Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Archive 5

Punt
I have some trouble with the Punt claim and reference in Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Punt being "possibly" somewhere is not really a useful claim (possibly its somewhere else...). And the supporting ref is the history section of a travel guide, hardly a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Punt exists in the historical record, but archeologists have failed to pinpoint its exact location. Inferences have been made based on the writings of the Egyptians, since they had to travel by sea, presumably the Red Sea the assumption is that it was on the Eastern coast of Africa in one is now Somalia or Ethiopia. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian views of the world
Why do we have this as a separate section? The Egyptian views about their neighbours can be included under Art, since they presumably derive from ancient inscriptions somewhere, and the issue of invading Nubia to get their gold can be expanded under the Dynasty Period section. Does this section need to exist separately? Wdford (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Rameses
Ramdrake writes "Sorry, I'm not reading anything in there that says Ramses was related to any of these groups. It's not OR if it doesn't draw OR conclusions, and I fail to see where in the sentence that conclusion is". I'm disappointed that Ramdrake can be so disingenuous. This whole section is about Rameses. The sentence follows directly from one about Rameses ("Several commentators have noted that the mummy of Rameses the Great has red or blond hair. Frank Yurco described Ramses as a typical Northern Egytian as he was from the Northernmost governate of Egypt.Ramses ruled from 1279 to 1212. Ramses was born in the New Kingdom (c. 1570-1085 B.C.E.),at a time when many foreigners were settling and intermarrying in Egypt. The foreigners include the Asiatics and Mediterranean Sea Peoples.") It is all about Rameses. Juxtaposing sentences that way is classic WP:SYN. Paul B (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it be at all relevant to the topic of "Ancient Egyptian race", if many Asiatic or Mediterranean foreigners settled and internarried in Egypt at a certain time? B&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it is relevant and is already stated under the section called population history and dynastic population--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A general point about dynastic intermarriage in the New Kingdom might also be relevant, since there is a lot of evidence of Mitanni and Hittite royalty marrying into the Egyptian Royal family as part of imperial alliance-building. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Again on DNA studies
In this section only the following sentence makes sense in the context of the article: "Although DNA studies have been done on some ancient mummies, no data has been made public about the racial characteristics of those mummies". Everything that comes next has nothing to do with ancient Egyptians. It does not for instance say when in history North Africans and Egyptians began to lean toward Eurasians instead to other Africans. From the start of the Egyptian civilization? Somewhere late in the Egyptian history? According to me, only the first sentence of the section, which needs also a quotation, can remain there.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It does seem a bit confusing to have that statement there--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Negroid?
Why in the Hell is this article using this extremely outdated term to describe certain Sub Saharan African? My Goodness this article is a mess. It focuses so heavily on modern Egyptians and seems to be extemely out of touch with newer main stream research. Which Ultimately stating that the Ancient Egyptians were an indigneous Northeast African population.

MODERN DNA AND SKELETAL RESEARCH SHOW THE EGYPTIANS TO BE AN AFRICAN POPULATION. SORRY TO SHATTER SO MANY DELUSIONS, BUT THIS IS MAINSTREAM ACADEMIC RESEARCH.

"Clines and Clusters"- show ancient Egyptians link more closely with Africans

CL Brace 1993: http://www.geocities.com/nilevalleypeoples/truenegromodel.jpg

CL Brace 2005 http://www.geocities.com/nilevalleypeoples/brace2005a.jpg

DENTAL STUDIES SHOW ANCIENT EGYPTIANS HAD CONTINUITY AND CLOSER TO OTHER AFRICAN POPULATIONS THAN EUROPEANS OR MIDDLE EASTERNERS. THE ANCIENT BADARI ARE very REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ANCIENT EGYPTIAN POPULATION

QUOTE:

"Despite the difference, Gebel Ramlah [the Western Desert- Saharan region] is closest to predynastic and early dynastic samples from Abydos, Hierakonpolis, and Badari.."

the Badarians were a "good representative of what the common ancestor to all later predynastic and dynastic Egyptian peoples would be like"

"A comparison of Badari to the Naqada and Hierakonpolis samples .. contradicts the idea of a foreign origin for the Naqada (Petrie, 1939; Baumgartel, 1970)"

Evidence in favor of continuity is also demonstrated by comparison of individual samples. "Naqada and especially Hierakonpolis share close affinities with First–Second Dynasty Abydos.. These findings do not support the concept of a foreign dynastic ‘‘race’’"

"Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well."

(Joel D. Irish (2006). Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2006 Apr;129(4):529-43.)

EGYPTIANS CLOSER TO US BLACKS THAN WHITE EUROPEANS OR AMERICANS

QUOTE(s): "We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites... Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical... Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks. ..brachial indices are definitely more ‘African’... There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains." ("Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature." Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, Aly El-Sawaf, (Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008, Jun;136(2):147-55

http://www.geocities.com/nilevalleypeoples/raxterrufftrinkhauscombo.jpg

LIMB PROPORTION STUDIES SHOW ANCIENT EGYPTIANS MORE LIKE AFRICANS THAN EUROPEANS OR MIDDLE EASTERN PEOPLE

QUOTEs: "The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229.

DNA STUDIES ON THE Y-CHROMOSONE SHOW AFRICANS PEOPLES ARE TIED TOGETHER, REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY LOOK

But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them." (S O Y Keita, R A Kittles, et al. "Conceptualizing human variation," Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)

"Recall that the Horn–Nile Valley crania show, as a group, the largest overlap with other regions. A review of the recent literature indicates that there are male lineage ties between African peoples who have been traditionally labeled as being ‘‘racially’’ different, with ‘‘racially’’ implying an ontologically deep divide. The PN2 transition, a Y chromosome marker, defines a lineage (within the YAPþ derived haplogroup E or III) that emerged in Africa probably before the last glacial maximum, but after the migration of modern humans from Africa (see Semino et al., 2004). This mutation forms a clade that has two daughter subclades (defined by the biallelic markers M35/215 (or 215/M35) and M2) that unites numerous phenotypically variant African populations from the supra-Saharan, Saharan, and sub-Saharan regions.." (S.O.Y Keita. Exploring northeast African metric craniofacial variation at the individual level: A comparative study using principal component analysis. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 16:679–689, 2004.)

PEOPLES FROM THE "DARKER" SOUTH CONQUERED OR ABSORBED THE NORTH

"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant." (Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )

QUOTE(s):

"Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots. The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food." (Christopher Ehret (1996) "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture." In Egypt in Africa Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press)

"Ancient Egypt belongs to a language group known as 'Afro-Asiatic' (formerly called Hamito-Semitic) and its closest relatives are other north-east African languages from Somalia to Chad. Egypt's cultural features, both material and ideological and particularly in the earliest phases, show clear connections with that same broad area. In sum, ancient Egypt was an African culture, developed by African peoples, who had wide ranging contacts in north Africa and western Asia." (Morkot, Robert (2005) The Egyptians: An Introduction. Routledge. p. 10)

see: http://www.geocities.com/nilevalleypeoples/quotes.htm

In the links below you have about a two hour lecture by Keita in Cambridge University, basically laying to rest any notion of Egypt being anything other than an indigenous Northeast African civilization. Lol wonder what you’ll have to say about this one Mathilda!

Lecture part 1 http://mediaplayer.group.cam.ac.uk/component/option,com_mediadb/task,play/idstr,CU-Fitzmuseum-Kemet-Keita_01/vv,-2/Itemid,26

Lecture Part 2

http://mediaplayer.group.cam.ac.uk/component/option,com_mediadb/task,play/idstr,CU-Fitzmuseum-Kemet-Keita_02/vv,-2/Itemid,26

96.28.209.199 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * long post. You mention all these studies, and give some good references for books and studies, but I hope you understand that the geocities links can't be used as article references. Also, I think the debate is more that one side believes that the Egyptians were phenotypically identical to sub-saharan Africans and modern day blacks, while the other side argues that that would be absurd considering their location in the north-east corner of the continent and probably interbreeding with Arabs and Greeks to some extent; and that Egypt was probably an ancient ethnic melting pot with no clearly defined "Egyptian" race. And I think "Negroid" is a technical term. --Pstanton (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I assure you that throughout these archives these studies have been referenced time and time again, and if not then if it comes down to it I will unhesitantly provide the actual studies. However what you're attempting to do is in a sense stereotype my sources and my argument. For the umpteenth there is no one African look. Africans come in all colors, shapes and Sizes and are the most genetically diverse peoples on Earth (even when limited to Sub Saharan Africa). YOu're trying to assert that my position is that the Ancient Egyptians were the sterotypically (Western view) "negroid" Sub Saharan Africans (with Wide noses and THick Lips), when no they weren't. They were Northeast Africans who are just as African as the "negroid" Africans and have lips as thin as non Africans and noses narrower than Swedes, yet are some of the darkest people on Earth (however have a wide range of hues), which isn't do to admixture from outside influences, but enviornmental adaptation (elevated). These are the people that these studies link the Ancient Egyptians most akin to Somalians, Ethiopians, Nuibians (NORTHEAST AFRICANS)..ECT! Sure there were peoples in Egypt who weren't Africans and likewise West and Bantu Africans. But in Egypt's earliest dynasties these inhabitants were PRIMARILY of Northeast African origin, with Southern culture being dominant FACT. For all those who thought, in my previous edit I posted videos which are lectures from Keita who proves what I've just said. 96.28.209.199 (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you post here once more these videos from Keita's lectures?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Lecture part 1 http://mediaplayer.group.cam.ac.uk/component/option,com_mediadb/task,play/idstr,CU-Fitzmuseum-Kemet-Keita_01/vv,-2/Itemid,26

Lecture Part 2

http://mediaplayer.group.cam.ac.uk/component/option,com_mediadb/task,play/idstr,CU-Fitzmuseum-Kemet-Keita_02/vv,-2/Itemid,26

96.28.209.199 (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. I added them to the article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A few unreliable sources removed
Please do not cite websites such as:


 * http://www.eyeconart.net


 * http://www.africawithin.com

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuhammedAkbarKhan (talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

article should only be edited by neutral individuals
Looking at the history of edits I see most of the recent editing has been done by clearly Afro-Centrist users such as user: Deeceevoice. Can someone more neutral look over this article and review the recent wave of edits by Afro-Centrist users such as Deeceevoice? Thanks.

The article to me has a Eurocentric slant. Even the pictures seem to be 90% favoring a Caucasian POV (one of the gallery pictures has a woman whose skin color is lost and the default alabaster (or limestone) white color is all that's left. Yet this is used as an example in an article discussing the race and skin color of the Egyptians, hardly indicative of an Afro-centric slant. Is it possible to be neutral without being vetted by those who already have a Eurocentric POV? I have books and photos of negroid Ancient Egyptians, and I wonder why none are used here. --Panehesy (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have photos of ancient Egyptians, you can prove they are in fact ancient Egyptians, you feel they would add to the debate, and you can add these to the article, then please add them in. Wdford (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

African?
What does the term 'African' mean when used here? There seems to be an assumption that the term is synonymous with 'Negro', yet Negroes are not and were not the only race in Africa. I echo the comment made above that "Africans come in all colors, shapes and Sizes and are the most genetically diverse peoples on Earth". The term African then is without any useful meaning and completely useless as a description.--Utinomen (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you have met Africans. They come effectivelly in all colors, shapes and sizes, yet they are Blacks. Within the same familly, people can go from very dark to very light. Yet they are parents, brothers and sisters. There were dark colored Nubians and Egyptians as well as there were light colored Nubians and Egyptians. There is a myth we all have to forget, the one of light colored Egyptians versus dark colored Nubians (and other Africans). It is just another fabricated Eurocentric void myth projected into Africa for the sake of creating confusions in minds. I have to be clear. I am speaking about indigenous Africans, not about people who came to Africa from outside through invasions late in history (from the invasion of the Peole of the sea and the Hyksos to the Arab conquest down to the European colonization of the XIXth-XXth centuries).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In order to progress this debate, we need to eliminate such terms as Negroid, or negros, because they are used to describe only one kind of Indigneous African peoples, while treating anyone else who does not match the wide nose, thick lip, and jet black skin as non indigenous Africans which is false to say the least. All of these Africans North, South, East, and West are related through the PN2 clade.

