Talk:Population history of Egypt/Archive 1

this material was exported from the one on Afrocentrism in the hope that some of it may prove to be useful in a discussion detached from racist ideology. Not to serve as a surrogate battleground when the Afrocentrism article is locked.

Now, it is true that the material exported shows traces of its origin in the racialist discussion and may need cleanup. Such items should be patiently tagged and cleaned up.

It appears that this mostly concerns questions of WP:DUE wrt the discussion of the publications of S.O.Y. Keita, which are linked just as hosted on some private website, not as actual peer-reviewed literature published in journals dedicated to human genetics. --dab (𒁳) 12:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dbachmann, you really are a piece of work. What Afrocentrism article? The race controversy article that you underhandedly got an Admin to revert and lock? Keita's literature has been published in peer-reviewed journals. The private website you speak of has provided links for PDF files of his studies. Abstracts have been provided for most of the references to his work and that of other scholars. AncientObserver (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy solution to the problem of his literature being published - provide citations to his work directly, instead of questonably hosted reprints. We all have access to libraries. Hipocrite (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with the references to his literature. Dbachmann is constructing a phony controversy because he is biased against Keita's literature which is why he deliberately got the original article this material was taken from reverted and locked. You're both making a mockery of Wikipedia policy. AncientObserver (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide standard academic citations to the work that is being challenged. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

on closer inspection, it appears that Keita's articles are refreshingly quotable. I am in no way biased against Keita, as AncientObserver charitably suggests, since I have never heard of him. As I state unambiguously above, I am just concerned with checking the present revision for leftover racialist tangents.

In any case, I do not see why I should be asked to tolerate hostility and innuendo from AncientObserver. The accusation of malicious intent is beyond the pale. I am going out of my way to rescue material that I could just have reverted as off topic.

"AncientObserver", if you want this to go anywhere, you should make up your mind whether you want to discuss science, such as genetic studies, or Afrocentrist ideology about race. The "Ancient Egyptian race controversy", as you are well aware, has no notability outside Afrocentrism. You will agree that the material on this page has little or no relevance to Afrocentrism. I really do not see why you should want to conflate racialist ideology with straightforward studies of prehistoric Egypt.

We cannot have racialist ideology masquerading as science on Wikipedia, ok? This goes for the "Nordic theory" just as much as for the "Black Egypt theory". We cover racialism as a topic, but we will not be a vehicle for racialism. See WP:TIGERS.

I am being accused of "underhandedly" and even "maliciously" getting an admin to lock the "race" article. What nonsense. If you and others hadn't made a complete mess of that article, there would have been no need to revert it. After literally years of prancing around, there was finally a tight, well-referenced revision back in February. Which you have gone on to tear to pieces by adding reams of off topic text, huge image galleries and what have you. What, do you think, is the scope of an article entitled "Ancient Egyptian race controversy"? The controversy about the "race" of Ancient Egyptians in Afrocentric literature, or a general article about Egyptian prehistory, galleries of mummies, and other things that happened to catch your fancy? --dab (𒁳) 13:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You see Dab, that's your problem. The scope of the article is exactly what the title says it is - the "Ancient Egyptian race controversy". This title indicates the controversy in full. Nothing in the title limits the debate to the Afrocentrist viepoints - and there is no reason why you should infer such a limitation. Other than your own POV, of course. Wdford (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The title of this article is "Population history of Egypt." Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Only because you guys forked the original.Wdford (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to propose merging it back. Hipocrite (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I propose that you unlock the original article and stop aiding Dbachmann in his disruptive agenda. Wdford is right. All of the material contained in the recent version of the original article is designed to address the controversy. There is no justification for reverting back to February. AncientObserver (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

