and a case of a death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:26

^I just noticed that this same 1993 study was cited three different times. Wow.. That's weird. Taharqa 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, where I read it the first time it said 2005 because it was being republished.--Urthogie 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nile Valley Civilizations are older than Mesopotamian Civilizations

“The first dynasty was already a mix between Mesopotamians and Northern Africans. This is my view. Please don't misquote it.--Urthogie 17:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)”. Urthogie, I told you in the past that it is difficult to prove the claim that Mesopotamian Civilizations did have any influence at the birth of the Egyptian Civilization. I quoted a book published in 2007 which shows that Egypt was in advance in the line of history compared to Mesopotamian Civilizations. Besides, the Egyptian civilization is better known than the Mesopotamian civilizations, in such a way that it might be more convenient to explain Mesopotamia from an African Egyptian perspective than the contrary! These are the quotations: “The Egyptian history extends in a period of time of more than three thousands of years and – thanks to a written and monumental documentation which is surely the most rich of any other civilization of these times – can be studied, at least in the main lines, with much more accuracy (La storia egiziana si stende su un arco di tempo di oltre millenni – grazie a una documentazione scritta e monumentale che è certo la più ricca fra quelle di ogni altra civiltà di quei tempi – può essere tracciata, almeno nelle grande linee, con sufficiente sicurezza)” (La storia, 1. Dalla preistoria all’antico Egitto, Novara: Istituto Geografico De Agostini SpA, UTET, 2007, p. 621). Egypt inaugurates his first dynasty in 3185 (La storia, p. 733). In Mesopotamia, the first proto-dynastic period takes place in 2900-2800. “2900-2800. Proto-dynastic period I: it is a period of insufficient archaeological documentation (2900-2800. Periodo protodinastico I: è una fase di scarsa documentazione archeologica)” (Storia, p. 615). The same idea was already expressed by The Columbia Encyclopedia: “ The valley of the long river between the deserts, with the annual floods and deposits of life-giving silt and with its equable climate, was the seat of one of the oldest civilizations built by man into an organic whole – rivaled, indeed, only by the somewhat more obscure cultures of Mesopotamia. Grain was grown early in the valley of the Nile. The earliest known date in world history is the adoption of the calendar, which has been set at 4241 B.C.” ( William Bridgwater and Elizabeth J. Sherwood (Editors), “The Columbia Encyclopedia in one volume”, Morningside Heights, New York: Columbia University Press, 1950, second edition, p. 596). Urthogie, how do you explain the fact that the first Egyptian nome is in Nubia, in the south, but not in Mesopotamia or in Arabia, in the East? “Tз-Sti, Nubia, properly Ist nome of Upper Egypt; Styw Nubians” (Alan Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar. Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, 2001, Third edition, p. 593) It is time, Urthogie, to do a small exercise. If Egypt received a migration from Mesopotamia, one would expect that the Egyptian culture keeps traces of it. Give the list of cultural element common to Egypt and Mesopotamia prior to invasions of Semitic People: language, art, science, customs.--195.110.156.38 22:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you more as we'll just go back and forth but lemme say this: the mesopotamian influence on egypt was may have been small. My previous impression was that Mesopotamian demographic effects were significant. But thanks to some recent stuff I've looked into thanks to Tarqha, I've changed my view on this. I've learned this as I researched more. However, this does not rule out the possibility of changes in appearence through selection. Dynastic egypt was created thousands of years after Egypt was settled. This is plenty of time for changes to develop in response to climate. Selection seems to be the most credible hypothesis, because cranial studies have found significant enough differences between ancient Egyptians, to the point where they cannot be grouped with any of their neighbors, neither mesopotamian nor african.--Urthogie 23:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

^That's pretty much on point, but minor selective phenotype variation doesn't really matter in concern to "race", since selection happens all over Africa. I think that he's basically arguing that the state of Ancient Egypt wasn't a result of admixture, but these were all the same indigenous people from the predynastic onward, which is confirmed by the studies.Taharqa 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the studies (the 1993 one, for example) apparently were able to group sub-Saharan africans together, but not Egyptians, so this suggests it's not just in the realm of regular variation of that area.--Urthogie 00:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

^Not true, you simply have to understand how this variation works according to the field of Anthropology. Sub-Saharan Africans and Africans in general can't be confined to these old racial designations from 1993. This only showed who their skulls were similar to, this doesn't mean they had any relationship what so ever with those people genetically. Sub-saharans have similar skulls, it all varies. Read this if you can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ancient_Egypt_and_race#The_Geographical_Origins_and_Population_Relationships_of_Early_Ancient_Egyptians Taharqa 00:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems doubtful that changes in craniums would happen faster than changes in skin with a change in climate. Think about the fitness and selective pressure acting here on a cooler climate...--Urthogie 01:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

^So are you debunking my source basically? You're that stubborn? And who claims that the skulls changed all that much if any? Did you read the sources and the data? Interpretations are changing, not the Ancients. And Egypt is in no way "cool", it's much hotter than anywhere in Europe and the valley of the kings can reach 110 degrees. That's irrelevant though, really.Taharqa 01:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, is "early ancient period" dynastic? Second off, the source seems to suggest a significant effect from Mesopotamia, which contradicts your view that there was no significant effect. Take a pick, one of your views has to be wrong. Lastly, I didn't say Egypt was "cool" I said it was "cooler". Don't misquote me, it weakens your argument.--Urthogie 01:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If the studies suggest continuity from the predynastic into the dynastic I'd be motivated to tell you that there's no difference between the two. And where does the source indicate significant Mesopotamian genetic input and influence? What are you reading?

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.

Doesn't even mention Mesopotamia.

Taharqa 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We're just repeating points in this section. Let's stick to the previous one to discuss.--Urthogie 01:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is misleading

Ok, first of all, this seems like original research.

"introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article"

The sources don't support "Mesopotamian" influence in their genetic make up. They don't mention it.

books?hl=en&lr=&id=ROuqj_xIRMoC&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&sig=kYQT8VmrQ8rltrBBXSNxo3VynoM&dq=egypt+race#PRA2-PA4,M1

This right here. http://books.google.com/ ^This isn't a qualified source as it doesn't pertain to the subject at hand, "Ancient Egypt". Nor does it try and sum up any claim that Ancient Egypt was of "Mix race" and Mesopotamian admixture.

The article isn't called Ancient Egypt. It's called Ancient Egypt and race. So if a book on race has a section on Ancient egypt, that's this subject. (Race and ancient egypt = ancient egypt and race). This source isn't used for the sentence on Mesopotamian influence, it's used for the sentence on "mixed-race." Mesopotamia does not need to be mentioned to source a statement on "mixed-race". All that is needed is a reference to ancient Egypt as mixed race.--Urthogie 03:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This here. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9o01GurQqBQC&oi=fnd&pg=RA9-PA155&sig=_21knDb-4TVlKVzLCiUXsY0V0V0&dq=egypt+race#PPA10,M1

^Makes just one obscure reference to the Egyptians being of mixed race, yet they don't mention Mesopotamia.

Nor does the sentence it is used for, so this is not an issue.--Urthogie 03:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And this source. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pFrm19cZhugC&oi=fnd&pg=PA213&sig=V7SsiWMtcbYrG1-xlp4urGnIAMQ

^Is but a critique on Afrocentrism and isn't in relation to the topic at hand, "Ancient Egypt and race".

No, it's not a general critique of Afrocentrism, but "A critique of Afrocentrism that suggests an alternative historical understanding of Africa and its diaspora." This means it deals directly with (afrocentric) theories of Ancient egyptian history, demographics, genetics, and appearance.

Weasel words:

"Mainstream consensus" "Egyptologists"

Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources, lending them the force of authority without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view, and the lack of given sources also implies a verifiability issue. Either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed.

How are we to check up on the mainstream view of "Egyptologists", when no sources are cited? None of these people are Egyptologists, and Egyptologists are secondary sources in comparison to Anthropologists when we're to inquire about "race". And I can't emphasize enough that mesopotamia was not mentioned.Taharqa 03:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I know what weasel words are. Now, we agree that I have sources. We disagree if these sources are valid. Above, I have just shown that they are. There is therefore no weasel word issue. I'll find sources for the remaining stuff.--Urthogie 03:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing entire sentences because of a few individual words. Thank you. Please just adjust words if your problem is with the words.--Urthogie 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

^I only removed what was unsourced and not supported by the article.. And the article was contradicting its self.. Added the brace study back.. And rearranged the words then.

From a demographic perspective, ancient Egypt is regarded by mainstream Egyptologists today as having primarily indigenous origins, and having experienced limited demographic effects from foreign influence.http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/brace.pdf[4] "We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either inva- sions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well." Taharqa 03:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with them. I've provided sources.--Urthogie 03:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

^This is a primary source.. Oh, and I changed the words a bit on this quote, and took out the "genetic shift part".

The degree of any demographic changes that may have occured between the pre-dynastic and dynastic periods are still debated in the scientific community.

^Genetics aren't the center of debate regarding that matter. This is a matter of physical anthropology, but other than that it looks cleaned up a bit better now. Taharqa 03:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of my newest edits?--Urthogie 03:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

it said something about Dynastic Egyptians not clustering with sub-saharans genetically and used the Brace study as a source, when brace makes no such claim. He says race couldn't be determined and wasn't concerned with genetics. He didn't test mummy dna or anything, just skulls. Other than that, article looks better. Yea, it looks better like this and takes into account other views, at the same time reflects the sources. Yea..Taharqa 04:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks real good now, one thing to consider though, is that cranial measurements don't indicated genetic relationships and that isn't what can be inferred from the sources. Everything is on point though.Taharqa 04:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

hey, your new edit makes it seem like this is a page on geography, lol. any better way to phrase it?--Urthogie 04:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try, You can do it too, but the shades of brown thing wasn't reflected in the brace study that was sourced, this is what he said about the populations and gave his opinion on skin color.

"the gradient in skin color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selec- tive forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur." Taharqa 04:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

seems a bit intellectually dishonest to me not to out and out say they had various shades of brown skin. Diop agreed. Keita agreed. C'mon, only Eurocentrists of the craziest degree don't agree. I'm adding this back, it's common sense among Egyptologists that they we'rent all blue blacks. Even Ethiopians weren't all blue blacks. Various shades of brown, man.--Urthogie 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

^But that's considered original research, it's up to the reader to infer rather the regions around Egypt produced certain skin tones, or if the Ancients were bound by these selective pressures. The source makes no mention of these words. You can use Diop and Keita as a source if they say that. I truly have no idea of their skin color, in my humble opinion they weren't all blue-black and were various shades of brown, I do agree. It's just that I'd rather the reader make their own inference from the data and not what we think of how Egypt was Taharqa 04:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I added Diop's study of melanin, too. What's wrong? It showed that there were various shades of brown.--Urthogie 05:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

^Actually, Diop's melanine test indicated that they were "dark-skinned", I didn't want to bring that up. Diop didn't argue for "different shades of brown" at all, lol. Sorry, but that's kind of funny. You know what? Why don't you change it to something like, Egyptologists agree that the Egyptians were "probably" or "most-likely" different shades of brown given the fact that, that seems to be the nature of today's surrounding indigenous inhabitants, and the remaining indigenous inhabitants of Egypt.. I've read arguments similar to that before and the sources back that up when worded correctly. Taharqa 05:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Dark skinned, but still various shades of dark brown. He's a more extreme view, but like I said he' s a valid source for the multiple shades of brown sentence.--Urthogie 05:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

^It's not a more extreme view, it's a totally different one. He claims to have found that their level of skin pigmentation was to an extent that could not be found "among the white races". http://www.africawithin.com/diop/origin_egyptians.htm

He makes no such claim for "different shades of color", neither does Brace. Again, I'm in favor of brown skin tones, but to what degree of variation, I don't know. I know it varied like every population. I'm just pointing out that these sources don't support any skin color notions of that sort.Taharqa 05:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean, at Wikipedia we also have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules for such obvious situations as this. this seems like an issue of academic honesty at this point.--Urthogie 05:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

^I see, but I don't see how pushing the opinion that the ancients could of been "different shades of brown" will improve the article. That's a broad statement and can be applied any where in the world almost. Just doesn't seem important, but if you really need to put it in there I won't intervene again as long as it's worded in a neutral and truthful way that reflects upheld opinions of the qualified mainstream.Taharqa 06:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

An Opposing View on Egyptian hair and racial identification: West Africa Magazine July 8, 2001 Egyptology: Hanging in the Hair by Anu M'bantu and Fari Supia

F0R YEARS, EGYPTOLOGY has been fighting a losing battle to hold onto an ancient Egypt that is Caucasian or, at worst, sun-tanned Caucasian.

At the 1974 UNESCO conference Egyptology was dealt a fatal blow. Two African scholars wiped the floor with 18 world-renowned Egyptologists. They proved in 11 different categories of evidence that the ancient Egyptians were Africans (Black). Following that beating, Egyptology has been on its knees praying to be saved by science. Their last glimmer of hope has been the hair on Egyptian mummies.

The mummies on display in the world's museums exhibit Caucasoid-looking hair, some of it brown and blonde. These mummies include Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao of the 17th dynasty and the 19th dynasty's Rameses II. As one scholar put it: "The most common hair colour, then as now, was a very dark brown, almost black colour although natural auburn and even rather surprisingly blonde hair are also to be found."

Many Black scholars try skillfully to avoid the hair problem. This is a mistake!

In 1914, a white doctor in Detroit initiated divorce proceeding against his wife whom he suspected of being a "closet Negro". At the trial, the Columbia University anthropologist, Professor Franz Boas (1858-1942), was called upon as a race expert. Boas declared: "If this woman has any of the characteristics of the Negro race it would be easy to find them . . . one characteristic that is regarded as reliable is the hair. You can tell by microscopic examination of a cross-section of hair to what race that person belongs."

With this revelation, trichology (the scientific analysis of hair) reached the American public. But what are these differences?

The cross-section of a hair shaft is measured with an instrument called a trichometer. From this you can get measurements for the minimum and maximum diameter of a hair The minimum measurement is then divided by the maximum and then multiplied by a hundred. This produces an index. A survey of the scientific literature produces the following breakdown:

San, Southern African 55.00 Zulu, Southern African 55.00 Sub-Saharan Africa 60.00 Tasmanian (Black) 64.70 Australian (Black) 68.00 Western European 71.20 Asian Indian 73.00 Navajo American 77.00 Chinese 82.60

In the early 1970s, the Czech anthropologist Eugen Strouhal examined pre-dynastic Egyptian skulls at Cambridge University. He sent some samples of the hair to the Institute of Anthropology at Charles University, Prague, to be analyzed. The hair samples were described as varying in texture from "wavy" to "curly" and in colour from "light brown" to "black". Strouhal summarized the results of the analysis:

"The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened, with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show the Negroid inference among the Badarians (pre-dynastic Egyptians)."

The term "Negroid influence" suggests intermixture, but as the table suggests this hair is more "Negroid" than the San and the Zulu samples, currently the most Negroid hair in existence!

In another study, hair samples from ten 18th-25th dynasty individuals produced an average index of 51! As far back as 1877, Dr. Pruner-Bey analyzed six ancient Egyptian hair samples. Their average index of 64.4 was similar to the Tasmanians who lie at the periphery of the African-haired populations.

A team of Italian anthropologists published their research in the Journal of Human Evolution in 1972 and 1980. They measured two samples consisting of 26 individuals from pre-dynastic, 12th dynasty and 18th dynasty mummies. They produced a mean index of 66.50

18th Dynasty Egypt The overall average of all four sets of ancient Egyptian hair samples was 60.02. Sounds familiar . . ., just check the table!

Since microscopic analysis shows ancient Egyptian hair to be completely African, why does the hair look Caucasoid? Research has given us the answers.

Hair is made of keratin protein. Keratin is composed of amino acid chains called polypeptides. In a hair, two such chains are called cross-chain polypeptides. These are held together by disulphide bonds. The bulk of the hair, the source of its strength and curl, is called the cortex. The hair shafts are made of a protective outer layer called the cuticle.

We are informed by Afro Hair - A Salon Book, that chemicals for bleaching, penning and straightening hair must reach the cortex to be effective. For hair to be permed or straightened the disulphide bonds in the cortex must be broken. The anthropologist Daniel Hardy writing in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, tells us that keratin is stable owing to disulphide bonds. However, when hair is exposed to harsh conditions it can lead to oxidation of protein molecules in the cortex, which leads to the alteration of hair texture, such as straightening.

Two British anthropologists, Brothwell and Spearman, have found evidence of cortex keratin oxidation in ancient Egyptian hair. They held that the mummification process was responsible, because of the strong alkaline substance used. This resulted in the yellowing and browning of hair as well as the straightening effect.

This means that visual appearance of the hair on mummies cannot disguise their racial affinities. The presence of blonde and brown hair on ancient Egyptian mummies has nothing to do with their racial identity and everything to do with mummification and the passage of time. As the studies have shown, when you put the evidence under a microscope the truth comes out. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/hair2.html Louisvillian 05:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Louisvillian for your enlightening contribution on the issue of the race of the ancient Egyptians. Why don't you integrate it to the article? It can fit well in the section on "Mummies". Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 18:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Other mummy stuff to add:

• Facial Reconstruction of Egyptian Mummy “Senu”
• “Were the Ancient Egyptians Black or White?”