However something that needs to be noted is that there are no "caucasian" peoples indigenous to Africa! True enough non Africans have been living in Africa for thousands of years, the first people's to inhabit all regions of Africa descend for a Sub Saharan African population and that is fact my friend. 96.28.209.199 (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tone down the paranoid trip Lusala, how can I take you seriously when you see conspiracy in everything. Right, by your definition every single person on this planet is an indigenous Africans = Black, since back-emigration does not count, in any way shape or form. Ultimate we all come from Africa, and thus are all indigenous Africans, and by that automatically black, per your saying. Normally 1 billion Chinese would not be counted as blacks, at least I would not, but apparently they are now. To me they are Asians. Utinomen is fully correct I questing the terms use. I have myself previously addressed the confusing use of terms in the article, especially the old article. African, blacks, Negro etc are used without regard to timeframe, from whom it is, and I what context it is. Apparently it is regarded as the same in connection with the article. Though I must say this newer article is much better in using relevant terms, and there are even some lines in the current article addressing this interchangeable use of terms, that are not the same. I applause that. Anyway let’s get it straight once and for all. All people born in Africa, is an African, regardless of race, creed or color. A white born in South Africa in the 1950, an Arab in Egypt in the 9 century, or a Greek in Egypt in 100 BC, are all African, by our current definition of land. Meaning they might not in their timeframe have been called an African, but in our time, they will all be counted as African. Egypt is a country in Africa; thereby all born in Egypt are African. One can make an argument over 1 generation born in a new place, and that is fully fair, and whatever one thinks is correct, is ok, but after a few generations, there is no argument anymore. They are de facto African. Not all Africans are black or Negro, regardless that 96.28.209.199 thinks that Africans is the” most genetically diverse peoples on Earth”. What he apparently meant to say was that blacks are the most genetically diverse peoples on Earth, since Africa is hardly more genetically diverse then say North America. After all, there is hardly a corner in the world that has not shipped people to North America during the last 400 years, which should give a diversity that is hard to match. Twthmoses (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately you know that "Not all African are Black or Negro". How do you distinguish them? In other words, when can you say this African is Black, this one is Negro and this one is neither Black nor Negro?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is an excellent question, and it is essential the whole problem with this “race” question. Some are very easy of course. A Chinese fellow born in say Tunisian is an African and one would be well aware he was not a Negro, just by looking at him. While I do know what an African is, or rather who is an African; and note being an African has nothing to do with “race”, just as little a being an European has to do with being Caucasian. But I’m of course not an Anthropologist, and I have just as hard a time as anybody else, to see the difference between a Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid, beyond the truly obvious, like a Scandinavian, Chinese and central Africa. I always wonder, especially on this page here, why all “light complexity” African, is systematical and automatically “high jacked” as a variation of Negros. How come there is no dark complexity Caucasoid or Mongoloid? But only light complexity Negroid? After all an Italian and Scandinavian they do not look the same, but they are both Caucasian, and one could easy take a couple of millions Egyptians place them in any Mediterranean country, and they would pass unnoted, as coming from that place. When 16-19th century traveler’s talk about Negros, they do not mean light complexity people, from say Egypt, Morocco or Algeria, they mean black people with curly hair, big lips, flat wide nose etc, and coming from Negroland (yes that term is used on African maps from that same period, stretching from approx Sudan to the west coast). After all Negro means Black. It is from this region black people come, at least in the minds of 16-19th century travelers and explores. Twthmoses (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I find that the so-called mixture of sub-saharan negroid and caucasoid people produce offspring that resemble mediterranean types and ancient egyptians. Yet we see the mediterranean types as "caucasoid" and the Egyptian types as "caucasoid". Why is this? I cannot call a bi-racial individual caucasoid, yet I can see indistinguishable similarities to Ancient Egyptians. I think the question stems on where we draw the boundary from Caucasoid and non Caucasoid. Why is that boundary drawn in such a manner as to prevent any European from slipping out of it? I think that is more political and prejudiced than observational. Again, keep in mind how we now find variations in Africans as "not truly negroid" but variations among Europeans as "various KINDS of caucasoid". In the 19th century, Italians, esp. Sicilians who lived in parts of the USA were classified as Negroes. The Ancient Egyptians were called negro by the French explorer Champollion. So this should be kept in mind as we look at the 19th century points of view. Light complexioned Africans are no more hijacked as Negroes as dark skinned Italians, Greeks, and others have been hijacked as variations of Caucasoids. --Panehesy (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are quite correct - different people use different definitions of where lies the boundary between black and white, and many folk deliberately use a further definition of "mixed race" peoples to account for those who do not fit neatly into either the black or the white category. Most societies are prepared to accept that many peoples who are not white are not black either, but fit into alternative catogries such as "Arab", "Polynesian" or "Native American" and so forth. As the article mentions clearly, this is the essence of the controversy. If everyone (including the Afrocentrists) were prepared to agree on a range of definitions that allows the ancient Egyptians (and the modern Egyptians too) to be neither black nor white, then there would not be a controversy in the first place. Wdford (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

But the boundary between black and white is a great boundary, as the two groups are considered on opposite sides of a gamut. What I don't like is that the groups in the middle are now, ostensibly, considered white, when historically, they have been treated as not white by whites and by themselves. Italians, Jews, Egyptians, Arabs, none of which were accepted as white until the 20th century are now white. But even more of an issue is that, the Ancient Egyptians are historically attached to the black Africans to some relevant degree. The polynesians, native Americans and so fourth are not. The Ancient Egyptians denote their ancestry to be Ethiopia. They are continually related to the Kushites and Nubians as they all share the Nile. I think if we just used reliable consistent scholarship we would see why there is strength in the notion that they are black. However, I do not see the scholarship presented in the article, I only see the weakest arguments of the Afrocentric side. Here are some reliable scholarly things to consider. Egyptians (unlike Semites) never rode horses, always shaved or were naturally clean shaven, relied on the Nile, had coarse hair they braided, shared a common language. These are all consistent with other Nilo-Saharan black African groups. At the very least these should be pointed out.--Panehesy (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And therein lies the problem. Riding horses is actually no indication of race, as nobody rode horses until they first learned how, and then everyone rode horses. The ancient Egyptians were not naturally clean shaven, (I don't know of any race that is), many of them (especially priests and kings) shaved their heads deliberately as part of voluntary hygiene. They did indeed all rely on the Nile, but living in a common river valley is not an indication of sharing a common race, especially when it is after all the world's longest river. The common language issue is still debated, as the languages were related but not uniquely so, and the braiding of coarse hair is also disputed - see e.g. the Ramses section.
 * Very importantly, when it comes to establishing the race of ancient peoples, none of these examples are "reliable scholarly things" as you claim - in fact quite the opposite. They are indeed clear indicators of interaction and cross-learning, but nobody disputes that. Equally, nobody disputes that peoples of both groups intermarried repeatedly over time, to form a large contingent of mixed-race citizens.
 * Wdford (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wdford I can see how you are reinterpreting things. The common links between the Ancient Egyptians and other black groups you seem to want to say are irrelevant. Yet those things you would find that would show a common link to Caucasoid groups you would acknowledge as meaningful. Riding horses. Let me clarify to you. Ancient Egyptians found riding horses to be a disgusting thing. It was something that no Nilo-Saharan group did in those days. Yet you see it in Semetic groups. That is important. Ancient Egyptians were clean shaven (whether naturally or not is certainly not the point). Semitic groups did quite the opposite, especially the priestly groups. now I am at a point in this conversation where I am wondering how you can overlook these important facts, and yet you spoke before about scholarship. I am seeing how, as I said before, scholarship seems to bend for the sensibilities of one group over another. If the Egyptians had kept their facial hair as typical, that would be understandibly pointed as a cultural link to other Semites (Caucasoids). The river is the longest river, but the point here is that you have two groups (Nubians, Egyptians) who are in adjacent proximity to each other, sharing a common history, yet you say "not the same race". Semites, who did not share a common history nor common heritage you say "same race". Both groups intermarried repeatedly over time, to forma a large contigent of mixed-race citizens. That's like saying black people in the Southern USA intermarried with black people in the Northern USA to make a mixed race. They come from the same ancestry. Egyptians came from Punt, and history shows that. They are slightly lighter skinned than Nubians, but they are not so different that they are a different race to start with. And another thing, like everywhere else, prior to modern technology, ancient civilizations sharing a common natural environment IS an indication of sharing the same racial heritage. You speak drawing contrary conclusions in a manner that leaves no clarity. That won't work. The world's longest river, in fact all of the great rivers of the world have people among them who historically share the same racial heritage. Amazon, Euphrates, Yellow, Hindu, and Danube rivers. Yet the Nile, again with all things Egyptian, the exception to the rule. And this we call "scholarship". --Panehesy (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Gallery
Muhammed is right to a certain degree wikipedia does discourage the use of galleries  per WP:NOT--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest we include a gallery of images or artwork that are discussed in the article. The reason why galleries are sometimes discouraged is because users sometimes fill them with images that are gratuitous in nature and in number. For example, if the article discusses disparate ways in which Egyptians portrayed themselves, then it is acceptable to include a gallery that illustrates this point. It should be unacceptable to include a picture of a random ancient Egyptian for whom there is no context in the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia specifically created the concept of galleries, and the supporting software, so that illustrations could be included where appropriate.
 * Per WP:IG- "However, the use of galleries (and the gallery tag) may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made."
 * The Ancient Egyptian art is virtually the only actual evidence we have from that time which can shed light on the controversy, and therefore it is very valuable to the debate. It is counter-productive to describe the artwork in words, because different people see different things when they look at the art, so its better to rather let the reader view the images and decide for themselves.
 * If you have a concern about a specific image then please mention it and we can correct the problem, but unilaterally deleting compliant material is vandalism.
 * Wdford (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the gallery of images depicts a majority of non-negroid Egyptian types. This is inconsistent with the findings available throughout various books, museums, and galleries. In a nutshell, when I look at the gallery I am convinced the Egyptians were by and large not black at all. Is there a copyright issue that prevents the more negroid images from being displayed? --Panehesy (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have photos of ancient Egyptians, you can prove they are in fact ancient Egyptians, you feel they would add to the debate, and you can add these to the article, then please add them in. Wdford (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

How do I prove they are in fact ancient Egyptians beyond the standard method of citation that is to be expected on Wikipedia. Is there some additional proving I would need to take? An attached video? Would you need to do thorough verification in person for these pictures to be accepted as authentic? --Panehesy (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, a reference from a reliable source is all that's required.Wdford (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of 'The definition of race' section
What is its purpose? -- garbagEcol - !collect! 10:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This controversy is impacted significantly by different people having different definitions of race. Science does not recognise a scientific differentiation between the so-called "races", and determining the race of any people is thus complicated by first having to agree on the rules and establish the borders between one race and another. Some people believe that everyone who is not "white" is automatically black, while many non-white people - such as Arabs, Orientals, Indians and Native Americans - do not consider themselves to be either "black" or "white". If everyone could agree on the same set of definitions then the controversy would probably not exist.Wdford (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is those who define the black race have changed their definition when it became apparent that this would include the Ancient Egyptians. So now the definition of the black race as narrowed considerably to such a degree. It looks like based on how it's applied retroactively it would exclude a significant portion of modern day black people who historically have accepted themselves as black. I don't think this debate has anything to do with Indians, Native Americans, Asians. It's related to a group of people in very close proximity to unquestionably black people of the same region. I think Ethiopians, Nubians, Kushites all are unquestionably black. In fact, the words Ethiopia and Kushim mean "black" in the languages they are derived from. That being said, the Egyptians, so close to these black groups, unlike the Asians and so forth, are attached historically to them, yet are not considered black by modern scholarship. The scholarship itself changes its course from present to past. --Panehesy (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Scholarship always develops over time - otherwise we would still have slavery and so forth. Changes in definitions are driven as much by the people themselves as by outside scholars - how many modern Egyptians consider themselves to be "black" as in "Ethiopian"? While the ancient Egyptians undoubtedly lived in very close proximity to the Ethiopians etc, they were also in very close proximity to the Canaanites and the Libyans, both of whom were seemingly much more light-skinned than the Egyptians. Wdford (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Panehsy is right. Modern scholarship changes the definition of black when it realizes that it includes the ancient Egyptians. Wdford is wrong when he tries to link the modern Egyptians to the ancient Egyptians. Ancient Egyptians are more close to the today's Nubians and other Black Africans (who by the way trace their past up to the Nile Valley) than to the today's Egyptians who are a mix of indigenous Africans and non-Africans. Modern Egyptians, especially in the north, has nothing or little to do with ancient Egypt.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Modern scholarship should not be determined by the whims and sensibilities of a particular group whose own ambitions have nothing to do with objective scholarship. Slavery has nothing to do with developing scholarship, it has to do with acknowledging and respecting others. Scholarship, in this case has to do with identifying the historical and ancestral contributions of one group or another. The first french egyptologists had no problem saying that the Egyptians were black. Champollion himself indicated how pathetic the Temhou (whites) were in Egyptian society and how relieved he was to see that change by his day. Modern Egyptians have a problem calling themselves indigenous and at the same time Arab. Arabs were not the indigenous inhabitents of Egypt, yet Egyptians clamour to say "we are authentically Arab". The very official name of Egypt is "The Arab Republic of Mazr". But back to the Ancient Egyptians. Yes, they were in close proximity to the Libyans and Caananites. But here's the deal with that. The Canaanites and Libyans did not share cultural and ancestral ties like the Nubians. Libyans were a smaller and less crosslinked group. The Canaanites were, also originally black and either were absorbed or conquered by the later Semites. In either case, neither group foundationarily impacted Egypt. And even if that were true, the way the Ancient Egyptians are displayed by "scholarship" you see the Semetic and Libyan influences, and rarely the Nubian influences. And this is despite the fact you acknowledge that the Egyptians were much darker. Oh and another thing, there wasn't just "Nubian"s from the south. There were Kushites, Medians, Kermese, Puntite, and other black groups. Even modern Egyptians living in the south, unmixed with Armenian, Greek, Turkish, and French call themselvs by the same name "Saeedi" as in "Ta-Seti". And they look black. They look like their ancient Egyptian counterparts further north. And so none of this is indicated in the article. Am I to assume these facts are striken out when others have attempted to add them in? --Panehesy (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest in summarizing how this article looks as I have gone back thorough the history of it. It seems that the definitions, and the interpretations made by one side who denies a strong black heritage seems to get more unilateral backing from Wikipedia moderators (or admins, I'm not sure). I do notice that more extreme claims made by Afrocentrists do disrupt the flow of things but the moderate viewpoint is also rejected with the weakest Afrocentrist points. I see also pictures that depict black Egyptians are scrutinized much more than others and are made to hold to a higher standard of copywright infringement. Race is an ambigious term, but what is clear, is when it is articulated that the Ancient Egyptians resemble black people or share a common social-cultural link to other African groups that look black, there is a strong administrative lean to remove those contributions. I've even seen a few revisions where the citations themselves were rejected due to an ambigious understanding of "common knowledge" being met (or not being met, it's very inconsistent). The article seems to rubber band back to a sense of depicting the Ancient Egyptians as just another Caucsaian group after strong attempts to show a real black heritage. Even now, there are missing gaps in the article's narrative that just so happen to exclude events and areas that give us insight to the black contribution. Except the 25th dynasty of course, which is presented almost in a way to placate one side of the argument. --Panehesy (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is one example. In the population history section, it follows a chronology from the earliest period to the modern. Yet the first sentance states "The modern population of Egypt was traditionally classified as belonging to the Caucasian race[76]." This statement has an impact on how the rest of the section is read and does so, to me, rather disingeniously. The modern population may very well be, but this article and especially this section is about the ancient population. For whatever it's worth to discuss the modern population, it should be done at the end of the section. It offers no insight to the debate and unless there is going to be a discussion about the changes (Arab invasion for example) of the modern population, the statement should be moved to the end. It's a statement that is easily read and integrated by the reader easily taking out "modern" because "was traditionally classified" is also added in the statement. I'm moving it to the end. --Panehesy (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Pushing the envelope
I have a problem with the following two sentences in the article:
 * "The mummy believed to be Thutmose I is described as having all the craniofacial characteristics common to Nubian people".
 * "The mummy of Thutmose II had a bimaxillary protusion, which is a Nubian trait".

