Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Archive 7

Straw poll
William Connolley who just protected the article say he may consider a non-binding straw poll. We can conduct a quick straw poll to determine where interested parties stand. The first option, (option 1) the article should be limited to a discussion of Afrocentrism and the race of the Ancient Egyptians. This option is somewhat represented by the current protected version. The second option (option2) is that the article should not limited to Afrocentrism but the scope of the article should include all reliable sources that have dealt with the racial and ethnic characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians. This option roughly equates to the previous version.

All sources, not limited to Afrocentrism(option 2)

 * Support Wapondaponda (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Wdford (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC) : Readers who have heard about the controversy will want info on the full story, not just a limited section thereof. If we limit this article then a complementary article will be required to cover the rest of the substance.
 * Support AncientObserver (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Taharqa (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Stopped beating wife

 * Oppose? This poll is poorly constructed. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Discipline in comments
This subject is controversial enough. If someone claims the article is OR, and you think it isn't and would like examples listed, then a simple "Please provide examples" will suffice. Language such as "Unbelievable! Another editor expresses a concern that "much of the article" included OR, but is unwilling (or unable) to point to specific items..." is simply unhelpful. I've removed it. The value of your comments is not measured by their length; be concise William M. Connolley (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments about straw poll
comment I do not want to take a position in this poll yet - I think it is ill-conceived because it seems basically designed to identify two sides in an edit war - i do not think this is a productive use of time. The way to resolve an edit war is to come up with a poll that identifies more specific and probably just plain more options, to help people identify where there is agreement, and to help people understand the nature of disagreement, and to suggest possibilities people haven't thought of yet that may lead to consensus. In the meantime I just want to register that I have a major concern about the article prior to the Dbachman edits. I am concerned that much of the article included "Original Research," and also that the article was a POV and not just a content fork. I make this point WITHOUT commenting on Dbachman's edits or whether they were right or wrong. I would encourage editors here to discuss WHY it is that an article on the racial identity of ancient Egyptions merits its own article and ot just a section in the article on ancient Egyptian history, and also whether this article is being used to present research done by established (i.e., published in peer-reviewed ournals) scholars, or research by Wikipedia editors? I myself have fallen into the temptation to try to put my own research findings in articles, and have needed to be shown the difference between my own arguments and conclusions versus those "out there" in the scholarly community. I think this is a concern editors working on this page should consider carefully and take seriously. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed some comments I regard as unhelpful - see next section. Sl: it would be helpful if you could provide examples of OR William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

All material on what ancient Egyptians looked like seems to violate OR, because the connection between what Heerodytos or Aeschylus said a few people looked like, and what modern race they belong to, is a connection being made only by the editor. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, the article is dealing with the race of the ancient Egyptians, not with the modern race they would belong to. Cheikh Anta Diop has quoted Herodotus about the blackness of the Egyptians. I have before me the first volume of Black Athena. At page 242 it quotes Herodotus speaking of the same blackness. One can put those quotes if necessary.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Does Heroditus identify a "race?" Does he use the word "race?" What does he mean by race if indeed he uses the word race? So far you have provided only evidence of an OR violation - Herodotus describes the appearance of people, and from that you decide what race they belong to. I didn't see anything in the article to identify their race based on Herodotus. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well Slrubenstein, this is why there is a controversy. Many Afrocentrists are aware of the Herodotus passage, and draw OR opinions from it, and then quote it widely as "evidence" that the Egyptians were Black like them. Other scholars have pointed out that the passage was mistranslated - Herodotus did not say "Black" as such in a modern racial sense. You are correct that Herodotus was not commenting on the race of the people he saw, but nonetheles the comment has become one of the cornerstones of the 'controversy', and thus to leave it out altogether would be wrong. Wdford (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The straw poll is indeed a straw man. The main criticism about this article is that it does not discuss the controversy, but uses primary sources (including images and ancient greek texts) to push one or the other side in that controversy. Afrocentrism is certainly a valid topic, but what Herodot wrote or which colours an ancient Egyptian painter used is not. How modern scholars interpret those original sources is relevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the controversy exists precisely because there are these differing viewpoints. It would be impossible to explain the controversy without explaining the differing viewpoints, and the "evidence" on which these viewpoints are founded. This included presenting samples of the material in question so that readers of the article can see it for themselves, rather than merely quoting third-party interpretations thereof - surely this is valid? As long as the article doesn't take a side, then the objective is achieved and NPOV is upheld. I don't believe the article was taking sides - the various editors came from different camps, and each ensured the other viewpoint never got preference - in other words, self-regulation through mutual tension. The wording of the article made it clear that there was no common interpretation, so why should these examples be considered OR? Do you have any other examples of "possible OR" that are concerning you? Wdford (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it is impossible to explain the controversy without explaining the different viewpoints. But you indeed need to do that by quoting notable opinions of people in the controversy, or even better, opinions of reliable scholars commenting on the controversy. Look e.g. at the Punt section in . It is unclear how this is connected to the controversy, but to an uncritical reader it suggests "Eqyptians think they came from Punt, which is in Somalia, and hence they were black". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Stephan, how is it unclear how the location of Punt is connected to the controversy? The Ancient Egyptians named Punt as their ancestral homeland. The section you cited reports on the theories of various commentators speculating on the location of Punt, which they considered to be relevant to the racial affiliation of the Ancient Egyptians. AncientObserver (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Stephan. Your Punt example is a case in point - if the Egyptians came originally from Punt in Somalia, then they were probably Black like current Somali's. However if they came from Punt in Arabia, then they were probably Semitic. The argument about where they came from originally is thus directly related to their race. The real answer is unknown, but the article quoted respected scholars who follow the "Somali" camp, and it also quoted respected scholars who cite strong evidence pointing to Arabia. The mainstream currently believes Punt was in Somalia, but the ancient evidence for Arabia is also strong, hence there is a controversy. This is not OR, and to leave this out would devalue the article. Wdford (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And there is your OR. None of us (I presume) know what colour people from Somalia had around 10000 years ago. On the other hand, we all (again I presume) know that the human race originally came from Africa, and at that time likely all were of a similar (probably dark) colour (Some of us may even know that the great apes, on the other hand, have light skin under dark hair, so skin colour is a very transient characteristic). None of us can evaluate the probability that the Egyptian legends of origin are true. Even if they are true, we don't know if they refer to the mass of population or only a small upper class (compare the Aeneid). That's why we need to rely on reliable scholars to provide the necessary context and evaluation.  What you are doing is comparable to putting a raw "percentage of blacks on death row" into an article on genetic predisposition to crime without commenting on the social and economic circumstances that lead to different crime rate, different enforcement, and different verdicts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I more or less completely agree with you. However the important point is, if we were able to correctly identify all of the above, there would be no controversy. But still the controversy does exist, and the legendary Punt is a part of it. People have heard about it and would like to know more, so to exclude any mention would be unhelpful. We therefore need to include what we do know. The article quotes specialists in the field, and does not draw conclusions, and it tries to give all the other available context, just as you suggest. However what is happening now is that certain editors are trying to suppress the "context" material, by e.g. removing all the scientific studies of the human remains from the article. Wdford (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Socks
We appear to have an affliction of socks: please see Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi. Assuming this doesn't get overturned on appeal, large portions of the talk here are going to get deleted. Much of the discussion will need to restart. Please ponder the proverb: "if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas" William M. Connolley (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the technicality of it all, but I agree that a banned user is banned - and it was starting to look like Wapondaponda was confessing. Pity - he was quite constructive on this article. However if the discussion must restart, then it would help to have a firm direction towards constructive progress, rather than some vague references to unspecified OR and thus a lock-down on a crippled and useless article. You seem to be the admin in charge now - please could you take the lead? Wdford (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see there is any hurry in all this. There may be further fall out over the socks, who knows. In the meantime, the section above can be used for discussion of the OR issues. If you feel these assertions of OR are too vague, I would urge you to ask for specific examples William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked for specific examples so I don't know why my comment was deleted. I also don't understand why the revert and lock were necessary. There's no edit war going on here. If there are complaints about the material in the article why not let us settle that on a case by case basis as we have been doing for months? The straw poll so far indicates that the participating editors are overwhelmingly in favor of unlocking the article and allowing all relevant and properly referenced material be allowed in the article. AncientObserver (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The poll was started by a sock of an indef banned user. That is not good. There is plenty of time to talk here, I am in no hurry to unprotect this article William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't you agree to the poll? Does it matter who set it up? Perhaps Wapondaponda's vote shouldn't count but I don't think the whole poll should be invalidated. I'm all for talk but I don't see any signs that it is going anywhere. What more needs to be talked about before the article can be unlocked? AncientObserver (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I agreed to the poll? Yes. Lots William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the CU is now off at Sockpuppet_investigations/Muntuwandi/Archive William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wapondaponda gave that impression. AncientObserver (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wpp is the socked of a banned user. It is not surprising to find that his word is unreliable. Please don't assume I will correct all of his errors William M. Connolley (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please William M. Connolley, I understand from the above that you believe there is still "lots" to talk about. Could you please give some indication what that is, so we can start talking about it? The main reason some of us think haste is necessary is because the current version of the article is badly damaged and useless - please take a look at at and see. Wdford (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you believe that, I suggest you discuss uncontroversial improvements that you believe would improve it. Probably small ones, to begin with William M. Connolley (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The first problem is the lead section. This lead scopes the article as a subsection of Afrocentrism. The comments in the straw poll that addressed the issue leaned towards a broader scope, which was what existed prior to Dbachmann's attempt to narrow the scope once more. The first step in correcting the article is to correct the lead section so as to widen the scope. I propose that the original pre-Dbachmann wording be used as a starting point, and that we once again focus on getting that right first. Wdford (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This makes sense also to me. The lead first. To widen it, as it was before Dbachmann's intervention.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the first thing we need to do is restore the article to a more recent version and then we can work on improvements from there. 4 months of work has been unjustly reverted. There's no reason to even acknowledge the current version on display because improvements have been made on the article for months. We had already reached a consensus on the direction the article should take and even created a rough draft to get on track. AncientObserver (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Versions
Anyone interested is invited to indicate what their favourite version of the article is. You may, if you wish, briefly indicate why William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of the version "not limited to Afrocentrism". It covers the topic following its real historical development.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC) This version
 * I'm in favor of restoring the article to this version because it is the last version of the page before Dbachmann's recent edits. AncientObserver (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of a version that deletes ALL original research. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC) [Please replace the text within these brackets with a link to an actual version that you prefer - WMC]
 * I am also in favor of a version that deletes ALL original research. I believe the best way to achieve this is to restore the last version of the page before Dbachmann's return, and then identify and correct each incidence of OR or other violation one by one, using discussion and consensus. This is better than re-inventing the wheel.Wdford (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC) this version please
 * The current version is preferable. The version that some of the contributors above prefer has a lot of problems. Two that jump out right away: Aeschylus' Persian Women is cited as an example of an ancient source that tells us the Egyptians were "black", with this source from 1851 as support; second, Josephus, Manilius, Strabo, and Arrian are cited without any secondary sources backing up the interpretation (well, one book is cited for Manilius, but no page # is given). This is essentially original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Supporting The current version. I don't see how it re-invents the wheel, and restoring a flawed version and then trying to get rid of the OR, etc. by consensus is a backwards way to do it. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally on board with the current version as above, as it is the only proposed version that does not have what appears to my trained-in-a-different-dicipline eye as very questionable sourcing. I suggest that since the current version has less information than the massive version (with the image galleries, which is what is the most glaring case of OR by synth) that supporters of the more massive version suggest one specific, well cited, balanced, NPOV change to the current version that would make it better. Hipocrite (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, for instance, Moreschi himself left some tags calling for some sections to be expanded. Do you think its acceptable to leave these indefinitely, or should those sections actually be expanded?Wdford (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Current version
While there are plenty of detractors for the previous version, the supporters for the current version haven't bothered to take a critical assessment of the current version. We will start with the lead sentence which states:

Controversy surrounding the race of ancient Egyptians is an integral topic in Afrocentric historiography, and an important issue for Afrocentrism since the early years of the 20th century.