as long as you keep pretending that I have a "disruptive agenda", there will be no progress here. My entire "agenda" has been to move your material to a title where it is actually on topic. I haven't even blanked any of your stuff, for chrissakes, so why don't you snap out of it and go back to working on the pedia. There is no "race controversy" in mainstream scholarship, ok? There are genetic studies, but these have nothing whatsoever to do with racialist notions of a "black race" vs. a "white race". People who keep harping on "black and white" in the context of Ancient Egypt are invariably racists, either white supremacist racists stuck in the 19th century, or black supremacist racists also stuck in the 19th century. I do not know why we keep being asked to deal with blatantly racists approach here. The minute a stromfront character shows up on Talk:White people or Talk:Nordic race, they are shown the door, and rightly so. I just wonder why the same does not seem to ever, not in four years, happen with editors who are equally advocating a racist worldview, just a "black-centric" one, in the Afrocentrist topics. I honestly do not understand it, but I imagine it has something to do with certain taboos in US sociology. --dab (𒁳) 15:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You've made your agenda quite clear to the other editors on the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy article. First you try to delete material you disapprove of. Then you move other people's work to another section, then you get an Admin to revert 4 months of work and have the entire article locked so that you can control the material on the page. Now your trying to get Keita's article deleted. Your agenda is clearly to suppress perceived Afrocentric research. And are you really calling anyone interested in this topic a racist? What a joke. I detect projection. I have only encountered you for 2 days and there is no way I would assume good faith in the likes of you. I am calling you out on your disruptive editing, which you already have a bad reputation for and deceptive behavior. AncientObserver (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahem. Both of you need to be more civil, and assume more good faith. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard to assume good faith when you discover that an editor is conspiring with an Admin to control an article. Go to Dbachmann's talk page and you will see him branding the other editors on the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy page "trolls" and "socks". How is that assuming good faith? I am new to Wikipedia so I do not know all the rules but I recognize a disruptive editor when I see one. Unfortunately "Dab" appears to have connections making his disruptive behavior far more destructive. AncientObserver (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You must have missed the part where I said "both of you" Given that you are new, do you mind telling all of us how you found Wikipedia, and specifically, Ancient Egyptian race controversy? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think expressing my concerns about Dab is uncivil. I've given you my reasons why I find it hard to assume good faith in his intentions. I've known about Wikipedia for years. I discovered the aforementioned page sometime ago and only recently decided to make edits. I post on race-related message boards on occasion (I am an Egalitarian/anti-racist) and the subject of the racial characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians comes up quite often. Contrary to Dab's claims there is a controversy surrounding the race of the Ancient Egyptians in modern academia. It isn't an ongoing popular topic in Egyptology however the roots of the controversy are hundreds of years old dating back to the beginning of Egyptology and when the race of the Ancient Egyptians is alluded to in historical publications (such as King Tut's forensic reconstruction published on the cover of National Geographic magazine) controversy arises. Yes, Afrocentrists are heavily involved in the controversy but the race of the Ancient Egyptians is not an exclusively Afrocentric topic. Trying to confine the subject to an exclusive topic of Afrocentric Historiography is intellectually dishonest considering the decades of Eurocentric research that built up the controversy. What the recent version of this article addresses are the various elements of the controversy which include scientific studies, historical quotes of classical observers and studies of language, material culture, art (the art gallery is used as a reference) and physical remains of the Ancient Egyptians (the purpose of the mummy gallery though I personally don't see that section as necessary). The theme of the article is to report on all elements of the controversy. So long as it is relevant to the controversy there should not be a problem. I think Dab's problem is that he sees this approach as opening a gateway to promoting racialist (particularly Afrocentric) theories about the race of the Ancient Egyptians. He make not like the conclusions of mainstream scholars but these conclusions deserve to be reported because they are relevant to the subject. If you guys want to make a special article for the scientific research that is fine by me but it is relevant to the controversy and belongs on the original page. Also I get the distinct impression that the two of you are picking on Keita because you do not like his research not because there is anything wrong with the references themselves. AncientObserver (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fork
The trouble with this article is that it is written from a racial perspective as it was cut and paste from Ancient Egyptian race controversy. While population history of Egypt is a valid topic, much of the content is duplicated in the various history of Egypt articles, especially Predynastic Egypt.Wapondaponda (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

S.O.Y. Keita
The reason I tagged Keita for closer scrutiny is found in tell-tale signs of wiki-touting of this author. Beginning with his own BLP-article which completely fails to make clear in what way Keita is being argued as passing WP:PROF. It is also completely unclear why this article should quote heavily from Keita's work in the "genetics" section seeing that Keita isn't a geneticists. You would naturally expect a genetics section to be quoting actual geneticists. But seeing that Keita has extensively published on the topic, and that he does have a PHD in "biological anthropology", it isn't implausible for this article to be quoting him. It's a question of balance, and one of WP:REDFLAG. --dab (𒁳) 15:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * right after my writing this, we observe "AncientObserver" blanking the cleanup tags from the article(in a "minor" edit). I would ask any impartial observer whose agenda they would say is looking "disruptive" around here.
 * I am done investing good faith in this user, and I will try to seek administrative enforcement of proper conduct against them from now on. --dab (𒁳) 15:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My deletion of the cleanup tags on Keita's article had nothing to do with your post here as I did it before seeing this. I would like to discuss the purpose of the cleanup tags. I do not think that the tags are justified. How can you call my edit disruptive considering your recent behavior? Your actions have been malicious from the start so I have never invested good faith in you. Hopefully an objective Admin can settle this dispute because it is clear that you don't know how to debate in a civil manner. AncientObserver (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * SOY Keita has now gained mainstream status. He is not a fringe Afrocentric scholar. He has published articles such as "The origins of Afroasiatic alongside other mainstream scholars such as Christopher Ehret who is one of the foremost authorities on African linguistics. Keita has published several peer reviewed articles, and his articles are referenced by other studies. One of Keita's studies is referenced by over 48 studies. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

is tunis east or west of egypt

 * 19:07, 11 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Population history of Egypt ‎ (Reverted edits by 76.16.183.158 to last revision by Wdford (HG)) (top)
 * 19:07, 11 August 2009 (hist) (diff) N User talk:80.7.103.80 ‎ (Message re. Javier Portillo (HG)) (top)
 * 19:07, 11 August 2009 (hist) (diff) m Javier Portillo ‎ (Reverted edits by 80.7.103.80 to last revision by 189.174.190.147 (HG)) (top)

I think time was not suficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.183.158 (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

images
At this stage I would suggest not using images. There is already an existing debates about images Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy/Archive_20 and it is part of the reason, why the Ancient Egyptian race controversy is under heavy scrutiny. This article was created to deal with the objective science concerning the anthropology of the Ancient Egyptians. Consequently, we don't need drama about which picture is representative of the Ancient Egyptians or not. I would strongly advise against the use of images as they will be a magnet for trolling and other unsavory wikipedia activities. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

population of egypt?
I'm looking for histrionically estimates as for the number of living people in ancient pharonic Egypt, and although the article is titled so I find no such data here..-- Procrastinating@ talk2me 14:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Luis, Rowold article summary
The paragraph which mentions the Luis, Rowold article contains numerous grammatical errors which cannot be easily fixed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_Egypt#DNA_studies_on_modern_Egyptians

Referring to the referenced article reveals that the summary is not very accurate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182266/

Probably the wikipedia paragraph about NRY haplotypes should be scrapped if it can't be corrected.

