Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 6

we should cover afrocentrist myths
Like the myth that African-American slaves had pyramids in Egypt and such. You hear this a lot from some wacko academics.--Urthogie 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, can you be more explicit? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 18:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should wacky myths matter at all? An African American can't travel back in time, that's common sense, no one can. Taharqa 20:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Becuase these wacky myths are introduced by some notable academics like the one who says the Greeks were as black as Egyptians.--Urthogie 15:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, why don't you update your knowledge on Ancient Civilizations? You are making fun of African American academics who say that "the Greeks were as Black as the Egyptians". Good! Maybe you mean that the Greeks were more Black because according to you Egyptians were not very Black. Are you aware of a study published in 2001 by people we cannot easily call "Afrocentrists" which reveals "the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks" http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057002118.x ? This study gives reason to ancient myths of "African origin of the Greeks". What about the relationship between the African Americans and the ancient Egyptians? Ancient Egytpians migrated towards the south and the west of the African continent after the Persian invasion of Egypt in the 6th century BCE. These Egyptians are the founders of Africans Kingdoms and Empires from which between the 15th and the 19th centuries Africans were taken by Europeans to be brought to America as slaves. African Americans are full and authentic heirs of the ancient Egyptians. You can read the Senegalese Historian Aboubacry Moussa Lam to know more on that subject http://www.kametrenaissance.com/Lam-Page.html Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

^^One thing that should be important to note given that, there's no such thing as "West African", West Africa was not always inhabited and directly proceeding the Neolithic, ancestors of West Africans inhabited the Sahara, with in the same space as the ancestors of the Ancient Egyptians and ancient Nubians as part of the central Saharan food production culture (especially the Mende people). I'm not interested in finding evidence that African culture derived from Egypt, the fact is that Egypt derived from African culture. African Americans are sprung from these same Neolithic and Stone Age cultures spreading from the Nile Valley across the Sudanic regions. Every one eventually spread their different ways after the Sahara began to dry up, which it eventually did fully after 2500 B.C... Basically, Neolithic Saharans were ancestral to both Ancient Egyptians and modern West Africans/African Americans. But I still don't see why "wacky myths" should concern this article. There was a point in time when some people thought that Egypt was a "White European" civilization, which is wackier than anything, but I don't propose that it be put in the article, unless at one time it was a "credible" myth, then it would be informative to learn how it was debunked or discredited..Taharqa 03:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Eurocentrist myths should also be added to the discredited hypotheses section, along with afrocentrist ones.--Urthogie 04:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

^If you want, and if it has to do with Egypt, but if it seems redundant I'll have to give you my objection and/or critique.Taharqa 05:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Mixed-race society crap
Enough with the nonsense, let's get real now Urgothie, you've undermined weeks of progression just to sneak that quote back into the article. Ok, first of all, it seems as if you're indicating that there was a difference in "race" between the predynastic and dynastic Egyptians as you alluded to in your distinction of "Native Egyptians and "foreign" Egyptians as you emphasized in parenthesis, yet the scientific sources refute all of that, even if "race were a valid concept" and there's no evidence for any substantial number of foreigners, if very many at all during the early dynastic..

I suggest you read all of this thoroughly before making a hasty response, otherwise that's a clear indication of original research on your part. Excerpt from 2007 study on the front page..

The results indicate overall population continuity over the Predynastic and early Dynastic http://wysinger.homestead.com/zakrzewski_2007.pdf

^Early dynastic would be considered dynastic Egyptians Urgothie, she confirms that there was continuity at least until then. Please don't make the article contradict its self by going against the primary sources. I also have no idea why you (or whoever)removed the Joel Irish study, but that statement also disregarded his study which showed population continuity from the predynastic all the way to the Greco-Roman period by way of dental affinities, and found affinities with Paleolithic Nubia. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/who_were_egyptian.pdf

Dr. Sonia R. Zakrzewski also published a 2003 study in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology titled Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body Proportions, where she confirms earlier reports that the Ancient Egyptians had "Negroid" or tropically adapted body plans. She reports from her samples that continuity in body proportions in ancient Egypt remained pretty much stable over a long period from predynastic Badari (5,000 B.C.) to basically the 12th dynasty in 1800 B.C... http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/egyptian_body_proportions.pdf

'''The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations.'''

^This is the latest Cranial, dental, and body proportion studies that all are in full agreement that predynastic and the early dynastic Egypt for the most part was biologically indigenous. This is what you call "consensus", all propaganda aside. Also, since the dynastic race theory is clearly discredited, that so-called Mixed race statement should read like this.

Among researchers for whom race is a valid construct, dynastic Egypt is referred to as an indigenous society of "Mixed" African ethnicities

^^We can't have "researchers" contradicting the data and our primary sources.. Another thing about the genetic/demographic studies, you (or whoever) misinterpreted the 2004 mitochondrial DNA study by claiming that it found a "genetic heritage to East Africa and West Asia". They were checking DNA in its "ancestral state", not classic markers. The main focus was the M1 haplogroup, the reference to the West Eurasian component was due to comparison between Gurna, the rest of Egypt, and Ethiopia. The conclusion was that the Gurna population conserved an ancestral trace of their East African origins characterized by high M1 (East African in Origin), and since these populations are showed to not have been isolated, the current diversity is due to these new influxes of genes bearing on the ancestral population(the original M1 Bearers). It should read like this.

A 2004 study of the mtDNA of 58 native inhabitants from upper Egypt performed to indicate origins found a genetic ancestral heritage to East Africa.

