Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 4

Protection lifted
Since there was still some ongoing editing (albiet among adminstrators) I've lifted the protection. If anyone edit wars any further, leave a note on my talk page and you'll get see a block for disruption quick-smart. - brenneman  23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

what i learned from this page
Egypt = Mixed Race Society seems to be what scientific evidence supports, contrary to white racists and the afrocentrists. Good job wikipedia on a great page. Peace,

--winatchess
 * Er..wrong. Science doesn't support the existence of race. See the AAPA's statement on it here. &mdash; ዮም  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 00:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Race as in the social use of the term. --winatchess
 * It doesn't work that way. Egyptians didn't believe in race in the social use of the term as you are applying (i.e. the modern American view). &mdash; ዮም  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 08:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

21 December Edits
Enriquecardova, I see you have returned to this article today. Unfortunately you don't appear to have used the time away to read the talk page or the manual of style, as you are still making major, largely unformatted, additions to this controversial article without discussing it here.

I'm not sure why we need a Scholarly Dissent heading in an article about a Controversy. It mostly either covers ground already adequately discussed in Wikipedia's Race article, or contains information that would be better-suited to the article's Anthropology subsection. In particular, the Luigi Cavalli-Sforza information is duplicated within the article.

Today's Frank Yurco-related additions appear to represent a fairly mainstream view - in fact this Egyptologist is probably notable enough for his own Wiki article in which more detail could be expounded upon his theories. The information could then be summed up in a somewhat less verbose way in this article under Anthropology. StoptheDatabaseState 16:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cut the nonsense. You are not fooling anyone. You (and whatever other user names) were one of the primary people making unilaeral reverts to this article, rather than deal with the content, as the logs and history well show. Now you finally show up on the Talk page to spin a load of malarkey about "you don't appear to have used the time away to read the talk page," and "making major, largely unformatted, additions.." What a load of utter rubbish. Stop. Its not even good, creative parody. You are only exposing yourself. Now let's get down to bidniss:


 * You say "I'm not sure why we need a Scholarly Dissent heading in an article about a Controversy.." Agreed, but since the section seems so important to many people, I would be inclined to let it stay. The fact is that there are a number of scholarly debates on this subject. Scholarly Dissents is a misnomer. I would support changing the heading to Scholarly Approaches, and letting others add in their 2 cents.
 * You say the section covers "covers ground already adequately discussed in Wikipedia's Race article, or contains information that would be better-suited to the article's Anthropology subsection." Actually the section is extremely thin, and does not even begin to cover the scholarship on exactly this controversy- which include Yurco, Trigger, Keita etc etc. There is really no "coverage" at all. As for the duplicate Luigi Cavalli-Sforza information, a quote is duplicated, however his approach has been questioned by various scholars particularly his use of the controversial Extra European Caucasoid classification to incorporate North African peoples like the Egyptians and Ethiopians.
 * On the Yurco addition, it is a 3 line quote and is thus hardly "verbose," and is directly related to the topic at hand. It is not even in his own article as of this writing. The rest of the information sums up the scholarship in the field with documented references to currrent scholarship.
 * Also the Yurco addition was added 4-5 days ago. It is one of the things that was removed by the multiple username/reverts. It is hardly something just added today that "appears to represent a fairly mainstream view."


 * It seems that for some reason, you want to remove or bury what mainstream scholars are saying about this topic, even though what they are saying is well documented and verifable, and is indeed part of what Wikipedia seeks in its articles. Making dubious cliams with lofty tones is no substitute for logical analysis and clear documentation. I believe the Scholarly Dissent section could stay, with a renaming or expansion. If we are going to do an article on Controversies, lets at least be intellectually honest and deal with the data on this topic.


 * Alternatively:


 * I will shift the verbiage in "Scholarly Dissent" to Anthropology as you yourself suggest. My only bottom line is that there is real reference to the various scholarly approaches in the field. As it stands right now, those are in place, including the mainstream Yurco quote, and the questions surrounding the Carvili-Szorza approach.
 * I will then leave it to you, to replace the Scholarly Dissent section with an intro or starting section of your choice. As long as its neutrally worded, and based on proper scholarship, I have no problem with it. If you want you can even bring back the controversial King Tut picture. I have problems with it, including its copyright status, but I will not stand in the way. I will remain neutral on Tut's pic, whatever other editors do.
 * Other editors of course may have completely different ideas, and that is fine. The more the merrier. They can make their own changes. We can of course open up another RFC and spend yet another 4 weeks of edits and cross edits, or we can settle this along the lines suggested above right now, subject of course, to what other editors want or think. If they want to put it back and continue the discussion fine.Enriquecardova 00:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is looking much better with the latest changes. StoptheDatabaseState 11:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? I notice wholesale reversion to the controversial King Tut picture and the previous version without discussion. Enriquecardova 20:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Who was it who replaced that picture and reverted to the poorly-worded edits (e.g. 'Causcasian' instead of the properly wikilinked Caucasian ? Not me - it was some anon. Please actually take the time to look at the edit history. You and I are not the only editors having their say in this topic's article-space. StoptheDatabaseState 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Keita reference
Nebakneil, resurfacing to work his bogus double game with "other" accounts, alleges that the S. Keita reference casts no doubt on use of catch-all categories like Mediterranean or Middle Eastern to define racial categories. Passages used by Keita were quoted in full earlier. Nebakneil removed them. Now he develops a mysterious memory lapse and says that the reference really don't say what they said earlier. What a dumb game. No one is being fooled. He can use tags or "good cop, bad cop" routines under "other" user accounts, but his game is growing stale. Can't you people be more creative? Very well, here are the quotations again. Its just a simple matter of copy and paste. The old version is on hard disk. Once again, the BS, obstructionist, tag splashing approach being used by certain people is being exposed. If we are going to play at an "academic" approach, then I too must reevaluate the use of the King Tut picture per Wikipedia guidelines, as other editors will no doubt do.

'''Nebakneil removed the quotes below earlier. Now he says they really didn't say what they said earlier :)lol - people please- give me some better comedy ...'''


 * "The territorial map in Keita (1988) shows the late dynastic northern Egyptian "E" series to be similar to a subset of Middle Eastern crania. Harris and Weeks (19731, imply that Old Kingdom Giza crania were more like Nubians. The previous work for the Maghreb and Nile Valley suggests the presence of notable variability.. Overall the crania were seen as Mediterranean," "Semitic," "Negroid," hybrid, some composition of these, and/or a hybrid between these groups.. Skeletally "Negroid" cannot be restricted to a monotypic extreme concept (Rightmire, 1975, 1977). Coon et al. (1950) note groups who have almost stereotypical tropical African soft part characteristics coupled with "Mediterranean" bony cranio-facial form, but they do not report the reverse.. Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been “lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers. Randall-MacIver (1901) concludes that the predynastic people were “a blending in various proportions of Semite and Negro.” Myers (in Pearson et al., 1902-31, describes morphological variability in predynastic crania as ranging from “Negroid to “Mediterranean,” to argue against claims of homogeneity determined by metric analysis...""Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa", AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990)

'''"Nebakneil" also claims that quotations from mainstream scholar Yurco "POV". Duh. His tactics is to put tags by everything in an attempt to get what he doesn't like removed. His bogus AFD request was in similar vein''' It is obvious that scholars have differng points of view. is there any scholar that doesn't have one? The proper Wikipedia approach is comparing Yurco to ANOTHER scholar so an objective comparison can be made. But Nebakneil and his "other" accounts remember, removed such comparions. Now, piously, he laments about "POV" by some scholars, after earlier removing the comparisons. lol.. Doesn't this BS approach get tiring for you people? comedy people, comedy, gimme a better routine..
 * ***END OF TODAY'S LESSON*** Enriquecardova 00:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I would like to inform you that English is not my native language so forgive my grammatical errors.

This is regarding Kemets ethnicity

This message is to all researchers of ancient Kemet. The ethnicity of ancient Egyptians is of an Ethiopian. A lot of you get confused of what is “BLACK”. The fact that there were and are two main “Black” complexions in ancient kemet or Cush is confusing for the so called white and African American history students. The very dark black natives of that area are known as the “Aiye-oakes” or “Gam-bella” and they can be found today leaving in the western parts of Ethiopia and the Durfur regions of Sudan. The less dark black natives of that area are generally known as the Habeshas. The Habeshas are the Eritreans and Ethiopians. A lot of you history researchers don’t have enough information about the region and are usually writing or trying to understand an old culture based on solely books. If you are really serious about learning or finding out the true identity of ancient Egypt, then try learning a bit of Tigrinya, Amharic or geez (the older version of the two languages) and you will see that most of the names of ancient Egyptian city’s , kings , queens are very Ethiopic. I don’t even know how to read Hieroglyphics (has been done already for me ….. thank god) but without even reading the explanation of what the names mean I can tell you accurately what they mean, due to my understanding of these two languages.

