Talk:Kerma culture/Archive 1

Why is the language of Kerma called "Nubian"???
Nubian was not spoken in Kush/ Kerma until the fall of Meroe in 350 CE. This is an error that needs to be corrected. The article is, as of right now, false as far as the language is concerned. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Deleted it. Old Nubian language is obviously much later than this culture. Well spotted, A.Tamar Chabadi, but you could have fixed it. Dougweller (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I should have, but I get scared I will mess it up...I just tell others and let them edit. I will do better. - A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a troll on here that keeps adding nonsense to the article.
First, the troll keeps inserting a painting of some woman from some old and outdated book on Egypt, from before researchers even realized there was a distinct Kerma culture and empire, written by Gaston Maspero so long ago that the book is available on archive.org (i.e. the book is NOT up to date with any current research at all). Wikipedia should have someone monitor this page to stop the troll from engaging in his distortion tactics. Nowhere in Maspero's poorly researched book (full of speculation and unproven claims) does he show that the drawing of "Kushite prisoners" shown on p. 355 of vol. 2 of his book History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria, based on the water-colour drawing by Blackden, represents anyone from the Kerma culture (a culture which Maspero was not even aware of!) nor does he even prove that the drawing on the left (of the woman and child), based on the watercolour by Blackden, is actually of a Kushite.

Second, the troll keeps citing some study on remains from the Dakhlet Oasis from Roman times (yes, Roman era burials) and from that doctoral thesis about a completely different subject, has been writing all sorts of fanciful junk about Kerma skeletal remains (on this and other wikipedia pages), instead of citing an actual study on Kerma skeletal remains.

The wikipedia user inserting all this nonsense into various wikipedia pages (about the C-group culture, Kerma, etc.) is probably some disgusting Berber nationalist troll who is desperately trying to construct a super-ancient Berber civilization of some sort on the pages of wikipedia by using inaccurate citations and distorting the meaning or relevance of sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PersonablePerson (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I came to the same conclusion. Soupforone is spreading misinformation everywhere and is only interested what he can gain from it. Knfr44 (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Newberry/Maspero mural & osteo
The Newberry/Maspero mural dates from the 12th Dynasty reign of Pharaoh Amenemhat I, which in Nubia was the period of the Kerma Culture. The Kerma Culture is also believed to be the progenitor of the later Kush kingdom. The Kerma specimens in the Haddow analysis date from the Kerma period too (c. 1750–1500 BC). This is indicated on page 144, and the analytical diagram is found on page 205 in Figure 4.17 [spamfilter - see talkpage history for address]. Anyway, I have used the Efthymia analysis in lieu of this; it evinces comparable affinities. Soupforone (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

First, this is clearly a violation of wikipedia's original research policy. Unless one is simply completely uninformed about the Nubian region in ancient times, one would already know that there were different peoples and polities in the region. How you would get from the fact that a certain image has been (claimed to be) identified as being a prisoner from Nubia to concluding that they are directly from Kerma is beyond me. Provide an actual scholarly source, otherwise, stop claiming the mural represents someone from Kerma when you have yet to provide a single scholarly source which shows this. Second, the Haddow thesis states, on p. 100: "The Nubian comparative data derive from Irish's (2005) study of dental traits from ten skeletal assemblages from Upper and Lower Nubia ranging from ca. 3000 BC to the 14th century AD. Nubian groups are commonly described as having a mix of Western Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African craniofacial and dental characteristics (Billy and Chamla 1981; Gill 1998; Irish 1993; Nielson 1970)." I don't see anything in Haddow's paper that refutes this. The pages you referred me to certainly do not. And in any case, he even makes it clear early on in the thesis that he is not attempting to define groups based on simplistic essentialist racial typologies anyway: "At any rate it is not the aim of the present study to assign the Kellis skeletal assemblage to a "Caucasoid" or "Negroid" typology. This sort of essentialist taxonomy is no longer considered a valid approach to the study of human variation. More importantly the phenotype of a particular ancient population is unlikely to correspond to any of the socially-constructed racial archetypes of our modern era. Nor would ancient peoples likely recognise themselves within such archetypes" (pp.32-33). As for the second paper you cited, I don't even see your point. It's not something unusual that Egyptians and Nubians would have some physical characteristics in common (at least not to me), so the Gizeh and Kerma samples clustering together is not some huge revelation. But anyway, it has nothing to do with my objections to your edits.PersonablePerson (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, if for whatever reason you felt that you absolutely needed to post an image of a Nubian from the Kerma period on this page, you could simply have posted this image: http://isaw.nyu.edu/exhibitions/nubia/images/highlights-thumb/20.1305.jpg

On this page: http://isaw.nyu.edu/exhibitions/nubia/highlights.html#highlight-4

We can find the following information:

"Head of a Nubian

Faience, Kerma, Cemetery, Eastern Deffufa (K II), 1700–1550 BC (Classic Kerma Period) Harvard University–Boston Museum of Fine Arts Expedition: 20.1305a

This faience head clearly represents a Nubian with tightly curled hair. It was excavated at Kerma by George A. Reisner, who thought it was originally an inlay. Since faience at Kerma could have been locally manufactured or have come from Egypt, it is not certain whether this head represents an Egyptian or a Nubian perspective.

Image © 2011 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston"

stable identifier: http://www.nyu.edu/isaw/exhibitions/nubia/items/39/

This is a depiction of a person that was actually obtained from Kerma, and that source (a museum of fine arts) is actually a reputable/credible source, from a much more recent (2011) date.PersonablePerson (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

And you know what's really funny? This image you keep trying to pass off as an image of a woman and child from Kerma has already been posted elsewhere on wikipedia and has been described as an "An Asiatic woman with her baby, depicted in Khnumhotep I's tomb."

Look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khnumhotep_I

Whoever edited that page described her and her child as Asiatics, not Nubians from Kerma. What's more, he (or she) was kind enough to provide details on the image here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Painting_Tomb_BH14_Newberry_02.png

On that page, you can clearly read:

Description

English: Painting of Nubians and Asiatics, closeup of an Asiatic woman with her baby; from the east wall of the tomb BH14 of nomarch Khnumhotep I at Beni Hasan. Reign of Amenemhat I, early 12th Dynasty, Middle Kingdom. [Percy Newberry, Beni Hasan part I, pl. XLV]

Date	23 September 2014, 00:10:21

Source	Beni hasan. Part I, London 1893, pp. 85 & 204, available here

Author	Percy E. Newberry (1869 - 1949); George Willoughby Fraser (1866 - 1923); also cf. History of Egypt, Chaldea, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria - Volume II (1903), Gaston Maspero [1]

What's great is that, if you check p. 85 in the source from Newberry, all you see is a reference to Libyan foreigners (possibly, but not necessarily prisoners):

https://archive.org/stream/benihasan00grifgoog#page/n104/mode/2up

To quote Newberry directly, from p. 85 of his 1893 book: "The scenes below are arranged in six rows. The first three show wrestlers in different attitudes. The bottom rows show soldiers attacking a fortress; and an interesting group of foreigners (Libyan), who are being led by an Egyptian superintendent, are figured at the south end of the fourth row (see Pl. xlvii, and Pl. xlv)."

Note that plate XLV, on p. 204, shows the woman and child on the left.

So the very source (Newberry) which carried out one of the most detailed examinations of the tomb that has ever been done, over one hundred years ago, clearly identifies the foreigner and her child as a "Libyan". And what's worse is, you seem to be aware of Newberry (you mentioned his name), yet you've been trying to pass the image off as a depiction of Nubians from Kerma. I wish I could say that I thought it was simply an honest mistake, based solely on remembering Maspero's sloppy/poor quality "research" rather than remembering the detailed work on the tomb carried out by Newberry where he identifies the woman and child much more accurately (that is, correctly), but I've genuinely come to think that you've had some sort of weird agenda this whole time. It's also possible that you simply never even bothered to check the original source and simply decided that since it fit your agenda, you would go ahead and put the image in the article anyway, without doing any real verification. Anyway, my point about the woman and her child not being from Kerma has been more or less proven (using a much more credible source than the sloppy, careless Maspero - and using a source that you referenced by name, no less). Cheers.PersonablePerson (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like there's anything left to say on this issue, unless Soupforone wants to go write an entire doctoral thesis or pull some shenanigans. I've read all this commentary and I think PersonablePerson has conclusively settled it.MusselParty (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