'''The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers. This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations. Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population'''Taharqa 05:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it's not me saying this "mixed-race" stuff, only the sources. In my view, though, it doesn't contradict the rest of the article, for there are many ways of conceiving of "race".--Urthogie 11:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Taharqa, I agree with you. Egypt should be "referred to as an indigenous society of "Mixed" African ethnicities". The Egyptian nomes with their different totems confirm your observation. But this is difficult to be accepted by people who, though not Africans, want to identify themselves in the Egyptian history. Egypt is too great to not attract envy and greed in the hearts of Europeans, Asians and White Americans. To be sure, the real problem lies there. It is psychological, as Cheikh Anta Diop put it rightly at the Egyptological Cairo Conference in 1974 http://www.cesaire.org/CAD/CAD.htm. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 13:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sources are all that matter, not your opinions.--Urthogie 14:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is you Urthogie who is removing those sources. Incredible Urthogie! If you were an African, I could understand, but...What are your motivations? Greed and envy? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 19:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care what race egyptians were, only that the article on them adheres to policies of neutrality and reliable sourcing.--Urthogie 19:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, how can you say "I don't care what race egyptians were" while you are discussing about "Egypt and Race"? Either you don't know what you are doing here or you are motivated, as I said before, by greed and envy. Watch again these videos by Basil Davidson to understand the concept of Africa and what it means when one says that Egypt is Black http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=34&mforum=africa Peace to your heart and to your mind as well! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 20:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

'''Sorry, but it's not me saying this "mixed-race" stuff, only the sources. In my view, though, it doesn't contradict the rest of the article, for there are many ways of conceiving of "race"'''

Urgothie, you're not making any sense, I'm sorry and I guess that I should beak it down step for step..

We have every single updated anthropologist sitting up here in these studies, telling you in common understandable English that there was continuity from the predynastic into the dynastic. In case you're having trouble with the jargon, continuity is the opposite of population/demic diffusion. Meaning that the people of the predynastic were of the same "race" (valid or not) as the dynastic people.

Continuity - 1. The state or quality of being continuous 2. An uninterrupted succession or flow; a coherent whole

If there was notable mixing going on, they would of reported demic diffusion instead of continuity.

Demic diffusion - an archaeological term that refers to population diffusion into and across an area previously uninhabited by that group, possibly displacing, replacing, or intermixing with a pre-existing population

^What you're doing is searching for old sources that disagree with the primary sources and are using them as a propaganda tool for weasel words, I can't let you do that and if you can't understand that you're hurting the article and making it contradict its self, that's your fault, but this is common sense. Any secondary source that has read all of these anthropological reports would never consider dynastic Egypt of "Mixed-race" even if the concept were valid, since predynastic and dynastic peoples were the same. Enough with the original research and edit wars in the name of pride and saving face, seriously..Taharqa 21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also your sources are misrepresented. First of all, no where in the google books entry about "The civilization of ancient Egypt" did it mention a 'mixed-race', if anyone did, it was most likely during the time of the dynastic race theory, and a primary source wouldn't of been cited. Also Senu is one person, he cannot represent the entire population of early dynastic Egypt, and nowhere did they mention that Egypt was a "mix-race" society, the focus was on Senu and that he himself was possibly mixed (which I personally doubt can be known fully from skeletal remains, but that's irrelevant).. Going to google books and typing in "Egypt", "Race", is what I call poor, lazy scholarship and is no different than me going to google and typing in "Black", "Egypt", "White", "Egypt", where I'm sure I'll get tons of so-called "sources" that have those two words highlighted somewhere through out the internet. That is just petty, as of now, this is the true "current" consensus from Egyptology and Anthropology that in turns backs up the "current" studies..

Among researchers for whom race is a valid construct, dynastic Egypt is referred to as a "mixed" society of various African ethnicities. The general consensus is captured in the words of mainstream Egyptologist Frank Yurco:


 * The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East African Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions (Trigger 1978; Bard, Snowden, this volume)."(F. Yurco "An Egyptological Review", 1996'')

^^No "Mixed-Race" of foreigners and indigenes, but a gestalt of Nilotic (Nile Valley) continuity.Taharqa 22:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources have already been discussed in previous sections, twice now. They support the sentence, and all adhere to Wikipedia policies on sources.  None of the sources you added here say that Egyptians were of a certain race.  They say they had certain types of body plans, or were part of a continuoum of the Nile or clustered here or there, but none of them say they were part of a certain race.  "For researchers for whom race is a valid construct, ancient Egypt is referred to as a mixed-race society."  That sentence is completely sourced and true, even with your criticisms.  Do you need to be reminded that it is original research to make arguments based on sources?  Only the sources can make arguments.  None of them make the arguments you are saying they make-- that Egypt was of a certain race, abd/or that race exists and Egypt wasn't of mixed-race.  Additionally I've addressed the Keita source in the talk page section below.--Urthogie 17:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the first time we went over this we both agreed that it need not be there, but you snuck it back into the article.

1. Sources unreliable.. First of all, you used this as a source to back the notion of a mixed-race.. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9o01GurQqBQC&oi=fnd&pg=RA9-PA155&sig=_21knDb-4TVlKVzLCiUXsY0V0V0&dq=egypt+race#PPA10,M1

On answers.com this source is used to back the claim that Egyptians saw themselves as a "distinct race", is it a unified distinct race, or mixed race? What does the source say and who do they draw their sources from?

2. The googlebook about "race" does not pertain to the subject, nor are the people writing it experts or secondary sources of Egyptology.

3. The critique on Afrocentrism said nothing of a Mix-race, and even if I missed that and they did, it goes both ways, they did not say what race or which races, just a you say for the studies.