--Alan U. Kennington (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Brace et al 1993
This is what the abstract from that paper specifically says: The biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians were tested against their neighbors and selected prehistoric groups as well as against samples representing the major geographic population clusters of the world. Two dozen craniofacial measurements were taken on each individual used. The raw measurements were converted into C scores and used to produce Euclidean distance dendrograms. The measurements were principally of adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similarities based solely on genetic relationships. The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World. Adjacent people in the Nile valley show similarities in trivial traits in an unbroken series from the delta in the north southward through Nubia and all the way to Somalia at the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selective forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur. An assessment of “race” is as useless as it is impossible. Neither clines nor clusters alone suffice to deal with the biological nature of a widely distributed population. Both must be used. We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well I'm posting this here because I've noticed that several editor, most recently Nileblu (talk), have been changing what was actually stated in the cited text.TruthIsHoly (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

should loring braces "The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form" be used instead of the 1993 study ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.245.110 (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

C. Loring Brace's 2005 paper in no way contradicts the findings of his first; in both studies the Egyptians were found to be distinct from Sub-Saharan Africans: When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. In closing, do note that the Naqada were just one of several cultures that constituted Predynastic Egypt; they did not constitute Egypt as a whole. And having "a hint" of a Sub-Saharan African component, does not make them black.TruthIsHoly (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

African DNA? What is the point?
What is the point of this sentence. It seems to contradict itself:

"A study using the Y-chromosome of modern Egyptian males found similar results, namely that African haplogroups are predominant in the South but the predominant haplogroups in the North are characteristic of other North African populations"

Are not Y-DNA Haplogroups in North Africa ALSO predominantly AFRICAN? MOST of North Africa carry almost exclusively E-M81 and E-v65 with very little Haplogroup J,R,I, etc. The predominant AFRICAN Haplogroup in North Africa is E-M81 that has always been African and is a 1 step mutation of E-M35 that has an origin in Sub Saharan East Africa. This sentence needs to be revised, it leads a reader to think that North Africans PRIMARILY carry NON-AFRICAN Y-DNA Haplogroups which is untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.196.250 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * north africans europoids anciet mediterraneans not was negroids —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.195.242 (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Starting c. 12,000 BC people with Y-Haplogroup T1a migrated down the Nile Valley and went as far as Ethiopia and probably into Kenya. From this time on people living along the Nile Valley were a mixed people. Phylogenetic evidence shows that Y-Haplogroup T has been in Egypt for 14,000 years now. So any people that were there during the predynastic period were already mixed African and Eurasian. When the Neolithic migrations started c. 6,000 BC people with Y-Haplogroup G and J2 populated the Nile Valley and with them the farming culture that was previously only present in Eurasia became the dominant culture. Farming was the basis of Egyptian culture so to say that Egyptian culture came from sub-Saharan Africa is incorrect. The pottery of both ancient Egypt and Nubia are a complete replacement of the pottery that was present before these farmers arrived. Domesticated sheep and goats were present in both Egypt and Sudan since predynastic times which originated in the Middle East. That indigenous North Africans are predominantly of Y-Haplogroup E does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans even if they were Y-Haplogroup E. People with Y-Haplogroup E-M78 are commonly of Eurasian phenotype in North Africa because sub-Saharan Africans came in contact with people of Y-Haplogroup T-M70 and R-P25 that migrated from Eurasia during the Mesolithic. Evidence of this is found in the mtDNA of North Africans where mtDNA Haplogroups H,I,K,M1,N1,V,U6 and X1 have high frequencies in indigenous North Africans. This includes all people who speak Afro-Asiatic languages. Since North Africans have paternal DNA that is predominantly of sub-Saharan origin and maternal DNA that is predominantly of Eurasian origin the high frequencies of Y-Haplogroup E-M78 in this population can not be the same frequencies as when the Eurasian lineages first arrived in the Mesolithic or earlier. The Y-Haplogroups that came from Eurasia with the known mtDNA lineages (H-X) during that time were Y-Hg R-P25 and T-M70 and since then became less frequent because of the general lack of immigration from the Middle East since the Early Neolithic. This allowed Y-Hg E-M78 to become more and more frequent since the ancient Egyptian Empire itself kept immigration to a minimum.

Rewrite and linkage?
Could I please suggest that, contrary to the "importance scale" rating of Low, this topic is actually likely to be of considerable interest to a large audience?

However, to a completely uninformed reader such as myself, the article in its present form is next to useless. Even the title uses a term (population history) that is so vague that the corresponding wikipedia article is little more than a disambiguation page. I came to Wikipedia trying to answer two questions, what was the genetic/racial ancestry of the Ancient Egyptians, and which modern populations are their descendents? I could find no trace of this information in any article on Ancient Egypt, so turned to Google and after quite some digging stumbled upon this entry. Now I've read the entry and am still none the wiser.