As previously stated, we have a source from 1851 that has a whole chapter devoted the subject of the racial characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians. In addition there is this publication Egypt Land: Race and Nineteenth-Century American Egyptomania deals specifically with 19th century controversy over the race of the Egyptians. So it is factually incorrect, as stated in the current protected version, that the controversy began in the "early years of the 20th century". This is what happens when someone, just because of his administrative privileges believes that he has knowledge on content.

The second sentence states:

Today, the debate largely takes place outside the field of Egyptology.

Of course this is problematic as we have numerous mainstream publications by mainstream Egyptologists that deal with racial characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians.
 * The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt by Ian Shaw (Egyptologist) of the University of Liverpool
 * Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt by Kathryn Bard of Boston University.

In the face of such evidence, what good reasons are there to stand up for such inaccuracies. AncientObserver (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good assessment Kalimpa and the answer to that question is none. I think the best thing to do is restore the article to a more recent version and from there we can talk about original research and other things that don't belong. So far this is the majority choice. AncientObserver (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since K is a sock, I've removed the text. You can re-add it as your own if you choose to sponsor it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well then......Hopefully Wapondaponda can get his ban lifted and post in an honest fashion. AncientObserver (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

AncientObserver, I am not saying that the current version of the article is ideal, but it's a better place to start from than a version that has obvious OR. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please point out the original research. I disagree with you. The current article is biased in favor of an Anti-Afrocentric perspective. It erroneously defines the controversy as an Afrocentric construction and reads more like an attempt to debunk Afrocentrism more so than reporting on a controversy. The more recent version given its theme is something we can build on and strip out the inessentials if necessary. It presents a broad and more accurate scope of the controversy and is full of reliable sources reporting on the various aspects of the controversy. AncientObserver (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I pointed out the OR in the section above. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so you have a problem with the Classical Observers section. Don't you think it would be better to discuss these examples of alleged original research rather than revert 4 months of work to a wholly inadequate version? There is so much useful information in the recent version. I see no reason why the article needed to be reverted and locked in the first place. The reason given was edit warring but there was no edit warring here until User:Dbachmann showed up and started butchering the page. Let's unlock the article and discuss the material on the recent version in a civil manner. That is how we have been operating for months and that is how things get done. AncientObserver (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got problems with the entire article. So do other editors. The version that's been reverted to has the virtue of being largely written by User:Moreschi, whom I trust to do good research, and it is well-cited. That's a fine starting point for further expansion, if such is necessary. The version that you prefer is poorly cited and has instances of OR that I spotted even on a casual reading of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got problems with the entire current version and so do other editors. So where does that leave us? So far we are in the majority. Many of us spent alot of time and energy contributing to this article so I would hope that other editors and Admins passing by this page would be more understanding. We're willing to work with other editors to improve this article but the sensible way to do this is to have open discussion and work towards a consensus not revert months of work and lock the article. AncientObserver (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[sock rm - WMC] Bolongala (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read my post again. I did not say that the Aeschylus material is original research. I said that the use of Aeschylus is problematic, because the material is supported with a citation from 1851. Let's just say that views of Aeschylus have changed in the meantime, as have views of race/ethnicity/skin color. This article shouldn't be using a source from 1851 except as an indication of what people thought in the mid-19th century.


 * Attributing statements to ancient sources needs to be done with care. Ancient Greek texts are rarely transparent, and most Wikipedia editors are accessing them through translations anyway. Actually, I would wager that most Wikipedia editors are looking at out-of-context quotes from ancient authors in modern secondary sources. Any time a Wikipedia article says "Herodotus says X" or "Aeschylus says Y", a particular interpretation of an ancient author is being advanced (usually a debatable one), and those interpretations (unless cited to a reliable source) are potentially original research. Since the views attributed to the ancient figures here are debatable to say the least, if this stuff is to be in the article (it shouldn't be) interpretation needs to be attributed to a modern scholarly source. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * NOR prohibits SYNTH and sourced quotes taken out of context. Obvous violationss. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The very fact that ancient Greeks are interpreted differently by different people today is exactly what makes it a controversy. Some editors have accused us of trying to settle the argument rather than focusing on the controversy, but in fact its the other way around. The bullet point on Herodotus clearly stated that a particular comment by Herodotus has been seriously misinterpreted, complete with references to modern scholarship - but Google that comment and see how many Afrocentric blogs quote it as the defining wisdom. This article is not about scientifically proving anything, it is about outlining the controversy itself. If you read further down that list of bullets, various ancient commentators give conflicting "evidence", and its also true that their definitions were probably different to ours. Hundred percent agreed. That certainly makes their evidence unreliable as far as determining the true race of the ancient Egyptians, but it also makes their evidence highly relevant in explaining why the controversy exists in the first place. I am happy to leave out the Aeschylus bullet, but some of the others (especially Herodotus) perfectly illustrate how come the controversy exists in the first place. Wdford (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is about the "Ancient Egyptian race controversy." That's a horrible title, but presumably it refers to a controversy in the modern world. Including a section of "ancient evidence" makes it seem as if there was debate in the ancient world about the race of the Egyptians. Instead of talking about what the ancient sources say, this article should explain how ancient sources played a role in modern constructions of ancient Egyptian "race". --Akhilleus (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed in full - that is exactly the intention. There was some difficulty in how to word the introduction to that section, for fear of WP:OR, so your suggested wording would be most welcome. Wdford (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wdford! The best thing to do for people discussing here is to contribute to the article where they see they can put something. I liked the post by AncientObserver with sources back to the 19th century, well before the birth of "Afrocentrism".--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So where do things stand now? Have you made a decision yet William? I think we have made our case for this article being unlocked and returned to a recent version. AncientObserver (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Were we stand now is that a lot of people have problems with OR in the version you prefer. Your method of argument seems to be to keep saying I think we have made our case for this article being unlocked and returned to a recent version but not really paying any attention to the arguments. That won't work William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the statements of several people who have made such comments as have others so how can you say that we are ignoring them? We've also pointed out problems with the current version. I think we have made a stronger case for the recent version because we have agreed to eliminate any original research and no logical case can be made for reverting all of the reliable information that is in the recent version which is not in the current version. What more needs to be discussed? AncientObserver (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps you should try to produce, say, a version of the lede that you think would be acceptable to all parties William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K. AncientObserver, try to produce something acceptable to all parties. And let's hope that whoever wants would participate in it. Very sad to see that Dbachmann has just vanished after provoking all this mess.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Draft discussion

 * In order for us to create a lead that will be acceptable to all parties we will first need to reach a consensus on what the lead should contain. I think the lead should contain the following elements.....


 * The lead should state that the race of the Ancient Egyptians is a subject that has attracted controversy within academia and the broader society.
 * The lead should should state that several scholars have made various inferences on the subject based on biological, cultural, artistic and linguistic data.
 * The lead should state the modern mainstream view on the subject.

Here's a rough draft:

The Race of the ancient Egyptians is a subject that has attracted some controversy within mainstream academia and the broader society. The modern mainstream opinion is that Ancient Egypt was a Multiracial society and that the Ancient Egyptians cannot be grouped into racial categories such as Black and White per current terminology. Mainstream opinion also holds that Ancient Egypt was a Classical African Civilization. Some scholars disagree, and have made various contrary inferences from biological, cultural, artistic and linguistic data. AncientObserver (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * At least two problems with this. First, "multiracial"? By which source? And under which definition? Would the Egyptians have recognized any of these "races"? Secondly, what is a "Classical African Civilization"? The definition in the article is tautological and unsourced. Do we have any sources that even recognize this as a category with a proper name (as opposed to a simple descriptive term)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We can probably do away with the Classical African Civilization bit. I do think it should be noted that the scholarly consensus maintains that Ancient Egypt was an indigenous development (contrary to the Dynastic Race Theory and other claims). This is the current source for the statement about Ancient Egypt being a Multiracial or Mixed-Race society:


 * General history of Africa, by G. Mokhtar, International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa, Unesco

The mainstream opinion of the Egyptologists at the 1974 Cairo Symposium was that Ancient Egypt was a mixed-race society. I'm not familiar with the evidence presented for this but that was the conclusion of the majority. AncientObserver (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the "indigenous" much better than the "Classical" (but we still need a source). I probably would not write "indigenous African" (as in "they came from Harare") - if you need both qualifiers, "African indigenous" is less ambiguous (but somewhat redundant, in my opinion). Multi-racial and mixed-race are two very different things. Is that source online? What exactly does it say? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference is also recorded in the book “Ancient Civilizations of Africa”, by Muhammad Jamal al-Din Mukhtar and G. Mokhtar. The book essentially reviews the proceedings of the Cairo Symposium, and the outcomes thereof. The entire conference dealt with the issue of the Race of the Ancient Egyptians, so many aspects were mentioned many times. The specific “quote” as per the lead of the article probably comes from the discussion recorded on pages 45 & 46. Various people gave their views in turn, most of which were along the lines of “mixed race” although not everyone used the same wording. On pg 46 the book says that two delegates – Diop and Obenga – backed the theory that the ancient Egyptians were Black, came from tropical Africa and spread into Egypt from the south. It then says that the conclusion of the experts who did not accept the theory (presumably the other eighteen-odd delegates, although it doesn’t specify) was that “ ... the basic population of Egypt settled there in Neolithic times, that it originated largely in the Sahara and that it comprised people from the north and from the south of the Sahara who were differentiated by their colour.” It was earlier agreed that the ancient Egyptians were not White either. Although Diop seemed to dominate the discussion, whenever anybody other than Diop or Obenga got a chance to speak they disagreed with Diop. The sentence in the lead section of our article is thus a precis of several pages of debate, but it is an accurate summary. I don’t own a personal copy of the book, so unfortunately its not easy for me to scan it quickly and find other references. Wdford (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am happy with the bulk of Moreschi's lead, just not the limited scope centered on Afrocentrism. I would prefer the following:
 * The Race of the ancient Egyptians is a subject that has attracted some controversy within mainstream academia and within society generally.
 * The ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as having a different appearance to the other nations around them, but there is dispute about how accurate such depictions were meant to be.
 * Modern scholarly consensus is that the concept of "pure race" is incoherent; that applying modern notions of race to ancient Egypt is anachronistic; and that as far as skin colour is concerned, the ancient Egyptians were neither "black" nor "white" (as such terms are usually applied today).  Some scholars disagree, and have made various contrary inferences from biological, cultural and linguistic data..
 * The issue is of particular sensitivity to Afrocentrists.
 * Wdford (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The opening passage makes no sense and is therefore problematic as well as misrepresents the scholarly view of race:
 * 1)What is the current scholarly view of race?
 * Nowhere is this ever referenced. Linking to a wikipedia article on race does not constitute the scientific view on race.
 * Below is a properly referenced current scientific view on race:


 * In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human :species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human :populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most :physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of :their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of :genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued :sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.
 * Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited :independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in :the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be :associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These :facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.
 * Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the :human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the :United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the :English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.
 * From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a :hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a :growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in :particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and :Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the :rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of :their status differences.
 * Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the :human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the :United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the :English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.
 * From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a :hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a :growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in :particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and :Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the :rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of :their status differences.
 * From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a :hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a :growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in :particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and :Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the :rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of :their status differences.


