Talk:Ancient Egypt/Archive 1

Steel in Ancient Egypt?
There is a reference to possible steel dating from 2900 BC. However, that source is an Egyptian tourism website, hardly a reputable source. Also, on that SAME website, it lists that Egyptians couldn't possibly have steel because the iron age didn't start until later. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/construct.htm I think that this "fact" should be removed until better evidence is put forth.

Ancient is Current
Shouldn't Ancient EGYPT and EGYPT be put together, after all, they are the same country,. time can not change that

Now I undestand that there is a limit to the length of an article. however, these two should be formed together, as one article.


 * Ancient Egypt is significantly different from the current Egypt. And you won't merge Persian Empire with Iran :\. Sum1else 11:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikify tag
Why did this just get tagged for wikification? It looks plenty wikified to me. It needs improvement in other areas, though. Maestlin 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, it's not appropriate here. If the person who placed explains maybe we can put a better tag, but wikify is not needed. Piet 18:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Languages
The language links are a mess. One redirects to the main ancient egypt page, while the rest are basically stubs. Anyone who knows about this, it would be nice if someone did some work on those articles. Thank You! Tutmosis 17:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote some more information under the different language phases, but it might need more formatting and someone to fix the redirects. --Zerida 01:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

More lies
Deleted: "This, however, does not appear to have been the case in the Maghreb and Lower Egypt, the area in the North containing Alexandria and the Mediterranean region, which seem to have been continuously inhabited by Caucasoid peoples speaking Afro-Asiatic languages. Following the desiccation of the Sahara, most black Africans migrated South into East and West Africa." Ummm is it just me or did the article above seem a little slanted. why do you describe the people of northern africa as caucasoid and not africoid or negroid considering they do have features of both races,also taking into consideration that the africans were the first human beings wouldnt it be more accurate to describe them as africoid or negroid or an offspring of africans as opposed to propogating a false hood through verbal trickery.Northern Africans are still older genetically than europeans mantherefore you cant say theyre caucasoid thats backward logic.I know what your going to say Im just splitting hairs and it only a matter of verbage,of course you would say that thats because you just lost the argument.

How is it that black Africans were not in Lower Egypt, when the Great Sphinx of Giza is clearly black African? Are you trying to say that Caucasoid North Africans erected a monument to a black pharaoh? Absurd! This is simply more of the same nonsense proliferated by those who would deny that ancient dynastic Egypt was, first and foremost, a black African civilization. This article needs major help, but I have neither the time nor the patience at the moment.deeceevoice 12:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

last time I checked the sphinx was brownish-yellow, and its nose was missing. dab (&#5839;) 07:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

to whoever is inserting all this neolithic stuff, can you please go away to Naqada and Lower Paleolithic? This article deals with the 3000 years between 3300 and 300 BC. Surely there must be enough to tell about this period, so we don't need fillers about 6000 BC settlers in the intro? dab (&#5839;) 07:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Franck's edits
see New Chronology (Fomenko). this is a total nutcase theory if there ever was one. enough said. dab (&#5839;) 18:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Reference to present-day
"Most of the geography of Egypt is in North Africa, although the Sinai Peninsula is in Southwest Asia. The country has shorelines on the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea; it borders Libya to the west, Sudan to the south, and the Gaza Strip, Palestine and Israel to the east." This is an article about Ancient Egypt. Corret me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure most, if not all, of those states did not exist back then.

raylu 00:45, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Simple Truths :Egypts African Heritage
It is a well-known fact egypt resides in the continent of africa.Just as france resides in the continent of europe.To say that europeans caucasians had more influence in the development of Ancient Egypt than black africans or that egyptians are euorpean is sheer lunacy.Egypt is and always will be an African nation that is a simple truth.Africans come in all shades and colors ,just becase some have curlier hair than others does not make them less african. remember its the second largest land mass in the world,(there are gonna be some superficial variances in the cultural and physical apperance of the native peoples).Its also a simple truth that Europe is notorious for the oppression of cultural rights,and miscalculations based on racial predjudiced .Yes i concede its true Sub saharan africans look diffrent than most egyptians,however dont some greecians look diffrent than people from scandinavia,the awnser is yes.If u want to get technical Africans created every culture on the planet,every trait is an essentially african trait, all blood is essentially african blood, all genes are african genes ,hence all cultures are african cultures(and this is near scientific fact).Now getting back to egypt IT IS IN THE CONTINENT OF AFRICA(If u dispute me look on any map).And that by definition alone makes all indigenous peoples,cultures,attributes,and vices contained within its continental boundaries AFRICAN.Not euopean,not asiatic,not extra caucasoid(what ever that means)not somoan, not anything but AFRICAN.I dont mean to sound bellicose forgive me if i do, thats not my intent but ur expecting me to believe that the orignal man the black subsaharan african came out of the jungles skipping egypt  spread all over the earth all the way to south america  circumnavigated the earth ,waited 50000 to 100000 yrs till they became white then said "oh shoot!" we forgot about egypt lets go back and build THE FIRST GREAT civilization there,sorry my friends that sounds like the ravings of a madman,.simple logic (i mean logic u learn in preeschool,i mean logic like put the square block in the square hole)will tell u somethings wrong there,Of course they have some european traits! the further north u go the more u turn european!I mean wake up people! i know theres alot of scientist and doctorate types out there and im nothing close too that but common sense does count for something. (unsigned post)


 * No time to read the above post in full, but I agree. This business of "North Africa" not being part of "Black Africa" is a bunch of horsesh*t designed to artificially divide the continent and facilitate the whitewashing of ancient dynastic Egypt.


 * And, yes. I know "Somali" is the appropriate adjectival form; I wrote the passage.  I was trying to wikify "Somali" with "Somalia" (not realizing there was a separate wiki entry for "Somali" -- and it was a typo).


 * It seems Dbachman is on a mission to spread the usual erroneous truisms about the area and about black African history in North Africa. What?  Sudan is North Africa.  Now, somebody try to tell me they aren't black!  "This (resident black populations), however, does not appear to have been the case in the Maghreb and Lower Egypt, the area in the North containing Alexandria and the Mediterranean region, which seem to have been continuously inhabited by Caucasoid peoples speaking Afro-Asiatic languages."  What crap!  Now it's changed to the area having a mix of Caucasoid and Africoid peoples (like the white folks were there from the git-go -- which is false).  Will return when I have time.  I'd like to see Dbachman and his ilk explain the subsection on forensic reconstruction under the "Egypt and black identity" section of Afrocentrism :p. deeceevoice 09:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anybody was white, or black, or purple. What are you talking about? I just removed the 15th century image of *black* Puntians that were *contrasted* with Egyptians of that time: The image has nothing to do with a possible Puntian origin of the Egyptians 2000 years earlier (except that, 1500 BC, Egyptians certainly did look different from Puntians). I honestly don't care about the colour of the Ancient Egyptians. Some Afro-Asiatic speakers are black, others aren't. "black" isn't a phylogenetically useful term, either (it's the 'white' mutation that is an aberration; "black" could mean practically anything), This is however not an issue on this article. I don't even see how this is even an interesting question. dab (&#5839;) 10:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You are the same dBachman who added this note to the Punt image: "The temple reliefs also showed the features of the Puntine people, who were black Africans, as well as another race much resembling Egyptians' [emphasis added]. Are you not? Talk about being utterly disingenuous and flat-out incorrect. I don't care where you may have gotten this load of bull, but there is no "racial" distinction between the Puntites and the ancient dynastic Egyptians. The Egyptians originated'' in Punt and were the same people mixed with other Africoid peoples of the region. Asiatics and, later, Caucasians came many millennia later. "Race" is sometimes used loosely to distinguish among ethnicities, but the clear misperception being promoted by such language is that the Egyptians were not black -- and they most certainly were. deeceevoice 10:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentrism:
 * Many Afrocentrists insist that ancient Egyptians were black African peoples, often emphasising that this black identity was strongest in early Egyptian history,

sigh. I see. Is there no ancient culture that isn't being abused for some contemporary political agenda? "I am black, pharaohs were black [at least, let's insist they were] -- therefore my sense of identity is uplifted"? what nonsense. "Egyptians originated in Punt. When they went back to visit Punt 1500 years later, they were intrigued by the black inhabitants. Therefore, Egyptians were black."? Look, I don't know if they were black in 3000 BC, and I didn't change anything about that. They certainly weren't black in 1500 BC, but I don't see why that should bother anyone any more than the fact (if it is one) that they were pitch black 1500 years earlier. dab (&#5839;) 10:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

