Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Archive 9

Finalisation of Structure
Are there any other (new) Sections requiring to be added to this article? Are there any other (new) sub-Sections requiring to be added to the existing Sections? Please contribute your ideas and suggestions. Wdford (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still thinking about this. FYI, at the moment I've done a bit of work at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Workpage. By Friday I should have got further with content additions and structural suggestions. Moreschi (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Strouhal study
Here are some excerpts from the publication, that may have some useful information for the article.

I think this indicates at least that the subject is non-Afrocentric in its origins. With regard to the predynastic Badarian remains Strouhal writes;

Wapondaponda (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, this sounds a little off. I have no idea what he means by Negro genes, but yes, I suppose the first bit is valid enough. Then it just gets a bit odd. This Europoid-Negroid stuff sounds rather like a 1971 version of phrenology, and certainly the language of a "Negroid race" sounds rather pre-Cavalli-Sforza. I am aware there is more recent research into determining ethnic origin from skulls that is not as crude as reading off a tape measure wrapped around the heads, but I'd be interested into how he worked this all out back in 1971.


 * The final paragraph is simply very dodge. The best recent research that I'm aware of (Hoffmann, 1991/98 and cited by literally everyone: Yurco, Howe, etc) states quite firmly that the predynastic population of Egypt was indisputably Saharan in origin, so where this dude is getting "eastern mediterranean" from I really don't know, nor his "Europoid-Negroid contact". Paraphrasing Yurco: it simply happened that the Nilotic-Saharan population of predynastic Egypt showed a wide variety of skin tone and facial structure; we do not need to introduce admixture to explain this. Moreschi (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this material is particularly controversial - should it not rather be added to Population history of Egypt? Wdford (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it would be relevant in population history, nonetheless it demonstrates the racial typologies previously used by anthropologists. The most recent study I have seen is

The article gives a summary of early racial typologies in craniometry and also addresses the Dynastic Race Theory in the context of craniometry. Some excerpts

With regards to the Dynastic Race Theory, the article state;

Wapondaponda (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re revert
I meant Population history of Egypt: the lede should summarise the article, and this is a "history of controversy" article. Moreschi (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Original research, opinion edits, reversals, and sockpuppetry
I've seen what appears to be a single editor with an Afrocentric bend constantly reverting and editing in an attempt to make the article seem as though this article is based on a dichotomy or better said, two opposing wordviews. This editor wants readers to think that the entire reason for this article are conflicting forces of evil Eurocentrics and the saintly Afrocentrics, the latterof whom he appears to believe purvey the truth. Simply put, this article is about claims put forth by the Afrocentric crowd (those who wake up and go to sleep obsessed with melanin in the epidermis, as I like to think) that Ancient Egyptians were black people, and the scientific community's analysis and rejection of these claims. There are not two different views based on the race of person who holds a view, so let us please not attempt to change this article into something it is not...a commentary on social issues. Is sockpuppetry the norm in this article? It appears so from the edit history. It's not like we can't figure out who one is based on same, redundant edits and short lived accounts. --Noopinonada (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I did a couple of reversions but sockpuppets are at play trying to keep the article racialized and opinion-filled. I'm done reverting.  Other sincere editors will see who they are and revert.  Someone help clean up!  Cheers,--Noopinonada (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet Salaam1000 has reported this page to the arbitration committee, which is excellent but only done as an attempt to paint a veneer of legitimacy on his sockpuppet account. Salaam1000 appears to also be Holdone, 69.126.6.68, and Freedm Rider, amoung any other number of editors.  The editing style and edits are identical.  Good luck to anyone fighting this...--Noopinonada (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you suspect someone of being a sockpuppet you can report them to an Admin and let them conduct an investigation. As far as this article is concerned it is about reporting on the controversy over the race of the Ancient Egyptians, which is as old as the field of Egyptology, not a critique of Afrocentrism. AncientObserver (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The article looked rather messy
I saw alot of problems with the recent version of the article and since I can find no consensus on the talk page for the current edits I have reverted the article to a cleaner version before all of the disruptive editing and drama that went on a couple of months ago. Hopefully we can get this article back on track. AncientObserver (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, you've reverted it to the version just before your six month ban, without any discussion. This is not a good start and is likely to cause further problems. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted it to just before Dbachmann came in with his disruptive edits which caused all of this controversy in the first place. Alot of material was lost because of him which has now been recovered.

If there is something in the recent version that people feel should be added they can feel free to do so and we can discuss the structure of the page altogether. I think that is only fair. Understand that months ago several editors worked diligently on a DRAFT and reached a consensus on material. That work was then destroyed by Dbachmann and several other biased editors who got Admins to unjustly ban myself and others from the page. AncientObserver (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've raised the issue at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Art
Why does this section contain a short bio and list of past jobs and other details for Professor Manu Ampim? Wouldn't this more properly belong in an article on the professor and not in this section?Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone took care of it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

C)

footnote 25
I haven't access to the article, but I'm pretty sure there is a mistake tying Bard's article in the Bostonia with the statement "The roots of afrocentrism lay in the repression of blacks throughout the Western world in the 19th century, most particularly in the United States." It seems entirely off topic for that article -about race in Egypt- checking this quote would be helpful. Nitpyck (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Heads up
King Tut's DNA has just been partially sequenced. So some controversy is expected regarding the outcome of the results. Likewise there may be an increase in activity in this page. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

i —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.50.3.83 (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have studied many texts and my research seems to coincide with that of the ancient egyptians belonging to a black or negroid race.The level of melanin exposed in ones skin would inherintly suggest so.Scientists have not overlooked this procedure,but more so have refuted applying it.It was the legendary greek Herodotus whom upon seeing a vessel on the waters off the coast of Greece concluded the men inhabiting it were no doubt egyptians.The reason he knew this was because of their wooly hair and black skin.Like many other civilizations egypt has changed over times and has ultimately,after the conquering of Alexander the great,and many wars and interbreeding with nearby nations become racially diverse, but today there are still black egyptians living in Egypt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.50.3.83 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A problem with the lead
I don't think this line is necessary:


 * As far as skin color is concerned, most modern scholars believe the ancient Egyptians were "Mediterranean peoples, neither Sub-Saharan blacks nor Caucasian white but peoples whose skin was adapted for life in a subtropical desert environment."

Where in the reference is it confirmed that "most modern scholars" believe this claim? This is a non-sequitur. It's been established in the lead that the scholarly consensus holds that the concept of race is incoherent and that applying modern notions of race is anachronistic yet a quote is being used that uses the racial term Mediterranean to describe the Ancient Egyptians and denies that they belong to the black or Caucasian race? I'm recommending that this entire line be deleted from the article's lead. Perhaps a new statement can be sought on the scientific consensus on the skin color of the Ancient Egyptians or even their biological affinities. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood what she said, maybe because of lack of context. Here are the 2 key paragraphs:


 * "Less clear, however, has been the issue of race in ancient Egypt. The modern concept of race was unknown to the ancient Egyptians. Non-Egyptians were identified by their ethnic/tribal affiliations or by the region/country from which they came. Most physical anthropologists in the second half of this century do not believe that pure races ever existed, and they view the concept of "race" as a misleading one for their studies (Trigger 1978, 27). But a number of Afrocentrists have claimed that black civilization began with ancient Egypt. The very title of Martin Bernal's Black Athena alludes to the putative roots of Greek—and therefore Western civilization—as a black African civilization in Egypt.


 * Ancient Egyptians were Mediterranean peoples, neither Sub-Saharan blacks nor Caucasian whites but peoples whose skin was adapted for life in a subtropical desert environment. Ancient Egypt was a melting pot; peoples of different ethnic identities migrated into the Nile Valley at different times in its prehistory and history. The question of whether ancient Egyptians were black or white obscures their own identity as agricultural peoples of Kmt, as opposed to dfrt, the barren "Red Land" of the desert. Kmt means "Black Land," the fertile floodplain of the lower Nile Valley, where cereal crops grew in such abundance. It does not mean "Land of Blacks."
 * She is agreeing with you about the modern scholarly consensus about race. She says that the AE were Mediterranean peoples, but in context it is not a racial term but a geographic one, and although she also mentions Sub-Saharan blacks and Caucasian whites this is not because she believes these are real terms but because she is rejecting the ideas of those who do have that belief. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK that's fine. But what of the majority belief among scholars that the Ancient Egyptian's skin color was adapted to a sub-tropical desert environment? I see nothing in that passage which supports such a claim. It seems to be something she proposed on her own and therefore not necessarily a majority belief as was claimed. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Se-Osiris and the Sealed Letter
I have come across a story from Ancient Egypt which could have significant implications for this controversy, "Se-Osiris and the Sealed Letter". An Egyptian and an Ethiopian address each other as "black dog of the south" and "white dog of the north". PatGallacher (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Fawal24
This poster just unilaterally reverted all of my recent edits without discussing them on the talk page. This article is on probation and this sort of behavior qualifies as disruptive editing. I am giving Fawal24 the opportunity to explain their actions on the talk page. Hopefully I don't have to contact an administrator to settle this matter. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A section on Modern Scholarship
I've been debating the race of the Ancient Egyptians across various platforms on the internet for some time now and have sometimes come to this page for reference. It's my understanding that there have been several revisions to the page in recent years. I recall a section in the origins of the controversy part of the article titled something like "Modern Scholarship" or "Mainstream Scholarship" that talked about what modern experts think of the controversy. I'll have to look into the archives to find it but it appears to have been omitted from the current version. I think an addition should be made to that section with similar information. There has been debate in academic circles about the bio-cultural origins of Ancient Egypt and whether it should be considered a Near Eastern or African civilization. I'll attempt to write a new version on Modern Scholarship for that section. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the old version I was talking about and decided to restore it with minor edits rather than write a new version. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice in one of the recent edits someone tried to delete the Modern Scholarship section. I feel that this section is important because modern mainstream scholars have inquired about the biological relationships of the Ancient Egyptians as well as the origins of their culture. It would be factually inaccurate to imply that this debate ends with the research of Afrocentric scholars. Modern Scholars of various disciplines have given their input on this subject and that should be recognized. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry to infinity
I'm watching, with disgust, how this page and Cheikh Anta Diop and a number of similar Afrocentric-linked pages are edited by very recently created sockpuppets of the same user. It's always the same person, and the tactic is always the same, and most suspect who he is (a more "established" editor that creates good hand/bad handers and only lends himself to academic-like comments). The sockpuppet is created, he edits, then another is created, and he edits with that one, back and forth. One is always "eloquent" and one, the back up sockpuppet who "agrees" with him, intentionally mispells his comments and uses poor punctuation on talk pages to create the impression he is someone else. E.g. user:Holdone aka user:Salaam1000, aka myriad other names who have been blocked. An impossibly obvious and bad sockpuppeteer. I thought I'd call attention to it now in case the silliness gets out of hand again for all of you mainstay editors here. Cheers,--Noopinonada (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
I think a lot of the controversy on this article could be resolved by the realization that race and appearance are separate things. Race is a social category which is based on biological ancestry. Appearance, which includes skin color, hair texture/color, and morphology is related to, but seperate from race.

Therefore, I suggest that the editors split this article into a discussion of "Race" (i.e. biogeographical ancestry and categorization of the ancient Egyptian peoples) and "Appearance" (skin color, skull shape, etc. of the ancient Egyptian peoples).

I believe this would resolve much of the dispute here.

Good day, --156.56.140.75 (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good idea in theory, but what would we do if the people in question are descended from multiple "biological ancestries"? Wdford (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are already two different articles. One on the race controversy and one on population history. I think the article designs are fine the way they are.Mentuhotep23 (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentuhotep23, race and population history are inseparable. Everyone who is classified as "black" has a somewhat recent ancestor who has African "population history". Race is a social construction which is based on appearance and population history, among other things. Appearance and population history are the two concepts that are related but actually separate, because they have specific different meanings. Controversy would be reduced, and clarity would be increased, by creating seperate articles or sections on those topics.