--Urthogie 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! The hair evidence is crucial! I wonder why people never focused on that? The Senu mummy conclusion is misleading in that it may be marred by a confusion of "race" and makes judgments on "Racial categories" and not geographic origin. Mixed with "Negroid and Mediterranean"?. Such categories are disputed. Similar skull/facial types don't always indicate racial relationships, especially to the arbitrary degree of breaking race down into fractions and categories like that. His facial proportions are well with in the variation of Africa and individual variation as well. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/Northeast_african_analysis.pdf Everyone isn't pure blooded anything though, I'm quite sure, but stuff like this is misleading, like the King Tut controversy. That Frank Yurco article is really old and just obfuscates the issue as he changed his views some what since then in regards to dealing with "racial" issues of the Nile Valley. He stopped using words like "Black", "White", and "mediterranean"(what ever that is) a while ago. The hair evidence doesn't indicate exactly what group of people they were "racially" (in those terms), but it indicates origins and it rules out other groups and by process of elimination fits them closer to other Africans indefinitely, in my opinion. Strong.. Taharqa 22:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not allowed to rule out the Senu mummy conclusion just because you don't think its conclusion fits your bigger picture, or your view of how studies should be done. You simply aren't. It has to be in the article.--Urthogie 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, when are you going to produce cultural elements confirming early infiltrations of Mesopotamian populations into the Nile Valley? If Egyptians are a mix of Those populations and the African ones, cultural elements of both components must be noticeable. You will not pretend that they are visible only with the skin color! Otherwise, don't forget that according to Cheikh Anta Diop (interview à la télévision guadeloupéenne en 1983: www.africamaat.com/article.php3?id_article=821), Black people began colonising the Nile Valley before the existence of the other races. The white race appeared in Europe only in 20 000 BC. The Yellow later in Asia. Thus, the first inhabitants of the earth, including Europe and Asia were Blacks. They were from Africa. (colloque d'Egyptologie au Caire en 1974 et conférence à Paris-Centre G. Pompidou en 1985: www.cesaire.org/CAD/CAD.htm). At which period of time, according to your sources, did White people enter Africa or join the Blacks in the Nile Valley? Please produce the chronology of the occupation of the Nile Valley. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The influence of Mesopotamians on Egyptians is not known to a perfect extent. There are, however, several obvious cultural marks of Mesopotamia on Egypt. One would be domestication. There are many others you can learn about if you research.--Urthogie 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, it is you the champion of the Mesopotamian theory I am refuting. Please, give more elements, and don't forget to produce the chronology of the occupation of the Nile Valley by different races. You have to try to be convincing. Otherwise, I will agree with Viola76 that you use to make unwarranted affirmations. Actually, in case you cannot prove anything, you better renounce to this baseless theory. Will you have the courage of deleting it from the article? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already supplied one example, why should I supply more if you accept it? The egyptian civilization was the first nation-state, ever. This is correct. But demographics do not rely on kingdoms to transfer people from one area to another. The mesopotamians existed as a people who could go to Egypt and effect the gene pool, even if there was no mesopotamian nation-state. I'm actually not the "champion" of the Mesopotamian influence view. In fact, new sources I've discovered have shown that the mesopotamians may have played a small demographic role, and most of the change came from selection. It's not known exactly, yet, though. The article represents many views on how exactly it happened (the degree of selection vs degree of mesopotamian influence).--Urthogie 22:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

^Urgothie, you're wrong. People in the Sahara were already domesticating cattle, and other aspects of culture such as jewlery, pottery, etc can only be linked with Nile Valley and Saharan culture. There is absolutely no evidence for Mesopotamian influence. There's simply a lot of research that you need to catch up on, you seem stuck in the distant past.

The Sahara and the Sudan in Nile Valley peopling Saharan-Sudanic inheritance of Nile Valley settlers. Data on the peopling of the Nile Valley do not appear to support earlier historical notions of an initial wave of Caucasoid invaders entering from the North to introduce civilization. Mainstream data shows gradual movement and peopling from the south- the Saharan zone and associated parts of the Sudanic region, fusing with indigenous Nilotic elements already in place, leading into the development of the well-known Egyptian kingdoms, not sweeping insertions from the Mediterranean, Mesopotamia or elsewhere.(AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990) See Wiki article Predynastic Egypt for the now discounted Dynastic Race Theory. As to the Saharan movement even Afrocentric critics such as Mary Lefkowitz note:

"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."

Sudanic threads. Elements from both the Sahara and associated Sudanic regions appear to have been involved in the peopling Egypt according to a number of mainstream references. The Khartoum Culture and other zones of the Sudan for example show significant influence as indicated by pottery, jewelry, tools and implements, raw materials such as certain types of stone, and artistic designs. These elements (claimed as negroid in older histories), were clearly in contact with the predynastic cultures of Egypt.

Saharan threads. The once fertile Sahara stretches in a belt from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. As noted above, fluctuating climate cycles acted as a "pump", pushing people from the south up towards the wetter, more fertile Nile Valley, or down, to zones of similar likeness. As regards the people, historic populations also appear to follow the same pattern of complexity noted above. Generally the pattern is in a "southern" direction, with early peoples being joined by other populations mixes like Berbers, who appear to have been clearly established by 1000, B.C.

Limited outside inspiration needed by Nile Valley settlers. Whatever the exact mix of peoples on the ground, the work of mainstream research therefore demonstrates that from early pre-dynastic times, Egypt was essentially settled by indigenous elements closely associated with groups from the Saharan and Sudanic region moving up into the Nile Valley, and excluded any significant influx from Mediterraneans, Mesopotamians or others not indigenous to the area. Mass migration theories sometimes rely on the introduction of cattle herding, but archealogical data (Wendorf 2001, Wettstrom 1999) suggests that the peoples of the Sahara had already independently domesticated cattle in the early Holocene eastern Sahara, earlier than in the Near East, followed by the gradual adoption of grain cultivation.As another mainstream scholar puts it:

"Some have argued that various early Egyptians like the Badarians probably migrated northward from Nubia, while others see a wide-ranging movement of peoples across the breadth of the Sahara before the onset of desiccation. Whatever may be the origins of any particular people or civilization, however, it seems reasonably certain that the predynastic communities of the Nile valley were essentially indigenous in culture, drawing little inspiration from sources outside the continent during the several centuries directly preceding the onset of historical times... (Robert July, Pre-Colonial Africa, 1975, p. 60-61)

Peopling from the Levant and Maghreb sources The archealogy of the Predynastic and early Dynastic periods show relatively little large-scale movement of peoples from the Levant- the zone bordering the Eastern Mediterranean that includes parts of Turkey, and Syria, Lebanon, and Israel- and the Maghreb which includes modern day countries in North Africa like Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. However this does not mean that there was not small-scale migration. The fertility of the Nile Valley and comparatively easy food collection opportunities would facilitate such movement. There is clear evidence of trade contacts and material culture, reflected in the increasing weight of trade material such as lapis lazulli, copper and silver.Taharqa 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, what you wrote about the peopling of Egypt (Egyptians being from the Sahara and from the Soudan) is quite right. Only such a view can explain why the 1rst Egyptian administrative region (nome) is Ta-Seti (Nubia) in the south of Egypt (Cfr Gardiner, The Egyptian Grammar). It explains why the Egyptian mythology says that Osiris is a bird which flies from the south (Cfr Mayassis, Mystères et initiations de l'Egypte ancienne). It explains why Herodotus said that the Egyptians came from the south following the Nile, that they have black skin and wooly hair, and that, with the Ethiopians (Nubians), they share the same culture (Cfr The Persian Wars, II). It explains why Manetho wrote that at the beginning, before the unification, the kings of Egypt, ruled some in Memphis, some in This, some in Ethiopia (Cfr Manetho, Loeb Classical Library, 1997). In this same book, we are reminded that "In the kingdom of Egypt we have the oldest of all kingdoms" (p. 17). It explains why Diodorus said that the Egyptians considered themselves being part of the southern wold (Cfr Isis and Osiris, § 33). Thus false the affirmation given in the article according to which the Egyptians did not consider themselves as Africans. Taharqa, your last intervention like the others, helps to understand why the Biblical world and the Coranic world place Egypt among the Black Nations. Ancient sources are here confirmed by honest recent scholarship. You see, Urthogie, that Basil Davidson is not outmoded! Now, will Taharqa bring to the article the informations he found? I really wish that, because they shed a good light! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 22:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

^Indeed, it's added. Egypt seems to have just been another unique African civilization, this, above anything else is undeniable. They shared racial and cultural affinities with those closest to them. Not more so with any distant groups such as Mesopotamians and Europeans.

This is also how the Egyptians referred to Nubia. Nubia: "Khentu Hon Nefer" (page 554a) = founders of the perfect order. Budge: "peoples and tribes of Nubia and the Egyptian Sudan." For "Hon" see page 586b. Nubia: "To(Ta) Khent" (page 1051b/page 554b) = land of the beginning. Nubia: "Eau" (page 952b/page17b) = the old country Taharqa 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice additions. I've split up the section into predynastic and dynastic.--Urthogie 05:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

^Why split it up? It's the same culture.. Taharqa 17:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No they're not. That's a ridiculous assertion. Dynastic egypt had cultural interaction with Crete, Mesopotamia, and other places. Also, not everyone is even referring to "ancient Egyptian" culture when they talk about pre-dynastic Egypt. It was inhabited by several different peoples. There are similarities between dynastic and pre-dynastic cultures, but to call them the same things is an intellectual fraud. I don't even know why I'm arguing with you on this, it comes down to the fact that the literature on this subject constnatly discusses pre-dynastic cultures on one hand, and dynastic cultures on the other. One major cultural difference, aside from constant trade with Crete, Mesopotamia, and other parts of Africa would be the fact that it had dynasties. Yes, politics are part of culture, and effect it greatly. Once again, I must ask myself why I'm even arguing with you on this seemingly obvious point. They had different cultures. this is recognized in the literature. I've been reasonable with you and conceded points before. Just acknowledge for me now that it's ridiculous to say the two time periods had the same culture. It's sad that you know so much about race and so little about actual history.--Urthogie 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to understand your way of thinking and leads into question how much you really know about ancient egypt. Egypt was an indigenous civilization with its own unique culture. The predynastic and dynastic is only separated by a unification from the south, creating the first dynasty, but there was no culture change. Egypt is thousands of years older than crete and culture was not dependent upon mesopotamia. You might as well split the culture section up into Old, Middle, and New kindom also if that's the case, the petty stuff you're trying to pull is senseless. Frankly, you don't even know what you're talking about and this has been proven so many times.

1. You're the last advocate of the dynastic race theory and have been so oblivious these past years, you didn't even know that the theory has long since been discredited

2. You make numerous mistakes in your logic in reference to what you understand about Egypt.

3. You tend to lean towards your already preconceived notions of what you believe and ignore copious amounts of data and rely on outdated and discredited sources to satisfy your position and save face.

This is utterly senseless as everyone knows about dynastic culture, but how will putting emphasis on dynastic culture allude to any racial affinities when Egypt was clearly unique? The state that had the most in common with them was Nubia, "Founders of the perfect order", as the Egyptians referred to them. What you're doing is senseless and just annoying now, you have no idea what you're arguing. If that's the case, what need is there for a culture section, since you're adding all of these new sections but adding no relevant information yourself? Taharqa 01:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason we divide into dynastic and pre-dynastic instead of Late Middle, etc. is because pre-dynastic and dynastic are the major relevant time periods in regards to Egyptian interaction with other cultures. While new trade connections and alliances changed between various parts of the dynastic, the biggest changes were between the Egypt that had no dynasty, and therefore no extensive diplomacy and limited trade, and the dynastic Egypt which traded heavily with Crete, Nubia, Greece, etc. In addition, the terms are used extensively in the literature, and especially here in the article with its limited use of scientific sources, you already see "dynastic" and "predynastic" being used extensively even when the authors agree with your views of the demographics. The article should reflect this literature, rather than your view of dynastic Egypt as having the same culture as pre-Dynastic egypt.

If your wondering what evidence is out there for dynastic trade with Crete and others, feel free to google it or google scholar it. In fact, several researchers are able to form a timeline of Crete based solely on which of its cultural objects are found in Egypt, and which of Egypt's cultural objects are found in Crete.

As a sidenote, I never ever advocated the dynastic race theory. You apparently group anything that considers there to have been a significant Mesopotamian influence under "dynastic race theory". The dynastic race theory is not defined as a theory of significant Mesopotamian influence, but rather the failed theory that Egypt was not a hydraulic civilization, started almost solely by Mesopotamians. I'm yet to ever spout such bullshit. To say I have makes an ass out of both me and you. Please avoid it.

But back to the main point at stake here. There is no "emphasis" on dynastic culture, as you say, by splitting into sections of pre-dynastic and dynastic. Equal emphasis is given to both, with each getting its own section, chronologically ordered, giving no undue weith to either period.

You pointed out that I didn't add info to the new section. I'll grant that's a valid point. But we don't remove section stubs for that reason alone. So why not give me a chance to do it? I won't revert you tonight because I think I may now get my point across.--Urthogie 03:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

King tuts caucasoid features?

The only feature we see is his nose and his lips which are thick black african lips. We can see his nose from the side so we can't tell if it is causian or not but his head shape is definitley negorid

"Negroid" is a scientific fossil. There's no such thing as "negroid".--Urthogie

I very much second that statement.Chiwara 01:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

King Tut was a tropical African variant most likely, as most of the 18th dynasty was. The 18th Dynasty in itself was founded by "Nubian" blood. Even though "Nubian" and "Upper Egyptian" were not mutually exclusive anyways.Taharqa 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Facial reconstructions have come to different conclusions, but who are you going to believe, a bunch of scientists or a wikipedia editor?--Urthogie 00:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Ancient Egyptians who left depictions of tut behind, clearly displaying his ethic affiliations, and they were not "Medit" or "Caucasoid", tut was an Upper Egyptian/Nubian. Besides, the people who reconstructed his face were not scientists, they were artists! That's why each face looked different, duh! smh.. The computer rendition done by the discovery channel in 2002 was the most authentic in my opinion, no one says believe me, and definitely no one says believe you, just believe the most likely possibility given the evidence, history, and logic. Besides Urgothie, you don't even seem qualified enough to even edit this page given what you know about Egypt and your inability to cite sources correctly. You seem a bit amature. It's obvious that you haven't even reached an intermediacy level concerning this topic, you're still a beginner so I see that I have to view you as such. Not to limit your learning potential but given your developed knowledge, you just aren't up to par imo to converse with me on this topic. You can litter the page all that you want with your trash, but it only takes a logical person and informed individual to see how poorly sourced and inaccurate it would be if the task was simply left up to you. Whole gross distortions of history and everything. Please, the irony!Taharqa 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientists, not just artists, have reconstructed his face as well and come to quite different conclusions than in 2002 (without even being told who he was, so you can't call them "racists"). They come to different conclusions, some showing he looked similar to a tropical african, others that he looked more stereotypically middle eastern. They, for some reason, aren't as sure as you about what he looked like. They make this clear. By the way, I find it somewhat disrespectful/ignorant that you think I don't contibute to this page much, except to make it crappy and illogical. Look at what the page looked like before I started editing it. Go way back. You've done some great work here but it has mainly been in adding more sources and making a great lead. I organized the article to even make it possible to edit this way before you came here. I named every single section as they are today (except one or two subheadings of research that have been added).--Urthogie 03:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why people don't mention the first computerized results of Tut's facial reconstruction. http://dsc.discovery.com/anthology/unsolvedhistory/kingtut/face/facespin.html

^This seems the most accurate since it was done by way of computer, with computers you get the same results every time, with hand crafting, you get different results from different artists. Zahi Hawass seemed like he had something to prove ordering another reconstruction when one was already done, I think that later reconstructions were objects of wishful thinking and art on the part of the people involved. Although this is just my opinion and will not be added in the article, I'm just saying.Taharqa 21:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong to say computerized results of mummies will always be the same. There's always some guessing and conjecture and inference involved, they (spell this out/make this clear) in the 2005 reconstruction story, how they admit its not perfect. Obviously the same is true of 2002 and earlier CT scans. They're not perfect. New info/conjecture can have the effect of improving or degrading the results. It all depends.--Urthogie 18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Language

Language as a way to classify "race"

Complications have also cropped up in the use of linguistics as a basis for racial categorization. The demise of the famous "Hamitic Hypothesis", which purported to show that certain African languages around the Nile area could be associated with "Caucasoid" peoples is a typical case. Such schemes fell apart when it was demonstrated that Negro tribes far distant also spoke similar languages, tongues that were supposedly a reserved marker of Caucasoid presence or influence. For work on African languages, see Wiki article Languages of Africa and Joseph Greenberg. Older linguistic classifications are also linked to the notion of a "Hamitic race", a vague grouping thought to exclude Negroes, but accommodating a large variety of dark skinned North and East Africans into a broad-based Caucasoid grouping. This Caucasoid "Hamitic race" is sometimes credited with the introduction of more advanced culture, such as certain plant cultivation and particularly the domestication of cattle. This scheme has also been discredited by the work of post WWII archaeologists such as A. Arkell, who demonstrated that predynastic and Sudanic Negroid elements already possessed cattle and plant domestication, thousands of years before the supposed influx of Caucasoid or Hamitic settlers into the Nile Valley, Nubia and adjoining areas. Modern scholarship has moved away from earlier notions of a "Hamitic" race speaking Hamito-Semitic languages, and places the Egyptian language in a more localized context, centered around its general Saharan and Nilotic roots.(F. Yurco "An Egyptological Review", 1996) Linguistic analysis (Diakanoff 1998) places the origin of the Afro-Asiatic languages in northeast Africa, with older strands south of Egypt, and newer elements straddling the Nile Delta and Sinai.

Beja

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.

The Beja people are an ancient Cushitic people closely kin to the ancient Egyptians,1978 http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/bejagirl.html who have lived in the desert between the Nile river and the Red Sea since at least 25000 BC. See Seligman, C. G. Races of Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press,Taharqa 20:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Under Egyptian View

Land Of Punt

Pounit; pwonit : "country of the first existence". The Ancient Egyptians considered the Land of Punt as being their ancestral homeland. Punt, an ancient land south of Egypt was accessible by way of the Red Sea. Its exact location has not been identified, but it is thought to have been somewhere in eastern Africa and probably included the Somali coast. Temple reliefs at Deir el Bahari in W Thebes depict an Egyptian expedition to Punt in the reign of Hatshepsut.