PersonablePerson, that description on Nubian groups isn't on Kerma specifically. Haddow actually describes his analytical Figure 4.17 thusly (page 175 [blocked by spam filter - see talkpage history for address])-- "The second sub-cluster contains the Kerma, Kush and A-Group Nubians along with the east African Ethiopian assemblage. Finally, the Kellis assemblage joins the X-Group, Christian and Meroitic Nubian groups in the third sub-cluster. Based on the dendrogram, it is clear that the Kellis assemblage is more phenetically similar to the Egyptian, Nubian and North African groups than to the Sub-Saharan African groups." These results are similar to those of Irish (2005), from whom Haddow borrowed his Kerma sample. Still, yes, these analyses, the Efthymia study and similar morphological work do usually group the ancient Kerma population closely with neighboring predynastic/dynastic Egyptians. As to the Kerma period mural, Newberry does describe the foreigners on it as Libyan (I never claimed he did not), whereas Maspero describes them as Kushite. However, neither suggests that they were Asiatic. With regard to the statues, two of the urls above are deadlinks. The Boston Museum of Fine Arts itself also describes the rounded faience statue as depicting not a denizen of the Kerma kingdom, but rather that it is "representing one of the local enemies of the kingdom of Kerma, from a chapel in which foreigners were shown bound together to symbolize the domination of the Kerma kingdom". That is not particularly useful for a physical representation of the ancient Kerma inhabitants. Even so, thanks for the Boston Museum of Fine Arts Expedition since it contains realistic depictions of these denizens. Soupforone (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I pointed out that your own source (Haddow's thesis) notes that studies have already argued that there are craniofacial and dental affinities of Nubian skeletons not only with Western Eurasians, but with Sub-Saharan Africans as well. Kerma skeletons having dental morphological similarities with Egyptians or other North African groups does not even contradict that idea. I don't recall disputing, at any point, the idea that the Kerma Nubians (or any other Nubians) would have a dental (or any other) affinity to any ancient Egyptian groups or even to Ethiopians. Obviously that can't be the point of contention. Also, where in Irish's 2005 paper does he even make a comparison of Kerma skeletons with recent Sub-Saharan African skeletons? It seems to just be a comparison of different Nubian groups from different areas and time periods. If the Haddow thesis is about the Kellis assemblage not having a Sub-Saharan dental affinity (not surprising), and the 2005 Irish paper is mostly about how different Nubian groups compare to one another (he only mentions Sub-Saharan Africans a few times, and when he does, I don't see where Irish argues that the Kerma skeletons are completely dissimilar from recent Sub-Saharan African skeletons), what do "recent "Negroid" populations in Sub-Saharan Africa" even have to do with the issue of Kerma and why is it even mentioned on the page by you, where you cite Haddow's thesis? And Haddow, according to his thesis, isn't in support of the simplistic "Negroid" classification when describing human variation anyway.

As for the mural, if Newberry stated the woman and child were Libyans, and another, less reliable/competent author (Maspero) claimed, strangely, that they were Kushites, neither of the sources is stating outright that they are from Kerma and one of them (Newberry) is even providing an identification that basically rules that out as a possibility. As for the Boston Museum of Fine Arts piece, I never said he was a Kerma "citizen" or denizen. I said he was a Nubian from the Kerma era, which, apparently you agree with me and the Boston MFA that he is. Even the Boston Museum of Fine Arts piece that I provided a link to, if it does indeed represent a local foreign enemy of Kerma, only supports the idea of there being different groups/polities in the Nubian region, as I stated earlier. If you accept that it is a depiction of an enemy Nubian and not a Kerma Nubian, then that is yet another reason why it was not appropriate for you to simply assume that anyone that Maspero (wrongly) labeled a "Kushite" (from reading the text preceding and following the image of the mural in Maspero's book it is clear that he is using the term Kushite very liberally) was someone from Kerma. Considering that Maspero knew nothing of Kerma he could not have been using the term to refer specifically to someone from Kerma (Kush's probable ancestral kingdom), but was clearly just using it generally to describe anyone from that general region south of Egypt, not unlike the way the term Nubian is often used. As I said earlier, there is simply no justification for using the picture on the page, and the sources you've referenced do not support the claims you were making on the page.

Also, please do try and refrain from engaging in "original research" once again. The Boston MFA claims that all of those statues you provided links to at the end of your last response are "Egyptian". For example, the first statue:

"Head of a man

Egyptian Middle Kingdom, Dynasty 12 1784–1668 B.C.

Findspot: Nubia (Sudan), Kerma, between K III and K IV on the surface"

The others are also described as being Egyptian statues

I don't know how correct that really is (like you, I am open to the possibility that these statues could be of local Kerma origin, and therefore possibly depict local Kerma denizens), but if you can accept their identification of the faience head as a non-Kerma Nubian enemy, then you can certainly accept their identification of the statues as Egyptian, not Kerman. Without more context or hard evidence, we can't simply assume that these "Egyptian" statues (they are Egyptian according to the MFA, anyway) are depictions of non-Egyptian, Kerman denizens. They could be loot, captured from Egypt during invasions/raids, after all. And this would not be the first time that researchers have ascribed an Egyptian origin to an object found in Nubia - that has been done on multiple occasions before actually. PersonablePerson (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, from what I can tell, figure 4.18 on p. 206 has KER (Kerma Classique Nubian) closer to CHA (Chad, which has been classed as "North African", which is unusual) than to KEL (the Kellis assemblage), but also, KER is equidistant between KEL and NC (Nigeria-Cameroon), and equidistant between KEL and GHA (Ghana). Furthermore, KAW (Kerma Ancien Moyen) is closer to ETH (Ethiopia) than it is to most other North African groups except certain Nubian ones (and one Egyptian group), and Ethiopia is (correctly) classified as Sub-Saharan African in figure 4.18. KAW is also closer to KEN (Kenya) and GAB (Gabon) than it is to many North African groups on the figure as well. How is this data really contradicting the statement in Haddow's thesis that "Nubian groups are commonly described as having a mix of Western Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African craniofacial and dental characteristics (Billy and Chamla 1981; Gill 1998; Irish 1993; Nielson 1970)"? If anything the position of the KER and KAW groups on figure 4.18 just reinforces this idea, so I don't know why you would cite this thesis to make the claims you were making. This wikipedia article isn't about where the Kellis assemblage stands in relation to other groups, after all. The only relevant thing would be where the Kerma data stands in relation to other groups, and as far as I can tell the figure shows that Kerma is close to Nubian and some Egyptian groups and mostly equidistant between certain Sub-Saharan groups and certain North African groups.PersonablePerson (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

PersonablePerson, please try and keep your reply brief and succinct per WP:TALK; I'll endeavour to do the same. That being said, Haddow does indicate that Nubian groups are commonly described in other studies as having a mix of Western Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African craniofacial and dental characteristics. However, he doesn't specify which Nubian populations those are nor is that the conclusion of his own actual analysis as pertains to the ancient Kerma population. He indicates that a visual assessment of cranial morphology can only provide a crude approximation of population affinity. Haddow does generally eschew typological nomenclature, but on page 224 he makes an exception and uses "Negroid" and "Sub-Saharan" analogously ("Despite claims by Dzierżykray-Rogalski (1980:72) that the southern oases of Egypt were inhabited by "Negroid" populations, the multivariate analyses of comparative trait frequencies have shown that there is no phenotypic similarity between Kellis and the Sub-Saharan comparative groups used in the present study."). He likewise indicates that the multidimensional scaling "is a trial-and-error process" (page 114), so the dimensional placement in his Figure 4.18 should be taken as such. Also, just so that it's clear, I wrote above that the Haddow, Joel Irish, Efthymia and similar morphological analyses usually group the ancient Kerma population closely with neighboring predynastic/dynastic Egyptians. I did not suggest that Irish made a comparison of Kerma skeletons with recent Sub-Saharan African skeletons (though certain other analyses besides Haddow do that ). Anyway, per WP:TALK, discussion on article talkspace should focus on the actual page content. Since as a compromise I already replaced the Haddow analysis with that of Joel Irish, this leaves the mural. With regard to that painting, Maspero may indeed have been using the appellation Kushite liberally, so the Boston Museum Kerma figures would seem more appropriate. The Boston Museum appears to subscribe to the belief that the Kerma civilization was established by ancient Egyptian colonists during the Old Kingdom. This is presumably why it presents the granodiorite and serpentine statues without a "foreigner" qualifier yet it describes the faience figure as being among a group of bound "foreigners", although the latter statue apparently depicts a native of other parts of Nubia. Soupforone (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It is hard to be brief when you make so many claims, all of which need to be addressed in detail. I don't know how I'm expected to simply be brief when you're essentially turning the talk page of a wikipedia article about an ancient culture into a bio-anthropology forum type of discussion because of the material you introduced to the page that we are now discussing.

You stated: "However, he doesn't specify which Nubian populations those are nor is that the conclusion of his own actual analysis as pertains to the ancient Kerma population."

I stated already that he is analyzing Kellis, and where those remains stand in relation to other groups, not Kerma. There is nothing in his own results that contradicts the statement he makes about how Nubian populations are characterized by other researchers.

You stated: "Haddow does generally eschew typological nomenclature, but on page 224 he makes an exception and uses "Negroid" and "Sub-Saharan" analogously"

Yes, I saw that statement, but there he is simply commenting on the claim of Dzierżykray-Rogalski, not necessarily endorsing the idea that they are equivalent terms or asserting his own acceptance of the Negroid typology. He is implying that "the Sub-Saharan comparative groups used in the present study" that he refers to would fall into Dzierżykray-Rogalski's "Negroid" category, not asserting that he holds such a classification system to be completely valid. He makes clear what his own position actually is earlier in the thesis, as I already stated.

"He likewise indicates that the multidimensional scaling "is a trial-and-error process" (page 114), so the dimensional placement in his Figure 4.18 should be taken as such."