So, you're telling me another "race" originated in southern Sudan? And who might that be? WHITE people? ASIANS? ROTFLMBAO. That's just absurd. Some misguided individuals will insist that Arabs are indigenous to Africa (often confusing them with the original Berbers, who are black Africans). Bot no one -- I repeat -- no one in their right mind with any understanding of African history or how human "races" came to populate the globe would ever attempt to assert that anyone other than BLACK AFRICANS are indigenous to the areas presumed to have been the location of the ancient Land of Punt. Different peoples do not different races make. And, yes, ancient dynastic Egypt was still overwhelmingly black in 1500 B.C. Were there some Asiatics as the millennia progressed? Yes. Were there some Caucasoids? Yes. But even most mainstream Egyptologists readily acknowledge there was even an infusion of Nubian blood into the Egyptian royal line in the 17th & 18th dynasties (preceding and contemporaneous w/the brief reign of King Tutankhamun) -- which was like adding dark chocolate to milk chocolate. It is precisely how King Tut has the classic Nilotic phenotype -- in spades. Yes, Egypt was still a black kingdom in 1500 BC. Further, the people of present-day Egypt are still more black than anything else. The farther you get from the major cities, where the majority of Arabs cluster, (and, again, the Arabs occupied Egypt a good 3,800 years after the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt and several more centuries after the rise of the first great black civilization in the Nile Valley), the darker-skinned and more nappy-headed they get.deeceevoice 10:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

wow, you really are quite wound up in this "racism" stuff aren't you? All I was saying is that in 1500, the Puntians evidently looked different from the Egyptians. Of course the Egyptians still had "African blood", whatever that means. Sure, they were "Africans", by means of living in Africa. I do not know if "African race" is even a meaningful term, and "black Africans" come in all shades. Do the Berbers qualify? I am making no claim as to the van Luschan value of the Egyptians of 1500, or of 3000 BC, and neither should you; but it is safe to say that by Classical Antiquity, their skin colour would have been somewhere halfway between "Greek" and "Nubian". Go figure, they were Afro-Asiatics who lived at the border of Africa and Asia, and that's how they came to look over time. Maybe they were racially pure Khosians in 3500 BC, but this is (a) difficult to prove and (b) rather irrelevant. dab (&#5839;) 13:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

"The temple reliefs also showed the features of the Puntine people, who were black Africans, as well as another race much resembling Egyptians. That's what you wrote.  The implication is clear -- and utterly misleading/erroneous.  deeceevoice 09:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Througout history eurocentric historians have attempted to exclude the black african from the development of mankind, the above articles are a perfect example of this,this stems from a fear of certain european based intrest to claim dominance for economic and political reasons.this is represented in many manifestations even in todays society,during ww2 the nazis attempted to connect historical european or whites with the origin of every great civilization as part of their propoganda machine,this was demonstrated in egypt where nazi scientist claimed the pyramids were 10-20000 years old linking it with an imaginary  ancient white race, there are also links with this and the present day cultist philosophies that aliens built the pyramids as oppsed to the "negro" ,another example the shona people of south africa,  who built "Great Zimbabwe".the origional europeans who discovered the ruins( made of stone and dating back 700 a.d.).believed that the black african could not have built it cause it was so advanced,so a connection was made to link the ruins with semites who traveled to south africa until scientific evidence recently proved this connection a falsehood ,or the assumtion that humans may have originated in africa but didnt have the capacity of higher thought and art until they reached europe some 20,000 yrs later,so called proven by the caves in france that date back 35,000 yrs however there were counting implenents and cave paitings found in the blombos caves in south africa dating back 77,000 yrs,now i dont know how far people have to be away from europeans or how black they have to be to claim to be non white or european,but u cant get much further than the southern horn of africa,it seems suspicious that every great civilization has to be part white or white influenced it seems silly with all the great accomplishments that europeans have given society,that they certain communities withn the euopean social structure would need to satiate their egos by falsly claiming everything great as european but still there are those "elitist" that persist that everything of value has european origins. maybe its the fact that all of their accomplishments were an offshoot of the orginal african culture that keeps them tossing and turning at night,possibly this is the fear that motivates these fantastical ideas,it sounds quite foolish really (unsigned post)


 * Ha! Uninformed white folks always assume it's black folks claiming what we don't rightfully own -- when the clear history has been that white folks have been the most notorious liars/appropriators when it comes to world cultural achievement. But, gee, no one ever asks them why they feel such a need to feel superior, to be first -- to the point of lying about the achievements of people of color.  Why?  The sickness of white supremacy.  To the unnamed poster:  You ain't nevvuh lied!  From the corner, "Amen!" :p deeceevoice 15:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * man, white supremacy is as stupid as black supremacy. Or should I say, black supremacy is as stupid as white supremacy. I don't feel responsible for the stupidity of white people any more than for the stupidity of black people -- why should I, considering that I argue that skin colour does not make for a valid grouping in any sense other than plain physical description of individuals? If you are trying to defend black supremacy by pointing out the sickness of white supremacy, I am afraid your logic is seriously flawed. And I didn't even start the "supremacy" talk. As far as I'm concerned, we are discussing an ancient ethnic group, "supremacy" doesn't enter into it, frankly I find the whole topic rather disgusting and would prefer to see it confined to Afrocentrism, Nordic theory and related articles. dab (&#5839;) 16:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Gee, you weren't too "disgusted" with the issue of "race" to interject it into the text of the image page for Punt, were you? :p The issue of "race"/ethnic identity of ancient dynastic Egypt and its black roots will cease to be an issue only when whites stop telling lies about it -- like the Puntites and the Egyptians were a different "race".  :p deeceevoice 09:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I take offense at being called a lier, and to expressions like "Dbachmann and his ilk". I will react equally dismissive to "white power" agendas as I do to "black power" agendas on Wikipedia, so I emphatically maintain that my own melanine count has nothing to do with it. Regarding the Punt question, I regard it as dubitable, and offtopic on this article. I have already said that I don't exclude the possibility that the immigrants to Egypt in 4000 BC were puraly Khosian, but it is evident that their genetic composition did not remain unchanged over 3000 years, and the 'classical' Egyptians of the 2nd millennium were certainly darker than the Greeks, but certainly lighter than their Nubian slaves. If you want this debate to be constructive, you'll have to get down from your high horse of being in possessions of "simple truths", and from your permanent implication that all "whites" are obsessed with bashing "blacks", and you will have to stop this talk about "lying", and admit that this is a content dispute like any other. dab (&#5839;) 09:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * H-m-m-m. Let's see.  Ever heard the aphorism, "People in glass houses..."? I very well could suggest that, if you want this debate to be constructive, you should stop assuming bad faith and less than honorable motives on the part of those with whom you disagree, desist from making broad generalizations about "black power agendasm"  and ridiculous, over-the-top micharacterizations such as, "defend[ing] black supremacy" and "[my] permanent implication that all 'whites' are obsessed with bashing 'blacks'" and deal with the facts.  Now, as far as calling you a liar, I never specifically did that either -- but the language I quoted is a blatant misstatement of fact, an interjection of "race" into a space where it did not exist before by someone who claims the matter "bore[s]" and "disgust[s]" him.  I trust that readers can draw their own conclusions.  deeceevoice 15:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * well, let's both take a step back then, and avoid escalation and namecalling; if you refrain from accusing me of "lying" I will be much obliged already. where did I interject "race"? I will happily remove that; as far as I remember, I moved the Punt image to Land of Punt, with a caption about "distinctive physical characteristics"; what are you talking about? This article doesn't mention "races" either, except for the offtopic non sequitur "Many members of these groups have a taller and slimmer stature than the human average. However the validity of human races is a subject of much debate." which certainly isn't by me. dab (&#5839;) 14:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is it such a wild theory,or y is it out of the realm of imagination that the subsaharan african and the north african are diffrent variations of the same "race",it seems if u state an obvious fact ur a black revolutionary ,the egyptians are obviously are not white,i mean isnt that really what the big issue is, the egyptians are not white, asians are not white , i cannot understand this childish preoccupation with the strain of thought in the scientific community making every great culture of antiquity white.One of the most rediculous things ive ever seen is the movie with cleopatra as liz taylor ,or the westerns with white people dressed as indians,its a false snapshot of history,and otherwise intelligent people actually believe this garbage, its a rascist fantasy dressed up to look pretty, a bigoted ideaology cultivated by the lies of colonialism, as college educated people i would expect one to be intelligent enough to discern fantasy from reality.