Taharqa. Please, read this article which speaks about the sub Saharan origin of the Greeks! For sure, some expressions, like "Caucasian", applied to Africans show remainings of a biased mentality. But in general, this article sheds a new light on a controversial subject (http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf). Many thanks for your contributions. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 14:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Egypt had cultural contact with Crete as early as the Old Kingdom[8][9] Secondly, the "Beja" section you added is original research. Who has been attributed as saying it is relevant to the "race" of ancient egyptians? Also, the language stuff you added shouldn't be under "research", as it is more background than anything else... it's an old racist theory, a scientific fossil being debunked. It's not modern "research." Lastly, you said that the 2002 national geographic study found "nubian" appearence. Where in the link does it say the word nubian. I've removed your source until it's not original research of you calling it "nubian". Thank you, --Urthogie 18:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentrists and everyone else, get over it.

Just because someone has dark skin it doesn't mean they are "black". The Egyptians were Egyptians. 'Egyptian' isn't a race. It is like people who have no connection to these people are trying to steal their history. You're delusional File:Http://www.jimhayes.com/Egypt-2004/MedHabuMan.jpg File:Http://ime.imb.org/resources/download/images/DSC 7267LG.jpg Oh my god they have dark skin they must be blacks!!!!!!!! Roman depiction of Egyptians of the time: File:Http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/09/Fayum-01.jpg/150px-Fayum-01.jpg Another thing is that the females are often depicted as having very fair skin, the same color that the Egyptians use for Libyans (another non-black North African people)and Semitic people. Semitic isn't racial, there's black semites in East Africa, and white 'caucasians' aren't native to north Africa, north Africans came from south of the sahara like every one else, white people developed their white skin in northern climates, any white man in Africa is an Invader to put it frankly. I'm not saying that the Egyptians were blond hair (although there are some paintings of that)No there isn't, Haha! Those were assimilated Lybian foreigners, if you even saw such a thing past the 12th dynasty., blue eyed Nordic Aryans. (Nazi ideologies), blue eyes is a rare recessive trait found mostly among northern peoples of Europe, not Africa or even most of the Mid eat for that matter. But come on, their skin color is basically depicted in the same manner as those of the modern population of Egypt which is basically Caucasian, Upper Egyptians, who are the true descendants are in no way "Caucasian" Arabs/invaders, they're closer to the "black" Sudanese than they are to "White" Europeans, and even they have Eurasian admixture. genetically and phenotypically, look it up. and identifies themselves as "Arab". Bottom line, blacks, you are not Egyptians, thats not your history, sorry guys. Just remember: Please, but we're African, just like the southern and ancients Egyptians were, and white people are not. Not all dark skinned people are "black". And not all blacks are "Negroids" Not all dark skinned depictions of people mean that the entire race was black. outside of Africa maybe I swear if there was a picture of a dark skinned person on an ancient Chinese scroll,there would probably be 50 essays about how the Chinese were black and that the evil Asian peoples are trying to hide it. I'm personally not that foolish, but I'm sure some blacks with low self esteem are. Not all Africans are "black", basically North Africa. Whites, Arabs, and Asians aren't trying to conceal the greatness of the black race by destroying evidence. I agree, but the point is getting to the truth and disregarding all of these logical fallacies you present so to conclude, Egyptians were Egyptians. And they were also Africans And you probably have no connection to them. That's a very loose statement, who are you to say that? Especially being European, this is between the 'Africans'. So stop fighting so hard to try to attach yourself to their ancient history. Speak for yourselfTaharqa 03:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this sounds like its some White power rant, but I do not identify myself as "white" although I am mostly Caucasian. I would go off on white people, but I don't see much of that here, and besides to me Arabs/Middle Easterns are basically the same as whites. The only difference is religion.[LoLGuys]

Lo LGuys, it seems to me that you have no notion at all of human history. Maybe you don’t know that the world was populated by Black people from Africa. And Egypt is in Africa. The white race is young, 20 000 years BC. The yellow race is the latest, 5 000 years BC. Before those years, there were only Black people in the world, be it in Europe or in Asia. I repeat, the first inhabitant of Europe and Asia are Blacks. It is out of this Blacks that we have the Whites. The White race is a product of the Black race. The yellow, the product of the mix of the Black and the White races which took place in Asia. As Caucasian, know therefore that you are an offspring of Blacks. “Egyptians are just Egyptians”. As if you are saying “Romans are just Romans”. The Egyptians called themselves Kmt which means the Blacks. It is formed from the adjective Km: black to which are joined the determinative of a man and a woman and three strokes (the symbol of the plural). Study hieroglyphics and you will understand better what I am saying here. The word Egypt comes from the Greek and does not mean black. It has nothing to do with the race of the ancient Egyptians, but with their religion: the temple of the soul of Ptah. But the indigenous word km does. Black people colonised the Nile valley before the existence of the other races. The White people entered Egypt during the third millennium BC. First with the Semites and than with “the people of the see”. Lo LGuys, you really don’t know even the writings of your ancestors from Greece, from Israel and Arabia. All of them said without contradicting themselves throughout centuries that the Egyptians are Black people, Nubians, to be more accurate. The first time, it was said that Egyptians are not Black people, it was with Champollion Figeac during the 19th century. He said exactly what you are saying that “dark skin and woolly hair do not make somebody be called Black”. This is the fruit of racism. And you are the offspring of such an ideology. What else can you say? You are the perfect product of you racist society, incapable of disagreeing with the masses, of using your intelligence to uncover the hidden truth ! Champollion Figeac had never seen the ancient Egyptians. Herodotus did. He wrote that the Egyptians have black skin and woolly hair. Now, Lo LGuys, take your pencil and draw somebody who has black skin and woolly hair. Then show that picture to one of your friends and ask him what he sees! We need to be more intelligent in this world. So much ideologies from White Europeans have generated human sufferings like European Atlantic Slave Trade, Western Colonisation, German Nazism…Finally, to begin your initiation in the history of Egypt, please watch the 4 “Online videos by Historian Basil Davidson” in http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=34&mforum=africa God bless you Lo LGuys! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 14:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaha, again what did I say, do you think you are any different than Neo-Nazis who believed that all civilization was derived from a white Aryan race? Reading your post you sound like a huge raciest. One, no we don't know that all the worlds races were black. There are no proven theories on that, I highly doubt the "yellow" i.e. East Asians, were born in 5,000 b.c. by some archaic mix of black (African) peoples and white (I assume you mean Europeans). Which out the regional continuity theory, which shows(doesn't prove necessarily) that East Asian features go back to homoerectus, the first homo species in Asia. Not to mention that China has one of the oldest civilizations in the world, and civilizations, kingdoms and empires don't just sorta happen. Secoundly their word for black could be relative, "black" could have reffered to eye color, hair, or anything else. Probably not skin color, as almost no depiction of an Egyptian, by Egyptians show them with black skin. However their neighborers to the South, the Nubians are all ways shown with very prominent negroid(i.e. black, I'm not using a bad word here)features. While they depict themselves as having dark skinned males and light skinned females. Nubian women don't get very light. However a Caucasian person would be capable of not tanning. http://www.white-history.com/hwr8_files/elderlady01.jpg look at that "woolly" hair. Agian, what I am saying is that the Egyptians looked and still look like this: [10] [11] [12] And not like this: [13] Or this: [14][LoLGuys]

Kmt was never used to refer to other african peoples-- I wonder why the Nubians weren't considered kmt?? Hm... Using it as a linguistic argument is foolish and shortsighted. Read the section on it in the article. Egypt is called black land in comparison to the surrounding desert-- the red land. Stick to your good arguments, Lusala lu ne Nkuka. By the way, the reason they first said Egyptians weren't black in the enlightenment is because the concept of "black people" was made up by racists in the first place! From the black people article:

In a lexicographic analysis, philosophy professor Lansana Keita noted that the word "black", "negro", and "African race" are all defined in terms of one another and can be regarded as logically equivalent[1] Although the earliest known references of the English word "black" with reference to African descent were in the year 1400[2], the term (especially when used in a racial context) was popularized during the transatlantic slave trade and the Age of Enlightenment, which gave rise to racial classification[3] The first of these came from French doctor Francois Bernier who divided up humanity based on facial appearance and body type. He proposed four categories: Europeans, Far Easterners, Lapps, and blacks; who he described as having woolly hair, thick lips, and very white teeth.[4] The concept of black explicitly as a proxy for African descent can be traced to the same era when Swedish botanist, physician and zoologist Carolus Linnaeus divided humankind into four main races, loosely based on geographic distribution: europeaus (white race), asiaticus (yellow race), americanus (red race) and afer or african (black race).[5] According to Linnaeus' pseudo-scientific model, the black male could be defined by his skin tone, face structure, and curly hair. He assigned various fanciful attributes to each of his four categories, clearly favoring the "race" europeaus.[6][7]

Afrocentrism is just the black version of Eurocentrism, and is mainly an excuse for black people to feel as if there is some sort of evil attempt to hide their history from them. The only scientific questions here are as follows:

• What did the ancient Egyptians look like at various periods in their history? What was the variation in appearence like throughout their population at those various times?
• What is the demographic history of ancient Egypt?
• What was the nature of their gene pool throughout their history (especially in respect to appearence), and what caused it to become to change throughout in which directions? To what extent did demographic factors such as war and migration effect ancient Egypt, and to what extent was Egyptian evolution a result of natural selection to their new Egyptian environment, throughout the history of ancient Egypt?

All three of these answers can be found in the article, which to me makes clear that pre-Dynastic Egyptians were mixed but a significant perhaps majority portion of them would be considered "black" by today's standards, and that dynastic Egyptians were mixed to the point where only a small minority of them would today be called "black". If you have a problem with the article, which was written mainly be me (someone who supports pure science and opposes prejudiced Eurocentrism and Afrocentrism) and an Afrocentrist (Taraqh), through consensus, please bring it up here. Please avoid petty arguments over race and history. Focus on the science, not the politics. Thank you, --Urthogie 19:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you doing pure science, Urthogie? You are claiming to write on ancient Egypt while ignoring the basic notions of the Egyptian language. What a pity! Why don't you take some lessons? Else, if you are not Black African, why don't you leave ancient Africa to Black Africans, and mind about your own origins? But maybe your ancestors did not realise so many wonders. That will be a big problem for you. I understand a bit your situation. But science is objective. Please, watch again the videos by Basil Davidson, and remember to read Greek, Hebrew and Arab ancient writings about Egypt. Their authors knew ancient Egyptians like you who see and meet Blacks of today. Take your time. True inderstanding and wisdom come very slowly! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"leave ancient Africa to Black Africans"? That's odd, as north Africa isn't what has even been classed as peopled by 'black' or 'negro' populations on a large scale, but peopled by those only slightly darker than "mediterreanids". So why leave a history in the hands of another type of people, just because of a "black Africa" stereotype? 67.5.157.48 04:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agian, not all Africans are black. The majority of North African peoples are what we call "Arabic" which is a culture group more than a race. However they are Caucasian. And that big desert called the Sahara basically historically separated the two. You are trying to connect yourself to the Egyptians. Which is what Afrocentrism trys to do. It is an effort by black Americans, who are of East African slave decent to connect themselves to Egypt, Babylon and other races history. You are not Egyptian, and even if they were black, you aren't related to them. Get of it. However the fact is, all these theories of this massive White-Arab plot to erase the black Egyptian history is purely raciest. Again, put two and two together, modern Egyptians look like the depictions of Ancient Egyptians. The Ancient Egyptian's depictions of Nubians look like modern black people. Now if you consider the modern population of Egypt to be blacks, then whatever. But remember they aren't you, you aren't related to them.[LoLGuys]

Ok, lolguys, you made one mistake there-- African slaves in America were mainly from West Africa and to a lesser extent, central africa-- not much from east africa (which is closer to Egypt). You missed a good point in making this mistake. To Lusala lu ne Nkuka, I am of middle eastern ethnicity. Egypt is part of the middle East, but it is also linked to East Africa. Are you East African? If not, I have a closer connection to Egypt than you do. If you are, then you have a closer connection to the pre-dynastic egypt, and me to dynastic egypt. But whatever-- even if I wasn't middle eastern ethnicity, it would still be ridiculous for you to say I can't have an opinion on Egypt just because of where I'm from. That's called an ad hominem attack.--Urthogie 23:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Lo LGuys, it seems to me that you must learn more about world history in general and African history in particular. Arabs arrived in Africa in the 7th century ACE. Globally speaking, they have not yet accomplished 2 millennium in Africa. In the past, I said that the White people entered Africa in the third millennium BCE. Sorry for the mistake. I meant in the second millennium BCE. The Egyptian state was long in place. Pyramids were already standing. What did Whites bring to Egypt? Desolations. Their times are known as intermediaries periods. Parenthesis! You wrote: “Bottom line, blacks, you are not Egyptians”. You can say this out of your ignorance of the Egyptian history. When Jean François Champollion arrived in Egypt, he noticed that in the paintings, Blacks came first, Whites “bottom line”, they are not Egyptians. Really the contrary of what you are writing. You need to learn more about Black history. To Urthogie. You said that kmt was not used for other Africans. Today, when one says the American people, we immediately think about the inhabitants of the Unites States. When one says anti Semitic, we immediately think about anti Jewish. But America is more than the USA, Semitic more than the Jews. This phenomenon is called in anthropology ethnocentrism. Powerful nations do put themselves at the center. Egypt did make exception. Diodorus of Sicily wrote in its Osiris and Isis that the Egyptian considered themselves to be at the hearth of the southern world. When they call themselves the Blacks, they considered themselves to be the best among the Blacks. They monopolized also the use of the word rmT which means human being. They considered themselves also as the best of the humankind. So Km means black. Applied to the country, it is written kmt and means the Black Country. Land is masculine in Egyptian. To say black land, one has to write ta km. But niwt or nwt, the city, is feminine. It is the determinative of the country. When used for kmt, the symbol of land does not designate the land, but the country (Cf. Pierre du Bourguet, Grammaire égyptienne, p. 14). When used with the determinative of people, it means Black people. With cattle, black cattle… Take first the words in themselves before making speculations, interpretations. I am sorry but Egypt is in Africa and not in Asia. Go to any good dictionary. You are not an African. I am sorry but the Egyptian culture is only linked to other African cultures. Those of Asia and Europe who have some Egyptian customs did borrowings. (Cf. Herodotus, The Persian Wars; Siegbert Hummel, Tracce d’Egitto in Euroasia, Torino: Ananke, 1997). It was believed that the Egyptian language is Semitic. Gardiner destroyed that hope: “until its relationship to the African languages is more closely defined, Egyptian must certainly be classified as standing outside the Semitic group” (Egyptian Grammar, 2001, p. 3). The first Semitic language known is Akkadian. It is dated around 2400 BCE. Egyptian, written already around 3100 BCE is older! That is why at the Cairo conference, Sauneron said that “Semitic words found in Egyptian don’t exceed one hundred. They came through borrowings. The Semitic family does not explain the Egyptian language”. Do the Egyptian look like the Libyans and the Semites? No, Erman and Ranke answer. How do they look like ? Like the Nubians : “(…) l’Egyptien des temps historiques se révèle dans les représentations figurées de ses tombeaux, à toutes les époques, tant dans son aspect extérieur que dans la manière de se vêtir, tout à fait différent de ses voisins, qu’il s’agisse des Libyens et des Cananéens, ou des nomades du désert oriental (…). Il semble que les peuples qui se rapprochent le plus des Egyptiens soient leurs voisins du sud, les Nubiens”(La civilisation égyptienne, Paris Payot, 1994, p. 46). Now, let me give you some correspondences between the Egyptian language (cf Raymond Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian) and the kikongo language ([this is my language]. Cf Karl Laman, Dictionnaire kikongo-français) about the word km. km: black / lakama: be dark, black; -akana: verbal suffixe Giving the meaning being dark, black; kongula: be dark. Kmt: the Black Land / Kongo: name of villages of Congo. Kmt: Egyptians / bakongo: the Congolese people. kmt: a jar / kamba: cup. km: total up to, amount to, complete / koma: put on, add, be in quantity. kmyt: conclusion of book / kamama: be almost finished, be almost full. kmy(t): herd of cattle / kama: big antelope; kambakasa, kambakazi: multitude. I am expecting you to do the same little exercise (km in Egyptian and in your mother language). Sorry for some harsh words in the past. I am not claiming that somebody who is not African cannot study African Civilizations. I am just inviting you to be less arrogant in subjects not linked directly to your culture. You may ignore some of their subtleties. Peace to both of you and Lo LGuys! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 14:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnocentrism? If black means dark skinned, then you would think the darker people of the south would get this title. That's basic logic, and ethnocentrism can't explain why darker peole aren't called black. Even the Nazis, the most ethnocentric people of all, admitted that the Nordic people were much more European than them, even though the peoples with blond hair have contributed very little to Western civilization, on the whole.--Urthogie 16:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, you are free to reject the ethnocentric theory. It does not function as you believe according to logic or objectivity. It functions according to the combination of power and the human tendency to place one’s tribe at the centre of the world. Did you not understand the examples I gave alluding to America and anti Semitism? About kmt in reference to the people. If you know a bit of the Egyptian language, try to translate it literally otherwise than the Blacks without falling into falsifications or manipulations! Egyptians were just black people. « (…) l’Egyptien des temps historiques se révèle dans les représentations figurées de ses tombeaux, à toutes les époques, tant dans son aspect extérieur que dans la manière de se vêtir, tout à fait différent de ses voisins, qu’il s’agisse des Libyens et des Cananéens, ou des nomades du désert oriental (…). Il semble que les peuples qui se rapprochent le plus des Egyptiens soient leurs voisins du sud, les Nubiens”(Adolf Erman, Hermann Ranke, La civilisation égyptienne, Paris Payot, 1994, p. 46) ». « Le noir est, bien souvent, la couleur des dieux. Osiris était noir. Isis fut regardée comme une déesse ‘noire et rouge’, une nubienne, et figurait voilée de noir. Selon Porphyre, Knef, le dieu créateur des Egyptiens étaient noir. Un dieu noir figure dans le tombeau de Sethi I. » (S. Mayassis, Mystères et initiations de l’Egypte ancienne. Compléments à la religion égyptienne, Milano : Archè, 1988, pp. 394-395). Urthogie, if the Egyptians were not from Nubia, why according to you is the first nome of Upper Egypt in Nubia ? « Tз-Sti, Nubia, properly Ist nome of Upper Egypt ; Styw Nubians, sty red (?) Nubian (?) pigment » (Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 2001, p. 593). You will notice that the first nome of Lower Egypt is equally in the south. The south, Nubia, is the root of the Egyptian Civilization. Than the political emancipated Egyptians thought of themselves being at the best of the humankind (rmT) and of the black world (kmt). Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 17:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea with the Jews and antisemitism doesn't work either. The reason antisemitism is used to refer solely to Jews is because of the early German racist theories that had an emphasis on Jews being different from Germans, unlike Egyptians who according to you had similarity to Southern Africans:

Pseudo-scientific theories concerning race, civilization, and "progress" had become quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century, especially as Prussian nationalistic historian Heinrich von Treitschke did much to promote this form of racism. In Treitschke's writings Semitic was synonymous with Jewish

German political agitator Wilhelm Marr coined the related German word Antisemitismus in his book "The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism" in 1879. Marr used the phrase to mean hatred of Jews or Judenhass, and he used the new word antisemitism to make hatred of the Jews seem rational and sanctioned by scientific knowledge. Marr's book became very popular, and in the same year he founded the "League of Antisemites" ("Antisemiten-Liga"), the first German organization committed specifically to combatting the alleged threat to Germany posed by the Jews, and advocating their forced removal from the country.

