Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 10

reply to luka
"The peopling of northern Africa appears to be conditioned by the barriers imposed to the north by the Mediterranean Sea and to the south by the Sahara Desert, which constrains human movement to an east-west direction". Urthogie, the Sahara has not been always a desert. It is actually the desertification which pushed people in west-est direction. All the contrary of what the article is saying. You better watch the 1st of 4 videos by Basil Davidson http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=34&mforum=africa. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are saying the study is wrong. I disagree with you, but neither of our opinions matter because we are not reliable sources.  However, I will nonetheless reply to you in regards to the sahara desert:

Did you watch the 1st video? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) After 6000 BC, the Sahara was dried out. It is therefore valid to say (as the study does) that the Sahara presented a significant population barrier as far as seperating the Northern Africans from the Southern ones since 6000 BC.
 * 2) Even if the Sahara Desert wasn't much of a barrier from 8000 to 6000 BC, that doesn't contradict the study, which claims significant near east demographic influences, not near east origins.--Urthogie 18:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No such study says anything about any Barrier or Significant influence from the near east Urthogie, enough with the Original Research! The Sahara has been wet for thousands of years and when it began to dry, many Saharans are said to have settled the Nile Valley, along with native Nile Valley people, etc.. Later on during Egypt's classical period, there was no barrier up and down the Nile, but there was one in the North called the desert.Taharqa 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, original research is a policy for editing, and it doesn't apply to human discussions, lol! Anyways, check this source out: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~e118/Fezzan/fezzan_palaeoclim.html


 * "The wet episode described above was interrupted by century-scale arid episode sometime around 8 ka"


 * "There is widespread evidence that the onset of the hyper-arid conditions that characterise the Sahara today occurred at around 5 ka (Nicholson and Flohn, 1980; Claussen et al, 1999; Cremaschi et al., 1999)."

Thanks, --Urthogie 19:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, did you watch the 1st video of Davidson? How do you react to it? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It crashed my FireFox but I'll watch in internet explorer when I get a chance.--Urthogie 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You DL the videos from here actually.. http://www.lincoln.edu/history/his307/