I know, it's Wikipedia, if you don't like it, fix it -- but in this instance I haven't the first clue where to start. I just hope that perhaps an outsider's perspective might prompt an expert to have a go at it.--Russell E (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Russel. Per the work of Loring Brace et al, at, “An assessment of “race” is as useless as it is impossible.” And also: “We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well.” I hope this answers both your questions? Wdford (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

badrian culture
The badrian culture is far from being sub saharian. The place of asut which is the present day city where the culture was located is far from nubia or blacks. Even modern-day nubian are mostly Egyptian by DNA. So what I am saying is upper Egypt is and was caucasian with of course some black immigration but that does not replace the original people. --76.10.154.143 (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Kemp 2005
There is a misinterpretation of this study in the crania metric section of this article. The study did find that modern Egyptians were closest to the "all dynasties" sample, BUT the Pre-dynastic sample was closest to the Ancient Nubian sample (which was found to be the closest relationship on the entire dendogram). The next closest populations to these Egyptians sample were Ethiopic samples (East Africans) who are Sub Saharan Afrians themselves (Meaning South of the Sahara). So the LIE stated in this article that Near Eastern populations were the next closest is now corrected to show that East Africans were the closest. 74.138.138.190 (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopians have 48% maternal DNA and 22% paternal DNA from Eurasia. So the population in question doesn't have it's origins entirely in sub-Saharan Africa. A population entirely of sub-Saharan origin must be used in order to compare it in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.104.76 (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

clash with other articles
The information in this article on Egyptian DNA clashes with the similar topic in Archaeogenetics of the Near East. We need to resolve this conflict - probably by putting all the info in one article (perhaps a new article dedicated to the DNA history of Ancient Egypt, and then referencing all other articles on the topic to that new article? Wdford (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

created new article as a spin-off
Created new article at DNA history of Ancient Egypt as a spin-off, to collect and rationalize all the material on this topic that is currently replicated in various other articles, sometimes duplicating and sometimes clashing. Please help over there to clean up and remove remaining duplications. Wdford (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Too Many Articles
Right now, there are a number of articles dealing with similar subjects, especially genetics. and further That is plainly too many. I do not know what the exact histories of these articles are and whether they grew out of each other, but now a reader would have a hard time getting coherent and non-overlapping information out of these articles. I have placed merging tags on DNA history of Ancient Egypt and Ancient Egyptian race controversy. And maybe Egyptians and Archaeogenetics of the Near East should be straightened out as well. Please discuss. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 09:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Population history of Egypt (article of this talk page),
 * DNA history of Ancient Egypt,
 * Ancient Egyptian race controversy,
 * Black Egyptian Hypothesis,
 * Egyptians and
 * Archaeogenetics of the Near East
 * I agree with you re the fragmentation and the overlapping. DNA history of Ancient Egypt was created to be a central "main" article on the topic, where all the considerable detail could be collected and the overlaps eliminated. The other articles should all be left with a short summary only. Wdford (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that "DNA history of Ancient Egypt" is a good title for the article on the subject of population composition and origin. I suggest is that "Population history of ancient Egypt" is a better title, while research into the genetic setup of ancient Egypt population only is one of the tools - albeit the foremost - to establish population composition and origin. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 14:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. However this article is not intended as an article on the subject of population composition and origin, its purely for the DNA debate. It exists only because the existing Population history of Egypt was getting big, and the DNA issue was exerting undue weight on that article. Its purely a spin-off, and is linked from the Population history of Egypt and others in the appropriate sections. Wdford (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not see what the purpose for a separate article about the DNA debate would be. This is an encyclopedia, which means we only present the results and maybe peculiarities of the research. We do not extensively elaborate on all the technical details. DNA research is merely a tool to find out about humans, anyways. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 16:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifically, I would state that the DNA history of Ancient Egypt article is written rather poorly and does not focus on its own subject matter enough to justify its existence as a separate article. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 17:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This article has been spun off by combining a bunch of material from a range of existing articles, with a view to cleaning it up and rationalising all the duplicating and conflicting material. If we do not have a separate article for the DNA material, then all of it will be replicated in a range of other articles, which would be UNDUE in those articles and make them harder to read. Please assist to clean this up if you can. Wdford (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The DNA article is poorly written and should be deleted. I found (for two sentences) the same sentences repeated verbatim in this short article.  It also has little coherence in its structure.Rod (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you edit one of these articles, you have to edit all of them. They are all talking about nearly identical subjects and it would be better to have one long article and keep all of this information in the same place.  As they currently stand, these articles are highly redundant.Rod (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge population history and DNA history articles and let the rest stand. Population history and race controversy shouldn't be merged. The latter article is supposed to be devoted exclusively to the history of an academic controversy between racialists over what race, if any, the Egyptians ought to be placed in. That really doesn't belong in another article which is supposed to be on the subject of actual, non-pseudoscientific, genetic and anthropological studies of ancient Egyptian physiology. I've watched the former page off and on for six years now, and it's always been a problem child of Wikipedia, because Afrocentrists tend to view it as their safe haven to write some kind of argumentative thesis article appealing to the reader to classify the ancient Egyptians as "black" under the guise of neutrally reporting about other academics who have made the same appeal over time. That tends to give it a flavor as if it were actually about the population history of Egypt, which is not what it's actually supposed to be about. Thanatosimii (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the need to merge most of these articles. And I really wonder why Black Egyptian Hypothesis has its own article? The whole essay in that article is tantamount to a waste. It visits most of the issues dealt with in the other articles, and serves to provide almost no unique information. (And besides, a quick search in online academic databases will quickly show that most scholars and experts now believe early upper Egyptians, particularly the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom population, were very closely related to the modern and ancient Sub-Saharan populations (particularly Sudan). But the story gets more complex in later Egyptian history, like in the New Kingdom. The later Egyptians (and obviously modern Egyptians) were no blacks). I see no need for that article. Although if it has to go, then Asiatic Race Theory will have to be merged as well just to keep things fair.