So far as can be ascertained, the word was first widely printed in 1881, when Marr published "Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte," and Wilhelm Scherer used the term "Antisemiten" in the January issue of "Neue Freie Presse". The related word semitism was coined around 1885. See also the coinage of the term "Palestinian" by Germans to refer to ethnic Jews, as distinct from the religion of Judaism. (All from antisemitism)

Also, I think the first nome of Egypt was on the border of Ethiopia, not in it. This indicates a significant cultural exchange between the peoples, but still doesn't prove your case.--Urthogie 17:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Had you read my writing, I said "what we now call Arab" since Arabic isn't a race, rather a culture group. I am of the opinion that the Egyptians are a homogeneous race. Of course with a bit of constant mixing from the south, i.e. negroid/black people. But also from the East, West, and North, i.e. Whites, and other semitic peoples. But the main problem with Black historians is they are too bias, usually they will only write about history in relation to themselves, or the black race as a generic whole. If you want to study Ancient Egypt, or Ancient Egyptian race, you need to first remove yourself. Look at it as I do, a neutral observer. I am not trying to link my race, background or heritage to the ancient Egyptians. And until you can do the same with all of history, you can not be taken seriously. It's notions like "all mankind was black, therefore all civilization was derived from us" that really not only sounds ignorant but all pretty offensive.

And uh, if Egyptians looked like Nubians, why is it so obvious in Egyptian art when they draw or depict Nubians, they have obvious black African features and skin tone. But when they draw themselves, they look like the modern population?

Also, yes when I mentioned the birth of Afrocentrism I meant people of West African decent. And I apologize for my lack of skill with HTML [LoLGuys]

I never understood why Eurocentrics always pull the same lame card, implying that African Americans had nothing to do with Egypt no matter what race they were. But it isn't an issue when all anglo people in America relate to Greece and Rome, when they're from Western Europe, not east. Ain't no greeks with blond hair and blue eyes, so can we effectively say that they were a different race? Greeks called northern Europeans white, in comparison to themselves, and Egyptians black. They say the "complexion of courage is between the two" - Aristotle... So what's up with the hypocracy? White people teach us about Greece every day in school, we don't give a fuck, what does Greece have to do with white people if that's the case? Why can't black kids learn about and glorify Egypt? I mean it is in Africa and Greece is in Europe.

And uh, if Egyptians looked like Nubians, why is it so obvious in Egyptian art when they draw or depict Nubians

That's an awfully stupid question, why did the Egyptians look so different from white people and semites? and Why do Somalis look so different than Congolese, or the Beja(black) of North Africa look so different than people of Chad? Because Africa has the longest history of variation and there is no single 'black' type in which some how you feel the Nubian represents. Also there is no such thing as "black" features, read a book or go to Africa some day. Modern Man adapted and spread through Africa for 90,000 years before he ever left. The ones that left were only one population and all of the other races come from this one population and this is why everyone else is so homogeneous while Africa is so diversified. All features on earth come from Africa and are still there, which is evidence that we all come from there. READ! Get rid of the ignorant stereotypes and study criticallyTaharqa 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I think it is foolish to try to connect people to you. Being of mixed race I don't really do that. Because I do not consider having a connection to my ancestors as I see myself as being simply American. And that there is a variation throughout Africa. I couldn't have put it more eliquantly as you did. However, The argument that we all came from Africa therefore we are all Africa is flawed at best. Since we are not all single celled organism. Also, no all the Earth's people are equally diversified as Africa. I know all us Whites, Arabs, and Asians look the same to you. However even in the homogenized country of Korea, there are a plethora of facial variations. " READ! Get rid of the ignorant stereotypes and study critically" practice what you teach, or please keep your mouth shut. LoLGuys

"Tз Sti: Nubia, properly Ist nome of Upper Egypt"

Urthogie. You are very good indeed when it comes to your Society. Congratulations! Still the Jews have monopolised the word anti Semitic, putting themselves at the centre of the Semitic world. Am I wrong? The idea that the Jews are the elected people is another example of ethnocentrism. Apparently, you agree with me on the example of America. If it is the case, you got my point about the Egyptians calling themselves rmT (the humankind) or Kmt (the Blacks). About Tз Sti, you are totally wrong. Read well Gardiner. He wrote in good English: « Tз-Sti, Nubia, properly Ist nome of Upper Egypt ; Styw Nubians, sty red (?) Nubian (?) pigment » (Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 2001, p. 593). Peace! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jews, like all cultures, are ethnocentric. You won't find me denying that. So can you quote this source about the nome being inside Nubia, rather than on the border? We could perhaps add it to the article if there is a mention of it being related to race. Peace, --Urthogie 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

^Cop out, so now we're debating the race of the Nubians?Taharqa 22:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand Gardiner! Anyway, you still have a chance. Watch again this to understand what it means when one says that ancient Egypt is black! http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=34&mforum=africa Peace! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 06:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"The pharoahs built temples which were absolutely African, obviously to impress the southern Africans. They regarded Africans gods as their saviors" What? hahahaha. What a total load. My understanding is the Egyptians saw themselves as perfect, and had a disdain for their neighborers. Especially the Nubians. Since Kush is the Egyptian word for "vile". If they loved black Africans so much why don't they depict themselves the same as they do for black (Nubian) people???? Or depict their gods as black people? Do you really believe this stuff? Honestly? [LoLGuys]

Many people have been miseducated on Black History. Intellectual maturity is indeed not common. In general, it only comes out of enduring and patient work, beyond the classrooms. Now, what can one say about the color of the Egyptian gods? Mayassis, a Greek Egyptologist, has this answer: « The color black is usually the color of the gods. Osiris was black. Isis was seen as a 'black and brown' godess, a Nubian. She was represented covered with a black veil. According to Porphyre, Knef, the creator god of the Egyptians was black. A black god is present in the tomb of Sethi I (Le noir est, bien souvent, la couleur des dieux. Osiris était noir. Isis fut regardée comme une déesse ‘noire et rouge’, une nubienne, et figurait voilée de noir. Selon Porphyre, Knef, le dieu créateur des Egyptiens était noir. Un dieu noir figure dans le tombeau de Sethi I) » (S. Mayassis, Mystères et initiations de l’Egypte ancienne. Compléments à la religion égyptienne, Milano : Archè, 1988, pp. 394-395). Peace to you LoLGuys! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 19:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright man, serious time. Do you actually believe what you say? I mean even a novas studying Egyptian religion could find 1,000s of wholes in your arguments. Osiris the god of the dead, is always depicted as green, because he is dead. And it is meant to symbolize himself as a corpse. And every picture I have seen of Isis, she is either a bird, or a yellow or fair skinned woman. I have found absolutely no reference to Knef outside your little rant there. The creator of the gods was Ra/Re who is depicted as a tan(not super black Nubian) with a bird head. Or it could be Nun, the chaos sea. I think you should have spent more time studying in the classroom instead of filling your head with bias one-sided writings by racists, Afrocentrists, or people who have less understanding of Egyptian than a four year old. It's pretty much ignorence like this, which as lead me to stay away from papers and history books written by black people. It's always about them. They are so narrow minded they are incapable of seeing the big picture.

LoLGuys, Egyptians look like Nubians. Erman and Ranke, two German Egyptologists, are clear about that: “[...] The Egyptian of the historical time represented himself in his tombs, at all periods, either in its external aspect or in his way of dressing, totally different from his neighbours, be them Libyans and Cananites, or nomads of the oriental desert [...]. It seems that the people to whom the Egyptians ressemble more are their sourthern neighbours, the Nubians ([...] l’Egyptien des temps historiques se révèle dans les représentations figurées de ses tombeaux, à toutes les époques, tant dans son aspect extérieur que dans la manière de se vêtir, tout à fait différent de ses voisins, qu’il s’agisse des Libyens et des Cananéens, ou des nomades du désert oriental [...]. Il semble que les peuples qui se rapprochent le plus des Egyptiens soient leurs voisins du sud, les Nubiens)”(Adolf Erman, Hermann Ranke, La civilisation égyptienne, Paris: Payot, 1994, p. 46). Peace! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That reference is probably in dress. Since the Kush copied almost everything from the Egyptians. However, again a symbol glance at Egyptian art clearly shows the Nubians looking like black people while the Egyptians looking like tan Caucasians. Or very light mixed blacks at best.

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/egypt/abusimbel/ramses/nubiandet2.jpg hmmm wonder if that is an Egyptian or a Nubian? http://www.dignubia.org/maps/timeline/img/b1540a-nubian-tribute-huy.jpg I can't find any better pictures online at the moment, but a “master” of African history such as yourself should have access to pictures of Nubians made by Egyptians. You will the different details given to people of black decent. On the facial features and shapes, as well as the color of skin.

^^Why are some of those Nubians painted red in color like the Egyptians, I thought all black people were jet-black?! (Sarcasm)..Taharqa 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably because they mixed with Egyptians or vis-versa, they were neighbors. Or it could be to represent females, since in Egyptian art women are lighter. However, you never see Egyptians depicted in this black color. Which is odd, because I though they saw blacks as divine.

Or maybe you pulled that out of your ass to fit your view even though there is no evidence what so ever to support that elementary claim. Anthropologically or in literatureTaharqa 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What claim would that be? My claim was they depicted Nubians differently than Egyptians. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

What's straight forward is that those depictions in the tomb of huey seem to differ with your baseless claims. Like I said, all Nubians weren't jet-black and all Egyptians weren't reddish-brown. Ethnically, Egyptian and Nubian weren't mutually exclusive, these were simply nationalities and in the beginning they were the same nation. The tomb of Ramses III also depicts Nubians similar to them, but nationalities make distinctions among others in the name of chauvinism. If you believe all Egyptians and Nubians looked the same then you're just nieve. If you want to remain ignorant, that's your fault, not mine..Taharqa 02:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote:

They regarded Africans gods as their saviors" What? hahahaha. What a total load. My understanding is the Egyptians saw themselves as perfect, and had a disdain for their neighborers. Especially the Nubians. Since Kush is the Egyptian word for "vile".

Hahahahahaha!! You have to be the most ignorant human on wikipedia for this comment. Nubia comes from the word "Nubi" which means gold, and Kush was a Kingdom in the upper Nile and had nothing to do with Nubia (the state), Kush comes from the Hebrew word, "Cush", land of the Ethiopians, what the hell are you talking about? They indeed called the Kushites Wretched and Vile, but this was during tribal conflict, they also referred to them as "Khentu Hon Nefer" (page 554a) = founders of the perfect order. Budge: "peoples and tribes of Nubia and the Egyptian Sudan." For "Hon" see page 586b. Nubia: "To(Ta) Khent" (page 1051b/page 554b) = land of the beginning. Nubia: "Eau" (page 952b/page17b) = the old country

They referred to the lighter skinned Asiatics as pillagers and thieves. Labeled them literally "ignoble asiatics" and associated them with the red color of Seth, which stood for Evil. Osiris stood for black, which meant good. Osiris, or I should say Ausar's(the ancestor of the Egyptian race) very title was 'Kem Wer', or literally (with no corruption of the translation in any way)"The Great Black (One)", interpret that as you may but it should be no coincidence that his skin is usually depicted as jet-black. Now get over yourself and learn more about Egyptian customs and culture. You make it seem as if the burden of proof is on the premise that they were not different than the Nubians in the beginning, yet it is the opposite since all evidence points to that conclusion. Now get over your self.Taharqa 05:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Qustul Incense Burner

Nubian Monarchy Called Oldest*

By Boyce Renseberger

(From page 1)

Evidence of the oldest recognizable monarchy in human history, preceding the rise of the earliest Egyptian kings by several generations, has been discovered in artifacts from ancient Nubia in Africa.

Until now it had been assumed that at that time the ancient Nubian culture, which existed in what is now northern Sudan and southern Egypt, had not advanced beyond a collection of scattered tribal clans and chiefdoms.

The existence of rule by kings indicates a more advanced form of political organization in which many chiefdoms are united under a more powerful and wealthier ruler.

The discovery is expected to stimulate a new appraisal of the origins of civilization in Africa, raising the question of to what extent later Egyptian culture may have derived its advanced politicat structure from the Nubians. The various symbols of Nubian royalty that have been found are the same as those associated, in later times, with Egyptian kings.

The new findings suggest that the ancient Nubians may have reached this stage of political development as long ago as 3300 B.C., several generations before the earliest documented Egyptian king.

The discovery is based on study of artifacts from ancient tombs excavated 15 years ago in an international effort

---

(From page A16)

Clues to Oldest Monarchy Found in Nubia

to rescue archeological deposits before the rising waters of the Aswan Dam covered them.

The artifacts, including hundreds of fragments of pottery, jewelry, stone vessels, and ceremonial objects such as incense burners, were initially recovered from the Qustul cemetery by Keith C. Seele, a professor at the University of Chicago. The cemetery, which contained 33 tombs that were heavily plundered in ancient times, was on the Nile near the modern boundary between Egypt and the Sudan.

The significance of the artifacts, which had been in storage at the university's oriental Institute, was not fully appreciated until last year, when Bruce Williams, a research associate, began to study them.

"Keith Seele had suspected the tombs were special, perhaps even royal," Dr. Williams said in an interview. "It was obvious from the quantity and quality of the painted pottery and the jewelry that we were dealing with wealthy people. But it was the picture on a stone incense burner that indicated we really had the tomb of a king."

On the incense burner, which was broken and had to be pieced together, was a depiction of a palace façade, a crowned king sitting on a throne in a boat, a royal standard before the king and, hovering above the king, the falcon god Horus. Most of the images are ones commonly associated with kingship in later Egyptian traditions.

The portion of the incense burner bearing the body of the king is missing but, Dr. Williams said, scholars are agreed that the presence of the crown—in a form well known from dynastic Egypt—and the god Horus are irrefutable evidence that the complete image was that of a king.

Clue on Incense Burner

The majestic figure on the incense burner, Dr. Williams said, is the earliest known representation of a king in the Nile Valley. His name is unknown, but he is believed to have lived approximately three generations before the time of Scorpion, the earliest-known Egyptian ruler. Scorpion was one of three kings said to have ruled Egypt before the start of what is called the first dynasty around 3050 B.C.

Dr. Williams said the dating is based on correlations of artistic styles in the Nubian pottery with similar styles in predynastic Egyptian pottery, which is relatively well dated.

He said some of the Nubian artifacts bore disconnected symbols resembling those of Egyptian hieroglyphics that were not readable.

"They were on their way to literacy," Dr. Williams said, "probably quite close to Egypt in this respect."

He said it was not known what the ancient Nubian civilization was called at the time but that he suspected it was Ta-Seti, a name known from Egyptian writings that means "Land of the Bow," referring to the weapon which, apparently, was deemed characteristic of peoples in that part of Africa.

Dr. Williams said there were accounts in later Egyptian writings of the Egyptians attacking Ta-Seti some time around 3000 B.C. This is just about the time, according to the archeological record, when a major cultural transformation began in that part of Nubia. Little is known of what was happening in this region between 3000 B.C. and 2300 B.C. when inhabitants were unquestionably governed by separate chiefdoms.

Their descendents, he suggested, may have developed the Sudanese Kingdom of Kush, based in Kurma, Egyptians for sovereignty and, in fact, prevailed over them for a while.

A detailed monograph on the discoveries is in preparation, but there is no deadline and publication is expected to be a few years away.

---

• Particular attention must be given to the underlined words in the article above. These words are the key to the basic myth about Egypt being separate and earliest of the High-Cultures/civilizations of Africa. Also, that "the indigenous Egyptians were white Caucasians," etc.

http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/NUB/NUBX/NUBX_brochure.html

Most surprising, evidence that early pharaohs ruled in A-Group Nubia was discovered by the Oriental Institute at Qustul, almost at the modern Sudanese border. A cemetery of large tombs contained evidence of wealth and representations of the rulers and their victories. Other representations and monuments could then be identified, and in the process, a lost kingdom, called Ta-Seti or Land of the Bow, was discovered. In fact, the cemetery at Qustul leads directly to the first great royal monuments of Egypt in a progression. Qustul in Nubia could well have been the seat of Egypt's founding dynasty. Figure 1: The decoration of the Qustul Incense Burner, as restored. A sacrificial procession contains the earliest definite image of a pharaoh with his crown and falcon-label. Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/NUB/NUBX/NUBX_brochure.html

Any logical person can infer that Egypt was a colony of Nubia who migrated into Egypt and founded the first dynasty. Also Ta-Seti, Upper Egypt, and Lower Egypt was all one kingdom back then and seeing as how Ta-Seti was a "Nubian" kingdom, which is confirmed, obviously the original Egyptians were Nubians.