^5 thousand years ago? What's the point and what does that have to do with the article or the near east?Taharqa 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The question was about population barriers. Sahara was one at various stretches throughout history, as the study correctly notes.--Urthogie 19:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything, the Sahara extends across all of North Africa, it was a barrier for those coming in North, West, East, or South, with the exception of the Nile.. A Barrier doesn't mean confinement though, and most of the population migration into Egypt was during the period that the Sahara was wet according to most studies.. This has nothing to do with the article so I'd rather shy away from discussing this thoughTaharqa 20:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "A Barrier doesn't mean confinement though." Never said it did.
 * "This has nothing to do with the article so I'd rather shy away from discussing this though." My thoughts exactly.--Urthogie 20:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To Urthogie
Urthogie, stop your provocative behaviour. Instead of reverting, try to contribute. I don't have to ask you the reason why you reverted my last contribution on "Eurocentrism of Egyptology". Everything I wrote was documented. Just stop your joke. It doesn't please me. And if you continue being disruptive, I should report you. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 08:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Urthogie is getting out of hand with the doctoring of other people's contributions, but none from him.. It isn't good that every time he comes back he's removing things for no reason.. Luka, you have to learn how to revert disruptive edits like that.Taharqa 17:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a mistake, both of you. I didn't mean to remove this helpful section.  In fact, I've added to it.  I hope you no longer oppose removing the Afrocentrism section, Taharqa?--Urthogie 20:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Senu presence
"Analyses of mummies, based on either CT scans or melanin tests have come up with a variety of results, some reporting "mixed racial characteristics",[12]". For supporting this view, Urthogie cites the article on Senu http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1180000/1179698/p66-danjou.pdf?key1=1179698&key2=9496520811&coll=&dl=acm&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618. Urthogie, you admited that you are no longer with Senu. But this quotation is still present in the introduction. Why don't you remove it instead of removing contributions by others? Try to be more objective. I agree with Taharqa who suggested to rewrite the introduction which in the present state is too long and a bit confusing. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 09:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed Senu from the intro, and shortened the intro per your request.--Urthogie 20:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity
Urthogie, why do you qualify Aboubacry Moussa Lam as being Afrocentrist? "Raymond Faulkner's concise dictionary of Middle Egyptian translates it into "Egyptians", as do most sources.[38] However, Afrocentrist Aboubacry Moussa Lam translates it to "the Blacks""[39]. You are lacking respect for the African people who are the first concerned by the Egyptian civilization. I will repeat it here for you. Geographically and culturally speaking, ancient Egyptian were Africans and had customs still common today among Black Africans. I am not saying that Lam is not Afrocentric. But, as far as I know, he does not call himself like that. Here, you are making original research! If you want to be coherent with yourself, you have to call Faulkner Eurocentric. Actually he is, because "Egyptian" does not derive from "Kmt". It cannot be its litteral translation. Lam is right. As adjective, "Km" means "black". With the determinative of people, it is a collective meaning "Black people", thus "Blacks". You better call Faulkner Eurocentric, because he defined the Kmtic people from a Greek word. Besides, Lam is a Peul who are from Egyptian origin. He knows, as a Peul and as a Historian, the Egyptian traditions better than Faulkner who is a British influenced by a colonial mentality. When are we going to be humble! Please Urthogie, remove the word "Afrocentric" you added, or add to Faulkner the word "Eurocentric" to show that you are not taking part for one or the other side. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will remove the qualifier Afrocentrist, because you insist.--Urthogie 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A question to Urthogie
Urthogie, I read Maurizio Damiano-Appia. You probably not, because you change things he wrote. He said that they are even today Egyptologists who thinks that Egypt belonged to White people. He spoke about Anglo Saxon mentality. You transform it into Eurocentrism. Here your phrase: "In his book, Egitto e Nubia, Maurizio Damiano-Appia wrote that for many Egyptologists of the past, Egypt was the creation of a "white race." Appia alleges that Eurocentrism was at the base of this false idea". What you are doing, Urthogie, is not fair. You are trying to impose the idea that racism in Egyptology is something of the past. But this is not true. I see it even here in our discussions. Now read the text in Italian by Maurizio-Appia: "Un altro punto fondamentale è la visione della civiltà egizia nel contesto mondiale. Si è discusso circa il popolo egizio e la sua civiltà, ma in generale nella mentalità comune, ed anche in quella di molti eggitologi sino a pochi anni fa (e spesso ancor oggi) è datta per scontata l'idea di un popolo di razza bianca, che creò una cultura mediterranea che poco aveva a che fare con l'Africa se non una quasi casuale collocazione geografica. Alla base di tali idee si poneva la cultura occidentale, di orientamento prevalentemente anglosassone, che vedeva il Vecchio Continente al centro, o meglio ancora alla guida, della cultura mondiale. Ancor più precisamente, con mentalità razzista, la civiltà doveva essere bianca per definizione". Urthogie, I have the impression that when you cannot remove a text, you just rewrite it according to your own perspectives. You are doig original research. Please, stop joking with me. You can correct grammatical mistakes, but don't go beyond that! Or else add beside your own contribution. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 21:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right about this point. But do you see why it makes sense to distinguish between the claim that colonial Egyptology was eurocentric (this is an accepted view among Egyptologists) and modern Egyptology is eurocentric, which only a few Egyptologists believe?  Do you have a suggestion on how we could distinguish the two claims?--Urthogie 22:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need of making such a distinction. The Eurocentric (racist?) mentality in Egyptology is still present today. I am a student in Egyptian language, I know what I am speaking about. And Maurizio-Appia does not speak otherwise: "Oggi tutto ciò deve essere abbandonato definitivamente" (Eggito e Nibia, p. 8). This is an invitation. There are still problems. Even the work of Maurizio-Appia, to say the truth, is contaminated. There are parts of his book which sound Eurocentric. I am not going to quot them. But I know them very well. Eurocentrism is a real sickness. Africans will definitely reject Eurocentric thinking regarding African related matters. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 22:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Luka, the reason I say they have to be distinguished is because of the "undue weight" policy at Wikipedia:NPOV, which is a guiding rule of how we write articles:


 * "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views."