 * I'm not getting involved in this debate yet, but one point: Cleopatra is a Greek name, and the famous Cleopatra's of history (Cleopatra of Macedonia, Alexander the Great's sister, and that other, later more famous Cleopatra VII of Egypt) were Greek (or ancient Macedonian, to be technical). So there was nothing wrong at all with Elizabeth Taylor playing Cleopatra. Let's not lose sight of historical facts here. ---Alex 12:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

where the hell did I state the Egyptians are "white"? Look, being within "the realm of imagination" is not the same as an "obvious fact", that's my whole point. I can well imagine that the Egyptians in 4000 BC were pitch-black. Just because I can imagine it gives me no right to state as much in the Wikipedia article. If the Egyptians in 1500 BC were "white" depends on your definition of "white", and my position is that the US "black/white" distinction is not useful here. If we must make a statement about their melanine content (I don't see why we have to), we would probably have to say that in 1500 the Egyptians were "Berber-coloured", "brown" or "mestizo". ok? Certainly not "Norwegian" or "Greek" white. Now, if you cite academic opinions on the matter that's fair enough, just don't go on wasting people's time with "obvious facts" and "the realm of imagination" ok? dab (&#5839;) 06:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to review more of the literature on the subject before I get too deep into this, but this is how it looks like to me: many ancient Egyptians, even in Dynastic times, had phenotypes which are not clearly African, so I assume they were mixed (not necessarily mixed with "caucasoids", however one defines that term). On the other hand, many Egyptians had features which one can argue are African, while others are clearly African. Queen Tiye of Egypt was a Black woman. There is an ancient Egyptian effigy (I think it's a sculptured lid of a mummy casket, or something) of Osiris in this book I have (World Mythology, Roy Willis general editor, Henry Holt publications, 1996, pg. 33) where he clearly looks like a Black man (IMO). "Ancient Egyptians were a mixed race" seems to be the verdict here, based on observing ancient Egyptian features alone, and I am not implying that African features are all within some narrow stereotyped range, but many ancient Egyptian faces don't clearly look black.


 * For people like me (I can't speak for others) this issue will be settled by evidence, not interpretations, be they Afrocentric or Eurocentric---though the Eurocentric ones seem more erroneous in this case. I don't think any European scholar should try to claim that ancient Egyptians were "a European people" or "a Caucasian people".


 * ---Alex 16:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * obviously; that would be an exceedingly stupid claim. But I still have to see a claim, even by 19th century scholars, that the Egyptians were "white" or "European". Until then, insistence that they weren't is really just shooting strawmen. This whole argument seems to be based on the assumption that if they weren't "white" they must logically be "black". dab (&#5839;) 18:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree Dab, it is shooting strawmen. From what I can gather, no current Egyptologist makes the claim that ancient Egyptians were Caucasian or European, so this argument should move away from the black vs. white issue as much as possible. ---Alex 18:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thats funny,I know many black people who look like the ancient egyptian paintings (Anonymous editor)


 * I won't challenge that statement, because I agree that many black people do look like ancient Egyptian faces in paintings. However, two points: 1) if we are using African-Americans for comparison, we come to the sensitive issue of African-Americans having a lot of mixed blood, generally speaking. 2) Many ancient Egyptian faces can be said to look black or perhaps black, but I've seen enough to say that many don't clearly look black. This whole approach of "looks black" or "doesn't look black" is imprecise and can get heated, but studying ancient Egyptian faces is a direct way of getting an idea of their ethnic affinity. And what I've seen is largely inconclusive. ---Decius 04:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way dab, I have an American encyclopedia from 1897 (The World's History Illuminated, Israel Smith Clare, eight volumes, St. Louis, Western Newspaper Syndicate, 1897) which makes the claim that the ancient Egyptians were included in the "Caucasian race", and that the Caucasian race is "the only historical race". So I understand when black people are suspicious of racist bullshit ideas and agendas from the past still being present in Egyptology. But like I said, I know of no contemporary Egyptologists who make such claims (though there might be). One of these days I'll go in my garage and find the volume of The World's History Illuminated where the claim is made so I can quote it, but I remember it distinctly. ---Decius 05:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Some Egyptologists may still be referring to ancient Egyptians as a North African Caucasoid race, but I don't have any quotes available. In any case, the term "caucasoid" is misleading, because it can include Norwegians and Arabs in the same "race", so I find it almost scientificaly useless. The question of "how we're going to handle this" in Wikipedia is predictable: we're going to have current references cited on the issue, and present the different views. ---Decius 17:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, of course. But I don't think the question should be allowed to dominate this article. If people want a scholarly discussion of Ancient Egyption genetic composition, let them do it in a specialized article. I can well imagine that were racist "Eurocentric" statements were current back in 1897, such as would be regarded as untenable now. Attacking those with indignation here is still shooting strawmen, since they are relevant to the history of science at best. I don't know about "Caucasoid". That is simply not a useful term for the question, and at best suited for rhetorics. I am not an expert on this, of course, and will happily be guided by scholarly citations  dab (&#5839;) 18:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I also agree this article should not be centered on race, however please allow me one more comment on the subject,if u are familiar with the SAN people of southern africa ,they are said to be the worlds oldest tribe of homosapiens,in other words they possess the basic genetic markers that all modern humans posses,barring the genetic mutations that give us our diffrent appearance, they in essence are the template for humanity,I was watching the discovery channel on the subject of MRCA (MOST RECENT COMMON ANCESTOR)when the program noted something interesting not only do the SAN people possess the basic genes that all humans possess they also possess the same features of all peoples ,in some ways they mirror physically other peoples of the world thousands of miles away with which they historically or genetically have no interaction with other indigenous peoples until relativly recent times, espesially the eyes have a definite asian appearance, now if these san or "bushmen" possess these characteristics and genetiaclly are basically pure,meaning not mixed with any other population then that would infer that these southafrican "bushmen" mutated genetically outward not inward,changing physically as they moved northward and southward,this would explain the Egyptians "afro-asian" appearance.The fact that some africans brown skinned and some are very dark skinned and possess characteristics of other populations is a phenomenon that occured long before colonialism,and "interbreeding" (if you can really scientifically call it that)they possesed these features before there were asians or europeans.I dont have the exact name of the program however a quick search on the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC or DISCOVERY CHANNELS websites will lead you to the subject in no time. I encourage you to watch it as it awnsers alot of questions concerning race and human migration patterns scientifically and dosent depend on heresay and assumptions or racially biased antiquated ideals. I have also recently read an artice concerning the Hyskos people from the arabian penninsla they were said to be a asiatic semite peoples that migrated to egypt around the 18th dynasty,eventually attaining positions of ruler status for about a hundred years during a period of internal weaness of egypt,this may also have contributed  to the mixed heritage appearence of egyptians however this was well into the life of the dynasties, pointing back to the original fact that the egyptians were an african peoples from africa in the beggining. ---