 * http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
 * 2) The introduction then implies that the words black and white imply race?
 * How does using the words black or white define race? Black and white are references to the skin color of populations, which are a biological fact.
 * There is no evidence that modern science has claimed that "white" (light) skin or "black" (dark) skin do not exist, or that black skin is not the predominant feature found among Africans.
 * 3) Likewise, it claims that the ancient Egyptians were in between black and white, but how is that unique?
 * Most Africans are somewhere between black and white, because the word black in reference to skin color has never meant literally coal black. In fact, the term white also does not mean literally lily white either and therefore it can be argued that no population is literally black or white.  So how does this clarify anything about the features of the ancient Egyptians.
 * There is no proof that science views the ancient Egyptians as being of a single monolithic set of features that are unrelated to any surrounding population. Therefore, the idea that the ancient Egyptians as being "mixed race" were unrelated and had no similarities to surrounding populations is not supported either, as science views all populations as related to one another by degree or cline in terms of features.
 * 4) The introduction then goes on to contradict itself by saying that the ancient Egyptians were of "mixed" race.
 * If the current scientific view is that there is no race, then how can any population be mixed race? Again, this does not reflect any modern scientific views on race.  It implies that "black" skin or "white" skin somehow are characteristics of race, yet modern science does not hold such a view.
 * In that sense the introduction contradicts itself, because if race doesn't exist then there can be no mixed race.
 * 5) And even with that, what is the definition of "mixed" race?
 * What "races" were mixed?
 * How are they identified?
 * How were they mixed?
 * Where did they originate?
 * Again, it is a contradictory statement if the modern scientific view is that races do not exist.
 * 7) And even more importantly, if modern science no longer supports the idea of race, then how can it be anachronistic?
 * 8) Technically the modern view of race says that all human populations vary in outward physical characteristics, but those characteristics do not define a "race".
 * Therefore, when talking of the ancient Egyptian population the question is not about "race" it is about the predominant physical characteristics of the population and how they have changed over time, which is a valid for every population on the planet and therefore cannot be anachronistic (meaning out of place or in the wrong time frame).
 * So to summarize, this opening statement only serves to show why and how "race" in ancient Egypt is controversial, because it is not based on science, but rather political and social agendas that have no basis in fact. In reality, there is no controversy over the "race" of the ancient Egyptians from a scientific perspective, because modern science no longer believes in "race".
 * Big-dynamo (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * These are all very good points. Big-Dynamo would you like to submit a draft for the lead? AncientObserver (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think something that summarizes the controversy as being a dispute over the modern representations of the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptian population based on notions of the importance of "race" and certain "racial" characteristics in a social and political context would be a better start. The core focus of the debate being how the physical characteristics of this population are represented in academic and scholarly circles and whether they are based on historic racial agendas versus objective scientific observation.  It is as much about the actual physical features as it is about accusations against the  institutions of academia and science by African/African American scholars as being racist and whether such accusations are objective or biased in their own right.  It is also a debate that in more recent times has focused on the quality and integrity of African scholarship on the subject and whether it qualifies as true science or mere social propaganda.
 * Big-dynamo (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Big-dynamo for being back. Since your ban many things, good and bad, happened here! Now, as AncientObserver said, can you write a draft combining those points of view you just exposed? We can then see if we take it as it is or modify it. Once more thanks!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Big-dynamo for being back. Since your ban many things, good and bad, happened here! Now, as AncientObserver said, can you write a draft combining those points of view you just exposed? We can then see if we take it as it is or modify it. Once more thanks!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The role of artwork in determining "race"
Although I find the term "race" to be a bit loaded and outdated (especially considering that, with the exception of certain phenotypes, biological diversity is more pronounced within "racial" populations than outside them), I find this topic to be somewhat interesting in regards to discovering more about the original native peoples of Egypt. Is anyone here familiar with modern scholarly consensus (or at least a partial view of mainstream scholarship) on ancient Egyptian artwork and its value in determining the "race" of Egyptians?

I am familiar with the concept that the skin tones used in Egyptian art are quite useless for our modern understanding of how people really appeared. I say this in consideration of ancient Egyptians' similar attitudes shared with the Minoan civilization about representing the different sexes in arts (men shaded one color, females shaded another). However, is anyone here familiar with scholars' assessments of realistic three-dimensional artwork (i.e. busts, sculptures, statues, reliefs, etc.)? It would be interesting to hear what scholars have to say about these contemporary fifth-dynasty-era statues showing scribes (the upper crust of society) and if they hint at a fairly rich racial diversity:

One could point to one or the other, and say "black" or "white", while the one on the far right could be construed as downright "Asiatic". A thought to consider.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 12:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There are other images which demonstrate this even more vividly. See e.g. http://wysinger.homestead.com/kemsit.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nofret_statue.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PalaceInlays-NubiansPhilistineAmoriteSyrianAndHittite-Compilation-MuseumOfFineArtsBoston.png etc. I don't have the references to hand, but Frank Yurco is quite outspoken on the subject - insert his name into a Google search with "egyptian art" etc and you should get there quickly. Wdford (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. I'll look into Yurco.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 13:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shomarka Keita and A.J. Boyce wrote an article on the population history of the Ancient Egyptians in which they briefly commented on the use of artwork as an assessment of their biological characteristics. This is what they had to say:

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

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

Zahi Hawass also made a good video about the subject which you can view here. I think artwork can give us some insight into what the Ancient Egyptians looked like however many Egyptologists agree that some of the colors used were symbolic such as the difference in skintone between genders. Some of the facial features on statues are also exaggerated and some of the paint on statues have been faded as is the case with The Seated Scribe shown above. I support the presence of the gallery in the article since art is one of the clues given to us by the Ancient Egyptians themselves. AncientObserver (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just want to say that i think a good deal of the most recent discussion has ben very constructive. I would only add this request, if possible - more discussion of the contexts that make the queston of race salient to some scholars at some times, but not others, or at other times.  Perhaps the question was salient for one set of reasons in the 1820s, another set of reasons in the 1970s. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 04:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've said for some time that the Origins of the Debate section needs to be revised to better explain the development of the controversy. The mainstream scholarly consensus may be that race does not exist but not all scholars agree and many continue to use racial concepts such as forensic anthropologists who have been directly involved in igniting controversy related to the race of the Ancient Egyptians. AncientObserver (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should make a distinction between notions of "race" as being defined by outward physical characteristics versus racism which identifies certain characteristics as being "superior" to others. Hence the debate is whether any of the methods used to portray ancient Egyptians are based more on an agenda supporting notions of "racial" superiority among populations with certain physical characteristics versus objective analysis.  Even if modern science no longer supports "race", some people could still be operating in support of certain "racial" agendas regarding how the physical characteristics of certain ancient populations are represented to the public.
 * Big-dynamo (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We would have to identify very clearly which significant scholar views race in terms of physical appearance. As seems clear, it is not at all sure that ancient Egyptians equated physical appearance with race (if indeed they had a notion of race).  (This is not surprising - Romans did not identify race with outward appearance, so we cannot assume other ancient peoples did).  It seems to me that there are two different questions here: (1) did ancient Egyptians classify people according by race, and if so, how did they define race? and (2) using later definitions (18th century, 19th century, 20th century) of race, what races inhabited and governed ancient Egypt.  I can imagine historians debating either or both of these questions, but they are different. Recent discussion seems to be quite aware of this distinction, I think it is critical to keep the distinction clear in the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Egyptians did distinguish people according to languages, characters and skin color. The Hymn to Aten says: You set every man in his place, you supply their needs; everyone has his food, his lifetime is counted. Their tongues differ in speech, their characters likewise; their skins are distinct, for you distinguished the people. Now, when it comes to the color of their skin, the Egyptians attributed to themselves only one color, kmt, meaning literally black people with determinative of people and the three traits indicating the plural. Scholars like Faulkner avoid translating it literally. They prefer to say Egyptians. But Egyptian is not a color! Others like Lichtheim translates it into Black land. But the determinative is that of people, not land! This kmt is found in the Hymn to Sesostris III.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (that's a mouthful!). You make an interesting point, but I'd like to focus solely on visual artwork in this section. Perhaps you can start a new section here on the talk page about ancient Egyptian literature and how Egyptians classified themselves through the written word. On another note, I'd like to thank everyone here for showing this subject some attention! Now I think the best thing to do is to share cited passages from credible scholarly works on the matter to build some sort of scholarly consensus on how art can be used (or should not be used) to determine "race" in ancient Egypt.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 06:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that we must remember the purpose of the galleries must be to reflect the nature of the controversy itself. We should only be trying to show how ancient Egyptian artwork can be contradictory in that images for the same individual can vary in many ways and therefore used both for and against a certain set of features, even for the same individual. And given that it must be noted that usage of Egyptian artwork is controversial in some ways because of the selected images that some people use to portray ancient populations, by favoring those images that they feel reflect one set of features versus another. Ancient Egypt lasted over 3000 years with hundreds of thousands of artistic depictions of people that have survived in various states of preservation. No gallery can pretend to represent all the variations in one period of Egyptian art yet alone the entire span of dynastic Egyptian history. In reality ancient Egyptian art must be taken with a massive grain of salt in many cases as it is impossible to expect most imagery from ancient Egypt to represent pictorial accuracy as opposed to generic generalized representations. Big-dynamo (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, most are not only generic, but also idealistic in regards to depictions of deities and pharaohs. That should certainly be made clear.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 11:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we keep the article to objective questions?
Since the concepts of "black race" and "white race" are not scientific, there is little hope that this article can provide a useful answer to the question "were the Ancient Egyptians black?". But perhaps the article can give some fundamented answers to more objective questions, such as etc. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * range of skin color
 * presence of body hair
 * hair color
 * skeletal features
 * stature
 * I agree Jorge and that is why I think the Anthropometric indicators section is important. It gives us insight into what experts have to say about the Ancient Egyptians' physical characteristics. Dbachmann tried to split it off and move it to a new article but it is integral to this topic. There are so many reliable sources in the recent version of this article. We can work on providing a better lead but ultimately a decision needs to be made on which version is going to be presented when the article gets unlocked. I see no justification for reverting 4 months of work. AncientObserver (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we are on the good track. Thank you Jorge.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the objective status of the article should be to represent what makes the physical characteristics or "race" of the ancient Egyptians controversial. In this sense, it is not so much the actual data that is the problem, but rather the interperetation on one hand, or the various interpretations of the same data and which interpretations are considered the "current consensus". In all reality there is no one scholarly consensus on much of Egyptian history. There are various views and various studies and various scholars who have attempted to address this issue and all do not necessarily agree. Also, since modern science no longer speaks in terms of race, one must understand that the studies speak more about genetics and the overall physical characteristics of physical remains, which represent very technical scientific observations not simply boiled down into neat categories of "race". Case in point, Shomarka Keita, even while being an African American whose research supports the indigenous African features of ancient Egyptian populations, refuses to characterize those features by "race". This reflect the fact that modern science views all populations has having variations in different features, but with some populations having more occurrences of certain features over others. But even with that, many of these studies make it clear that the ancient Egyptian populations of various periods were clearly African and closely related to populations in and along the Nile Valley, such as Sudan and the Sahara. Likewise, there are also scholars who believed that the ancient Egyptians were migrants from the Levant. But those views are considered old archaic views based more on the "racial" politics of the 18th and 19th century than accurate science. Given that, the controversy becomes what is considered the "scholarly consensus" given that so many studies and so many scholars do support the African identity of ancient Egypt based on the analysis of physical remains? That and how much of a role does racism play in downplaying any scholarly or scientific research that points out the African identity and features of ancient Egyptian populations, in trying to maintain the view of ancient Egyptians being unlike any other population in Africa called "black". And what is the scholarly or scientific "consensus" on the range of features found in the ancient populations of Egypt and how they relate to modern populations? Statements by Zahi Hawass do not represent "scholarly" consensus. TV shows on National Geographic and History Channel are not "scholarly" consensus. Scholars and scientists write studies and they do not all agree and there isn't always consensus on many things concerning ancient Egypt. Therefore, to pretend that there is such a consensus is part of the controversy itself as well as the fact that within the scholarly community there is also debate over many issues surrounding the actual evidence found in ancient Egypt.