 * This is not to say you are wrong about Egyptology, Luka, it just means we have to give more attention to the more popular view, so we can distinguish. If you can think of a way to say both, we can say "some Afrocentrists argue that this Eurocentrism goes on to this day..." for example.  Thanks, --Urthogie 23:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But Maurizio-Appia is not Afrocentrist, and yet he says explicitely the racist mentality goes on today! Basil Davidson is not Afrocentrist, yet he denounces this racist mentality. Your mainstream Egyptologists are racist and Eurocentric. Egypt is Black and African. Falcifications must end. Maurizio-Appia made also an ivitation in that direction. I agree with him. It is not necessary to rewrite the section in order to balance it. You have to respect what people really wrote. Just add beside opposing views if there are. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 00:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted sentence
I removed the following piece of POV pushing:
 * The ancient Egyptians considered themselves part of a distinct ethnicity, separate from their neighbors, and were not conscious of "race" in the modern sense.

because none of the citations are appropriate. The first citation leads to page that mentions neither race nor ethnicity. The second goes to a page that uses "race" in relation to ancient Egyptions, and speculates that ethnicity may be as useful (i.e. the opposite of what this sentence claims). The third citation goes to a paper that does not mention Egypt. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Slrubenstein. It is good to do things openly. For me it is fine. I don't know what Taharqa and Urthogie will think of it. But if appropriate sources are provided, will you change your mind? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 14:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

By all means, we should try to find appropriate sources for any and all points of view and represent them! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have also deleted this:
 * Basil Davidson, who does not identify as an Afrocentrist, has also denounced what he sees as the blatant falsification of the Egyptian history by some Western scholars. He agrees that the Egyptians were Black people and originated from the south and the west.

because it is an inappropriate citation. The link does not go to an article by Professor Davidson, it goes to a prep-sheet for some class. This is not an appropriate source. If someone can find a proper citation for Davidson saying this, by all means let's put it in the article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The prep sheet for the class has links to Basil Davidson's videos if you click on the pictures.Muntuwandi 15:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't realize that. It may not be obvious to others too. More important - Davidson has published too. I urge you to find a better source, I am sure Davidson has this written someplace. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandals
Such as our most recent one, where do these people come from, and why don't folx simply come to the talk page? The I lost my marbles again guy insisted on a direct website link to the 2005 study and disputes diop's study because according to him, Diop was a racialist. Ok, well we didn't need that Senu link in there and we agreed along time ago that it wasn't reliable, so I removed him and Diop from the intro and provided a link to the 2005 study. However, this vandal even when running out of excuses to blank, still insists on blanking selective material for no reason then hits me up with a message accusing me of being a "Black Afrocentric" simply for reverting, although I never gave my racial orientation or have declared to be an "Afrocentric". I could care less what anyone says, there are closet racists on wikipedia who hide behind guidelines and a lot of the times don't.Taharqa 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Taharqa for writing this. I just came with the intention of inviting I lost my marbles again to the discuss his changes. Accusations against Diop are useless. What is important is to refute scientifically what he said. By the way, I think it is time to reshuffle the introduction. It is too long and contains many quotations. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen I am not Racist. I was born in Egypt and although i have now lived in America for 17 year I still consider myself an Egyptian. The Ancient Egyptians were EGYPTIAN they were not Sub-Saharan African. They were a tanned people like me, I am considered a caucasoid (but not a caucasian) so i guess thats what they would be. I just hate how the Black community is so obsessed in stealing our culture. Trust me you would be mad if people were trying to steal your culture and heritage and say its something its not. My father hates the fact that some people are ignorant enough to think this. I can basically Guarantee that they were not Black Africans until the late periods when the Nubians took control. Eurocentrism seems to have died down a bit, but the obnoxious Afrocentrists seems to be at full force. Anyways im done with this subject on wikipedia, I dont care what goes on here. Personally i think user Taharqa is biased. But I only hope the Administrators allow this to be a fair topic and not let it get out of hand.

Blacks aren't stealing a damn thing! If anything your Arab ancestors were the thieves. We are only trying to reclaim OUR history.74.128.200.135 02:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This Egyptian does not know anything of ancient Egypt. From what he is saying I can conclude that he is not from indigenous Egyptians who are Blacks. Africa does not produce neither Caucasoid nor Caucasians. All those in Africa who claim being Caucasoid are foreigners. Some testimonies are needed: "French traveller Constantine de Volney, in Egypt (1783-85)

(De Volney was a French nobleman who was much troubled by the institution of slavery. His expressed opinion that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans much departed from the typical European view of the late eighteenth century, but it gave many people cause for reflection.)

"When I visited the Sphinx, I could not help thinking that the figure of that monster furnished the true solution to the enigma (of how the modern Egyptians came to have their Ômulatto' appearance)É(It's features) were those of the negro.. (the Egyptians therefore must have been) real negroes, of the same species of the natives of AfricaÉ..How are we astonishedÉwhen we reflect that to the race of negroes, at present our slaves, and the objects of our extreme contempt, we owe our arts, sciences, and even the very use of speech; and when we recollect that in the midst of those nations who call themselves the friends of liberty and humanity, the most barbarous of slaveries is justified, and that it is even a problem whether the understanding of negroes be of the same species with that of white men!"