Most of you whether you are white or black don’t seem to be interested in the history of kmt but are mostly interested in the politics. When there is nothing to politicize. Your goal seems mostly to proof that you had a CIVILIZATION or to proof that they (“Blacks”) were not part of the greatest CIVILIZATION of all time... I definitely understand the frustration of most of the arguments coming from black researchers, but in regard to some and very some white researcher’s comments, it is very clear, it only has one purpose, i.e. to continue the distortion of African or Kemets History. But, as I said if you are serious about learning kmts, history learn the above two languages and you will be so amazed how fast your learning of kemet will be facilitated.

History is for all of us. It’s not a black or white or yellow or red history.

IT’S OUR STORY, HUMANS. SO PLEASE LEARN IT WITH AN OPEN MIND.

Regards,

Tariku

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tariku"

This "controversy" was over thousands of years ago. Egyptians were NOT black.
This picture says it all.

Egyptians characterized Negroes as another race, different than themselves. See Book of Gates.

Even sillier and more pathetic is the claim that the AEs were somehow "ancestors" of American blacks.SveinForkbeard 13:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear SveinForkbeard. Like other Eurocentrists, you are trying to amuse people using your own fantasies. The brown-color of the skin of the Egyptian is caracteristic of the black race, in the same way is the dark-color of the Nubian. I see that you have never visited Africa. So, don't speak about things you don't know well. Now, if the "Egyptian were not black", why according to you did Herodotous say that the Egyptians have black skin and wooly hair? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you did Herodotous and Basil Davidson say that the Egyptians occupied their soil from the south, meaning from Nubia? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you did Aristotle say that the Egyptians like the Ethiopians are very dark? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you did Plutarque say that the Egyptians consider themselves as being southerners? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you did Plutarque report that the Egyptians are offspring of Osiris, a black-skin-god? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you did the Bible put Misraim (Egypt) and Kush (Nubia) under a common ancestor Ham? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you Erman and Ranke did write that the people who most resemble the Egyptians are the Nubians? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you did they consider the south of their country as the country of their origin, and the country of the gods? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you did they call themselves kmt(rmT), meaning "the Black people"?, and their country kmmiw(niwt), meaning "the country of the Black people"? I think that you know nothing or just a little about African civilizations. To begin with, please watch the "4 Online videos by Basil Davidson" in www.homestead.com/wysinger/ancientafrica.html (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka).

First, I would like to inform you that English is not my native language so forgive my grammatical errors.

This is regarding Kemets ethnicity

This message is to all researchers of ancient Kemet. The ethnicity of ancient Egyptians is of an Ethiopian. A lot of you get confused of what is “BLACK”. The fact that there were and are two main “Black” complexions in ancient kemet or Cush is confusing for the so called white and African American history students. The very dark black natives of that area are known as the “Aiye-oakes” or “Gam-bella” and they can be found today leaving in the western parts of Ethiopia and the Durfur regions of Sudan. The less dark black natives of that area are generally known as the Habeshas. The Habeshas are the Eritreans and Ethiopians. A lot of you history researchers don’t have enough information about the region and are usually writing or trying to understand an old culture based on solely books. If you are really serious about learning or finding out the true identity of ancient Egypt, then try learning a bit of Tigrinya, Amharic or geez (the older version of the two languages) and you will see that most of the names of ancient Egyptian city’s , kings , queens are very Ethiopic. I don’t even know how to read Hieroglyphics (has been done already for me ….. thank god) but without even reading the explanation of what the names mean I can tell you accurately what they mean, due to my understanding of these two languages.

Most of you whether you are white or black don’t seem to be interested in the history of kmt but are mostly interested in the politics. When there is nothing to politicize. Your goal seems mostly to proof that you had a CIVILIZATION or to proof that they (“Blacks”) were not part of the greatest CIVILIZATION of all time... I definitely understand the frustration of most of the arguments coming from black researchers, but in regard to some and very some white researcher’s comments, it is very clear, it only has one purpose, i.e. to continue the distortion of African or Kemets History. But, as I said if you are serious about learning kmts, history learn the above two languages and you will be so amazed how fast your learning of kemet will be facilitated.

History is for all of us. It’s not a black or white or yellow or red history.

IT’S OUR STORY, HUMANS. SO PLEASE LEARN IT WITH AN OPEN MIND.

Regards,

Tariku

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tariku"

Are ancient Egyptians "ancestors" of African Americans? Oh, yes! Mr SveinForkbeard doesn't know well African history, but he is making comments about it. African traditions, especially among the Western African populations and among the so called Bantou speaking people report the migrations from Egypt. The Kikuyu in Kenya, indicating the north, say that they came from "Kana". This word reminds us "Kmt". In Senegal and Gambia, people have records of their migrations from Egypt. Scholars like Cheikh Anta Diop, Aboubacry Moussa Lam, Théophile Obenga confirm in their investigations what people know from their traditions. Lam in particular wrote a book on "De l'origine égyptienne des Peuls". In another book, "Les chemins du Nil", he showed how Egypt is present through out Africa. After Diop, Lam thinks that it is the invasion of Egypt by the Persians which provoked those migrations we are talking about. Obenga states that "l'Afrique profonde, précoloniale est la dispersion culturelle de l'Egypte ancienne à travers le continent noir". "Kmt" survives in words like "Kongo", "Ghana", "Kumbi Saleh (Saleh = srx = the throne of Horus), "Tur Kana (Tur = ta wr = great country)", "Khemi", "Bughanda", "Kong"... Now, I hope that you know the story of the European Atlantic Slave Trade. Europeans uprooted Africans mainly from Western and Central Africa, the home of the descendants of the ancient Egyptians. That is why the African Americans are normal heir, along with other Africans of the legacy of ancient Egypt. Mr SveinForkbeard, if you visit Africa, you might come out saying like David Livingstone that the Angolans, by their way of weaving, and of making their hair, remind us the ancient Egyptians as we can see them in the London Museum! (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka). - Im tired of people using that one picture to describe the egyptians. I see that picture and raise you the thousands upon thousands more of AFRICAN looking Egyptians. I would also like to argue that The Egyptians are depicted as darker than me.....and I would be considered black. --Vehgah 08:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lies exposed
"And 40% of Ethiopians are Arab genetically. Minorcorrections"

"Hahaha, any evidence (reliable sources, not thread posts in forums about skyscrapers)? I didn't think so (see Semino et al 2004 and Kivisild et al 2004 for Ethiopian and Arab DNA). Yom" "Maternally, Ethiopian genes are entirely of local origin. Yom"

Yom is exposed by his barefaced lies. He says that his studies say Ehtiopian maternal genes don't have Caucasoid admixture. Kivisild

''Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cushitic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages. This finding, consistent with classic genetic-marker studies (Cavalli-Sforza 1997) and previous mtDNA results, is also in agreement with a similarly high proportion of western Asian Y chromosomes in Ethiopians (Passarino et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2002), which supports the view (Richards et al. 2003) that the observed admixture between sub-Saharan African and, most probably, western Asian ancestors of the Ethiopian populations applies to their gene pool in general.''

What kind of deception is Yom operating under here? Since Yom has now been exposed for his lies, can we say Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.207.195.254.202 19:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anon editor, as I warned you here, you can disagree with another person without calling him a liar. Because you have accused Yom of being a liar (with the exact same childish language) & this is considered a personal attack, consider this your last warning: if you call him a liar again, you may be blocked from editting Wikipedia. -- llywrch 21:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we focus on improving the article
I don't think the question or not should be if the Egyptians were black it should really be how black were they. There are too many descriptions of the Egyptians being described as black and dark and wooly haired to say that they were not black. Heck even a visit to stormfront.org and you will see that they even acknowledge that many of ancient egyptians were black but they dispute the time when they were black. I think I might have to agree with the afrocentrist because if a white supreamacist website acknowledges a black influence in Egypt then I would be worse than a white supreamcy if I did not acknowledge it, especially with all the evidence. Even after my question no one has really proved that the egyptians were white or not black. I saw that picture with the nubian and the syria, and libyan and egyptian. The Nubian was black in skin color the egytian was reddish brown and the other two relatively white. Now if ancient egyptians were white they should have the same skin color as the syrians. Odds are the ancient egyptians had the facial characteristics of Nubians but the skin color of Ethiopians. As for the arguement that ancient egyptians are the ancestors of african americans, well that is a bit farfetched imo

truncated
This article has been severly truncated from the original articles and has been replaced with a lot unrelated material. what happened to the sphinx.