I saw that, and that's perfectly fine/understandable, though it doesn't change my view on the results much. And it is ironic that this thesis would be cited to make a claim about the dental morphology of different groups, only for the person that cited it to later use a line of caution from the author about a specific result from the same source that doesn't perfectly fit with what was claimed.

"Also, just so that it's clear, I wrote above that the Haddow, Joel Irish, Efthymia and similar morphological analyses usually group the ancient Kerma population closely with neighboring predynastic/dynastic Egyptians."

Yes, but the mystery is why you brought up the issue of sub-Saharan Africans in your original statement on the page anyway. If none of your sources are about direct comparisons of Kerma skeletons with skeletons from recent sub-Saharan populations (who are themselves, not truly homogeneous anyway), then what was the point? I just don't see what your angle is here, unless there is some weird agenda to make sources say what they don't actually say. I simply pointed out that nothing in Haddow's thesis contradicts his statement about how Nubians' craniofacial or dental affinities have been characterized by other researchers, and his own data on Kerma does not either. In response, you stated "PersonablePerson, that description on Nubian groups isn't on Kerma specifically" and then proceeded to quote from the thesis about how the Kerma skeletons clustered with Nubian and Egyptian groups, as if that in any way contradicts what I said (it does not).

"I did not suggest that Irish made a comparison of Kerma skeletons with recent Sub-Saharan African skeletons (though certain other analyses besides Haddow do that [11])."

True, but I don't see why Haddow was brought up on the issue of where Kerma stands in relation to recent sub-Saharan African skeletons in the way that it was, when his own analysis is about Kellis and when his own data on Kerma from figure 4.18 just shows them as basically between some Sub-Saharan African groups and some other North African groups, while mostly clustering with specific Nubian and Egyptian groups. As for that link, I don't see much real difference between those results and Haddow's results.

"Anyway, per WP:TALK, discussion on article talkspace should focus on the actual page content. Since as a compromise I already replaced the Haddow analysis with that of Joel Irish, this leaves the mural."

This entire discussion is about content and how you have been introducing certain material into the page, the meaning or relevance of which you don't seem to really understand. I have no real issue with the Efthymia study or the paragraph about it that you have written on the page by the way.

"With regard to that painting, Maspero may indeed have been using the appellation Kushite liberally, so the Boston Museum Kerma figures would seem more appropriate."

Maspero's identification is just sloppy guesswork. There's nothing to suggest the woman and child are even "Kushites", and certainly nothing to indicate that they are specifically from Kerma.

"The Boston Museum appears to subscribe to the belief that the Kerma civilization was established by ancient Egyptian colonists during the Old Kingdom [12]. This is presumably why it presents the granodiorite and serpentine statues without a "foreigner" qualifier yet it describes the faience figure as being among a group of bound "foreigners", although the latter statue apparently depicts a native of other parts of Nubia."

Well of course they are entitled to their belief about Kerma, although what that idea is actually based on is not clear to me. Certainly, that is not the view of the latest research from other academic sources on Kerma. But anyway, they identify them as Egyptian works, they do not claim anywhere that they believe these works are "Egyptian" only in the sense that they were made by Kermans of Egyptian ancestry/origin or depict Kermans of Egyptian ancestry/origin. They state outright that they are Egyptian works of art. Consequently, one cannot simply presume that the museum is implying that they are depictions of local Kerma inhabitants. And as I said before, there is an argument that some Egyptian statues were buried as war trophies by Kermans after successful invasions of parts of Egypt. A quote from one source that mentions this:

"Kush was at its zenith during this period, the so-called Classic Kerma Period. The power and prosperity it enjoyed then are still manifest today in the impressive remains of its fortified capital at Kerma - the earliest and largest city in Africa outside Egypt - and the associated cemetery containing over twenty thousand burials, including gigantic royal tumulus-tombs. Here the kings of Kush were buried, accompanied by hundreds of sacrificed retainers, and with substantial quantities of luxury goods including high-prestige Egyptian objects. Even before its occupation of Watwat, the kingdom had encompassed a huge territory. Recent archaeological work has uncovered hundreds of so-called Kerma culture sites in an area stretching southward through the Dongola Reach along the Nile valley and adjacent deserts to the Fourth Cataract and well beyond. The extent of the kingdom's influence is evident from the military coalition it was able to direct against Upper Egypt, as reported in an Egyptian inscription recently discovered in the tomb of the governor Sebeknakht at El-Kab that probably dates from the first half of the Seventeenth Dynasty. The force is described as of unparalleled size and consisting of troops drawn not only from the tribes of Watwat and riverine Upper Nubia but also from the Medja bedouin of the desert and even the exotic land of Punt (one day to be visited by a famous expedition sent by Queen Hatshepsut), all perhaps seizing their chance against a vulnerable Egypt. The primary purpose of the attack appears to have been pillage, on a large scale. In the inscription the Kushite forces are referred to as "looters," who, it is reported, were eventually driven away through a counterattack led by the Egyptian king. The results of such pillage are surely to be seen among the Egyptian material deposited in the royal tumuli and cult chapels at Kerma. The mass of fine objects (now mostly fragmentary) includes statues both royal and private, stone vessels, and stelae, many of them inscribed and a proportion clearly originating from tombs and temples in Upper Egypt. The Kushite kings may have had the statues buried with them to symbolize their own domination over Egypt (if so, this would represent a remarkable appropriation and reversal of the traditional Egyptian worldview). The great tumuli at Kerma span several generations and all, including the earliest, contain Egyptian trophies. It seems possible, therefore, that the Egyptians were subjected to periodic raids throughout the period and that the attack described in the El-Kab tomb, although perhaps unusually large, was not the only one." - Metropolitan Museum of Art, Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh (2005), pp. 49-50

If indeed such statues were plunder from successful attacks on Egypt, resulting in Egyptian statues ending up in Kerma, as some sources state, then they obviously are not depictions of local Kerma inhabitants.PersonablePerson (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

PersonablePerson, WP:TPYES instructs to "be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood. Avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions", and WP:MULTI recommends to "avoid repeating your own lengthy posts: Readers can read your prior posts, and repeating them, especially lengthy posts, is strongly discouraged." Do what comes naturally, but know that this is the actual policy. That being said, one paragraph on the bioanthropological characteristics of the ancient Kerma population cannot transform the page into a bioanthropology forum. One of Haddow's indicated main study purposes is "an inter-regional comparison between the Kellis skeletal assemblage and groups from Egypt, Nubia, North and Sub-Saharan Africa in order to place the ancient Dakhleh Oasis population within a broader regional context". So it's not just an analysis of the Kellis sample, but rather a general interregional analysis with Kellis as the focal point. This is clear from Haddow's Figure 4.17 on page 205, an analytical diagram which shows the interrelationships between all of the studied groups, including Kerma. As indicated in the o/p, my original description of the Kerma population's position within this biological matrix was based on this dendrogram. It was not based on the multidimensional scaling since I was aware of Haddow's trial-and-error caveat with regard to the latter methodology; so there is actually no contradiction. Further, when I wrote that "that description on Nubian groups isn't on Kerma specifically", I was alluding to Haddow's assertion that "Nubian groups are commonly described as having a mix of Western Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African craniofacial and dental characteristics". This he attributes to four studies by other researchers rather than to his own analysis. Haddow's own Figure 4.17 dendrogram instead clusters both the classical and earlier Kerma samples with the ancient and modern Nile Valley and Maghreb populations rather than with any of the examined populations in Sub-Saharan Africa other than the Ethiopia sample. Likewise, his Figure 4.18 shows the Kerma Classique/KER sample (c. 1750–1500 BC) placing nearest to the Early Dynastic Egyptian sample from Abydos and the Christian period Nubian sample from Semna, whereas the Kerma Ancien/Moyen/KAW sample (2500–1750 BC) is nearest to the A-Group and C-Group Nubian samples and the Ethiopian sample. This placement does not necessarily imply a mixture of West Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African craniofacial and dental characteristics. Now that this is clear, let us turn to the mural. Although it is possible that the granodiorite and serpentine statues in the Boston Museum's ancient collection may have been plundered from Egypt, this is unlikely since their respective descriptions indicate that the find-spots for these items were all overground rather than excavated from within the tombs of the Kerma rulers. The Egyptian Middle Kingdom label also doesn't necessarily imply that these were foreign objects that were imported into Kerma since there are other items in the museum's ancient collection, which were excavated in Nubia and similarly labeled, that are suggested as being "the product of a local workshop" (ex. mirror with falcons, Egyptian New Kingdom ). The granodiorite and serpentine statues would therefore indeed have to be labeled as having been found in Kerma, without speculating on whether they depict local inhabitants or foreigners. Soupforone (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"PersonablePerson, WP:TPYES instructs to "be concise:. . ."

Knock it off. You're not some sort of moderator or administrator and you clearly have no comprehension whatsoever of the site's actual policies, as shown by your posting. Your reference to this policy at this point, after repeatedly violating Wikipedia policies about original research and providing sources for images used on articles is either an attempt to distract from your complete inability to abide by the site's rules or a bizarre attempt to act like some sort of administrator.