M. Constantine de Volney, Travels through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784, and 1785 (London: 1787), p. 80-83."

"2h. The German Egyptologist Adolf Erman, on the race of the ancient Egyptians (1894)

(While the idea that the Egyptians were not really Africans was prevalent among many European and American scholars, it was not universally supported. Erman was one of the outstanding dissenters)

"Nothing exists in the physical structure of the ancient Egyptian to distinguish him from the native AfricanÉ from the Egyptian to the negro population of tropical Africa, a series of links exist which do not admit of a break. The EgyptiansÉcannot be separatedÉ.from the Kelowi or the Tibbu, nor these again from the inhabitants around Lake Tsad; all form one race."

Adolf Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, New York:1894 (New York: Dover Publications, 1971), p. 29"

Of cause, there are people who like you are dreaming seing in the ancient Egyptians some Caucasian or Caucasoid origin. Find these people here to better nourish your mind http://www.nubianet.org/about/about_interpret3.html Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 12:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your logic is so stupid. So you are trying to say that everyone in Africa is Black. Or that everyone indigenous of Africa is Black. Africa is a continent not a race. Russia is in Asia is it not. Are they Asians? Of course not, Russians are white. People are just really ignorant because whenever they hear the word Africa they think of Black People.

"Nothing exists in the physical structure of the ancient Egyptian to distinguish him from the native AfricanÉ from the Egyptian to the negro population of tropical Africa"

WELL WHO EVER SAID THAT IS A COMPLETE JOKE. THE EGYPTIANS LOOK DISTINCTIVELY DIFFERENT IN THEIR HYROGLIFICS THAN THE NEGRO NUBIANS TO THE SOUTH. THE EGYPTIAN EMPIRE EVENTUALLY DECLINED AND THEN THE NUBIANS TOOK OVER. THE GREAT DYNASTIES WERE CAUCASOID.

HERE IS A VIDEO I FOUND ON YOUTUBE. ITS A MUMMY. JUST LOOK AT PHARAOH SETI 1. TELL ME HOW MANY NEGROIDS LOOK LIKE THAT. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptrNxd1jbSM&mode=related&search=

MY god what is with you WN's and posting this same picture of Ramses and without any scientific analysis whatsoever assert the man was without a doubt Caucasian. As far as far as the ancient Egyptians go the earliest migration to the Nile Valley region came from the South and West. The area where they migrated from was the Sahara (before desertification) so these people were obviously black Africans in origin.

As far as the clear racial boundary between the Egyptians and the Nubian's, that is nothing more than a flat out lie created by your Stormfront buddies to justify their current feelings towards race, which is supported by nothing more than well Stormfront LOL. If you which to undermine the findings of the most recent studies regarding the race of the ancient Egyptian, which proves that they were as black as the "Negro Nubian's" than that's on you SIR! Until then do us a favor do not spout ignorant crap is you are not going to back it up with anything but racial stormfront rederick. Better yet just glance through the studies and their findings on this article to find out how truly backwards your opinion is regarding this subject. 74.128.200.135 18:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to work on your reading skills. I said caucasiod not Caucasian. Perhaps you should do some research on Anthropology before you say something so completely stupid. Pharaoh Seti I is clearly Caucasoid. Stormfront? The Neo Nazi group? I hope you know Storm front would not like me if they saw me. I am an Egyptian not a White person. Nobody is saying they are Blonde Haired Blue eyed Germans. You are the one that is Ignorant. And yes the Egyptians clearly had a tan skin. They did not have Black skin like you afro bozos say they did. Just look at the Differences in Hyroglifics comparing the Nubians to the Egyptians. Quit trying to steal history just to get some recognition. Its a pretty sad thing to do.

We have a present day Arab talking about stealing history LOL, DO YOUR HOMEWORK!. I will not take back my statement that you are ignorant of ancient Egyptian history despite being an "egyptian" yourself so rather than have some pointless debate as to rather "your" ancestors were the original egyptians I'm just going to post these videos for you. If you don't want to accept that as proof then there is a shit load of scientific research to confirm it on this very article.









ancient artifacts and art? are you talking about these!