Regarding personal attacks
Enough. I've seen a lot of personal attacks, things like accusing others of being "liars", unfounded sockpuppeting jabs, and debate over the controversy itself. I was going to remove these as personal attacks, but it would take me quite a while, and would probably start a useless edit war. In the interest of policy, and of keeping this page relevant to article improvement, I would like to propose the following guidelines for this page for all editors:


 * This is a talk page for improving the ARTICLE, not a page where we argue over ancient Egyptians and their ethnicity.
 * Stop throwing accusations of sockpuppetry around. Unless you have a checkuser confirmation, don't bring it up. This isn't the place.
 * Stop calling others "liars"
 * Stop accusing other editors of having POV issues. For example, I don't have a POV, having absolutely no interest in race issues. Some or most of the editors here might have a POV, but we have to AGF and assume that they are keeping it under control. I really don't see much POV pushing from either side happening here, and I think the article as it stands now is rather neutral.

Some of this is already policy, some of it isn't. But can all sides agree, from this point forward, to uphold these and discuss the article, not arguing over the merits of its topic? --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

afrocentric arguments?
Ok, first off none of the notable sources in this section are afrocentrists. Secondly, its original research to claim their work is afrocentric. Thirdly, its original research to even claim that the afrocentric "argument" has any place in science whatsoever. Science simply produces theories. If some famous afrocentrist says that science has made afrocentric conclusions, we can quote them as saying that in a section called "Opinions", or something along those lines. The current content should be dispersed to other sections. I've placed an original research template on it, and I think it should be moved to other sections. I plan on keeping it there until this issue is discussed and a resolution is reached.--Urthogie 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The section could do with some work but still has some important insights that should not be left out of this article.Muntuwandi 05:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the content should be in the article, but the section definitely shouldnt. Do you see how it is a blatant original research to call these arguments afrocentric?  And that blanking is better than possibly lying to people and giving them original research?  Why don't we move the content to this talk page for a while and plan where to put it, rather than giving people original research?--Urthogie 05:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than, IMO, irrationally target an entire section for removal, treat the subject text as one would any other text. An editor should identify specific passages that he or she finds problematic and address them on their merits (or purported lack thereof). This same approach should be taken toward subsequent edits, as well -- notably my last round of edits --rather than wholesale reversion (by Urthogie) with an absolutely meaningless edit note about "afrocentrists" which is neither informative nor germane. deeceevoice 15:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point DC. I reverted your edits wholesale because I felt they made the entire article focus around afrocentric opinions which come secondary to an actual discussion of the science and facts.  The opinions of afrocentrists and eurocentrists surely are notable, but not as notable as the research itself.  I reverted your edits because they made huge changes to the article that should be discussed on the talk page first.  We would have an easier time compromising if you reverted it to the pre-"big change" version, and discussed it here.  As far as the "afrocentric arguments", my problem is not with the content, so much as the fact that it's grouped together in the way it is-- a synthesis that is clearly original research.  Would you oppose integrating it into other sections?  If not, why?--Urthogie 17:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "huge changes" were made earlier -- when this information was gutted from the article without justification. Again, you must cite specific passages with which you take issue. Reverting text wholesale, gutting passages and reinserting bullsh*t disinformation from a Stormfront website, as well as a blatant, flimsy and wholly unsourced mischaracterization of mainstream opinion w/regard to the skin color of ancient Egyptians which is what you did -- is not the way to improve the article. deeceevoice 18:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the so-called "afrocentric opinions" you refer to are information that is the result of credible and rigorous research by well-regarded academicians and historians (mainstream and otherwise), and are supported by ample evidence, as reported in the article. Despite your opinion, information which supports an afrocentric perspective is not, ipso facto POV; it is what it is. deeceevoice 18:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) The section heading is what I have issue with, not the content. And headings are up to editing and talk page discussion if you haven't heard.
 * 2) I also have issue with the blankings you did in the lead and in several sections. You should justify your blankings if you want that content kept out.--Urthogie 18:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you hadn't heard, immature, snide remarks should be dispensed with. And I'm still awaiting specific passages and your objections. deeceevoice 18:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Apologetics for a black dynastic Egypt". That sentence in the heading. Most of these people (perhaps all) are not apologetics, many of them are scientific studies which clarify a certain point which most scientists would say doesn't deductively prove anything about the race of ancient egyptians. For example, a study that shows some element of human geography that lends possibility to the afrocentrist view wasn't necessarily conducted by scholars who think Egypt was black. It's original research to say their findings are apologetic. In many cases, this is even a blatant lie to say so.--Urthogie 18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That relatively minor change was simply an attempt to address the matter of the subhead in labeling the information as "afrocentrist." An earlier version of this article split the issue artificially, eurocentrists versus afrocentrists -- in effect, erecting strawmen. Clearly, there is much mainstream, non-black, non-afrocentrist scholarship that supports the afrocentrist take on ancient dynastic Egypt. Pigeonholing and mischaracterizing information from, say, Herodotus and Petrie, the Father of Egyptology, as "afrocentrist", rather than merely as the result of objective observation and research is misleading and, depending on one's perspective, simply an ad hominem attack approach to the matter ("afrocentrist" being treated as pejorative term in some circles). If you have a suggestion for alternative wording, then advance it for consideration. And "blatant lie"? Refrain from such accusatory language. Your actions and attitude exhibited herein (and elsewhere lately) are not helpful to the project. deeceevoice 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My alternate suggestion is a restructuring of the article based on the research, rather than the current organization, which is based on opinions-- be it afrocentrists versus eurocentrists or apologetics versus non apologetics. Why not remove this heading "Apologetics for a black dynastic Egypt" and discuss all sides of the evidence as far as the egyptian art, people, and the discussion of the sphynx and other architecture?--Urthogie 18:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I abandoned this article in disgust some time ago, after much of the useful, interesting information had been gutted. If you check back to some of the earlier versions, countevailing information was, indeed, presented. I haven't focused on readding that stuff; it's not my interest, but you're certainly welcome to dig it up. Much of the heavy lifting in that regard already has been done. If you'd like to start another, work page for the article for review/discussion/debate before drastically restructuring the current article, that's fine with me, too. But I have focused on correcting errors and deleting racist disinformation from Stormfront-related websites frontin' like scholarship and will not tolerate you or anyone else continuing to reinsert it into the article. deeceevoice 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'll make a couple small big changes in restructuring and you can revert me at any point if you want to discuss a change. I promise I won't revert back if you'll discuss.  Oh, and I'll make sure to keep the stormfront out-- I'm Jewish :)--Urthogie 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

NY times letter to the editor is not reliable source
Letters to newspapers, comments on blogs, etc. are not notable unless the person themself is notable in the given field. Otherwise, only the content of the publication is considered notable.--Urthogie 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sheldon Peck is a college professor -- at the time, at Harvard University -- and published. His opinions on related subject matter should be, and are, considered authoritative -- hence the publication of his letter in the NYT and works in multiple scholarly journals and other venues. The information is restored. deeceevoice 00:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From the discussion: "Schoch and Peck are not qualified to make opinions about race of ancient peoples. Qualified experts would include Anthropologists, Archaeologists and Egyptologists." This is correct.  It's just a professor extending his field where he's not authoritative.  An orthodontist commenting on this subject is like a professor of pediatrics commenting on the evolution of neoteny.--Urthogie 01:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The above statement is misleading. Prof. Peck made no statement whatsoever about ancient peoples. He commented solely on the craniofacial characteristics of the Giza Sphinx -- a subject fully within his training, education and expertise. The statement will be restored. deeceevoice 13:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with mentioning it as a ref, but including the whole letter is excessive, and is an extremely minor point. Does any serious scholar really say, "hey, lets print out this letter to the editor from an orthodontist!"  No, because orthodontics is the study of how to put in braces and correct teeth, and the guy is stretching his field.  But I'll compromise, I"ll mention that its been pointed out.  But including the whole letter is ridiculous, and also in bad style as it takes voice away from the article.--Urthogie 16:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

restored blanked lead
DCV apparently replaced a paragraph of the lead describing the mainstream scholarly consensus with a sentence describing what Afrocentrists claim the evidence shows. I restored the old lead, and also the picture, which (whether you like it or not) is extremely revelant to the discussion, and represents scientifically derived conclusions. DCV, just want to remind you that an encyclopedia doesn't exist to synthesize truth, but rather to organize and present what reliable sources say (No original research). Discuss before reverting me, please. Thanks, --Urthogie 01:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The "blanked lead" reads:


 * "The mainstream scholarly opinion is that the Egyptians were primarily a light-skinned to brown-skinned group of people with features that resembled more a multiracial society leaning more towards an appearance that is alluded to in the scientific attempt to reconstruct the facial likeness of Tutankhamun which appeared on the cover of National Geographic in 2005."