Wdford, there is no dilemma posed by people having multiple contributions to their biological ancestry. Indeed, every human alive today has DNA from a variety of geographical locations.--156.56.137.98 (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus of Modern Scholarship on Ancient Egypt
Kintetsubuffalo, put up a dubious tag on the Modern Scholarship section and states in his edit that the citation is not scholarly enough to support the claim that there is a growing scholarly consensus on the Africanity of Ancient Egyptian civilization. You request that we discuss it so let's do that. What criteria is necessary for a citation to be "scholarly enough?" The citation in place right now is an essay written by Dr. Aaron Kamugisha, who holds a Ph.D. in Social and Political Thought. The essay was published in the journal Race & Class and is complete with appropriate references supporting Kamugisha's thesis that there has been a shift in paradigm within Western academia towards Ancient Egypt as an African civilization which is supported by a variety of mainstream modern scholars. How is that not scholarly enough? Mentuhotep23 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For starters, have a look at the website for the Institute of Race Relations, it's dripping with POV and states its goal as antiracism. Whatever one's feelings are aside, that stated goal is inherently biased, and race is a touchy subject from all standpoints. If you have a Turkish thinktank on the Dodecanese Islands, of course the islands are Turkish and there was never a legitimate Greek claim. A Greek thinktank on the topic will say the exact opposite. Sarahpalinforprez2012.com (made-up to illustrate the point, don't think it exists) should not be the primary source for her article. Bias either way is still bias, and scholars with bias tend to find what they are looking for. It's just repackaged scientific racism the other direction. If you can find a non-POV source, say a peer-reviewed scientific journal like Science (journal), that's a reliable source, and I would welcome that. Those "mainstream modern scholars" are the ones who need to be quoted, and scrutinized. This is an interesting article, there's a reason the POV tag is on there. Thanks for your note on my talkpage, I appreciate the headsup. Thanks also for assuming good faith. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. While I recognize that the journal has Egalitarian motives the research paper was nonetheless published in a peer-reviewed, academic journal which meets the criteria for reliable source on Wikipedia. According to the Wikipedia page on reliable sources a source may meet the criteria for valid scholarship when:


 * Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.

According to the IRR webpage the Race & Class publication is indeed a reputable academic publication....


 * Race & Class is a refereed, ISI-ranked publication, the foremost English language journal on racism and imperialism in the world today. For three decades it has established a reputation for the breadth of its analysis, its global outlook and its multidisciplinary approach.

I think that the research paper has established its thesis by citing credible sources which is also a requirement to meet the standard for a reliable source. Every journal has a stated purpose so you could call all of them biased. The journal does not advocate a point of view, it documents research related to racism and imperialism which is appropriate for this Wikipedia article. Modern mainstream scholars should have a say in this discussion. The origins of the debate does not end with Afrocentrism. That is why I feel it was important to resurrect this particular part of the article. I do not think it is accurate to say that the research article is advocating scientific racism. It simply documents the evolution in scholarly opinion on this subject. What the research article has established, which is factual, is that there is a growing scholarly consensus which maintains that Ancient Egypt was an indigenous African civilization with cultural and biological connections to Egypt's African neighbors. The citations are there, allowing for the research of the scholars to be scrutinized as you said. The stated purpose of this article is to report on the controversy over the race of the Ancient Egyptians. The consensus of modern scholars on Ancient Egypt's bio-cultural origins is relevant to the controversy and the research paper is in my opinion an appropriate and credible reference. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Weasel Wording, Biased and/or Unverifiable Sources on Modern Scholarship section?
An unidentified user put up a weasel tag on the Modern Scholarship section. I see no evidence that warrants such a tag. Please discuss it here. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the Pharaonic Egyptians
My Name is Rex Littlewood and in my spare time I have for the last 40 years being trying to correlate the origin of the multiple representations of human beings across the world. In more recent times I have involved my thinking on the ancient people that are the Aborigines of Australia, I am also of the view that they are not necessarily the first inhabitants of this sea locked land (after the end of the last ice age) but are the third transmigration with Homo Erectus the first visitor to our country, followed by the Polynesian or New Guinea curly haired people. The last wave of black people to move onto Australian land were the black people from southern India, they brought with them a dog, the Dingo, a look a like for the Chinese and Indian dogs we now see in both these countries, though they are larger than the Chinese or Indian dog. The last wave of black people to come to Australia are long boned, straight haired people and when compared to the people of Southern India are definitely related as is being tested at this time by young man in Italy studying this subject.

So what do Australian Aborigines, have to do with the Pharaonic Egyptians, the answer is simple boomerangs. The boomerang is recorded as being specifically an Australian Aborigine invention, however, when I walked into the Cairo museum and there were 20 or so boomerangs from Tutankhamen's tomb of 3300 years ago. The problem with this is that the boomerang does not necessarily appear in a series of races from Australia to Egypt or in the reverse and 10,000 years ago the Aborigine could not walk back to Asia and he had no significant water transport.

So what I am promoting and will be investigating more fully and hopefully writing in detail about is the how this happened. My preliminary investigations are that the boomerang was developed in southern India and the Pharaonic brown skinned Indian people went both ways, to Australia and to Egypt carrying this most basic tool. Even the Australian aborigines are not black black like Africans or their American cousins, they are more brown than black.

I would appreciate if anyone has a similar view ore supporting evidence on this proposal. Rex Littlewood Australia rex@littleman.com.au —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.126.118 (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Rex, this is not an appropriate venue for this discussion, you should find a web forum somewhere. What you have written above is what we call original research, see WP:OR and policy makes it clear this doesn't belong in articles or on discussion pages such as this. I'll be deleting it shortly. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Tags
Chris, I deleted the tags over the Modern Scholarship section because I felt the issue had been resolved. The other tag also called for the deletion of the section if requirements were not met for the tags complaint. Since the unidentified user did not bring it up on the discussion page I got the impression that they were not willing to discuss it here. I don't take exception with your new tag. The article could use more reliable sources in a multitude of sections. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Berber origin?
The berbers are the non-black native North Africans like the Egyptians. And Egyptians speak afro-asiatic languages so their race maybe afro-asiatic too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.102.234 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Afroasiatic is a language family not a race. Afroasiatic languages are spoken by a diverse group of people in Southwest Asia and Africa. Linguistic evidence suggests that the origin of the family lay in East Africa somewhere around modern Ethiopia. The origin of the Berber is a topic for another article. The Ancient Egyptians were not Berber speakers. We have a section on their language at the population history of Egypt article. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the page named Berber Egyptians and Iberians are classified under related groups. If they are not Afro-Asiatic then they must be Afro-Asian they live in between black peoples, light skinned Semitic peoples and light skinned Berbers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.88.37 (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this article is not to classify the Ancient Egyptians but to report on the controversy over their racial affiliation. There is another article on the population history of Egypt which addresses scientific evidence for their biological affinities. Mentuhotep23 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

TAGS
There are two tags on this article. Although they have been here a long time, those who placed the tags here have made no further effort to resolve the underlying issues - whatever they were. The neutrality tag appears to be a spoiler from a disgruntled POV pusher, while the call for more references should be replaced with specific citation tags on the statements in dispute. What is the policy with regard to such tags please? Wdford (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wdford. Instead of having a tag calling for more references why not place tags where you feel references are needed and discuss them on the talk page? Mentuhotep23 (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Orthodontist
I (and at least one editor) do not see how the fact that some orthodontist once wrote a letter to the editor, even of the New York Times, merits being in this article. The fact that some people think it's important is irrelevant. It simply doesn't have enough weight to be in this article, as evinced by the handful of mentions on the web, most I believe based on earlier versions of this article. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur. The subject matter is far from conclusive, as all races evidence prognathism and it was even more prevalent in ancient times than it is now. On the other hand, not all "black" people display this trait. While some people cling to this letter as "evidence" of something, its evidentiary value is slight, and the notability and RS of the whole thing is minimal. I support deleting it. Wdford (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As do I. If there was reliably sourced information from archaeologists, historians, etc. agreeing with the dentist, maybe but not just for a letter to the editor.  He  iro  17:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I support deleting it too, although I have been reprimanded already for deleting it once so maybe I should keep out of it. --81.23.54.142 (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

nice discusion
So how long has wikipedia been allowing people to edit and delete archived discusions. Large sections of the fall 2007 archives have been deleted. the perfect foil yeah right (sarcasm). apparentlly the whole article & discusion is a farce and joke brought to us by delusion surogate narsisist. --204.118.241.52 (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And you are? Diffs? Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm spiderman nobody knows who I am. My voice does not exist. the tree falls and no one hears, my existence by the grace of your knowledge is slipping from the warm embrace of life. I am nothingness without the awairness of others. alas. point being that question is irrelavent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.118.241.52 (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources for further revisions of this article
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

But this is an article about racism and "black Egypt", not about genetics. The place to discuss the genetic history of Egypt would be at Genetic history of Egypt. We need to take good care to keep the two apart. --dab (𒁳) 11:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's because this article is basically the whole "races don't exist OMG!" bullshit that circulates in non-scientific circles (sociology is not a science) 174.54.34.187 (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

North Africans are Caucasoids and always have been
Facts are facts. 71.212.214.163 (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, if you want to debate the issue, you need to supply citations to reliable sources that support your claim. Simply asserting that something is a fact doesn't make it so. Please note that this issue has been debated extensively on this talk page, so I highly suggest you familiarize yourself with the previous discussions so as not to repeat points that have already been substantially addressed. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

all you have to do is write your own book dude, if no one will publish the book,,,, publish it your self all you need is a little cabbage man. THen your word will be infalable as a reference. You can do it on you own computer get a bussiness liscence from your state as a publisher and bang according to this web page it's like the word of GOD man. People do that kind of stuff all the time!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.168.20 (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, WP:SPS says that would be a nono. And even properly published books are not necessarily reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction should summarize the controversy, with its range of views. If it cannot do this, then the details should be left to the body of the article. Currently the introduction dwells on one extreme point of view. I tried to constructively change this, but Paul Barlow quickly reverted it. I explained my reasons and invited him to write a more inclusive summary, but he has not done so. Therefore I decided to remove the one-sided discussion. This too has been reverted, as if there is some urgent need to keep the article the way it is. This is what makes Wikipedia so darned difficult to improve. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "I explained my reasons and invited him to write a more inclusive summary". Really? Where did you do that? I left a message on your talk page explaining the problems with your edit. You did not reply on either that page or on mine. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * After writing the above message 24.22. has written a brief message on my talk page. "Can you please add a brief description of the "outside race" thesis in the intro that you find acceptable? 24.22.217.162 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)" So you are claiming you waited for a reply to a message you have just created. Paul B (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am referring to the edit summaries in one of my edits to the article. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is certainly true that the intro is far shorter than it should be per MOS, and that is due to the long history of conflict that troubled this article. Hence the wariness about any changes, lest we return to the chaos of the past. However, it is true that the lede should summarise the content as a whole including the range of theoretical models presented. Paul B (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Skulls
Isn't there sufficient supply of skulls where the race can be concluded from?80.141.163.17 (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Race can't be concluded from skulls - skull shapes apparently don't reflect race, as all races have skulls of all shapes. This is covered in the article Population history of Egypt. Wdford (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

King Tut DNA claims
These don't really belong anywhere. Copying from Tut's talk page:

This is a total crock. It's a marketing campaign by iGENEA, which is not a scientific research institute but a commercial genetic genealogy company selling DNA tests. Tutankhamun's Y-chromosome data have NOT been published, and the claim that he belonged to the haplogroup R1b1a2 is based on dubious interpretations of some data shown in a Discovery Channel documentary dealing with the attempts to sequence Tutankhamun's DNA. Claims about the mummy's haplogroup were made in the blogosphere last year when the documentary was first aired, and iGENEA has simply taken the idea and run with it, selling DNA tests to gullible people who think the test will tell them if they are related to Tutankhamun. Unfortunately, several major news organizations have fallen for iGENEA's self-promoting story hook, line, and sinker. The claim about Tutankhamun's DNA is not reliable and should not be reported in Wikipedia.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * And when did the Caucasus become Western European? which says "Researchers say it's likely that King Tut and Europeans share a common ancestor who lived in the Caucasus region about 9,500 years ago." The article also notes "The researchers didn't evaluate the DNA themselves; they say they made their findings "with the help" of a film made for the Discovery Channel." Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The particular mutation in the Y chromosome that is very common in Western Europe was probably born in the Caucasus region and spread from there; nowadays, it is more common in Western Europe than anywhere else. However, we do not actually know Tut's Y haplogroup, so whether he also had this mutation is unknown.--Victor Chmara (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See and . Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

New Section: Asiatic Race Theory
The Asiatic Race Theory was the most dominant view of the 19th century. It argued that the egyptians were literal Asiatic descendants of Ham's son Mizraim. Since the earliest Egyptologists (e.g. Wilkinson) were Biblical literalists they believed in the Asian origin of the Egyptians, migrating into Egypt in the 3rd millenium BC. I have academic sources etc on this very old theory. Is it ok to add this section? BookWorm44 (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with this is that Biblical literalists believe that everyone descends from "Asiatic" peoples, if that's how we define Noah's family, so it really does not mean much from that point of view. All races are "literal Asiatic descendants." We have to distinguish that from specific claims about racial categories. Paul B (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I should have clarified, the Asiatic Race Theory was directly linked (racially) to the identification of the Egyptians as Caucasoids (Caucasians) as proposed by Wilkinson, Georges Cuvier etc. I've put quotes and sources up on the page. Virtually no egyptologists, anthropologists etc challenged this view from the early or mid 19th century. The only anthropologist who challenged this (according to Sanders, see sources below) was James Cowles Prichard. The following sources discuss this:


 * The Hamitic Hypothesis; Its Origin and Functions in Time Perspective", Edith R. Sanders, The Journal of African History, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1969, pp. 521-532.