The anthropological sources do make claims though that there was indigenous Nile Valley African continuity, and little influence from outside, (no notable mixing from the outsiders).. So if you insist on keeping the mixed aspect there, as to not mislead you'd have to say "mix-race" society of various indigenous African ethnicities, and reconcile how many different races are there indigenous Africa and how could they of always been "mixed" since continuity has been showed through out the predynastic and dynastic..Taharqa 18:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Point 1 makes no point at all... answers.com is a mirror of old wikipedia, and the source you're discussing does in fact call them mixed race-- that's an exact quote from the book. (Page 42).
 * 2) Point 2. The googlebook is extremely relevant to this article.  A book on race that talks about ancient egypt at some point is by definition relevant to this subject material, and a usable source.  This is completely in line with wikipedia guidelines.  Point 2 is therefore irrelevant, and has already been addressed earlier by the way.
 * 3) Point 3. Give me a sec to search through that source.  I found the mixed race claim earlier, if you really want to waste my time with it go ahead.
 * 4) Points 1 and 2 have been countered. Point 3 will probably be countered relatively soon.  I'm reverting you.  Thanks, --Urthogie 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Can you please quote it.. Was it just some lose comment with out an anthropological source and was this the concern of the book? Also how old is the book and is this representative of current mainstream opinion for if race were valid? Why'd you simply type in "Egypt", "Race" in google books? Am I allowed to type in "Black", "Egypt" in google books and pass everything that I find off as modern consensus?
 * Yes, you are allowed to search Black and Egypt and use sources, if they're mainstream and reliable. Bernal, for example, would fit in the debunked myths section.--Urthogie 19:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

2. It is not irrelevant because you've broken a wikipedia rule which states that the source has to be relevant to the topic, a book about Race is not relevant to "ancient Egypt and race".. I've read your source, it only mentions modern Egypt.
 * Yes it is. A book on dogs is relevant to the subject of dalmations.  This is simple logic-- race and ancient egypt is a subset of two subjects: race, and ancient egypt.  When an ancient egypt study mentions race, that's notable.  When a study on race mentions ancient egypt in a historical sense, that's notable as well.  This is how the reliable sources rule has always been applied.--Urthogie 19:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

3. You're wasting your time on google books, please don't get an attitude because I ask you to do some real scholarly research, and not just go to google books and type in "Race" and "Egypt" to the point where you have to save face and argue how much of a reliable source google books is.. I'm reverting you until I get some decent answers..Taharqa 19:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is your only possibly valid point. Not enough to revert me for, so please address points 1 and 2, then.--Urthogie 19:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please don't revert the Brace study comments either until I've gotten a reply to that, that's a separate issue.Taharqa 19:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the sentence to summarize both findings. Notice how I also put East and North Africa first in the sentence.  Chill on this, I've already compromised on this point.--Urthogie 19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed what you wrote to this.. "However, studies that use similar methods of crania analysis have concluded that ancient dynastic Egyptian crania showed ties primarily to North Africa (Sudan), East Africa(Somalia) and more distantly with Europe." ... Somalia is in Sub-Saharan Africa.. I'll get to the so-called sources in one sec.Taharqa 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

About your so-called sources..

Source#1.The Civilization Of Ancient Egypt

^No mention of mix-race, seriously, it's highlighted and it's very short, there is no mention of it. This isn't even an argument, your source is simply unreliable because there is no mention of race and it skips over most of the book.. This also applies to the very first statement in the article.


 * Sorry, but this is a bullshit argument. It doesn't matter how long someone spends saying it.  It's still a source.--Urthogie 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea right, BS is when you lie on your own sources, quote where it mentions "Mix-race", if it was there it isn't anymore.Taharqa 03:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Source#2

The homelink, Frank yurco article first of all, makes no comment at all on the Egyptians being of "distinct or mix-race", that's probably the conclusion you got, but he did not write that in this article. Here's quotes from it.

"The ancient Egyptians did not think in these terms. The whole matter of black or white Egyptians is a chimera, cultural baggage from our own society that can only be imposed artificially on ancient Egyptian society"

"Among the foreigners, the Nubians were closest ethnically to the Egyptians. In the late predynastic period (c. 3700-3150 B.C.E.), the Nubians shared the same culture as the Egyptians and even evolved the same pharaonic political structure."

This applies to the first sentence of the article also, which will be dealt with.


 * The source says mixed race. Your quotes say nothing specific about race.  Case closed.--Urthogie 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does your source mention mix-race? I've provided the opposite of what you said from the same source and have read it. No mention of a mix-race. For all I know you just posted a link and claim that it says something that it does not. Quote it please Urgothie.Taharqa 03:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Source#3 (8) Senu is but one person, even if he were in fact personally of mixed origin, that says nothing of the entire Egyptian population and nowhere in the Senu article do they consider the Egyptians a "mixed-race society", or use those words.


 * Yes, that's why it's only one of many sources. You would have a point here if it was the only source.  It's not.--Urthogie 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this doesn't pass the test of logic, sources are used to support a statement, if it doesn't support the statement, it is to be discarded.Taharqa 03:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Source#4 (13) Race: Like I said, the book promotes or makes no claims of any "mix-race" society in ancient egypt and only reports on the modern case of Mostafa Hefny, no mention of Mix-race, it would of been highlighted. In fact, they say the exact opposite and criticize the concept of race. Quote:

"'''Let's be clear from the start what this book is about," writes Roger Sanjek. "Race is the framework of ranked categories, segmenting the human population, that was developed by Western Europeans following their global expansion'''."

^You can read it yourself, check your own sources..