 * You would do well to note my rationale in "blanking" the offending passage before presuming to school me on the purpose of an encyclopedia. I deleted it because it is incorrect on two very important levels. The assertion regarding skin color of ancient Egyptians by so-called "mainstream scholarly opinion" is not sourced -- as my edit note indicated -- and as is required per Wiki guidelines; it cannot be, because there is no such opinion.  Where is the "reliable source" for such an outrageously off-the-mark assertion?  Answer:  nowhere.  "No original research"?  How about "no blatantly erroneous information"?


 * Secondly, of the three teams who participated in the Tut reconstruction in 2005, producing three, separate reconstructions, only one opted to affix a skin color to its bust and, by the team's own admission, it was an arbitrary decision based on the present-day, highly miscegenated/Arabized Egyptian populace -- and at that, the Egyptians of Lower Egypt, given that the Egyptians in the South are, on average, by many scholarly and anecdotal accounts, considerably darker and more "Negroid"/Africoid in appearance than their compatriots.  They made no effort whatsoever to rationalize how, knowing the identity of the specimen, they could apply fair skin and hazel eyes to their reconstruction, given the complete absence of contemporaneous, nonsymbolic representations of Tut with anything remotely resembling fair skin; he is portrayed as having dark, red-brown skin -- and not a single representational artifact of the young king with hazel eyes.


 * Finally, a Discovery Channel reconstruction of Tut a scant two or three years before -- also an effort of scholars -- produced the following reconstruction. Hardly a light-skinned, mixed-race looking guy with hazel eyes -- is he? Clearly, the author of the above passage is ignorant of the facts and jumped to some unfounded conclusions based on the scandalous reconstruction sponsored by Zahi Hawass and National Geographic.  It is deleted.  Again.  deeceevoice 13:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The mainstream consensus is they were a mixed-race society. The picture should stay, as its not meant to represent fact, but rather what a reliable source says. The caption even makes clear its controversial.  Please stop censoring it.  You can add the other picture that suits your agenda if you like, noone is stopping you.  I'll edit the "mainstream" sentence, but I'm reverting back the picture.--Urthogie 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the text in question, there is no singular, mainstream consensus regarding a prevalent skin color of the ancient Egyptians. Nor is there a consensus as to when and to what the degree there was purported "racial" admixture among the population. The so-called indigenous "Caucasoid"s of North Africa were/are black peoples, as were the Abssyinians/Ethiopians/Eritreans, the Sudanese (Kushites) and the other Nilotic peoples of the region, with the Arabs not present to any great degree until the 7th century A.D. Lotsa luck with finding a reputable source that asserts, as this editor tried to, that the ancient Egyptians were pasty pale with hazel eyes. deeceevoice 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It now says the consensus is of a mixed race society, influenced by the demographics of whites blacks and arabs. The references confirm this.--Urthogie 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Gee, still nothing about skin color??!!!! :p deeceevoice 16:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The sentence makes clear now that a variety of shades existed in ancient Egyptians (and no, noone is suggesting that some barbarians from Europe teleported to Ancient Egypt and turned everyone white). I even added some photos that your afrocentric spidey sense should love.--Urthogie 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is useless
This article appears to have been written by someone too leery/PC to make any clear, definitive conclusions. The author of this article toys around with defining/refuting the concept of "race" rather than making any distinctions. Furthermore, this article actually appears to give credence to the possibility that Egyptians were black- a foolish idea that is already beyond refutation. Also not show is the picture of Ramses II's mummy (http://www.geocities.com/enbp/eg_pics.html), which has Mediterranean features. --Pewpewlazers 07:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, the article deals primarily with how the ancient Egyptians viewed themselves, and not how modern people view them relative to current reality. In effect, the article completely side-steps it's title- not only by undermining the solid concept of race (not abandoned by a majority of scientists), but by making race a complete non-issue. --Pewpewlazers 07:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The unscientific, afrocentric original research and lack of balance you observe is definitely there. Please add sources to this article, and I will help you in the process if you follow the Wikipedia policies.--Urthogie 18:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV confusion
Apparently, there is at least one editor who seems confused about the nature of POV and NPOV. I've replaced the inappropriate NPOV tags with "balance" tags. deeceevoice 13:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reinserted the "balance" tags. POV indicates the insertion of groundless personal opinion. Unless and until specific passages are identified in the article as it stands that misrepresent facts, then the POV tags do not apply. And even then, I would argue that those passages either need to be flagged with "fact" notations and discussed. If documentation of the information cannot be provided, then it needs to go. From what I've read, the problem here is one of balance -- not of factuality. The information provided appears, by and large, to be reasonably presented and adequately sourced. If there is a passage that is not, then raise the matter here so that it can be discussed. Plastering the article with POV tags with no real explanation is inappropriate. Those who seek to have an alternative viewpoint represented -- which is fitting and proper -- should present that information so that the "balance" tags then can be removed. . If no such information is provided, then it may be assumed that there is no credible, countervailing information, the result being the eventual removal of the "balance" tags deeceevoice 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was the anon who removed the balance tags. I have no problem with em, its just tags.--Urthogie 16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

want more references in the lead?
I've added several sources that attest to Egypt as a mixed-race society, with a variety of skin colors. These are all scientific and modern, and represent the common view of scientists who study Egypt. I challenge you to find one mainstream Egyptologist who thinks the Egyptians were not a mixed-race society. I also added some middle-eastern looking faces from ancient egyptian art. Thanks, --Urthogie 16:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Urthogie, Basil Davidson, a great British historian, thinks that Egyptians were Black people. Cf. homestead.com/wysinger/ancientafrica.html . Your article contains misleading informations. (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.110.156.38 (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC).


 * The site you linked to is a private, very biased web page.
 * Davidson's book was published with evidence from 1959 and ealier. (very much out of date)
 * Very few researchers agree with him. However, there have been notable exceptions, such as Dr. Diop, who seems to basically agree with him on this point.
 * Diop's views relied on a view of race that is seen as partially correct, but outdated, today. (Don't believe me? Read his book: Evolution of the Negro world' in Presence Africaine (1964))
 * Diop admits that the Egyptians were a mixed race society, which is what I insisted in the first place.("Whilst acknowledging that the ancient Egyptian population was 'mixed', a fact confirmed by all the anthropological analyses...")
 * Diop also made a mistake in claiming there was a Broad black worldwide phenotype.
 * Diop's work was done in the 60's and 70's. Much of it is out of date, (especially its conceptions of race).

Anything else you want to bring up?--Urthogie 21:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Urthogie, Basil Davidson is correct. His analyses are conform to the testimonies of ancient writers like Herodotus and Aristotle. They knew the Egyptians, they lived with them. Their testimonies are essential! Herodotus wrote that the Egyptians have black skin and wooly hair. Aristotle said that the Egyptians like the Ethiopians are very black. Now, will you come saying that Herodotus and Aristotle are out of date? There is more. Herodotus said that the Egyptians are people from the south because the Delta did not exist before, being under water. This observation is true. The first Egyptian nome is Ta Seti, meaning Nubia. Diodore de Sicile learned from the Nubians that the Egyptians are Nubians. Plutarque confirms this. While he was in Egypt, he learned that the Egyptians consider themselves as belonging to the southern world. Actually an Egyptian text says that Osirus flies from the left side. Now to the Egyptian the left side is the south. Do you see, Urthogie, in this ancient time, white people or mixed races coming from the south of Egypt? Usually, when one speaks of the Egyptians being a mixed race, one thinks of a mix of black Africans with Asians. Asian and African ancient sources agree in refuting this modern western idea. What do the Bible says to you? Does is not put together Egypt and Cush under the same ancestor, Cham? The Egyptian priest Manetho does the same. Are you going to say that Manetho is out of date? Why don't you mention in the article these writers who wrote your classics? Maybe because they contradict you! What about the picture of the races found in the tomb of Rameses III? Where is it in the article? The hieroglyphs put in the article are not even well translated. When "Kmt" refers to the place, it means "black (nation)". Not "black land", as says the article. Kmt is feminin. Land is masculine in the Egyptian language. But the city (niwt) is feminin. When it refers to the people, it means the "Black (people). Not "people of the black land". Where do you see the determinative of land in this last hieroglyph? You will say that you are quoting mainstream Egyptologists. OK! Just continue to quote people who are misleading you. But this is neither science nor truth. Finaly, I really don't know where you found what you are saying about Cheikh Anta Diop. You better listen to his interviews in Guadaloupe and America to refresh your memory in www.africamaat.com/article.php3?id_article=821 (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.110.156.38 (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC).