Not only is there no general consensus on the overall affinities of the ancient Egyptian population in a general sense, there is also no consensus on specific features of individual ancient Egyptians. What is the scholarly or scientific view of the features of King Tutankhamun? Again, the controversy itself starts within Egyptology itself because there is no one view of how Tutankhamun actually looked. There have been multiple reconstructions of King Tut's mummy by Zahi Hawass and various American broadcasting companies and they do not all look the same. In fact, Zahi Hawass himself has made contradictory statements about the features of King Tut and the accuracy of reconstructions. But Zahi Hawass is not "scholarly" consensus. And the History Channel and Discovery Channel are also not scholarly consensus. The late 18th dynasty is one of the most contentious and controversial periods of ancient Egyptian history because there is a lot about these ancient people that is not known. There are many forms of speculation and "controversy" about who Tut's parents were, who King Akhenaton's mother was and the ancestry of these families. There are questions and "controversies" about which mummies are which and which ones are properly identified and which ones are not. There are many famous figures for which there are no mummies available. There are also questions and "controversies" about some of the artwork from the late 18th dynasty. Much of this controversy is strictly within the halls of Egyptology itself and a lot of it is driven not necessarily by scholars directly but by "informed" laypeople who are passionate about Egyptian history. For example, what actual scholarly source supports the notion that Akhenaton had Marfan's syndrome, due to the way the Egyptians were portrayed during the Amarna period? Much of the actual work of scholars is dry and technical and not generally read by the public. Most information seen by the public is written by general historians or writers who simply summarize the works of scholars and sometimes introduce their own opinions on the issue. These do not necessarily represent "scholarly" consensus in any sense. Not to mention there are scholars who have been openly in conflict with various Egyptian authorities, like Zahi Hawass, which have generated their own controversies. Therefore to pretend that there is a single scholarly consensus on Ancient Egypt is erroneous and to pretend that within that within Egyptology that there aren't controversies surrounding the identity and physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians is likewise erroneous. All of this has to be considered as part and parcel of the actual controversy discussed here, not simply the idea that Afrocentrics are the basis of it all. In fact, the Egyptians have now opened 2 DNA labs to try and extract the DNA of various 18th dynasty mummies in order to try and help identify the relationships and "family lineages" that can help identify other mummies. This makes it clear that there are a lot of questions that are unanswered, making a lot about the 18th dynasty not necessarily as cut and dry as some people want to pretend. Likewise, the fact of the DNA labs themselves is controversial as some feel it is unlikely to produce anything of value because of the age of the remains as well as the handling of the remains including the handling by Zahi Hawass himself. Again, all of this paints a vastly different picture of Egyptology as free from controversy surrounding the identity and physical characteristics of ancient Egyptian populations and the study thereof.

And because of all the above and the lack of consensus, much of the current debate over the identity of the ancient Egyptians involves those who believe the work of one set of European scholars versus those use the work of another set of European scholars. The point being that there are more scholars of European ancestry that have supported the African identity of the ancient Egyptians than African or "Afrocentric" scholars. Therefore, to pretend that this is simply a controversy started by and introduced by African scholars is incorrect. As an example, some of the scholars who went to Africa with Napoleon to "study" Egypt were some of the first "modern" scholars to make note of the ancient Egyptians as black Africans. In fact, some of the earliest arguments against slavery based on the idea that ancient civilizations were founded by blacks came not from blacks but white scholars referenced by abolitionists. This includes James Bruce, Count Volney and others and it was Champollion, the first to translate the hieroglyphs that was the first person to say that KMT was a reference to a black population and nation. And to this day, many white scholars have been openly supporting the African identity of ancient Egypt, making any attempt to claim it as solely "Afrocentric" argument of recent African authorship, strictly false. Big-dynamo (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To follow on the above important comment: the BIG question is, how is "objective data" on "range of skin color, presence of body hair, hair color, skeletal features, stature" relevant to the topic, "race?"  It is relevant only if a historian or other notable scholar deines race in such a way as to ake it relevant.  Well, IF thee are siginificant views in notable sources that do claim that Egyptions were race(s) x (y z) based on these variables, of course we should include that view.  Otherwise this so-called "objective evidence" is neither objective nor evidence and should not be mentioned."  Above someone points out that Egyptions saw that people differed according to language and skin color.  Okay, but this does not mean that they had a concept of race.  Again, in significant scholars in notable sources use these facts to make such an argument, we can include that in the article.  The recent talk however veres back to violating our NOR policy.  What editors think are "objective facts" about Egyptians and skin color is simply not relevant to this article.  What is important is verifiable and notable sources presenting significant views making claims about the race of ancient Egyptians or ancient Egyptians' views of race.  Then'' we ask what these people mean by race, what they consider evidence.. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the purpose of the article is to decide what is "objective" scholarship on the issue. The article should focus on identifying that there is a controversy and how that manifests itself both within and without scholarly and scientific circles.  To that extent it should be sufficient to note the history of anthropology and archeology which were based around concepts of "racial" distinctions and the superiority of certain "races" over others at one time.  It should also discuss the various views of the features of ancient Egyptian populations both by European and non European scholars who openly addressed the issue in "racial" terms.  As an example this would cover the views of Volney, Petrie and other scholars, where views on "race" were significant factors determining how they labeled ancient Egyptian populations.  This should be followed by more recent scholarship and the various views represented therein and how this is reflected in "mainstream" opinion.  However, this article cannot pretend to represent the consensus because it isn't clear that there is a consensus, given that many scholars have differing views on the subject.  In that way, trying to establish consensus is to partake in the controversy itself.  It should only present that there is a controversy, that it is not limited to Afrocentrics and that it still exists in many circles both within outside of scholarly and scientific circles.  Bottom line, the fundamental controversy is one of skin color, whether or not science views skin color as defining "race" or not, with certain groups accusing mainstream scholarship and media of having a racist agenda in trying to downplay the presence of dark skin within the population of ancient Egypt and the article should simply reflect that.

Big-dynamo (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The research of Biological anthropologists such as Shomarka Keita who hold the "no biological race" position are relevant to the article because they are giving a perspective on the controversy. In Keita's case his view is that race is not a biologically valid concept when applied to humans but that we can assess the Ancient Egyptians' physical characteristics and population affinity without using outdated models of racial classification. AncientObserver (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. But one consequence of that research is that race is a social construction.  As such, it may be constructed in some places but not others, it may be constructed at some times and not others, and when and where it is constructed, it may have different meanings and uses.  My point was that "objective facts" like skin color, presnse of body hair, skeletal features etc. may be considered makers of race, socially constructed - or they may not be.  Thus, simply to provide such "objective facts" as Jorge Stolfi suggests would be highly misleading.  Let us start with the significant views from notable sources first.  Then look at thiose views that use the social construction we call race.  Then find out what they consider markers of race.  Let's not start with a bunch of phenotypic traits that may or may not have anything to do with race. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, I'd like you to take a look at this version of the article and tell us how you think the article can be improved in terms of the way it addresses the concept of race. AncientObserver (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * AncientObserver, the lead as it stands is a bit problematic. When it says some scholars disagree. They disagree to what? To the affirmation that ancient Egypt was a Classical African Civilization? or to the statement that The modern mainstream opinion is that the ancient Egyptians were a mixed race, being neither black nor white as per current terminology?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lead is problematic. I thought so myself even before the article got locked. What I wanted Slrubenstein to respond to specifically was the anthropometric section which provides sources from experts on the physical characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians. AncientObserver (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the version you direct me to i terrible. If race is not a biologically valid concept, scholars would not turn to biology, they would turn to race as a social construct instead.  The version you direct me to simply pays lip service to the critique of race as biological by sneaking biology back in.  Instead of race, biologists look at populations distinguished by gene frequencies.  We have no data about ancient Egyptiians that allows us to reconstruct those.  But the critique of race as a biologicval concept does open the door to loads of research on race as a social construct ... where is the research on that? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the version is horrible because it is stuck on the concept of whether "race" is valid versus simply reflecting the core issue: the controversy over the skin color of the ancient Egyptians.  Modern science does not look at biological characteristics such as skin color as defining race.   Therefore, when scientists and anthropologists study those characteristics in ancient populations they are not studying "race".  But again, the purpose of the article isn't so much to prove that "race" is or is not valid and it isn't to prove whether the ancient Egyptians had dark skin or not.  It should simply reflect that there is a controversy over the skin color of the ancient Egyptians that has been around at least since the European discovery of ancient Egypt 300 years ago.  This controversy is less about the facts and more about how the facts are interpreted and represented in modern media, whether it is biological data, linguistic data, historical data or artistic data from ancient Egypt itself.
 * Big-dynamo (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The no biological race position does not mean that biology is a useless tool in helping us to learn the physical characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians. Modern anthropologists who have addressed this subject have used various anthropometric studies to assess the Ancient Egyptians biological affinities to other populations. Keita for instance expresses little interest in race as a social construct because this varies by region, culture and time period.....

There is little interest in this review in "social race," since this varies from place to place. "Black" and "White" are differently defined in America than Panama or Brazil. The interest is in "real" affinities. Baldly asked, were the Egyptians in the main emigres to the Nile valley from outside of Africa in "Egypt's" earlier periods? Or were they merely another African population, differentiated from a common African ancestral group? Were the Egyptians natives of Africa with greater affinities to Nubians and other southerly peoples? Is there a difference between northern and southern Egyptians? Did this change? Do the early "Egyptians" share biological traits with "tropical" Africans which represent tropical adaptations, obtained via shared ancestry?

In this paper a representative sample of previous studies are reviewed which examine the "racial" or biological affinity of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile valley, specifically those called Egyptians. The majority of the studies employed crania, long believed to have traits useful as indicators of "race" or population biological affinity. These cranial studies will be divided for current purposes into three groups: morphological and morphotypological; metric/morphometric; and nonmetric. Other kinds of data are also reviewed; these include limb ratio studies, ABO blood group analyses, and dental studies. Of greatest interest are the overall external relationships of the early Nile valley groups. - Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships

So long as there are different ways to define racial groups such as "Black" and "White" such categories are meaningless from a biological perspective. I think that rather than talk about the various social constructs we should have a section that discusses how the scholarly consensus on the racial classification of the Ancient Egyptians has evolved through the centuries which we have with the origins of the debate section which needs serious revision. AncientObserver (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No matter what ways people use to lump together various biological characteristics, the issue of this controversy boils down to skin color. Everything else, including the history of "race" and ways "race" has been identified are all secondary to this core fact.  This article is not trying to define what is "social race" versus "biological race" and whether any of them are valid or have a place in science.  This article is also not trying to prove what biological characteristics were predominant in ancient Egypt nor is it trying to prove whether such studies are "racial" or not.   All of that only bogs the article down in issues and discussions that already have pages elsewhere in wikipedia.  Biological studies of ancient populations to understand their features and how they have changed over time does not and is not "race".  However the study of the biological features of ancient Egyptian populations is important in that it does play a role in the controversy, because it is basically about determining the skin color of that ancient population.  That does not mean that such studies are trying to prove "race" or that this article should be trying to prove "race" either.   Likewise this is not about the "racial" views of the ancient Egyptians or the "racial" views of any ancient population.  It is simply about the modern views of the skin color of the ancient Egyptians and whether such views are based on "racial" ideologies which are social and political in nature and not scientific.
 * Big-dynamo (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think physical characteristics and biogeographic origin would be more accurate than skin color. Those are the two issues that have been a source of controversy since the birth of Egyptology.