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/d989_op_238x600.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/j87.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/29f0.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/tw.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/rekhnire.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/ren8.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/so2.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/so1.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/so3.jpg

Syrians pay homage carrying vessels. Some of these items are most elaborate; made of gold inlaid with semi-precious stones. One man leads a small girl by the hand, while another carries an elephant tusk. (the last one)

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/wallp0.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/rem99.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/huy765_op_559x600.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/huy767_op_472x600.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/uy7.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/h9uy5.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/hor1.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/tut20.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/files/nef-inside.jpg

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/22.jpg Princess Sitamun

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/Kamose11.jpg Kamose

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/link.jpg Ahmose-Nefertari

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/tIII.jpg Tuthmosis

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/tuiv.jpg Tuthmosis IV

http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/kiya2.jpg Queen Kiya Louisvillian 04:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I lost my marbles again is so hopelessly confused in what he is saying that it is borderline comedic and obviously racist, which is what blurs his logic as he is speaking from frustration. However, this does not obscure that fact that Ancient Egyptians were not Modern Egyptians. I can prove this by simply posting links to Keita's, C. Loring Brace's, and Zakrzewski's most recent cranial and skeletal studies clearly showing that the ancient Egyptians were more similar morphologically and cranio-facially to Sudanese Nubians and Modern Somalis than to Modern day Egyptians, who are indeed miscegenated, with the Badarians(early predynastic Egyptians) actually clustering closest to the Teita of Kenya. While it is true that Modern Egyptians didn't totally replace ancient egyptians(as can be seen in parts of southern Egypt), the fact that ancient and modern Egyptians are distinct is something that the most respected of Egyptologists have acknowledged(Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review" in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, eds. Black Athena Revisited. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. p. 62-100).

Brace(2006) - The Egyptians clustered closer with Nubians and Somalis than to Modern Egyptians.. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/brace_2006.pdf

Zakrzewski(2003) reports that the Ancient Egyptians had tropical body plans, this means that their skeletal proportions were consistent with those of what you call "Sub-saharan Africa", and in a lot of cases, more dramatically! http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/egyptian_body_proportions.pdf

Keita(1992) finds that first Dynasty royal remains were most similar cranio-facially to Kerma "Nubians".. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/further_study_keita.pdf

^^None of these studies have been criticized or refuted..

As far as Egyptians having a tan complexion, again, this is fictitious and isn't even reflected in Egyptian art work as it shows them clearly to be dark brown, around the same complexion as Ethiopians and Modern Somali, but darker than the Syrio-Palestinians they depicted from the Levant(refer to the evidence referenced by Louisvillian)..

But if we're to be objective and logical in our attempt to infer the possible skin color of most Ancient Egyptians, I feel that it would be helpful in referring back to Zakrzewski who found that they were tropically adapted. Using common sense, this would have to apply to their skin color. In other words, tan skin is not a tropical adaptation!

You so emphatically stress the fact that people should do research in anthropology when if you were to use the word "Caucasoid" or "Negroid" in the presence of a biological anthrpologist, they'd laugh at you indefinitely. You also contradict yourself by asserting that the Egyptians were not white but Caucasoid, then in the very next instance you post a youtube video called "white Egypt" that was in response to a youtube video called Black Egypt (which is much more elaborate in my honest opinion) that flaunts the image of Eurocentrism's favorite dynasty, with the implication clearly being suggestive of this person being a "Caucasian". You obviously searched high and low for it as the link indicates, however, it proves nothing at face value as these features are abundant in East Africa. See this picture of Ramses II next to this Afar elder. http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/rameses_2.html

Even with this however, the family of Seti was of obscure origin and were not part of the royal family line. They rose in ranks as soldiers in the Egyptian army(which consisted of Lybians and Nubians), were Seth worshipers(unlike the previous Egyptians and the 18th Dynasty pharaohs who followed Horus), with Seth being the God of the Lybians and Semites, were obviously tied to semitic, (unlike previous Egyptians), as Ramses II gave one or two of his daughters non-Egyptian/semitic names, came from the northern fringes of Egypt(near the levant and in the area of previous Hyksos domination), and analysis on Egyptian mummies clearly show them(New Kingdom, 19th dynasty) to be what people would call "mixed", but there was still an overall affinity with Nubians in the New Kingdom(especially in the late 17th/18th Dynasty)!

Pay attention..