 * "Concepts of Race in the Historiography of Northeast Africa", Wyatt MacGaffey, The Journal of African History, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1966.

The Asiatic Race Theory was then abandonded in the late 19th century, but then what happened is that the Dynastic Race Theory and Hamitic Hypothesis emerged from it. Unlike these theories, the traditional proponents of the Asiatic Race Theory argued that the indigenous or native ancient Egyptians were Asiatics. The Dynastic Race Theory only proposes that dynastic civilization in Egypt (3000 BC) was started by Mesopotamians or Asiatic invaders. BookWorm44 (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Sanders article is rather old and rather problematic. It has been widely criticised. It's been a couple of years since I read it in full, so I don't recall exactly what it says about Asiatic races, but really that's just a rather loose term, especially as the term "race" has so many different functions. There is no simple connection between claims about 'Caucasoid' identity and claims about descent from Mizraim, since all Africans are traditionally supposed to descend from Ham's sons Mizraim and Cush, who were presumably of the same 'race'. I'm also not clear exactly what "Asiatic Race Theory" was abandoned. The idea that Egyptians are - mostly - Caucasoid was not abandoned and of course "Asiatic" is utimately a term with no clear boundaries. Paul B (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what you have written is generally good, but there are a lot of problems with relying on Sanders who completely jumbles up racial typology with Biblical literalism in ways that produce completely incoherent assertions. For example, "Theological proponents of the Asiatic Race Theory such as John Kitto further argued that the Curse of Ham only afflicted Canaan, not Mizraim, asserting the Egyptians were racially dark Asiatic Caucasians and not Negroid." This totally confuses the Curse of Ham with typologies of race. There is no connection between the first and second halves of this sentence. His assertion that the curse only affects Canaan has no relation to the statement that "Egyptians were racially dark Asiatic Caucasians and not Negroid." The racial typology does not follow from anything about the applicability of the curse to the sons of Noah, since "Negroid" peoples were not supposed to be descended from Canaan, but rather from Cush. I am not trying to be pedantic, but I think this whole model of a so-called "Asiatic race theory" is fundamentally incoherent, and that's down to Sanders, who is after all a single contested source. Paul B (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The proponents of the Asiatic Theory were the earliest egyptologists who were Biblical literalists such as Wilkinson. They thought Egypt was only occupied in the 4th or 3rd millenium BC after the dispersal at the tower of Babel. Wilkinson even reduced the era of Menes to fit Ussher's chronology. After the late 19th century when geologists began to question the young age of the earth as proposed by Biblical literalists, the Asiatic Race Theory proponents then began to place the Asiatic migration into Egypt further back in time (e.g. to the Neolithic) or argued indigenous African tribes were already there (as George Rawlinson argued). Early pre-scientific theories on race assumed that because Africa was hot, the inhabitants had to have been the darkest e.g. Negroid. The descendants of Ham were traditionally assumed to be Negroid. David M. Goldenberg, author of The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, shows all these sources. Prior to the Curse of Ham, all the Hamites were considered to be Negroid. Sanders also shows these earliest Negro-Ham identifications from early Jewish and Christian literature. This equation however became challenged at least by the 18th century and early scientists began to equate different racial stocks to the Hamites, not all of them Negroid. The most dominant view of the early 19th century was that the egyptians were dark skinned Caucasoids and not Negroids. However as i explained, because of the deep Biblical influence it was still maintained that the indigenous egyptians were Caucasoid. This view was abandoned after geologists etc began to formalise that the earth and prehistory was a lot longer and so it became replaced with the Dynastic Race Theory and Hamitic Hypothesis e.g. which argued that Caucasoids moved into egypt but that there were already indigenous (Paleolithic) Africans living there. The theory that the dynastic egyptians were Caucasoid has not been abandoned, but the theory Caucasoids were the native peoples there has since the late 19th century or early 20th century. BookWorm44 (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bookworm, I really don't think you understood my criticism. You are just repeating what you have read as though it is undisputed fact. My popint is that "Asiatic Race Theory" is a critical construct. Wilkinson and others did not proclaim something called "Asiatic Race theory". That is an invention of Sanders (and maybe others). Wilkinson was mrerely a Biblical literalist, just like every other European historian of the time. You say, "Prior to the Curse of Ham, all the Hamites were considered to be Negroid". This is just not true. Sorry. I don't even know what you mean by "prior to the Curse of Ham", which is a concept that predates all this historical scholarship. But if you read Jacob Bryant, for example, you will see that he thinks Europeans are descended from Ham, so the statement is simply flat out false. David M. Goldenberg does do a good job at looking at the various theories. I've read the book, and you appear to be garbling his arguments. And the notion that Canaanites - who are Hamites of course - were "Negroid" is rather marginal to say the least. You say, "However as i explained, because of the deep Biblical influence it was still maintained that the indigenous egyptians were Caucasoid". This sentence makes no sense. There is nothing in the Bible about "Caucasoids", so there can be no 'biblical influence' on that concept. You also say that "The theory that the dynastic egyptians were Caucasoid has not been abandoned, but the theory Caucasoids were the native peoples there has since the late 19th century or early 20th century." This is again completely untrue. In so far as this terminology ("Caucasoid" etc) is still used, it is applied to Egyptians - native and otherwise. However the use of these broad race-categories has to an extent fallen out of favour. Paul B (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Asiatic Race Theory is discussed in the quotes on the mainpage i provided. The egyptologist Maspero was the first to criticize it and by his time most Egyptologists had rejected a literal intepretation of Biblical chronology. The theory is directly called 'Asiatic Race Theory', 'Asiatic Origin of the Race' or 'Asiatic Theory' in these writings. It was the standard view of the early 19th century and was unchallanged until 1894 by Maspero.


 * The traditional racial associated of Ham by Christians was with the Negroids. David M. Goldenberg discusses all these quotes in his The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam chapter 10 entitled: "Was Ham Black?". This identification sprung from a non-scientific understanding of climate in relation to complexion, and because Africa was hot (the etymology of Ham = 'hot like bread') early Christians assumed the Hamites had to have been the darkest skinned. Traditionally following this primitive mindset, Japheth was equated to the pale Europeans as they lived in the colder north, and the Asiatics or Semites to the middle zone (Asia) and were considered to have 'tawny' complexions. Goldenberg discusses all these ancient sources which maintain this traditional racial associated based on climate. This view was only later challenged during at least the 18th century with the emergence of the first scientists who studied ethnology or race. Blumenbach, Cuvier etc then classified not all of the Hamites as Negroids (some went further and claimed all the Hamites were fully Caucasoid) and maintained Mizraim (the son of Ham) was Caucasoid, which became the dominant view among the first egyptologists like Wilkinson.


 * The idea Caucasoids are native to Egypt has been abandonded since the early 20th century. If you read Coon's or Baker's work on race, they maintained proto-Caucasoid Cro-Magnid Mechtoids (see also Capsian culture) extended into, or to the borders of Egypt c. 20,000 - 12000 BC. Prior to the proto-Caucasoid populations arriving there, there was already a native Paleolithic population of Capoids (Bushmen). No anthropologist or scientist today claims that Caucasoids were in North Africa before the Capoids. Caucasoids however were in North Africa before the Negroids, who are a very recent mutation (no afrocentric accepts that truth). Many scientists however agree that the dynastic egyptians were racially Caucasoid, however they were not the indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants of egypt. BookWorm44 (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am gettinmg increasingly fed up reading this stuff. It's totally and utterly confused. Very few scientists these days talk about "Capoids" and so forth. Statements like "No anthropologist or scientist today claims that Caucasoids were in North Africa before the Capoids" are almost wholly meaningless. in any case, the "race" of people who lived in Egypt in the paleolithic era is completely irrelevant to anything. What we call "race" is a series of adaptations to climate. Categories like "Caucasoid" are just descriptions of the broad similarities of physical appearence. We shouldn't confuse that with the genealogy of migration-patterns nor with early 19th century use of the word "race" as a synonym for "ethnicity". The physical appearance of Egyptians in the period of its foundation as a civilisation is what is in dispute. Claims about "Capoids" in the paleolithic are completely irrelevant and just distract for the issue. You say " Many scientists however agree that the dynastic egyptians were racially Caucasoid, however they were not the indigenous Paleolithic inhabitants of egypt". This is utter nonsense. "Causasoids" is a type that evolved. Capoids, if you want tio use that term, can be ancestors of Caucasoids, so there is no contradiction between being native and being Caucasoid. That would be like saying that white people are not 'indiginous' to Europe because their earliest ancestors would (probably) not have been white. Paul B (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "The physical appearance of Egyptians in the period of its foundation as a civilisation is what is in dispute." - This is not only what is disputed. Anthropologists are also in disagreement over the racial affinities of the Mechtoids, the late Upper Paleolithic or Mesolithic inhabitants of Egypt. Some argue they are proto-Caucasoid (posessing Cro-Magnid traits) while others argue they are Negroid. The Capoids are also not ancestors of Caucasoids, they are the indigenous race of Africa. Caucasoids moved into Africa (e.g. the Horn of Africa) during prehistoric times as proven by anthropology and genetics. The Ethiopians share a substantial amount of their ancestry with Western Eurasians (Caucasoids), as shown in their cranial and facial morphology and general phenotype features (e.g. straighter hair) which distinguishes them from pure West African Negroids. As for Negroids, before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent's central, northern, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362). Research shows they are a recent mutation. I've covered the main theories as to race of the dynastic egyptians on the main page. BookWorm44 (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Med or Brown race theory
I have added this section, any feedback etc or if you think there are errors feel free to post here, thanks. BookWorm44 (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The content is interesting. My only comment is on the title, initially I thought the theory was debating whether they were mederterainian or brown race, maybe changing it to Meterterainian/brown race or Meterterainian (brown race) might clear that up. 20:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilkStraw532 (talk • contribs)
 * The article is a history of the controversy, not the controversy itself. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

African Identity for Ancient Egyptians

 * I am NOT an Afrocentrist and consider it a personal attack to be described as an Afrocentrist. I am a Chemical Engineer and have devoted my life to science.  We must keep in mind that this is an article about a controversy, so it is a given that there will be opposing views and those opposing views will be controversial.  The heavily cited section that favors an African identity for the Ancient Egyptians relies on the peer reviewed work of Cheikh Anta Diop, a secondary source.  If you disagree with Diop's assertions, please be upset with him.  I am just typing a synopsis of Diop's views into this article, because they are relevant to this topic.  I am not the originator of these views.  They are the views of Diop, Bernal, DuBois, Williams, etc.  The articles formatting indicates that one view should be in a given section and it is only reasonable that all sides of the argument would not be in the section that is pro-African identity for Ancient Egyptians.  Those viewpoints can be found in the other sections with opposing viewpoints.Rod (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have some concerns with the section currently headed Ancient model and Afrocentrism: Firstly, the word "ancient" is very misleading in this context - the Greeks quoted here lived thousands of years after the pyramids were built, and do not really qualify as "ancient" in this context. Perhaps "Afrocentric model” would be more accurate? Second, I strongly disagree that "all sides of the argument would not be in the section" - the other sections all contain both the points for and those against (readers would otherwise hardly understand why the point is “controversial”?) Diop's work was notable (and certainly controversial), but it was not well supported, and this should be more clearly expressed. Third, I see we are returning to a trend of inserting cherry-picked photos. Perhaps for balance the section should also include photos which clearly show that the Ancient Egyptians saw themselves as being different to "black" people, such as ? Four, the section overlaps somewhat with Reception in scholarship which follows, and a number of other issues now repeat through the article - Kemet, Herodotus etc etc. Lastly, the extensive material on Diop within this section is also somewhat repetitive, and perhaps would benefit from a clean-up?
 * On a separate point, it is widely accepted that certain of the pharoahs (and certain wives of other kings) were indeed black, and this complicates matters when individuals refer to "cherry-picked" statues and paintings. Perhaps we should add this detail somewhere? Wdford (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't we title the section "Pro-African Identity for Ancient Egyptians?" That's essentially what the section is about.  If there is an "Afrocentric model" section, there should also be a "Eurocentric model" section that explains how some scholars falsely concluded (for decades) that the Ancient Egyptians were white, when there is practically no evidence to support that claim.