Vehgah: If an Ancient Egyptian walked in America he would be called black, just like the Black Americans, he might have been mixed, but that doesn't make him less black in the American view. --Vehgah 16:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion... That has no bearing on what goes into an actual encyclopedia article. Most experts disagree with you quite strongly, so will have to go with what they say instead. 17:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

who are these experts? These are the same jokers trying to label Ethiopians as Caucasoid, a fictional term! I find it funny when people Disect the ethnicity of someone just to suit their comfort. Virtually every black person in america is mixed, but they are still black. Just because at some point in time a society became mixed, like are own, doesn't mean that the people weren't black, The black people of Africa are far more diverse than the people of europe. It is Genetically proven. These concepts aren't my own. I didn't invent the one drop rule. It is societies creation. Out of the Eurocentric came the Afrocentric. --Vehgah 21:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed afrocentric POV-pushing from article
I removed a section claiming to detail info on early Ancient Egyptians that wsa highly Afrocentric and ignored the fact that these claims are considered to be fringe, unscholarly, and a contradiction of all evidence by the majority of scholars. I see the same editor going around stuffing unchallenged Afrocentric claims into tons of other Egyptian articles and removing more accepted information has been at work here, so she already knows this and ignores it, but here we go again:

Wikipedia information must show mainstream scholarly understanding of topics as the mainstream view of articles here, with fringe, unpopular and unsupported beliefs either missing or being listed briefly and being explicitly labeled as the opinions of a small minority who are not taken seriously (see NPOV policy, specifically on "Equal Time" and so forth). Information that is questionable must be cited with real, verifiable and scholarly sources, so not just claiming the Egyptians came fom Sudan unchallenged.

It is tedious how one editor with a POV-pushing agenda can totally screw up article after article here with fringe beliefs. This is not Afrocentripedia, this is Wikipedia, for normal people who want reliable information. DreamGuy 21:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The information you removed was not overly Afro-centric. The ethnic origins of the Upper Egyptians from the Badarian to Naqada are generally without question tropical Africans. There has been published work by Dr. Shomarka Keita and Dr. Nancy Lovell on pre-dyanstic remains.


 * Also your local fallacy is called ad populum. Just because a view is not generally accepted by everybody does not necessarily mean it's incorrect. Wikipedia should not fall into any agenda but publish open minded and scholarly views. Remeber scholars themselves are not necessarily at an agreement on all the facts.


 * Whoever runs Wikipedia should get their information from journals or get people with an objective view to write articles. (unsigned)
 * maybe we could export all these questions of race and genetics to a specialized article soon, and start writing an article that is actually discussing Ancient Egypt? dab (&#5839;) 12:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, what also should be discussed is the cultural affinities that ancient Egyptian society shared with other African populations. Such as divine kingship or the rain maker king. This was mentioned by Henri Frankfort in his early study on ancient Egyptian culture. Another good resource on the pre-history of ancient Egypt is Fekri Hassan's article published in the Journal of World Prehistory. This is a mainstream source for ancient Egyptian pre-history.

Brain Surgery?
I have deleted this paragraph from the article: Additionally, the ancient Egyptians were masters of surgery. Not only could they perform complex procedures of cosmetic surgery, but they were also able to perform brain surgery! A small hole was carved into the skull by a sharp incisor. After the damaged part was removed, the skull was placed back in and was sealed with an organic glue. Skulls have recently been found in tombs that have such medical scars.

I can't seem to find any resources on the Internet backing this up. Besides, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me - while the Ancient Egyptians were one of the first civilizations to study human anatomy, I don't think they would have had a deep enough understanding of the brain to recognize a damaged part of it, and then be able to remove it - only the damaged part - through a "small hole".

Perhaps someone could cite a reference for this?

--Moonbeast (Talk) 29 Oct 2005

It wasn't brain surgery as we know it (labotomy, tumor, etc). The procedure that I believe was referred to was one to relieve swelling as a result of severe head trama. http://www.anomalous-images.com/news/news223.html is a link to an AP story that actually does mention surgery for tumors. more http://www.hotwired.com/webmonkey/kids/projects/report/report_example1.html egyptian brain surgery seems to turn up a bit on google.

ancient egyptian diet == == Nobody really seems to say anything about this topic, even though a lot is known about it. Why is that? It's really not that hard to understand: they just ate fish, meat, bread, and beer. Anonymous