 * As for Aristotle, noone is denying that Egypt was very curly haired and black as compared to Greeks. Its also worth noting the confusion as to how they dealt with race in this period.
 * Herodotus, the father of history, was accused in his time and ours of fabrication, plagarism, and general misinformation. For example, Herodotus claimed that Ethiopians had black semen, unlike whites (aristotle had to correct him on this!)!  If you want another scientific source which lays the specific claim by Herodotus that Egyptians were all black and wooly haired into question, read this: .  See, surely some Egyptians were black and wooly haired, but the point remains it was a mixed race society, and your weak sources don't prove otherwise.
 * Plutarch was born millenia after ancient egypt-- so I think I'll trust the confirmations of modern scientists over him.
 * Egypt does not have a single ancestor, but many.
 * I'm not gonna look up how someone uses the word "black". I don't have time to research this, but if you think its necessary I can prove you wrong on this too probably.  My brother, who masters in Egyptology and actually reads hieroglyphs for fun doesn't agree with you.  But if you insist I can prove this point, probably.
 * What exactly did I say wrong about Diop? Be specific.
 * As you can see, your points rely on relatively weak sources. This took me ten minutes to reply to supposedly rock solid evidence, but as you can see it's not scientific to claim egypt wasn't mixed raced.--Urthogie 01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What I removed
"Ancient Egyptians themselves traced their origin to a land they called "Punt" (pwnt), or ta nṯrw (read "Ta Netcherew"), the "Land of the Gods". Punt is thought to have been located near the Somali border and northern Ethiopia, lands occupied in ancient times and today by indigenous, black African peoples. "In Libya, which is mostly desert and oasis, there is a visible Negroid element in the sedentary populations, and at the same is true of the Fellahin of Egypt, whether Copt or Muslim. Osteological studies have shown that the Negroid element was stronger in predynastic times than at present, reflecting an early movement northward along the banks of the Nile, which were then heavily forested.."

Fellahin, in fact, is the name Arabs traditionally gave to the indigenous peoples of the lands they conquered. The term means tiller or peasant."

Why I removed it

 * This is a faulty usage of the Brittanica passage. The passage only states that there was an early movement northward, it doesn't state that it was the only movement into ancient Egypt, as the text would suggest.
 * The Brittanica source is from 1974, and is as a result really outdated. (If you think date doesn't matter, take a look at some shit from the early 1900's and late 1800's and compare it to the mid 1900's)
 * Even if the above issues weren't irredeemable problems, which they are, the above text claims, using weasel words, that Ethiopia was thought to be the location of Punt. This is one man's view on a problem that is, as of yet, unsolved in Egyptology.  The strongest hypothesis is that it is somewhere south of Nubia.
 * I'd like to see a reliable, scientific source that says the Egyptians thought they originated in Punt. I can't find such a source, but maybe it exists and im just being ignorant here.  The sources I've looked at (which are mainstream and credible) say that ancienct Egyptians saw themselves as being created by Gods in Egypt
 * This is not central to my reasons for removal, but I must ask: Why was this earlier categorized as an "Afrocentric argument"? It's not disputed by modern science that Egypt had descendents of sub-saharan africans throughout its society.  It's also not very disputed that the sub-saharan african presence diminished and mixed as a result of wars, trading, being colonized with/by peoples north of egypt.  What afrocentrists argue, that simply isn't true-- is that the ancient egyptian civilization was originally all a migration from sub-saharan africans, and wasn't mixed with those from the fertile crescent (and perhaps other places).  The ancient egyptian civilization, with its pyramids and art, was mixed.  Hunter gatherers from the south may have likely come before hunter gatherers from the north-- but this is not the question of the article.  The question of the article is the Egyptians.  And the egyptians were mixed.

Discuss
I'll keep it removed until you prove that these problems either don't exist or aren't significant enough to warrant removal. Please don't revert until you've attempted to discuss this.--Urthogie 19:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness Urthogie I think you should have to prove why he is wrong and his statements should be removed. Unless you want an edit war unilateral edits are not wise especially when everyone seemed to agree prior to your arrival that it was true. Now I'm not saying your wrong all I am saying is that to keep order and procedure you should be the one who disproves what is already in the article and whoever wnats to keep it in should have a chance to rebute that argument and we can go with the better argument.

My personal opnion is that anicent egyptians may not have come from ethiopia but they did seem to believe based on the britannia source that they came from south of where they were living. Furthermore I would consider britanntan dictionary to be a pretty reputable choice because this is prior to the period when you could right a book with pc self censorship
 * I did supply reasons, in the above section "Why I removed it." Your personal opinion is in fact addressed in that section as well. --Urthogie 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested move
Racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians. If its controversial, that can be stated. It just seems to me like theres more to it than controversy-- there's also uncontroversial research performed all the time.--Urthogie 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Wikipedia should a location for definitive, concise answers. Doooo it.--Pewpewlazers 10:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What I removed
A wall relief of Puntite royalty reveals a dark-brown-skinned king and queen, the latter exhibiting the characteristic attributes of a Khoisan woman. Commerce existed between Egypt and Punt, with Egyptian royalty mounting expeditions to what they regarded as their ancestral home. Among the items they brought back were whole trees of myrrh and other species, aromatic woods, incense, leopards, monkeys, ivory, ebony, panther hides, cinnamon, and gum.

Why I removed it

 * What proof is there that Egypts "regarded Punt as their ancestral home"? This seems to go against severa sources Ive read.
 * It's original research to include this in the article unless its been said by a given mainstream scientists to be relevant to the issue of race of ancient egyptians. No original research means editors can't decide whether something related is truly relevant-- they need a source confirming this.--Urthogie 20:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A pic is worth a thousand words. Muntuwandi 06:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, a thousand words on the subject of Punt. This article is about Egypt, and there is as of yet no proof added on the page that the Egyptians regarded Punt as their ancestral home.--Urthogie 19:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

great sphynx of giza -- Original Research?
It's OR to include this in a section called "Research" if noone has actually researched this and linked it to the race of ancient egyptians. It could still be included in the afrocentrism section, though, even if it isn't formally researched. DC, anyone else, do you know of any reason why its not original research to include this in a section called "Research"? Thanks, --Urthogie 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

sections to add to background
Not sure if I spelled these right, --Urthogie 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Section explaining dolichocephalism
 * Section explaing prognathism

french wikipedia article worth looking at

 * This article on the French Wikipedia has a lot of good content worth integrating.--Urthogie 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