Extremely interesting quote from Diodorus of Sicily (90 B.C. - 30 B.C.):

Diodorus Writes:

"The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians are one of their colonies which was brought into Egypt by Osiris"

In the same breath he writes:

"They add that from them, as from their authors and ancestors, the Egyptians get most of their laws. It is from them that the Egyptians have learned to honor kings as gods and bury them with such pomp; sculpture and writing were invented by the Ethiopians. The Ethiopians cite evidence that they are more ancient than the Egyptians, but it is useless to report that here"

Not to mention the fact that if the Egyptians and Ethiopians were not of the same race, Diodorus would have emphasized the impossibility of considering the former as a colony of the latter and the impossibility of viewing them as forebears of the Egyptians. It seems unfathomable that people over look this stuff, it gets frustrating after a while, as if you're in the 5% of people who actually know the truth. Well I take that back, many people know the truth and refrain from saying the Egyptians were anything but African, but people do sneakier shit, like trying to redefine the word "Black" a million times over, and I now refuse to be labeled by outsiders, because it's unscientific. You're either dark skinned or not, and you're either genetically similar or not. We know nothing of their genetics and the most we know of their complexion is that they were darker than the Greeks. All I care about is the fact that they were biologically African and more similar to other Africans, that way I don't get caught up in the Eurocentric trap.Taharqa 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Biologically African? All Egyptians were African, and there's no such thing as "Biologically African." (Although we can tell with high probability if someone has mainly sub-Saharan African ancestry by looking at a certain set of their genes.) Your argument here is based on a Greek historian who gives the opinion of Ethiopians several millenia after the dawn of ancient Egypt. That's not even an argument. That's like me saying, without any sort of archaelogical evidence, that I know that Native Americans originated in Peru because the Peruvians said so. It's intellectually dishonest for you to even bring it up. ("Extremely interesting")?

Biologically African referes to those who adapted their features in any set of African micro-climates, and under evolutionary theory that would cause any indigenous inhabitants of Africa (who lacks foreign admixture) to be genetically distinct from Europeans and more similar to each other as African variant populations under the PN2 clade. "Sub-Saharan" is a misnomer and doesn't describe any racial group, it's a geo-political term and anthropologists will tell you that. And how is that the only basis for my argument when it coincides with the archeological evidence I've provided directly above it? I mean exactly! Haha, It's hard to accept reality for some people, but I'm patient.Taharqa 05:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You may have a strong point about predynastic Egyptians. I'm of the view right now that they would for the most part be considered "black" in American society. But I'm yet to hear an Afrocentrist admit that early pre-dynastic Egypt was the "black" civilization, and that dynastic Egypt wasn't. That's why I don't respect this Afrocentric ideology-- the focus is on pride at all costs, science comes only in the service of that goal.

Forget American society, I'm considered 'black' in American society, the point is that we're all African descendants who migrated directly from the Sahara and adapted all over every part of Africa. My only point is, and you being the logical person that you are should agree, according to evolutionary theory "Caucasians" developed their phenotypes in colder climates in the extremes of Northern Europe during the ice age, they're drastically different by nature (physically) than any native African and the presence of such people there is due to backward immigration or recent invasion. I don't think there's any evidence for mass backward migrations. Now if these people weren't Asian mongoloid invaders either than what were they? That's the problem with the word "Negroid" and "Black", these people are all simply Africans with recent common ancestry who developed different traits in different parts of Africa, but they are the same people in essence, which is my sound view.Taharqa 05:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice I only responded to your weakest arguments here. This was a conscious choice. Present only strong arguments and I'll address them all. Until then, you're just throwing a bunch of darts and hoping one of them hits the bulls-eye. Not cool.

--Urthogie 05:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You did not pick a weak argument, you dissected a strong argument and broke it down into a weak component, but as a whole the argument simply can not break down when put in context with the archeological evidence, you must admit that it makes sense.Taharqa 05:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why include weak components? Also, as regards your above point, I agree with you they're not white. But has it occured to you that all "races" develop from nautral selection to a new latitude? You can't simultaneously assert that race exists and say that races can't emerge through natural selection. If this is the case, then how did the first non-"black" emerge?--Urthogie 05:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Obvious you're simply oblivious to what you did. It's not a 'weak' component because it wasn't meant to stand on its own, you took it out of context as I quoted that to coincide with the archeological evidence. Also, I'm not an advocate of 'race', I'm an advocate of shared ancestry and recent common origin. North Africans wouldn't have drifted as far since people who cluster geographically also cluster genetically, and from what I know archeologically, the North Africans in question migrated from the central Sahara and/or eastern desert and not from the north, since very few people are native to or lived in the Sahara desert which spans over almost the whole of North Africa (besides the coast, where invading Caucasians did in fact settle), this is relevant. Not making an argument, just a point. Taharqa 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And yet most European Jews are called white, despite the fact that they were selected for by skin color over a course of time shorter in length to the time between the pre-dynastic and dynastic. Since they have middle eastern origins, how does the origins view explain this? How is it that Jews could evolve to keep the same facial characteristics but change in skin color in such a time, and why couldn't it go that way in Egypt?--Urthogie 07:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

^First of all, who ever said that the Egyptians changed phonetically and fully adapted to Egyptian climate? Keita and others said they had tropical body plans and Egypt isn't in the tropics. Besides, mass population change in phenotype does not naturally occur that fast. Judaism is a religion, not a race or ethnicity, hence the distinction European Jew, and not Asiatic Jew. European Jews are mostly European, yet they inherit the culture of their distant ancestors (despite intermingling with fellow neighboring Europeans). But even some Caucasian looking Israelii Jews (with the exception of the Israeli Fellahin) are a result of the Indo-European expansion after 2,000 B.C and a bit of intermingling... Palestinians for example reflect their recent Asiatic roots a little more as a group(they were probably less subjected to foreign influence). Also, the Afro-Asiatic language its self (which includes semitic) started in East Africa (scholars think Ethiopia), and the further you go back in time, the more that Afro-Asiatic speakers should coalesce into a single ethnic entity that reflects their cultural forbears, unless of course culture was imposed on them. Asiatic Jews also have traces of E3b, East African DNA, these people are not pure blooded. The original inhabitants (which they still are in essence) would of been slightly darker (but not jet black) given evolutionary theory (like Palestinians). A lot of people did not fully adapt to where they currently stay though anyways, that is a longer process that takes more than a few thousand years (this is common knowledge). Most settlements/kingdoms/empires don't last that long and people usually only stayed put if there was a barrier.. Taharqa 07:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

From article on Jew:

This theory could also solve the paradox of DNA studies noted above that show Ashkenazi Jews to be related to the peoples of the nations surrounding Israel and being relatively far from their European neighbours, despite physical features that sometimes are more closely resembles that of the peoples of southern and central Europe; as one explanation would be a large miscegenation millennia ago followed by almost no outside genetic contact thereafter.but this kind of assumptions is not supported by any historical account, and the extent of physical features similarity between Ashkenazi jews and non-Jewish Europeans is disputed .

--Urthogie 11:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the reason Palestinians are darker is because of Arab expansion, and its well known that Arabs are closer to Africans than the Hebrews would have been.--Urthogie 11:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're backwards Urgothie, and you answered your own question.

Quote:

"as one explanation would be a large miscegenation millennia ago (Indo-European expansion, I told you that) followed by almost no outside genetic contact thereafter."

Also, I'm not really understanding that seeing as how Ashkenazi Jews are from Rhineland near Germany! They're European Jews who descend from the Middle East, but I have discussed that Urgothie.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews

Your explanation about Palestine seems illogical seeing as how virtually all Middle easterners are ethnically homogeneous Arabs, and Arab isn't a race anyways. Proto-Arabs themselves have been subjected to much Indo-European expansion in the form of the Greek, Persian, and Roman conquests, but generally kept their Asiatic identity as a whole. The Yemeni people are the original Arabs and they're intermediate between 'Sub-Saharan' and 'Eurasian' given their thousands of years of contact with Ethiopia, it's been a two way relationship for millenia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15457403

Though the people who expanded weren't from Yemen, they were from Mecca. In the same breath though, it's extremely false for you to equate darker skin with Africa, the Middle East isn't exactly forgiving as far as heat and UV is concerned. You disregard evolutionary theory totally in your claim that Arab Eurasians are dark as a result of admixture, which is unfounded, why are southern Indians so dark then? And Native Australian aboriginals? You're being a hypocrite now, you say dark skin in Africa doesn't equate with relatedness to other Africans (which it does, given recent common ancestry), Then you claim that Arabs are only darker because they are closer to Africans (even though they have no recent common ancestry with Africans)? Yea, geographically closer to the equator in Africa, that's about it, genetically they're closer to Europeans as a group. They simply adapted to warmer climates than Europeans who drifted further away genetically as they entered the cold climates of Europe many thousands of years ago. I really don't see your point, given the known constant contact with Europeans and Asiatics, and simple observation of the indigenous Asiatic Arab groups (like the fellahin), one can easily make a clear distinction between the native inhabitants of the Middle East and northern Europeans, ethnically. Palestinians simply reflect their ancestral state more so than their neighbors next door, and it's important to note that in biblical times, these two lands were the same. Just different cultures now, and everyone knows that Israel is a lot more western influenced than Palestine is and has been for many centuries so you're thinking backwards. Do you have a source for your claim that the Palestinians' ethnic identity (darker skin, curlier hair) is due to the Arab expansion (that's the first time I've ever heard that, ever)? Again, "Arab" is a cultural identity that is no older than 1800 years old. The proper term would be 'Eurasian', those native to southwest Asia, and Palestinians are south west Asians so that makes no sense.. That's like having French "mixed" with English, which is indistinguishable. It's not hard to understand. I simply think that you need to learn more about evolution theory, migration, and history. You probably know your history, but you seem to have a poor concept of evolutionary theory. Or maybe you're just confusing yourself, I'm not sure what you're implying, but I'm patient and will be happy to steer you straight given any misconceptions..Taharqa 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just confusing myself. Sorry. (Although I don't agree with what you said about Arabs completely. It completely disregards the fact that Persians are relatively lighter than their neighbors, largely because they are not Arabs.) I wrote it at 3 AM, before thinking. I honestly don't know much about the evolutionary history of Jews. There are some jews I know who look like whites and others who have the stereotypical look, and I underestimated the complexity of this issue by bringing them up. My mistake. Now that I'm relatively more clear-headed and its not late at night, let me ask a couple questions to get a better hold of your views, so I don't confuse myself for now on:

1. How do you define "black"ness? If it's just based on what people or society say then this doesn't seem to be scientific at all. If it's just based on skin color and facial structure that ignores the fact that clearly non-African peoples are capable of having a more platonically "black" appearence in both of these characteristics than your average actual "black." The only sound view, then, seems to be that genetics are the only way to go in deciding if they were "black." Therefore, we should only focus on facts and research that either directly or indirectly reveal how "blacks" genetically cluster.
2. If, in fact, you do hold that "black"ness is defined by genetics, could you explain how you decide which category to put someone in? Do you go based on certain sets of genes that deal with appearence, or do you decide based off of an average comparison between the entire DNA sequences to see where things cluster? Keita seems to make clear that the entire idea of a black race is not exactly scientific, but a kind of platonic way of grouping people, almost arbitrarily deciding where exactly to draw the line.
3. Considering points 1 and 2, isn't it valid to say that almost all of your evidence for blacks being Egyptians is indirect?
4. Are you aware that modern science is based on empiricism, and not on logical arguments between two people (in this case, with me knowing less than you on this subject). Considering this fact, why would you hold that your belief in a "black" Egypt is scientific when your belief doesn't hold any of the chareristics of an empirical theory?

By the way, I know plenty about evolutionary theory, and genetics, probably more than yourself. What you know more about are the specific fields of Middle East and African demographic history, and also race. So that's why I'm asking questions in these fields. Also, as a sidenote, are you an autodidact or did you study this in college? Respectfully, --Urthogie 16:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Persians are relatively lighter than their neighbors, largely because they are not Arabs

^^Persians were not originally semitic, they spoke an Indo-European language and migrated from the north. They are/were "Aryans".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persians

1. "Black" is a term I don't use for the reason you suggested. Southern Indians and native Australians are 'blacker' than most Africans phenotypically but genetically they're not similar. As I said before, I'm concerned with 'Africaness' and more recent common ancestry. I don't advocate a 'black' Egypt no more than I advocate a 'black' Nubia, my only contention is that they were very similar to each other and shared recent common ancestry, and at one point were the exact same people culturally and ethnically. Empirical data seems to back that up, Keita admits this.

2. The only reason I question your knowledge of evolutionary theory is simply due to the fact that you assumed people can develop significantly unique traits so quickly. We know this is false and my knowledge of evolutionary theory comes from every aspect of progressive learning (books, research, and schooling). This is a fairly layman aspect of the subject as it is anyways, so there's actually no need to appeal to authority, as this is common knowledge.Taharqa 17:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I was wrong about the specific. I should give up on this Middle East stuff until I study it extensively. Let's focus on the main issue, then.

Well it seems pretty clear to me first off that the traits associated with appearence evolve faster than those associated with various systems below the skin.

But anyways, isn't the logical extension of your view that if the human race had (hypothetically) had very little intra-group mixing, and humans just gradually moved north over the millenia, and thousands of years went by of evolution-- that nothing would distinguish the "Africanness" of the guy in Norway from the "Africanness" of the guy who evolved in Ethiopia, despite the fact that they'd have comepletely different skin colors? It seems to be a reductio ad absurdum to just focus on this "Africanness", no?--Urthogie 17:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Well it seems pretty clear to me first off that the traits associated with appearence evolve faster than those associated with various systems below the skin.

^^I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

2. But anyways, isn't the logical extension of your view that if the human race had (hypothetically) had very little intra-group mixing, and humans just gradually moved north over the millenia, and thousands of years went by of evolution-- that nothing would distinguish the "Africanness" of the guy in Norway from the "Africanness" of the guy who evolved in Ethiopia, despite the fact that they'd have comepletely different skin colors? It seems to be a reductio ad absurdum to just focus on this "Africanness", no?

No, you're confused again, people develop various phenotypes independently. Skin color is correlated with closeness to the equator and physical cranial/facial traits are a result of different environmental pressures to micro-climates/macro-climates, along with random individual variation. Like I said, my only contention is that they were very similar to each other and shared recent common ancestry and that it would be hypocritical to impose a social label like 'black' onto the Nubians but not the Ancient Egyptians. I don't see it ass 'reductio ad absurdum' at all, it's very straight forward.Taharqa 17:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so is "Africanness" based solely off of origins, or does it include a genetic or appearence factor? If the latter, can you please clarify what would be required for "Africanness" in respect to genetics and appearence?--Urthogie 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course recent common origins in Africa identifies "Africanity", this is the very genetic concept on which 'race' is based. People who are more distinct genetically have more distant common ancestry. Africans are allowed to vary more so than Europeans and all other peoples due to the simple fact that human variation has its longest history on the African continent. Yet it would be useless to split Africa into 50 million races simply due to this diversity, that's absurd.

Quote:

It is important to keep in mind the long presence of humans in Africa, and that there should be a great range of biological variation in indigenous "authentic" Africans http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa Taharqa 18:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you're fighting against a straw man without answering my question decisively. Allow me to posit the following thought problem. Let's suppose we suddenly discovered a tribe in some remote part of Asia, and we are able to prove that they are descended directly from early, early Africans (of the same are from which Nubians migrated from). We're also able to prove through genetic analysis that most of their genetic changes have come from evolution-- adaption to their Asian environment. Now can you answer this question directly, without avoiding it by quoting someone else, but just a simple yes or no:

• Would this tribe have its "Africanness" if it was genetically more similar to East Asians than to Africans?
• Would this tribe have its "Africanness" if it was more similar in appearence to East Asians than to Africans?

Remember, this is just a hypothetical thought problem meant for me to understand your position and see if it's scientific. Please answer it earnestly. I'm not denying that Africans have diversity, I'm just trying to get some concrete claims on this "Africanness" you speak of before we continue. Thank you, --Urthogie 18:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. First question.. People who are distant geographically are distant genetically by environmental law. Asia is extremely different than Africa geographically and these isolated population only derives from one single exodus out of one African population. I'm not sure what you're asking but anyone who travels that far and drifts for that long will obviously be genetically distinct from their ancestors.Taharqa 18:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Would this tribe have its "Africanness" if it was genetically more similar to East Asians than to Africans?

^No, they've drifted and adapted to the extremes of the Asian environment.

• Would this tribe have its "Africanness" if it was more similar in appearence to East Asians than to Africans?

^Again, no, they've adapted to an East Asian environment.

There you have it then. And actually your question wasn't really hypothetical, you can apply it to the East Asians of today.Taharqa 18:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I think I read somewhere that East Asia actually "Became chinese" because of conquests from the China area. But anyways, this is yet another specific that neither I (nor you, I'm presuming) know so much about.

But anyways, am I correct to say then that your argument relies on the idea that the African environment is what determines Africanness? What is scientific about using line drawn around Africa centuries before? To quote continents article:

The ideal criterion that each continent be a discrete landmass is commonly disregarded in favor of more arbitrary, historical conventions.

Do you disagree with this, or what? How can you use a concept from pre-Darwinian map-making to justify an essentially Darwinian argument?--Urthogie 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But anyways, this is yet another specific that neither I (nor you, I'm presuming) know so much about.