Deleted the following unwikified "essay"
I have deleted the following unwikified "essay" and reverted to the original article. Someone more knowledgeable than me will know where to incorporate this. Egypt started as a group of farmers who settled along the Nile, and yet managed to advance so much that they were the top civilization for 3 periods of time. How did they manage to rise to power from such a humble beginning? There were a number of important factors that allowed Egypt to rise. One of the most important, of course, was the climate of Egypt as well as how the land was formed in and around Egypt. The Nile was by far one of the most important land formations that allowed the Egyptians to live and prosper. It flooded regularly, not only providing the people of Egypt a base in which to form their calendar, but also with a place to farm. The Egyptians learned the reliable pattern of the Nile floods so that they were able to plant their crops near it. When the Nile flooded, it covered the crops with water, which were planted in the very fertile soil near the river. This allowed the Egyptians to have an unlimited supply of food for their people. They could also fish for extra food if for some reason there was a sudden famine. There were also other reasons for the prosperity of Egypt over time. The deserts around Egypt, mainly the Sahara and Arabian, prevented other countries from invading Egypt for a long time until they developed technology sufficient to cross them. Another barrier was the Mediterranean Sea. Back in the time when the Egyptians had just started their rise as a civilization, other people had not yet developed ships. It was only in their final fall that they were attacked by a civilization from the sea, and that was a long time after they first started out. The temperature also played a major role. It was always temperate, meaning that the temperature never grew to extremes. As you can see today in Egypt that changed over time, as now it is sweltering hot in the summer around Egypt. The climate back then, however, allowed them to plant their crops almost all year round. It also allowed them to build a lot without getting overheated. This helped them to construct the pyramids and also dry the Fayuum Basin, which you will find out about later. In addition, there were also pharaohs and important events that allowed the Egyptians to rule as a top civilization. Some pharaohs, of course, were noble, generous, and intelligent, while others plunged Egypt into civil wars and all those other nasty situations. The first well-recognized pharaoh was known as Narmer, more commonly known as Menes. He came into power in 2900 B.C. He founded the city known as Memphis, locating it near the Nile River so that it would be easy to defend in the event of an attack. Luckily for him, Egypt was geographically isolated, so no enemies were able to get into Egypt, allowing them to develop and advance without disturbance. He also founded Crocodopolis and in that city he had a temple built to celebrate Ptah, a god that he thought was worthy of such splendor. Another accomplishment of his was hat he united Upper and Lower Egypt, and signified that he did so by wearing a double crown on his head. He died either by way of hippopotamus or crocodile attacks after about 62 years of ruling. Imhotep followed behind with a skill for building things in 2686. He designed the early Step Pyramid for the burial of himself and several other rich people. Although he was not pharaoh, he still was very well-known among the people of Egypt. He served the pharaoh Zoser during his life as chief architect and scribe. Probably the most famous pharaoh was known as Khufu, or Scheop. He was the pharaoh who designed the Great Pyramid at Giza. Some people think that he was a cruel ruler, and some don’t. His pyramid is the tallest pyramid in existence, even though his son’s pyramid seems taller. The reason for this is that his son’s pyramid is on top of a plateau, making the ground on which is standing higher up than his father’s. When he died, he was buried in the Great Pyramid, which, unfortunately, was entered by burglars who stole many things. In fact, the only artifact that we have of him is a 9cm statue found in an ancient home. Pepi II is a famous pharaoh for much different reasons than the other pharaohs listed here. He was the cause for Egypt’s first downfall, which plunged them into civil war. One of the reasons for this was that Pepi II was a very greedy and selfish pharaoh. He built things that didn’t need to be built, and spent more money on things for himself than he did for anyone or anything else. Another reason for their downfall was that Pepi II lived to be very old- almost 90! Some people labeled him “The Senile Pharaoh” because when he grew old he seemed to grow nuts. Because of the lack of money many people rebelled against him because of his weak spending. From his rule an economic depression sprouted, and from that a civil war sprang up, not only ruining Egypt’s great cities but also making many people die. Mentuhotep was the pharaoh who restored order. He gained economic stability, which wasn’t easy, considering the problems Pepi II caused. He formed internal development trading, which helped the economy of Egypt to rise. It was because of him that Egypt did not remain in the civil war. He was known by many to be a very strong pharaoh. After developing Egypt’s economy, he focused on repairing the damage done by Pepi II, and succeeded, allowing the people of Egypt to rise once again to power. At the very peak of Egypt’s second rise, Sesotris came into power as pharaoh. He focused mainly on the development of Egypt itself, mainly being the building of new structures and new land routes. During his rule Egypt managed to maintain internal stability. He built canals in Egypt for all the water from the Nile River, and also managed to erect forts in Egypt in case of an attack. His most famous accomplishment is the draining of the Fayuum Basin, which allowed people to cross safely. However, after his rule, Egypt almost immediately started declining again. After attacks from the Hyksos tribes at the lowest point in Egypt’s 2nd decline,  a man called Ahmose became pharaoh. He drove out the Hyksos with chariots, and was thought to be a hero. He helped Egypt rise slightly, but other than that, he did not accomplish much more. Hatshepsut was the only female pharaoh that ever existed. She is famous for that, but that is not the only reason why she is famous. She established a trade route with Punt, which she personally saw to herself by joining in the expedition to it. She also built obelisks, which were sometimes used to bury the dead. Hatshepsut always wore a beard so that she would not seem to be a woman most of the time. She was the main person who helped Egypt rise for the 3rd and final time. Thutmose III was a pharaoh who loathed his mother, Hatshepsut. In fact, after she died, he erased her name from everything she ever did, replacing it with Thutmose I, Thutmose II, or Thutmose III. Following his erasing process, he became a war hero, and commanded a huge army. Because of his actions towards his mother, people stopped paying tribute to him, so Thutmose III led his army into their state so that they would pay to him again. In addition, he also led a total of 17 military campaigns during his rule in order to keep an orderly world, from his point of view anyway. Ramses II is famous not for his accomplishments, but rather for what happened during his reign. He had many slaves in his kingdom known as the Hebrews. According to historical records, he was forced to let them go because of impending plagues. This caused Egypt to decline for its final time, as its major source of labor and building people came from the slaves who they had normally forced to work. Ramses III was a pharaoh who tried his best to keep Egypt going. During his reign as pharaoh, Egypt was invaded a total of 3 times; twice by the Libyans and once by a tribe known as the sea people for their naval skills. Despite Egypt’s declining power, he still managed to defend Egypt from the invaders. If it wasn’t for his quick thinking in times of peril, such as when he Libyans invaded for the second time, Egypt would never have survived. It was him who thought of capturing the Libyan chief from their camp, forcing the Libyans to retreat from lack of authority. And it was also him who devised the plan of booby trapping the Mediterranean Sea shores so that they were able to sink the naval fleets of the sea people. After Ramses III fell from power, Egypt was invaded about 10 times, which pretty much destroyed its dynasty. Luckily for us today, many records survived the ages that tell us about the legendary civilization that ruled the world three times in a row.

--ALoan (Talk) 12:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * it is not so bad, for an essay directed at children. maybe they have use for it on simple:Ancient Egypt, I'll post it there. dab (&#5839;) 12:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I Think the problem with the argument that egyptians race was non - african is a complete and total ignorance of geograpy and racial classification. Many of european decent are ignorant and uneducated about african features and racial variation encompassed in the the african continent and the african diasporia .History has shown us europeans have willfully ignored or refused to accept variety in black peoples in an attempt to prop up the the falsehood of their inate superiority. For example when anyone speaks of african acievements there will always be an undercurrent or a refusal to accept that it was africans who was the major influence in a situation,such as the pyramids or egyptian culture they say "oh well it couldnt be african haww, haww ,haww we all know negroes cant build anything especially before whites my rascist parents told me we were better"."so the egyptians must be part white", or influenced by europeans or arabs .When in actuallity you look at the situation scientifically you will see that egyptians are african they did not migrate from north to south they migrated south to north,and they did not get assistance from europeans ,the facts actually point to africans being the parent of all human races and according to the toma disaster theory, africans not only was the first intelligent man but was the savior of mankind. for all other peoples perished after the toma disaster for they could not adapt due to inadequate brain power. a small group of "black africans" what ever that means,gathered together the scraps of what was left of mankind and strived adapted and innovated their way out of certain destruction of the human race,but this will never be taught in the history books to the children on a large scale because it shows that africans are intelligent,courageous,intrepid,and at times brilliant, it is the goal of many angry ,small minded and ultimatly insecure people in power to maintain the racial heiarchy for the past 1000 years ,but im not worried 1000 yrs is nothing in the history of man ,and the truth cannot be hidden forever.


 * the problem with this "debate" is the endless number of anonymous editors setting up strawmen arguments about clueless colonialistic European science and taking for granted terms like "black identity" or "African diaspora" that are meaningless either outside the USA, or outside a Modern context, certainly meaningless in the context of the 4th millennium BC. Who is being clueless here? There were no "Europeans" in the 4th millennium; of course the Egyptians were "African". Yes, African Americans are intelligent and courageous, it's just that this is all entirely beside the point. dab (&#5839;) 18:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This Needs to Stop
Now I don't want to get off on a rant here, but the Ancient Egyptian article has been revised more times than Joan Rivers' face. Most of the revisions non-surprisingly, have to do with the ethnic make-up of the nation, why do you keep editing it? Egyptians were in the beginning of African extraction, physically and culturally. Read SOY Keita. So whatever ideological leveys you're trying to pull, stop it. Keep the article the way it was, thank you. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk &bull; contribs).


 * We have Race of the Ancient Egyptians. And yet, people keep heaping genetic studies on this article. This article is about Ancient Egypt. Its culture. Its 3000 year history. Why is it "unsurprising" that people keep harping on the racial identity of the Ancient Egyptians? It's offtopic. It's a red herring. If you want to split hairs over Egyptian genes, do it over at the "race" article. dab (&#5839;) 18:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

3D images
what is it with these 3D images? Can we just dump them on commons and put a commons link under "External links"? I mean, who is sitting in front of their computer with red-and-blue glasses on? dab (&#5839;) 18:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dab, the answer to your question is Kids, hundred of thousands of them! The little thumb of the monumental statue gives them a reference that they need to relate, and they love to use their 3D glasses. (30 million distributed in 2005!) Wikipedia is also for students not just scholars. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.226.54.6 (talk &bull; contribs) 01:21, 1 February 2006.