Description of X-ray images of Royal Mummies in X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies

From the Dynasty(19th) in question: Seti I

Father: Ramesses I, Mother: Queen Sitre Projecting, arched glabella. Zygomatic arches are rather forward giving prominent cheekbones. Very straight upper incisors; receding chin; moderately steep mandible and broad ramus. Sloping, rather flattened forehead. Occipital region is similar to Pharaohs of XVIII Dynasty.

Ramesses II

Father: Seti I, Mother: Queen Mut-Tuy Rounded forehead with sagittal plateau. Slight, rounded glabella. Proclined upper incisors; receding chin with high ANB. Rather long ramus with weak inclination of mandible. Orthognathous.

The previous Dynasty(18th)..

Queen Ahmes-Nefertary Father: Seqenenre Tao II or Kamose, Mother: Queen Ahhotep I or Queen Ahhotep II Strongly proclined incisors. Rounded forehead, sagittal flattening; rounded occiput. Somewhat forward zygomatic arches; pronounced alveolar prognathism. Steep mandible with squat ramus and receding chin.

Father: Ahmose, Mother: Ahmes-Nefertary Rounded glabella, sloping forehead, sagittal plateau, rounded occiput. Zygomatic arches project forward. Moderate protrusion of upper incisors and pronounced prognathism. Receding chin and steeply inclined mandible.

First identified as Queen Tiye The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors, receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism.

Proceeding Dynasties(Post-19th) Ramses IV

Father: Rameses III, Mother: Queen Habadjilat or Queen Isis Bulging occipital bun. Rather low vault; rounded forehead with pronounced glabella; vertical zygomatic arches; receding chin and moderate protrusion of incisors. Angular mandible.

Ramses V

Father: Ramesses IV or Ramesses III, Mother: Queen Habadjilat or Queen Isis Very prominent glabella. Protrusion of upper incisors; receding chin and moderate inclination of mandible. Low, sloping forehead. Flattening of the sagittal contour.

Other Royal Mummy X-rays  Queen Nodjme

Globular cranium, rounded forehead and occiput; sagittal plateau. Pronounced maxillary prognathism; blunt, receding chin and steep mandible.

Queen Sitkamos

Globular cranium, rounded forehead and occiput. Maxillary and mandibular prognathism; proclined upper incisors. Receding chin and angular mandible.

Queen Esemkhebe

Pronounced prognathism. Rounded forehead with flattish cranium and sagittal depression. rounded occiput. Pointed, receding chin.

Prince Ouabkhousenou

Globular cranium with occipital bun. Rounded forehead with prominent, rounded glabella. Strongly prognathous with receding chin and steep mandible.

Quote: "In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity, while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period." http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9845/data7.htm

^Nuff said. Now please get rid of your nasty attitude and come in here with an objective mind or simply stay away and tend to something else. Thank you..Taharqa 02:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Eurocentrism in Egyptology
I want to remove the section Eurocentrism in Egyptology, because I don't see what it is going to say not already said in the section Racial prejudice of Egyptology. The content of this last section was previoulsly written for Eurocentrism in Egyptology. Somebody came and then decided to change the title. Now the old title appear again, but without content! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research
Urthogie, is it you who wrote this in the "Punt" section: "However, none of the major dictionaries of the ancient Egyptian language translate it this way.[44]"? The reference 44 says: "cf. Faulkner's concise dictionary of Middle Egyptian, for example". Have you ever seen this Dictionary? The reference is not complete. Likewise here in the section on "Racial prejudice of Egyptology", it is maybe you who wrote: "Egyptology today does not claim that the ancient Egyptians were white, and instead aims to study them without any consideration of "race" whatsoever." Where is the reference? This is original research. Please remove these sentences. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Champollion-Figeac
Someone is stated in an interview as quoting Champollion-Figeac “black skin and wholly hair don’t make someone to belong to the Black race”, but that I think that same someone coauthored "Egypt Revisited" and printed "...black skin and kinky hair are not enough to stamp a race as negro...". (SEWilco 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
 * The interview was made in French by Cheikh Anta Diop. I translated. As you can see, the content is the same: introducing a confusion in the definition of the Black race in order to remove ancient Egyptians from the Black world. But if you want to replace my translation with the printed version I did not know before, you can do it of cause. Make sure the reference is exact and complete, so that people can check. Thank you! Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 08:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's the rest of the article
qué pasó? Muntuwandi 03:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah what the Hell Happened?74.128.200.135 03:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Urthogie, what kind of man are you? Stop fooling people. Please, revert to the older version before I report you. You have destroyed a work of entire months. Do you think that all those who collaborated to sections like: Ancient writers, Language, The Great Sphinx of Giza, Racial prejudice of colonial Egyptology, to name only a few, are less intelligent than you? What respect for others? That's what you call collaboration? What kind of education are you promoting? Revert to the older version as quick as possible. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 09:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the article to it's previous content. Louisvillian 17:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Louisvillian. But Urthogie must learn how to build a common work. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie is a pretty sneaky and low down guy, he's basically deleting anyandevery part of the article that sugguest that they were black, while enhancing the sections(with no sources) that sugguest they were Middle eastern. 74.128.197.58 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So what is the verdict, do you guys agree with the split(obviously you didn't agree with the drastic changes to your contributions)? I totally understand what you guys are saying, we're just at odds now because he split the article so we need to figure out what information stays here and what goes to the other one.Taharqa 19:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The studies need to stay above all else. Louisvillian 20:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