Here is my suggestion about the merging. Population history of Egypt should be renamed Population History of Ancient Egypt and DNA history of Ancient Egypt should be merged into it. And since the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy is predominately about the different hypotheses (even the sub section Specific current-day controversies is pretty much about the controversies surrounding the different hypotheses) I think it should be renamed as Ancient Egyptian race hypotheses or something like that. Basically, there should be just two articles dedicated to this subject. Ancient Egyptian race hypotheses to deal with the hypotheses and less reliable papers/studies, and Population History of Ancient Egypt to deal with recent and more reliable scientific studies. My one cent! EyeTruth (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Scripts
I propose the elinination of this section for the following reasons:

1. The subject is irrelevant to the subject of the article, the population history of Egypt. There is no claim, nor indeed should there be, that any particular script is linked to a given population group in Ancient Egypt.

2. The section is false as it stands. The explanation of hieratic, which constitutes the bulk of the section, for example is valid only for the very last period in Egyptian history (and even there it is incomplete).

2. The section is redundant. There already exist 3 detailed articles, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Egyptian hieratic, and Egyptian demotic to which the reader may be directed, if for some reason this were necessary.

I think therefore that the section should be deleted.

NfrHtp (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent Rameses III and Amarna Lineages DNA Studies-Only Peer-Reviewed Studies on Wikipedia?
There seems to be some debate on inclusion of the references from DNA tribes. What is the justification that only peer-reviewed scientific information is permitted? This is regarding the below (not the references from Zawi Hawass but the additional DNA tribes reference for Amarna. I would like a conversation before sourced and referenced material below is reverted again:

"Recent DNA studies of Ancient Egyptian mummies of a New Kingdom dynasty have confirmed Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharoahs from both the Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) and Amarna (from 1353 B.C.) lineages: In December 2012, Zahi Hawass, the former Egyptian Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs and his research team released DNA studies of Rameses III (who historically is assumed to have usurped the throne and as such may not represent earlier lineages) and his son have found he carried the Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup E1b1a, and as a result clustered most closely with Africans from the African Great Lakes (335.1), Southern Africa (266.0) and Tropical West Africa (241.7) and not Europeans (1.4), Middle Easterners (14.3) or peoples from the Horn of Africa (114.0).

Earlier studies from January 2012 of the Amarna mummies had reached similar conclusions with the average affiliations of the mummies found to be Southern African (326.94), Great Lakes African (323.76) and Tropical West African (83.74) and not Middle Eastern (6.92), European (5.21) or with peoples from the Horn of Africa (14.79). As no other studies of other Ancient Egyptian mummies are available, the questions as to the genetic affiliations of other pharaohs and figures (such as Cleopatra VII, the last pharaoh of Egypt from 51 B.C. following the Greek Conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great in 300 B.C.) is yet undetermined. "

Due to, I have replaced the Amarna lineages reference with the peer-reviewed study it was based on: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393. There should be no further problems now. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

These are the two peer-reviewed studies in question; there should be no further problems: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393

Hawass at al. 2012, Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study. BMJ2012;345doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8268 Published 17 December 2012 Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the Wikipedia noticeboard regarding the use of supporting sources for this issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ‎ (→‎DNA Tribes Used As Supporting Source To Two Peer-Reviewed Studies). Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed the entire section referencing the two peer-reviewed studies JAMA studies, because the content was largely derived from the DNA Tribes articles and not the actual published peer-reviewed studies. Also some of the wording was very problematic, neither the peer-reviewed studies nor DNA Tribes own state that any of the mummies tested were of sub-Saharan African origin. The DNA Tribes publications only state that sub-Saharan ancestry was detected using the very limited DNA information released in the two JAMA studies, which then ran through their DNA data sets to determine where the lineages originate. Yet wording like this, “confirmed Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharaohs from both the Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) and Amarna (from 1353 B.C.) lineages”, was posted into the section. This appears to be synthesis of the peer-reviewed JAMA studies and the DNA Tribes publications based on the studies, as well as some personal interpretation of the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.63.36 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Andajara120000 the discussion you started on the Reliable sources Noticeboard has already been archived, so that discussion seems to be over. The previous consensus against the use of DNA Tribes as a reliable source stills stands.

DNA Tribes is not acceptable source per previous consensus, until that changes it is not supposed to be included in this or any other Wikipedia article, regardless of any ongoing discussion. So please stop inserting the information from the DNA tribes until you get consensus that it is a reliable source to include in this and other articles. Also you seem to be doing some POV pushing by continually inserting this material after you have been told more than once that DNA Tribes is not a reliable/acceptable source. That you dispute this does not give you cart blanche to insert it in to articles, only when you have consensus that has overturned the previous consensus about its reliability, are you then free to insert the material from DNA Tribes it into the article. The wording of you contribution to the page is also highly problematic, most of the content comes from the DNA Tribes analysis and not the JAMA studies, but no mention of this is giving in the article. The first sentence is also very problematic:

“Recent DNA studies of Ancient Egyptian mummies of a New Kingdom dynasty have confirmed Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharoahs from both the Amarna(from 1353 B.C.) and Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) lineages”

What do you mean by Sub-Saharan origins, because it seems you are misrepresenting what the DNA Tribes articles are saying?

“Results indicated the autosomal STR profiles of the Amarna period mummies were most frequent in modern populations in several parts of Africa. These results are based on the 8 STR markers for which these pharaonic mummies have been tested, which allow a preliminary geographical analysis for these individuals who lived in Egypt during the Amarna period of the 14th century BCE.