You shouldn't "assume".. I don't know what you've been reading but I know that you understand what a "Mongoloid" is and why they're not Africans. Honestly you aren't making sense now, I'm sorry.

But anyways, am I correct to say then that your argument relies on the idea that the African environment is what determines Africanness? What is scientific about using line drawn around Africa centuries before?

African climate is a lot more uniform in comparison to the rest of the world, which is obvious given that Africa is smaller than the rest of the world. There is no extreme environmental variation in Africa, and the point is that the indigenous people of Africa come from the same relatively recent source and didn't travel too far away from each other. They also intermingled.

The ideal criterion that each continent be a discrete landmass is commonly disregarded in favor of more arbitrary, historical conventions.

^That's true in terms of land mass for some continents (Europe and Asia), but not "Environment". Learn the distinction.. Also geography is in fact a legitimate science and there is a basis for Africa to be separated as a 'continent' given that is it separated by water from all other lands and only connects with Asia through the Sinai Peninsula, which explains recent genetic gene flow from Asia to Egypt. I know we aren't debating the validity of geography now? How many concepts are you looking to destroy for the sake of argument?

Do you disagree with this, or what? How can you use a concept from pre-Darwinian map-making to justify an essentially Darwinian argument

I'm quite sure Darwin agreed that Africa is a unique continent, separate from the others. I doubt that he'd disregard science (geography) for the sake of agreeing with your point. Taharqa 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To say that Darwin recognized "unique continents" is a non-sequitor. The question is whether these continents are arbitrary in terms of environment, not whether people recognize them. The answer, obviously, is that they are arbitrary. Do you disagree with this sentiment? Do you honestly think that the boundaries originally chosen for the continents, were, purely by chance-- the best place to choose environmental boundaries?--Urthogie 20:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How is that a Non sequitur when I answered your question directly? Maybe you're asking the wrong questions.

How can you use a concept from pre-Darwinian map-making to justify an essentially Darwinian argument

^Because according to evolutionary law, those who are close geographically and usually close genetically unless there's an extreme difference in environment and subsequent isolation. There are no 'extreme' differing environments with in Africa, as compared to the bulk of the rest of the world. Geography coincides with environment to a certain degree. The environment of Northern Europe is nothing like that of Northern or sub-saharan Africa. Whether or not geographical classifications are arbitrary, common sense will tell you that variants of the same source who stay with in close proximity, are more than likely to be closely related. That's why "Africans" are "Africans", Europeans are Europeans, Southwest Asians are Southwest Asians and East Asians are East Asians. East Asians are geographically distant from Native Americans, but genetically similar due to recent common ancestry. Because of proximity, Southwest Asians are genetically similar to Europeans and they are related groups with recent common ancestry who adapted their own personal features. "Authentic" Africans all migrated from south of the sahara and adapted to various climates with in Africa, but because of close proximity and recent common ancestry, they're all related groups with in the same bracket. Even Berbers of North Africa (who have obviously been infiltrated with Eurasian blood) are still intermediate between the two extremes of so-called "Caucasoid" and Negroid", and are related to East Africans genetically more so than they are to Northern Europeans, even with the admixture! (Though it's important to note that we don't know which way the admixture went, they could of been originally Eurasian immigrants, but most people hold that they're indigenous to Africa due to their language and culture, most likely the Sahara). Same with today's upper Egyptians. Well, actually, the Mahgreb Berbers are thought to have been that way even in the past and I can admit that there were early migrations, probably from Europe to the North Coasts of Africa and the Canary Islands thousands of years ago, but they'd of been restricted to North Africa because of the Sahara. Archeology tells us that the Egyptians, Nubians, etc all migrated from the South during the Sahara's fertile period, and not from the North or coastal regions. These coastal people were the northern "Lybians" of antiquity, described by the Greeks and the Egyptians. If I haven't explained myself well enough for you I probably never will.. Be back later.. Btw, I'm not trying to convince that they were 'black', just to open your mind and steer away from any Dogma.Taharqa 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that "those who are close geographically and usually close genetically unless there's an extreme difference in environment and subsequent isolation." I'm just asking why you draw the line where you do, if this principle would apply around any similarly sized land boundary, why not draw better boundaries for research that have better fitting clusters? Surely you can't suggest that they drew the perfect environmental borders simply by drawing maps, can you?--Urthogie 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

^Ok, I see what you mean.. I'm also reading another source which states that the word African is a 'misnomer'(in reference to race), but this is the problem with labels and 'race' period. When ever you're speaking in reference to a large group, there's going to be identification problems. Going back to what I said about Biologically Africa though, I don't draw a line anywhere, I'm speaking in reference to migration patterns and cuts-offs. Nature draws the line with oceans and seas on all sides of the continent. Northern Egypt is the crossroads that introduces Africa to Asia, and I agree, Africa with in its self has a varied topography, so where to draw the line(you can ask the same thing about race)? I see it like this, you have certain animals that are native only to the African continent and travel through out the majority of the whole (besides the desert of course, who does?), like Rhino, Giraffe, and Zebra.. With in their respective categories they're all considered animals of the African variety, and in each respect, with in species they relate to each other, and also native animals period, like African killer bees who are not like European bees, but relate to other African bees because of proximity inside the continent and recent common ancestry. This very same concept I apply to people and to not do that, simply diminishes various aspects of the English language. We have to learn when to put things in context and not reduce everything to the lowest common denominator, because it's impossible to make sense of things that way.. No need to complicate things more than they really are..Taharqa 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And you have to understand we agree more than you think we do. I recognize Egypt's culture is not sprung from Greece whatsoever-- it's sprung from a development of other African cultures. The major innovations from Mesopotamia were not people or objects, but rather plants and animals species that were domesticated that made their way to Egypt either through travel or by wind. And it's also true that the Greek philosophers got the foundation for the majority of their major developments from visiting Egypt. So I guess I'm willing to see it your way, even if it's not my way of summarizing the data. After all, isn't that the different between education and propaganda?-- the first one lets you choose within boundaries what to believe, while the second one forces you to believe only one way. It's been nice learning from you. Peace, --Urthogie 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

^Exactly, you're a really sensible guy.. I'd like you, if you will when you get a chance, to read this article about the controversy of Ancient Egypt and race, and you can decide if any of the information is relevant to the article. It's a very objective article that takes all arguments into account from the King Tut renderings to modern perceptions of race, and even literature. Probably one of the fairest articles I've read as it is brutally honest and doesn't try to appeal to either side. http://en.allexperts.com/e/c/co/controversy_over_racial_characteristics_of_ancient_egyptians.htm And likewise, enjoyed the engagement. Hotep(Peace)Taharqa 23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and we should all agree by now that this quote below is false, so I took it out of the culture section..

Dynastic Egypt shows strong cultural ties to Crete dating back to the Old Kingdom (about 2686 BC). Greek culture received much of its Egyptian influence through Crete.

Crete/Minoan civilization

Crete was the center of the Minoan civilization (ca. 2600–1400 BCE), the oldest civilization in Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crete

Ancient Egypt, 3150 BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_egypt

The source:

http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/foreignrelations/crete.html

The statement says more than the source and totally over exaggerated it. No mention of strong cultural ties, I'm quite sure that people from Crete visited Egypt once or twice, but cultural ties is extremely far fetched and as far as I know, no one has ever made that claim before. They mention "indirect contact", not cultural ties, especially "strong" cultural ties. Egyptian influence over Greece came much later, and even that shouldn't be considered 'cultural' ties, Egypt was independent of Greece and culturally distinct for its first 2500 years. Honest mistake I guess.Taharqa 01:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the ties started out weak, I mean how else can ties start out, right? It was my mistake for writing it so it lead the reader to believe it was strong from the beginning which is of course a logical impossibility unless they had cell phones. But they became strong ties with Crete eventually, though. The 2686 date doesn't contradict the Minoan civilization date for three main reasons, so far as I know:

• Notice the abbreviation ca., indicating it's inexact.
• Where is the source for the 2600 date you provide?
• Carbon dating is not exactly perfect, and sometimes Carbon dating needs to be adjusted using certain correction algorithms. We should figure out which of the two dates is corrected for, if either. Can you revert back your removal, but keep it as "ties" instead of strong ties? Thank you, --Urthogie 03:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your logic, but as I stated, the source makes no mention of any cultural ties at all, but possible "Indirect contact", I'd assume in the form of distant trade. Egypt had trade contacts with a lot of people (probably most of the ancient world), no reason to single out Crete. Also, I provided the wikipedia source that confirms Crete to be hundreds of years younger than Egyptian civilization so this in no way can allude to any racial affinities, as is the concern of the article anyways.Taharqa 05:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I say if we are going to have a culture section it shouldn't be my or your choice which ties are mentioned. So if we keep the culture section, I insist on including Crete. However, one possibility would be to simply remove the culture section. After all, this isn't Culture of ancient Egypt. Which source establishes the connection between cultural evidence and genetic evidence?--Urthogie 12:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What I added back

King Tutankhamun

A previous rendering in 2002 by the Discovery Channel however, provided much different results. [15]

^Indeed, last time I nievely stated that the rendering portrayed "Nubian" features, which is a weasel word and people should be able to see for themselves what the source tells us. There were also many comments about his racial affinities from other sources other than what's posted, which may be relevant, but the inclusions reflect balance as it is now, so it may not be too significant.

Language as a way to classify "race"

Complications have also cropped up in the use of linguistics as a basis for racial categorization. The demise of the famous "Hamitic Hypothesis", which purported to show that certain African languages around the Nile area could be associated with "Caucasoid" peoples is a typical case. Such schemes fell apart when it was demonstrated that Negro tribes far distant also spoke similar languages, tongues that were supposedly a reserved marker of Caucasoid presence or influence. For work on African languages, see Wiki article Languages of Africa and Joseph Greenberg. Read the rest in article.

^^ Is appropriately put under the language category as people should be aware of the misconceptions and new research concerning race and language, just as they should be informed of the latest genetic studies or cranial interpretations. All sources are cited..

And that's about it for now, looks good to me...............

I also removed this quote from the Diop section. Other criticisms contend that Diop's method of categorizing the "types" of the mummies were biased, falsely grouping the mummies as "negroid" regardless of important distinguishing features.

^We can all agree that so-called 'negroid' features aren't exclusive or inclusive to so-called "blacks" (which was Diop's main argument), and even if this was so, it has nothing to do with the Skin test as diop's mummy selection had nothing to do with the test. I understand that this error was probably just due to a cloudy moment of contention and for the sake of making an opposing argument. So I'll add a better critique to balance it out then.

New Entry

"However, Diop does not describe any tests that verify his claims that melanin is "non-existent" among the "white-skinned races" nor provide evidence supporting his assertion that the absence of melanin in the epidermis is due to embalming techniques". Still, ironically, This technique was later adopted by the U.S. forensic department to determine the racial identity of badly burnt accident victims. Taharqa 01:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, looks pretty good, first one question-- is it used in forensics just because of hate crime or racial profiling, though? Because race is a relevant factor in society, and thus in crime, simply because of race relations and racism. So might this be the reason-- racism, rather than any genetic significance to race? If so, it's definitely an example of original research. Even if it's not, there are still arguments to be made that it is original research because it serves as an argument for Diop's methods, and is not directly related to the subject of "Race and the ancient Egyptians." I don't know much about the use of these techniques in forensics, so please fill me in.

Also, two other things I think need to be addressed in your new edits. First off, as a general rule, it's considered bad style to use the word "ironically". It's so subjective that some Wikipedia editors even use the search function to remove it from just about every article. Secondly, I think we're currently giving undue weight to the debunking of scientific fossils in the language section. I'm cool with us including this debunked science as a show for people who espouse this dead theory, but I don't think it should take up the majority of the language section. Could we either shorten it or somehow add more stuff on language? If we go with the latter approach, the Fench article of this page and the link you recently added in the above section might both be good places to go hunting for more linguistic research.--Urthogie 03:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

^Cool, understandable. And actually I only copied and pasted the word 'ironically' from the source, but I agree, it may be in bad taste.Taharqa 05:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The testimony of the ancient Historians

Uthorgie, I have the impression that you don't know well the chronology of ancient Egypt and that of your classical civilizations (Rome, Israel, Greece...). How can you put in question the tesimony of Diodorus of Sicily based on Egyptian and Nubian (Ethiopian) informants? These were Blacks. No dought about that. Diodorus of Sicily lived in 1st century BCE. Herodotus lived in the 5th century BCE. Their testimony is more important than the findings of Archeologists because they were witness of the events they were reporting and of the color of the skin of the people they met. We know, thanks to them, that up to their time the Inhabitants of Egypt were still Blacks. Archeology can have more weight in case of contradictions between ancient writers. But we know that there is not. Urthogie, are you going to make people believe that our testimony (based on our eyes) on the colors of the skin of the people of today is not useful because these colors will only be determined by the Archeologists of the future? Actually, you have the same reaction than that of the many biased Western Egyptologists who refuse to consider ancient writings on Egypt as sources of Egyptology. Other sciences do not have that complex. They start from the same writers who strangely enough are found genius! So I am sorry for Urthogie, ancient Egyptians were Blacks. Your Archeologists, be them from America or from Japan, are making fantasy when they try to contradict the Egyptians, the Nubians, the Greeks, the Arabs and the Hebrews about the blackness of the Egyptians which was obvious in those ancient times. This article of Wikipedia must include a section on the testimony of ancient literature on the race of the ancient Egyptians. Up to now I only have texts in Italian and French. If you have access to English versions of Herodotus, Aristotle..., please Urthogie, have the courage to begin writing that section. Objectivity in science means to be able to bow before an evidence. Or maybe Taharqa has already access to that ancient literature in English? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 19:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How would someone from the 5th century or 1st century BCE be a reliable source for what ancient Egyptians looked like 2/3 thousand years eariler. Nkuka Luka's answer: because they're black. Also, we already went over Herodotus's testimony earlier, and I shared my views of why his testimony is no less definitive than his view that Ethiopians had black semen.--Urthogie 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, I see that you never read Herodotus and other ancient writers we are talking about here. Herodotus was speaking about the Egyptians of his time. These people were at that time still black. You don't have to pick out a mistake made by somebody to say that everything he said is wrong (you do also make mistakes, but one cannot say that because of that you always make mistakes). Who knows? This statement by Herodotus about the semen of the Blacks (can you give me the reference?) can be more subtle than you imagine. He was maybe speaking about "the hidden color" we will call today "genetic". It is the case that a semen of a Black cannot produce a White and vice versa. Be careful Urthogie with your statements. Let's come back to the issue of the color of the ancient Egyptians. Ancient Egypt goes from The Unification (Thinite period 31000) to the end of the Second Domination of the Persians (332). But we can also come up to the Roman Domination (30 BCE-337 CE). The ancient writers are describing Egyptians who were contemporary to them, but who are ancient to us. Herodotus or Aristotle were not describing Egyptians of the time of the Unification of Egypt, but those of the Late Period. They said "they are black", "they are very black". They met these Egyptians, they lived with them side by side. And Urthogie says: "Herodotus, Aristotle were blind, stupid..". The Egyptians at the time of Herodotus and Aristotle were still part of the Black people. That is what you don't want to hear because it is a powerful testimony. So, Urthogie, do you really mind finding that literature in English and add it to the article? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to get off topic or anything, But I was over on Stormfront reading their racist crap about the color/race of the ancient Egyptians, and I would love for some of you wiki aurthors to go over their and shut them up 74.128.200.135 02:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

^I usually don't deal with the ignorant types at stormfront, they're for the most part, irrational and unbearably ignorant. Though I may slide over there in the near future sometime to give them a brief reality check.

What do you guys make of these quotes?

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) Greek philosopher, scientist, and tutor to Alexander the Great. Aristotle is said to have written 150 philosophical treatises.

Aristotle on skin color and 'courage'.

"Too black a hue marks the coward as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians and so does also too white a complexion as you may see from women, the complexion of courage is between the two." (Physiognomics, Vol. VI, 812a)

Aristotle also makes reference to the hair form and bowleggedness of the Egyptians and Ethiopians:

"Why are the Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because the bodies of living creatures become distorted by heat, like logs of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair supports this theory; for it is curlier than that of other nations, and curliness is as it were crookedness of the hair."

And

Ammianus Marcellinus (325/330-after 391) - Roman historian.

Marcellinus, in his description of the ancient Egyptians of his time:

"...the men of Egypt are mostly brown or black with a skinny desiccated look." (Ammianus Marcellinus, Book XXII para 16) (Physiognomics, Book XIV, p. 317) Taharqa 04:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Taharqa for yours findings. They are so clear and convincing! As I said I only have some of them in French and Italian. Now, can you find more, including Herodotus (The Persian Wars or Histories [the title changes depending on editors], §§ 55-57, § 104). Then, would you like creating a section right some where in the top of the article dedicated to those tesimonies of the ancient writers who lived side by side with the Egyptians and the Nubians (Ethiopians)? It will be a big loss if an article of this kind (Ancient Egypt and Race or Racial Caracteristics of the ancient Egyptians) ignores the contribution of the ancient scholars. I presume many people are not aware of it. Urthogie, I think, won't disagree with the suggestion of creating a section on that contribution. Once again, thank you Taharqa for your willingness to make know and understand Ancient African History as it really is. Peace! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 12:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

suggestions

• I added a history section. Please add to it so that it includes Artistotle and Herodotus and such. Please add to it.
• Taraqh, can you make the changes we discussed about your most recent edits?--Urthogie 12:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, Taraqh, I looked up that Jew stuff and the article has it wrong. Jews are mainly middle eastern in their genetic history-- Steven Pinker explains that they look similar to any people they move near in the diaspora after a couple centuries because one intermarraige or rape is enough to make a certain local gene completely take over the jewish gene pool there because it's very adaptive for that area. So there's relatively little admixture with other groups.--Urthogie 12:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

^^Basically he asserts what I already knew, phenotype and genotype are two different things. They have adapted European phenotypes because of their history, but cluster towards middle easterners because of their geographical proximity, plus I already made the distinction between 'European' Jews and Asiatic Jews earlier. This repeats the same information.