 * Also, do you really think that this article would be easier to read if in one sentence a point was made and then in the next sentence the point was deconstructed? The constant back and forth from one viewpoint to an opposing viewpoint would render this article incomprehensible.  It seems to be better for the article's organization to have all of the points for one theory grouped together and all of the points for another view grouped together.  Do you dispute that any picture in this article is not representative of an Ancient Egpytian?  In the photo from Beit el-Wali, some of the Nubians (shown in panther skins) are painted in the same dark red pigment as Ramses II.  Yes, there are cultural differences shown (mode of dress, etc.).


 * Finally, Diop was allowed by UNESCO to write the chapter on the origins of the Ancient Egyptians in the book, "General History of Africa." If he didn't make a persuasive case at the UNESCO conference, then why did UNESCO allow him to write the chapter on the origins of Ancient Egyptians in the UNESCO book?  They could have just said no if they thought Diop was not worth hearing.   Immediately after the chapter that Diop wrote, another section of the book is devoted to the heated debate at the UNESCO conference where Diop did indeed have supporters, such as Prof. Obenga.  Diop persuaded the conference members on many points and was less persuasive on others.  He didn't get everything right, but he certainly is one of the most important figures in the history of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy.Rod (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I much prefer the heading "Indigenous African hypothesis" - I think that sums it up very well.
 * I don't think we should list the arguments pro and anti on a sentence by sentence basis, but certainly we need to include at the end of each section the facts that have been argued against that particular hypothesis - otherwise the article is meaningless. For example, Diop presented a lot of quotes from historians and language similarities etc, but while certain points were valid in isolation, his many detractors rejected the conclusions he drew from that data. This must be included in the "Indigenous African hypothesis" section for completeness and balance.
 * The fact that Diop wrote the chapter on the origins of the Ancient Egyptians is not surprising, since (a) the debate had to be recorded, and (b) Diop was the person who had researched that particular hypothesis. All debates have to be recorded in the minutes, even if hardly anybody agreed with the views stated, so merely including Diop's theory in the minutes does not give it any kind of extra validity. Obenga did indeed support Diop's hypothesis, but he was seemingly the only supporter out of more than 20 participants. Certainly some of Diop's points are valid and found agreement, but the vast majority of delegates (90%+) did not accept his conclusions. As you point out, after Diop summarised his theory in Chapter A, Chapter B described how his theory was largely rejected ....
 * I agree that the pictures in the article so far are representative of certain individual Ancient Egyptians, but I dispute that the pictures in this article are representative of Ancient Egyptians generally, because not all Ancient Egyptians looked the same. Presenting only these carefully selected examples creates a POV problem - we have been around this block before. Nobody disputes that some kings and notables were indeed black, but it is not accepted that ALL notable Egyptians were black - far from it. Any "white" person running around in the desert in a kilt without sun-block is soon going to be "dark red", so this is not massively significant - especially since the standard depiction of their women is “pale beige” not "dark red" far less "black". On the other hand pictures such as clearly show that the AE's distinguished themselves from "black" people. On top of this we have the Table of Nations, wherein again the Ancient Egyptians clearly distinguish their "race" from those of their neighbours - which should carry more weight than what Herodotus might have thought a thousand years later.
 * PS: I think the "Indigenous African hypothesis" section could be cleaned up a bit more, and the section headed "Reception in scholarship" is now misdirected, and should be renamed "Views of modern scholarship" or similar. Wdford (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wdford, would you mind cleaning up the "Reception in scholarship" section? I think you could do a better job with it.  I think we are starting to reach an agreement on the broader points.  Let's recall Diop's call for the same level of racial homogeneity among Blacks that Whites enjoy.  Black people have a wide variety of skin tones.  It would not take much observation of Blacks around the world to reach this conclusion.  All Black people are not black skinned.Rod (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll give it a go. On the subject of skin-tones, though, we should note that Diop, Keita and others are quick to include as “black” every feature from coal-black skin to pale beige, from black hair to red hair, from brown eyes to blue, from kinky hair to straight hair, from round heads to narrow heads etc etc. Per those people, the ancients were black, even if they were white. That’s understandable, but it’s not correct. Also, we must not limit ourselves to the Afrocentrist paradigm of black vs white. The Diop-Keita position seems to be based on “proving” that the Ancient Egyptians were not “white”, so therefore they must have been “black”. This seems to exclude completely the possibility of the AE’s belonging to any other races, such as Arab/Semitic, whose skins and hair and skulls etc would also fit the evidence, such as it is. Wdford (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The "Indigenous and Black African hypothesis" seeks to counteract two prevalent views on the Ancient Egyptians. The first is that the Ancient Egyptian civilization came from abroad.  Since race/ethnicity is generally agreed to be based on geography, the geographical origins of the Egyptian civilization are relevant.  The second view that is counteracted is that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was "white."  This was a commonly held belief, as can be found in many older texts.


 * Citations were added to eliminate the "citation needed" tags.


 * The history of this controversy is about skin color and phenotype. It's about paint, pigments, and how the Egyptians represented themselves and others in art.  Therefore, it's not appropriate to remove a cited statement by Univ. of Chicago scholars that cuts to the heart of this issue.  The scholars at the University of Chicago are some of the world's most preeminent experts on Ancient Egypt and Nubia.  The statement by the Univ. of Chicago scholars confirms that Nubians were also painted with the heralded "dark red" and brown paints that were so often used to depict the Ancient Egpytians.  The Univ. of Chicago scholars confirm that individuals in decidedly Nubian garb (panther skins) were painted with the same color paint as the Ancient Egyptian Ramses himself (not all of the Nubians, but half of them).


 * There were several uncited opinions added to this latest rewrite, which have been removed. One statement indicated that the Greeks lived "long" after the bulk of Ancient Egyptian history.  However, the 25th dynasty was a renaissance period for Egypt.  During this period "Ancient Egyptian" culture, sculpture, architectural styles, etc. were revived and thrived.  The 7th century B.C. was the height of "Ancient" Egyptian civilization and that was only 200 years before Herodotus.  If we're considering the 5th century B.C., as long after the bulk of Ancient Egyptian civilization, why are we mentioning Cleopatra at all.  The Persian, Greek, and Roman occupations of Egypt are surely "long after the bulk of Ancient Egyptian history."


 * I am open to the Ancient Egyptians being from any race (Semitic/Arab, White, Black, Asian). However, the purpose of this article is to present a synopsis of the Egyptian race debate and not to fill this wiki article with our own viewpoints, opinions, etc. I have attempted to outline the viewpoints from secondary sources that have fueled the controversy.  Like it or not, there are millions of people that believe the Indigenous and Black African viewpoint and flatly reject the more widely held viewpoints.  This is why there has been such a longstanding and heated controversy.  This is also why there are a ton of peer reviewed secondary resources supporting the Indigenous and Black African viewpoint.  If an editor does not subscribe to this viewpoint, they likely will not have access to these sources and therefore the editor would likely be at a disadvantage while trying to edit the Indigenous and Black African section.  That's why I have taken it upon myself to present this side of the controversy, as I actually own all of the books required to properly convey the history of the Indigenous and Black African side of the controversy.

Rod (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I am now of the opinion that "indigenous" and “black” do not automatically mean the same thing, and they should be separated. The “indigenous” theory counters the “foreign” theory, which has been dealt with elsewhere. However, as has already been pointed out somewhere above, “indigenous” would also cover people such as Berbers and others who are “African” but who are not “black”. The argument that Ancient Egyptians were “indigenous” is valid and is today widely supported, but it should not be automatically conflated with the parallel theory that the Ancient Egyptians were “black” – a theory which does not have much scholarly support. Wdford (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * i You're right. I don't think there is an " Indigenous and Black African viewpoint" because they are not identical. African does not necessarily mean 'black', and this needs to be clear in the article. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We're all in agreement. This article was sorely lacking in statements backing the Indigenous viewpoint. I'm not partial to it being in the Black section, as long as it is in the article. From what I've read, the indigenous viewpoint is the most compelling and widely accepted.Rod (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * But "this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article". In other words, not the place for statements backing any viewpoint as those belong in the Population of Egypt article. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In every section of this article, the geographic origin of the Ancient Egyptians is discussed. If you removed all of the references indicating that non-Black people moved into Egypt and started the society, there wouldn't be much of this article left. The reason there is a controversy is because there are many people that don't believe that the Egyptian society was the result of foreigners. A group's geographic origins implies race. It's practically one in the same thing. Everyone knows that Asians are from Asia, Whites are from Europe, and Blacks are from Africa. Obviously, these groups have relocated over the years, but their home base is well known to all. Therefore, the race controversy was ignited not only by concerns with skin color and bone type, but also with inaccurate statements about the Egyptian society owing its genesis to "foreigners." Here are some examples from various sections (I don't agree with any of these statements):


 * "The first tribes that inhabited Egypt, that is, the Nile Valley between the Syene cataract and the sea, came from Abyssinia to Sennar
 * The native Egyptians, by a literal interpretation of Biblical chronology, were believed to have arrived in Egypt from South-West Asia,
 * In common with other writers, this gentleman considers that the ancient Egyptians were not of African extraction, but, like the Abyssinians, and other inhabitants of the Nile, of Asiatic origin.
 * After the 1850s the theory still was widely supported by Egyptologists but was modified to fit an earlier Asiatic migration during prehistory falling outside of a literal interpretation of Biblical chronology.
 * By the 20th century the Asiatic Race Theory and its various offshoots were abandoned but were superseded by two new theories: the Hamitic Hypothesis, asserting that a Caucasian racial group moved into North and East Africa from early prehistory subsequently bringing with them all advanced agriculture,
 * the Dynastic Race Theory, proposing that Mesopotamian invaders were responsible for the dynastic civilization of Egypt (c. 3000 BC).
 * The Hamitic Hypothesis was influenced by certain Asiatic Race Theory proponents who were less strict with their Biblical interpretation such as George Rawlinson and subsequently could push back the arrival of the Caucasians into Egypt to an earlier date, such as theNeolithic.
 * Seligman argued in hisRaces of Africa (1930) that the ancient Egyptians were Caucasian "Nilo-Hamites" who had arrived in Egypt during early prehistory
 * British Colonel Francis Wilford listed evidence attempting to prove that ancient Indians colonized and settled in Egypt in ancient times,
 * he deduced that a Mesopotamian force had invaded Egypt in predynastic times, imposed themselves on the local Badarian (African) people, and become their rulers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dailey78 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Rod (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As has been said repeatedly, it matters not what millions of wishful laymen think might perhaps have happened, its a case of what do the "experts" say. The experts have rejected the Hamitic Theory etc, as they now reject the Black Theory. The experts today accept the "Indigenous Theory", but "indigenous" does not mean "black". You may have a point that whites come from Europe and that blacks come from Africa, but that does not mean everyone born in Africa is black. Egypt spans the border of Africa and Asia, as Turkey spans the border of Asia and Europe. Northern Egypt had contact with Levant cultures in the predynastic period, as Southern Egypt had contact with Nubia-A. None of this has bearing on their race, and certainly none of it indicates blackness or otherwise. The modern Berbers are African but are not black, and Egypt was also in close contact with the "Libyans" since predynastic times, who were associated with blue eyes and blond hair. "Contemporaneous" does not mean "the same race as", it means "existed in the same time period as". Predynastic Egypt was contemporaneous with civilizations in Jericho, Sumeria, Malta, China, India and Central America. See also Mnajdra and . Lastly, we don't need a detailed discussion of each of the handful of Greek historians who made a passing mention of a black Egyptian here and there - this article is not for the debate of the so-called "evidence" in either direction, and this material is recorded in detail in the Diop article for those who are interested. I added a nice link to the Diop article as well. Wdford (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Rod (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The indigenous points are in contrast to the absurd claims of the other theories in this article. Also, although you don't agree with them, the fact remains for the supporters of the Black/Brown/African theory, indigenous means Black.   Your mention of non-Black Africans, just highlights the exceptions that prove the rule.  You keep mentioning that this article is not for the debate of the evidence, but the other theories all present evidence.  Although it is quite clear that you don't agree with the Black theory, you keep editing this section alone.  It presents a conflict of interest.  Finally, the scholars that you follow reject the Black theory.  There are numerous scholars that accept it, since it is painstakingly researched and compelling.  Many scholars thought that the Earth was flat and eventually they were proved wrong.
 * The Asiatic theory is full of "evidence" to present that point of view. Please stop trying to weaken the Black theory in relation to other theories on the page, by gutting the Black theory of all background so that a reader will not understand why there is a controversy and why many people vigorously support the Black theory and reject other outdated theories.Rod (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the article needs to be fixed if it is presenting too much evidence for an article focussing not on the controversy but the history of the controversy, but it is the history of the controversy. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Order of Theories
Is there a reason for the current order of theories? If not, should they not be in alphabetical order? 138.238.231.177 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a history of the controversy article, it should be in chronological order. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Herodotus
The bit about Herodotus seems a mess. From Egypt, Trunk of the Tree, A Modern Survey of an Ancient Land, Vol. 2. by Simson Najovits: "Herodotus made a single reference 10 the physical similarity of the Egyptians and a dark skinned people — the people of Colchis (in today's Georgia, where the people are Caucasoid and include some dark-skinned people). Hero dotus traveled to Colchis where the Greek mythological hero Jason had gone in quest of the Golden Fleece. He said: "For it is plain to see that the Colchians are Egyptians... 1 myself guessed it, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly- haired though that indeed counts for nothing, since other peoples arc too."186 (Dark-skinned is the usual translation of the original Greek melanchroes and is used by A.D. Godley, while black skinned is used by George Rawlinson. Oulotriches is usually translated as wooly haired or curly haired.) Ii can be assumed that had Herodotus wanted to designate the Colchians as blacks (and by extension, designate the Egyptians as blacks), he would have named the Colchians by the standard Greek terms aithO and Aithiops, "scorched faces " "Ethiopians.* This is precisely what he did on several other occasions when he wanted to indicate that a people — whether an African or an Asian was of the black race, or what he thought was the black race. But not only did not he name the Colchians as Aifhrops, "Ethiopians," in the same sentence he once again distinguished between Egyptians and Ethiopians. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you read the most popular English language translation of "The Histories", you will see that melanchroes is clearly translated as "Black" in every passage. The translator, Selincourt, could have chosen brown or dark, but didn't.  Since Penguin Classics is a respected publisher of classic texts, I'm sure they vetted Selincourt before allowing Selincourt to translate such an important text.  Finally, I have numerous books that translate melanchroes as Black.  In fact, it is the more common translation.  More importantly, in numerous Greek texts the word melanchroes is used to refer to the Ethiopians.  Rod (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understood what Dougweller was saying. No one doubts that melanchroes is reasonably translated as "black", the point is that Herodotus does not use that in the same way we do today as a racial concept. Everyone knows that skin-colour terms tend to be exaggerations of often quite minor variations. Amerindians have been called "redskins", but they do not look like ripe tomatoes, any more than the supposedly "yellow" skinned Chinese look like bananas, or the "white" Europeans look like milk. The variation in tonality between all three is actually small. The colour term is purely relative. That's true of "black" too. Throughout history people have been referred to as "black" to simply imply that they are slightly swarthier than whatever is perceived to be the norm. In the Odyssey Athena makes the ageing Odysseus turn melanchroes, which in context is clearly meant to imply that she puts the colour back in his cheeks (his grey beard regains its colour too). As Peter Frost says "The Japanese once used the terms shiroi (white) and kuroi (black) to describe their skin and its gradations of color. The Ibos of Nigeria employed ocha (white) and ojii (black) in the same way, so that nwoko ocha (white man) simply meant an Ibo with a lighter complexion. In French Canada, the older generation still refers to a swarthy Canadien as noir. Vestiges of this older usage persist in family names. Mr. White, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Black were individuals within the normal color spectrum of English people. Ditto for Leblanc, Lebrun, and Lenoir among the French or Weiss and Schwartz among the Germans." In other words we have to interpret according to the context of usage, not assume that every reference to blackness means the same as "negroid". Paul B (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would the translations be considered a primary source and the Simson Najovits text Dougweller mentioned be a secondary source? Aren't we supposed to give preference to secondary sources for such matters as to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:ORing from primaries ourselves?  He  iro 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a difficult problem with articles such as this because a lot of the literature promoting these racial theories is itself non-RS, and picking sources - both to promote and debunk theories - skirts OR and SYN. Paul B (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