continued discussion
Urthogie. Herodotus, Aristotle and Jean-François Champollion wrote before the falsification of the history of ancient Egypt. Herodotus is considered to be the father of history. He said that the Egyptians have black skin and wooly hair. Aristotle is said to be the father of natural sciences. He said that the Egyptians like the Ethiopians (the Nubians) are very black. Champollion is said to be the father of Egyptology. He said that the Egyptians look like the Nubians! There is even more. The Bible - a book from the Semite people - put Misraïm (Egypt) and Cush (Nubia) under a common ancestor, Cham. Manetho, the Egyptian-priest and historian put together Memphis, This and Ethiopia. Is it by chance? Do you know, Urthogie, that the very first Egyptian nome is Nubia? "Sti: Ta-Sti, Nubia, properly Ist nome of Upper Egypt; Styw Nubians" says Gardiner in its Egyptian Grammar, p. 593. Yes, Ta Sti is the first nome of Egypt because the Egyptians are from the south. Herodotus agrees with that when he says that long ago the Delta was under water. But the Egyptians existed since there are human beings. Their home was in the south. In those ancient times, this south was inhabited only by the black race. I don't think that you have another theory about that. Plutarque mentions also in one of his numerous works that Egyptians considered themselves as being people of the southern world. If they were mixed people, they could never speak like that, and go so far as to call themselves "kmt" which litteraly means the "Blacks". I repeat, "Kmt" doesn't mean "people of the black land" as states the article. There is no determinative of the land in those hieroglyphs for the people. Urthogie, if you know a bit of the Egyptian language, you can see this by yourself. I insist, about the Egyptian nomes, there is none in Europe or in Asia. All of them are in Africa, and the first of them is Nubia. This is simple fact. Finally, let's indicate that according to Diodore de Sicile, the Ethiopians (Nubians) say that the Egyptians are their descendants. As you can see, the ancient sources speak the same language. Modern Egyptologists, I put it also forward yesterday, avoid carefully to mention them. But in other fields, and you know that well, the ancient writers from Greece especially are considered to be the founders. Why not in Egyptology? There is surely something wrong with the kind of Egyptology promoted in the West. It is inaccurate, yet arrogant! How long is it going to last? (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.110.156.38 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
 * You're repeating several points I already addressed without responding to what I said. If we're going to discuss this it has to be a back and forth and not just you sharing your knowledge of Egypt.  If you don't want to discuss this with me, you can still edit the article without reversion as long as you follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and occassionally stop to explain your edits.  If you want to have a full argument with me (you clearly have researched a lot) then feel free to Instant Message me, my AOL screen name is Urthogie.  But right now we're working on editing Wikipedia, not arguing, so please edit with sources, rather than just talking on it.--Urthogie 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie. I am not closing the dialogue. Imagine when I began writing my last message your response to my previous remarks was not visible on my screen. Sorry for the repetition. This page is made for discussion. And that's what I am trying to do.
 * As far as I know, Diop doesn't say that the Egyptians were a mixed race. He states the contrary. In the interview in Guadaloupe, he even says that Black people began colonising the Nile valley before the existence of the other races.
 * You're right on this specific point and I'm wrong on it. My mistake.--Urthogie 00:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Did Aristotle contradict Herodotus on the issue the blackness of the Egyptians? No! He even says more. That the Egyptians like the Ethiopians are very black. Of cause, black is black compared to other colors. So I don't see the importance of your remark according to which "Egypt was very curly haired and black as compared to the Greeks", if not a way of acknowledging the blackness of the Egyptians.
 * My arab friend got called black today by some dumb white kid. And he's not from egypt, he's from saudi arabia, and his skin is medium brown.  This is just an example of how people who look different from us we often think of as opposite.  Noone actually is black-- even blue blacks are a very dark brown, just as noone is white, just pink and beige.  So one question is: What did Aristotle and Herodotus mean by black?  Was it a category that included people that were a mix between Nubians, Arabs, and Mediterraneans?  The ancient egyptians were a mix of those three-- and I think they were thus included in the category black.  The term "black" cannot be taken as a scientific description, so you'll have to prove exactly what he meant before we even consider his evidence.


 * Allow me to be more specific. The Egyptians were neither Nubian nor Mediterranean.  They were Egyptian-- a unique mix, with its ancestors in more places than just Nubia.  Also, race is usually refered to in classical literature solely as either white, black, and asian.  So how you can know that they didn't just group all arabs with blacks because they are more similar to black than to the other two groups?  Where does Aristotle call anyone an arab?  You'd have a very strong point if he scientifically defined arabs and blacks and defined the difference between them. --Urthogie 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Plutarch was born millenia after ancient egypt". Are you sure of that? Plutarch lived around 50-120 CE and the last Egyptian temple was closed in 535 CE. Plutarch could still have access to accurate informations.
 * OK, so tell me how Plutarch could prove anything about Egyptian ancestry centuries after Greek and Persian conquest, using scientific tools of his time?--Urthogie 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So, you don't know the Egyptian language, and you rely on your brother who "reads hieroglyphs for fun". The race of the Egyptians is well mentioned in the hieroglyphs. Please, read them for knowledge!
 * Actually he doesn't just do it for fun, he graduated with Egyptology at an Ivy League University. But that's besides the point.  To argue the race of the egyptians was visible in the hieroglyphs is ridiculous because the hieroglyphs show people which are different looking than their Southern African neighbors-- they even intentionally distinguish.  For example, this is a hieroglyph of an egyptian, and this is a hieroglyph of a Nubian.  Secondly, the Egyptians distinguished between kingdoms, not between races.--Urthogie 00:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The affirmations of modern Western Egyptologists according to which Egyptians were mixed race is not echoed by ancient writers. Those affirmations are baseless. They are subject to change in a matter already resolved. Color exists because it can be seen. Herodotus, Aristotle and the biblical writers saw the Egyptians as being black.
 * I addressed the flaws in taking their testimony for granted above. But I want to add another point.  If we were to take everything the ancient writers say for granted, we would still believe that the Ethiopians had black semen!  Herodotus actually said that!  Do you see why modern science is more reliable, then?--Urthogie 00:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Peace and good luck to you Urthogie! (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka).
 * I just want to say, by the way, that I'm not doing this out of racism or some agenda other than seeking the truth. I despise white supremacism and I think blacks are equal to whites.  The blacks have had many great civilizations (Ethiopa, Zimbabwe, Mali, Sahel), but their geography and natural resources is what led them to not do as well as their white brothers-- not skin color!  The Europeans were able to get Guns, Germs, and Steel faster than the Africans, so they were able to take over Africa before it had a chance to get guns, germs and steel of its own.  I only argue with you out of respect for the truth, and not for any agenda.  Thank you for discussing this, --Urthogie 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page not a discussion forum

 * The talk page is not a discussion forum. Please take this argument to the proper place. This is for discussing the article. --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, this is relevant as edits will emerge if he proves that his presented evidence is notable, scientific, and sourced. (in fact I plan on adding many of the things he's discussing)--Urthogie 01:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncontroversial
Based on the evidence in this article and elsewhere it is incontrovertible that blacks or dark skinned people were present in Ancient Egypt. What is controversial is the who when what where or how. I think this should emphasized. "The mixed race society" is an oversimplification and appears to dilute the influence that blacks had on Ancient Egypt.Muntuwandi 06:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Clearly, for much of its existence, dynastic Egypt was overwhelmingly black and African. The text you suggest actually was in one iteration of the article. And, certainly, until several centuries after Arab domination in the 7th century A.D., it remained clearly black and African in predominant part. (Indeed, it remains so today; it is merely a society of blacks heavily miscegenated with Arab blood and Arabs to the north, with most of the populations in the south retaining their clearly Africoid physical characteristics and syncretic religious and cultural beliefs, with holdovers from pharonic times. deeceevoice 14:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is correct to say that Ancient Egypt clearly had black people in it. DCV is wrong, however, in saying that dynastic Egypt was "clearly" overwhelmingly black (all of it, of course was African by geography).  The scholarly consensus (which is what the article is meant to present) is that dynastic egypt was overwhelmingly of mixed ancestry between Black North Africans, arabs, and greeks, etc.  That is to say, it was overwhelmingly a unique mix between the surrounding regions.


 * The mixed-race views is "clearly" represented by mainstream science.--Urthogie 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No he's right. Early dynast was clearly black. People emphisaize the mixed race thing(which happened later WAY after Egypt was fully realised)just to dilude the fact that Egyptian culture was a black culture. --Vehgah 08:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll take some random Wikipedia editor over mainstream scientific consensus, sure.--Urthogie 02:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Continued discussion

 * Dear Urthogie. Thank you for your answers, which indeed are very clear. I thank also Muntuwandi and Deeceevoice for their contributions.