Up to the Nineteenth dynasty the royalty and nobility were very closely related and almost all suffered from Malocclusion which resulted in a genetic predisposition for bimaxillary protusion with many, predominantly the women, also having class II Malocclusions (buck teeth). Bimaxillary protusion is also classed as rare in the Egyptian population of the time. Rather than being a "Nubian trait" it was basically an inherited disease in their case. In fact, due to the expected flooding of the Nubian cemetaries by the Aswan dam, in the mid 1960s Egyptologists exhumed thousands of Nubian bodies covering a period of two thousand years for study. The director of the project was James Harris, a Geneticist and orthodontist. He found that Nubians of the Dynastic period did not have the bimaxillary protusion common in Nubians today and theorised that this trait is a fairly recent developement. Using craniofacial characteristics to determine racial origins is pushing it a bit. I have no doubt that sources claim what the article says but it's wrong and should be deleted. Wayne (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well not on your authority alone. According to WP:VERIFY, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" Wapondaponda (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have the original Harris book but I did some further research. Later scholars use his research to say the genes for the bimaxillary protusion are Nubian although Harris still holds that it is not strong evidence. Harris says far stronger evidence is that the nobility also have a genetic predisposition for low sloping foreheads which is a definite Nubian trait when taken with the other craniofacial characteristics. I believe most scholars accept that the nobility are of Nubian origin but that does not mean the Egyptian commoners were also so the rulers "race" is not really relevant anyway. Egyptians were not racist and it is likely there was considerable mixing although there was almost no mixing within the early nobility themselves. I can't remember which one atm but one later Pharoah was even Syrian. As for Nodjmet, her skin colour is not natural and her facial features are not either. They are distorted by too much sawdust and resin placed in her mouth by the embalmers. Besides which Nodjmet is 20th Dynasty some 4 centuries later than the first likely true Nubian rulers. How long does your family have to live in another country? Truth be told I can't actually understand why there even is a controversy. What does it matter? The facts should tell the story. Wayne (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes
I'm just curious, are all the changes AncientObserver is making to the article approved by a consensus? These changes are pretty significant. As in replacing sourced material, rewriting sections, etc. --Pstanton (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to editing on Wiki so I hope I didn't break any guidelines. I made all of my edits without consensus from others. I came to the discussion page to talk about them openly. AncientObserver (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Misrepresentation of Scientific Studies
There are several interpretations of the scientific literature cited within this article that I would like to address. Let's start off with this comment in reference to Brace (1993).

"However, the anthropologist C. Loring Brace cautions that, since such limb elongation is 'clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat' in areas of great ambient temperature such as the arid Egyptian habitat, it cannot be taken as evidence of racial similarity with other peoples whose bodies have similarly independently adapted to their own hot, dry environment"

This comment follows the one about Ancient Egyptian limb proportions having tropical African affinities. However it is misleading because the authors cited for that information do not assess biological affinity in terms of "racial similarity" and Brace himself does not question the evolutionary implications made by these authors. He criticizes the terminology of Robins who labels the Ancient Egyptian limb proportions "Super-Negroid" because he does not agree that limb ratios are a racial characteristic. He believes the term Super-Tropical would be more accurate.

The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat. Since heat stress and latitude are clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temperature- namely skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such areas as equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Australia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be “super-negroid,” meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans (Robins and Shute, 1986). It would be just as accurate to call them “super-Veddoid or “super- Carpentarian” since skin color intensification and distal limb elongation is apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term “supertropical” would be better since it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more “racially loaded” term “negroid.”

Caution should be taken when interpreting scientific studies. We don't want to attribute a claim to scholars that they did not make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AncientObserver (talk • contribs) 07:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with all the changes AncientObserver is making to the article - I think they have been constructive and helpful. However I think we need to be more explicit with our treatment of the Brace quotation - what Brace is actually saying is that limb ratios are related to temperature, and although he uses latitude as one example of a factor that influences temperature the limb ratio correlation is not dependent on latitude. For example if one looks at a map of the world, there are Andean mountain tops on the same latitiude as the jungles of Brazil, and Giza is on the same latitude as the freezing highlands of Tibet and sweltering New Orleans. Irrespective of some of the examples used, Brace is actually making the point that because the Egyptian climate is hot, ancient Egyptians would have anyway developed "hot-adapted" body plans, and their body plan does not necessarily indicate that they migrated up from tropical Africa. I have amended the article accordingly, but if this is still confusing then we should add even more detail to ensure it does not mislead anyone. Wdford (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a reasonable interpretation of the literature. AncientObserver (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I just deleted a comment that doesn't appear to be supported by the scientific literature.

This view is corroborated by the fact that modern Egyptian (and other northern Africans, to whom they are more similar genetically than to other groups) Y-chromosomal haplogroups appear to be mostly of Neolithic origin [6], thus making modern Egyptians direct descendants of ancient Egyptians with a fairly limited gene inflow from other regions over the millenia.

The study cited is:

Arredi (2004): A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in North Africa

This study is not about Ancient Egypt. It doesn't say anything about the implications its data makes about the racial identity of Ancient Egyptians. It doesn't say anything about the implications its data makes about the potential genetic impact of foreign migrations into Egypt during the Late and Post Dynastic period. It may be useful in the DNA section of this article but to follow it up with a statement about Egyptian Egyptologists denying belief that the Ancient Egyptians were Black is misleading. Genetic lineages do not to determine phenotype. They can give us insight into a population's geographic origin when combined with anthropological, archeological, linguistic and other evidence but unless the scientific literature supports a statement I do not think that it should be used as a citation. AncientObserver (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Race classification
I'm wondering how do these criteria of racial classification actually work? Limbs, skulls, DNA, etc... none of these things really address the racial controversy, but serve as inadequate justifications of one side or another. The whole controversy is rooted in how the Ancient Egyptians looked and their ancestral heritage. Did they look like and come from black people? That's the question here. Long limbs, short limbs are all over Africa. And further to remember, many Semitic types are offshots of various black african types anyway. I cannot see limbs, skulls, or any other non-skin color, non facial feature based category as relevant. I do understand that there has been a pseudo-scientific movement as of late to reclassify various non-European groups as "Caucasian" based on these things, to the point that Ethiopians, Rwandans, and Fulani have been briefly classified as "non-negroid" or "Caucasoid". But this is known as the Hamitic theory and has no basis in consistent observable fact. The settlement and cultural identity plays an equal role and has more of an impact than bone structure. I am also aware of how much flexibility and broadening of the Caucasoid type has become, due to this very debate. What I want to know is this: How can black people today be classified as black and then the same people be viewed in Egypt as caucasoid? How can a person who is 50% white be socially understood as black, but then scientific data is reclassified and resorted to redefine what black "doesn't" mean? So that now, a person who is 50% black/50% white is classified as Caucasoid? That's not accurate. --Panehesy (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that in all of these discussions of various measurements, the median is already prepared to be Caucasoid when it should be known as intermediate. The results are therefore skewed so that in the gamut of humanforms from the most pronounced "negroid" type to the most pronounced "Caucasoid" type, all of the measurements that are in the middle are Caucasoid. This is also despite the fact that socially, culturally, with black/white racial types, the middle intermediate types are almost always viewed as black! It is against the scientific observation and the social observation to continue to use justifications based on arbitrary and unilateral interpretations that only seek to get a predicated result: Make sure the Egyptians are known as Caucasoid. The very opposite of scientific objectivity --Panehesy (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Or to put it another way. Take every black person in America (who are mixed with stronger Caucasoid admixture than Ancient Egyptians) and to each in here, there will be no use for measurements of skulls to determine their race. They are "black" with "white admixture", although of course many will be considered mixed, or intermediate. Very few will be considered Caucasoid. Yet with Ancient Egypt the process is reversed, or data that correlates with a strong negroid component is excluded by calling it "uniquely non-Egyptian Nubian". Can we call many of the Caucasoid types then "uniquely non-Egyptian Semitic"? --Panehesy (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

20th century theories on the race of the Ancient Egyptians are not exclusive to Afrocentrism
This article singles out Afrocentrism as the exclusive 20th century school of thought regarding theories about the the racial identity and origins of the Ancient Egyptians. While I agree that Afrocentrism has been the driving force of this debate throughout the 20th century and into the 21st it is not exclusive. There is no mention anywhere in this article about the Hamitic Hypothesis, which many anthropologists have challenged in their research on the diversity of indigenous Africans and the biological affinities of the Ancient Egyptians. A great deal of Afrocentric research on Ancient Egyptian identity is centered around debunking Eurocentric theories on the subject many of which are rooted in academic and scientific racism as much so as the racialist theories of the 19th century.

I also don't think it is accurate to stereotype all Afrocentrists as believing that the Ancient Greeks stole their philosophy and civilization from the Ancient Egyptians. That is a minority opinion among scholars who regard themselves, or are regarded as Afrocentrists. I don't have a problem with the article making note that many scholars are critical of Afrocentrism however the "20th Century Afrocentrism" article needs serious revision. I recommend that it be renamed to simply "20th Century" in line with the other segments and include a broader view of the racial theories on the Ancient Egyptians as well as the shift in perception of mainstream academia towards Ancient Egypt as an indigenious Northeast African culture. AncientObserver (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's also notable that the Afrocentric aspect is not clarified to be known as a legitimate response to the Eurocentric and racist interpretations that preceeded it. The readers think that there was some conspiracy by black afrocentricists to just take Egypt, instead of understanding that they worked to remind us of the black contributions that were made in Egypt. --68.40.153.116 (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Tut's wife
The article states that "The mummy of the wife of King Tutankhamen has auburn hair". Can someone who has the book check it? Ankhesenamen is Tutankhamen's only known wife and her mummy was never found. – Alensha   talk  20:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Off topic?
A lot of changes recently, article is growing, some material is only marginally relevant. I suggest we remain on-topic and directly relevant to the race of the ancient Egyptians. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats kind of vague. What's off topic in your opinion?--69.246.107.50 (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific, Wapondaponda? AncientObserver (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

POV Vandalism
The editor Taharqa has recently made a series of edits which have deleted relevant and referenced material so as to support a biased POV. This affects the quality of the article as well as the credibility we have worked so hard to achieve. This has happened both in this article and on the Land of Punt article. This article is under probation, and disruptive edits are specifically prohibited. Taharqa, please desist. Wdford (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To start with WP:AGF. I think we can resolve any differences in organization on the talk page. Nonetheless, the article has attracted a lot of attention lately and there has been some blatant POV material. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's alot of POV material and inaccuracies on the page in general. This article is controversial and I know the editors have their own opinions but hopefully we can be civil and not resort to edit wars.AncientObserver (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