My computer crashed as I was writing this in response to Rod (whose edit summary severely lacked good faith - in reverting someone who changed black to brown I did look up and found 'dark' and added it and immediately posted here to explain. I was NOT trying to change what a source said. First: Lefkowitz and all wrote: "Like many Afrocentrists before and after him, Bernal cites only one passage from Herodotus (2.104) on which he relies heavily to support his interpretation that Herodotus portrayed Egyptians as blacks. Although the ancient historian in this passage describes both Egyptians and Colchians as mtlanchroes (dark- or black-skinned) and oulotrichts (woolly- or curly-haired), he emphasizes in the very next sentence that this fact certainly amounts to nothing, since other peoples shared the same features. In referring to the dark color of Egyptians and Colchians, Herodotus was merely following a stan dard Greco-Roman practice in describing peoples darker than themselves—a practice which did not mean that peoples so described were Ethiopians, that is, Negroes. After rejecting the criteria of hair3 and skin color as a valid basis for his belief in the Egyptian origin of Colchians, Herodotus argues that similarities ot customs, language, and general mode or lite point to the kin ship of Egyptians and Colchians. And it is clear that in defense of the validity of cultural criteria Herodotus is comparing Colchians and Egyptians—not Ethiopians, whose language and customs, like their physical characteristics, he emphasizes, differ from those of Egyptians (2.30, 42; cf. 3.19). In brief, Herodotus bases his belief that Colchians were of Egyptian origin on the similarity of cultural, not physical, criteria." In a history of the controversy article, surely this deserves some mention?

Secondly in Herodotus, book II: commentary 99-182, Book 2 By Alan B. Lloyd it says. "...they arc dark-skinned and curly haired". Note H.'s caution in developing the point (Introduction, p. 161). Despite the efforts of Armayor (op. cit., p. 58) and English (JNES 18(1959), p. 49 ff.), there is no linguistic justification for relating this description to negroes. Melanchroes could denote any colour from bronzed to black (LSJ p. 1094, b) and negroes are not the only physical type to show curly hair." Third - this section looks pov, eg I just removed a quote from Diop preceded with "In the words of Diop", language which we would generally only use when we are asserting something as fact. I've also noted in my edit summary that this seemed repetitive as it just goes over what's said earlier in the section. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First, although we may disagree, we can be nice about it. I just edited my own comments on the talk page, so that they are nicer.  If I don't use the primary source, I could use Diop, as he quotes Herodotus' passages almost in their entirety.  This would lead some to say that the Black theory section relies to heavily on Diop.  The "amounts to nothing" passage just indicates that there are many Black/dark skinned people on Earth.  This is not a surprise to anyone.  On this point, we can agree.  There are numerous black/dark skinned people on Earth.    At the end of the day, the fact remains that several Greek writers in multiple instances referred to Egyptians using a Greek word that is commonly translated as Black.  Bernal is not an Afrocentrist.  He's not Black and he studied Chinese history for well respected universities.  Rod (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is not that there are many black-skinned people, the point is that the word black does not always - or even usually - mean literally black, any more than the word red means literally red, or white means literally white. Bernal can be characterised as an afrocentrist, depending on how the term is used. His expertise in China is utterly irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We've reached another point of agreement. Diop and I interpret the Black race in its widest form.  It includes black and brown people with woolly or straight hair (modern Ethiopians).  This is similar to how white includes blue eyed blonde Scandinavians, as well as brown haired, brown eyed, olive skinned Southern Europeans.  Diop groups all peoples that are dark skinned and have lived in Africa for most of human history under the black umbrella.  It's a reasonable position.  Bernal devoted his life to Chinese studies.  It's a mischaracterization to call him an Afrocentrist.  Even his work on Egypt leaned heavily towards the Levant, which is not Africa.  It is relevant.Rod (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Diop and I interpret the Black race in its widest form." This is virtually meaningless. What you or Diop think about some construct called "the black race" is of very little relevance, except for the fact that Diop is notable figure in this "controversy". And what is its "widest form"? Are Italians black? Greeks? Iranians? If not, why not? You are in effect engaged in double-think. You want to say that black does not necessarily literally mean black, but it does mean "black" in some racial sense intelligible only to you. I could say that I interpret "the white race" in its widest form, to include virtually everybody except sub-Saharan Africans and Native Australians. That's just as coherent a position. We have to follow various historical usages of terms and explain how they relate to one another and modern models of human difference. Paul B (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, what Diop thinks of the Black race is very relevant as he is a widely read and cited author that was invited to write the intro to UNESCO's history of Africa book. I want to say what I said.  We have to avoid rewriting our sources to fit our viewpoint.  This conversation on wiki's talk page is no longer constructive.  I'll leave it to you guys.Rod (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Being widely read does not mean he consitutes a reliable source. UNESCO's decisions are made at least as much on political as academic grounds. The value of a source is determined by its merits according to specialists in the topic area, not international political organizations with diplomatic agendas. And yes, we should avoid rewriting sources to fit our viewpoint. The question is, who is the one doing that? Paul B (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So what do we do now to make this section NPOV and stick to the topic of history of the controversy? Dougweller (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well the images are very misleading. The Tiye sculpture is that colour because it is unpainted wood. It tells us no more about the actual tonality of her skin than a marble statue does. Sentences like "Proponents of this model were swayed by the broad agreement among Classical Greek historians that the Ancient Egyptians were black skinned with woolly hair" surely have to go, because they presuppose what is critiqued above, that "black" means literally "black", and indeed that there was such "broad agreement" amongst ancient writers. I think we do need to give Diop's views though. Paul B (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. We certainly need Diop's views as part of the history of the controversy. Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What do we do about the NPOV concerns in the Asiatic, Hamitic, and Caucasian sections? A plethora of secondary sources seriously contest that there were ever dark skinned caucasians that moved to Egypt and started the civilization. Modern scholarship contests the claims (caucasian mummies, caucasians starting agriculture in Africa, Mizraim's descendants were caucasian, etc.) of the Asiatic, Hamitic, and Caucasian theories. Why should the detail in those sections remain? They remain to explain the controversy and the history of the controversy to a person that is wholly unfamiliar with the subject. Why would highly contested viewpoints in an article about a controversy conform to NPOV? If this were an article on a neutral subject, then editors could write about it neutrally. The Black theory presents the history of the controversy by reviewing the major points that were contested so vigorously at the UNESCO conference and also in books supporting the black theory and rebuttal books opposing the black theory. Critics (serious scholars) wrote entire books based on Diop's "painstakingly researched" work and it's only fair to give that work as much consideration in this history of the controversy article as it received in the real world. In the real world, the history of this controversy definitely includes decades of point and counterpoint by Diop and his critics. Readers should know about that.Rod (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We all understand that race is anachronistic to the Egyptian society. This did not stop proponents of the Asiatic/Hamitic/Caucasian theories from stating that Egyptians were white/caucasian for centuries.  This is why there is a controversy.  In modern times, a person would be considered Black if they are black/brown/light brown/reddish brown and their roots are from Africa.  Diop's work concludes that the physical description of the Egyptians given by the Greeks (black/dark skin with woolly/curly hair and living in Africa from the beginning of time) would fully classify the Egyptians as Black in modern times.