 * We already went over this. Discussion of ancient egypt in a book on race is usable in this article, just as a book on dogs with a paragraphs on dalmations is usable for that article.--Urthogie 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, like I said, I saw no mention of ancient Egypt, you'll have to quote it.. Please don't ignore me when I've actually quoted from the book, where they claim that race isn't real.Taharqa 03:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Source#5 (14)

Stephen Howe is not an Egyptological source, and the book wasn't highlighted and I seen no mention of a "mix-race' ancient Egypt. Though again, regardless, he's a Historian on Imperial Britain and his studies have nothing to do with Modern or ancient Egypt, nor does he draw Egyptological references. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/Depts/History/Staff/howe.htm I'm reverting you, your sources are horrible, you might as well keep the "mix-race" crap out, I have no idea why you're so passionate about it. And please don't come back at me extremely fast and dismissive with out reading your sources, everything I've posted is sound and obvious if you'd check your sources.Taharqa 20:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but there are no criteria called"Egyptological", other than the source being a mainstream study or book on the subject. I must remind you that he is not only a historian of Britian?  Your mistake is you think your argument are obvious.  They're not.  They're your opinion which you might be able to convince me of, but right now you're just being brusque and hot-headed.


 * Also, please avoid making huge changes you know I'll oppose when we're already in conflict over a seperate part of the article. It makes things worse.  Thank you, --Urthogie 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not good enough, you didn't address each individual point I made, you're reverted. You never showed me where the British historian mentioned a "mix-race" either. I'm going to quote wikipedia now, pay attention to what I put in bold, it is relevant to the unreliable British historian.

Quote:

"Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Taharqa 02:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Taharqa 02:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your quote here in the beginning of the article is also unacceptable..

Questions of race and the ancient Egyptians have been a subject of debate and controversy dating back to the 18th century. The ancient Egyptians considered themselves part of a distinct race, separate from their neighbors.

^Yurco makes no such claim in this source, I already quoted to you what he actually said in the open, which you ignored. Also, neither does the other link, which I went over already.. Check your sources and quote them here please.. Also, it amazes me how much you do not realize your own folly and contradictions. You wrote this in the intro.

However, studies that use similar methods of crania analysis have concluded that ancient dynastic Egyptian crania show no ties whatsoever to sub-Saharan Africa, and instead show ties to North Africa, East Africa and Europe

For some reason you reverted the parts where I emphasized Somalia and Sudan to their corresponding regions (North and East Africa) in parenthesis, indicating that those groups are who the relationships were attributed to, and not all of North Africa or all of East, since that's not what the source says. Also, this quote is particularly amusing.

crania show no ties whatsoever to sub-Saharan Africa

^Last time I checked a Map, Somalia is in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Map Of Africa http://www.geographicguide.com/travel/map-africa.gif By not responding to each of my complaints, you're undermining my value as an editor, therefore I must be forced to return the favor unless you conjure up the energy to check your sources, quote them, and go through them with me. We have to establish why this needs to be in the article, if the sources actually say what you want them to, and if they're reliable. You keep giving me these authoritative and dismissive responses then I have no choice but to act as you do accordingly and just put what I want in the article and ignore your complaints.. You only hinder the progression of the article and is this inclusion really worth the hassle? I'm don't sense you to be that impartial right now for some odd reason..Taharqa 02:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions to Urthogie
Urthogie, did you try to remove something I put in the "External links"? Please, avoid doing that next time without justification. Myself, I don't remove your contributions. You have also to respect other people's contributions. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 14:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed them because they are not Reliable sources. It's wikipedia policy to remove such links.--Urthogie 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, who are you to make such judgements that my materials are not reliable sources? You are not even an African! Besides, you don't really look scientific in your statements which usually make me laugh. I am sorry for saying that. Do you think that you know Africa better than I who is an African and who spend time researching on my history? If you want to spread ignorance, you better research in matters involving your own Asian culture. As an African, I have the right to inform people about my ancestors using and indicating well known historians like Basil Davidson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Davidson and Cheikh Anta Diop http://www.ankhonline.com/cheikh.ht. Once more, stop your acts of vandalism which are impeding readers to learn the truth from / for themselves. You look really impolite, Urthogie. Viola76 and others left this forum because of your bad caracter. You seem to ignore basic rules of "the ethic of the discussion". Or maybe you want me to destroy all your contributions which are not even updated? I remember, in the past Taharqa initiated a section with your name to call your attention to be more accurate. That section desepeared. Who removed it and why? You are incredible. How and why did you get interested in other people's history? Mystery! Stop this joke. Respect people if you want to be respected. If you want to remove something, come first to discuss it here to avoid a war of vandalism. Now the "false picture" which has to be removed came back. I have the impression that is your work. You must be very jealous of African people because Egypt is in Africa and not in Asia or in Europe or in America. Aren't you? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 19:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Read Reliable sources. Also, Africa is a continent, not a nation-state.--Urthogie 19:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't even have notions of geography, Urthogie. How can you pretend doing history? Don't you know that Egypt is in Africa? The truth is that you are envious of the Blacks. You are an Asiatic. You are not an African to tell me what Africa is. You are spreading ignorance about Africa here. Can you tell me who removed the section Taharqa consacrated to your state of knowledge? Did you remove it to hide to people that you have been uncovered? Incredible Urthogie! Stop your acts of vandalism, otherwise you are puting your own contributions, which by the way are not at all updated, at risk. Don't teach people bad behaviours. Or are you stubborn in your ignorance of the African past? Already some months ago, I had some problems with you. Viola76 told me then that one can loose his time in Wikipedia because of you. I begin to realise that he was right. Let me remaind you of that discussion:
 * "Our discussion was removed not because of what it said but simply because all discussion must be not for the readers but for the editors of the article. This is the rule of Wikipedia. Also, noone is saying that Ancient Egypt in the very beginning had semites. I never said this, only you said this in misquoting me. The first dynasty was already a mix between Mesopotamians and Northern Africans. This is my view. Please don't misquote it.--Urthogie 17:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Urthogie. Am I misquoting you? Who wrote this: "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)"? Best regards! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Try to improve your behaviour. Because you are impolite, Urthogie. That's a friendly advice from an African. Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 20:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The very first Egyptians weren't mixed with Semites (Narmer, for example). Later ancient Egyptians who interacted with Semites were. Make sense?--Urthogie 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * you are wasting your time with this discussion nkuka what ever evidence you bring urthogie will not accept it. look on his personal page and look at the discussion i am having with him regardsViola76 21:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)viola76"