Even now, you seem oblivious to just how flagrant your violation of Wikipedia's No Original Research policy was. You should know what the site's actual policy is on making up things that aren't in the sources used, or just making up things completely. You have been conducting "original research" (of poor quality) the whole time, and as a result you've put complete misinformation out into the net (as if it needed any more of that) - information that will probably stay around for a long time, since other sites have started using the version of the Kerma culture article that had the inaccurate picture that you placed in the article as somehow representative of people from Kerma (with no evidence). And now that picture is one of the first images that comes up in Google when one searches for "Kerma culture". As I said before, I do not think this was a simple honest mistake. I think it was done intentionally, with the deliberate goal to mislead and deceive people.

I'm going through the rest of your response, line by line. Conciseness will be sacrificed here, for the purpose of addressing your claims in detail. Your comments consist of assertion after assertion, with little to no evidence to back any of it up, and needs to be commented on in detail.

1. "That being said, one paragraph on the bioanthropological characteristics of the ancient Kerma population cannot transform the page into a bioanthropology forum."

You cited a study about where the Kellis assemblage stands in comparison to other groups, which you cited to support some statement where you injected a type of racial classification ("Negroid") into your description, that is explicitly criticized by the source itself (Haddow's thesis). While your more recent citation (the Efthymia study) and paragraph about it is more reasonable, your initial post was clearly a poor and biased attempt at original research. This kind of behavior is commonly seen on those bioanthropology forums.

2. "One of Haddow's indicated main study purposes is "an inter-regional comparison between the Kellis skeletal assemblage and groups from Egypt, Nubia, North and Sub-Saharan Africa in order to place the ancient Dakhleh Oasis population within a broader regional context". So it's not just an analysis of the Kellis sample, but rather a general interregional analysis with Kellis as the focal point. This is clear from Haddow's Figure 4.17 on page 205, an analytical diagram which shows the interrelationships between all of the studied groups, including Kerma. As indicated in the o/p, my original description of the Kerma population's position within this biological matrix was based on this dendrogram. "

No, it is not a "general interregional analysis". It is a comparison of Kellis with other groups (in and outside of the region), period. The thesis is generally about Kellis, not Kerma or other groups. It was not really about Kerma vs. "Negroid" populations in Sub-Saharan Africa, but about how the dental morphology of the remains at Kellis is distinct from recent Sub-Saharan African groups and clusters more with North African groups.

3. "It was not based on the multidimensional scaling since I was aware of Haddow's trial-and-error caveat with regard to the latter methodology; so there is actually no contradiction."

Your comment about a "trial and error caveat", with regard to the multidimensional scaling, is unclear. What are you saying?

The "trial and error" comment on p. 114 of Haddow's thesis is not a caveat. It is simply a description of the method used, which is why, as I said earlier, it doesn't change my view on the results. "Trial and error process" in the context of talking about an algorithm used to find the optimal configuration for the data points does not even mean that the end result (the visualization) necessarily has significant error (and Haddow uses Kruskal's formula, which minimizes stress) and certainly does not change the significance of where the points for the different groups are placed in relation to one another. If Haddow thought that the multidimensional scaling he was using was less credible or was problematic it would make no sense for him to use it in his thesis to support his argument about the Kellis remains clustering with North African groups and not with Sub-Saharan African groups.

This is what Haddow actually states:

"In the present study, the simliarity coefficient used is the MMD value generated for paired comparative groups. Thus, those groups that have smaller MMD values (i.e. are more similar to one another) will be plotted closer together, while those that have larger MMD values (i.e. are less simliar) will be placed further apart from one another. The spatial arrangement of groups is a trial-and-error process in which the scaling algorithm attempts to produce an initial configuration of points and then continuously adjusts them until no further improvements can be made. As the name implies, multidimensional scaling can visualize data in any number of dimensions, although interpreting the results becomes difficult beyond three dimensions. Two- and three-dimensional plots are the most common in analyses of biological distance. . .For the present study, multimensional scaling is restricted to two- and three-dimensional plots as they are the easiest to interpret." (pp. 113-115)

The ellipses I put above are where he talks about Kruskal's formula, r quared values, etc.

The multidimensional scaling visualization is valid and there is nothing especially problematic about it or about interpreting it (when not going beyond three dimensions). As I said earlier, the results for KER and KAW are shown clearly in figure 4.18. They stand as I stated earlier: KER is closer to CHA (Chad, Sub-Saharan African - Haddow does classify it correctly as Sub-Saharan African, I just got the color wrong the first time I looked at it) than it is to several North African groups used in the study, and basically equidistant between CHA and some other North African groups such as the Kellis group. KAW is also closer to some Sub-Saharan African groups than it is to multiple North African groups, but in the end, KER and KAW cluster mostly with Nubian and early Egyptian groups.

But before I proceed any further, do you actually understand what trial-and-error process, in the context it is used here (talking about an algorithm used to find the best configuration for the data), actually means?

4. "Further, when I wrote that "that description on Nubian groups isn't on Kerma specifically", I was alluding to Haddow's assertion that "Nubian groups are commonly described as having a mix of Western Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African craniofacial and dental characteristics". This he attributes to four studies by other researchers rather than to his own analysis. Haddow's own Figure 4.17 dendrogram instead clusters both the classical and earlier Kerma samples with the ancient and modern Nile Valley and Maghreb populations rather than with any of the examined populations in Sub-Saharan Africa other than the Ethiopia sample [13]. "

There is no contradiction, at all, between Haddow's statement about how Nubian groups are commonly characterized according to other research, and where the Kerma groups are placed in his results. Your belief that his own analysis contradicts the statement that he quotes is nonsense, and you appear not to comprehend that stating that Nubian groups are characterized as having such a mix (West Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African) of craniofacial or dental characteristics does not mean that certain Nubian groups cannot cluster more closely with other Nubian or with Egyptian groups than with Sub-Saharan African groups. It is as if you are almost allergic to reading and understanding the statement in your own source as meaning what it actually states, and instead you are reading all sorts of strange meanings that aren't there into the source.

5. "Likewise, his Figure 4.18 shows the Kerma Classique/KER sample (c. 1750–1500 BC) placing nearest to the Early Dynastic Egyptian sample from Abydos and the Christian period Nubian sample from Semna, whereas the Kerma Ancien/Moyen/KAW sample (2500–1750 BC) is nearest to the A-Group and C-Group Nubian samples and the Ethiopian sample. This placement does not necessarily imply a mixture of West Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African craniofacial and dental characteristics."

Sure, it does not necessarily imply such a mixture - I said that "if anything" it reinforces the idea of such a mixture, I did not assert that I was certain that such a placement would necessarily be due to such a mixture. Rather I emphasized that it does not contradict the statement about such a mix. As I said above, you seem not to comprehend that the placement of the KAW and KER groups in figure 4.18 does not in any way contradict the statement about how Nubian groups have been characterized in other research. It does not somehow follow that because they (generally) do not cluster with most Sub-Saharan African groups that they do not display such a mixture of craniofacial and dental characteristics. Obviously if they just completely clustered with recent Sub-Saharan African groups it wouldn't make much sense to say they display a mix of West Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African characteristics.

6. "Now that this is clear, let us turn to the mural. Although it is possible that the granodiorite and serpentine statues in the Boston Museum's ancient collection may have been plundered from Egypt, this is unlikely since their respective descriptions indicate that the find-spots for these items were all overground rather than excavated from within the tombs of the Kerma rulers."

You should really attempt to cite some sources at some point on this statue issue. There were Egyptian statues found in Kerma, such as this one from a tomb in Kerma, also identified as clearly being of Egyptian origin by the museum:

http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/statue-of-lady-sennuwy-141967

And which other sources also identify as clearly Egyptian:

"Hapdjefa and Sennuy at Kerma: Hapdjefa was the local governor of Asyut in the early 12th Dynasty, Sennuy his wife. Fragments of a statue of him, and the almost complete statue of Sennuy, were discovered in northern Sudan, at the site of Kerma, centre of a rich and distinctive indigenous culture at its height during the Second Intermediate Period in Egypt. The statues were in a huge tumulus tomb which was probably a royal tomb. Either the statues were plunder from a raid into Egypt or they had been sent as prestige gifts from one of Egypt's own rulers. Both are now in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston." - Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: All That Matters (2015)

But simply because some of these Egyptian statues were not found in tombs, it does not follow that they weren't also from plunder (or possibly gifts, as Kemp suggests) originating from Egypt:

"Egyptian statues of Egyptian officials found mostly in the royal burials were likely booty taken during Kushite raids into Egypt (Hintze 1964: 83)" -  Geoff Emberling, "Pastoral states: toward a comparative archaeology of early Kush"

Note the "mostly" there. Just because a few were not in the royal burials does not mean they were not also plunder. I value the opinion of a scholar like Emberling on the matter over your casual speculation about what is likely or unlikely, given your track record so far.

7. "The Egyptian Middle Kingdom label also doesn't necessarily imply that these were foreign objects that were imported into Kerma since there are other items in the museum's ancient collection, which were excavated in Nubia and similarly labeled, that are suggested as being "the product of a local workshop" (ex. mirror with falcons, Egyptian New Kingdom [14]). "

Whatever they mean by this (perhaps they mean that such objects are of foreign origin, but that the Kermans added their own, culturally distinctive touch to those items - the handle decoration, in the case of that mirror - or they mean that the objects were probably made in a local workshop, but with a mostly Egyptian style/convention) it doesn't change anything. It does not affect what the consensus by scholars is about the granodiorite and serpentine statues found at Kerma as being Egyptian in origin.