And I made the changes we discussed. Taharqa 15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, European Jews are more clustered together, much like African Americans because of the historical bottle neck. I'll check out your changes, ok.--Urthogie 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

More discussions

A side note, to these arguments about ancient history and such: I recognize that the Egyptians had wooly hair, and dark skin when Herodotus and Aristotle went to them. The question is how black and how wooly-- there are arabs who can be described as dark skinned with wooly hair, but are nonetheless recognized as arab in today's society. For example I have a friend here from Saudi Arabia who fits that description. Another issue that remains in such arguments is that they probably had the "Caucasoid" craniometry associated with Ethiopians.--Urthogie 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, Herodotus knows the Arabs or their ancestors. He speaks of "the Syrians of Palestine". He never, as far as I know, associates them to the Egyptians. But most of the ancient writers do associate the Egyptians to the Ethiopians. Urthogie, don't misunderstand the word "Ethiopia". It doesn't refer to the "Ethiopians" of today! The "Ethiopia" of the Greeks of the time of Aristotle are the Nubians. And for Aristotle as for Herodotus and other writers, the Egyptians are always associated to the Nubians. That is the simple truth found in the literature we are talking about. Arabs have nothing to do with the ancient Egyptians. Arabs, as black as they can be, are not natives of Africa where they entered to settle only in 7th century CE. They might be Asian Blacks. Egyptians are African natives after all. They are African Black. Avoid, please, mixing arguments. How black are they? For Aristotle, according to the quotations made by Taharka, they are very black: "Too black a hue marks the coward as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians and so does also too white a complexion as you may see from women, the complexion of courage is between the two." (Physiognomics, Vol. VI, 812a). For Marcellinus, one found brown and black colors among them: "...the men of Egypt are mostly brown or black with a skinny desiccated look." (Ammianus Marcellinus, Book XXII para 16) (Physiognomics, Book XIV, p. 317). As I pointed in the past, quoting the Historian Ki-Zerbo, the brown complexion is part of the black race. It was found in Egypt (Marcellus is clear on that), in Nubia (LoLguys gave recently nice pictures of mixed brown and black Nubians in the tomb of Hue) and among Blacks of today in Africa (Ki-Zerbo). The blackness of the ancient Egyptians is really not a problem for somebody reflecting on this subject without bias or a racist anti african black background. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 13:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Palestine wasn't Arab at this point in history. Syria wasn't Arab till the 7th century. So you're just proving my point. Also, suggesting I have a racist or anti-african bias is completely untrue.--Urthogie 15:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Syria wasn't Arab till the 7th century.

^They have the same Eurasian ancestors, 'Arab' isn't a racial term, it's cultural, they have always been the same people, with the exception of the Yemenites, who have substantial Sub-Saharan influence, and probably had more so back then.

As far as the quotes, well, they all compared them to the Ethiopians, so why don't you try and fit it in that context before you look outside it. They were mentioned in the same breath, side by side as being too black and having curlier hair than other nations. That and the fact that the Ethiopians were directly bordering Egypt gives you a logical answer. Besides, we're talking about dark wholly haired people in Africa, Eurasian people were well known to the Greeks at the time and would of been mentioned if it had applied. I don't see any logical way around those quotes honestly, other than that they were similar to Ethiopians (Nubians), which is plainly stated in writing.Taharqa 16:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

genetics and culture

Which source establishes the connection between cultural evidence and genetic evidence?

Early culture, from whence it developed and the surrounding areas who had input and/or shared culture with Egypt from the start. Which is why I put what I put under culture to begin with, because it was the only thing relevant to the article at the time. I have no idea why you insist on mentioning Crete, obviously Nubia and Lybia had much more of a connection to Egypt than far away Crete.. It's confusing to me why you insist on mentioning them, especially when Crete is not known to have any real cultural ties with Egypt, and in reference to Egypt, Crete really just isn't important at all and theres no reason to mention them. But I guess I can get rid of the culture section if it seems problematic, because indeed culture can be (in a lot of cases) suggestive of, but not implicit of the "racial" or ethnic identity of a given group..Taharqa 15:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We need a source. Otherwise it's original research. A source is required to draw the connection, even if it's true. So do you mind if I remove it? The only reason I ever added that section header in the first place is because the French wikipedia article had such a heading.--Urthogie 15:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I erased it already. I never made the connection in the first place, you did when you asked me the question.Taharqa 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

ancient history section

Did Aristotle go to Egypt ever? I thought this question hasn't been answered as of yet. Or was he just repeating hearsay and attempting to do some logic with it? Questions have been raised about Herodotus as well.[16]--Urthogie 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions have been raised about Herodotus as well.

What are you talking about? That source questions whether or not he has been to the black sea, not Egypt, we know he traveled to Egypt and went as far south as the 1rst Cataract at least.

There's apparently no solid evidence that Aristotle ever visits Egypt but it would be foolish to assume that he never met/seen any Egyptians and Ethiopians. Besides, he confirms what Herodotus and Ammianus Marcellinus says, who both surely traveled to Egypt. Even if Aristotle did repeat hearsay(which is doubtful), obviously they must of been described to him by people with no reason to lie, which is confirmed by writers who lived before (Herodotus) and after (Marcellinus) him.Taharqa 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'd say that it's 90% likely they said what they said based on seeing Egyptians. Also, other ancient writers seem to agree with them, with none as far as I know disagreeing. However, certain things still stand in the way of my adopting Luka's view of their appearence:

• Mummies with straight hair
• Cranial studies
• Genetic studies

Now, I know Taharqa's knee jerk response would be to say this is all in the range of "Africanness", but this avoids an important point-- there's an inherent contradiction in referencing Herodotus for your view on ancient egypt while simultaneously admitting that that view doesn't fit the physical evidence so well.

Mummies with straight hair

• Cranial studies
• Genetic studies

Actually, Keita has already proven that the Crania was African Crania. Brace' study has been discredited. He used only one male sample from Uganda to represent all of Africa. http://en.allexperts.com/e/c/co/controversy_over_racial_characteristics_of_ancient_egyptians.htm

There has been no DNA testing on mummies, and current DNA tests to indicate their origins indicated that they were African, most likely East and that they are unified with all other Africans under the PN2 clade.

Numerous genetic tests have been performed on the Egyptians in order to determine their origins. One maternal study linked Egyptians with people from Ethiopia and Eritrea.[7] There was also a Y chromosome study by Lucotte et al performed on Egyptians, with haplotypes V, XI, and IV being most common. Haplotype V is common in Berbers and has a low frequency outside Africa. [8] Haplotypes V and XI, and IV are all supra/sub-Saharan horn of African haplotypes, and they are far more dominant in Egyptians than Near Eastern or European haplotypes. [9] Kivisild T; Reidla M; Metspalu E; Rosa A; Brehm A; et al. Ethiopian mitochondrial DNA heritage: Tracking gene flow across and around the gate of tears. 2004 American Journal of Human Genetics 75 (5): 752-770. Determined there is a close genetic relationship between Ethiopians, Eritreans and Yemenis, as well as pointing out genetic affinities with Egypt.

He (Cavalli-Sforza) never studied Egyptian Mtdna or Y-Chromsome. Cavalli-Sforza findings were before the finding of the Pn2 clade. The Pn2 clade was found to unite africans from North, South, East and West africa. The finding of the Pn2 clade has changed the way that African genetics is viewed. Most Africans including Egyptians are overwhelmingly of the Pn2 clade E3a and E3b. http://en.allexperts.com/e/c/co/controversy_over_racial_characteristics_of_ancient_egyptians.htm

There were no mummies with straight hair native to Egypt, read this. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/hair2.html

By the way, did you notice I started the section and added herodotus's image? Anyways, please help add to this section.--Urthogie 17:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, to be fair though, I found other statements that can be seen as opposing or contradictory to those. They were also described as 'medium toned' and near that of northern Indians, lighter than the people of their border, who in turn were slightly lighter than the Ethiopians. Which I tried to reconcile with the other quotes, and it was a little more difficult. My only explanation was that these quotes seem to come at much later dates (excluding Marcellinus). Though at the same time they're still describing 'dark skinned' "mulatto" types and compares them to Indians, who are also mulatto types.

Indeed, Achilles Tatius of Alexandria writes his impression of the herdsmen in the Delta.

"they are blackish, like half-castes!"

According to Arrian (Indica 6.9): (c. 86 A.D. - after 146 A.D.)

The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically.

Strabo - (63/64 BC – c. AD 24) As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in colour, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Aegyptians..

Marcus Manilius - (fl. 1st century AD)

The Ethiopians stain the world and depict a race of men steeped in darkness; less sun-burnt are the natives of India; the land of Egypt, flooded by the Nile, darkens bodies more mildly owing to the inundation of its fields: it it a country nearer to us and its moderate climate imparts a medium tone. – Manilius, Astronomica 4.724

French scholar Constantin-François de ChassebÅ"uf, Comte de Volney visited Egypt between 1783 and 1785 and comments:

"...[The Copts] all have a bloated face, puffed up eyes, flat nose, thick lips; in a word, the true face of the negro. I was tempted to attribute it to the climate, but when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says: 'As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair. ...'" In other words, the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native-born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood, mixed for several centuries with that of the Romans and Greeks, must have lost the intensity of its original color, while retaining nonetheless the imprint of its original mold. We can even state as a general principle that the face is a kind of monument able, in many cases, to attest or shed light on historical evidence on the origins of peoples.[33]

I'll try and contribute in a second, I'm still researching.Taharqa 17:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the hair link, and it links to a forum post where he puts all these "People of New Guinea / Solomon Isles" on it, for an argument of what's in the range of black! But they are from New Guinea! We already know hair is different there than from Africa.--Urthogie 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet and still, the chart clearly shows that it was well with in the range of the mean average of African hair, and it explains about how bonds break over time. Besides, hair has nothing to do with race..

It was in 1877 that Dr. Pruner-Bey wrote a paper in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 6 (1877), pp. 71-92 titled On the Human Hair as a Race Character, concluded that ". . . . we arrive at the conclusion that the color of the hair alone is insufficient to characterize a race." http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/on_human_hair_-_1877.pdfTaharqa 18:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1877 didn't know anything about race. Some Egyptian mummies are in the expected range, I'm sure, but I don't know of an empirical study of their hair. If an empirical study found they were all in a scientifically established range, I'd start to hear them out. We could also add a subsection to "research" on that.--Urthogie 18:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Urgothie, you're backwards, in 1877 they believed in race, now a days scientists don't, so choose who you believe, either way hair has nothing to do with race. The hair was essentially African anyways according to the chart like I said that averaged out 4 complete studies.

San, Southern African 55.00 Zulu, Southern African 55.00 Sub-Saharan Africa 60.00 Tasmanian (Black) 64.70 Australian (Black) 68.00 Western European 71.20 Asian Indian 73.00 Navajo American 77.00 Chinese 82.60

The overall average of all four sets of ancient Egyptian hair samples was 60.02.Taharqa 18:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, who did this metanlysis of the 4 studies? Was the metanalysis published in a scholarly journal? I looked through the 1877 one and I didn't find anything close to these numbers... (I'm reading up on it now, I'll get back to you). also please note that for those who believe in race today, hair is valid, which is why they seperate Australians from Africans.--Urthogie 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

^Of course, still doesn't mean that there is a such thing as African hair, the social ideas of the laymen can not be used as evidence. Plus the chart still shows that the hair is with in the African average.Taharqa 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Urthogie for adding this section on "ancient History" to the article. Now we need texts mainly from Taharqa. The "French" article deals more with the issue of "the origin of the ancient Egyptians". There is not yet a real consensus there, even if the article as it stands now is better than this one on "Ancient Egypt and Race". But with a bit of good will, this "English" or "American" article can become a reference! An encyclopedic article must study an issue from many fronts in order to please a good range of readers. Besides, I have a little problem. I don't always see changes on my screen. I have to click twice on the "article" to see the newest version. Do others have the same problem? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 19:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple things we still need to do or address

• First off, great edits, Taharqah (sp?). My changes were mainly cosmetic and moving something down into a renamed "art and architecture" section.
• I added a section for "hair."
• I removed some Original Research from the genetics section:

Today's sub-saharan identity of some East African people is compromised by studies showing modern-day [[Ethiopia]]ns in the [[Horn of Africa]] to generally cluster as an intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and [[Middle-East]]erners ([http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007 Risch, Tang et al. 2002]), reflecting the nation's proximity to [[Asia]] and the Middle East. A number of matrilineal genetic studies have detected almost equal sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages among the populations examined: <blockquote>Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cushitic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages. This finding, consistent with classic genetic-marker studies (Cavalli-Sforza 1997) and previous mtDNA results, is also in agreement with a similarly high proportion of western Asian Y chromosomes in Ethiopians (Passarino et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2002), which supports the view (Richards et al. 2003) that the observed admixture between sub-Saharan African and, most probably, western Asian ancestors of the Ethiopian populations applies to their gene pool in general.<ref>[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v75n5/41578/41578.html Kivisild et al. 2004]</ref></blockquote>

• This is original research because it asserts something about the Ethiopians with no explicit mention of Egyptians. I'm surprised we hadn't caught this earlier.

• I was wondering, in what order should we organize the research sections? I oppose going alphabetically, because Art and Architecture is the least important, but I'm also not sure what the order of importance here is.

• We should enhance our background section in regards to racism. It doesn't explain why this is an important issue to people, and it doesn't shed light on it at all. Various opinions should be represented, of course, but right now it doesn't establish notability of the subject to people enough.

• We may soon be ready for a peer review. Keep adding stuff!--Urthogie 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the Ethiopian study, I remembered seeing that a while ago, but I just let it go. Is the ancient history section cool though? Feel free to fix any mistakes or typos, I tried to be as neutral as possible.

I agree with you on the background section for racism also, it deserves expansion. I'll try and see if I can't find some relevant material a little later if you don't beat me to it.

We may soon be ready for a peer review. Keep adding stuff

Haha, you're crazy, I wish, lol. Article does look good though, everyone is contributing, and actually you're helping me look at it another way also. All of Egypt in my opinion wasn't 'what we'd call' black, but I believe a lot were, especially in upper Egypt, and those were the people who essentially started the civilization in the early beginning. I'm willing to say that the culture and civilization was essentially African, but multi-ethnic with different waves of people coming at different times. This is why there are so many contradictions and confusion as to what they were for the layman, the fact is they weren't just one people. I only became passionate about this when coming across racist idiots who intentionally go out of their way to deny the extremely important African elements, or what they call 'black'. It seems as if the Ethiopians (Nubians) and Egyptians were closely related, but not exactly the same, not to mention Egypt was more of a melting pot. In the end I now think Egypt was a mix of Nubian and Lybian type Africans, and later on the Hyksos, Greeks, Romans, then Arabs, etc all brought in a more complex foreign mixture that we can see today, mainly in the delta region.Taharqa 20:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I won't deny that this is a powerful historical fact. The imagery of African-Americans is at the very root of how they're treated. If Americans would learn more about Egypt it might counter a lot of the images from minstrel shows and such. Now, until now, I haven't expressed my views on appearence so much as I've analyzed sources and given my view on genetics and crania. My current view is that if we all got teleported to dynastic Egypt, we would perceive 4 common types of appearences:

1. People that most americans would call black.
2. People that just looked plain weird, and were impossible to categorize. (like that king tut cover)
3. People that looked kind of like arabs do today.
4. Slaves from the North and South.

It's pretty clear to me that numbers 1 through 3 have all been kings of egypt at some point throughout its dynastic history. Culturally, Egypt was essentially African, as you've pointed out. In pre-dynastic egypt, we'd probably group everyone under number 1 and number 4, even if many of them didn't look like the archetypal "true negro" in regard to facial structure. The evidence for the nubian dynasties should be added to this article, if we get a chance.

The main reason I opposed this idea of a black Egypt (which I'm now willing to respect, even if I don't agree to it) wasn't because of eurocentric prejudice, but rather because I was under the impression it was a form of black chauvanism. But you've shown me that it can in fact take the form of scientific arguments.

You noted earlier that you would head over to Stormfront to argue with them on their forums. I highly advise against it. They'll make faulty arguments, and you'll get nowhere. People who believe in that type of crap can't respond to logic. --Urthogie 20:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

True about stormfront, I thought of it, but no, I've read a few of their threads and it of no use, science and objective scholarship doesn't exist over there, it's just a constant socio-political race war. I've long gotten out of the biased stage as there is no use lying to myself, let alone other people. I just have to go with that facts available, and form an opinion. I don't want to force my opinion on people, but I will by any means try and get the facts across, because mis-information leads to bogus opinions. I'm going to the gym and out to eat for a minute, I'll be back later to try and contribute to the article a little bit more. Hotep....Taharqa 21:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job Taharqa. This section was really missing. Now readers know that this issue of the race of the ancient Egyptians can be traced back in the remote past. But I have still something more to ask. Can you find biblical (on the Hebrew side) and coranic (on the Arab side) ancient literatures which address the same issue to add to the article in the section "ancient History" or in a new one? Hebrews and Arabs have been living side by side (sometimes even mixing) with the Egyptians. Readers would like to know their versions on the skin color of the Egyptians. According to me, the introduction is too long. Besides, it contains quotations. I renders the reading, from the very beginning, too heavy! The introduction must be brief and without quotations, but clear enough to give the real picture of the whole article. The order of the sections must be a mix of chronolgy (the history of the theme) and logic (the importance of the arguments involved). The article has already improved a lot. Thank you to both Urthogie and Taharqa for this working day! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would ne very hesitant about adding stuff from the bible, as historiography issues come into play. It's not a good scientific source.--Urthogie 21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, indeed, Eurasian/Arab tribes, Hebrews, etc were all contemporary with the Egyptians, and personally I do hold the fact that the Bible lists Egypt under the family of Ham/Khm, Mizriam, brother of Cush(Ethiopia) Put(Land Of Punt, some believe Phut), and Canaan(Ancient Sumerians/Babylonians) to be circumstantial evidence indicating possible relationships, and take it into consideration all the time. But we would have to cover two other points of contention, mainly is the Bible literally reliable in the name of objective scholarship, and can we prove that ancient Sumer was inhabited by Africans? These will have to be cleared up before we can even consider the Bible a source.