 * I wasn't removing the source to be rude, but just because of the policy on Reliable sources.--Urthogie 20:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Knowing your past contradictions and limitations, I am quite sure you did not even understand those rules you are speaking about. I read them and they do not support what you are doing. It is you who have to read them carefully. Incredible Urthogie! How can strangers be "fanatic" of an African Civilisation to distort its facts! That's strange! Are you ashamed of your own Culture to get interested to Africa? It is well known that ignorance like hiding itself behind rules to steal time and to distract those who want to advance knowledge. Viola76 noticed this speciality of you in the past. And if you don't improve your behaviour which is impolite, you are going to have problems here with other people. Now, can you tell me who removed the section "Urthogie" written by Taharqa where your ignorance was put into light? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Urgothie is starting to get a bit irrational in his arguments now a days... I'd like to know what is a reliable source in his opinion, because he's providing unreliable sources which are in violation of this by stating Egypt was a "mix-race" society..

'''Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them'''

^The relevant academic community being the anthropologists. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.html He wants to have his way with the article and I say no way.. We have to all be on the same page and with a lack of bias here..... Taharqa 22:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, I am sorry for doing that, but I just began removing your contributions as you are not respecting mine. This is only the begining if you don't change your hostile behaviour towards an African in a subject touching an African Civilisation. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have to follow policies, even if you disagree with people. I've pointed you to policy pages, but you are not editing based on policies... you're editing based on spite because you think I hate African people or something.--Urthogie 22:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you summarise those policies here? Cheikh Anta Diop and Basil Davidson know better about ancient Egypt than people you are quoting. Please tell me what you have against Diop and Davidson. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 23:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy on reliable sources is to avoid non-notable publication forums, such as Internet Forums.--Urthogie 00:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sahara and Egypt
Taharqa, people leaving the Sahara occupied later both West Africa and Egypt. That is what you said, and you are right. Joseph Ki-Zerbo, Amadou Ampateba defend this thesis. Aboubacry Moussa Lam studied recently the question of the origins of the West Africans. Both archeological evidences and oral traditions indicate the Nil Valley. There are many reasons to suggest that after the fall of the Egyptian Empire, mainly during to the Persian invasion, people from Egypt joined their "cousins" in other parts of Africa includind West Africa. African Kingdoms starded after their arrival, they are copies of the Egyptian state. Taharqa, read Aboubacry Moussa Lam "De l'origine égyptienne des Peuls" http://www.menaibuc.com/article.php3?id_article=39, "Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l'Egypte ancienne et l'Afrique Noire" http://www.amazon.fr/chemins-Nil-relations-ancienne-lAfrique/dp/2708706322/ref=sr_1_1/403-6655534-4675637?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176110493&sr=1-1, and "Le Sahara ou la vallée du Nil" http://www.amazon.fr/Sahara-Ou-Vallee-Nil/dp/2911372425/ref=sr_1_5/403-6655534-4675637?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176110493&sr=1-5. This subject is very important to understand why African Americans are heirs of the ancient Egyptians. Urthogie should read Aboubacry Moussa Lam as well to update his knowledge about Africa. By the way, I would like to remind Urthogie that Greeks are from Black African origin http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057002118.x. This thesis is well documented. African American academics are right in making this point. Myths are on your Eurocentric side when it comes to Africa. In matters dealing with Africa, it is normal to do an Afrocentric discours. Neutrality is not synonymous with objectivity. We must be objective in science, not neutral. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 09:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, great abstract about the Greeks!

I'll definitely read those links in a second. My only thing is that while I believe that African-Americans shared ancestral ties to the Ancient Egyptians more so than most other groups in America, it would be hard to prove a direct relationship as heirs of Egypt, and even harder to convince people that the Greeks were Africans originally. I know a bit about Minoan civilization, and that they supposedly used African writing scripts and were dark skinned, but I don't want to speculate and do to Greece what Eurocentrics have tried to do with Egypt, Greece can stay in Europe, my only concern is Africa. There's no refuting though that the Ancient Egyptians and West Africans occupied the same space and were a part of the same population during the Neolithic, some indeed went to the Nile, some south, and some West. Those who I think may have ancient ties with Egypt are the Mende (a lot of African Americans come from these people), the Dogon, Wolof speaking people and west Nilo-Saharan speakers. To impose "mixed-race" status onto these people is idiotic. Ancient skeletal remains of the ancestors of the Dogon people were described as "intermediate" or mixed types in one publication. Do these Saharans look like Intermediate types to you? http://www.sagatours.com/malian-portraits.html (Notice the Bambara kid wearing a hat similar to the white crown of upper Egypt) ^This is how misleading reporting race through skeletal remains is.. Culture is a better identifier of who the people were sometimes imo.. Taharqa 22:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am happy Taharqa that you saw and read the abstract about the Black African origin of the Greeks. It is a reality, not an hypothesis. Now you are transformed. There are many things to reveal on Black Africa and World History, colonialism and imperialism had covered. Urthogie as well must give his opinion about that, because he is the man who is denying the Black African backgroung of the Greeks. Only ignorant people can continue to deny this fact known already through ancient myths and now confirmed by genetics. Implications are great. People who used, for anything, to belittle the Black race are shaking. Urthogie, did you read the abstract about the Greeks I posted earlier? What do you thing about that in all objectivity? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--82.88.213.182 21:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

^Yea, I can't lie, I've heard these theories before, and being African it was especially interesting to me, but I never took them seriously honestly, due to my conservatism and scholarly way of thinking. But this is actually backed by genetic evidence, I don't really see any way around that.. Deniers may say that they were just traders, but that won't fly, Africans must of colonized Greece, as the Greek legends attest themselves. I'm not in the habit of debunking mainstream sources, so for now I'll have to take this at face value and as historical fact. Good one, you've enlightened me, I'm looking at your other links now and seeing how I can apply them to future articles and debates.Taharqa 00:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Brace Study
Okay Urgothie, I see where all of this mixed-race nonsense comes from, it comes from the supposed contradiction between the 1993 Brace study (which reported relationships with Europeans) and Keita's study which reported similarities to East Africans. Well the Brace study has been discredited, and you'd know that if you had really checked the sources and read Keita's study, which was in direct response to Brace's study to check its validity.