 * What did the Ancient Egyptians look like (or what was their race)?
 * From what geographic location did the architects of the Ancient Egyptian Civilization derive (or where did the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians come from prior to creating Dynastic Civilization)? AncientObserver (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not far from one another, Big-dynamo and AncientObserver. The article has to prove nothing. But to report about the diversity of opinions surrounding the so called "race of the ancient Egyptians". This includes skin color, geographic location, origin(s), language, relations... I was happy to see that Big-dynamo knows that even Jean-François Champollion had an opinion on that issue. I have the texts with me, unfortunately in French!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Skin color, other physical characteristics and geographic origins are all part and part of the actual controversy. The core of the controversy boiling down to how the skin color and other physical characteristics are identified, labeled and represented in various places and at various times throughout history and whether there has been a bias in representing these characteristics one way or another on the part of science and scholarship and other groups, including "Afrocentrics", based on social and political agendas concerning "race".  There are many side issues that could be discussed, like what does "black" mean, what does "white" mean, what labels are appropriate, what is the difference between biological characteristics and "race" and so forth.  But each of these should not be the core of this article.  They can be referenced but trying to spend too much time on trying to cover every nook and cranny of ideas concerning "race", "racial" categories and labels and their role in modern science would only bog down the article even more.  Suffice to say the topic is controversial whether it is about skin color, geographic origins or biological features (which includes skin color) and that is all that really needs to be pointed out.  And it must be pointed out that it is controversial because of the role of ideas concerning "race" and "racism" in science in the years during and after the "discovery" of ancient Egypt by Europeans and the various ways these ideas have been challenged, discussed and debated every since.
 * Big-dynamo (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't need to go into too much detail about the concept of race itself but we should be able to talk about the various aspects of the controversy and what scholars have to say about them. There are definite improvements that can be made on the recent version but so far noone has made a detailed criticism of any other section but the one on the classical observers. Aside from writing a good lead that everyone can agree on what more do we have to discuss before the article can be unlocked? AncientObserver (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We now seem to be mixing up two distinct things. First, a conrovery over the race of Egyptians. IF this topic merits an article (and i am not convinced it does) then the article should focus on debates over "race."There is a second issue, and that is, when was the Nile valley first settled, and what if any waves of migrations from different areas shaped it over time. For example, I know that some scholars once beieve that when Arabs conquored Egypt, Arabs also came to replace Egyptians as the dominant population. Today i think most schoalars reject this view, and believe that the conquest involved converting most Egyptians to Islam but not replacing them with lots of people from Arabia. Once can ask the same question about the impact of the conquest of Egypt by Alexander. I agree that these questins are important, but they do not belong in this article. First, these matters can be discussed without using the word "race." secondly I do not think there i any major mainstream controversy that merits its own article - all this can go int he article on Ancient Egypt, providing the mainstream view of historians and biological  anthropologists. If IN THE PAST there have been colorful controversies, they do not belong in the same article. The article on evolution does not have a section on the Scopes Trial ... it is only of historical interest. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, I don't agree with you that this subject does not deserve an article. It does because the race of ancient Egyptians is really controversial. Following documentaries by Basil Davidson on Africa and ancient Egypt in particular, one understands that Egyptologists have gone one way or another for different reasons linked somehow to the destiny of the Black people. I don't know, Slrubenstein, if you ever read the books of Jean-François Champollion. He says clearly that he wants his work to be a response about the origin of the ancient Egyptians and about their race. He reminds his readers that there is a polemic surrounding that subject. There is not a hot polemic about the populations of ancient Rome, Greece, China, Japon, etc. The literature on the subject of the race of the ancient Egyptians is very huge. And as such it deserves an article of its own. People would like to know about it. They will surely be happy to find that there is a space about the subject in Wikipedia and not only in yahoo, africamaat or toutankharton.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This topic deserves an article because "race" and "racism" are controversial topics inextricably linked to the rise of European power and the associated development of anthropology, history and archeology as institutions of European imperialism over the last 500 years. Many text books from even 50 years ago will feature "race" as a fundamental aspect of human biology, history and cultural development and it only gets worse the further you go back.  Trying to pretend that this is not a fact of the history of Western anthropology, much like the fact that some of the earliest thinkers like Voltaire and Hume were also racist, is simply non historical and revisionist.  "Race" and "racism" were core and fundamental aspects of the study of Egyptology, anthropology and archaeology from its inception, because "race" and "racism" were core and fundamental aspects of European science and scholarship at that time and most of the years following.  Therefore, the history of "race" and "racism" within Western scholarship are a fundamental part of this controversy and trying to paint scholars who are challenging the institutions of anthropology and science because of these historical "racist" tendencies as the source of the controversy is to actually participate in the controversy in defense of these institutions, which is why this article and many before it have been bogged down in edit wars.  Simply stating that there is a controversy and presenting historical facts and opinions relating to it should be sufficient enough without trying to prove anything one way or another.

Big-dynamo (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Big-dynamo, your last sentence, according to me, has fixed the goal of the article. I don't know if someone still doubts about having such an article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Lusafa, I do not know the sources you mention (though I know who Davidson is) but I take your comments in good faith. perhaps there are two articles here - one that Ancient Observer has been sketching out, that is more generally on an important topic in the social history of Egyptions, and another article that is on the people who study or write about Egypt i.e. Egyptologists. This would not be a POV fork, it would be a content fork: one article on Egyptians and one article on Egyptologists; the first article that uses mainstream scholarship on what most historians agree about ancient Egyptions, the other that focuses on an argument between or among a handful of notable scholars. This latter article sounds liek the one you wish to have here, if I understand you correctly. If I am indeed understanding you correctly I would suggest that that second article be very narrow in focus and avoid general discussions of racism or afrocentrism and stick to the specific context of th participants in the debate (including of course any charges of racism or afrocentrism specificaly aimed at one of the participants of the debate. I hope this is constructive and i hope I am taking into account the various concerns expressed here.  I see several editors acting in good faith (although none of them are served well when sock-puppets or banned users get involved) and I think some kind of progress is possible; if my suggestion is unhelpful perhaps we can have some other proposals. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Propositions for the lead
Hi guys - I agree with the discussion above. We did have a section called "Definition of Race" in the "old" article, specifically including all of these points (although slightly more summarised.) It was part of the intro, then got split off into the first section after the intro because the intro was deemed to be too long. I am quite happy to reinstate that info in the intro paragraph. I would therefore like to propose the following intro, with extra detail on the inexactness of race etc being added in a section further down for completeness:


 * The Race of the ancient Egyptians is a subject that attracts controversy within mainstream academia and within broader society.
 * Modern scholarly consensus is that the concept of "pure race" is incoherent; that applying modern notions of race to ancient Egypt is anachronistic; and that as far as skin colour is concerned, the ancient Egyptians were neither "black" nor "white" (as such terms are usually applied today).
 * However some modern scholars disagree, and have made various contrary inferences from biological, cultural and linguistic data.
 * The ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as having a different physical appearance to the other nations around them, but there is dispute about how accurate such depictions were intended to be.

 Wdford (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with the introduction is the sentence that starts "Modern scholarly consensus". Firstly, "race" is a modern scholarly and scientific notion that became predominant among 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th European scientists and scholars. The idea that the "modern consensus" refutes race is meaningless because it does not discuss the fact that it was within the scholarly community that concepts, ideas, debates and controversies over "race" in the sciences of biology and anthropology originated in the first place. Secondly, there is no scholarly consensus on many things Egyptian, including their origins and physical affinities. It is not cited and actually the fact that there is no consensus also is part of the reason there is a controversy to begin with. And, the phrase that the Egyptians were neither "black" or "white" is not a view of any anthropologist, biologist or any other person familiar with the study of human phenotypes. Note that the statement comes from Kathryn A. Bard who is an archaeologist, not a biologist or anthropologist and she cannot be assumed to be a representative of "scholarly" consensus. More importantly, while it is indeed true that terms like "black" and "white" are no longer used in the study of human anthropology, that does not mean that the range of skin colors normally referenced as "black" and "white" did not occur in ancient populations. It is terms like "black" and "white" that are a fundamental aspect of the controversy itself that should be noted along with the fact that the controversy fundamentally boils down to skin color. Likewise, since this introduction refers to the idea that this is about Afrocentrists, it is important to note that many of the citations are from "Black Athena Revisited, which is a critique of a book written by a white European scholar, not any particular Afrocentrist or African scholar. Therefore, using arguments about that book actually contradict the point that African scholars are the origins of the debate as well as avoiding the actual arguments presented by African scholars and thinkers, as well as European scholars in reference to the particular issues of the debate.  It also contradicts the point that many of the scholars supporting the view of ancient Egypt as a "black" African culture where white.  The controversy is not simply about "race" in the sense of labels and terminology, it is a controversy over physical characteristics that all populations possess and whether or not there is bias in presenting the characteristics most often found in the ancient Egyptian population.