 * I see that you are raising an epistemological question. How can we know if what an ancient writer is saying is true or faulse? My answer will be to see if other sources confirm its observations or not. Like in the issue of the semen of the blacks, Aristotle did contradict Herodotus. But in the issue of the race of the Egyptians he confirms him. So we can say that ancient Egyptians were black because all ancient testimonies agree on that. The article, "Early Jewish and Christian Views of Blacks", you asked me to read is clear about that. On page 6 one reads: "The Graeco-Roman, and Christian sources depicting the Egyptians as a dark-skinned people, paralled the Islamic accounts that consider the Copts, i.e. the Egyptians, as one of the Sudan". Some lines before, the text put the Sudan (all the blacks) among the children of Ham. Now, which are the colors of the children of Ham? The same text you gave me answers on pages 8-9: "A Jewish text, Pirqei R. Eliezer, depicts God as dividing the world among Noah.s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and decreeing different skin colors for them (literally, blessing them with different skin colors): ligth colored skin for Japhetites, medium dark (brown) for the Semites, and very dark (black) for the Hamites". I think that here you have the response to your question: "Was it a category that included people that were a mix between Nubians, Arabs, and Mediterraneans?". Yes, the Semites! And the Egyptians are not Semites. They are descendants of Ham! Actually, even Egyptians sources say the same thing. According to Plutarch, the Egyptians says in their mythology that they are the decendants of Osirous, the Black-God, while the Jews and Jerusalem are descendants of Seth the Red-God. It is clear now that if the Egyptians were a mix, the jewish sources would have said that they are the sons of Sem. The arab sources would have not put them among the Sudan. The Greec sources would have not said that the Egyptians have a black skin.
 * My point isn't that the Egyptians were as light as the semites, but rather that they were a mix between the semites and the Africans. If we divide the world into three groups, we'll have very rigid guidelines, and of course group people incorrectly.  The Egyptians were a unique mixed race, and a three-way division doesn't address this fact.  The ancient religious sources are not at all scientific.  You are trying to argue a basically scientific point with a history given by religions, which are not scientific in nature.  If we accepted religion as scientific we'd say we're all descended from Adam and Eve, materialized by god, when the scientific reality which proves this myth wrong is evolution.  This is an example ofwhy modern science is more powerful than ancient religious myths in answering questions such as the one this article deals with.--Urthogie 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The picture you mentioned in number 15 is according to you the one of a Nubian. You said this because it is clear that it represents a black man. Now let me tell you that this man is an Egyptian! In the tomb of Ramses 3, he belongs to a series of 4. He is number 1. Between them is written the hieroglyphs RMT with the determinatives. RmT means "man", but also "Egyptians" (Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, p. 149). Please check this information with your brother in www.alain.guilleux.free.fr/vallee_des_rois/vallee_des_rois_ramses_3_ramses_9.html or in www.manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm


 * This doesn't at all go against my point. I'm not denying that there were blacks (nubians, and others) in ancient Egypt-- it's only reasonable that traces of black Africans would be in Egypt-- because they were part of the society!  I'm just denying the idea that they were the whole society.  In fact, if that man in the hieroglyph with Nubian ancestry was also Egyptian, that actually helps my point-- that Egypt was actually a gestalt of arabs, greeks, nubians, etc.  Lastly, the skin color in egyptian art does not present solid, scientific evidence for youre view several reasons:
 * Women are drawn lighter than men.
 * Some impossible skin colors are sometimes drawn.
 * Some traits are exaggerated. (This also occurs in European art where they draw beige people as pure white)
 * Egyptians drew a variety of skin colors.
 * The link you provided tries to argue based on Ramses III's tomb that the Egyptians were overwhelmingly of black African origin. However, take a look at this relief of Ramses III: .  Clearly, art goes both ways! (which is only expected in a mixed-race society)
 * If we take art as scientific evidence, then how do you explain the lighter skinned portrayals of people in Ancient egypt? The whole argument, if based on art, results in proof of a mixed race ancient Egypt.--Urthogie 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Best regards! (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.110.156.38 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
 * You put a very interesting question. "OK, so tell me how Plutarch could prove anything about Egyptian ancestry centuries after Greek and Persian conquest, using scientific tools of his time"? Deeceevoice gave already the answer. Even today traces of the black indigenous are visible! That helped Volney in the eigtheen century to identify the Great Sphynx as negroid.
 * This doesn't go against the mixed race hypothesis. In fact, its expected to find such traces from a mixed-society.--Urthogie 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe mixed race hypothesis is an oversimplification because of the timeline involved. The dynastic period began around 3100BC but even before evidence of habitation and some organized society can be traced to 10000BC. It is unrealistic to believe that throughout the period several races could have co-existed in one place without some assimilation and homogenization of the population. Muntuwandi 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not disputed anywhere that I know of-- even among Afrocentrists-- that the people living in egypt had extensive contact with the fertile crescent before 6000 BC. To clarify, the article is mainly concerned with what ancient Egyptians looked like.  The folks who built the pyramids-- what did they look like?-- these are the questions that are of such significance to Afrocentrists.  The mainstream scientific consensus-- which has overwhelming evidence-- is that from day one of the Ancient Egyptian society they were a gestalt of neighboring races.


 * "It is unrealistic to believe that throughout the period several races could have co-existed in one place without some assimilation and homogenization of the population." Indeed, it is unrealistic to believe such.  And afrocentrists would unrealistically argue that despite continuus trade and assimilation with the Fertile Crescent for several millenia before the existence of the first pyramid (2700's BC), that the builders of such pyramids and pharoahs that ruled over them would be non-homogenized and non-assimilated blacks.


 * Now, it is correct to point out that pre-Dynastic Egypt is generally regarded as much more african than ancient Dynastic Egypt. I wouldn't be against adding this to the article.  However, it should also be noted that scholars still take pains to note the significant Mesopotamian influence that existed even before dynastic egypt.


 * One thing you have to recognize, though, is that the whole modern debate that Afrocentrists are concerned with is dynastic egypt. THey want to prove that Egypt-- pyramids and all-- was a purely black african civilization.  On this point, they are wrong-- or at least according to the mainstream scientific consensus, they are.


 * (As a side point, I want to note that scientists care a lot less about this issue than the race obsessed Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists. I only started editing this article to make sure that Wikipedia didn't give a false presentation of the research relating to it.  I could care less about whether Egypt was black or white, or purple, and I think it's pretty obvious that Afrocentrists are so obsessed with deviating from the historical record because they have internalized the racism of whites.  Frantz Fanon makes this clear in his excellent book, which everyone should read if they get a chance.)--Urthogie 05:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse scientists care less about the issue largely because up until recently the scientific community has largely been caucasian. They naturally assumed (see systemic bias)that it was impossible for such a civilization to have had anything to do with blacks. If not for afrocentrists, the world would still believe that Ancient Egypt was "lily white".


 * The prevailing undercurrent is that blacks were present in ancient egypt but only used as slaves and the more caucasoid egyptians were the pharaohs and runing the show. This is false because the Great Sphinx of Giza is definetly black african. And they would not build a sphinx for someone unimportant. The sphinx is believed to be king Kafre. Furthermore black Nubian Kings seized the thrown of egypt on a number of occassions,

. Taharqa was also a black african king.
 * This issue is and will continue to be very important especially for people of African descent. This so as western society has taken for granted that africans have had no contribution to modern society. What is ironic is that it is entirely plausible the beginings modern of civilization could have actually started in Africa by africans before spreading to the middle east, the phoenicians, greeks and then the romans. I definitely suspect there will be a lot more noise and controversy in the future regarding the race of ancient egyptians.




 * Pre-dynastic egypt should still be mentioned because it is the precursor to the dynastic but we could have separate sub-sections. Muntuwandi 08:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're wrong in saying that before afrocentrism they thought egypt was lily-white. Some of the stuff from the late 1800's and early 1900's suggests that they looked similar to arabs.  Also, scientce today doesn't say there werent nubian kings.  That's a credible hypothesis-- one that doesn't contradict the mixed-race hypothesis.  As far as slaves, many of them were nubians, and many of them were semites.  If you want to add a section on pre-dynastic egypt go ahead.  There are several theories regarding it.--Urthogie 15:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

timeline
It's been pointed out that our timeline is basically limited to the dynastic Egyptians. Should we formalize this limitation, and make it clear in the lead that the article only deals with those Egyptians who actually had a sedentary civilization, or actually break it by including info on pre-dynastic egypt? It seems to me like what afrocentrists, eurocentrists, and even scientists are mainly concerned about as far as race in egypt was dynastic egypt. However, the afrocentrists might also be gleeful to learn that the early pre-dynastic Egyptians would likely be considered black today. So what are the thoughts on this?--Urthogie 06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

continued discussion

 * Urthogie.