'''Brace's study has faced some criticism, however. It had a greater number of samples from Europe and each sample represented a specific ethnic group, whereas his samples from the "sub-Saharan" region were very small and were not specific, since each sample represented a country. Doing this exaggerated Europe's cranio-facial diversity to be greater than that of sub-Sahara, even though African populations possess far greater biodiversity and sub-Saharan African is much more vast, with thousands of ethnic groups. Even India, which has hundreds of ethnic groups was represented by just one plot on his map. Further, the samples that Brace chose to represent Sub-Sahara consisted of those peoples who represent the stereotypical "true-negroid" look with broad features even though there are populations in Sub-Sahara that do not have such features. The result was that Egyptians as well as Nubians and even Somalians clustered closer to Europe because of certain similarities, while Melanesians and Australian aborigines clustered closely to the sub-Saharan sample because of certain similarities shared between them'''. http://en.allexperts.com/e/c/co/controversy_over_racial_characteristics_of_ancient_egyptians.htm

You write:

'However, older studies that used similar methods of crania analysis have concluded that ancient dynastic'' Egyptian crania show no ties whatsoever to sub-Saharan Africa, and instead show significant ties to the European Neolithic, North Africa, and modern Europe. '''

In the 2005 study, Keita writes:


 * ''One approach, although limited, with which to explore the possibility of migration in earlier times, is through analysis of craniometric affinities. Previous studies have not specifically addressed the immigration of farmers from Europe into the Nile Valley. However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia. Brace et al. (1993) seemingly interpret these results as indicating a population relationship from Scandinavia to the Horn of Africa, although the mechanism for this is not clearly stated; they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat (incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims. Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/badari.pdf

So your quote basically misrepresented the conclusions and Brace' study is considered misleading, even by fellow bioanthropologists for the reasons stated above.. So I added wording to the misleading statement that dynastic Egyptians were found to relate more closely to Europeans than other Africans, which isn't true. AEs were closer to people of the Sudan (Nubia) and Somalis more than they were to Europeans since they were in the "primary cluster", and Europeans in the secondary. I added the relevant info..

"However, older studies that use similar methods of crania analysis have concluded that ancient dynastic Egyptian crania show no ties whatsoever to sub-Saharan Africa, and instead show significant ties to the European Neolithic, North Africa, and modern Europe. Though this study has been highly criticized due to limited sample selection, and under closer scrutiny results found that they clustered primarily with people of ancient Sudan and recent Somalia, Somali people of whom are Sub-Saharan African, which undermines these claims. "

^I didn't erase anything, what's in bold is what I added.. If you're interested in all of the most recent peer reviewed, validated studies concerning Egypt, I suggest you check here Urgothie. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.htmlTaharqa 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The lead is not a place for criticisms, only for summarizing research. Feel free to add info on criticisms in the research section, or to add more research summary to the lead.  Allexperts.com, by the way, is just a cache of wikipedia from a year ago.--Urthogie 03:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what allexperts is, I didn't use it as a source, now read what I posted and be reasonable, or I'm editing out your contributions every time I come back because you're not about to spew your propaganda to the public as long as I'm here.Taharqa 17:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And you say I'm not being reasonable?? I'm editing along policies described in Lead. A detailed criticism of findings is fit for the article, not the lead.  You need to calm down and discuss this based on Wikipedia policies, rather than your view of the truth.  Also, you did in fact use allexperts as a source.  How about you reflect on how you're coming into this a bit too angry, considering the mistake you just made it might occur to you that you're not perfect in your reasoning and that you need to reference policies when making arguments.  Also, please note that the Keita study you showed here says nothing against the current sentence in the article.  epipalaeolithic came way before dynastic, last time I checked.  Chill the hell out, you're completely pissed off and you need to start being reasonable.   And like I said, feel free to add criticisms to the article, or to summarize Keita's research in the lead.  Criticisms of others' research though does not fit in the lead.  The lead is not for a detailed discussion of sources, per Lead it is only meant to be a summary.--Urthogie 17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, If you don't go sentence for sentence with me, and stop being dismissive and engage with me to truly see my point, I have nothing to say and I have to edit out your contribution that I truly honestly feel are misrepresented. I can truly explain to you how, but you're not giving me the chance so what can I do? I don't want to let you mess up the article and it's getting frustrating. Keita said post Badarian, not epipalaeolithic, that's how much you pay attention, but oh wellTaharqa 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do see your point. Could we compromise on modifying the sentence to somehow say it's been criticized?  The sentence you added is kind of silly... I mean everyone knows that clustering with North Africa means... clustering with North Africa.  Why must this be mentioned in the lead?  Can't you just add it to the research section, and we'll modify this sentence slightly?--Urthogie 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made slight modifications based on your suggestions. How is this for a compromise?  (See page)--Urthogie 18:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

^The point is that Keita studies the same crania that he did, and used more samples. He found that the same crania used by Brace, actually clustered closer to Sudanese (North Africa) and Somali people (East Africa) than to any Europeans, who clustered secondarily.. Maybe you should save the over all mention of these studies for the research section, it doesn't belong in the intro anyways, because elaboration is needed (why don't you use another more reliable study that hasn't been discarded and highly criticized?). And your changes honestly aren't acceptable, like I've emphasized, Somalis and Nubians were in the primary cluster and bumped Europe into a secondary cluster, Brace' results doesn't reflect what you wrote and neither does the over all conclusion that has been updated from further studies (Keita).. Also the mix-race issue and your sources still need to be discussed..Taharqa 18:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hair?
'''Hair color can rarely be determined, based in mummies. The hair of Ramses the Great was dyed to make him more youthful in appearance, which means red hair was common to some degree in Egypt.'''