Although results do not necessarily suggest exclusively African ancestry, geographical analysis suggests ancestral links with neighboring populations in Africa for the studied pharaonic mummies. If new data become available in the future, it might become possible to further clarify results and shed new light on the relationships of ancient individuals to modern populations.” http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

“These results indicate that both Ramesses III and Unknown Man E (possibly his son Pentawer) shared an ancestral component with present day populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. This preliminary analysis based on eight STR markers does not identify the percentages of Sub-Saharan African ancestry for these ancient individuals. This preliminary analysis also does not exclude additional ancestral components (such as Near Eastern or Mediterranean related components) for these ancient pharaonic Egyptians.

In addition, these DNA match results in present day world regions might in part express population changes in Africa after the time of Ramesses III. In particular, DNA matches in present day populations of Southern Africa and the African Great Lakes might to some degree reflect genetic links with ancient populations (formerly living closer to New Kingdom Egypt) that have expanded southwards in the Nilotic and Bantu migrations of the past 3,000 years (see Figure 1).” http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf

They make no claims or conclusions about any pharaohs being of Sub-Saharan origins, what they do say is that the majority of DNA linages tested from the 8 STR markers used in the published JAMA studies correlated mostly with modern Sub-Saharan African populations. But they make it clear that this says nothing about the total percentages of the Sub-African ancestral component or any others of the tested individuals

Nothing from either the published JAMA studies or the DNA Tribes publications directly supports your statement about “confirmed Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharaohs”.
 * I am sorry you are not being clear. Scientifically, DNA by definition does show origins-that is the definition of DNA, to show your lineage which by definition is your origins. Origins: the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived. mtdna:In most multicellular organisms, mtDNA is inherited from the mother (maternally inherited). Mechanisms for this include simple dilution (an egg contains 100,000 to 1,000,000 mtDNA molecules, whereas a sperm contains only 100 to 1000), degradation of sperm mtDNA in the fertilized egg, and, at least in a few organisms, failure of sperm mtDNA to enter the egg. Whatever the mechanism, this single parent (uniparental) pattern of mtDNA inheritance is found in most animals, most plants and in fungi as well. Y chromosome: The Y chromosome is one of two sex-determining chromosomes (allosomes) in mammals, including humans (the other is the X chromosome). In mammals, the Y chromosome contains the gene SRY, which triggers testicle development if present. The human Y chromosome is composed of about 50 million base pairs. DNA in the Y chromosome is passed from father to son, and Y-DNA analysis may thus be used in genealogical research. At least in the English language. STR:"While a lot of DNA contains information for a certain function, there is some called junk DNA, which is currently used for human identification. At some special locations (called loci) in the junk DNA, predictable inheritance patterns were found to be useful in determining biological relationships. These locations contain specific DNA markers that DNA scientists use to identify individuals. In a routine DNA paternity test, the markers used are Short Tandem Repeats (STRs), short pieces of DNA that occur in highly differential repeat patterns among individuals.Each person’s DNA contains two copies of these markers—one copy inherited from the father and one from the mother. Within a population, the markers at each person’s DNA location could differ in length and sometimes sequence, depending on the markers inherited from the parents.The combination of marker sizes found in each person makes up his/her unique genetic profile. When determining the relationship between two individuals, their genetic profiles are compared to see if they share the same inheritance patterns at a statistically conclusive rate." Am I somehow misunderstanding you? I can try to explain the science to you about how genetics and DNA works if you would like and provided more references but perhaps looking at the DNA and DNA profiling articles can help explain the science for you if it is difficult for you to understand the science. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I could do without the condescending tone please.

The opening statement in the segment of the article that you inserted material into asserts something that is not directly stated any source cited by you. Your personal belief about what the source means is irrelevant, what matter is what the source actually states. That the Pharaohs have Sub-Saharan ancestry does not make them of sub-Saharan origins in the way you seem to be implying. We have no idea what their complete ancestral profile might look like. 8 STR markers is woefully insufficient number of genetic markers for any kind population affinity study, the 8 STR used in the JAMA studies were used to determine genetic relations between the mummies being studied. Ramesses III having sub-Saharan ancestral components does not necessarily make him a Sub-Saharan African any more then him having West Asian ancestral components necessitates him being West Asian. Now you could say that he and other mummies tested have ancestry of Sub-Saharan origin, as that more accurately reflects what the DNA Tribes publications state.

Now if you were speaking of a more ancestral origin, that’s fine. But you should be more precise. Instead of “Recent DNA studies of Ancient Egyptian mummies of a New Kingdom dynasty have confirmed Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharoahs from both the Amarna (from 1353 B.C.) and Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) lineages”, something like this would be have better,“Based on recent DNA studies of Ancient Egyptian mummies of a New Kingdom dynasty, DNA Tribes, a personal DNA testing company, has seemingly confirmed the partial Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharaohs from both the Amarna (from 1353 B.C.) and Ramesses III (from 1186 B.C.) lineages based upon the finding of several Sub-Saharan ancestral components in their DNA analysis.”