AnwarSadatFan has twice deleted a picture of King Tut's bust from the Modern Controversies section. He gave this as his justification the first time:

"The National Geographic image is probably the most accurate depiction of him, the consensus is that he had tanned skin like that, this other statue has been painted and can be mislea"

This is a bogus claim. First of all the skintone of the plaster model is hypothetical, not based on science. The bust was made during his lifetime and I think it is only sensible to compliment the section with authentic Egyptian statuary. Misleading? That is a biased POV. We have an entire gallery dedicated to showing the diversity of appearances in Egyptian artwork. Reality is that Tut is depicted with brown skin in the majority of his artwork and comes from a region where the average Egyptian still has brown skin today. You can argue over whether you think the painting on the bust is meant to depict his living flesh tone but the fact is that it is authentic Egyptian art. Enough with the censorship. AncientObserver (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice that some Afrocentric arguments that are obviously untenable are inserted when very well laid out positions are made that support the black Egyptian theory. Then, others will respond against them and indiscriminately remove all edits that lean black, even those supported by reputable references. There is a difference between Afrocentric bias and accurate information that supports the Afrocentric viewpoint. I am still annoyed at how a statue with the skin color completely worn off is used in one of the pictures. --Panehesy (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Puntland
The article Puntland may also addresses the controversy related to the land of Punt section. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article Puntland refers to a state in the modern country of Somalia. This has no bearing on the controversy, other than that some local people siezed upon a name that had pre-colonial cachet and used it for themselves. A similar thing happened with naming the West African country of Ghana - it was named after the pre-colonial Empire of Ghana, although no part of modern-day Ghana formed any part of the Empire. There are thousands of places on earth that are named after other places, without there being any actual connection between the two, e.g. Albany in New York, and Memphis in Tennessee. Just about every state in the USA has a town or city named Athens, and quite a few have a Sparta or an Alexandria or a Jerusalem or a Canaan. The name Puntland therefore doesn't add very much to the debate at all.Wdford (talk) 07:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Second attempt to get clarity on the relevance of DNA studies
Earlier I spoke in this group about the significance of using DNA to determine the race of the Ancient Egyptians. I spoke against relying on it because of the disconnect it has from phenotype. No one responded, so I proceeded after a week to just make my changes. I'm new here, so I had a hard time putting the references in correctly. But I am expecting a reaction to my edits without actually addressing the reasoning behind them. I have yet to see, in any context how DNA can determine the blackness or lack thereof of the Egyptians. Secondly, I notice with relating race to black people, The greatest area of genetic drift between two groups of Caucasians is greater than the greatest of drift between between two groups of black Africans based on how the debate seems to be interpreted by some on one side. I would have to reclassify most of East Africa as "Caucasoid" in order to wrap my mind around this notion that Egyptians are predominantly Caucasoid. And, as I did more research, I notice that is what some of referenced writers did. Carleton Coon for example considered the people of Rwanda to be Caucasoid. In addition, outside of African Americans, admixture also seems to be imbalanced to prematurely qualify an intermediate type into the ever growing sphere of the Caucasoid race. Instead of simply being intermediate, this civilization which has a various and equal amount of black to non-black admixture is simply resorted once the definition of Caucasoid is expanded. In fact, it seems that here and there, any other African culture that touches Egypt is also swept away into the Caucasian fold. That is not going to work. Intermediates are intermediate, not Caucasoid, and changing what is Caucasoid now, in such a manner as to be inconsistent with it's application elsewhere is an indicator of bias. I feel a small subsection should be made to indicate the inconsistency of European centered thinkers to socially accept most intermediates in the USA as black while pushing to declassify the intermediates of Ancient Egyptians (who seem to be identical in appearance to Intermediates of America) as Caucasoid. The nuclear option, to reclassify all black intermediates as "white" or "Caucasian" is an absurdity. In fact, this is the crux of the matter. When African intermediates are classified in such a manner, historically it has been to distance them or to neutralize their cultural or social affinity to unmixed black Africans. This is not balanced, and is undermining the work of one side of the debate --Panehesy (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * DNA testing alone may not be able to determine phenotype however we can learn about population affinity from DNA. Many African-Americans for instance have learned from DNA testing which ethnic groups in Africa they are closely genetically related to. In theory this could work in the study of Ancient Egyptian DNA, although DNA is hard to extract from ancient remains. As for the rest of what you wrote I do think we need to write more about the theories of 19th and early 20th century anthropologists and Egyptologists who supported and promoted Eurocentric theories about the racial identity of the Ancient Egyptians. Right now the origins of the debate section makes a casual reference to the classical scholars, talks briefly about the "Colonial Period" and then gives a decidedly Anti-Afrocentric portrayal of Afrocentrism. I wrote a section on modern scholarship to give it more balance but I do think more needs to be said about the old racial theories of the past.AncientObserver (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that is the case, but when we are unable to identify what the ethnic group looks like, or when their physical appearance is in question, the DNA testing has little value in that context. Here, with the Ancient Egyptians, we are using large DNA tables and comparing them to our generalizations of what they looked like, instead of recognizing that Ancient Egyptians DNA variation was wide and clearly indicative of a mixed group, unlike the Caucasian model type. I think we need to write less about those who supported and promoted Eurocentric ideas about the Ancient Egyptians, because honestly I see that is thoroughly elaborated in the article. I would like to see a pro-Afrocentric portrayal in such a manner that is accurate and verifiable. There is absolutely none there. Afrocentricism is not by definition "falsehood". I am concerned that more of the 19th and 20th theories will cause the readers to accept them as fact even if they are predicated as false, without showing a better and more accurate understanding will simply bolster the Eurocentric side. Don't you think it's more appropriate to give more modern scholarship that empathizes the Afrocentric claim in an accurate manner? --Panehesy (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe in being as objective as possible. I don't believe that portraying Ancient Egypt in its African context is Afrocentric. It's the correct view. Others may differ with that opinion. I'd like to get away from Afrocentric, Eurocentric, Egyptocentric or any other form of bias and present an article with as much accurate info as possible.AncientObserver (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Tutankhamun: one image is enough
Please stop placiang redundant images that overcrowd the article. Adding an additional image of Tutankhamun does not help. The National Geographic cover is good enough. Actually it is a great image since it relates to the topic very well.


 * It does relate well, but the basis of the controversy is around the fact that this image seemingly contradicts images made by the ancient Egyptians themselves. By leaving both images in the article side by side, the uninformed reader will get an immediate sense of the basis of the controversy. I would prefer to carry both images, but shrink them so that they do not overwhelm the text - the reader can always view them in full-size on the day. Wdford (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored the image and reduced the size. I agree with Wdford, the royal bust serves an explicit purpose and is equally related to that article. I added both images specifically for that purpose and wrote in extra detail for that section. AncientObserver (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, can you Wdford or you AncientObserver tell me how many pictures seems to support the Afrocentric view in this article? How many support the Eurocentric view? Do you think that the images in support of one side are getting more airtime than the other? --Panehesy (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Its not a question of how many images, its a question of "quality", i.e. what do they add to the debate. I personally think some of the images in the gallery are not valid, eg the whole of Tut's family tree is shown, but other editors feel differently. If you have images that add to the debate then please add them. Wdford (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a few images that I would like to add to the gallery but I am having trouble posting them. Is there some type of format needed to add pics to the gallery?AncientObserver (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok then I will reword my question. Why would negroid looking Egyptian pictures have questionable quality to add to the debate when Caucasoid pictures do not? But I will answer your question. The quality is this: The Negroid pictures give more strength to the black egypt position and rightly demonstrate to the reader that the debate is meritious and not fringe, not weak, and is strong. It's an odd coiencidence that quality is questioned and a lack of understanding is present in my comment about this. You do see, of course, what they would add to the debate right? I do not want to insult your intelligence by assuming you don't see it. I cannot use any picture that I myself have not taken because it does not meet the copywright rules here. So, that is going to be the way I have to do that. In the meantime I am gathering pictures from others with their written copywright permission and I will post them all on my page in such a manner as to neutralize any extraneous copywright complaints. --Panehesy (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Panehesy, please stop with the conspiracy theory and post the pictures! We are all dying of suspense here! AncientObserver, I have the same problem as you. It seems that the images first need to be in the WikiCommons library, I think. I don't know how to get them in there - there is a WP: tutorial on this but I can't seem to get it right. Wdford (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Images of Amenhotep III
The reason for having both images is particularly important here due to the content of this section. Darwin and his friends looked at the features of the statue, and declared that the king in question looked (to them) to be Negroid. However a different statue of the same king has somewhat different features. This opens the question of how accurate a representation are these statues? Should we assume the race of the model based on the appearance (to our eyes) of a statue, or are these statues not necessarily a photo-accurate depiction of their actual features? If Darwin had seen the statue stolen by the Germans rather than the statue stolen by the British, would he have drawn the same conclusion? Because Darwin made deductions from the appearance of the statue as he saw it, I feel both statues should be shown. They can be made quite small so as to not overwhelm the article. Wdford (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe?
This book title seems extremely Aforcentric, is it really used as a reference for content in this article?


 * I've read the book and I used it as a reference. It cites alot of modern scholarship related to this subject. You might consider it to lean towards Afrocentrism but that shouldn't matter. AncientObserver (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And this is an example of what I am talking about. I agree with the book, but I know, and I think the contributor knows that it will cause a backlash and diminish the value of other afrocentric positions. Can I make a suggestion: The Afrocentric position in it's fullness will probably never be accepted here. But, the main goal of demonstrating the Egyptians were a black group will be accepted if we build step by step, instead of jumping to the end goal so quickly. And when great strides are taken without all of the foundations being put in place (references, cross references, and even more cross references) then the backlash will obviously come, sweeping away all of the well fought gains with it. --Panehesy (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Only some people have the goal of proving the ancient Egyptians were black - many others have the goal of presenting a balanced review of all the evidence. In order for this article to stay on Wikipedia at all we need to stick to the rules about balance, neutrality, verifiability etc. Otherwise we will again be told to go start a blog. Wdford (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent Changes
The article has been very active recently, its difficult to keep track of what has changed. If they are any major changes, I would suggest presenting the proposals on the talk page first. I think most of the editors attending to the article have been reasonable and are open to any suggestions to improve the article. This article is currently on probation, any edit warring or original research will get the article protected for a long time, which I am sure we would not like to see. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been doing that, so I hope no one will undo my edits with a justification otherwise. If no one replies directly, I accept that as acknowledgement. I wait about a week. I think that's more than reasonable. --Panehesy (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with this too. Things went "normally" for a while, but things are heating up again, so lets test and debate every major change from now on in the talk page first. See my initial proposals below - I was typing at the same time as you were. Wdford (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish you'd have just gone through the process of verifying what is and isn't legit instead of doing what you did, which is blank revert a lot of decent information (not only from me). The article is a mess and full of original research bias.

Starting with the intro in the last sentence where it says "there's a lot of 'support' for a range of fringe theories, which includes random links including one from geocitites. Has anybody on here read wiki "reliable sources" policy?

We have one particular editor who keeps tampering with every edit I and others make as to exert some kind of control. The section on Dolichocephalism is irrelevant, let along the information therein carefullly selected, distorted and worded to suit a particular editor's point of view, while my additions were again, distorted and reworded whenever I add novel information, usually more up to date/authoratative/relevant to ancient Egypt. They keep building up some straw man about how it doesn't define "race" but it depended on heat stresses, in which I cite Lieberman and Anton who point out that Africans mostly have such skulls due to INTENSE (not just regular) but INTENSE heat which as Anton noted, is cause for "pronounced" Dolichocephalism in tut that isn't common in cold-adapted people (these were in my citations!). The citations should be able to speak with out the lay interpretation of editors from wikipedia. Not to mention that naming a section after a particular head-shape doesn't make sense. We don't even know what the relevance is.

Concerning the section on the "population history" of ancient Egypt. I propose a radical change from its current version and already made such an action but saw opposition so I'm bringing my reasoning here.

There are three sub-sections that are not coherent or even relevant. I am not criticizing anyone's particular writing style, it is just very sub-par per encyclopedic standards. Firstly, "post-dynastic" is considered by definition not "ancient egypt", thus any population history after that can give us nothing in the way of addressing the controversy of the ancient Egyptians. Even when the reasoning is that there needs to be a comparative framework that includes moderns, I agree which is why all of this should be condensed into one section. The research on that area isn't extensive enough to warrant its own section! Also, it is opened with many unattributed claims, bad grammar, and irrelevancies about cultural artifacts. Studies from over 100 years ago are cited which clearly doesn't reflect any kind of academic consensus in the modern era. Keita is distorted and I was even trying to add back a 2008 update of the study that he was distorted on where he clarifies but I was blank reverted. The Irish study is repetitive and was already posted in the dental section only to be posted again. Much of this repeats on and on and on so I tried to re add it in a section above and condense it! The same info is being repeated. This is ridiculous.