 * I really take your statements seriously. You wrote: "To argue the race of the egyptians was visible in the hieroglyphs is ridiculous because the hieroglyphs show people which are different than their Southern African neighbors - they even intentionally distinguish". Then you gave 2 pictures which according to you distinguish the Egyptians (light skin)from the Nubians (dark skin). Your intention, according to me, was clear: Egypt as a mixed society is reprensented by people with light skin. But I showed you that the man you took for a Nubian was actually an Egyptian. You turned your argument another way round as to say that Egypt could have both light and dark colors because it was a mixed society! Your intention clearly deviated. But know that the light skin is part of the black race. It was found in Nubia, in Egypt and it is still found among today's Black African people. For this mix of light and dark among Nubians, please find this through google: "Nubians: Nubians on fresco from tomb of Huy, Thebes. 14th century BC". You can also go to www. homestead.com/wysinger/tomboflhuy.html and to www.osirisnet.net/tombes/nobles/houy/e_houy.htm
 * I actually have to say I was misled because you know more than me. I just looked at the pictures and assumed it was from an a scientific journal.  But it's from a discussion posted by this professor to a yahoo group!  I take back what I said based on that site.  Please provide scientific evidence from a peer reviewed journal, that is capable of correcting mistakes.  I made a mistake in accepting this evidence, I was misled.  Neither of the links you provide just now are peer reviewed.  They may have enormous errors that a layman like myself can't identify.--Urthogie 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Muntuwandi when he states that "I believe mixed race hypothesis is oversimplication because of the timeline involved. The dynastic period began around 3100 BC but even before evidence of habitation and some organized society can be traced to 10000 BC". According to Cheikh Anta Diop, the Semites began to exist at around 5000 BC. They are a mix of the white and the black races. At this time the egyptian civilization had already begun its way in the south, meaning in Nubia! That's why "Ta Seti" (Nubia) is the first nome of Egypt. When the Semites reached Palestine in their move, the pyramids were already built! Let me quote this in French about the Semites (I am sorry because I found it in this language): "Vers l'an 3000 on repère une de leurs migrations vers la Syrie actuelle... au début du deuxième millénaire, une autre vague déferle sur la Mésopotamie... quelques clans s'en détachent vers la Palestine où ils s'incorporent à la civilisation urbaine de Canaan... les migrations se poursuivent dont celles où seront incorporés ceux qu'Israël présentera comme ses ancêtres" (Cf www.perso.orange.fr/avaljb/5Bible/clannomad.htm).
 * Diop is simply wrong in saying in saying "the semites began to exist at around 5000 BC", assuming hes saying that. There is evidence of plants that were domesticated in the fertile crescent being brought to Egypt before 6000 BC!  And remember, Diop is not right in every regard.--Urthogie 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If one follows closely what remains of the book of Manetho, the egyptian priest and historian, the most significant contact between the kemetic (black) populations and what we can call the Semites took place during the second intermidiary period, around the second millennium BC. This is conform to the quotation above. At this time dynastic Egypt was one millennium old at least!
 * How could a historian of that time know what his people looked like thousands of years ago? We already have trouble figuring that out with all of our modern tools!--Urthogie 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thing. If the Egyptians were a mixed populations of Europeans, Asians and Africans from the start, meaning before the dynasties, the hieroglyphs would reflet this reality. But according to Erik Hornung, the hieroglyphs, all of them, are taken from african environment and culture.
 * Please provide a source.--Urthogie 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ancient Egyptians were just Black African people. The "mixed-society" theory is philosophically or ideologically motivated. It has no solid ground neither ancient nor modern.
 * No, its not ideologically motivated today. They even go out of their way to not tell people who they are analyzing.  For the National Geographic reconstruction they didn't tell the researchers who it was or where they were from!

Peace to you Urthogie, and thank you very much for the sharing of ideas. (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.110.156.38 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
 * You said earlier that there were traces of sub-saharan africans in egypt. This study and others found no such traces.  Yet, strong semitic traces can be found in ashkenazi jews who are basically white, and have been conquered an assimilated by dozens of cultures.
 * I have a few requests to make of you in continuing this discussion:


 * Please source all of your claims, so I can check them.
 * Please try to use peer reviewed sources, so that errors are pointed out by other scientists, rather than posts to yahoo groups which noone will correct scientifically.
 * Please don't state opinion as fact. This misled me on the issue of the Nubians, which, after reviewing I found to be simply a post by this professor to a yahoo group, not fact at all.--Urthogie 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Urthogie.
 * If it is true that we are dealing with science, we must try to be coherent. In science examples are given to support or to reject a theory. In the article, it is writen: "The Egyptians considered themselves part of a distinct race, separate from their neighbors. Most modern Egyptologists believe the Egyptians thought of themselves as Egyptian people, not African, Mediterranean, White, or Black people. They discovered wall paintings that contrast Egyptian [2], Nubian [3], Berber [4], and Semitic peoples [5]". Here is a theory: "Egyptian people (are) not African, Mediterranean, White, or Black people". Examples are provided to support it. Number 2 is said to be an Egyptian because is brown. Number 3 is said to be a Nubian because is very dark. Number 4 a Berber, and number 5, a Semite, are very light. I showed you that there is no Nubian in those pictures. Number 2 and number 3 are Egyptians. As one of the pictures does not support the theory, this theory falls by itself and has to be abandoned. This is to be coherent, to do science.
 * Among Blacks, the brown skin is not limited to the Egyptians. Even some Nubians have that colour. Ernest Chantre a French anthropologist, speaking about the mummy of the queen Nefertari wrote: "La momie de cette reine qui fut la femme d'Ahmosis, le libérateur, et la mère d'Aménôthès Ier, était admirablement conservée (...). La peau de son visage noircie par le temps, ne peut donner aucune indication sur son teint primitif qui - au dire des égyptologues - devait être brun, puiqu'on lui attribue une origine éthiopienne" (Quoted by Aboubacry Moussa Lam, "L'affaire des momies royales. La vérité sur la reine Ahmès-Nefertari", Paris: Khepera / Présence Africaine, 2000, p. 67).
 * Scientific theories don't fall apart because one piece of evidence doesn't work. If one piece of evidence doesn't work the evidence is eliminated, not the entire theory (which may be modified).  Secondly, the link you provided to prove your point, as I pointed out, was posted to a yahoo group, which is not a scientific forum.  If you plan to prove that none of them were nubians, then please provide a scholarly source, not a yahoo group source.  If you prove your point here, we will remove the flawed sentence.--Urthogie 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The German egyptologists Erman and Ranke think also that the Egyptians look like the Nubians: "Il semble que les peuples qui se rapprochent le plus des Egyptiens soient leurs voisins du Sud, les Nubiens" (Erman et Ranke, "La civilisation égyptienne", Paris: Editions Payot et Rivages, 1994, p. 46).
 * If someone disagrees with consensus, that doesn't make the consensus wrong. If they have research, we can present it.--Urthogie 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The egyptologist Maurizio Damiano-Appia denounce the racist and Anglo-Saxon mentality of the egyptologists: "Si è molto discusso circa il popolo egizio e la sua civiltà, ma in generale nella mentalità comune, ed anche in quella di molti egittologi sino a pochi anni fa (e spesso ancor oggi) è data per scontata l'idea di un popolo de razza bianca, che creò una cultura mediterranea che poco aveva a che fare con l'Africa se non una quasi casuale collocazione geografica. A la base di tali edee 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" (Maurizio Damiano-Appia, "Egitto e Nubia", Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1995, p. 8). In other words, as put it Cheikh Anta Diop: "dès qu'une race a engendré une civilisation, il ne peut être question qu'elle soit nègre" (Quoted by Aboubacry Moussa Lam,"L'affaire des momies royales", p.27).
 * Same as I said above.--Urthogie 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For Maurizio Damiano-Appia, in contrast with the affirmation of the article, Egypt is African: "L'Egitto è africano, e il suo popolo fondò le basi di schemi culturali ancora in uso tanto in Africa che in Occidente" (p. 9).
 * Egypt is in Africa. The question of this article is not one of geography though.  There is no such thing as an africoid.  Such terminology has been proven flawed.--Urthogie 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Egypt, according to Maurizio-Appia, has its roots in the Sahara, in Nubia and in the southern part of the river Nile: "I vecchi schemi facevano cominciare l'avventura egizia dalle civilizzazione protostoriche nilotiche. Oggi sappiamo (come abbiamo visto più sopra) che bisogna guardare piuttosto all'area sahariana e in particolare al Deserto Occidentale egiziano, all'area nubiana e all'alto Nilo per ricostruire le radici delle culture della Valle del Nilo in Egitto e Nubia" (p. 22). It is clear from this perspective that Egypt and Nubia go together.
 * Yes, I'm not denying that the view exists. What I'm saying is that mainstream view in science is to disagree with it, and that there is strong evidence for the mainstream view, and weak evidence for the afrocentric view.--Urthogie 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The actual scientific consensus you were speaking about, Urthogie, according to which Egypt is a mixed society, meaning Mediterranean, Asian and African, is very weak. (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka).
 * Wait, so you think presenting me with several people disproves that there is a consensus? Look how many scientists don't believe in the obviously proven fact of humans causing climate change.  Global warming is still mainstream, and the mixed-race hypothesis is still mainstream.--Urthogie 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)