As already stated, even if it makes sense to remain open to the possibility that they are not Egyptian, we really have no reason to conclude that any of those statues are not simply Egyptian, as most scholarly sources suggest they are.

"The results of such pillage are surely to be seen among the Egyptian material deposited in the royal tumuli and cult chapels at Kerma. The mass of fine objects (now mostly fragmentary) includes statues both royal and private, stone vessels, and stelae, many of them inscribed and a proportion clearly originating from tombs and temples in Upper Egypt. "- Metropolitan Museum of Art, Hatshepsut: From Queen to Pharaoh (2005)

If you don't have multiple scholarly sources stating that the statues are not Egyptian (as most sources suggest they are), then you don't have much at all to go on. Just speculation. It is not only the Boston Museum of Fine Arts that thinks the statues are Egyptian. It is most academic sources that hold this view, which you should have already known before bringing them up.

8. "The granodiorite and serpentine statues would therefore indeed have to be labeled as having been found in Kerma, without speculating on whether they depict local inhabitants or foreigners."

No, this is contrary to the view what most scholars (Egytologists, archaeologists, whoever) hold about those statues. Most do hold that they depict foreigners. It's not that it is impossible for them to be depictions of locals, rather than foreigners, it is just that this view is against the consensus view of most scholars on the topic. No real reason to value your speculations over that of actual scholars.

By the way, if you really are interested in getting an image in your mind of what a local inhabitant of Kerma might have looked like, here's something that might help you out a bit, and give you a clue:

http://i.imgur.com/ZeRIkgj.jpg

From an academic source:

"In general, the skeletons are well preserved, if not excellently so, It is the plundering that occurred in ancient times which caused the most damage. In many cases, remains of skin, flesh and hair were still preserved (fig. 14)."

http://www.kerma.ch/documents/Publications_PDF/docu_kerma/Rapport_2009_Internet.pdfPersonablePerson (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll link to whatever policy I deem appropriate. Anyway: (1) Already explained above. (2) Haddow's study is an interregional analysis with Kellis as its focal point, as quoted. This is how you are able to claim that the Kerma sample is morphologically close to the Chad sample without directly alluding to Kellis. (3) Haddow indeed indicates that "typically, a higher number of dimensions used in a plot will produce a better representation of the data, but interpreting the output becomes increasingly difficult beyond three dimensions. For the present study, multidimensional scaling is restricted to two- and three-dimensional plots as they are the easiest to interpret." Ergo, he favored ease of interpretation of the multidimensional scaling over better data representation. Also, I'm not sure what diagram you're looking at, but in Haddow's actual Figure 4.18, the Kerma Classique/KER sample (c. 1750–1500 BC) is closest to the Early Dynastic Egyptian sample from Abydos and the Christian period Nubian sample from Semna, whereas the Kerma Ancien/Moyen/KAW sample (2500–1750 BC) is closest to the A-Group and C-Group Nubian samples and the Ethiopian sample. Neither is nearest to the Chad sample. (4 & 5) Haddow indicates that some other researchers postulate that Nubian groups have a mix of Western Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African craniofacial and dental characteristics. This assertion is not based on his own analysis or his Kerma series. In fact, in another dental study Haddow co-authored, he rules out biological affinities between Kerma/other ancient upper Nile Valley populations and synchronic northern Mesopotamian populations. (6, 7 & 8) The find-spots of the Kerma statues are indicated in the Boston Museum links I already provided. The only speculation here is that these particular Kerma male statues (not that of Lady Sennuwy, a known wife of the ancient Egyptian official Djefaihapi) were plundered or sent as gifts from Egypt. Neither the Boston Museum nor the Metropolitan Museum nor any of the scholars above suggest this. (9) Thanks for the tip, but I'm not sure that the attached hair was actually common at the site. The Boston Museum indicates that hair in its collection from that same K-308 tomb consist of "two fragments of small braids of straight, dark brown hair". Soupforone (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"I'll link to whatever policy I deem appropriate."

Of course you will, but you're clearly completely incapable of following the actual website policies, so seeing you link to wikipedia policies when you could not follow policy is incredible.

"Anyway: (1) Already explained above."

Don't even care at this point. Moving on.

"(2) Haddow's study is an interregional analysis with Kellis as its focal point, as quoted. This is how you are able to claim that the Kerma sample is morphologically close to the Chad sample without directly alluding to Kellis."

What are you talking about? I did not say the Kerma sample is morphologically close to the Chad sample. I said that KER is closer to CHA than it is to some other North African samples, which can be seen on figure 4.18, although KER, like KAW, is still closest to other Nubian samples and Egyptian samples.

"3) Haddow indeed indicates that "typically, a higher number of dimensions used in a plot will produce a better representation of the data, but interpreting the output becomes increasingly difficult beyond three dimensions. For the present study, multidimensional scaling is restricted to two- and three-dimensional plots as they are the easiest to interpret." Ergo, he favored ease of interpretation of the multidimensional scaling over better data representation."

You're obviously highly confused. He states clearly that if he had gone beyond three dimensions (he does not) there would be difficulty of interpretation. Do you even understand what multidimensional scaling is, or why it is commonly used? The data is represented just fine.

"Also, I'm not sure what diagram you're looking at, but in Haddow's actual Figure 4.18, the Kerma Classique/KER sample (c. 1750–1500 BC) is closest to the Early Dynastic Egyptian sample from Abydos and the Christian period Nubian sample from Semna, whereas the Kerma Ancien/Moyen/KAW sample (2500–1750 BC) is closest to the A-Group and C-Group Nubian samples and the Ethiopian sample [15]. Neither is nearest to the Chad sample."

At no point did I state that either KER or KAW was closest to the Chad sample. Either you're having issues with basic reading comprehension here, or you're being deliberately dishonest and creating straw-men.

"(4 & 5) Haddow indicates that some other researchers postulate that Nubian groups have a mix of Western Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African craniofacial and dental characteristics. This assertion is not based on his own analysis or his Kerma series. In fact, in another dental study Haddow co-authored, he rules out biological affinities between Kerma/other ancient upper Nile Valley populations and synchronic northern Mesopotamian populations [16]. (6, 7 & 8)"

Except that in that study he only rules out the notion that those northern Mesopotamians and the Kerma/Upper Nile groups are close in terms of dental morphology. But the same holds true with regard to Sub-Saharan Africans as well, so I don't see the relevance to the point I made.

"(6, 7 & 8) The find-spots of the Kerma statues are indicated in the Boston Museum links I already provided [17] [18] [19]. The only speculation here is that these particular Kerma male statues (not that of Lady Sennuwy, a known wife of the ancient Egyptian official Djefaihapi) were plundered or sent as gifts from Egypt. Neither the Boston Museum nor the Metropolitan Museum nor any of the scholars above suggest this."

I saw the find spots. Do you even realize that two of your three links here clearly show that two of the remains/fragments of statues were found between or on top of graves/tombs? The fact that you were speculating that they weren't plunder because they were found right next to tombs, on the surface, instead of directly underground is hilarious. You have no argument here. They weren't especially distant from the other statues that were found underground, these have just been placed above ground, and for all we know they were always placed above ground (deliberately). They are clearly still associated with those burials, because of their placement. Your belief that they aren't, and that they are unlikely to be of the same origin as the ones found beneath the ground is what is speculation, and your speculation obviously doesn't have much weight.

As for the statue found in the Deffufa, multiple sources state that Egyptian goods, including sculpture, were found in the Deffufas. One source which states this explicitly: "When excavated their interiors yielded fragments of Egyptian stone stelae, sculpture, and vessels, but these articles provide no clues about the function(s) that these massive structures served." - Robert Steven Bianchi, Daily Life of the Nubians, p.88

And the scholar I quoted (Emberling) was clear that not only Egyptian statues found in the tombs, but other Egyptian statues found at Kerma were likely plunder. Some other scholars, such as Edwards or Bourriau, hold that they were most likely acquired through trade rather than plunder, but they still hold that they are of Egyptian origin. You have yet to provide scholarly sources with a different view.

"(9) Thanks for the tip, but I'm not sure that the attached hair was actually common at the site. The Boston Museum indicates that hair in its collection from that same K-308 tomb consist of "two fragments of small braids of straight, dark brown hair" [20]."

You're welcome. And there's nothing to indicate that this kind of hair that you just provided a link to was common at the site either, though if it was, it wouldn't tell us much, as some Nubians certainly did wear wigs, including wigs with different texture and colour than their natural hair, or modified their natural hair, and that might have started as far back as the Kerma period, (of course, some Nubians obviously had naturally lighter coloured hair and naturally straighter hair than others). Anyhow, the picture I gave, with the hair found still on the head and not a wig, and the source it is from, should help you out quite a bit, since it is clear that you don't seem to know much about Kerma (or Nubia in general) at this point.PersonablePerson (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(2) Okay. (3) I'm aware that Haddow analysed two and three dimensions. He indicates that utilizing over three dimensions would be both a better representation of the data yet more difficult to interpret. (4 & 5) The point is, the Kerma population's dentition can't consist of a mix of Western Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African dental traits if it has no significant dentition ties with either in the first place. Haddow's Kellis-centered analysis is also based on dental morphology. (6, 7 & 8) I don't need to speculate as to whether or not these particular Kerma statues were plundered from Egypt. The Boston Museum doesn't indicate this nor does the Metropolitan Museum or any of the scholars above. (9) According to George Andrew Reisner, who first excavated Kerma tombs, "in the few cases in which the hair was preserved, this was straight or only slightly kinky". That attached hair is therefore indeed not particularly common. The Boston Museum also does not indicate that the braids of straight, dark brown hair belonged to a wig. Soupforone (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

"I'm aware that Haddow analysed two and three dimensions. He indicates that utilizing over three dimensions would be both a better representation of the data yet more difficult to interpret."