 * The images are just images. They are not misleading.  If you want to draw the conclusion that Tiye was a caucasian/semite/indian/greek after seeing her bust, feel free to do so.Rod (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please learn to inset properly. The view that "dark skinned Caucasians" "moved to Egypt" is a conflation and confusion of several different contentions - the applicability of the racial concept 'Caucasian' to the Egyptian population is quite separate from any invasion/migration hypothesis, which need not involve theories of racial difference (and remember that 19th century writers often used 'race' as synonymous with ethnicity/population). There is and never was no sudden dividing line between 'black' people and 'white' people, as though people suddenly magically jump into being a different 'race' at some border somewhere. That's why transitional concepts like "Hamitic" were invented in the first place, whatever we may think about them now. We have to be clear about what we mean when we are describing specific theories. There really is no such thing as "the black theory" as you call it; there are various different arguments about aspects of Egyptian history and physiognomy. of course images are misleading. Do you think that the Tiye picture was chosen arbitrarily? Of course it wasn't. It was chosen because she looks dark skinned and appears to have an 'afro' hairstyle - even though that's actually a headdress which was originally covered in blue tiles, most of which have fallen off. You say "In modern times, a person would be considered Black if they are black/brown/light brown/reddish brown and their roots are from Africa." No, that's untrue. Most north Africans are not considered 'black' in the way we use the term now, even though they can and do have 'brown' skin, though 'brown' is virtually a meaningless label as pretty well everyone can have brown skin if they are in a sunny climate. You yourself constantly move between the term white and Caucasian, as though they are identical terms, but they are not. This is the kind of slippage that introduces confusion. Paul B (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm using bullets so that I can more easily find my own statements. It's quite humorous to listen to you try to disprove the obvious.  I never used any traits common to black people to describe Tiye's bust.  However, the opposition camp has basically described for the world the spitting image of a Black person when describing her bust.  If readers had never seen a picture of her bust, they would know from your writing that she looks like a Black person.  The pictures are only misleading, if your objective is to prove that which cannot be proven.  We have busts of Greeks from antiquity which stand in stark contrast to Tiye's bust.  Her features are diametrically opposed to the features of a caucasian, but most of the outdated theories would have you believe that she was a caucasian.  There is a black theory.  It can be found in its most elegant form in Diop's works (African Origin... or Civilization or Barbarism...).  It is so prevalent that Diop was present at major reviews of Egyptian history, wrote UNESCO's chapter on the subject, and serious scholars (critics) devoted a considerable amount of time to challenging his theories.  If the black theory did not exist, why would his critics have bothered?Rod (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First, if we all used bullets it would be confusing. We are all expected to follow the normal guidelines for indentation.
 * Secondly, you appear to be using at least this talk page,if not the article, to argue for one particular pov.
 * Thirdly, of course the use of images can be pov. Are you disputing that? And why are we even using images in this article? If we use any images, they should be of the people involved in the controversy, not images of ancient Egyptians. Otherwise we are getting into the realm of debating the race of the AE in the article, which we should not be doing. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are the images of Cleopatra POV? Wasn't the "Ancient" Egyptian society basically finished when Cleopatra resided there?  However, this article contains her picture and a history of a rather silly argument while attempting to downplay the more scholarly argument about the actual "Ancient" Egpytians.Rod (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Some suggestions going forward for the “Black Hypothesis” section:
 * I don’t agree with quoting in full each of the handful of references to “blackness” in the Classical writings – I would prefer to summarise it along the lines of “a handful of Classical historians wrote that ..., and supporters of the Black Hypothesis have seized upon this as “evidence” supportive of their theory.” I agree we should also put back the mention that there is controversy about how this Greek term is to be translated. Merely quoting Herodotus as gospel is POV. Alternately, perhaps we should create a sub-section for "Classical historians" lower down, along with the King Tut and Cleopatra items?
 * We should mention a lot more clearly that different people have different definitions of blackness, and that people like Diop and Keita etc essentially consider everyone who is not Aryan to be black. That is also part of the controversy. Furthermore, Keita in particular has made this a “black vs white” issue, and ignores the possibility that the AE’s may have been Arabian/Berber/Turkish/Palestinian/etc.
 * It’s true (and controversial) that the Black Hypothesis supporters conflate “indigenous” with “black”. We must mention this more clearly, stating equally that this conflation is not widely supported.
 * It needs to be clarified that having Diop author the section of the UNESCO report on the Black Hypothesis does not mean the delegates agreed with him – there has been some effort here to word this fact so as to create a false impression.
 * The images here have clearly been cherry-picked to support the Black Hypothesis.
 * It needs to be more clearly stated that some Egyptians did marry black spouses, and that some kings were actually black themselves, but that this is not representative of all (or even most) Ancient Egyptians. When Diop took skin samples for his melanin testing, he used mummies which were already known to have been black people. Even assuming his test results were valid – which is itself a controversial issue – the results thereof cannot be extrapolated to all of Ancient Egypt.
 * Wdford (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it is obvious to anyone not stuck in ideological dogma that Egyptians in the southern part of the territory are more likely to have looked 'blacker' and Egyptians in the Mediterranean northern Delta are more likely to have looked 'whiter'. Also no-one doubts that there was population movement into Egypt, and certainly at the upper level, the royal family would have been marrying foreign princes and princesses, some of whom might have been dark skinned from the south, and others light skinned from Hittite or Mitannian territory etc. As for Tiye, there's currently no way of knowing what her skin shade was. To me, she looks like a typical North African - thin "Caucasian" style nose, but "receding" African-style chin. But in any case, it's a sculpture, not a photograph. It may not even be very realistic. The Tiye sculpture is one of the images that's used for the 'black' case, just as her beloved daughter-in-law Nefertiti is often used to support the 'white' case in popular culture. Both images could be included with captions explaining how they have been used. Paul B (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree with editors that attempt to lie to readers by pretending to quote passages from sources (e.g. Herodotus)while changing the words that are used by the source. Selincourt and Penguin books used "black" to translate melanchroes.  They did not attempt to make a ridiculous translation by leaving melanchroes, a Greek word, in one part of a sentence while translating the greek word for woolly to "woolly" in another part of the sentence.  The passage does not read "melanchroes" and woolly.  It reads "black and woolly."  This is in fact the most common translation for the word melanchroes.  You will see that Snowden, a Harvard professor, also translates melanchroes as black.  I agree that some authors translate it as dark, but it means the same thing.
 * One of the major points of discussion at UNESCO was the definition of Black. Many people have a very narrow definition.  Others, like Diop, have a broader definition.  This is a genuine controversy.  In the United States, the broader definition is the definition that is used in practice.
 * It has already been stated and clarified that many delegates didn't agree with Diop. It should also be clarified that at UNESCO, Diop had "painstakingly researched" and "extensive" data to present his case.  The detractors had much less evidence, just strong opinions.  They just stated matter of factly that they didn't agree with him, but they couldn't demonstrate why they didn't agree with him.  Delegates conceded that in all fields of study the Ancient Egyptian population was considered to be at least 1/3 Black.  They also conceded that beginning in the New Kingdom, there was a strong Black element that became prevalent in Ancient Egyptian art.  Most agree that the Ancient Egyptian population was not homogeneous.  Most agree that some portion of the population was black.  As you moved to the southern parts of the country, the black portion would likely increase.  Most agree that the Ancient Egyptians were in close contact with Nubians throughout Ancient Egyptian history.  After all, they shared the same Nile valley, Egyptian artifacts were found in A group Nubian tombs, there was a history of trade and conflict in the Old/Middle/New Kingdoms, the Nubians invaded Egypt and eventually overran Egpyt, etc.  It's hard for an objective person to pretend that Blacks weren't always present in Ancient Egypt.  The only controversial part is what percentage of the population was Black.  Diop argues for a larger percentage, which is rejected by many Egyptologists.  Therein lies the controversy.Rod (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "The Histories", as published by Penguin Classics, uses the word "Black" in every sentence where other editors keep trying to insert "dark." The Penguin version of the "The Histories" is the most readily available and likely most widely read.Rod (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are obliged to inset properly so we can follow the dialogue. This is of course a meretricious argument. Ideally we should use the most scholarly translation; but that's really neither here nor there. We should not be deliberately misleading readers about the usage of words, so we should use appropriate sources to discuss Herodotus' usage. You continue to maintain the contradictory positions that black literally means black...and also that it doesn't, because anyone who is brown is black. That may seem coherent in modern America because of its peculiar history (even though it isn't really coherent anywhere), but it has no relevance to the intrerpretation of Herodotus. Paul B (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not about me. Diop argues that Herodotus uses the word melanchroes (most commonly translated as Black) to describe the Egyptians and Herodotus uses the word melanchroes in other passages to describe the Ethiopians.  Why wouldn't Herodotus use the word melanchroes to describe Semites, if it has such a broad meaning?  It was reserved for Ethiopians, Egyptians, and people that he thought came from Ethiopians/Egyptians (Colchians).  It's only misleading to put quotation marks around a passage and then misquote the text.  Penguin books and Selincourt use "black skinned with woolly hair."  Feel free to purchase the book and fact check me.  Selincourt uses black.  Diop uses black.  Snowden uses black.  Numerous authors use black to translate melanchroes.Rod (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This partial reinsertion of the Greek historians into the Black theory section is not acceptable. One editor clinging to his chosen translation and ignoring competing translations is very POV. Also, other scholars have pointed out that the Greeks distinguished between the appearances of the Egyptians and the Ethiopians, which info is now separated from the quotes of the Greeks in the Black theory section. Either all the discussion goes into the Greek historian section, or it all goes into the Black theory section, but it can't be selectively split - that is also blatant POV. Wdford (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Bernal
I haven't read this for some time, but it contains some unbearable stuff: "Bernal proposed that the Dynastic Race theory was conceived by so-called Aryan scholars to deny Egypt its African roots". Cripes. It's true that Bernal uses the term "Aryan model", a very disingenous expression to refer to the notion that Greek culture was fundamentally based on Indo-European templates. I always found Bernal's use of "Aryan" in this way to be deliberately designed to confuse and mislead, as though anyone who argued that Greeks inherited ideas from PIE culture was some sort of quasi-Nazi, even though everyone agrees that they obviously did. But even Bernal does not talk about "Aryan scholars" as far as I know. Paul B (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Afro-centrist scholars
I see this phrase has been replaced with 'scholars who support an African theory' (didn't I just see a change to hypothesis elsewhere in the article)? Is there consenus to remove the term Afro-centrist label? What then do we do about our article Afrocentrism? Unless I'm given a convincing reason, I don't agree. And I don't agree with the edit to my hidden comment that suggests that because dark and black are synonyms that the use doesn't matter. They do not mean the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, the term removed seems to describe it better than the rather wordy insertion.  He  iro 21:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Genetic commonality with modern Egyptians
"Recent DNA studies have indicated that ancient Egyptians had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians, which would make the current population largely representative of the ancient inhabitants.[4]"

Is this even possible? How come this only has only be done and claimed for the Egyptians, whereas there are countless other such disputes worldwide that cannot be resolved. I doubt the validity of the claim, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.118.150.152 (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Because DNA doesn't lie. That and people fail to understand transportation through long distances was very difficult in ancient times. People who left their homeland more often than not did so due to climate change, famine/drought, and other catastrophes. The fertile Nile valley, for the most, has escaped such things. It has only been in the past few centuries with colonialism where dramatic changes have taken place. Whether it was the Persians or Arabs conquering Egypt, the Egyptian people still were there outnumbering them. Only kings and leaders were displaced/murdered/imprisoned/etc. The people remained.