In limb ratios, an editor keeps using a statement from a 1993 study by Brace to supersceed all other works cited while distorting it in a context that would give the illusion that he is contradicting what the others say or imply (like when Keita says these are "tropical" and not "sub-tropical" adaptations, or when "Robins" calls them "super-Negroid" as they are longer than west Africans, even though west Africa's closer to the equator, meaning Egypt isn't as hot and Brace' explanation is bunk (as Keita notes). Trying to cite Robins' descriptions of tomb paintings is cherry picked and will only provoke cites from Drake, Keita, etc. who refute the reliability of portraiture but do suggest a consistent African presence in nearly all of them. I was trying to avoid the cluttering and stick to body plans but some editors like to throw curve balls in there whenever there's info they might not agree with (no direct accusations of motives being made here).

In the Afrocentrism section, an entire position is being attacked by the editor via random citations and subjective opinions as to be a referendum on "Afrocentrism". This article is not a critique of that and any criticism should be counterbalanced, not subject to the biased rants of one side.

There is a lot more wrong with this article, but for now I want to get an opinion on the sloppyness of the "population history" section. I'd like to continue my edit which grouped the relevant citations to one section while summarizing it all with mainstream sources from the late 20th to 21rst century.

Sorry for not bringing my concerns here first didn't intend to attack or direct any negativity towards anyone..Taharqa (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically relating to 100 year old references, previously some editors had restricted the content of this article to content related to the Afrocentrism movement, believing that it was only Afrocentrists in the Post Garvey period who were responsible for the controversy. The purpose of 100 year old studies is in part to demonstrate that topic has a long history of scientific inquiry that is well over 150 years old, and that these studies existed independently of Afrocentrism. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the entire "fringe" theory section is inappropriate. I wanted to remove it, but again i understand that is also inappropriate. So I rightly commented, waited, and clarified the "Egyptians are black" position without resorting to Afrocentricism. I think the Egyptians are black, but I do not really find the Afrocentric positions to be useful as of yet, because they are unsupported. I disagree however about using any skull shapes to define race, I know black people who have skulls of both types and it's not reliable to use skull shapes to deteremine anything when the group in question (ancient Egyptians) are in the crossroads of these various groups. It would be like taking a family and calling one brother Caucasian, and another Negroid, and another Intermediate, based on their skulls. That's genetics, but not race. With population history, right off the back I saw what I felt was a POV method called "forking" of an introductory paragraph demonstrating the Caucasian background of modern Egyptians. Although i think it should be eliminated, I worked within the guideline and rightly moved that to the bottom with the "modern" section. I agree again, post dynastic anything is irrelevant and I think the contributor that put it in knows that. Which makes me wonder how much influence the Eurocentric bias has in this article. We talk about the influence of Afrocentricism, why not the Eurocentricism also ? I do not think it's fair, balanced, or neutral to bring 100 year old citations from Eurocentric minded scientists, any more than it is to bring 50 year old citations from Afrocentricists. In fact, anything from 1980s and earlier I regard with suspicion, especially Carleton Coon. We should point out the well done work supporting the Egyptians are black side without automatically calling it Afrocentric. It's just accurate. SOME of the Afrocentric contributions are not verifiable or accurate, but SOME are!--Panehesy (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Outline
I think agreeing on an outline will go a long way in helping to organize the article and reducing redundancy. I think limb ratios, skull shape and dentition can be compressed into one section "physical anthropology". Wapondaponda (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn’t revert any “decent” information – I was reinstating “decent” information that had been deleted, and I carried over the valid extra stuff as well. If I missed anything it was a spelling change or something, for which I apologise in advance.
 * When it comes to demonstrating support for “fringe” theories you are not limited to using academic sites, as the academics don’t tend to support fringe theories. I hope you aren’t claiming that only professors are allowed to have opinions? However for the “scientific” comments, I fully agree that we need to use reliable sources.
 * The section on Dolichocephalism is 'massively relevant', as it demonstrates that the use of skull shapes to identify race is actually not reliable. Not only Semites, but also Europeans, evidence widespread Dolichocephalism. Since much of Keita and also Anton is based on skull shapes, this adds a huge extra dimension to the controversy. Adding novel information is great, but you need to add the full info not just a careful selection that suits one aspect of the debate. The whole reason why wiki policy requires you to give references is so that others can check what you have quoted and fix it if necessary. For example, I agree that Leiberman and Anton believe Africans tend toward Dolichocephalism because of heat stress, but there is also a lot of valid scientific evidence that shows that Eskimos and Scandinavians etc are also Dolichocephalic even though they developed in cold climates, so maybe Leiberman and Anton are not completely correct? I don’t know who is right and who is wrong, but evidence is evidence – let the reader absorb it all and make their own decision.
 * I agree that the "post-dynastic" section is not fully relevant, but it is there because of the DNA section. A lot of editors felt that the DNA of modern Egyptians is not relevant here, but a lot of other editors do want to include it. If you want to talk about modern Egyptians then you need to draw some connections to the ancient Egyptians. If we can agree to reduce the DNA section to only refer to ancient Egyptians then we could also drop this section as well. I fully agree that we should delete the repetition re Keita and Brace and Irish, and just refer to the earlier section where this is all discussed.
 * Re the limb ratios, the evidence clearly shows that the limb ratios are related to heat not latitude, and Egypt is a very hot place even though it is not tropical. The work of Brace is supported by others as well. The Sahara is actually every bit as hot as tropical Africa, if not hotter than some equatorial places, and the work of Brace etc is thus not “bunk”. The Arabian Peninsula and the Arabian Desert (location of Ancient Punt) are also rather hot. Keita is thus incorrect to label them as "tropical" adaptations, as they will occur more in hot non-tropical areas (such as Egypt) than in cool tropical areas (such as the Andes). All Keita was actually saying is that this rules out Europeans. Keita’s East Africa comment was just speculation, as he himself admitted.
 * I propose to reduce the Afrocentrism section to one paragraph, and a reference to the detailed Afrocentrism article elsewhere, where these issues are thrashed out to the satisfaction of those who care.
 * We should also bear in mind that this article is not just about the opinions of Keita – other experts have different opinions as well.
 * Wdford (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda, I don't understand. You can't in one fell swoop label everything as "afrocentric" until you define what Afrocentric is and apply that to the citations with other citations. 100 year old studies that have been cited by others as outdated clearly violates wiki "reliable sources" policy. It is not an appeal to novelty, it is to avoid the obsfucation from older ideas being tested against new ones that have consensus. Whoever cited these individuals are citing Eugenicists and Race Quacks from the 19th and early 20th century. Most don't even mention ancient Egypt. This is weird, very weird so my proposal as you've stated, is to make an outline with clearly defined sections that dictate what the purpose of citations should be.

I am not here to argue over who's edits are more "decent" since that's a circular argument that will never end. My point is that per encyclopedic standards this article is a mess and a lot of the wording doesn't reflect mainstream data (especially cites from 1905) or everything that can be included. Only a few outdated studies are cherry-picked and neatly placed into some deceiving context.

Let's let's get started with the outline. Shall we?? I'll make a new section assuming that most agree. Oh..

Wdford.. For you to say "Keita" is incorrect isn't at all something that we can consider as you're an editor here and our job isn't to be scientists or to scrutinize them. Keita criticizes Brace a lot, Brace has never criticized Keita. He obviously knows what he's talking about as Zakrzewski, Kemp and others confirm this. Kemp implies that it means that they had common ancestry. It is always hotter the nearest you are to the equator (and I can get citations) so the fact that these ratios are so high, suggests to Keita and others that these are "tropical adaptations".. I have other citations that prove Europeans came from AFRICA and not Neanderthals due to their elongated limbs and I can cite them. It is all about what the anthropologists say, not us. We don't matter and I'm not going to debate you. This isn't a forum. Let's discuss the format.Taharqa (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Taharqa (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They may have held racial theories you find distasteful, but they could still measure skulls as well as you can today, and the main point is that they grouped Nordic and Aryan skulls in the same shape-category as Negro skulls - that should tell the reader something interesting about skull shapes right there. Before you go build a "Keita-says" section, please post your proposed content on the talk page for discussion and agreement. Wdford (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

OK.. Obviously this article needs A LOT of work, in terms of organization and coherency.


 * The intro of course is cool.. I only propose that it be condensed to a more basic summary. It looked to conflicting and too scattered. Oversaturated with info that should be left for the article to explore.


 * The sections on "Definition of Race" and "Race and Science" should be merged as it speaks to the same issue. The "race" and science section is redundant for this reason. Science is a part of racial classification as science is the one who has done away with the concept. It can be reflected in "Defining race"


 * The section called "Dolichocephalism" should be renamed to "craniometry" and Craniometry, Limb and Dental studies should all be merged under "population history". Under population history are three sub-sections that present a false dichotomy for the first two, while the last one is debatable. All of this can be addressed in the subsections of "population history" since such would be inferred from biological material. Otherwise, we'd keep repeating the same studies and same information. Maybe someone can think of a creative way to merge this.


 * The "afrocentrism" section should be brief. It is common for a lot of people to link purely scientifically published mainstream data that attributes to ancient Egypt (in Africa) an African genesis as "Afrocentric" or set up the weakest arguments espounded by people of African descent and simply refer to it under an umbrella term as "afrocentric". Many Afrocentrists see from the other polar opposite view that folx who emphasize this are "Eurocentric".. To avoids that, we should let the tenants of Afrocentrism be argued on the Afrocentrism page as there is a lot to disagree with on both side and no one wants an ongoing battle over trivialities or someone's opinion.


 * The title of the section "Ancient Egyptian Material" to me, makes no sense. I guess someone should explain that to me. Maybe if it looks to cover something else, the words should be changed.


 * King Tut is a legit controversy as is Cleopatra, but there is no noted media attention surrounding Ramses. The hair debate is just so tedious. There's studies showing that there is blondism in modern Nubians and trichometric measurements from the same study showed that his hair was no where near the European average. But I think it's irrelevant. It's one person who received no real notice in this "controversy". Maybe we can start a section on hair?

I'll have more suggestions after we have some input rolling in.Taharqa (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Taharqa a lot of things here have nothing to do with the controversey it's self but it is evident that anything that has to do with the possible racial chracteristics of any ancient egyptians particulary ones like ramesess the great, Cheikh Anta Diop who attempted to prove ramesess was black he is most certainly apart of the controversial but he is one egyptian dude afrocentrist such as yourself rather not have in the article because he does not seem black--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning sources from 1905, they are still being referenced today. Zakrzewski 2007 which is referenced numerously in the artilce references the 1905 study along with studies from 1902 and 1897. If it is good for Zakrzewski, then it is good for this article. According WP:VERIFY, the threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is verifiability not truth. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The population history is arguably one of the most important subsections relating to the race of the ancient egyptians and it should not be limited to anthropometric studies. The Nile valley has received several migrations from outside and these migrations played an important role in the racial characteristics of the ancient egyptians and modern egyptians. In short the population history should address the relationship between modern egyptians and the ancient egyptians, ie are they essentially the same people or are most modern egyptians recent immigrants to the region. Specifically since most modern egyptians would not identify themselves as black, a subsection devoted to modern egyptians, ie post-dynastic period is relevant. I also agree that we should not blanket the article with sources from Keita. There are other relevant studies as well. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ''The problem isn't about verifiability but about it taking precedence over the very studies that supersede them 100 years down the line. It is about no Original Research. It is about:

"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."''

It is about not injecting one's own analysis and creating ambiguous topics with the title of a head-shape.

It is about having more citations other than Keita, and ensuring this by not blank reverting when one has contributed just that and more.

You have a good point on the population history section, though my main concern as stated was the repetition, at times verbatim. We need to merge something and maybe you or someone else can offer a decent resolution. Maybe it should be the other way around, no? The units of biological inference/measurement can be included in the population sub-sections. Point is, the article isn't a good article I wouldn't say by anyone's standards and we need to figure something out here. Any comments on the other sections I mentioned?Taharqa (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be ridiculous – it’s not always hotter at the equator - other factors are also relevant, such as altitude and the proximity of the oceans. Quito – the capital of Ecuador – is basically right on the equator, and the average noon temperature is only 19 degrees C. Mount Kenya, which is also basically on the equator, has glaciers. Nairobi (inland) is one degree south and has an annual average daily maximum of around 25 degrees C, Mombasa is 4 degrees south but on the coast and has an annual average daily maximum around 30 degrees C.Wdford (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm Civility and Assume good faith should apply. The reason why the David Randall-MacIver is still being referenced is because he took measurements and reburied the skulls. Several modern scholars still use the measurements from his study. Even if the study is old, the measurements don't age. A cephalic index measured 100 years ago, will be the same today. This 2004 study specifically uses the measurements done in 1905. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

POV Reverts
In order to provide a balanced viewpoint of a controversial topic, all relevant info is valid. You can't keep deleting valid and relevant and referenced material because it undermines your own pet theory - that will result in the article being branded as "Pseudo-history" once again. If you have a specific beef about a specific quote or comment then discuss it on the talk page before you delete material you prefer didn't exist.