^This is the biggest most uninformed lie I've seen in the history of Egyptology, no body, I mean not even the people at stormfront believes this and they know that red hair would of been extremely rare in Egypt (as it even is today), this is a load. That only indicates that Ramses dyed his hair, please stop posting crap in the article whoever wrote this, provide a source!Taharqa 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The hair section hasn't been contributed to by anyone but some anonymous editor. Please work on it.--Urthogie 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

^I'll try to do that...Taharqa 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's some ciritcal info on the hair section that I posted earlier.

At the 1974 UNESCO conference Egyptology was dealt a fatal blow. Two African scholars wiped the floor with 18 world-renowned Egyptologists. They proved in 11 different categories of evidence that the ancient Egyptians were Africans (Black). Following that beating, Egyptology has been on its knees praying to be saved by science. Their last glimmer of hope has been the hair on Egyptian mummies.

The mummies on display in the world's museums exhibit Caucasoid-looking hair, some of it brown and blonde. These mummies include Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao of the 17th dynasty and the 19th dynasty's Rameses II. As one scholar put it: "The most common hair colour, then as now, was a very dark brown, almost black colour although natural auburn and even rather surprisingly blonde hair are also to be found."

Many Black scholars try skillfully to avoid the hair problem. This is a mistake!

In 1914, a white doctor in Detroit initiated divorce proceeding against his wife whom he suspected of being a "closet Negro". At the trial, the Columbia University anthropologist, Professor Franz Boas (1858-1942), was called upon as a race expert. Boas declared: "If this woman has any of the characteristics of the Negro race it would be easy to find them . . . one characteristic that is regarded as reliable is the hair. You can tell by microscopic examination of a cross-section of hair to what race that person belongs."

With this revelation, trichology (the scientific analysis of hair) reached the American public. But what are these differences?

The cross-section of a hair shaft is measured with an instrument called a trichometer. From this you can get measurements for the minimum and maximum diameter of a hair The minimum measurement is then divided by the maximum and then multiplied by a hundred. This produces an index. A survey of the scientific literature produces the following breakdown:

San, Southern African 55.00 Zulu, Southern African 55.00 Sub-Saharan Africa 60.00 Tasmanian (Black) 64.70 Australian (Black) 68.00 Western European 71.20 Asian Indian 73.00 Navajo American 77.00 Chinese 82.60

In the early 1970s, the Czech anthropologist Eugen Strouhal examined pre-dynastic Egyptian skulls at Cambridge University. He sent some samples of the hair to the Institute of Anthropology at Charles University, Prague, to be analyzed. The hair samples were described as varying in texture from "wavy" to "curly" and in colour from "light brown" to "black". Strouhal summarized the results of the analysis:

"The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened, with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show the Negroid inference among the Badarians (pre-dynastic Egyptians)."

The term "Negroid influence" suggests intermixture, but as the table suggests this hair is more "Negroid" than the San and the Zulu samples, currently the most Negroid hair in existence!

In another study, hair samples from ten 18th-25th dynasty individuals produced an average index of 51! As far back as 1877, Dr. Pruner-Bey analyzed six ancient Egyptian hair samples. Their average index of 64.4 was similar to the Tasmanians who lie at the periphery of the African-haired populations.

A team of Italian anthropologists published their research in the Journal of Human Evolution in 1972 and 1980. They measured two samples consisting of 26 individuals from pre-dynastic, 12th dynasty and 18th dynasty mummies. They produced a mean index of 66.50

18th Dynasty Egypt The overall average of all four sets of ancient Egyptian hair samples was 60.02. Sounds familiar. . ., just check the table!

Since microscopic analysis shows ancient Egyptian hair to be completely African, why does the hair look Caucasoid? Research has given us the answers.

Hair is made of keratin protein. Keratin is composed of amino acid chains called polypeptides. In a hair, two such chains are called cross-chain polypeptides. These are held together by disulphide bonds. The bulk of the hair, the source of its strength and curl, is called the cortex. The hair shafts are made of a protective outer layer called the cuticle.

We are informed by Afro Hair - A Salon Book, that chemicals for bleaching, penning and straightening hair must reach the cortex to be effective. For hair to be permed or straightened the disulphide bonds in the cortex must be broken. The anthropologist Daniel Hardy writing in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, tells us that keratin is stable owing to disulphide bonds. However, when hair is exposed to harsh conditions it can lead to oxidation of protein molecules in the cortex, which leads to the alteration of hair texture, such as straightening.

Two British anthropologists, Brothwell and Spearman, have found evidence of cortex keratin oxidation in ancient Egyptian hair. They held that the mummification process was responsible, because of the strong alkaline substance used. This resulted in the yellowing and browning of hair as well as the straightening effect.

This means that visual appearance of the hair on mummies cannot disguise their racial affinities. The presence of blonde and brown hair on ancient Egyptian mummies has nothing to do with their racial identity and everything to do with mummification and the passage of time. As the studies have shown, when you put the evidence under a microscope the truth comes out. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/hair2.html 74.128.200.135 04:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Where'd the other threads go?
I needed them for reference, whoever erased the entire page can you revert it back? There was a lot of useful information and links through out the discussion. I need access to the archive.Taharqa 03:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no clue... they were red links and I remove them. Just use page history for now.--Urthogie 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

not debatable
Questions of race and the ancient Egyptians have been a subject of debate and controversy dating back to the 18th century. The ancient Egyptians considered themselves part of a distinct race, separate from their neighbors.

this isn't debatable. the images show Egyptians distinguishing themselves in the 4 "races of the world". Also, I consider it vandalism for you to remove the leading sentence of the article. Taharqa, this is getting way too high stress for me.