The representation of the data is obviously sufficient for Haddow to use it to support his argument about Kellis not clustering with Sub-Saharan Africans. I can't see why it wouldn't also be sufficient to support an argument that the KER and KAW groups are just as distant from some North African groups as they are from some Sub-Saharan African groups. Any shift in the position of the data points would necessarily affect all the points in the same way, anyway, so their position relative to one another would be essentially the same. And really, two or three-dimensional MDS visualizations are fairly common/standard. If they were actually as problematic as you have been insinuating I wouldn't see them so often in academic works.

"The point is, the Kerma population's dentition can't consist of a mix of Western Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African dental traits if it has no significant dentition ties with either in the first place. Haddow's Kellis-centered analysis is also based on dental morphology."

Does it follow that a person with a mix of West Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African dental traits would closely match either of those two groups when their dental traits are analyzed? I wasn't aware that anyone has claimed Nubian dental traits should match Mesopotamian or Sub-Saharan African dental traits based on the research that Haddow cited, but if you have a source which makes this claim, please provide it.

"I don't need to speculate as to whether or not these particular Kerma statues were plundered from Egypt. The Boston Museum doesn't indicate this nor does the Metropolitan Museum or any of the scholars above. "

The Boston Museum doesn't indicate that those particular statues are of local origin at all. It clearly marks them as Egyptian. Your belief that even though they designate them as Egyptian, they might still mean that they are depictions of locals is complete speculation, and no scholar anywhere, nor any part of the museum website, indicates that they are depictions of locals. Not that it is impossible for them to be local works depicting local inhabitants, but there is no source that you have provided which supports this idea. And as I already said before, other scholars have already stated that Egyptian statues (of Egyptian origin) were found besides just those directly in the tombs.

"According to George Andrew Reisner, who first excavated Kerma tombs, "in the few cases in which the hair was preserved, this was straight or only slightly kinky" [21]. That attached hair is therefore indeed not particularly common. The Boston Museum also does not indicate that the braids of straight, dark brown hair belonged to a wig."

First, I am already aware of Reisner's comments on the hair that he found in the tombs of Kerma that he excavated, but there is obviously much more to Kerma than just what Reisner first excavated. And he only excavated a fraction of the graves in the royal cemetery, plus some new Kerma graves are being discovered to this day.

Second, the quote says that all that Reisner could find was a few cases where hair was preserved. I don't know how you could assume what was "particularly common" among a group from only a few cases of hair remains from only a fraction of the remains of individuals from the area and time period.

Third, straight hair on a mummy doesn't say anything about what the hair was like in real life before such hair might have been deliberately modified by the individual it belonged to. If one examined the hair in well preserved remains from decades ago of some "black" person from more recent times in a Western country who straightened their hair throughout their life and died wearing straightened hair, one could also reach the conclusion that that person had straight hair, but that wouldn't tell us anything about what their natural hair was like when they were alive. We have pretty clear evidence (written descriptions, for example) of some people in other parts of Africa besides Nubia straightening their curly hair centuries ago, but we know that those people weren't naturally straight haired.

For an even older example, one can look at this sculpture, from approximately one thousand years ago from west Africa:

http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/ao/web-large/1.38R2_98B.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Qhr45qB.jpg

http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/ao/web-large/1.39.BR2_98B.jpg http://i.imgur.com/plyyWkg.jpg

http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/ao/web-large/1.39.AR1_98B.jpg http://i.imgur.com/KZSKJCA.jpg

The person depicted in the statue is a West African (from Sub-Saharan Africa), who was obviously a person of considerable importance in his society to be memorialized as he was in such art. But anyone can put two and two together and figure out that the person depicted in the statue obviously did something to his hair to make it somewhat straighter. If his grave were found, and if one were to analyze his hair remains after his death one would only see wavy hair, rather than very curly hair, even though that isn't the natural hair type for the society/people that he comes from.

And sure, the Boston Museum doesn't say whether it did or did not belong to a wig, but perhaps they simply don't know. It's just pieces of hair. No way to know without a body to link it to.PersonablePerson (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(1 & 2) It is actually Haddow's notion that multidimensional scaling utilizing over three dimensions produces better data representation yet is also more difficult to interpret. Anyway, he argues that the Nubian groups generally share a North African Dental Trait Complex distinct from the dentition found in Chad (page 223). (3) The provenance of the granodiorite and serpentine statues appears to be ambiguous. The Boston Museum indicates Kerma find-spots for them, yet writes that they are of Egyptian manufacture. However, it does not specify whether this means that the statues were manufactured by Egyptian denizens in Kerma or plundered from Egypt. It is possible that these particular statues were plunder or are instead of local manufacture (like some of the later Napatan statuary, which they closely resemble ), but we don't know either for certain. Therefore, the most that can be asserted is that these are statues which were found in Kerma but are apparently of Egyptian manufacture. (4) Valid points on the cemeteries and effects of straightening. What I meant is that fine hair texture was most common among the Kerma remains that Reisner analysed. Krause (1986) analysed samples from the Ancient Kerma period, and found that the examined specimens generally had curly (non-coiled) hair of a dark brown or black tone, with some specimens also apparently possessing wavy or straight hair and lighter coloration. Soupforone (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources and language affinity of Kerma.
Recently you made some edits in which you stated that the sources (Rilly and Cooper) support a Cushitic affinity for the Kerma language. This, however, is not the case (explained below). I reverted these edits and attempted to explain why in the notes. I will also attempt to explain why here in somewhat greater detail. Although Cooper suggests that Cushitic languages were spoken in Northern (Lower) Nubia (in places such as Wawat, Medjay, Punt, and Wetenet) — as my previous edit had mentioned and mentions currently —, He also suggests that in Upper (Southern) Nubia (Kerma a.k.a. Kush, Irem, and other regions south of Sai) Nilo-Saharan languages (of the Eastern Sudanic branch) were spoken — and Cooper also cites Rilly's similar hypothesis (that the language spoken at Kerma was Nilo-Saharan and ancestral to Meroitic, which he also believes was Nilo-Saharan). Cooper argues that "Upper" (i.e. southern) Nubia (which includes Kerma/"Kush") spoke Nilo-Saharan languages, and that "Lower" (i.e. Northern) Nubia spoke Afro-Asiatic (Cushitic) languages. Quotes from Cooper below: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:7d8a387b-f850-4d56-8105-f84a30bf121a/download_file?file_format=pdf&safe_filename=Cooper%252C%2BToponymic%2BStrata%2Bin%2BAncient%2BNubian%2BPlacenames%252C%2BDotawo%2B4.pdf&type_of_work=Journal+article

Middle Kingdom texts witness to the arrival of the ubiquitous toponym “Kush,” a term which came to designate the Nubian polity centred at Kerma." (page 201)

"Given the similarity between the archeological material at Kerma and Sai in Kerma moyen and Kerma classique, it is plausible that the polity of 5Aa.t, rst mentioned in the Middle Kingdom, was also dominated by speakers of a Meroitic-like language. This places most of the Nile Valley south of Sai firmly in the sphere of North-Eastern Sudanic languages, with a very uncertain southern boundary. Lower Nubia still belonged to a different linguistic group, with the boundary probably being within the Batn el-Hajar. The African corpus of the Execration Texts deal, as far as we can ascertain, with the region of the Middle Nile and the Eastern and Western Deserts of Egypt and Sudan. The majority of the place names in this corpus are given to represent centers along the river, although a good deal of place names designates polities in the Eastern Desert such as AwSq and WbAt-spt. The personal and place names in the corpus have been subjected to a linguistic study by Rilly, who has shown the roughly similar phonetic inventories of Sai (5Aa.t) and Kush (KS).16 The toponyms and personal names according to Kush and Sai lack any of the extensive pharyngeal consonants so common in Afroasiatic languages, and it is therefore likely that we are dealing with North-Eastern Sudanic languages, quite likely a pre-Meroitic tongue, although any number of North-Eastern Sudanic languages is possible." (page 202)

"Like the earlier Execration Texts, the Kush-list of place names in the New Kingdom lists presented a somewhat homogenous unit of place names with typical North-Eastern Sudanic phonemic repertoire (e.g., many stop consonants, lack of pharyngeals). The Irem-list also provides a similar inventory to Kush, placing this firmly in an Eastern Sudanic zone. These Irem/Kush-lists are distinctive from the Wawat, Medjay, Punt, and Wetenet-lists, which provide sounds typical to Afroasiatic languages." (page 204)