Right now the introduction seems more trying to portray Afrocentrists as essentially racists and African scholarship as not only racist, but fundamentally non scholarly. Such a view itself can be controversial and hence makes the article itself part of the controversy not separate from it as it can be seen as an attempt to take a position against the views of Africans and African scholars on the subject. Big-dynamo (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is my attempt at a more descriptive opening of the article: The controversy over the of the race of the Ancient Egyptians is subject that has come about as a result of the discovery and study of Ancient Egypt by European explorers and scholars in the 18th century. It refers to the way the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptian population, including skin color, have been portrayed by the scientific and scholarly community and the role of "race" and "racism" in describing such characteristics. The controversy has taken place in many forms including scientific debates over "race" as a biological fact of the modern human species, debates over the labels and terms used to classify human populations, the meaning of labels such as "black" and "white" relative to ancient populations, differing contradictory studies describing the origins and phenotypes of the ancient Egyptians and accusations of racism against the mainstream institutions of anthropology, archaeology and Egyptology. Scholars, thinkers and scientists of many backgrounds have participated in this controversy over time, yet is is the outspoken writings of African authors, the rise of African studies and the development of Afrocentrism that have most often been identified as the source for the controversy in recent years. Big-dynamo (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This lead is the best so far. The only problem is that it contains too long sentences.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. Add in some references for the various assertions, and let's go with it. Wdford (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Race of the ancient Egyptians" is a not a subject that attracts controversy within mainstream academia. It is an ideological topic within Afrocentrism. There is a distinction between "mainstream academy" and "Afrocentrist ideology" and any lead revision that fails to make that distinction is out of the question. It may have been a valid topic historically, like a century ago, and the article can very well focus on that. It  also remains a current topic for a number of racist crackpots who mentally live in the 19th century. Unfortunately, in spite of their quaint and anachronistic Weltanschauung, many of these people have figured out how to use the internet and edit Wikipedia. Fortunately, Wikipedia as a project has rules, applicable to this case as is eloquently laid out at WP:TIGERS. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This has already been demonstrated to be untrue. Speculation over the race of the Ancient Egyptians has be commented on in recent mainstream publications such as the work of Ian Shaw and Kathryn Bard. It wasn't Afrocentrists who commissioned a reconstruction of King Tut's face that was made into a bust which was displayed on the cover of National Geographic magazine, complete with a racial description of Tut and presented alongside authentic Egyptian art on tours. Zahi Hawass, chosen face of Egyptology worldewide, was the head of that project. Limiting the scope of the article to an ideological topic of Afrocentrism is intellectually dishonest and ignores its historical reality as well as recurring place within mainstream academia. AncientObserver (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you AncientObserver and of cause I disagree with dab. The race of the ancient Egyptians was part of the discussions at the Egyptological Cairo Symposium sponsored by Unesco in 1974. This is recent, dab! What does Afrocentrism has to do with that? From the Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens (1828, pp. 455-459) of Jean-François Champollion to La civilisation égyptienne (1948, 1952, 1988, 1994, pp. 46-47) of Adolf Erman and Hermann Ranke to the Cairo Symposium (1974) to Egitto e Nubia (1995, pp. 7-9) up to our days (reconstruction of the face of King Tut), whenever one touches ancient Egypt comes up the race of its inhabitants just because Egypt happens to be (wrongly?) in Africa, the birth place of the Blacks.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The issue of the ethnicity/race of Dynastic Egypt isn't confined/relegated to the field of Afrocentrism. It was Whites who first made it an issue by whitewashing/manufacturing images and "artifacts," and attempting to appropriate Egypt as "Caucasian/White" in an effort to twist reality to fit a white supremacist world-view/ideology in the face of slavery and the slave trade. And -- yes -- it was Zahi Hawass who triumphantly (and falsely) claimed that those who "reconstructed" the bust of Tut called him "Caucasoid." It was HE who used that loaded and outrageously inaccurate word to describe a man whose remains are overwhelmingly "Negroid"/"Africoid" and Black African.  deeceevoice (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Draft
[Sock comments removed] Pakataka (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. AncientObserver (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am categorically opposed to any article that is not about art or artists directly that has an art gallery in the middle of it. It is obviously OR by SYNTH. Hipocrite (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On what basis are you "categorically opposed"? If the images constructively illustrate the content of the article, why should they be excluded?Wdford (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I myself find it interesting that AO keeps agreeing with M's socks. Anyway, that one is now blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He keeps making good suggestions. I would suggest that Wapondaponda attempt to get his account unblocked rather than popping up with new sockpuppets. AncientObserver (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That AncientObserver should recommend the edits by Wapondaponda and his sock army says more about AncientObserver than about the merit of Wapondaponda's "suggestions". --dab (𒁳) 09:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed a pile of irrelevant flamebait. There is enough controversy here. Pursue WP:DR with individual editors if so inclined William M. Connolley (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * AncientObserver, you cannot gain anything from people decided to come into solidarity. I understand that you have the right to respond to phrases directed to you. But ... Let's come back to Kemet. Peace! Hotep!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate the insinuations and anyone with integrity would speak directly to people rather than make underhanded, suggestive comments. But I agree with you Lusala let's move forward and discuss Ancient Egypt. Are there any other Admins that we can get to look over this article? AncientObserver (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Draft 2
We seem to have reached a basic consensus on the content of a lead paragraph, although it still needs to be referenced. In order to reduce the sheer size, I propose the following slimmed-down version:
 * The controversy over the race of the Ancient Egyptians refers primarily to the way the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptian population, including skin color, have been portrayed and interpreted by the scientific and scholarly community since the 18th century, and the role of "race" and "racism" in describing such characteristics.
 * The controversy has taken place in many forms, including scientific debates over "race" as a biological fact of the modern human species, and debates over the validity of modern labels and terms such as "black" and "white" relative to ancient populations. The controversy also includes differing contradictory interpretations of surviving ancient Egyptian art, differing contradictory studies describing the origins and phenotypes of the ancient Egyptians and accusations of racism against the mainstream institutions of anthropology, archaeology and Egyptology.
 * Scholars, scientists, philosophers and lay-persons of many backgrounds have participated in this controversy over time, yet it is the outspoken writings of some African and African-American authors and the development of Afrocentrism that have most often been identified as the source for the controversy in recent years.

Can we agree on this? Wdford (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. AncientObserver (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is very good!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For the first few sentences, references can be found in the following work and elsewhere:
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=YHgv011kWIAC&pg=PA12&dq=race-based+slavery+Egyptomania
 * For the second, the following references can be used:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_C._Nott
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_George_Morton
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gliddon
 * works of Champollion the Younger and Count Volney are important sources of information about 18th and 19th century views on the ancient populations of the Nile.
 * The Ruins by Volney can be found here:
 * http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1397/1397-h/1397-h.htm
 * These are notable Egyptologists/Anthropologists important in the study of Egypt or development of anthropology, partly derived from early Egyptology(Egyptomania).
 * Morton helped develop the science of physical anthropology.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
 * The last sentence can be referenced from any number of works on Afrocentrism, including the Cairo Symposium of the 70s, featuring Diop, along with the protests over the King Tutankhamun exhibitions.
 * Big-dynamo (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have some works by Champollion the Younger in French. Funny enough, I have never found them in English. Does someone have them in English?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK so now what? We have a majority consensus to restore the article to a more recent version. We have a majority consensus on the new lead and noone has proposed any other edits. I think it is time that this article to be unlocked, so that the agreed upon changes can be made and civil discourse resumed. AncientObserver (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I think we should keep this article short sweet and to the point. There is a controversy.  It has been going on for a little while and has included people of various backgrounds on all sides.  Point out the various issues of race and racism in science in general, especially the development of anthropology partly due to the development of Egyptology as a form of race science. Point out the rise of African scholars, African studies and Afrocentrism. Point out the contentious issues in recent times and leave it at that.
 * Big-dynamo (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think all of the material in the recent version is relevant. Basically all we would need to do is expand the Origins of the Debate section which I have proposed for some time and tried to work on myself. That would cover what you are talking about. There's no reason to delete anything else. Everything in the recent version is informative. AncientObserver (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI
There is a discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding this article. Jay Waxman (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jay. I think this is a grievance that needs to be heard. We have complied with all of William's requests for discussion direction yet there has been no indication that he is going to unlock the article and let these edits take place. I think another Admin will have to step in to do this. AncientObserver (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected
Following Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann, I've unprotected the article.

Socks will be stamped on.

William M. Connolley (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

i believe there is another sock puppet lose on this article editor User talk:ChildofMidnight(see bottom of user's talk page--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Afrocentrism
Why is this article being turned into something solely about Afrocentrism? This very narrow scope seems strange. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there is more to this topic than Afrocentrism. However, Afrocentrism is an integral part of the topic, and the reliable source I know on the topic certainly don't start by listing everything that has been said on the 'race' of the ancient Egpytians, starting with the antiquity. What could be described as an "Ancient Egyptian race controversy" has its origins (albeit not its roots) in the debate between Mary Lefkowitz and Martin Bernal, which was conducted through several academic journals. I didn't find the article that I was looking for, but you can take a look at this one in the meantime:


 * "Keita, Maghan. - The Politics of Criticism: Not Out of Africa and "Black Athena" Revisited


 * Stephen Howe’s Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes and Keith Windschuttles’s The Killing of History (1998) illustrate that the issues which many scholars find so contentious in Martin Bernal’s Black Athena are still critical elements of the intellectual landscape. They also show—Bernal aside—that the central feature of the discourse is still Afrocentrism, and that the tone of the discourse is still racial. Having said that, Howe and Windschuttle’s works demonstrate the possibility and the need to revisit the discourse or discourses in question. So the historian’s prerogative is dredged up here in an examination of Mary Lefkowitz’s Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History (1996), and Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Roger’s edited volume, “Black Athena” Revisited (1996). This, too, is a “revisitation of sorts.”.." (Journal of World History, Volume 11, Number 2, Fall 2000, p. 337-345)


 * If I knew that people here would listen, I could try to write a summary of the academic literature. However, last February people couldn't bring in the patience necessary to discuss this FIRST, before they expanded the article with material we probably don't need. If these people stay banned from the article, though, then this actually might be worth a try. Zara1709 (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Afrocentrism is not an integral part of the topic and I have no idea why some editors are pushing this point of view. This is a fantastic and wholly innacurate rewriting of history. The debate most certainly predates the afrocentric movement and involves many scholars and writers who have little or no connection to afrocentrism.
 * In fact, according to the afrocentrism article: "Afrocentrism" dates to 1961 or 1962. Yet here's an article from 1833, unless it's fake, that discusses the issues involved with Egyptian ethnic and race considerations. I'm not sure why there is such grotesque anti-intellectual censorship of certain perspectives going on. But the way this article is being gutted and slanted to misrepresent the history of the debate is pretty shocking. Obviously there are powerful admins involved, several with a history of abuse and POV pushing, so I don't really see a way to resolve the situation appropriately. The promotion of ignorance and innacurate and misleading information in this way is very troubling. If modern scholarship is that it was a multiethnic society then that should be represented, but anyone who suggests that the writings of Herodotus haven't been part of the debate is living in fantasy land. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to say the same thing. It is really annoying to see the entire article start off as some kind of referendum on Afrocentricism and oddly enough in the edits at the top it says "This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, bearing in mind academic consensus". Now I added the words "Euroecentricism and" to the first paragraph. As an experiment I want to see how the other editors react to it and how quickly if at all someone tries to remove it. On that, I want to add, the debate did not start with Bernal and Lefkowitz, that's very inaccurate to even go there. The debate started with many black people simply observing his features and far from being the first, Bernal was simply one of many who presented this in an academic setting. --Panehesy (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article looks like a sinister attempt to humiliate Afrocentrism, rather than a topic on the race of the Ancient Egyptians. That such POV has been supported by powerful administrators is extremely disappointing and runs contrary to the goals of creating and sharing knowledge. The spirit of Anti-Intellectualism here is poisoning.


 * This article by Shomarka Keita that appeared in National Geographic Ancient Egyptian Origins is for example, a good foundation for this article. Keita has moved beyond traditional Afrocentrism but he has been able to discuss the race and ethnicity and what he terms "biogeographical origins". It appeared in National Geographic, so this is not fringe material, it is mainstream. Dimitri Yankovich (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Black Athena
Another thing I notice that I think is beneath scholarly quality is that the majority of the references and counter references surround the book "Black Athena" and refuting it with "Black Athena Revisited". There are far more citations to go by other than this one, and it reaffirms my suspicion that this article is more about trying to debunk, via strawman, Afrocentricism. --Panehesy (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales / Dimitri Yankovich
Jimbo Wales read this article here Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy/Archive_18 and apart from the sub-section on race, He seemed quite happy with it. So I think it is clear that having a wider scope is fine. Dimitri Yankovich (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Jimbo also noted that he was not an expert and that he didn't want his remarks to be given any special weight. So don't treat them like a message from god or anything. Anyway, a number of contributors on this page have said that the article could have a wider scope than recent Afrocentric approaches. That's not really the problem under discussion, although many editors pretend that it is. The problem is that a number of editors here don't understand the difference between an article that describes the history of attempts to define the "race" of the ancient Egyptians and an article that attempts to establish what race the ancient Egyptians actually were. Thus, the misleading, uncontextualized list of classical Greek authors who said the Egyptians were "black". --Akhilleus (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am glad that at least you have been able to address a specific area in the article. A lot of users have generally attacked the article but when asked for specifics, they fail to provide any. I don't think any sensible person will believe what the Greeks said alone without context, but I think they are useful in helping to provide historical context on the controversy, and also historical views on race and how they differ from today. Dimitri Yankovich (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"The problem is that a number of editors here don't understand the difference between an article that describes the history of attempts to define the "race" of the ancient Egyptians and an article that attempts to establish what race the ancient Egyptians actually were"

That is what i was trying to convey when this article was taking shape "AGAIN" that people are trying to prove what race the egyptians were--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dimitri Yankovich looks like yet another sock. I've blocked him William M. Connolley (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's reason for a block? I hope you really mean to say that this has been verified by CU! Gray62 (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus ???
Where??? by who banned editors for pushing fringe theory....even if there is a consensus to expand it to more than just afrocentrism that does not mean a return to a defunked version of the article--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please restore the comprehensive and consensus version of the article. If there are parts that are objectionable we can work on fixing or removing them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's not consensus for any version of the article right now. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"The problem is that a number of editors here don't understand the difference between an article that describes the history of attempts to define the "race" of the ancient Egyptians and an article that attempts to establish what race the ancient Egyptians actually were"