 * The conquerors assimilated and were genetically bred out over time. Egyptians are culturally Arabized Levantine people, the same people who have always lived there. Copts certainly didn't need DNA tests to tell you this, they have been saying this for centuries. Africa is a huge continent and I do not understand how this dangerous Afrocentric historical revisionism fantasy (which includes a belief whites are albino blacks!) has spread so much to where people believe and get offended by the truth about Egyptians. They were not black Africans. No amount of belief in a fantasy will change this fact and it is not racist to tell the truth, people are just way too PC to challenge this dangerous lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.98.122 (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The idea that there is a distant and sharp line between "Egyptians" and "black Africans" is the real danger here. Egyptians, both modern and ancient, are certainly related to neighboring populations in the Middle East and the European Mediterranean. They are also related to the inhabitants of the Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and other countries of East Africa. If you visit Egypt you will find a wide range of phenotypes, including many that look similar to white-skinned Mediterranean Europeans and many that look similar to dark-skinned East Africans, as well as the bronze-skinned North Africans and Middle Easterners who share their latitude. Similarly, moving upward, you will find Italians who look very similar to the average German and Italians who look very similar to the average Tunisian. Moving southward, you will find Ethiopians who look like the average Yemeni and Ethiopians who look like the average Ugandan. It's all a gradient. --98.114.176.218 (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of pictures
I noticed that many of the pictures used in this article, when I checked their descriptions on their image pages, are actually not pictures of Egyptians in the first place, but rather pictures of Nubians, placed in the article. But the readers are not told that these pictures are not of ethnic Egyptians but of Nubians... at the very least, this is a poster case of cherrypicked pictures compromising the neutrality of an article on Wikipedia.--Yalens (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed the two blatantly Nubian pictures (both of which actually have file names stating Nubian, in fact!). However, in order to work towards restoring balance, we should add in pictures of various styles of Egyptians from all regions of Egypt, to give a more multifaceted picture. I would suggest adding two images from the Fayyum collection (I'd recommend one female and one male), as well as a burial mask, and this boat scene (posted along with this comment here). The latter best represents the typical Egyptian depiction of themselves. --Yalens (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If we are going to include pictures again, I would like to include the following picture, . This supports the quote from Basil Davidson. Does anybody know how to insert this please? Wdford (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see how such pictures can easily be kept NPOV, and as this is an article about the history, perhaps we could have pictures of the participants? We can't insert pictures from other websites, we have to find images either on Commons or that are clearly copyright free that we can upload. Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, all the pictures that have been suggested are indeed in the Commons. --Yalens (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As for "keeping pictures NPOV", the way the page is right now hugely skews the pictures toward one theory. If you have a large variety of pictures (still maintaining the ones currently on the page- unless they found to be of non-Egyptians) then there is a balance. If the only pictures on the page are ones that have clearly been cherrypicked, it has a POV problem... adding more removes that problem.--Yalens (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The 25th dynasty ruled all of Egypt. They are pharaohs.  They observed all Egyptian traditions (pyramid building, additions/renovations at Karnak, residence in Memphis, etc.).  They are accepted by all mainstream scholars as the rightful rulers of Egypt during their time.
 * The Mongols conquered many lands in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, ruled them and eventually adopted their customs. But could you really put up a picture of a Mongol as a Russian or Persian? Of course not. --Yalens (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No matter how much it doesn't support your viewpoint, Herodotus' passage is translated by a mainstream publishing house (Penguin books) in a mainstream Greek text as "black." It is not translated as "dark", which wouldn't change anything as the words dark and black are synonyms.Rod (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Right now just on the 25th dynasty, what does this have to do with the history of the controversy? And they were rules of Egypt, are you saying then that the Egyptians were Hyksos when the Hyksos ruled them? I don't follow the logic of including them here on either of these counts. Dougweller (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad you asked. Modern notions of race are based mostly on phenotype and geographic ancestry.  The 25th dynasty's rulers lived in the Nile valley from time immemorial so they share the same geographic ancestry with the Northern Egyptians.  Their phenotype is the cause of the controversy, so there's no point in developing that matter further.  Diop's position is that the 25th rulers were phenotypically similar to the majority of Egyptians and I'm sure you will disagree.  Therefore, the Hyskos fail the Egyptian race test by having a different geographic ancestry and having a different phenotype (according to some like Diop, Williams, DuBois, etc.).  Futhermore, the Hyskos never ruled the entire region, so their race would hold no bearing over the Southern Egyptians that were ruled by Theban rulers.Rod (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is doubt about how much the Nubians shared with Northern Egyptians (the guys who built the pyramids). Nubians probably shared a lot more with the Southern Egyptians, as Rod claims above, but just how much is unknown. Egypt invaded the Nubian area very early on, and took home many prisoners, so exactly who started where is greatly obscured. People can thus argue either way, and people do exactly that. Hence the controversy. The 25th Dynasty were black "invaders" in terms of the modern borders, as were the Hyksos, the Persians etc etc in their times. I have argued before that the 25th Dynasty were acknowledged to have been black, but that this does not mean that all ancient Egyptians were also black. I do think that Rod's comments about the varying definition of "blackness" rates a mention in the aticle as well. Diop and Keita certainly take a very broad definition, in terms of which even people with red hair are considered to be black. Wdford (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It might be useful to point out that in cases Diop uses the term "black" in ways very few other people would. For example, in one instance, Diop argues that in addition to Egyptians, the ancient Ethiopians, "Levantines" and "Colchians" were black because they practiced circumcision. The only legitimate classification here is the first: Ethiopians (especially in ancient usage) are usually called black, though in the case of Abyssinians there is some acknowledgement of the considerable Middle Eastern (Semitic) influences on their language, culture and genes. However, both modern and ancient Levantines are rarely if ever called black in the English language, and the Colchians (ancestors of the Georgians) were inhabitants of the Caucasus, by definition Caucasian. --Yalens (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Africa is one of the most diverse continents.
Why do you lump every African up under the term "black" which to my understanding refers to West African Congoids or any of their descendants with significant admixture. 70.59.22.166 (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality Tags
Do we still need these tags? A lot of the bias was removed weeks ago, and nobody seems too upset at the moment. Perhaps we can remove them now? If not, what more is required? Wdford (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Being the person who placed them there, I would say they could be removed sometime soon, especially since a lot of the bias has been reduced. I wouldn't object to them being removed now.
 * On the other hand, I still feel like the page is biased to a degree, largely due to a lack of balance (the black section is much longer than all of the others) and the remnants of what was once largely opinionated sections. For example, there's the emphasis the page places on how much "painstaking research" (with each reference separated by a word from the last to emphasize it further) was made on the black hypothesis, and this is totally unnecessary for the content of the page.
 * Also, though this doesn't directly have to do with the neutrality, I think some effort should be made to make note of the politics/nationalism behind the controversy. The black hypothesis is associated with reactions to European dominance and African nationalism, best exemplified in Diop's claims that the Ancient Egyptians have links to the modern Wolof- his own ethnic group. Modern Egyptians on the other hand may emotionally insist that Ancient Egyptians were African, Mediterranean "Caucasians" (though they would shy away from the label "white", and probably reject any label that implies "European") with strong links to the Middle East, because this is how they view their (modern) selves, and they don't want their identification with Ancient Egyptians being challenged. The various European scholars advance a variety of views of the Ancient Egyptians, some that are their own conclusions based on evidence, some that largely fit into their larger worldviews (Sergi's "brown race" could viewed in the context of his own Mediterranean -Italian- identity), with most fitting into both categories. In my view, at least, this should be handled as a nationalist history controversy, by identifying what underlies each theory. --Yalens (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Basically I agree with you on all of the above. Diop's theory is presented in excessive detail, but the points themselves are all RS and so need to stay. However we really don't need to individually list every Greek who ever used the word melanchroes, but when I thinned it out another editor added it all back in. The "painstaking" part is certainly overdone, especially as only the editor of the minutes made that statement, and all the other delegates disagreed with Diop's conclusions. I am happy to thin it out again, but there is no point if Afrocentrists are going to revert. Finally, do you have secondary sources for these additional points about nationalistic agendas? Wdford (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In Diop's case, his own article in Wikipedia contains his claims about the ancestors of Georgians being black and Wolof being related to Ancient Egyptian (and then we have van Sertima, who is also well-known for arguing that Africans were the Olmecs and brought civilization to Mesoamerica). I don't think it would be hard to dig up sources supporting the view that these theories are laced with nationalism, but on second thought, I now feel like saying so may compromise the page's neutrality as that is, after all, a subjective opinion...--Yalens (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at the NPOV noticeboard
I've started a discussion at WP:NPOVN. Wdford, I hope you don't mind me quoting you, if you do, I'll remove the quote. Dougweller (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about the race of ancient Egyptians
It is a history of the controversy. When you edit, there's a big yellow banner saying "Please note: this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way." When you read it, at the top is says " navigation, 					search

This article is about the "history of the controversy" about the race of the ancient Egyptians. For discussion of the scientific evidence relating to the race of the ancient Egyptians, see Population history of Egypt."

So why is material about the scientific evidence relating to the race being added? Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting there was no problem with the fallacious claim that modern Egyptians have 90% genetic commonality with the ancient Egyptians (hence supposite scientific evidence) being repeated THREE times throughout the article, but when Encyclopedic references (constituting modern scholarship) are presented suggesting otherwise, it's somehow irrelevant to article. I'm not buying that. You seem to want to promote the sources that you feel validate one claim and censor the ones validating others, and it just so happens that the "other" seems to be more valid according to modern contemporary research. The statements from the encyclopedic references of are a contextualization of contemporary research with direct relevance to the "race" of the ancient Egyptians. I see no logical reason why they should be excluded. SirShawn (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Because this article is about the history of the debate, it is not the debate itself. You also are adding information about cultural affinity which is not only irrelevant to this article, it is irrelevant to any discussion of genetic affinity. And you are accusing me of censorship, which is a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I'm not promoting anything, I am telling you that this is the wrong article. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. The "controversy" is an evolving one, so why on Earth should any new sources of information be omitted? That is why there are sources from as early as the 18th century (for the older theories) to there being a section for MODERN scholarship. The modern scholarship is to reflect what today's scholars feel contemporary evidence points to. The references that I have put forward are contextualizations of modern research by actual scholars as it relates directly to this subject. Contextualization is the keyword, as what is being posted is not simply findings from individual studies, but true authoritative summarizations of multiple consistent findings. That contextualizations are being relayed in a social sense, which has no place in the population history article which is supposed to be dealing strictly with biological data. Therefore they clearly belong in this articleSirShawn (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "true authoritative summarizations"? Do you realise that your sources must actually discuss, explicitly, race? See WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

By that I mean a summarization of research by mainstream scholars (Oxford, Britannica, Fitzwilliam, Manchester ect) that is contextualized in a social sense (i.e. race, which deals with this article) as opposed to saying something like "well this study says... compared to this study". The latter example belongs in the population history article. The encyclopedic references are "modern" and reflect the works of contemporary research.

Also the sections of those encyclopedias that I posted were in the chapters that clearly dealt "explicitly" with the "race" issue of ancient Egypt. It's ludicrous to suggest that they should somehow not be included in this article. SirShawn (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * SirShawn, the material in the "population history" article is all relevant here, as a "modern hypothesis", because there is still controversy and a lack of consensus among 'scholars". However this article was spilt a while ago, because it was getting too big. The basis of the spilt was decided - with much acrimony – to be along the lines of a “history of the debate” article and a “modern scholarship” article. It’s a bit arbitrary, but a split had to be made.
 * In line with wikipolicy, the “modern scholarship” section in the “history” article is thus just a very brief summary, with a clear link to the other article for those who are interested. Lovell etc are mentioned in the “modern scholarship” article already, as is the discussion about languages, skeletal proportions, DNA analysis etc etc. The short summary is supposed to be short, but you have been adding lengthy quotes (which co-incidentally all support a certain POV) while leaving out the huge corpus of scientific study which doesn’t support this viewpoint. Feel free to add your Lovell quote at the appropriate section of the “modern scholarship” article, alongside the info that contradicts her, but we don’t need to duplicate material across the two articles.
 * The Fitzwilliam museum exhibit is just a point of view, based "heavily" on the work of Afrocentric scholars. It’s not a scientific thesis, and it cannot override the many scientific studies on the topic. I think therefore that this mention should be included in the “Black African hypothesis” section, rather than as conclusive scholarly “proof”.
 * Wdford (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you or anyone else would suggest that the such institutes like Oxford or Fitzwilliam would promote ideas that are not accepted by most people in the field. An opposing view amongst contemporary scholars (in regards to their race) is not mentioned anywhere in the Oxford Encyclopedia of of Ancient Egypt or Britannica or any of the other mentioned sources which clearly indicates that this is the mainstream view indicated by anthropological evidence of what "race" they belonged to.

You are also incorrect in your assertions that the scholars cited at Fitzwilliam are "Afrocentric", and from that assertion inferring that their positions are not in line with mainstream scholarship. Did you even watch the lectures of that page? S.O.Y. Keita was one of them, and he is considered an authority on the bio-cultural origins of ancient Egypt. That is why he is the sole scholar who the National Geographic referenced on their page dedicated to explaining the bio-cultural origins of ancient Egypt. He was also invited to lecture these points of Egypt's bio-cultural origins at Manchester and Cambridge. Keita being an actual bio-geneticist does not subscribe to the concept of race, which is why he has never stated anything like "the ancient Egyptians belonged to....race". Instead based on his research and the research of previous anthropologist showing their primary biological affinities, it has all been contextualized by other scholars (such as the other ones cited by Fitzwilliam). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirShawn (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Doug and Wdford notice that neither one of you can hold your own in the discussion above as to why my sources should be excluded from the page. Your attempts to revert the edits from back to what they were is nothing more than biased censorship and blatant lies (in the case of the non existent 90% commonality between ancient and modern claim). If you wish to play a game in which you get as many biased people to unwarrantably undo my positive and up to date contributions to this article in an attempt to start an edit war than please believe that I will get twice as many people to support my actions! Stop being biased and start being rational. If none of you three can justify why these contributions don't belong on the talk page then don't touch the article. SirShawn (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The continued debate regarding the race of the ancient Egyptians no doubt reflexs the contention that native africans are inferior; inherently incapable of advancing a lustrous civilization. It seems this idea, historically speaking, has found solace in the minds of numerous European and Middle-Eastern minds. Constantin De Volney, a French philosopher, historian, and politician expresses the reality of this widely held belief quite nicely. Upon first view of the Great Sphinx, he says: “Just think that this race of black men, today our slave and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of peoples who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery and questioned whether black men have the same kind of intelligence as Whites!” It is interesting to note that Hunefer, an Egyptian priest, sheds light on the origins of the Egyptians stating that they "came from the beginning of the Nile" which translates to the Great Lakes region in Southeast Africa. Travelers and historians took great pains to decribe the Egyptians and the common consensus reveals that Egyptians were indeed native Africans. Although the racial controvery of the Egyptians makes sense in our modern world, considering the largely held view of black people, this controversy only exist within the minds of modern-day Europeans who have toiled to denegrate any hint of black african presence within ancient Egyptian history. ("Pulaar") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.57 (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, at least you have made your point of view quite clear. However, please note that this article is on probation. If you continue to disrupt it, there will be consequences. Threatening an edit war is considered to be disruptive.
 * Second, as I already explained above on the talk page - the material on this topic is too much for one article, and so it is spread over two separate but linked articles. The one article - this one - covers the history of the controversy, while the other article - the Population history of Egypt article - deals with a full discussion of the "modern evidence" in both directions. You cannot add some material from the second article into the first article to support your point of view, but exclude the reams of other material by sources who disagree with you - that is against wikipolicy. There is too much material to include all of it here, which is why the article was split in the first place. Therefore, the material about the controversy comes here, and the modern scientific evidence goes there. Simple. Lovell etc are already mentioned in the other article, as is Keita (ad nauseam). Please feel free to add your additional “evidence” there, with due regard to WP:OR etc.
 * Wdford (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