But this is all rather irrelevant as per the current consensus; the material from DNA Tribes is not from a reliable source and should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.63.36 (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It just seemed by your questions that perhaps you did not understand the basic science. It really is hard to grasp for many people depending on one's educational background/training, as can be shown by the multiple talk page discussions on this issue. Be that as it may, the dispute resolution noticeboard did not resolve anything explicitly it seems for this particular page. The article was in a stable state before you came to delete this as an anonymous user. So let us tease out the issues so we can avoid confusion, as there are actually two separate concerns here:


 * Two Peer-Reviewed Studies: If you are not aware, extensive discussions have already been had on this issue on the Ancient Egyptian race controversy and DNA history of Egypt and Population history of Egypt talk pages about the two referenced articles and consensus was met. So at the least you were incorrect in deleting the references to those two peer-reviewed sources altogether. So do not do so again. If you have an issue with wording let us resolve it here but do not delete those references unilaterally again when discussion has been had and consensus met previously on the issue. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you don't get to decided what I will edit on this page or any other. Also the two JAMA studies say nothing about race nor do they give any give any percentages on the geographic distributions of detected ancestral components. If we take away the DNA Tribes articles little content remains for your section on the page. The reason I deleted your edit was because very little of its content was derived from the cited JAMA studies, the material you want to include on the page needs to reflect the content of the JAMA studies you are citing and not the DNA Tribes articles, whose material should not be on the page. DNA Tribes material is supposed to remain out of article per consensus. You seem to have it backwards, you want it to stay in the articles until after some later resolution, but that's not how it works.-CW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.63.36 (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are the one deleting sourced and referenced material after consensus has been met on the issue so yes the burden is on you. As I said the DNA tribes issue and the 2 peer-reviewed studies issues are separate issues so please clarify the precise problems you have. I have made a separate section for the dna tribes issue as I have submitted it to nopv resolution so if you could please direct your issues to the DNA tribes issue in the section below to help the other editors when they chime in so we do not confuse the two issues. Regards,Andajara120000 (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As you can see in the separate section and the npov request I submitted as indicated below the issue of DNA Tribes in this article has to be considered in light of the inclusion of ABO and craniofacial studies which can be equally unreliable. Please continue discussion of DNA tribes below in light of these concerns in thr separate section pending a NPOV response from other editors as I have submitted a NPOV request. If you have further issues with the wording of the summary of the 2 peer-reviewed studies separate from the DNA tribes section please indicate it here. Separating this into two issues is very helpful and that is why I made a new section below. This is especially because consensus has already been met in regards to the wording issue. Please let us keep this discussion organized, thank you. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Where to start, the only content from your edit that I see came from the two peer reviewed studies your reference is this:

“In December 2012, Zahi Hawass, the former Egyptian Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs and his research team released DNA studies of Rameses III and his son have found he carried the Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup E1b1a,”

Even then, neither of the studies Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family or Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study make any reference to Sub-Saharan Africans nor do they even make mention of E1b1a as a Sub-Saharan DNA lineage. Now if want to cite from another peer-reviewed DNA study that does classify E1b1a as a Sub-Saharan that's fine. Outside the last sentence of the second paragraph, the rest of your content seems to all come from the DNA Tribes articles. I'm sorry, but this seems to be clear case of personal synthesis on your part. If you are going to cite the peer-reviewed studies as your sources, then the content you are adding to the DNA section of this page needs to come from only them. Nearly all of it needs to go as it currently is written.(CW)--CorrinoIV (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay I separated them into distinct sentences now differentiating the DNA tribes and peer-reviewed studies and added 4-5 peer-reviewed genetic studies stating E1b1a is Sub-Saharan African. Now just to keep things organized if we can now discuss the DNA tribes issue in the separate section below just to keep things separate. And any remaining issues with the peer-reviewed studies in this section. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

DNA Tribes on Population history of Egypt page

 * DNA Tribes: The DNA tribes issue is separate and I would like to hear some further opinions on this matter as the noticeboard did not resolve anything in particular as regards to including it on this particular article. I have submitted a Wikipedia NPOV request. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My particular concern is that DNA tribes is being removed for being unreliable. But then ABO blood group and craniofacial studies are being kept! I would think DNA evidence is more reliable than these other studies but let us wait to hear back from the NPOV request. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING and not an NPOV issue. And you can't go article by related article arguing that DNATribes is ok for one after agreeing it isn't for another. You also need to follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted material, see link for discussion of DNA claims
These new edits at this article and DNA history of Egypt have been disupted and I've removed them from that article and here and moved them to the talk page, see Talk:DNA history of Egypt. The sources must specifically discuss the claim that they "have confirmed Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharoahs from both the Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) and Amarna (from 1353 B.C.) lineages:"Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

DRN: Ramesses and Amarna Lineages Two Peer-Reviewed Studies
What is controversial about including the following on the nearly identical DNA history of Egypt, Population history of Egypt, Black Egyptian Hypothesis and Ancient Egyptian race controversy articles. The proliferation of articles was created specifically to try the patience and time of editors unable to conduct four separate talk page conversations on the same issue. I have already engaged in multiple talk page discussions on this issue on the separate talk pages and thought consensus had been reached at least on one of the articles with the same exact editors involved in the talk page discussions on the other pages. I have submitted a DRN on including the below on all four pages as the issues and editors involved are the same: Dispute resolution noticeboard

Recent DNA studies of mummies of the Ramesses dynasty and the Armana dynasty of the New Kingdom state that these dynasties carried the Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup    E1b1a.

Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

R1b genetic studies deletion for unreliability
Deleted R1b genetic studies information for lack of reliability, pending discussion of Rameses and Amarna DNA lineages. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is unconscionable to keep studies that are disputed for fraud in the article while the inclusion of studies that are not disputed for fraud stay out. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

For example, the studies of the pharoadh and the results were thought to be "impossible: "Although these findings were widely reported, the Y-chromosome of King Tut had never been published and the DNA profile displayed in Discovery Channel documentary may not actually have belonged to the Pharaoh. According to Carsten Pusch, a geneticist at Germany's University of Tübingen who was part of the team that unraveled Tut's DNA from samples taken from his mummy and mummies of his family members, iGENEA's claims are "simply impossible." " Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I propose that DNA history of Egypt be merged into Population history of Egypt. I think that the content in the DNA History of Egypt article can easily be explained in the context of Population History of Egypt, and the Population History of Egypt article is of a reasonable size that the merging of DNA History of Egypt will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. I also think having two separate pages on almost exactly the same topic creates confusion for editors and undue duplication of editing discussions when new DNA or other studies arise as shown through the talk and revision histories of these respective pages. Previous discussion of this issue last year seemed to reach similar conclusions, although at that time a formal merger proposal seems not to have been submitted. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support- Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose- The DNA section will be substantially more than half of the combined article. Since the actual DNA profiles are so insubstantial and highly challenged, devoting more than half of the article to a challenged and inconclusive section would not be an improvement. The other reason for the split is that many articles link to the DNA article for that DNA info, to save us having to repeat the detailed DNA argument across many related articles - Population history of Egypt being one of them. Wdford (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC
 * Oppose- Same reason as Wdford. CorrinoIV (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Dynastic Egypt
I quote: "The Predynastic period dates to the end of the fourth millennium BC. From about 4800 to 4300BC the Merimde culture flourished in Lower Egypt.[3] " 4800 to 4300 is in the 5th millennium, not the 4th millennium. MrSativa (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Genetics
User:Wdford proposed on the Ancient Egyptian race controversy page that I move the material below here. There's a section on this page on DNA studies, with some material already there on the ancient Egyptian population. The following snippet would probably go well there -- In 2013, Nature'' announced the publication of the first genetic study utilizing next-generation sequencing to ascertain the ancestral lineage of an Ancient Egyptian individual. The research was led by Carsten Pusch of the University of Tübingen in Germany and Rabab Khairat, who released their findings in the Journal of Applied Genetics. DNA was extracted from the heads of five Egyptian mummies that were housed at the institution. All the specimens were dated between 806 BC and 124 AD, a timeframe corresponding with the late Dynastic period. The researchers observed that one of the mummified individuals likely belonged to the mtDNA haplogroup I2, a maternal clade that is believed to have originated in Western Asia. '' Soupforone (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Prehistory: Citations do not support assertion
The statement "DNA testing on the ancient egyptian mummies suggest that the people were of an ethnicity identical to that of the Caucasoid Levant Peoples from Western Asia" is given two linked citations, [1] and [2]. The first citation makes no such claim, and the second was probably once an academic's page but is now selling penis enlargement, etc. 124.149.46.92 (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Kate
 * Yes, that appears to be an embellishment. Perhaps the dead-link originally alluded to the University of Tübingen study above, though it too doesn't exactly indicate that. It instead notes that one of the ancient specimens carried the mtDNA haplogroup I2, which is believed to have originated in Western Asia. Soupforone (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Naqada vs Nubia
Some people still cling to the idea that the Ancient Egyptians were closely related to the Nubian A-Group culture - this is particularly popular with those who think (hope?) that the Ancient Egyptians may have been of the black race. Distinct pottery styles, differing burial practices, different grave goods and the distribution of sites all indicate that the Naqada people and the Nubian A-Group people were from different cultures. Kathryn Bard further states that “Naqada cultural burials contain very few Nubian craft goods, which suggests that while Egyptian goods were exported to Nubia and were buried in A-Group graves, A-Group goods were of little interest further north.” See "An Introduction to the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, by Kathryn A. Bard, 2015, pg 110" Wdford (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Celts and Ptolemy II
See Gauls, Egyptians Ptolemy II Philadelphus. This source does suggest some were probably assimilated into the population, but that seems trivial. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Back migration
This still seems relevant to this article, as the software problems don't seem to have made any basic changes in the result for East Africa. Doug Weller  talk 12:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Haplogroups, HGHG & Brace
Cavalli-Sforza's HGHG classical marker analysis is not a reliable indicator of the population affinities of Egyptians. He made many methodological errors therein (see Blench et al. ). Moreover, the higher frequencies of the paternal haplogroup E1b1b in Upper Egypt compared to Lower Egypt is not indicative of greater Sub-Saharan penetration in the former region since most of the clades found there (M78 derivatives) are believed to have originated in the Egypt area itself. Haplogroup B is instead a likely indicator of Sub-Saharan influence; this is noted in the relevant DNA page. However, overall there is little difference in the STR markers of Egyptians in Upper and Lower Egypt. Also, the Sub-Saharan sample in Loring Brace's craniometric analysis was actually culled from both western and eastern areas. Soupforone (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a master's in Anthropology--with a modest amount of training in genetics--and I have to say I don't think you know what you're talking about. Most of the E1b1b clades did emerge in Egypt; but others emerged in modern Sudan. At any rate, a higher frequency of the clades is associative of Ethiopic peoples rather than Berbers.


 * At the very least, you misunderstand the critique of Cavalli-Sforza in the article you cite.


 * Overall, are you really denying that there is more genetic affinity between southern Egyptians and Ethiopic people than northern Egyptians? Because the data cited in the article clearly shows that to be the case. Steeletrap (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Cruciani et al. simply indicate that E-M78, the most common E1b1b lineage in Egypt, originated in the Egypt vicinity (see the E1b1b link above). Anyway, there's no question that Egyptians are closely related to other Afro-Asiatic-speaking populations in Northeast Africa. This is actually due to a shared West Eurasian foundational heritage. Soupforone (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)