Until we can establish what that above statement means to the article what can i say i am not a soothsayer, people act like this is going to be resolved in a day or something,i am sorry to inform some but this sort of article is controversial childofmidnight and lets get some opinions on this statement--Wikiscribe (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen a single editor suggest that a version that focuses solely on Afrocentrism is appropriate. So there is clearly a consensus against this version. I'm all for addressing any concerns over the more comprehensive version. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Race of ancient Egypt is only given nominal attention outside of afrocentrism ,it's not a main focus of many egyptologist also a consensus is not a majority vote you should know that wikipedia is not a democracy--Wikiscribe (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiscribe, I do not think it's even close to rational to submit to your philosophy while you are still being investigated for sock puppetry. Wikipedia is not a democracy but it sure will not become a shadowy dictatorship nor oligarchy of one POV. --Panehesy (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This statement is false. The race of the Ancient Egyptians is widely known throughout academia as a debatable issue and is not regarded as solely via Afrocentricism. The bigger issue however is the POV methods used with Wiki administrators of a higher level to establish your POV "the Egyptians weren't black, and there isn't even a real debate otherwise". I stand against this manipulation. --Panehesy (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No thats not a false statement ,you do know what "nominal" means, also no i am not under investigation for sock puppetry,so stop with the dramatics ,it seems you are more likely are one particulary since you did not edit since may but started to edit as soon as several pov pushing editors who had hi jacked this article were banned,i think thats more suspect than me--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

To get a clear understanding
Look at the Human_skin_color article and pay special note to the Von Luschan scale. That scale is a terrible reference to use. Look at how it's so skewed. In the talk page, notice my comments at the bottom regarding this. I had to add all of the pictures of black people darker than Between Jordan and Hally Berry in the examples. Before that, the article had 5 different European types (and notice in the talk page, they can't even agree on who is the lightest) and only one African type. It is in this same mindset that skin color is carried on in this debate, only this is in regards to physical location and not skin color. The variation that is artifically pushed to exclude blacks in the experience and to increase the caucasian type is a form of Eurocentricm. This has nothing to do with Black Athena, nor Afrocentricism. Afrocentricism is not a mirror to Eurocentricism. In the skin color article, you can see the lack of effort to show variation among blacks, but far too much in showing the delicate variation among whites. This is happening here. Too much is shown to establish a Caucasianesque heritage of the Egyptians, under the guise of them being "racially neutral"... why?

Because as the skin color thing shows, even racially neutral people are classified by default "Caucasoid"! --Panehesy (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to file this one under "missing the point". Again, the purpose of this article is not to establish whether the ancient Egyptians were black, white, negroid, caucasoid, or whatever. The purpose is to describe attempts that have been made to slot the ancient Egyptians into various racial categories. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know that. What I see is an attempt instead to isolate the conversation into "Blacks wanted to make the Egyptians black for some other reason besides their own view of the actual evidence". Or let me put it another way. Intead of talking about the physical evidence itself and how it's interpreted, the contributors take the so-called Afrocentric viewpoint, deconstruct it in this article, then present that deconstruction as a "reason" there is even a debate. That's not being honest about the topic. It would be like saying to merely call them black is in itself Afrocentric. What is this method of isolating a POV called? --Panehesy (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No thats not a false statement you do know what nominal means, also no i am not under investigation for sock puppetry,so stop with the dramatics ,it seems you are more likely are one particulary since you did not edit since may but started to edit as soon as several pov pushing editors who have hi jacked this article were banned,i think thats more suspect than me--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say nominal. And furthermore, when you say "you don't know what... means" you disrespect and will be treated with disrespect. Thirdly, you're not paying attention or listening (which shouldn't be hard as you have to only pay attention to what your own eyes read). I never spoke about nominality. Ask, before assuming what I know and don't know. Or if you are so certain I do not know, then explain what it is. Because you just come off as someone who wants to convince people they are more important than they actually are. Oooo you said I don't know something, well that must automatically mean that YOU know what you are talking about. Do tell! And yes, you were under investigation for sock puppetry. Perhaps you were vindicated, who knows. Who cares. In the end, your attitude, where you speak with an arrogant manner as one who dictates the end result of any situation will not be tolerated. I see nothing but editor under your credentials here. My editing is precisely due to the ebb and flow of this debate. Where I feel there is an unfair use of the system or representation of the article, I will contribute. Where stuff is taken out of context I will contribute. But being a sockpuppet is not what I do. --Panehesy (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. OR, of course, but given that "Ancient Egypt" covers about 3000 years, while we currently believe that skin color evolves to match UV within 500-1000 years, does it even make sense to speak about "the" skin colour of ancient Egypians? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that supports your 500-1000 year for skin color change assertion? I haven't heard this previously. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was surprised, too. I got it originally from Reference_desk/Science, which points to Human skin_color, which references Nina G. Jablonski and George Chaplin, The evolution of human skin coloration in J. Hum. Ev. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, well my initial reaction is that the theory sounds very fringey. But dismissing things we've never heard of out of hand isn't a good response. I think calling it "evolution" is highly problematic given that 500-1000 years isn't an evolutionary time scale. I don't really know what to say about the assertion other than it should be treated with care unless it is widely accepted. My main concern with this article is the wholesale removale of content and the setting up of a gutted article that focuses on Afrocentrism, setting it up as a straw man as if there was never any other inquiry into the issues involved, and dismantling it with selective sourcing. The entrie first section after the opening last I checked was a subarticle of afrocentrism and has no place in this distinct subject that was studied long before the period in history where afrocentric approaches were applied. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes it somewhat more plausible is the claim that this is not evolution de novo, but that it is only selection operating on existing variability in the gene pool, as in the peppered moth evolution. 30 generations is quite a lot for such a selection if the selective pressure is strong enough. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Distinguish the purpose of the article
It is said: The problem is that a number of editors here don't understand the difference between an article that describes the history of attempts to define the "race" of the ancient Egyptians and an article that attempts to establish what race the ancient Egyptians actually were"

lets see if I understand it. The article is supposed to chronologically describe all the events historically that have caused a row, or a discourse in the public regarding the race of the Ancient Egyptians. Considering the first modern interpretion (by white scholars mind you) clearly indicated they were black, it is VERY much in the scope of the article to present this and then to demonstrate the change over time. When did the first view of them begin to change from one to another, how was that received by most scholars? How does that even work, considering most scholars were white and did not accept black contributions peer reviewed until the 1960s. Also demonstrating why one side feels they are, why another side feels they are not. Pictures depicting the Egyptians, and how they were interpreted is the best way. Things that should NOT be done in the article: Debating the merits of Afrocentricism. This is unrelated to the article. Discussing the debate regarding Afrocentric viewpoints about Egypt. On the other side, attacks on white scholarship simply because it was exclusively white is not right either. I think I got it, you agree? --Panehesy (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheikh Anta Diop is not even mentioned, when he is the absolute pinnacle of the debate (not in purporting the view one way or another). --Panehesy (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Strike that, I'm focused on one section of the article. I forget there are other sections. --Panehesy (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Debating the merits of Afrocentricism. This is unrelated to the article. Discussing the debate regarding Afrocentric viewpoints about Egypt. On the other side, attacks on white scholarship simply because it was exclusively white is not right either." I do not understand this.  Panhesy you seem to be making categorical statements about what is or is not allowed.  But our NPOV policy states that all significant views from notable sources must be included in the article.  Now, I agree with you about relevance - no view should go into the article unless it is part of a larger view concerning the race of ancient Egyptians.  But if in the course of promoting a certain view of the race of ancient Egyptians, someone accuses her opponents as Afrocentric (or as Eurocentric), surely we must include this in the article, right? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Champollion and new lead in origins
Saw the new lead in origins, and could not help smile, for two reasons. That there somehow should have been a "conclusion" that AE’s was "undeniably black" in the 19th century is in all measurement a stretch beyond plausibility. Apparently the source that is listed for this (The New-England Magazine Volume 0005 Issue 4 (October 1833), pp.273-280) was not a read properly, since it not only states that it is left to the reader to form his own conclusion on the subject and then it goes on to, more or less, present info that the AE’s were not Negros. In all essence this is a source that should be used for an "undeniably NOT black" statement! Found that a little funny.

My second note, is to my favorite Champollion passage, in so that it is now the 3rd time I’ll comment on this very passage on this very talk page (the two others are in the archive). In all fairness this is the first time the passage is quoted from "Egypte Ancienne", the other two times it comes directly from the source. And I can see "Egypte Ancienne" does not contain the full context to the statement. Egypte Ancienne is the work of Jacques Joseph Champollion-Figeac, the brother of the more famous Jean-François Champollion, though it is of course based on Jean-François Champollion’s text and letters. The original source is "Lettres écrites d'Égypte et de Nubie en 1828 et 1829" by Jean-François Champollion, and this very passage comes from APPENDICE. No.1 - Mémoire sommaire sur l'histoire d'Égypte.


 * Lettres écrites d'Égypte et de Nubie en 1828 et 1829 by Champollion le Jeune, APPENDICE No1 November 1829. Direct Babel Fish French to English translation (first four paragraphs)

The key sentence in all this is "finally of agriculture". Champollion talks about a time before agriculture (7000-8000 B.C), when exactly did that become ancient Egypt? (3000 B.C). It’s a bit like says that the origin of today’s USA is the Indians. They certainly were there first, but who made up (populations wise) the USA anno 1776? And who build it up towards what it is today? – Well, emigrants did! The certainly is the possibility that AEs anno 7000 B.C is the same as AEs as anno 3000 B.C, population wise, but it could also be they were not – and Champollion does not address this, one or the other way. Twthmoses (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is beyond insufficient to draw your conclusion based on your premises. How then do you conclude that Lower Egyptians, (who were the conquered of the Upper Egyptians) made up the standard of Egyptian people? The key sentence is not "finally of agriculture". This sentence does nothing for you except maybe give those Dynastic Race Theory racists who believe that agriculturalist societies were by default "Caucasoid". The burden is far on you and in addition you demonstrate the relevance of THIS quote (since it is YOUR third time alone using it, and it's also used in other works)as being part of the debate. YOU are arguing whether or not the Egyptians were black, not whether or not this quote constitutes a key example of the controversy. Remember, we are not debating whether or not the Egyptians are black. We are discussing the controversy of how they were remembered in the modern era. I'm putting the quote back in. --Panehesy (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the clarification needed is to not call them Egyptians. People living the area were not necessarily Egyptian, as that civilization didn't arise until later and may have been a completely different ethnic group or groups. The same issue applies with modern Egyptians, which is why we differentiate ancient Egyptians, since it's not a clear connected line (thus part of the controversy or mystery, if you will). ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See Panehesy, you entirely missed the point! When you can get beyond the point that addressing a source and what it says does not equal Afro centric, Eurocentric, Black, Not Black,etc.. it gets so much easier to have a conversation. When you can get this kind mass “conclusions” out of a single addressing of a source, I’m not entirely sure you are an unbiased observer/contributor/writer. Please try and grab the ball and address the very issues of a conversation, rather than straying off to far-off conclusions that is not actually there. I revivals so much about yourself, rather than the person you address. Now lets leave this and focus on the issue. Champollion talk about a time before agriculture and that is not AE. Champollion does not address the issues of what happened to those people over 4-5000 years – and consequencely I do not!  End of message! I do not assume they are not the same, and I do not assume they are the same. You do. Twthmoses (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the native inhabitents of Egypt.