WDford once again the sources on the population history section are individual STUDIES, not authoritative statements based on modern consensus! Keita is cited as the author of several different studies on that page, compared to his reference on this page by the National Geographic in which he SUMMARIZES the scholarly consensus on the biological and cultural studies by a plethora of different scholars. Do you honestly not see the difference in the types of sources being used on both pages? Likewise the other sources which I have contributed are summarizations by authorities of whole span of studies from a plethora of reputed scholars (hence a scholarly consensus).SirShawn (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It’s not a consensus if a range of other studies blatantly contradict it. Do you honestly not see the difference? Just because Keita claims to represent a consensus, doesn’t make it so. Feel free to go to the Population history of Egypt article, and add sentences like “Keita also claims that a consensus exists …” to all the other Keita claims, but don’t try to pretend a consensus exists where clearly it ain’t the case. Please also define “plethora” – I don’t see a “plethora” of scholars being quoted in these articles. Wdford (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. This article is dealing with race, my sources are AUTHORITATIVE modern publications dealing with the conclusions of contemporary research interpretted by people deemed "authorities" in the matter of ancient Egypt (i.e Donald Redford, Kathryn Bard, S.O.Y. Keita, ect). What you are essentially saying is that these statements which are clearly conclusions reached by the noted scholars based on plethora of research, is relevant because "some study" (not authoritative) is interpreted (by a layman who lacks credential) as saying different. It doesn't work like that. Contradicting studies on biological affinities belong to the population history article, as opposed scholarly summarizations/interpretations/contextualization dealing specifically with the social aspect of the Egyptian "race".

Your attempts to dismiss Keita's conclusions because you feel as though he does not represent is the "concensus" on numerous issues shows that you are not looked at the links to any of the sources that I provided in my response to above. Keita's interpretations of the archaeological, linguistic, and cultural affinities of the ancient Egyptians he cites at the bottom of the page "Geo Pedia section of this National Geographic page:

"Bard, K. "The Egyptian Predynastic. A Review of the Evidence." Journal of Field Archaeology. Vol. 21 (1994), 265-88.

Hassan, F. A. "The Predynastic of Egypt." Journal of World Prehistory. Vol. 2 (1988), 135-85.

Klees, F., and R. Kuper. New Light on the Northeast African Past. Heinrich Barth Institut, 1992.

Midant-Reynes, B. The Prehistory of Egypt. Blackwell, 2000.

Wetterstrom, W. "Foraging and Farming in Egypt: The Transition From Hunting and Gathering to Horticulture in the Nile Valley." In The Archaeology of Africa. Routledge, 1993.

Williams, B. B. The A-Group Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L. University of Chicago, 1988.

Wilkinson, T. Early Dynastic Egypt. Routledge, 2001"

The above are the some of the most reputed Egyptologist. In his lectures are Cambridge and Manchester he clearly states every source from which he is getting the information for his slides. SirShawn (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Some recent edits give undue weight to one view. It might be better to go slow in adding new material, allowing consensus for changes to emerge gradually. Tom Harrison Talk 22:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A large part of the problem is the way these were added. We simply can't say 'conclusive evidence', that's one editor's interpretation.
 * What's ironic is that SirShawn removed from the lead something I added, "Recent studies suggest that the modern population is genetically consistent with an ancient Egyptian indigenous to northeast Africa." He also removed "In 2008, S. O. Y. Keita wrote that "There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa.... The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time, although researchers vary in the details of their explanations of those influences." [134]"
 * And as I've said, this article is about the history of the debate. This includes the contemporary position as that is part of history, but that can be stated simply, showing all significant points of view, and without any suggestion that anything has been definitely shown to be true. Not too simply please, Sir Shawn's version seems to be suggesting that the modern view is that Egyptians were 'black', which is simply not the truth whether you use a social definition, genetic, or whatever.
 * Minor note, writing about the Indianapolis collection of essays, SirShawn writes "the consensus of the authors was that Ancient Egypt was a North African civilization". Does anyone challenge the fact that Egypt is in North Africa? But my other point is that the linked source doesn't actually seem to say anything about these essays. Only the book itself should be used as a source for the consensus of the articles in any case. But we certainly don't need to repeat over and over that Egyptian civilization is a North African civilization.
 * I need to add a separate section here about sources (eg no to Britannica, no to claiming that a museum exhibition is an official statement by a museum, etc). Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keita is patching together fragments from various sources to support his POV, while ignoring other evidence which doesn't suit him. The mere fact that an author is listed in a bibliography, doesn't mean that the author supports the conclusion that has been patched together from selected fragments of his and other authors' work. Therefore, you cannot cite a Keita essay as a "consensus" of all the listed authors - you must say "Keita states that ...". Then you must separately list also the contributions of those other authors INDEPENDENTLY of Keita’s conclusions, so that the article reflects what they actually said, and not just what Keita chooses to extract from what they said. This is exactly the route that has been taken in the related Population history of Egypt article, which therefore DOES NOT say "the consensus is .." - precisely because THERE IS NO CONSENSUS. Bard, Lovell etc are all cited in the Population history of Egypt article, reflecting their various contributions. Also cited is Keita, many times, generally repeating himself over and over, trying to counter the actual evidence from the various actual scientific studies which disagree with his own conclusions.
 * As has been said many times now, this article is NOT about the Race of the Ancient Egyptians, if you look closely at the title you will see that this article is actually about the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. It’s not the same thing. If you really want to add Keita to the controversy article, then you need to include some of his more controversial statements in the "Black African hypothesis" section. However the modern scholarship does not have a consensus, and thus the short summary included here must merely mention the conclusions on which there is general agreement - not try to argue for either POV. The POV's have been presented in the Population history of Egypt article, as has been said repeatedly now.
 * As has been stated above as well, encyclopaedias (and books claiming to be encyclopaedias) do not qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia - they are merely a reflection of what their editors choose to believe, which is not necessarily a firm consensus of all the players. Also, why are you citing encyclopaedias that are many years old?
 * Please do not keep adding your POV comments back in – the material which needs to be here has been accepted, and the rest is considered to be not relevant here. If you nonetheless think that a particular comment deserves to be included, please propose it on the talk page first, and it will be addressed in good faith. However, please do take note of what has already been said on the talk page on this issue, so as to save us repeating stuff. Thanking you. Wdford (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Quoteboxes
I've gotten rid of these now. It's difficult to see how we can use them that won't be pov or encourage pov use of them. In most cases I just merged the quote with the article (and it may be that in some cases we don't need the quote or can shorten it, but I didn't do that to most). In two cases I removed them entirely. One was a quote by Flaubert, which is in the footnote anyway. The other was the use of the journalist Simson Najovits. Wdford, I don't think Najovits belongs here. He isn't a classical historian and I can't find evidence that he is a reliable source. I don't think he should be mentioned at all. The statement " and he is followed by A.D. Godley and Alan B. Lloyd." makes no sense to me. Godley is long dead and who really thinks Lloyd is following Najovits? I've removed the two block quotes saying that he was clarifying, and I think we should remove him entirely unless you can show that he qualifies as a reliable source for this. A search of Google Books and Google Scholar doesn't turn up anything to suggest he is. Dougweller (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Punt - can't find modern Egyptologists backing this as ancestral homeland
Although it's true that Budge argued that the Egyptians saw Punt as their ancestral homeland, this does not seem to be the view of mainstream Egyptologists today. If the best that we can do besides Budge is a travel guide and a book written in 1964 by Jon Manchip White, neither of which are reliable sources for this, the section needs to be deleted. I've spent some time searching and find things such as the inhabitants of Punt "know nothing of mankind", but except for some fringes stuff, nothing. Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt edited by Kathryn A.Bard discusses Punt but without a hint of it being suggested as an ancestral homeland. The same applies to the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Barry Kemp's book also doesn't mention this (I have all these). If it's not in the standard texts, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Petrie discusses Punt as part of his Dynastic Race Theory but doesn't he see Punt as what he calls "halfway house": "The strong linkage with Punt suggests that land as a half-way house, where Sumerian culture may have lingered and adopted..." Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And except for Petrie's dynastic race stuff, there's no link to race in any of this. So none of it belongs as it's a big chunk of original research suggesting, with no specific claims or reliable sources, that it does relate to the history of the contoversy. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dougweller. I think maybe you are going a bit far here. If you delete everything that does not have modern mainstream support, (or which modern scholars consider to be "obsolete",) then virtually the entire article would be deleted. By definition there is no race controversy in modern mainstream scholarship, because modern mainstream scholarship does not acknowledge the concept of “race” to begin with, so the only "modern" contributions on the race "controversy" tend to come from Afrocentrists. The modern mainstream scholarship is thus reflected at the Population history of Egypt article, which correctly excludes issues such as Herodotus etc. However these are still aspects of the “controversy” for those wikiusers who are prepared to accept that race is important, even if modern mainstream scholarship does not bother to engage on the topic.
 * Punt is not a personal theory of anybody, it is recorded in the ancient texts, and Petrie and Budge are notable sources for the ancient texts. Whether you include this as Dynastic Race theory or separately makes little difference, but to readers who are researching that particular aspect, having it stand in a separate section could be more user-friendly. The texts have not changed in the last few hundred years, so Petrie and Budge are still relevant. Ditto Herodotus – the actual source here is Herodotus himself, and you don’t have to be a mainstream history professor to read Herodotus. Wdford (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This article has to include all significant views related to the history of the controversy. I am not at all convinced that all modern scholarship has denied the existence of race, and certainly I don't think that any modern scholarship denies the existence of the concept.
 * In a previous version, these statements were referenced to Bard, Trigger and Brace, among others. I see the references have been removed, but perhaps they should be reinstated? Alternately, perhaps this should also be mentioned in the Modern Scholarship section, for completeness. I’m pretty sure this was also agreed by the majority at the UNESCO conference, but I can’t find the original reference just yet, and Keita also says something similar. See also Stephen Howe, at, as well as the many references cited in the article Race in ancient history. Wdford (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If we discuss Punt, it has to be using sources that discuss the race of Ancient Egyptians in relationship to Punt. Otherwise it's original research. I'm not sure what texts you are talking about, if you can be specific -- give me some modern sources/translations, that would help. Anyone can read Herodotus in translation, to read it in the original and in context is an entirely different thing and requires formal expertise in the language and the context of Herodotus's writings, ie a knowledge of other related texts.
 * I think you are over-cooking this. However, the Herodotus statements included are cited by Diop – was Diop competent to read Herodotus “in the original and in context”? Did Diop have “formal expertise in the language and the context of Herodotus's writings”, etc etc, or are we now to implement a double standard? Wdford (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * So, what modern scholars say that the AE said that Punt was their ancestral homeland? Why does Petrie at times say it was a halfway house from Sumeria and something different at other times? And exactly what texts is Budge referring to and is his translation still accepted?
 * I would assume Petrie saw Punt in the light of the Dynastic Race theory, which would hold that the Dynastic Race passed through Punt on their way to Egypt. The statement on Punt by Budge was sourced from the work “Short History of the Egyptian People”, by E. A. Wallis Budge, pg 10. Budge stated that “Egyptian tradition of the Dynastic Period held that the aboriginal home of the Egyptians was Punt…” Budge was certainly a notable source for such things, so the question is actually whether any subsequent scholar has specifically contradicted Budge on this point? Wdford (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a significant Afro-centrist view on Punt and race? If there is, that could be included. What we can't include is anything that suggests a relationship without proper sourcing.
 * And did you see that we have another SPA? Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if there is an "Afrocentric" view of Punt, I would assume that, maybe, it might be mentioned in at least passing in the Appiah/Gates "Africana" encyclopedia. Having just pulled the second edition, 2005, out, I see a rather short article on "Punt", pp. 459-460 of volume 4. That article indicates that it is possible that the Egyptians referred to different lands as "Punt" at different times. There's nothing of substance regarding Punt in the "Egypt" articles either. So, while I guess it might be possible to use them to support the idea the Egyptians might have came from "Punt", that would be a real stretch. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)