^I agree, the research belongs here and more of the trivial aspects like "Ancient writers", the Sphinx, Egyptological opinion, Ancient Egyptian view, etc should stay there..Taharqa 20:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The studies that deal with appearence should be on the appearence article. Population history does not study appearence.--Urthogie 14:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

^There is no real way to "study" appearance unless we're talking about opinions on art work, scientists study population history by way of population biology, which includes and isn't limited to, craniofacial examination, genetics, skeletal remains, culture, and language. Appearance deals with "what did tut look like", facial reconstructions, art and architecture, the Sphinx, Cleopatra, myths, Egyptology and Afrocentrism, etc.. Which I feel was right to be moved as it invites disputes..Taharqa 19:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to both Yom and Urthogie
Yom and Urthogie, please, stop reverting. And if you have some suggestions, put them down in this talk page for discussion. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

^I already messaged Yom and suggested just that.. Actually Yom is cool, just unaware of your concerns, his intentions are good....Taharqa 20:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seicer as well, come first here to discuss the changes you are making. You have to respect those who worked here to improve the article. Or in exchange, no body will respect you! You are promoting the rule of arbitrary. Please, stop this joke, revert to the 74... version and explain what is going on in your mind. We can discuss for making modifications, not after, before making them! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 07:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

defining race?
The article should avoid the subject of race or appearence. Both of these belong to appearance of the ancient Egyptians. No one has removed content, by the way. Only split to two better named pages.--Urthogie 14:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although your revert did remove content and the content is already split. This page does not deal with appearance, it deals with population research(with the exception of maybe the Afrocentrism section on down)... Also, the defining "race" section was only kept for brief notability, to elaborate on what is said in the intro as to present the present scientific view of "race" which prefers to focus on population biology.Taharqa 18:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Race does not exist, so it is not part of population history. Do you agree we can remove it?  seconldy why are we keeping sections on "hair" and "body plans" and "crania."  This is appearance, not population history.  By the way Taharqa, I know by reverting I have unintentionally removed some of your good minor fixes.  But can you understand why I would revert when such sections are added back?  These sections deal with appearance, not population history.--Urthogie 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough with your original research, if race does not exist then it shall be mentioned why and by whom, after that we can move on. It is clearly stated in the "definition of race" section that anthropologists have moved away from such concepts of race. "Hair" and "body plans" and "crania have to do with assessing population history and it makes no sense for you to revert when the revision mentions the very same thing".. When anthropologists are studying crania and looking for population shifts or peopling scenarios, they are not studying "appearance" anyways. What you are doing is based on POV nor does it have consensus and you are deleting people's contributions, even though you told me you would not and just defend the split. Thank you, but I don't understand your revert. If the hair section specifically that bothers you, given the fact that it hasn't been expanded on in a long time I'd doubt that anyone would care if you got rid of it.Taharqa 23:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not against removing all mentions of appearance, only those which don't mention genetics in the studies. As far as defining race, would you oppose moving that to the appearance article?  After all, it seems like mentioning "race" is only important when we're talking about what they looked like.  For example, people would see me as a European Jew and say I'm white because of my skin color (appearance) not because of my Middle Eastern roots (population history).--Urthogie 23:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I moved the "defining race" section to the other article..Taharqa 02:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions?
Does anyone have any suggestion pertaining to the perfection of the article? What needs to be improved, as far as grammar, content, and format? It seems good to me, but there is always room for improvement..Taharqa 23:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)