I agree there is some repetition in the article - particularly in the "Pre-dynastic" section where the argument about skull shapes and limb ratios is repeated after it has already been discussed in the "Race and science" section higher up. However as long as people keep making reference to racial determinations based on skull shapes, it will be necessary to keep balancing this with references to the wealth of evidence that says skull shapes are not reliable as an indication of race. I propose that the repetition be removed from this section, with a short paragraph making the relevant point and referring to the science section higher up for a detailed discussion.

I fully agree that more needs to be said about discrepancies in the definition of mixed race populations - we just need to word it in a non-POV manner.

I agree that a long Afrocentrism section is not justified, as it is not really relevant to this article and they have their own article. There is a history behind this, but I am quite happy to reduce this section to one paragraph in the 20th Century section and a reference. I also question the amount of space devoted to the DNA section, as the different comments seem to me to contradict each other at length. Surely somebody who understands the underlying science could thin this out?

Lastly - do "cultural" practices really indicate race? Does the fact that modern African Americans wear Amarni, drive automobiles and use mobile phones make them White?

Wdford (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The culture of a civilization can give us insight into its roots and the biogeographic origin of the people. Language itself doesn't determine a people's biological characteristics either however archeological and linguistic evidence are useful in determining biogeographic origin. For instance if the founders of the Ancient Egyptian civilization were ancestral to Europeans we would aspect them to speak a European language, practice customs consistent with a European material culture. This multidisciplinary approach is how many modern scholars analyze history.AncientObserver (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Modern African-Americans speak a European language, and practice customs consistent with a European material culture. Does this have any bearing on their race? Wdford (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

^Avoiding our own pre-concieved notions, Nancy Lovell says exactly what AncientObserver says and I cited her before I was blank reverted. Our opinions aren't as important.Taharqa (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Lovell is wrong? Perhaps she speaks out her own preconceptions? If our opinions don't matter then there wouldn't be a controversy, would there? Wdford (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wdford, you're comparing an ethnic minority assimilated into a culture to the development of a civilization. Customs and language are relevant to the bio-cultural origins of the Ancient Egyptians. They can give us insight into which group of people or peoples that civilization originated. Studying their anatomy is obviously the best way to assess biological characteristics and relationships. But material culture is relevant to origins.AncientObserver (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Answering wdford's question. African-Americans are transplanted across a large distance with a disconnect from their ancestral homeland. Like Persians, Assyrians, and Greeks are to Egypt. One cannot understand the relationship of Ancient Egypt by relating Persians, Assyrians, and Greeks into the conversation without acknowledging their transplanted presense after the fact. Nubians, Canaanites, Kushites, and Libyans have a continual contact with Egypt (and are thus represented by the Egyptians as such but with distinction). There is the difference. Black people's practices do not fit so nicely with European material culture, but there is much overlap. There are also social issues that matter, which distinguish black people from Europeans. I am also concerned that some people have the power to unilateraly control the direction of the article without discussion. The reverts, most of which did not affect my contributions seem to have been made without discussion first. Yes, I agree the DNA section is too great. But I see the edits are so numerous over the past 12 hours, and I am not sure as of yet, how that has impacted the article. I also find it unfair and unbalanced that most of the pictures used are non-negroid in appearance despite the fact there is a near limitless supply of negroid looking Egyptians to choose from. I especially find the Tut picture to be out of line because that itself is controversal and the three Tut representations that were used should all be presented in this article, not just the one chosen on the cover of Nat. Geographic. I think the debate should be divided into three sections. Pre-dynastic, dynastic, and post-dynastic (late period-to present day). Most (not all) of us who say the Egyptians are black do not care about what happened after the 25th dynasty. But still, the article has a Eurocentric slant and is still blocking contributions, verifiable and noteworthy for their accuracy, that demonstrate the blackness of the Egyptians. --Panehesy (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good points. However it doesn't have to be the assimilation of a minority. When white settlers went into the American continents, the local people (who outnumbered the settlers hugely) adopted some of their ways willingly - such as clothing and firearms etc, and many settlers adopted such of the local practices as they found useful - such as local crop varieties e.g. corn and squash. The vast populace of Africa has willingly adopted European ways such as driving cars and wearing western clothing and eating junkfood and using electricity etc. Every culture takes from its neighbours that which appears attractive - usually willingly. Maybe the Egyptians shared customs with other Africans because they descended from the same common ancestors, or maybe the Egyptians merely adopted some customs and practices that made sense to them - and maybe the neighbouring African peoples adopted Egyptian customs and practices that they in turn found attractive. Maybe some of these practices developed independently in multiple cultures without any contact between them - many cultures across Asia developed cattle farming, for instance, without first learning it from East Africans. Every combination makes sense, so I am reluctant to assume that a common cultural practice is a reliable indicator of common race.
 * I find the language argument much more persuasive, but again it could happen that a people give up their own language because the other language is more useful to them - e.g. the loss of Coptic in Egypt. In South Africa right now people are stressing because a lot of black parents are not teaching their children to speak their indigenous languages, and are happily teaching them Englsh only. I am watching this happen every day. It could also be that the Egyptian language influenced the neighbouring languages as much as the neighbouring languages influenced Egyptian, so that the two languages grew together over time. Imagine what Spanglish will have developed into in a thousand years time, perhaps?Wdford (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And I disagree. Many of these western ways are not western. Clothes Europeans wear are not western. The shirt with the buttons are a Chinese and Indian invention. Firearms were invented in China, pants were invented by Persians (not western), and so on... the use of modern technology is not a western invention, but is a unique social shift of the entire world from a post industrial to a Type I society. That cannot be called western. And even if I were to agree it's "western" it does not reflect on any capacity on this racial debate about ancient cultures. The assimilation of Egyptians of others did not minimilize the unique heritage of the Egyptians. The issue here is not one of speculating about language, or inventions, but of identifying what we know as historical relationships in order to determine their heritage. Those things that would support one view (the A.Egyptians not black) you accept without question. Those things that support one view (the A.Egyptians are black) you question with these speculations. THAT in itself is part of the issue here. It is so pervasive that it needs it's own section. "Eurocentric resistance to acknowledging valid Afrocentric viewpoints". And this goes back to my whole point, it gets down to what they simply looked like. You ask a lot of questions and what if's, but in the end you know what a black person looks like and cars, electricity, western clothing, and what not will not impact that. How then do you lack the ability to distinguish Ancient Egyptians who, by all accounts, resemble black people far more than bearded and heavily robed semitics, blonde haired Europeans, and far away Sumerians. Only one group, a group that also shares the unique qualities of the region, shares also the language, culture, religious practices, and social continuity with the Egyptians. The Nubians. A-Group, C-Group, Naqada, and so on... I am surprised, surprised that no one has brought Bruce WIlliams in as a citation. --Panehesy (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The one image of Tutankhamun from National Geographic is not "good enough" it is actually a POV undue weight, but does so in such a manner as to make the Egypt is black viewpoint look like a minority viewpoint. The article itself is about a debate, and the debate is on two major fronts. One saying they are black, another saying they were not. All other theories are fringe. Here, Wikipedia says it here []. The minority viewpoint that the Egyptians are black which is held by millions of people around the world and is cited by many scientists, is being forced to remain in the almost fringe section here at Wikipedia. Here I am quoting from the NPOV In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. The Ancient Egyptians article has not been rewritten to say that the Egyptians are black. But this article is designed to address the debate. But the article is not following the NPOV rules when 75% of the verifiable content comes from the one position (that they are not black) with debunked references to support it. Then to add debunked afrocentric elements only to then debunk them only supports the Eurocentric postion. There is resistance to allow a 50/50 comparison where the strength of the black Egypt position is not presented... only debunked Afrocentric fringe elements. --Panehesy (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Panehesy, please produce these images and lets add them. Wdford (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I will, once I know they will not be removed due to extraneous copywright complaints. All in due time. I've reviewed the history of this article well enough to see a pattern, I will not be yet another victim of it. --Panehesy (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Starting from the top
The very first paragraph is utterly meritless. The controversy only began after the 1860s, when ideas about black people by Europeans came in conflict with the accomplishments of the Ancient Egyptians. At first they were accepted as "Negro" but then there became a controversy. So this softening of the issue by indicating it's been an ongoing controversy for thousands of years is false. This debate here, is without a shadow of a doubt a branch of racial discourse about black people and their role in history. Let's be very honest. Who here can find a historical controversy going back 2000 years disscusing whether or not the race (black, not black) of the Egyptians? Anything in 1306? Anything in 762? Was there a debate in some place somewhere in the 5th century? No. No, the only thing that you can connect to this is the "Curse of Cain" and "Curse of Canaan" on black people. I will take that first statement and accurately rewrite it. --Panehesy (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I rewrote the first paragraph. I am not as adept at this as others, and I hope someone can clean up my writing technique while also retaining the clarity. --Panehesy (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree on the intention. Of course some of the claims appeal more subtly to a certain view or "stereotype" by injecting Kushites so early in with out exploration. I think maybe that the entire intro should be summarized in just one or two paragraphs, don't you think? It seems to be the standard and is much more efficient as well.

It can reflect something to the effect of what you write here, while maybe a general summary of the what the article will comprise?Taharqa (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I indicated Kushitic because Nubians and Kushites are not necessarily the same and I wanted it to be known that more than one group of black people impacted Egyptian history. A general summary will work as long as we articulate that the contoversy arose as an offshot of general racist ideology of the past 500 years, not some ancient debate that never existed. --Panehesy (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see.Taharqa (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Outline Part 2
The way forward:


 * The Intro: I agree that this is way too cluttered, but it needs to touch on each of the major elements of the debate. Adding extra Afrocentrism without first discussing it is not going to help. We agree that it needs to be pruned, but we also need to agree on what needs to be moved lower down.


 * The sections on "Definition of Race" and "Race and Science": I don’t agree this should be merged – if anything it should be two separate sections. The definition of race is a sociological concept, and should stand alone with more detail about the place of mixed race people. The Science section should be separate, dealing with DNA as well, and could be renamed “Physiology” or some such thing. These cannot possibly be merged with "population history".


 * Population history: These can be thinned out a lot by making references to the “Physiology” section. I agree that they need to focus on population movements and migrations as well.


 * "Afrocentrism": I agree this should be cut to one paragraph, with the reference to the main article for those who are interested.


 * "Ancient Egyptian Material": This represents the only evidence we have from those who were actually there, i.e. the Ancient Egyptians themselves. We cannot stand at a three thousand year remove and theorise about limb ratios and skull shapes, but ignore the paintings and literature the eye-witnesses left behind. I do not agree that the ancient artists were racist conspirators who slyly made their kings look white without the kings noticing – I don’t care what Keita thinks.


 * I agree the Ramses section should stay. If you have pale, red-haired, round-headed, narrow-nosed black people, then all whites are actually black anyway (as they once were, long ago.)

What other issues need to be addressed? What can we agree on, to start with?Wdford (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to stop calling this and that "Afrocentric". Just discuss the merits or lack of. It seems that labeling something Afrocentric is a subtle way to throw out legitimate and verifiable insights that some may not like to see presented. The first paragraph which I rewrote has no Afrocentric relationship to it. It just states what is present. Had I said something about Greeks stealing Egyptian history, or the technological superiority of the Egyptian over the European, then yes I would say it's Afrocentric bias. --Panehesy (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

^I agree. We'll get no where by throwing around buzz words with no value other than the pejorative way in which it is used. One can just as easily refer to the opposite view as "Eurocentric". It is circular reasoning and stagnates any progress.Taharqa (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. My issue is that the darker skinned, kinky haired Egyptians are not being presented here. The similarites between Egyptians and Nubians, Egyptians and other Nilo-Saharan cultures and Sub-Saharan cultures are not being adequately discussed in the article. I am not seeing a clear relationship in the article between the Nubian A-Group, C-Group, and Southern Egyptian society. I am seeing far too many and a disproportionate representation of lighterskinned straighthaired Egyptians in the pictures. So far the article is not neutral --Panehesy (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We can create a subpage to deal with revisions. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

^^Good idea, Wapondaponda..

Wdford wrote:

"I do not agree that the ancient artists were racist conspirators who slyly made their kings look white without the kings noticing – I don’t care what Keita thinks."

^^You have your opinions and that's ok (as weird as they may seem). But adhere to policy as you are not a reliable source. It is technically the other way around. What you think about scientists and science in general doesn't matter. There's an article on creationism which deals with that.