Rilly does also propose that a Nilo-Saharan language was spoken at Kerma (ancestral to Meroitic, which he believes was also Nilo-Saharan) and one of several spoken in the general Central Sudan region (all according to him, likely belonging to the North Eastern Sudaic branch of the Nilo-Saharan family). He proposes that Nilo-Saharan languages had been spoken in the general region (including around Wadi Howar) since the neolithic period and that the language of Kerma ("Kushite") was one (of more than one) descendant(s) of early Nilo-Saharan languages (of the North Eastern Sudan branch) spoken in that region. http://www.ityopis.org/Issues-1_files/ITYOPIS-I-Rilly.pdf

"Early scholars thought it [Meroitic] appeared in the Nile Valley at the time of the first rulers of Napata, around 850 BCE. However, I have presented elsewhere (Rilly 2007) evidence that traces of Proto-Meroitic personal names could be found in Egyptian texts dated to the end of the Kingdom of Kerma." (pages 18 of link above)

"The original splitting into three main branches (Eastern, Taman, Nyima) might have occurred at the beginning of the third millenium BCE. The Eastern branch was probably settled in the eastern parts of the riverbed that were still hospitable at this time, namely the Middle Wadi Howar. As aridity increased, this branch splitted into three groups: Kushites, Proto-Nara and Proto- Nubians. Kushites (the ancestors of Meroites) headed to the Nile banks where they took part in the founding of the Kingdom of Kerma (2500 – 1500 BCE)." (page 19 of above)

"What can be deduced from the history of Proto-NES [North Eastern Sudanic] fits perfectly with these archaeological and palaeoclimatic data. The crystallisation of the proto-language possibly occurred when cattle-tenders settled together along the Wadi Howar around 4000 BCE" (page 19 of above)

Rilly (in the below source) also argues against/reviews the hypotheses (of Behrens and Bechhaus-Gerst) that certain words in the modern Nobiin language are evidence of Afro-Asiatic substrata and that earlier Afro-Asiatic languages were spoken at Kerma (pages 219-222 of below link), criticising/reviewing the Cushitic substratum hypothesis of Bechhaus-Gerst on pages 220-221 (below). https://www.academia.edu/36487671/Claude_Rilly_ENEMY_BROTHERS._KINSHIP_AND_RELATIONSHIP_BETWEEN_MEROITES_AND_NUBIANS_NOBA Skllagyook (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, for further clarification, the C-group culture, was also to north of Kerma (in Lower Nubia, not Upper Nubia where Kerma was located). Cooper also suggests that the C-group culture (but not the Kerma culture) may have been Cushitic-speaking.

Neither Rilly nor Cooper say anything about the People of Kerma speaking Cushitic/Afro-Asiatic languages before the arrival of Nilo-Saharan-speakers (and Rilly explicitly argues against that hypothesis in the last source above). Again, Cooper does argue that the peoples of Lower Nubia (the region of Nubia north of Kerma) spoke Afro-Asiatic languages before the arrival of Nilo-Saharan speakers, but he does not argue this regarding the Kerma region/Kerma peoples. Skllagyook (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion The toponymic data in Egyptian texts has broadly identified at least three linguistic blocs in the Middle Nile region of the second and first millennium BCE, each of which probably exhibited a great degree of internal variation. In Lower Nubia there was an Afroasiatic language, likely a branch of Cushitic. By the end of the first millennium CE this region had been encroached upon and replaced by Eastern Sudanic speakers arriving — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yacoob316 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read my responses. The above conclusion does not conflict with what I have said. There was more than one linguistic bloc in Nubia, according to Cooper: One was Nilo-Saharan (Upper Nubia, including Kerma) and others were Cushitic (Lower Nubia to the North ending at Southern Egypt, and Punt to the East in/near the Horn of Africa). And, according to Cooper, the Nilo-Saharan bloc/area later expanded northward to include parts of Lower Nubia as well (with Nilo-Saharan having already been spoken in Upper Nubia along the Nile, including Kerma, previously) - also see the map (with ethnic and language areas) on page 198 of the Cooper source. So yes, according to the source, Afro-Asiatic languages were spoken in Lower Nubia (exactly as you wrote), but the Kerma culture was not based in Lower Nubia (thus this is not really relevant to the linguistic identity of the Kerma culture (which was based in/originally from Upper Nubia, please see the source and the map I linked). You keep quoting passages pertaining to Lower Nubia, but that is not the region in question (i.e. the subject of this article); the region/subject in question is Kerma (which is again, not Lower Nubia) — Lower Nubia was occupied by cultures other than the Kerma culture (such as the C-Group culture possibly associated with "Wawat" and "Medjay", etc. in Egyptian texts, who may have been related to the Beja).
 * It is true that the Kerma kingdom did later/eventually extend its influence northward to Lower Nubia (until Lower Nubia was conquered by Egypt), but Lower Nubia was not the region in which the Kerma culture originated or was based, and Rilly and Cooper both argue that Nilo-Saharan languages were/had been (and continued to be) spoken in the Kerma culture's Upper/southern Nubian homeland. Cooper makes a distinction (please see the quotes and sources above) between the cultures native to Lower Nubia (such as the Medjay, C-Group, etc.) which he argues were Afro-Asiatic, and the Kerma culture which was native to and based/centered in Upper Nubia (Kush) which he argues was Nilo-Saharan.
 * Skllagyook (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * So, just to further clarify (I may not have expressed myself well/adequately initially), When Rilly and Cooper refer to "Kerma" or the "Kerma culture" (or also, in Cooper's case, to "Kush"), they are referring to it in its original geographical base (and center) in Upper Nubia (the greater region around the ancient city of Kerma), rather than to the maximal extent of the Kerma kingdom when it later came to dominate parts of the north/Lower Nubia as well, and thus they distinguish it "Kerma" (as an Upper Nubian culture) from the cultures that existed/had existed further north in Nubia at the time (in Lower Nubia, like the C-Group, Medjay, Wawat, A-Group, etc). Skllagyook (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

both cushitic and nilotic languages were spoken in kerma according to julian riley
Old Kingdom The oldest record of Nubian place names in Egyptian texts derives from the Old Kingdom. Ignoring the very generic place names such as 6A-sty, the record of Nubian toponyms in the Old Kingdom is rather small. The expedition narratives of Aswan nobles are the richest source of data, recording place names such as WAwAt, IrTt, ZATw, Mxr, 6rrz, and IAm. All these toponyms have been the object of comprehensive studies relating to the identification of their location, but relatively little consideration is given to the linguistic origin of these words.10 Indeed, a marked feature of all these words is that many of them are reducible to Egyptian roots. IrTt is the common Egyptian word for “milk,” while ZAT.w can mean both “ground” and “libationstone.” Mxr is a word for silo or low-lying land, comprised of an Egyptian m-prefix attached to the preposition xr “under.” There is then the problem of whether these designations are prosaic Egyptian terms for local geographical features, or rather were attempts at phonetically matching place names from local Nubian languages (a linguistic phenomenon known as “phono-semantic matching”). This phonetic matching has been proffered on a number of names in Egyptian history in the context of Nubia, but is not easily provable, especially when the linguistic identity of A-Group, C-Group, and Kerma ancien speakers is far from certain.Of these Old Kingdom place names, WAwAt and IAm seem to be the only names that were passed on into texts of the Middle Kingdom and later; even IAm is found only sparingly in later contexts and has become obsolete by the New Kingdom. The word WAwAt has been related to a Beja word for “dry” by El-Sayed, which might give us a clue to the linguistic geography of Lower Nubia (A- & C-Group speakers),but none of the other place names are easily matchable to any root in known languages of Sudan. It might well be that an as yet unidentified branch of Cushitic was spoken in Lower Nubia before the arrival of North Eastern Sudanic languages, such as Meroitic, in the Middle Nile Valley. A fragmentary relief from Userkaf ’s funerary temple records some elsewhere unattested place names BAT, 1zT and 4n(s)h, all of which must be foreign names.12 These names are listed under the heading of tA nbw Dam “land of gold and electrum,” so it is plausible that they refer to auriferous zones in the Second-Third Cataract region or, alternatively, regions of the Eastern Desert.. "