Yes, I wasn't trying to delete them. Put them on commons, and place a nice commons link under "External links". dab (&#5839;) 07:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The anon comment is claimed to be from user:3dnatureguy (he is having trouble signing in for some reason and stated elsewhere this anon is him), who seems to be a big proponent of these images and who has been adding them to many articles, often at some considerable resistance. The "hundreds of thousands of kids" claim hasn't been verifiably substantiated to my knowledge. There is an attempt to come up with an acceptable policy for these images here: 3D Illustrations It is not clear to me that there is significant value to explaining this particular topic by salting the article with a lot of these images (just as for many other topics where many images have been added), especially prior to the community coming to consensus on how best to handle them. If you have comments or thoughts you may want to participate in the proposed policy/guideline and the discussion. ++Lar: t/c 13:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The 3D images may have some use. However, they should be either presented within tags, or as a category on commons, which can be linked from this article. Plus they need to be correctly labelled. "Here's a statue of a pharaoh" is not acceptable. Indicate which pharaoh is shown, and how the statue is dated, and where it is kept. Before the images are properly identified, there is no point in even discussion on where to place them in the article. dab (&#5839;) 11:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

3d commons
 * Sadly that is exactly the point. On 3D Illustrations there is an ongoing discussion how to treat the pictures. Right now it looks like we'll try to introduce the template 3d_commons. But issues have to be sorted out before moving the pictures. The insufficient capions are one of them. --Dschwen 12:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Dental/Cranial and DNA confusion
Can someone explain something to me.

WHen using DNA analysis, one assumes that the genetic markers found in the X and Y chromosomes of Europeans and Egyptians are indicators that the Egyptians looked like Europeans? The reason I ask is because, theoretically, one could take a black and white pair, and assuming the father is white, the mother is black, that pair could have children. All of their children would show the "white" father's Y chromosomal characteristics no matter how many Black marriages take place among the descendants. With X-chromosomes, you won't find that. So what gets me is, how can we assume that from the Y, that the Egyptians were predominantly "berber" or "north African"? Even more so, why do we assume that the genetic variation of Europeans and Africans should slide towards favoring a "white" or "european looking" mixed bag?

Same with cranials. The skull shapes may vary, but I rarely have mistaken a black person for being white simply because his skull is more "Caucasoid". Some like Coon have classified Tutsi-Rwandans as Caucasoids because their skulls are similar in shape to Germans and Frenchmen. I have yet to see any meaningful divisions within ethnic groups based on skull shape and size. the Egyptians varied, or as the article itself says, "was an amalgram"... that means that Black Africans were at least a part of this group. Unfortunately this article plays down the African aspect to the point of where when reading it, one forgets that there is any Black heritage in Ancient Egypt at all. Maybe because Caucasoid has become such a broad "every other human with round eyes" classification. --Zaphnathpaaneah 07:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC) By watchan crick priciple the DNA Analysis is a tediuos precess while its in idle condition.

Km.t the egyptians
The ancient Egyptians had only one term to designate themselves:  = kmt = the Negroes.

It is the strongest term existing in the pharaonic tongue to indicate blackness (Cheikh Anta Diop in General History of Africa II, Unesco, page 41).

You can check this in the Dictionary: Woerterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache, Vol. 5, pp. 127.

reachable online after registration here: http://aaew.bbaw.de/tla/

'''kmt(kemet): die Ägypter. (Wb 5, 127.18-20)'''

A pic of "Wb 5, 127.18-20", look at the last Translation in C, it is in german.

http://people.freenet.de/freezama/mop/egyptien.jpg


 * we know. it's in the article. we've discussed it ad nauseam. kmt means "Egypt". A translation of "the Negroes" is speculative. Can we talk about something else soon? dab (&#5839;) 21:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well ,I read somewhere that the Lower Kingdom and the Upper Kingdom of Egypt (before they were united) were distinguished by being called "the red kingdom" and "the black kingdom." When they united, I think I remember reading that they decided to call Egypt the "black" kingdom and thesurrounding desert red because the nutrients in the Nile River made the soil really dark. So the word black could have nothing at all to do with the peopleEsstudiante 22:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Esstudiante People! could one of you read hieros ? This hieros are for the people, not for the land, and it also translate to kemet.  = kmt = the Negroes or the blacks, what you want. Or let us try it your way, translate it in your own words, N.B. this "kemet" has nothing to do with land. --84.130.50.207 07:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding kmt meant land of the blacks. (````)

The game here is how we interpret the "adjective". In English we usually translate "of the" prepositional phrase optionally. So it could say "Land of the blacks" or "black land". I find it interesting that Nehesi, Kush, and other words are used to describe people of Ethiopian and "northeast" african heritage, but then in Egypt itself, where, in comparison of others in the desert, (the white skinned Lebu (Libyan), the white skinned Aamu (Asians), the Egyptian and Nehesi resemble each other yet the phrase is referring to the LAND?) This is how they do "Nigeria", which apparently refers to the "river"... even though the mouth of the river was not known to be linked to the Tuareg section until AFTER the country was named. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * People! could one of you read hieros ? This hieros are for the people, not for the land, and it also translate to kemet.  = kmt = the Negroes or the blacks, what you want.

Or let us try it your way, translate it in your own words, N.B. this "kemet" has nothing to do with land. --84.130.50.207 07:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose we can quote you on that? "according to 84.130.50.207 on a Wikipedia talkpage, kmt has nothing to do with the land of Egypt". Great, problem solved then. Never mind that the addition of the "people" ideogram modifies kmt to mean 'people of kmt '. dab (&#5839;) 07:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Egypt is a greek word.

kmt stands for itself (black), the addition of the "people"-ideogram doesn't modify kmt, it only give you a hint.

for example you could say black, without any further specification. Now this "black" could mean a lot of things, but with the idiogram, you specify for what this black stands for.

Here it stands for the people(population), therefore "Black" for black-people(population) --84.130.27.39 13:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Likewise this one : Where for kemet which means black and stands for itself. And the idiogram- Give you a hint for the sense to be given to this "black", namely "Nation" not "Land", it means black nation.

Land has it own idiogram, namely: "tA" --84.130.27.39 13:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

foolish People you're trying to write about things you know little or nothing. --84.130.27.39 13:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please look at it again. The idiogram means People of the "black", not black people.

Come on, this is medu netjers basic grammar, people

the people- and nation-idiograms dont represent words of its own, they're only determinatives. They give the reader an idea of the meaning of the word they come after(follow).

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieroglyph "Hieroglyphs consist of three kinds of glyphs: phonetic glyphs, including single-consonant characters that functioned like an alphabet; logographs, representing morphemes; and determinatives, or ideograms, which narrowed down the meaning of a logographic or phonetic word." And km.t(phonetic) means: Black, the different idiograms narrowed down, the meaning of this km.t (black).

Therefore:

In the case of the people-idiogram, this means: Black, the people.

In the case of the nation-idiogram, this means: Black, the nation. --84.130.30.248 23:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Go and learn a bit of grammar on this page: http://hometown.aol.com/egyptnew/determ.html Determinatives help to define a word. Example: If you have a name, Bob, and it is followed by the "man" glyph, you can assume that Bob is the name of a man. But if the name is followed by the "king" glyph, then you can assume that Bob is a king.

'''You can not translate these to: Man of the Bob, or King of the Bob.

It is nonsense !!!!'''

The correct interpretation is: Bob, the man or Bob, the King. --84.130.30.248 23:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a good while later than the last post, but I'm setting this straight here so that it's been said if someone wants to bring up this silly idea again. kmt with niwt and kmt with people are not both derived from km. people determinitive signs are deriven from identical words with ta, axt, niwt, etc. signs. kmt with people is derived from kmt with a city sign. this is a well established principle from other instances. For instance, when Osiris is called the "westerner", it is because he comes from the proper noun "the west", i.e. the land of the dead. Not because he is literally west. You couldn't stand west of a idol of osiris and call him the easterner. "Westerner" derives from "the west", which derives from "west". The definition of kmt with city cannot be derived from the meaning of kmt with people, it doesn't work that direction. On the other hand, it can be derived by its antonym, dSrt, which means "red". now, dSrt has obviosly worked its way into even english as Desert. dSrt also cannot have a determinitive for people, so it has to refer to the "red land". Guess what? that means kmt means "black land." Thanatosimii 03:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Eurocentric, Afrocentric and Moderate
The eurocentric claims there were no blacks in Egypt the Afrocentric claims there were only black in Egypt, the reality is two parts and in the middle.