As far as Ramses, again, for that section I propose it be mentioned in section on hair. In context it is better to address.

for "Defining race" and "race and science", Again, it simply makes more sense to mention the science and social aspects in one swoop..Taharqa (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is a serious problem here. This article is supposed to be about the controversy, not an attempt to refight it. Arguments like bone structure, hair, the colour of ancient Eqyptian paintings and so on should not be presented as fact, but only to illustrate points made by reliable and notable sources in the primary debate, and only with clear reference to these sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

^THANK YOU so much for your input as this is my main problem with all of these cluttered and random citations and points of contention. It gets endless and we need to refine.Taharqa (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephan where were when i was making the same arguement a few months back? the other admins would not heed my warnings about the direction of the article when it was taking shape i.e it was just a return to the previous article Race of the Ancient Egyptians,but you mainly have to thank users such as user:deeceevoice for the way the atrtcile has turned out,i have added very little to this article though i have tried to maintain some balance(because if you can't beat join um) to the article so it not just a mouthpiece article for afrocentrist i.e trying to prove the race of the ancient egyptians rather than making the article about the controversey itself--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Draft
I have created a temporary workpage for those interested in making major changes to the current article. Hopefully it can cool down the number of edits on the main article Wapondaponda (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some consensus that including a section on Afrocentrism is inappropriate. I therefore propose that the entire Afrocentrism section be deleted, and replaced by inserting the following sentence in the Modern Scholarship section:
 * The Afrocentrism movement has been particularly active in popularising the debate over the race of the ancient Egyptians.
 * Readers who want to know more about Afrocentrism can wade through the debate in that article. Any comments/objections? Wdford (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some consensus that the Definition of Race section needs to be thinned down and cleaned up. I propose that all the stuff on skulls and teeth be moved to a separate section, called Physiological Criteria (or something), and the Definition of Race section be renamed the Subjective Definitions of Race section and refined to discuss the fact that different people have different definitions of race, which are subjective and which change according to expedience. Any comments/objections? Wdford (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some consensus that the Population History section needs to be thinned down and cleaned up. I propose that all the stuff on skulls and teeth be moved to the new section on Physiological Criteria (or whatever), and the duplications removed and cleaned up there. The 3 population history sections can then be refined to briefly highlight the various invasions and migrations, and the possible impact thereof on the race of the ancient Egyptians. Any comments/objections? Wdford (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Skulls, teeth and limb ratios should all fall under anthropometrics.


 * Anthropometrics is an excellent suggestion. Do you have any comments on the other proposals? Wdford (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wdford.. I propose just like on the real page, that we discuss before we make controversial edits. If you agree, I suggest that we first verify per quotation the citations we try and cite which represents one point of view or another. That way we can take down the cite-check tag because after checking out many of your sources, a lot seem outdated or misinterpreted. As stated, you seem to scan google for whatever you can found when everything you find isn't necessarily reliable or reported accurately, nor does a lot of it have relevance to this article's topic. We need to avoid original research and unreliable sources. We should also avoid fringe theories.

With that said. What were you looking to add and from whom? Starting with Afrocentrism, I agree.

For Anthropometrics, I also agree that the section should so be labeled but it seems that you gave the sub-section your own pet name. Nobody knows why "Dolichocephalism" is noteworthy except you. It pre-supposes a conclusion even before we delve into it (even though it may be a correct assumption). That section's name should be changed as well as the topic as to simply cover ancient Egyptian crania (craniometry), not ONE particular head-shape, which makes little sense...Taharqa (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, rather than "Dolichocephalism" it should be named craniometry. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It should definitely be renamed craniometry. AncientObserver (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Citecheck
Taharqa, you are so full of it! Where do you get off pointing fingers about verifiability, and then you quote Touregypt?? That's even more sad than quoting the Discovery Channel's latest "expose". And why are you whining about white-history.com - please show us where in this entire article anybody is using white-history.com as a reference? The only dubious references here are yours - are you pleading for somebody else to rescue you with some magical extra source that supports your POV, or is this citecheck just a general sulk because you don't like having any info on the article that doesn't come from Keita? Wdford (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Disregarding personal attacks, I see nothing wrong with TourEgypt. Much better than quoting verbatim from a racist website like white-history.com.. I'm not going to argue with you, the tag is there because there is a dispute over your white-history.com imposed citations that I know you didn't read as they were interpreted by and lifted directly from that website word for word as a quick google search will confirm. You also seem to scramble for any source that you can find to advance certain outdated theories so it is more than appropriate that they be checked..Taharqa (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Neither tour-egypt (which I find to be a biased site) nor white-history.com which is a front for the British National Party. They regard Nefertiti as white, and consider racial mixing as a catalyst for the downfall of western or any civilization. Although I find it understandable to be unaware of the bias in tour-egypt, I find it absurd that anyone would take a site like white-history.com as a reference. Nothing from a racist supremacist website should be referenced as verifiable. Besides, Arthur Kemp has not been peer reviewed, only self published. --Panehesy (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that some very sad little person has yet again moved the Ahmed Saleh comment lower down to make it look like he was responding to Hawass' rebuttal of the American Afrocentrists. As the source clearly shows, the Saleh issue happened two years before Hawass was confronted by the American Afrocentrists. Repeatedly moving that comment around to create a false impression is POV and WP:Synth- why do these people persist so? This makes it very hard to continue to assume good faith.
 * Why do some people keep whining on about white-history.com? Nowhere has anybody quoted that site as a reference. If some of the material co-incidently appears on white-history.com then its because those guys found it at the same site as we did and latched on to it, but the fact that "bad" people quote the material themselves doesn't make it bad material. The fact that Hitler enjoyed Wagner's music 50 years after Wagner died doesn't make Wagner a Nazi.
 * I believe the dolichocephalism issue is important because out-of-date people create entire paradigms using skull shape as an indicator of race, whereas a lot of material exists which seriously undermines this assumption. I don't care what the section is called actually, as long as it deals equally with the evidence and makes the point without fudging. I see once again people are whining about how "out of date" some sources are, and loading in all kinds of non-relevant comments about how "out-of-date" their conclusions were, while trying to conceal the fact that their actual work proves dolichocephalism is not an African trait. However, to pander to your sensibilities, I have substituted the references with very up to date stuff - much more up to date than Keita even - on the discussion draft.
 * I don't understand why somebody is whining about wiki-linking part of a sentence in the Arrian para to another wiki article and not the full statement (which he then immediately admits would actually be "tacky".) I linked that part of the sentence because that part of the sentence referred to Egyptians, whereas the rest of the statement did not. Please, stop already with the conspiracy theories.
 * Wdford (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that dolichocephalism, skull measurements, and the like are debunked methods of determining race of ancient individuals. If out-of-date or debunked people make debunked methods... then we shouldn't devote a large amount of time on them, but instead, link to them from this article with a clear clear wording that these methods are NOT verifiable, NOT accurate, and NOT accepted in modern mainstream archaeology, science, or anthropology. --Panehesy (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully agree - skull measurements are invalid as indicators of race. However, a lot of comments have been included that rely on this debunked methodology - including Anton re Tut and Keita himself. Therefore, the point needs to be strongly made that this is not a viable method for determining race. Nor in fact is limb ratios a valid method, because the evidence clearly shows that limb ratios do not link to latitude of place of origin but rather temperature at place of origin. Once this is accepted, much of what is held by Keita and others goes out the window, and the debate looks very different. Wdford (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, so also, the racial classification of Ancient Northeast Africans would also go out, since the racial interpretations changed over the past 100 years, in large part due to the 1977 efforts of the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that Jews are classified as "white" and not Asian or Arab. In addition, when people say that the Egyptian mummies do not look in the slightest black, I have a problem trusting their objectivity. The debate is not centered around fabricated and wishful thinking. Why don't you take a different approach Wford, and find out, seriously, what the black side is seeing that you may be overlooking. Right now, you're just acting like some kind of Eurocentric firewall or something, I can't quite understand it. --Panehesy (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Classical observers POV issue
In the classical observers section, the quote made by Arrian was handled in such a way that half the quote that supports one POV is linked, while the other half of the quote was not. This is an example of how one side the debate itself is trying to influence how the article itself is read. I took out the link and underline. If you want to put it back in, put in the entire quote, not just the half you agree with. In fact, quoting an entire statement seems rather tacky. --Panehesy (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it wasn't half-quoted, as you imply, the full quote was presented and a portion was additionally wiki-linked to the main article where the material was discussed in detail. I only linked part of the sentence because as you admit, linking entire paragraphs is inappropriate. The reason I chose that portion was because that portion referred specifically to Egyptians, whereas the rest of the statement did not. The full statement has to be read to understand the point, reading only the linked clause is meaningless, and only a complete moron would be mislead by it. I realise you have openly admitted that you are striving to prove the ancient Egyptians were black, and well done on the transparency if not the WP:NPOV motive, but it is unseemly to foam at the mouth at every line which does not directly support your POV. Wdford (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually it... that being the underline-link was on half of the quote. The full quote was not underlined was therefore not wikilinked. I'm not foaming at the mouth, but I am aware of a lack of fundamental things that give the article a fair and balanced publication. I see a lot of hard work by people like me, and just in an instant, or with a word like "Afrocentric" the hard work becomes undone. Wdford, do you really think "white-history.com" should in any way ever be used as a "verifiable" reference? That's how unbalanced this process is right now. --Panehesy (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Afrocentricism
It needs to be clear that Afrocentricism is being used without regard for any of it's variation. It's being pushed as equally racist or equally biased as white supremacy which is inaccurate. Afrocentricism also has it's genesis in the Egyptology discourse in the 19th century, but it is not by it's core designed to present information falsely to get the point across. I request that we refrain from presenting Afrocentricism as "pseudo-history" in all references where it is cited as a response to the controversy. --Panehesy (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, its gone (see draft). Please remember also that we are not allowed to "present" anything in a particular way, we are merely required to report what reliable sources have said about it. And reliable sources have said quite a lot about it .... Wdford (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well yea, but reliability is called into question when what is said about it is based on sites like "white-history.com" or sites that make wide unverifiable claims. I've never been a fan of the pseudo-historical elements of Afrocentricism, but it wasn't Afrocentricism that led me to believe the Egyptians were black, it was Champollion's book "L'Egypte" and the pictures of the mummies themselves. I am sure that's also what the Afrocentric thinkers saw as well. --Panehesy (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that nobody ever quoted white-history.com to begin with - this is starting to sound like Dubya with his "Syria and Iran" brain-wash mantra. And as I have repeatedly encouraged you, please share these pictures that have got you so excited - you can put them on the talk page without copyright problems. I have seen many of the mummies in person, and (apart from the known Nubians) they didn't look the slightest bit black to me. In fact the known Nubians and the others looked very different. Finally, please don't make massive changes to the live page without discussion - please make your proposed changes on the draft page first so we can reach agreement there "off-line". Agreed? Wdford (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the draft page? I am not familiar enough to know where to get to it. Secondly, I already told you about my approach to the pictures, so you no longer need to reiterate a suggestion you made at least twice before. Finally, I am not moved by your analysis of the mummies. I've seen studies where black people, previously viewed as Negroid, were photographed, made into digital sculpture or the color and hair texture was taken out, and whites were shown the pictures where they were told "these are Ancient Egyptians" and they identified them as you have, as non-black or Caucasoid. If the Ancient Egyptians don't look the slightest black to you, then you're view is on the fringe as far as I am concerned. --Panehesy (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The draft page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy/Draft. And my view is not fringe - its shared by quite a few "Actual Africans" as opposed to "African Americans". And I am not referring to photo-shopped pictures - I have seen the mummies in person - close enough to touch the glass cases. Have you even been to Egypt? Wdford (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking to two people right here who have. You want me to give the keyboard to them? The first question asked, why do you think white Caucasians wanted to more often than not represent themselves with black kinky hair, whether a wig or otherwise? Another question, why is it that you don't see that the mummy of Tuya is black, are you blind. Do you still subscribe to the discredited theory that Akhenaten's facial features come from Frolich or Marfan's syndrome? And did you see the British documentary where they had probed that theory and found 5 women with Marfan's syndrome, but the only one that resembled Akhenaten was the black lady. If you want to go this route, thats fine, but I'm more interested in accurately contributing how the controversy developed. It did not develop from ancient times, it did not develop from skulls or DNA. The debate started in the late 1800s and probably when Drusilla published her book "The Wonderful Ethiopians of the Ancient Cushite Empire". But what we all agree is that you and others are not distinguishing radical Afrocentricism with it's decredited methods from mainstream Afrocentricism which does not seek to prove that Africans ruled the world, or that they were superior. So let's end the charade, you especially as you seem to get into it with others in here. --Panehesy (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you brought it up Wdford I'm curious to know, what country are you from and what is your ethnic background? Also, what is your general view of the "racial" identity of the Ancient Egyptians? There are several editors on here with conflicting opinions and words like Afrocentrist and Eurocentrist have been thrown around without people trying to get to know each other. I can assure all of you that I am here to be as objective as possible and only present credible and verifiable sources that contribute to the discussion.AncientObserver (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To disclose my country or ethnicity only gives biased people credibility to attack the messenger. Imagine if I am white, the argument goes, I am in some self guilt. Imagine if I am black, the argument goes I am in some agenda against white people. In either case I would say it's to say I am brainwashed. If I am Asian, or Arab, I feel the racial identity of the Ancient Egyptians was indistinguishable from modern Somali, Ethiopians, and African Americans. Their own self-identity was unique but was anchored in their heritage further up the Nile, not far away in Arabia or up the Levant. I see the appearance of them and they look black to me, albeit they do look mixed. The thing is, even in South Africa, there is no denial that of the "Coloreds" who are descendants of Blacks, that the ancestry is strong, not minute. --Panehesy (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So you admit you have never been to Egypt - amazing. Have you ever been anywhere in Africa?
 * The second question is: if the AE's were actually black, then why did so many of them wear blond wigs - what were they trying to prove? Why did they paint themselves as red-skinned if they were actually black? Why did they paint their women as yellow-skinned, if they were actually black? Yes?
 * Tuya looks exactly like a Lebanese man of mature years, and not at all "black". In fact he looks a lot like Charlton Heston as Moses. Unless of course you consider Lebanese people to be black, which might be your opinion but I advise you not to say it to their faces.
 * I have no idea what caused Akenaton's facial features - I always assumed it was the result of diligent in-breeding, but who am I to judge? However, he doesn't look black to me - that was somebody else who put that forward.
 * I personally don't agree with the ancient origin of the debate either, I fully agree with you that the origin is more recent. However others fought this in the past, so let's go lightly on this and change it carefully.
 * I agree with your splitting off the bulk of the lead section, but the new "History" section now needs to be merged better into the existing History elements. Not impossible, but should be the next step. Yes?
 * And lastly, we agreed to remove the Afrocentrism section, but now you have inserted a number of comments extolling Afrocentrism. if you want to include that stuff at all then it needs to be balanced, which means we need to now add the counter-argument that Afrocentrism is pseudo-historical etc. I will leave it to you to choose the way forward on that one.
 * Wdford (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wford - I've seen the same mummies on display elsewhere. You should be amazed at how you see but not see what's right in front of your face. Secondly, the vast majority of Egyptians wore NUBIAN wigs, or did their natural kinky hair to a Nubian style to such a degree that Nubian wigs are a common sight even in Eurocentric representations! Continuing on, red-skinned people are not literally "red" they are dark brown, a common color of black people and Native Americans. Lighter skinned women (you say yellow) is common, not among Caucasoids, but among various mixed and black people. Go on Facebook and join a black group there and look at the men, then the women pages and there's your egyptians. I actually saw someone post a picture of Tuya and an Ethiopian woman of the same dark complexion. There is no doubt she resembled her. Tuya was a woman, not a man, although I'll ignore that mistake on your part, I am guessing you mean Yuya. I'm seriously not buying your attempt at seeming credible. I've talked to others on here who have been to Egypt and even they are not given the kind of leeway you have been given acting up on here. You try to dominate the discourse without rightfully focusing on the article. It's not about skulls, its about the appearance and the historical relationship between blacks and Egyptians. If the Egyptians were oh-so-not-black, why in the heck did Eurocentric scholars try to reclassify all of East Africa north of Tanzania as Caucasoid? I'm not extolling Afrocentricism, I'm rightly reminding you that Afrocentricism is a wide spectrum of study, not some narrow focused method to gain a preconceived result. And you talk as if you're an expert on all of these things and that is really disruptive. If you went to Egypt, go back again and maybe go without your prejudiced notions in the way. Heston as Moses with a beard looks nothing like Yuya or Tuya who had no facial hair. No more diatribes, no more distractions.
 * The article is about the Controversy around the race of the Ancient Egyptians. You've actually extolled another point, that factions on the entrenched side of the debate have continually sought to unilaterally manage the dialogue of the issue on both sides.
 * I've never heard of anyone use skull shapes, and I cannot find on any websites anywhere, or any books, where skull shapes were the primary focus of this controversy. Read and it illustrates how skull shapes, although somewhat useful in that time period were not regarded by the scholars on either side as the foundation of their position. --Panehesy (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Help Panehesy out here
Hi guys, lets help me understand where I'm making racist and inaccurate statements in the article. Starting with what's quoted here:

"Due to the Biblical relationship between Egyptians and Jews, and the impact both had on Western society, the West held a high regard of the Ancient Egyptian culture and the widely held assumption in the 19th and 20th century was that the Egyptians were white. The industrialized west, being predominantly Caucasian had historically held a low regard of black people, especially in the U.S.A. and as a part of Judeo-Christian religion in this period, most churches in the U.S. taught that blacks contributed virtually nothing to Jewish and Egyptian heritage."

Please point out clearly the racist and/or inaccurate or non-verifiable content. So far I see an actually tactful way of saying that the West (leading politicans, scientists, intellectuals in mainstream) regarded Blacks as racially inferior, morally and intellectually during the 19th and 20th centuries. Is this not the case? This is the heart of the matter, not some skull measurements. The skull measurements were designed to "prove" this was or wasn't the case. --Panehesy (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What I will do is cite biblical passages, link to a picture of the dollar bill, and quotes from Mormon, Baptist, and Jewish leaders of the 19th century. I will then link this to the "Curse of Cain" article. That should suffice as to the verifiability, All I need to do is to find the "draft" article --Panehesy (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Found the draft, thanks Ford. Lets get to work. --Panehesy (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see it either. I think Pstanton has been too much emotional. Or else, he doen't know history. Your summury is right. Judeo-Christianity spoke about the curse of Ham. If first, Egypt, Mysraim, was part of the curse, during the 19th - 20th centuries Egypt was regarded as the source of the Western civilization, thus white and out of the curse. Slavery for Black people was intended for their redemption. There is a need to quote Hegel who claimed that Egypt is not part of Africa and Africa is not part of History. Actually this view was against Jean-Francois Champollion, the father of Egyptology, who saw in the Egyptians a branch of the Black race because he stated that they are indigenous Africans and that they originated either from Ethiopia or from Soudan. Besides, he showed that the first Egyptian settlements are in the south, and went on to mention that the Egyptians spoke the same language than the people of Meroe. Will Pstanton present his apology to Panehesy?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well i will give him adequate time to figure it out. But as we can all see, some of us are labeled without being specific and it seems like when the black side says something profoundly true, the eurocentric side takes a nuclear approach to silence it. I've got people asking my background. Why? What on earth difference does my background make? --Panehesy (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but your (Panehesy's) proposed text is a mess of unsourced overgeneralizations, and your proposed sourcing is both a misuse of primary sources and an example of WP:SYN. Find reliable sources directly supporting your claims, not original 19th century claims that need expert knowledge to interpret today ("leaders"? How many? How significant? Which "leading scientists" considered blacks inferior not in, but "during" the 20th century?). Churches in the US actively taught "that blacks contributed virtually nothing to Jewish and Egyptian heritage", as opposed to not teaching about any contributions? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok here is a reworking of that

"Ancient Jewish and Ancient Egyptian society was regarded highly due to the Biblical relationship between Egyptians and Jews, as indicated in passages in the Book of Genesis, Exodus, and Isaiah, and the impact both had on Western society, from the use of the Bible itself as a guide for setting laws in the antebellum society. The Egyptian pyramid used in the Great Seal of the USA and the Washington monument indicate that American society held a high regard of the Ancient Egyptian culture. Prior to the discoveries, it was widely held in the 19th and 20th century was that the Egyptians were white(1 see references below). The industrialized west, being predominantly Caucasian had historically held a low regard of black people, as indicated in various segregationist activity in the U.S., South Africa, and elsewhere. In the U.S.A. scientists like Samuel Morton, Louis Agassiz and Charles Lyell promoted polygenism  and as a part of Judeo-Christian religion in this period, most churches in the U.S. taught that blacks contributed virtually nothing to Jewish and Egyptian heritage.(2) While Caucasian ancestors were extolled as the actual founders of Egyptian and Hebrew civilization. "
 * 1. Egypt Land: Race and Nineteenth-Century American Egyptomania, Scott Trafton
 * 2. Racism on the Victorian Stage, Hazel Waters
 * 3 The Church and the Negro by John Lewis Lund

Keep in mind, the 19th century claims are important because they are where the controversy started. I have to use them in order to demonstrate that. I am not using them to prove or disprove the Egyptians were black. That I can do in other sections. Right now, I am only interested in discussing the historical context of the debate itself. And I said 19th and 20th, yet you ask for 20th century insights only. Why is that? The debate started in the 19th century, not the 20th. Yes churches actively taught that blacks conrtibuted nothing to Jewish and Egyptian heritage. The teaching was that blacks were the sons of Cain, and cursed to servitude. It was the foundation of at least two denominations here in the U.S., mormonism and the Southern Baptists Convention. --Panehesy (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The goal I am trying to reach is to demonstrate how the root of the debate came to challenge the preconcieved notion that the Hebrews were white, and becasue related to the Egyptians the black Egyptian theory came be be regarded as antithetical to the white lineage as it would distrub it's perceived continuity. I am trying to stay focused and not, like in the case with the skulls, go into such detail as to seem POV and distracted. Other debunked myths were accepted in the 19th and part of the 20th century, like the Curse of Cain on black people and the British-Israelism. --Panehesy (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Somewhat better (mostly due to the first source, which I accept on good faith for now). But still bad - very much restricted to the US. Antebellum? I suspect in the US that refers to the civil war, but that is by no means universal. Up until WW1, the US was very much a backwater, and the Mormon and Southern Baptists are atypical even for the US. Generalizing to "the West" is unwarranted. Lund's book is not a RS at all. At best it's a primary source, but it's from 1975. You're still missing a source for "had historically held a low regard of black people" - indeed, your attempt to justify this by pointing to segregationism is both synthesis and bad logic (remember, the claim was "separate but equal"). And there still is no source for "most churches" - Water's book deals with English plays, not American churches. I'm also missing support for "Caucasian ancestors". And there is a wrong dichotomy in here - the options are not either "black" or "caucasian". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephen, I assume you are not from the U.S., because you speak of the U.S. in a way that is strange and inconsistent with history. Southern Baptists were the largest denomination throughout the 20th century and thus were not atypical. If you do not like my generalization, that is fine, but the acceptance of black people as equal in the segregationist sense is a farce. If you want me to get sources for "historically low regard for black people" don't worry, I'll just reference the millions of references available to make sure you understand that, like Apartheid in South Africa, segregation was designed to perpetuate the myth that black people are lazy, stupid, and likely to bring down civilization if allowed to freely mix and interact with whites. Otherwise, we will have this notion that Afrocentricism was motivated by lazy, stupid black people who wanted to get credit and credibility that went beyond their capacity. --Panehesy (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming that you are wrong about the basic fact - that a large part of the population was racists and thought blacks to be inferior - when they thought about the issue at all. But you still need to have good sources - and you need to have sources that tie this into the ancient Egyptian debate. Water's book, for example, does not contain the term "Egypt" at all. Souther baptists never were more than about 10% of the US population, and they and their outward racism are a distinct US phenomenon - indeed, they formed as a body in the climate shortly before the war. Your still generalizing to 200 years - 7 generations - of a large part of the human population based on individual cherry-picked examples. I'm out of time now - more later. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Panehesy, there's nothing wrong with your version that I'm aware of factually. It may be an unpleasant truth but that's not an issue here. 19th century claims are important and noteworthy not only given that they show a precedent and can trace patterns in perception, but because they have been noted in some of the sources cited in the article. One of them cites the various contradictions and how the mainstream academia since colonial times kept shifting views arbitrarily from "Egypt was "Black", to Egypt was white, to Egypt is mixed, to Egypt was Arab, no now basically that Egypt was unique. All of this is well documented, even by some of the sources already cited if one reads some of them. If you need clearer and better citations, we can deal with that.Taharqa (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As irritating as I find being disparaged on a talk page, I'll try to explain what I find objectionable in that section.

"Due to the Biblical relationship between Egyptians and Jews, and the impact both had on Western society,"

No citations, can you please back up with sources the claim that they've had a major impact on Western society? I don't disagree that this is TRUE, but you need a source to back it up.

"the West held a high regard of the Ancient Egyptian culture and the widely held assumption in the 19th and 20th century was that the Egyptians were white."

No citations for either the West holding Egypt in high regard, or that Egypt was largely regarded as Caucasian through the 19th and 20th century. I also agree that it is true to an extent. I'm not sure I agree with saying it was "widely held"

"The industrialized west, being predominantly Caucasian had historically held a low regard of black people, especially in the U.S.A. and as a part of Judeo-Christian religion in this period, most churches in the U.S. taught that blacks contributed virtually nothing to Jewish and Egyptian heritage."

Here you associate being predominantly Caucasian with having a low regard of black people, you associate Christianity with racism, and that churches taught that blacks contributed nothing to Jewish and Egyptian heritage. I wasn't aware that Churches taught Jewish and Egyptian history. And there still no sources for any of this.

That's my opinion anyhow. --Pstanton (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. Ok so here's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to explain how the misrepresentation of Christianity, Hebrews, Black people, and Ancient Egyptian history by leaders of American and European religious orders, was widely accepted by American and European society until sometime after WW2. If you don't like me using "the west" that's fine. I struggled with the kind of wording to use. What word would you suggest to indicate that large, and a majority of the population throughout the industralized west accepted these distortions? Your initial argument was that it was racist (but it would only be so if it were inaccurate or exaggerated). American and European society was in the midst of egyptomania throughout the 19th century. Your opinion is valued because you choose to give it instead of just reverting and deleting edits. --Panehesy (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The statements made by Panehesy can well be documented from Books by Cheikh Anta Diop, from Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization (The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985, Volume 1), and from L'EGYPTE,MERE DU MONDE. Hotep, Peace!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)