but by the middle nile kingdom the kermans also spoke the langugages of the north east sudanic branch according to claude cooper The personal and place names in the corpus have been subjected to a linguistic study by Rilly, who has shown the roughly similar phonetic inventories of Sai (5Aa.t) and Kush (KS).16 The toponyms and personal names according to Kush and Sai lack any of the extensive pharyngeal consonants so common in Afroasiatic languages, and it is therefore likely that we are dealing with North-Eastern Sudanic languages, quite likely a pre-Meroitic tongue, although any number of North-Eastern Sudanic languages is possible. These data show that by the Middle Kingdom (at the latest) the region from Dongola reach to the Batn el-Hajar was linguistically dominated by NorthEastern Sudanic, i.e., Nilo-Saharan languages. How far south this branch extended cannot be ascertained, but the presence of Kerma culture as far as the region of Abu Hamed might argue for an extension as far as this region, although we cannot preclude that other Eastern Sudanic languages dominated the Nile south of that point including the Atbara River." lets come to a compirmice instead of us both edit warring becouse we both had a point julian cooper did say in his study he specifically stated that the old civilization of kerma people spoke a form of cushitic related to some beja languages before the arrival of the first north eastern sudanic merotic language speakers this is well documented in the past and by claude cooper as well however you are right as later on the kermans began to be dominated by a new ethno linguistic group by the Middle Kingdom Middle Kingdom texts witness  Kerma has been linked to the arrival of a new ethno-linguistic group in Dongola Reach and theThird Cataract and this new group spoke the langueages of the north eastern sudanic branch both you and i are right according to julian cooper so lets come to a comprimise that the kingdom spoke both cushitic and north eastern sudanic languages. cushitic in the old kingdom and north east sudanic languages in the middle kingdom
 * The passage(s) you quoted above suggests that Cushitic languages may have been spoken in Lower Nubia (among cultures such as the A-group and C-Group), not the culture of Kerma. It does not say that Kerma spoke Cushitic languages. The A-Group and C-Group cultures (of Northern/Upper Nubia) were distinct/different from Kerma. As I have explained, Kerma was not part of the Lower Nubia region but rather of Upper (southern Nubia). Cooper proposes that Nubia from Sai (an island in the Nile just north of Kerma) southward spoke Nilo-Saharan languages. the A-Group and C-group cultures were not part of the Kerma polity's territory; they were north of it (Cooper also suggests that the region of Punt, which was East of Kerma, away from the Nile, possibly in modern-day Somalia or somewhere in the Horn for Africa, spoke Cushitic languages). Skllagyook (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, Kerma was not in Lower Nubia, and Cooper makes a distinction between the cultures of Lower Nubia and of Kerma (which was part of Upper Nubia). Again, please see my topic above where I quote/discuss Rilly and Cooper (they did not suggest that Cushitic was originally spoken in Kerma; rather they suggest this was the case in the parts of Nubia to the North and East of Kerma.
 * As I wrote in the edit history notes: Kerma was located in Upper (southern) Nubia, not Lower (northern) Nubia. (Parts of Nubia north of Kerma, i.e. Lower Nubia, contained another culture, the C-Group). See below: "The Kerma people were mainly living in Upper Nubia, and the so-called C-Group people inhabited Lower Nubia" (page 54)
 * https://www.academia.edu/2380609.
 * And see map here: https://oi.uchicago.edu/museum-exhibits/nubia/ancient-nubia-c-group–pan-grave–kerma-2400–1550-bc
 * Skllagyook (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It is true that the Kerma kingdom did eventually extend its influence northward to Lower Nubia (until Lower Nubia was conquered by Egypt), but Lower Nubia was not the region in which the Kerma culture originated or was based, and Rilly and Cooper both argue that Nilo-Saharan languages were (and continued to be) spoken in the Kerma culture's Upper/southern Nubian homeland. And Cooper (as cited and explained above) makes the distinction between the cultures native to Lower Nubia (like Wawat, the Medjay, the C-Group, etc.) on the one hand (which he believes were Afro-Asiatic-speaking), and the Kerma culture which originated in and was based in Upper Nubia on the other hand (which he believes was Nilo-Saharan-speaking). Skllagyook (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion The toponymic data in Egyptian texts has broadly identified at least three linguistic blocs in the Middle Nile region of the second and first millennium BCE, each of which probably exhibited a great degree of internal variation. In Lower Nubia there was an Afroasiatic language, likely a branch of Cushitic. By the end of the first millennium CE this region had been encroached upon and replaced by Eastern Sudanic speakers arriving read the conclusion of coopers study please you have misunderstood the study
 * I did not misunderstand. Please read my responses. There was more than one linguistic bloc (according to Cooper): One was Nilo-Saharan (Upper Nubia, including Kerma), and others were Cushitic (Lower Nubia to the North, and Punt to the East which is considered by most to have been in or near the Horn of Africa). Yes, according to the source, Afro-Asiatic languages were spoken in Lower Nubia (exactly as you wrote), but Kerma was NOT in Lower Nubia — or rather the center, base, and origin of the Kerma culture, including the city of Kerma, was not in Lower Nubia (but in Upper Nubia), and those are what Rilly and Cooper are referring to when speaking of "Kerma" (thus the languistic affinity of Lower Nubia seems irrelevant to the linguistic identity of "Kerma", which was in Upper Nubia — please see the source and the map I linked). You keep quoting passages pertaining to Lower Nubia, but that is not the region in question (i.e. the subject of this article); the region/subject in question is the Kerma culture (which is again, not from Lower Nubia) — Lower Nubia was occupied by cultures other than the Kerma culture (such as the A-Group and C-Group cultures possibly associated with "Wawat" and "Medjay", etc. in Egyptian texts, who may have been related to the Beja). Skllagyook (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is the full quote from Cooper's Conclusion below (which you have partially quoted above). It says that Lower Nubia (originally) spoke Afro-Asiatic languages but that the south and West of Nubia/Upper Nubia (including Kerma) spoke Nilo-Saharan languages (Eastern Sudanic), i.e. "early-Meroitic", which later encroached northward to Lower Nubia from Upper Nubia. The three linguistic blocs (originally present in Nubia) identified by Cooper are: a branch Afro-Asiatic (likely a branch of Cushitic) in Lower Nubia, an Eastern Sudanic-speaking (Nilo-Saharan) region in South/Upper Nubia, and another Afro-Asiatic region in the Eastern desert (east of the Nile, where another kind of Cushitic language likely related to Beja was spoken). So though two regions of Nubia are thought (by Cooper) to have been Afro-Asiatic-speaking (until later), the region from where the Kerma culture originated and where it was based (Upper Nubia) is thought by Cooper to have been Nilo-Saharan-speaking (both earlier and later on).
 * The quote:
 * "The toponymic data in Egyptian texts has broadly identified at least three linguistic blocs in the Middle Nile region of the second and first millennium BCE, each of which probably exhibited a great degree of internal variation. In Lower Nubia there was an Afroasiatic language, likely a branch of Cushitic. By the end of the first millennium CE this region had been encroached upon and replaced by Eastern Sudanic speakers arriving from the south and west, to be identified first with Meroitic and later migrations attributable to Nubian speakers. Further south in the Middle Nile, with a northern border in the Batn el-Hajar, there was a sphere dominated by Eastern Sudanic speakers, certainly Meroitic speakers but also likely other branches of Eastern Sudanic. In the Eastern Desert, and possibly parts of Lower Nubia, the Beja language was dominant."


 * "Unfortunately, the toponymic data and present state of linguistic analysis does not allow for a more nuanced picture than this, but this must represent the most basic framework for continuing lexical study of African lexical material in Egyptian texts. It is even quite likely that further philological and linguistic research will identify new languages in Ancient Sudan both along the Nile Valley and in the adjacent deserts."


 * Also see the map on page 198 of link below (Cooper) showing the proposed locations of languages and cultures: you will notice that on the map the Kerma region is marked/labelled as speaking "pre-Meroitic", a Nilo-Saharan language according to Cooper. But the region north of Kerma is marked as having spoken the C-Group language which he proposes was Afro-Asiatic.
 * https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:7d8a387b-f850-4d56-8105-f84a30bf121a/download_file?file_format=pdf&safe_filename=Cooper%252C%2BToponymic%2BStrata%2Bin%2BAncient%2BNubian%2BPlacenames%252C%2BDotawo%2B4.pdf&type_of_work=Journal+article Skllagyook (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You wrote: "julian cooper did say in his study he specifically stated that the old civilization of kerma people spoke a form of cushitic related to some beja languages before the arrival of the first north eastern Sudanic Merotic language speakers"
 * However, as explained, and as the passages above show, that (what you wrote above) is not accurate (according to Cooper) and is not what Julien Cooper (or Rilly) argues; he is not referring to the old civilization of Kerma as being originally Cushitic-speaking, but rather the regions of Nubia north and east of Kerma. According to Cooper, The regions that spoke Cushitic languages before the spread of Meroitic were Lower Nubia and parts of the Eastern desert (places north and east of Kerma). But Kerma, being based in Upper (south) Nubia along the Nile, is thought/proposed by Cooper to have spoken a Nilo-Saharan language (early Meroitic) in both early and later periods (please see the full version of the quote I quoted from Cooper above about the three language blocs, as well as my other quotations and explanations on this Talk page.) Thank you Skllagyook (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you believe this discussion has been adequately solved between you and Jacoob? If not, what remains in dispute? Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not completely sure, but I think it may have been solved since Yacoob has not re-entered his previous edits (though he also has not responded recently to my comments either here or on his own Talk page). Perhaps he has understood what I have been trying to explain and the discussion is in fact solved. However, if that is not the case and he does repeat his earlier edits (or similar ones) at some later time, what would the best thing be for me to do? Skllagyook (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If he continues to edit war, don't undo his edits, instead leave a note on my talk page or at the administrators noticeboard again, and it will be dealt with. Ideally, he will discuss his edits and work with you. But if not, he will likely end up blocked. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If that does happen (the second scenario), can I undo his edits after he has been blocked (or otherwise dealt with by administrators)? Skllagyook (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Within reason, yes. The real danger is that you shouldn't edit war, as that can get you blocked. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Thank you for your help. Skllagyook (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)