-Ancient Egypt did not extend as far south as modern egypt. Ancient egypt was taken over by tons of people including black africans. The moderate main stream view is that ancient egyptians were a racial mixture of blacks and non-blacks. I understand that americans will take it as egyptians are black and europeans will take it as eyptians were not black, either way you view it those are the facts.

''':Why should a non-black civilization portray its Gods as Blacks ?
 * Examples:
 * Kem-wr: or (Black-BIG) the big black, for OSIRIS.
 * Kem(black) is used with all of them: Hathor, Thot, Min, Apis, Isis...
 * the really name of his wife Isis means the Black Woman(see Amélineau).


 * Why should a white-civilisation depict its devil as white ?:In african languages white people are called red, so is seth the red.


 * And the ancient egyptians called themselves Kemet or the blacks like their own Nation (which means the black nation)


 * There is no traces of white-population in the sahara region until 1300-1500 before jc.


 * It is impossible to become white in this region.


 * Concerning the White-Libyans (Temehu).
 * The Egyptians always regarded the Libyans as true savages, rebels to any civilization.
 * And never want to be mixed with them, they were only ready to use them as mercenaries in the army like the whites in america with the apaches or other native americans.'''--84.130.53.101 19:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

DUHHH.
Okay let's all stop pretending and playing games about this stuff about the genetic markers because every one knows that there is no human being on earth living or dead or that ever existed that didnt posses African DNA.All people Asian ,European, Native American they all possess african DNA because Africans are the oldest people the first people.This has been proven by science,and genetic testing .The more north Africans moved the more they mutated into diffrent types of people so all this nonsense about half and half is really silly,cause when you think about it dosent it make sense the first people created the first great civilization ? DUHHH.

DNA and the 'Out of Africa' Theory?
Greetings- I am interested to know the source of the (DNA) idea above that "everyone knows that there is no human being on earth living or dead that ever existed that didnt posses African DNA..." This is the 'Out of Africa' theory of Evolution and Migration. I'm sure there are many writers and supporters of this view on human origins. One reference that confounds assumptions about human paleontological records, that I find most intriguing, is Michael Cremo's Forbidden Archeology which is a challenge to Darwinismand traditional evolutionary theories. I would like to trace some of the early ethnologists, anthrologists, and biologists who supported this theory and based on what kind of evidence? (paleo-ontological records, theory...). I know this appears offtrack for an article on Ancient Egypt; but considering the importance for establishing talk about 'origins' in Ancient Egypt, I believe it necessary to highlight some research into the politics of archeological/anthropological scientific communities (in a Thomas Kuhn sense of scientists protecting their theories). Does Egyptology utilise physical anthropology and human paleontology to form inferences about ancient egyptian tribes, architecture, worship, agriculture, society?... Maybe this discussion point would be better consigned to the wiki-section 'Controversy over the race of Ancient Egyptians'. Can Ancient Egypt be combined with talking points on 'Evolution' or 'Darwinism'? Please excuse my rhetoric... Just looking for some interdisciplinary insight into this complex matter. - Drakonicon 18:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC) I WROTE THE ABOVE ARTICLE AND ITS COMMON KNOWLEGE ALL PEOPLE POSSESS AFRICAN DNA ,FOR SOMEONE SO WELL-READ YOU SURE DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH RESEARCH JUST FIND THE LITTLE BROWSER THINGY IN THE TOP LEFT HAND CORNER UNDER THE BIG GLOBE THINGY WITH ALL THOSE SQUIGGLLY LINES AND TYPE IN MOST RECENCENT COMMON ANCESTOR OR MRCA. YOU HAVE ALL THE RESOURCES IN THE WORLD YOUR JUST AFRAID TO USE THEM.AND THIS IS NOT DARWANISM ITS GENETIC TESTING TWO TOTALLY DIFFRENT DISCIPLINES,AS I MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION .I SUGGEST YOU MAKE SURE YOUR ABLE TO DIGEST THE INFORMATION YOU READ BEFORE YOU COMMENT ON IT SOME MAY THINK YOUR SLOW.

Mangled reversions
Folks, please take a look at Help:Reverting. Last month, Edwy attempted to "revert" 61.88.131.189's vandalism, but instead ended up mangling the article and permanently removing important sections of text – no one ever noticed their absence, apparently. [] From now on, please go to the actual previous version and save that over the current version, after examining the changes in diff. Do not attempt to restore the deleted text manually, as this only causes headaches for anyone trying to make heads or tails out of the article afterwards.

This has been a public service announcement; please return to your regularly scheduled wikibreaks.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I've restored (I hope) all of the deleted text from this episode, there remains the task of fixing all the footnotes. It seems someone went through afterwards and removed all the footnotes that were no longer used – now they are once again. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Jacoplane removed those footnotes and references automatically using Ref converter, so there might not've been a way they could've noticed the problems. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging of North, East, and Asian
I changed it so it's not redundantly exclusive of the Black contribution. Egypt is a blend of contributions of the North (considerd non-black berber by the mainstream), Asian (considered non black semetic by the mainstream), and East African (black)... not "northeast" (redundantly implying non-black north/asian amalgram by the mainstream). This is an example of why Afrocentricists have to go to the extremes. The "silent omission" tactic is always used to exclude the Black contribution which is obvious. Everyone can read between the lines.

Just to prove it... who here thinks that the "northeast" contribution in the article implies "black"? No one. So I changed it. There was a substantial Black contribution. I have the first edit. I will win the three edit revert rule, don't try to reuse it. I have offered evidence and a non POV rationale. I will win the 3 edit revert. Do not try to underpin it. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I also am pre-emptively replying to excuses used to remove "East Africa" and place "Northeast back"...

1. Ethiopia (prominently menitoned twice in the same paragraph), is not a part of East Africa, but of Northeast Africa. My response to that is that there is no "North Africa" region really, except in a socio-racial political context. Ethiopia, physically is considered part of the Horn of Africa "regionally" and further is physically closer to the direct east than to a "northeasterly". 2nd, it's a nitpicky play on words that defies the casual observer and the accepted social consciousness of the Ethiopians and the rest of the world. Only in this arguement is Ethiopia used as a "northeast" context. The only purpose it serves is to undermine the black contribution on two fronts. 1. By implying "northeast" is devoid of blackness (which is a nobrainer) and 2. Implying that the Ethiopians themselves are not even black. (which has been going on anyway!). I refute that, and the burden lies on those who wish to retain "northeast". --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Those will argue that there should be contributions made that delve into the discussion about the race of the Ancient Egyptians because there is already an article for that purpose. I agree. Yet the default setting for this article is already deceptively unbalanced and non-neutral. I feel we should balance the point of view and not "whitewash" the article only to then tell differing contributions to keep out. --Zaphnathpaaneah 12:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything but the first sentence in the People section ought to be moved to Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians. --JFK 21:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Saqqara Bird
Well you say that this subject is controversial but then you keep on removing the following without any reason at all. Maybe you would care to furnish me with a detailed explanation as to why you keep on doing this?

I re-submit...

The Saqqara 'bird' is a cross between a bird and a fish. As such it is a deified *aspect* of creation and could be either a bird or a fish, a woman (Isis or Ma'at) a man, a soul or a flat fish or sole for Ptah the 'fisherman' a fisher of men. All these terms are interchangeable.

In fact it closely resembles a flying fish.

http://oceanlink.island.net/oinfo/biodiversity/flyingfish/flyingfish.html

A song which describes this perfectly by 'song bird' Cèline Dion, refers to thi

BC / BCE
The article was using both the BC and BCE notations for dates. Since the BC is used more frequently on this article I will replace all the BCE with BC.--Konstable 01:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is not Wiki Policy for this? Regardless, I agree.

Failed GA
First of all, whoever nominated this page for a Good Article forgot to tag it with, but there was in fact a nomination.

Overall this article seems well written and mentions all the important aspects. I commend you all for your work.