At the moment I'm not aware of too many Arab or ancient Eurasian writers who commented on these aspects. As far as the depth of the section, feel free to touch it up if you will, yet be sure to leave the main points of contention in tact, I'm not sure that I see too much of a problem with it as it is, but of course it isn't perfect. I'd need a little bit of help to perfect it.Taharqa 01:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Lepsius Canon" and the teats of the Egyptians

Taharqa or Urthogie. Does someone know a bit about the "Lepsius Canon"? It seems that it is the best means to determine the racial caracteristics of the ancient Egyptians. The article does not mention it. It can fit well in the section "Research" if the informations about it are found. Another thing. The pictures illustrating the Egyptians in the article are not real "photos" but modern "renderings" by Eurocentric drawers. I think it is Urthogie who brought them. I suggest to have them removed and replaced by real "photos". Finally, the teats of the breasts of Blacks and Whites do not look alike. Those of Whites are yellow or red and those of Blacks are black. A section can deal with this subject if "photos" of the breasts of the Egyptians, especially women, are found. The teats can help identify the race of the ancient Egyptians. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 09:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• We're not using a model of race from the 1800's for the research section. It is clearly not the best model, unless you were born 100 years ago. The research section is only for the last 50 years or so. We can, however, add Lepsius's stuff to the newly created 18th and 19th century views section I added.
• What proof do you have that these pictures are drawn over? If you can prove it definitively I'll add modern photos instead.
• Asians have dark teats as well. I'm not aware of any study that uses teats in identifying Egyptians, but if you find such a modern study we can add it.--Urthogie 13:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie,

• I will make more research on "the Canon of Lepsius". Cheikh Anta Diop refered to it at the Cairo Conference in 1974 as being the best means to determine the proportions, and by the way the race, of the ancient Egyptians.
• I maintain that the illustrations of the article are not photos, but "modern drawings" in an entempt to "correct", or to put it rigthly, to falsify the real images found on the walls. The last picture in particular removed the Black original Egyptians to replace them with more brown ones. Incredible! The pictures are found here: http://www.geocities.com/enbp/foreigners.html for the tomb of Seti, and http://www.geocities.com/enbp/foreigners.html for the tomb of Ramesses III. Those who are called Nubians are in reality Egyptians. We find there the word "rmT", mentionned also in the "modern rendering". Please, replace your "modern renderings" with the authentic pictures.
• "Asian" is not a race. There are of cause Black Asians. I still have to find studies dealing with that issue of the difference in color between the teats of Whites and Blacks.

Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, for most of those who believe in race asians are considered a race. Some even believe in the hybrid race theory. Anyways, lemme point out how the link you provided proves you wrong. In regards to the so called "true image", it says:

This composite modern drawing, frequently shown in Afrocentric texts as supposed "proof" that the Egyptians and Kushites were identical, is a known error (click here for brief explanation). The actual tomb does not show anything of the sort.

Thanks, --Urthogie 18:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, I am not refering to the picture found in the book of Lepsius (in the link, it is on the right side, don't look at that). Look well to the pictures in the left side. They are real pictures. Those of the article are "modern drawings". So, in the link, the picture of the tomb of Seti is in the top on the left side. The one of the tomb of Ramesses III is just under that of Seti. The "modern renderings" are on the right side, first that of the tomb of Seti found also in the article, then that of the book of Lepsius. The picture of the tomb of Ramesses III illustrating the article is another rendering not found in this site, but still a "modern rendering", not a real photo. Your Yurco is strange. If he was in the tomb, why does he not provide any photo to support his views? Please Urthogie, look carefully to the pictures I am speaking about. Again here the link http://www.geocities.com/enbp/foreigners.html Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 20:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the one you claim is fabricated it says:

Copy of some figures from the Seti I tomb by Minutoli in 1820, possibly when the tomb was in better shape. From left: four Libyans, Nubian, Syrian, and Egyptian.

Better shape, not edited.--Urthogie 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there's heated debate over that and Yurco expects people to take his word for it, regardless of the fact that the Nubian looking people are called "Rm.T in the photo, only Egyptians are Rm.t, and he never explained that. In my opinion Yurco may be right but I can't just take his word for it, especially when there's things that he avoided explaining and he never took a photo to validate his claim. You have one person who went there and took a photo to prove it, claiming that the tomb pictures are real. Then you have some one else who claims to have gone there, but has no pictures to prove it, and he says it's fake. It really means nothing either way to me and doesn't effect my opinion. They're discussing and analyzing it thoroughly in this thread on Egypt Search. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004936..

^I'm making no argument for that one though, Its isn't a shut case for me...

And Urgothie! Again, bro isn't lying, that website indeed is biased and that picture on the front is a "Eurocentric" rendering which effectively makes the Egyptians' skin lighter, which isn't cool. I've never seen them colored that light in any tomb unless it was the women who they drew yellow (for symbolic purposes representing fertility), This is the real actual photo.

http://www.catchpenny.org/images/seti1a.gif

^Now look at the one in the front article.. I just noticed that myself when he brought it up, the one in the article isn't a true representation, has nothing to do with lighting, it's a completely different color.. I suggest that you take it down and replace it with the real authentic photo, and not a copy/rendering. I'm going to go ahead and remove and wait for one of you guys to add the actual photo, we have to be as accurate as possible here and that photo is misrepresented to the extreme, notice the Eurasian and Lybian both stayed the same color, and the Egyptian is the only one drawn lighter. You type in "tomb of races - Seti I" in google image and the authentic photo is the only one that pops up, the other one is a cool representation, but in concern to this article it's a farce.Taharqa 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if it would be right to put "Language as a way to classify race" under 18th/19th century views, since the hamitic myth and dynastic race theory were both prevelant and saw its peak in the 20th century. Maybe you can switch the name of the section to Old views, or older, or something of that nature?Taharqa 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm not gonna comment on the forum discussion because we use neither image. But, Taharqa, there's three points you're missing about this photo[17]:

• This photo has relatively bad lighting, hence the lack of light exposure on some parts.
• The one on the page is from the 1800's. The constant study of tombs can have an effect on them and wear them down.
• It's original research you're using right now. You need a mainstream source that makes your point about this image.--Urthogie 21:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Urgothie, that's backwards, what you're (or whoever posted that picture) doing is original research from a geocities website that tries to debunk 'afrocentric' claims, it isn't concerned with science and I can easily refute it with an Afrocentric geocities site. But what's the use? Common sense Urgothie, seriously, those are two different renderings and what proof do we have that this is a direct photo even if the lighting from the original was bad? Did they say that they went back and took another picture? Or is that an assumption?Taharqa 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, the picture you just provide can be another rendering, maybe close to the reality. The true picture of the tomb of Seti I shows the wall no longer in good shape, top on the left side http://www.geocities.com/enbp/foreigners.html But we better give that picture than these drawings which are misleading people. Unfortunately, they are found on the covers of many important books dealing with Egypt or with Israel (the Bible). Eurocentrist scholars are doing a bad job when it comes to African Civilizations. For example, as Urthogie noticed, they called Nubians the Egyptians of the tomb of Ramesses III, just because they are very black. But the inscription is clear. They are called "rmT", a word for Egyptians! Now, the rendering replaces these black Egyptians (first called Nubians) by lighter ones with the same text where we see the word "rmT". This is not fair. But this is actually the kind of science people are learning. Unbelievable! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 21:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

^You're exactly right, I'd have to agree with everything you say here.Taharqa 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This image isn't from geocities originally. I got it from thebanmappingproject. I'm not gonna be on this site for the weekend, please don't make overly drastic changes because I completely disagree with your arguments here and I'll respond to them when I get a chance.--Urthogie 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

^Cool.. I myself won't make any changes at all, and I don't think there's an argument, we know for a fact that this is a copy/rendering and not the original, only thing to be discussed is if it's fair to present that as an authentic representation of the original over the other one, or either copy for that matter. Be it that the article is about 'race', this is extremely important, in any other context it isn't so significant. It should be confirmed that this is a replica of the actual tomb, which of course it isn't..Taharqa 22:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first off, four things about the image you removed

• It's from almost two centuries ago. Constant study effects the image.
• The photographs of it suffer from not using enough light, I suspect because flash cameras are banned so as not to damage it.
• It's not from geocities, I never got it from that site. I got it from thebanmappingproject.
• The burden of proof is on you to prove that the image was edited, using a reliable source, not your own two eyes.

I'll be restoring it until you address these points.

As far as the discussion of the other images on that article on that forum-- I could care less. A bunch of afrocentrists on a forum picking apart what a scientific researcher wrote and calling it "Eurocentric", because he wasn't clear on a couple of points (have they ever though of, I don't know, emailing him?) doesn't interest me.--Urthogie 13:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over images

Urthogie, the image removed is not a picture, but a copy by Minutoli in 1820. In "geocities" http://www.geocities.com/enbp/foreigners.html, the photograph is on the left side and the copy on the right side. So you can see both of them. As the subject we are dealing with is very sensitive, I suggest we put the photograph in the article rather than the drawing. It will be the same case with the representation of the races in the tomb of Ramesses III. The drawing made of it is a big falsification which cannot be tolerated in an article such as this on "ancient Egypt and race". Lusala lu ne Nkuka--82.88.213.182 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well I can't find any photographs that are in good condition with good lighting dealing with the Egyptian concept of race. I suppose we'll remove both. What images do you think could benefit this article, then?--Urthogie 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For the Nubians, I suggest that we put the picture of the Nubians in the tomb of Huy given once by LoLGuys http://www.dignubia.org/maps/timeline/img/b1540a-nubian-tribute-huy.jpg, and for the Egyptians, the Libyans and the Syrians, the picture of the races in the tomb of Ramesses found in geocities http://www.geocities.com/enbp/foreigners.html. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 22:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The first one doesn't seem to be Wikipedia:Fair use, and the second one is foreign races, but not Egyptian ones.--Urthogie 13:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the first picture. But it is so beautiful! As for the second, you know well from our discussion that we have Syrians, Egyptians and Libyans. Of cause, it is very interesting to see that Egyptians can be taken for Nubians, because they are the same people ethnically and racially. But when the Egyptians present Egyptians, we have to accept that reality, and not say they are wrong. Nobody will believe that the Egyptians who built such a great civilization were suffering from a lack of self-definition! "rmT" means Egyptian. This word is written on the top of those dark Blacks on the photograph of the tomb of Ramesses III. The drawers of second removed picture put these word on the top of the brown Blacks taken maybe from the tomb of Seti I to replace the dark Blacks of the tomb of Ramesses III. See the best to do, but it is becoming clear to me that it is quite impossible to let pass the idea of a "White" or "mix race" Egypt without falsifying facts. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 15:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the argument is that they're mislabeled, not that they couldn't define themselves. But this is a source which says it. You're free to disagree.--Urthogie 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What prove do you have that they are mislabeled? This is a Eurocentric view which thinks that Western Egyptologists are more intelligent than the Egyptian scribes and artists. Science implies also humility. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 18:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence isn't defined as not making mistakes, and intelligence isn't defined as a group trait. I can supply a source and the reason they give, if you insist.--Urthogie 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I second your earlier comment Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka a white or mixed race Egyptian civilization is just obsorb. There are just too much evidence that black Africans from the South and West of the Egypt were the original migrants of the area. 74.128.200.135 19:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, I am eager to know your "source and the reason they give" to demonstrate that the Egyptian scribes or artists did mistakes while drawing and painting Egyptians. Egypt is neither in Europe nor in Asia. It is in Africa. Africa is the cradle of humanity and saw the birth of the first civilization. All the testimonies tend to shaw that ancient Egyptians were Blacks, be some of them dark and some brown, as it is still the case among Black populations in Africa and the diaspora. This is a simple fact. According to me, Cheikh Anta Diop http://www.africawithin.com/diop/origin_egyptians.htm and Basil Davidson http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=34&mforum=africa do really provide the best summuries of what we can know and verify today about the race and the origin of the ancient Egyptians. Eurocentric scholars do not want to hear that. But they will have to remove Egypt from Africa and place it in America, Europe or Asia, and put also the cradle of humanity in one of those three continents. We are waiting to see their next move. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 21:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You can start a new talk page section if you want to discuss your opinion on ancient egyptian race. This section is simply on a given image? By the way, I will look into the issue of why they say it was mislabeled. If you assume, and they give a good reason, you'll look very presumptious and rude. So hold it for a second.--Urthogie 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, this is the second time you are making your promise! Remember that there are still images to be discussed namely the image [7] http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/images/large/15652.jpg of the section "Ancient Egyptian view". Somebody, it might be you, wrote that he is a Nubian. Actually, that man is an Egyptian! Let me wait a bit for your findings. I am sorry if I look "presumptious and rude" to you. As you are not an African, you maybe won't realize easily how Eurocentric thinking has harmed Africa and Africans during centuries. But this has to come to an end. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 22:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it wasn't Eurocentrism that conquered Africa, but guns and money, and the human will towards power. As far as the Nubian image, the egyptologist Yurco seems to have addressed the misconceptions. The people who disagree with him are on Egyptsearch.com forums. They're not exactly notable.--Urthogie 14:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Yurco! He thought he can say anything he wants and be convincing because he is Yurco! You were yourself desapointed by his arguments when you wrote: "I agree, there's heated debate over that and Yurco expects people to take his word for it, regardless of the fact that the Nubian looking people are called "Rm.T in the photo, only Egyptians are Rm.t, and he never explained that. In my opinion Yurco may be right but I can't just take his word for it, especially when there's things that he avoided explaining and he never took a photo to validate his claim. You have one person who went there and took a photo to prove it, claiming that the tomb pictures are real. Then you have some one else who claims to have gone there, but has no pictures to prove it, and he says it's fake. It really means nothing either way to me and doesn't effect my opinion. They're discussing and analyzing it thoroughly in this thread on Egypt Search. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004936..". Those people called Nubians are just Egyptians as put it clearly the Egyptian scribes and artists. By the way, even the picture [7] I spoke about earlier have to be removed or renamed Egyptian. It is said in the article that the Black man in the picture is a Nubian. But we know thanks to the hieroglyphs that he is an Egyptian. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 22:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Brief clarification, I'm the one who wrote what you just quoted, not Urgothie.Taharqa 04:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, you said: "Sorry, but it wasn't Eurocentrism that conquered Africa, but guns and money, and the human will towards power". Actually, be it Eurocentrism or not, the truth could be this: "Europeans are masters at destroying other peoples histories". I found this quotation in "Egypt Search...". Maybe you won't desagree with it. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 22:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no unified "Western" culture. And I don't care about some false opinion on Egypt Search.--Urthogie 12:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nubians next to Egyptians in hieroglyphic dipictions

In a work by E. A. Wallis Budge, I distinctly remember a plate showing hieroglyphics next to reliefs of egyptians enslaving nubians. The nubians thereon clearly had thicker, coarser and more wirey hair, darker skin, and much more prognathism than the Egyptians so depicted, although, the Egyptians seemed to be more dolichocephalic. Does anyone know the source of the image? It might be one of the 'gods of the Egyptians' books, or a work on hieroglyphics in particular. This relief was a period work. Later accounts by Greeks as given in the article would be that of a differing "racial" type than those of the period of those earlier Egyptians dynasties. 67.5.157.48 04:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it a photograph or an artistic rendering? Have you ever seen representations of pharaoh Akhnaton and his family? http://www.crystalinks.com/akhnaton.html Who said that only Nubians look like that? A Study on Egyptian names "the black" and "the red" showed that there were more dark skin people in Egypt than the brown ones. Besides, let's not forget that there are brown and dark Nubians http://www.dignubia.org/maps/timeline/img/b1540a-nubian-tribute-huy.jpg. Among Black people, we still have these brown and dark colours. Are not Egyptians from Nubian origin? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 22:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you guys should hunt down the book "Egypt In Africa", it's a classic volume and very informative. I got a little bit of info on the cultural aspects between Egypt and Africa from it and I can contribute that in a little while. http://www.amazon.com/Egypt-Africa-Theodore-Celenko/dp/0936260645

The Egyptians are undoubtably of Nubian origin, as the A-Group of lower Nubia and Upper Egypt had shared culture, the same culture that lead to dynastic Egyptian culture. Culture swept from south to north, and a kingdom was unified in the north. First dynasty Abydos tombs shows remains with predominantly stereotypical "negroid" morphology. Here's the study by Sonia R. Zakrzewski showing that AE's had a "super-negroid" body plan, not in my own words. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/egyptian_body_proportions.pdf

There indeed was some type of difference, biologically between northern and southern Egyptians though, and while culturally Egypt conformed to its southernly rooted culture, it conformed biologically, or cranial-metrically more towards the Northern type, though the southern Egyptians were still linked to the further southern groups like Somali, etc, while Northern Egyptians resembled modern Berber people cranial-facially, and it seems both types kept their "super-negroid" body plan. The thing is, if cranial studies can't be linked with archeology it's worthless, the Brace study being a good example since it's been shown that Europeans didn't emigrate into the Nile Valley. It wouldn't be right to call these northern Egyptians mulatto Berber types and Southern Egyptians East Africans/Negrito types. It was a diverse mold of African types period, most of them dark skinned yet so many people seem to interpret that as "Mixed".. A better word is multi-ethnic, not multi-racial, if any thing they were still closely related groups, despite the differences. Berbers are said by some to have came from East Africa anyways. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.htmlTaharqa 01:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)