I am curious, where are you guys getting your evidence, or research to back up the claim that the people who civilized Egypt were a different ethnic group than the original inhabitents/ The only theory I have heard that comes close to it is the Dynastic Race Theory. That has been debunked and in addition, we are speaking from the POV of what the Egyptians looked like. I don't even know by what standards you guys are even distinguishing the "predynastic race" from the "dynastic race". Perhaps they were both black. You can't deny, at least one was! Further, this... actually is a great thing to add to the debate. I will add how the White Dynastic Race theory came in (and it makes sense now) and that spawned the Afrocentric response. In fact you guys are making it clear why Afrocentricism continues on. You're promoting a Caucasoidism that is baseless. You brought up the NOTION (with absolutely NOTHING but your own conjecture, not even a working theory) that they were different races. The question... why? --Panehesy (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Panehesy, it sounds like you think Wikipedia editors read sources in order to develop their own arguments. This is wrong.  It is not for any Wikipedian to make any argument in favor or against any position for the simple fact that Wikipedians never put their own views into articles.  The way I read Twthmoses is, she is trying to summarise Champollion's views.  Now there are questions one can reasonably ask: Is Champolion expressing a significant (NB NOT "right" or "wrong") view?  Is Twthmoses providing an accurate summary of Champolion's view?  But what Twthmoses thinks is irrelevant, just as what you think (about the race of ncient Egyptians i mean0 is irrelevant. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Origins continued...
I did a lot of work to expand clearly on the origins section. thanks to some of the anti-blacks on here, I was reminded of the Dynastic Race Theory and then I remembered some things that I imagine were taken out of the article months ago. Afrocentricism in relationship to Egyptology was definitely used to debunk not just the obvious outrageous Eurocentric nonsense, but also the subtle methods used to neutralize the black Egypt theory. Now, I understand, and I would like to be reminded no longer, that the Article is about the controversy itself, and not about establishing one view over another. However, the controversy itself has premises over the century that were discussed and used to justify one view and another. Those views from what I studied were the established scientific community's use of Craniometry (sp), Skin color scales, etc... Those on the other side, feel FREE to point out the Afrocentric methods that were debunked. But in the end do not try to surreptitiously make the article back up the claim that the Egyptians were a non-black Caucasoid race. That's where problems start. You guys gotta understand, that even halfway between the Caucasoid type and the Negroid type are people who nowadays are known to be strongly black. I cannot look at Obama for example (and hardly anyone can) and say that he is not black, and certainly not his family. The same being for Egypt. Although this is not the purpose of the article, it does matter that both sides understand that the attempt by Caucasoids to redefine race or neutralize race ignores the relevance of how we visually see them, and how they related to others specifically those further south. --Panehesy (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary to make racial attacks? Does someone who disagrees with you automatically become a racist? I'm pleased that you understand the article and are working on it, but this doesn't help. Just a couple of comments about your edits - 'Caucasian scholars'? Not a good label, would you call some scholars 'Negroid scholars'? - whatever those words mean. And some of your paragraphs are cited, others not cited at all - do you plan to cite them? Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I ask the same question when I see how Afrocentricism is used as "the reason" this debate exists and then it is attacked. I ask "is it necessary to make racial attacks". But you don't see it that way do you? Notice I made the comment "FEEL FREE TO POINT OUT THE AFROCENTRIC METHODS THAT WERE DEBUNKED", so that answers your question "does anyone who disagrees with you automaticaly become a racist" with a resounding "NO". Now MY question: To you, anyone who points out unfairness among whites in a debate automatically a race baiter? Caucasian scholars woudl be a good label since the organization at that period was racially segregated. And I plan on citing them, but feel free to do so also. I mean, do you actually look at all sides of the thing, or do you do all of the leg work to get one side up to the requirements and just delete parts of the other that aren't up to snuff? --Panehesy (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For instance Doug, I notice no comments made by you to debunk the comments above that are trying to resurrect the Dynastic Race Theory. Yes, I consider that theory based on a racist mind set, just like the skull measurements, and the skin color scale. All established by one race, never asking for the opinion or the input of other races, and then taking their one view, and making it "official fact". Yes, I consider that racist, don't you? --Panehesy (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to comment on other editors, and I'm asking you not to. You are welcome to think that a hypothesis is racist, but not to call editors racists. Meanwhile, I asked you some questions about content, are you going to reply? Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem, Panehesy, is that you are using your own views to prop up your arguments. It does not matter that Obama looks Black to you, or that Ancient Egyptians look Black to you.  When you inject your own views into the discussion, you only veer closer to violating NOR and further away from settling any point of contention in improving the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Relevance?
Specifically, this attempted rewriting of the historical narrative of Europe developed into two main forms: the claim that European civilization was founded not by the Greeks, but by the Egyptians, whose culture and learning the Greeks allegedly stole, and that the Egyptians themselves were not only African but also black. Often, Afrocentrists link the two claims, as the following quote (by Marcus Garvey) displays:Every student of history, of impartial mind, knows that the Negro once ruled the world, when white men were savages and barbarians living in caves; that thousands of Negro professors at that time taught in the universities in Alexandria, then the seat of learning; that ancient Egypt gave the world civilization and that Greece and Rome have robbed Egypt of her arts and letters, and taken all the credit to themselves. Both themes were to survive Garvey and to continue throughout the 20th century and up to the present day, provoking debate both in academia and in more public spheres, such as mainstream media and the internet.

This piece starts off talking about Europe. What does this have to do with the article? This is another referendum on Afrocentricism. As many admins have said again and again, this is not a debate about whether or not the Egyptians are black and this is not a referendum article on Afrocentricism. Please keep the article focused on it's purpose. And feel free to put that section in the Afrocentricism article. --Panehesy (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not know why material on Afrocentrism does not belong in this article, as long as a verifiable source is using Afrocentrism to explain a position in the debate of ancient Egyptian races. My principle is simple: we must not violate NOR.  But if a significant view concerning AER, in a notable and reliabl source, accuses someone of Afrocentrism in relation to AER, well, I see no grounds for excluding it.  This does not mean that the article is about Afrocentrism.  it simply means that one view of the controversy claims that Afrocentrism is relevant.  I believe one could take verything I just wrote, replace Afrocentrism with either Eurocentrism or Hellenocentrism, and it would remain an accurate and appropriate statement.


 * It seems to me that a main impediment to progress in this article is the following: that more than one group of people are or have been debating the racial identity of ancient Egyptians. If this is so, I believe there is a simple solution: each group (i.e. each distinct debate, e.g., a debate among historians and a debate among the general public) should get its own article.  This would not be a POV fork (since each article would continue to represent opposing views), it would be a content fork which is perfectly legitimate.  It is my sense that this article keeps getting bogged down (it has been going on for years now) because two or more different debates (by which I mean, debates among different groups of people) keep getting mixed up.  The path to peace is to separate distinct groups/debates.  If everyone insists on keeping one article, then it should be reorganized to say "Different people at different times have debated ..." and then each section of the article would cover a different group of people debating the issue.  My point is to shift focus away from the question "what was the race of ancient Egyptians" to "Who is it that cares about and debates the race of ancient Egyptians."


 * This shift would mean that this article is not in any way about ancient Egyptians, it is about people today - people today who hold contrary beliefs about ancient Egyptians. They may claim that they hold on to their respective views because they are "true" but a historian, sociologist, or anthropologist would argue that they hold on to thi beliefs because of other factors - their life history, their position in society, and broader cultural and social forces.  We should be looking wor works by sociologists and anthropologists that analyze this debate in its present cultural and historical context; that analyze this debate in order to learn something about race relations today (and not racial identities thousands of years ago).


 * I have a final suggestions which I think might accommodate all sides here. In the article on ancient Egyptians, treat the demography (when did different waves of migrations from different areas settle in Egypt) of Egypt separately from the question of, "how did Ancient Egyptians conceive of differences among people/categorize different people."  Moreover, following Wikipedia policy, in each section provide the mainstream view first, then the minority view.


 * What i have tried to do is provide a space for every significant view. And I have done so by trying to arrange these spaces in a way that would be most edifying to our readers.  Now, have I been misunderstanding some major part of the debate here?  I don'tmind people criticizing my proposal, but I'd appreciate it if the problem(s) were laid out in a clear and logical way.  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On June 18 Paul B suggested that an approach advocated by Zara1706 could be a productive way to reframe and develop the article. I urge Ancient Observer, WDFord, and other good faith editors to follow this approach. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Step 1: Finding sources
Let's see: There is only minimal support for my proposed program, but then, again, there is also no opposition. (I am not sure what to make of the comment that was removed as a violation of the article ban.) So I think we should go ahead with it. I will most likely make more than one set of suggestions on sources. [edit]Of course, you are free to bring your own sources forward, this is in fact the whole idea of step one. If you are currently banned from this article talk page, you can tell me about your sources on my talk page, if you want. [/edit]

Reputable academic works

 * Yaacov Shavit, History in black : African-Americans in search of an ancient past, 2001
 * Stephen Howe, Afrocentrism : mythical pasts and imagined homes, 1998
 * Wilson Jeremiah Moses, Afrotopia : the roots of African American popular history, 1998
 * Mary R. Lefkowitz & Guy MacLean Rogers (Eds.), Black Athena revisited, 1996 (some articles in this book most likely fall under the category of partisan sources below, but I haven't checked yet)

Partisan sources

 * Martin Bernal, Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, 1987/1991 (?)
 * A critical review can be found e.g. in the Journal of the History of Ideas
 * Mary Lefkowitz, Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth As History, 1997
 * For a critical review see e.g. August Meier in The Journal of American History

Discussion
The two books under "Partisan sources" are, afaik, essential, since they are the reason why the issue is discussed in the so-called academia in the first place. One of the problems so far in this discussion was, as I perceived it, that one group of editors only read Bernal and the other group of editors only read Lefkowitz. We should be able to move the discussion beyond that point now, unless of course, someone of either group would like to object to either Bernal or Lefkowitz being listed as partisan sources - then I can spend several hours looking through the "Online Contents"-database for more critical reviews, if necessary. So, if anyone has a reason to disagree with my assessment of these sources, he /she should better say that now, because I wouldn't like it if we have to go back to step one after we have reached step two. Zara1709 (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions by Jayen466

 * Maghan Keita, Race and the writing of history, Oxford University Press
 * Some reviews:, ,  JN  466  13:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've just read the introduction of the book (not at google books - I've got the printed version from my local, very well endowed library) and it looks very promising. Also: Maghan Keita is, like Wilson Jeremiah Moses, an African-American. With this, we actually have the authors almost balanced out with 3 'white' and 3 'black' authors; Of course we know that the skin colour of the author has nothing to do with the reliability of the source, but I am not sure if everyone, who is reading this, does. ...Zara1709 (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions by Zara1709 (Set 2: Some French articles)

 * Alain Froment: Origines du Peuplement de l'Egypte Ancienne: l'Apport de l'anthropobiologie. Archéo-Nil 2 (1992):79-98. Publisher description
 * Alain Froment: Race et Histoire: La recomposition ideologique de l'image des Egyptiens anciens. Journal des Africanistes 64 (1994):37-64. available online: Race et Histoire

Muntuwandi made a remark on my talk page, implying, among other things, that the topic is also discussed in France. Well, I don't know about that, but the French article which we currently have mentioned under "References" is quite good, I think. And the same author also wrote at least one more article on the topic, which, however, would be rather difficult for me to get. Muntuwandi also implied that he would like to see an "anthropological perspective or even from [something from] Egyptologists." Well, I would like to see that too, but then again, I am already content that we've found some history books. Of course, if Muntuwandi knows some Anthropology and Egyptology sources on the topic, then I'd like to hear about then, here. Zara1709 (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)