However I am not satisfied that it goes into enough detail on some very important specifics. The Culture section in particular needs to be seriously expanded, especially since there is no other article (as far as I know) on Wikipedia about Ancient Egyptian Culture. Right now this section is little more than a stub - the paragraphs are not connected with each other and only offer little bits of information. It seems to me, for a topic like Ancient Egypt, this should be one of the most important sections.

Just off the top of my head, some important aspects missing: burial rites (perhaps incoroporating some bits from Egyptian burial rituals and protocol), importance of religion, impact on modern popular culture, some maps (eg. location and size at various states in history), monetary system, mention of their military activities, slavery, etc.

Also, even though there is a list of refrences at the bottom of the article and some inline citations are used here and there, I think there should be more inline citations. For example: "Archaeological evidence indicates..." or "There is evidence of pastoralism and cultivation of cereals..." - you need a citations here to say what this evidence is.

I hope you get there!--Konstable 02:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Impact on Modern Popular Culture?
Thinking about Konstable's drive for Ancient Egyptian Culture, I'm sure there are numerous films and documentaries that could demonstrate the impact Ancient Egypt has on the imagination. Of course there the old B&W film versions of 'The Mummy' (Boris Karloff), American and British pulp writers on Egyptian Mysteries in the 1920's, '30's, '40's. The recent Brendan Fraser movies The Mummy, the Mummy Returns- maybe a brief sentence about the use of Imhotep as the antagonist in the film compared to his documented role in historical texts. Maybe a Popular Culture section would appear too kitsch to be included with scholarly insight into Ancient Egypt; however, i would like to see all the psychological ramifications, ideologies, symbologies included. Video Game references? I'm sure there is much more that could be covered here. Maybe this section is better off being explored in the Culture of Egypt section? Drakonicon 20:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Culture of Egypt?
Does the wiki-section Culture of Egypt need to be condensed to form a brief section of references for the Ancient Egypt article? Thus should there be an abridged version of the Culture of Egypt section separetely incorporated into the Ancient Egypt section?

Berlin Papyrus
In the chronology at the end of Mathematics in the Time of the Pharaohs, Gillings places the Berlin Papyrus in the XIXth dynasty which was between 1300 and 1200 BC so I repositioned the entry from 1800 BC which may represent the time of the original. He dates the originals of the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus and the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus in the XIIIth dynasty or about 1785 - 1700 BC.

Didn't they toke?
I seem to remember something on the news a couple of years ago that lead to the conclusion that there was trace amounts of cannabis within the bones or marrow or whatever of a pharoah or something.

I think this is important as its not a commonly grown substance around the Nile (unless your in "Denile". Ah-ha!) It leads to fact that the egyptions explored to very distant borders, or at least people from very distant borders travelled to egypt. Failing that, it means that those British egyptologists were toking the reefer when they excavated the tomes. Hmm.

If anyone can remember such an incident within the news and has any refences and links to it would you be able to post them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by False messiah uk (talk • contribs).


 * You know, I think i've heard something similar... but it was tobacco that I heard it about. Personally I think it was more likely the south-Americans who came to Egypt then the other way around.  Who knows... I'll look to see if I can find some sources for the either the cannabis or the tobacco theories. ---J.S (t|c) 14:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wheres the warfare?
Its pretty sad that in this long article there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on warfare or even military technology of any kind! The egyptians fought their shares of wars and were conquered not once, but twice! Seriously, with all the vandalism, and the fact that there is no war coverage, this article is quite deficient in quality! I am surprised at just how useless it appears... I expected more from a major article in wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.81.233.191 (talk • contribs) 00:59, September 14, 2006 (UTC)

Egyptians are Africans but not blacks
It seems that most of the dicsuuion are not based on any Scientific facts. Just check the picture of King Ramses II mummy, “look at his hair”. Also here is apicture for a boy from the south of Egypt. Egypt is continued civilization and did not vanish after the pharaohs.

Look at his hair. While you are doing that, look at his skin too. Look at that nose. Look at east Africans and even some Sudanese. Look at many Africa from east to west and you get that look as a result of mixing.--69.182.212.22 23:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThutmoseIII (talk • contribs).

how on earth is it "sceitific" to post random images and ask people to "look at his hair"? That's mistaking the nature of the terms involved in the debate (all of "Egyptian", "Blacks", "scientific fact" and "encyclopedia") on so many levels that it is pointless to even answer this. dab (&#5839;) 10:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC) I'm just trying to show that it's not true that all ancient Egyptians were black and it is very difficult to determine their race. --ThutmoseIII 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are just not used to seeing black people with wavy hair. If you say that they were not black, then what were they? They certainly were not white. It is a coincindence that these people are dark-skinned and in Africa. Of course not. Egypt's neighbors looked different from them, but only the Nubian and Canaanites looked like Egyptians. You can look into Asia and see hard-core blackness and evidence of mixing. The Yellow-skinned Asiatic with the jet-black hair did not look like an Egyptians. The European did not. The alleged 'white Libyans' (who were actually yellow with jet-black hair who fancied the Asiatic. Not only that, there were black Libyans also) did not. The Libyan and the Asiatic look almost exactly alike. The European looks like his own, but closer to the Asiatic if grouped as a whole. Only the Egyptian and the Nubian look and dress almost exactly alike. They just so happen to be right next to each other in Africa as well. The truth: I fyou took the jet-black Nubian and combine them with the Asiatic, it looks like an Egyptian.

The white man just wants to minimize the black presence and accomplishments in this world. We see it in the US also. We see it in the Africa-American arts that were created by them without any white input at all. They take the rock, jazz, swing, hip-hop and anything else they can get their hands on. They keep trying to crack the code to the hip-hop and R&B, but they cannot master it so they use their money to give the appearance of acceptance of these bubble gum pop acts like Justin Timberlake. Even now in the US, whites are even trying to take away the blackness of the black American by trying to show how white they are! Keep in mind, they still do not call them white.

Too many BS arguements are "race in the US should not matter in Egypt." It should. It matter in the US. It matters in what you call "sub-Saharan" Africa where those peoples are all grouped together as black, not even mentioning the whites down there or the arabs down there. North Africa is 'assumed' byt the language to be white and not black. Although sad, I am glad Darfur is getting press like I was happy when Somalia made the new years ago. It give people a chance to see the lies with their own eyes. Have you even wondered why you may hear so much about Sudan but hardly ever see the government on US TV? If they should them on the regular, it would shatter what has been built up about the appearance or so-called race or the so-called arabs AND it would make people wonder if Egyptians were not black and no blacks are supposed to be in the Sahara, why are those people so black on the Egyptian border? Instead of keeping the BS alive, why don't you talk about how Greece was hardly white and had nothing to do with Europe? Let's blow the out of the water.--69.182.212.22 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, Egyptians were African and black. It's funny how African-Americans are not Africans and many are hardly black and many white or half white, but must be black. You people can never get out of anything with those rules. There are clearly black people throughout North Africa and it's not from slavery. The people have mixed dude. Whites must deny this in order to not admit the mixing with the black on the European side of the sea. History is clear. So-called scohlars are just voicing their opinions about a people based on their own thoughts. Whites rule the word so they will tell history and add themselves to it whenever they can. Even the Anglos who had nothing to do with any ancient civilization. Europeans also go back to Greece, but Greece had nothing to do with you. They were not even what you would call white either. There was ALWAYS a black man on the scene in Greece and NONE of you like to even mention it. Even with that black man is in a fresco or the man that you try to pass off as white and European was more likely Asian or mulatto, you just never mention him or the physical difference of Greeks to white Europeans. It is the same way that you try to fool people into thinking that all Euorpean natives are white.--69.182.212.22 23:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow
Could someone fix the section on achievements? I don't know what happened, it looks horrid...

Black egypt?
Were the ancient egyptians black?I remark some similarities between their traditions and those of ancient somali and ethiopian people.