I'm tired of you and angry-ass Nkuka Luka (who was originally being peaceful and friendly) accusing me of having a bias against Africans when I'm trying to just improve the page. I've been called a Eurocentrist, anti-African, etc., all for disagreeing with you. Do you honestly know of many people that are as tolerant of arguing with two people at once as I am, (on two subjects at once), while staying calm? I surely don't.

If you want to get a cheap victory by pissing me off enough, then so be it. You need to make editing here a bit easier if you want progress to be made.

Do you want a shit article in constant revert wars or do you want compromise?

If we're in conflict over a certain sentence, don't remove a completely seperate section that's also conflicted. I'm only one dude-- I can't argue with you on two points at once, with two people at once. It's stressful.

I can't edit every day. I'll get back to you in 2 days, at least. The "mixed race" sentence is debatable, but the first two sentences of the article are not. It's a fact that the Egyptians considered themselves distinct.

But anyways, if you're ready to make the editing environment and the discussion environment here more peaceful, then I'll be glad to continue discussions. It's just a waste of time to argue about two things at once, with two people at once. I know this message may sound a bit mixed up in transmission, but I ask that you don't try to argue with it. It is a personal expression of my feelings on how editing is going here right now, not an argument. Until next time, best wishes, --Urthogie 18:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

^^^You removed my contribution on hair, you removed my contribution indicating that Sudan and Somalia were Egypt's closest cranial matches, you force a "mix-race" consensus into the article when such a thing does not exist, you removed over half of the studies I've contributed, you reword things in favor of Eurocentric dogma like a true propagandist, and bottom line, you're simply a troll..

I'm done with this, I just will not participate anymore because in my honest opinion Urgothie is irrational, extremely illogical, and most likely uneducated and I have no time for his recent troll antics simply in the name of some obscure wikipedia article, it isn't that important. If need be I'll simply offer suggestions and my opinion to Nkuka Luka, since Goth is so unreasonable and defiant of scholarship and basic human common sense, which for some reason he seems to lack. I wouldn't have this much of a hard time convincing my cat that urinating on a mattress is wrong, let a lone assuring some one that their imaginary sources don't support their claims, neither do any of the scientific ones. It's futile and I have no more patience for this.. I'll come back from time to time to offer suggestions to other editors, but I refuse to work with Urgothie, the guy is, to put it frankly, is a crack pot. Good luck to all else who contribute to this article.Taharqa 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you think all of this of me, I have to say I'm glad you're gone. But at least you've expressed your hateful views.  It's good to get that out there so it doesn't just steam up inside.--Urthogie 23:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

^It isn't so much hate (since I do not know you or judge your moral character), it's more so pity and frustration at your general lack of intelligence and understanding. Like dealing with a child who knows no better, and if it isn't your child you simply don't have to put up with them, and you're not my child. Of course you're glad I'm "gone", now you can prance around at all hours of the night in blissful glee, steadily corrupting interpretations of history with your uninformed babbles in the article, and don't have to worry about any "real scholars" or knowledgeable people of the topic correcting your numerous and incompetent mistakes. No one needs a farewell from you, I'm still willing to collaborate with Nkuka since he seems to average out above or at the normal IQ range, It's just worthless to engage with such lower life forms as yourself. That's all, no emotions behind it at all, maybe that's what your sensitive soul perceived, but I don't hate anyone, I only feel bad for people. With that said, and given the fact that I do not hate you, I truly wish you good luck, seriously, I hope that you learn something some day..Taharqa 23:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please Taharqa, don't leave. Many people, like Viola74, Muntuwandi...left already this debate because Urthogie was exagerating. His methodology is very defective. For example, concluding from one picture, which by the way is an artistic rendering, that the Egyptians are not part of the Black race is close to superstition. One has to compare many pictures before making conclusions. Urthogie ignore this basic principle! Taharqa, don't leave. You are an African. You have to help people know what Africa is really. You don't have to leave Africa to be explained by strangers alone. We Africans have suffered too much because of some "spirit of defection" on things involving our destiny. It is true that Wikipedia is not so important. But as Africans, we cannot let people spread ignorance about African Civilizations through Wikipedia. I expect Urthogie to change his view of Egypt. After all because Egypt is an African Civilization, Africans are the first to be concerned with Egypt. Please, Taharqa, continue to contribute even through a lot of suffering for the love of Africa, of its youth mainly. I beseech you to come back regardless of the actual caracter of our brother in humanity Urthogie. Any effective departure of you at this stage of the article will be a desaster. Answer positively, Taharqa. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 00:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Tahraqa please stay leaving will only allow ignorance to spread. LOL I just find so unbeleivable how people will argue until they are blue in the face that ancient Egypt was not a black Civilization. They continue to ignore well published articles and documentaries stating that the first people to have settled in the article were from the South and West of the Sahara. These people ignore evidence that Egyptians hair texture was undoubtibly black African. They won't even take a second look at the Sphinx because it shows a typical "negro". 74.128.200.135 03:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Tahraqa, in my view you've disqualified yourself from collaborating with other users-- you're not capable of working with someone who disagrees with you. You've resorted to insulting someone's intelligence as a "low life" and insulted my intelligence, called me a child, etc. These are grounds for a long block, per No personal attacks.


 * People who resort to personal attacks, known as ad hominem, simply show that their argument is weak. This is the tactic used by racists at stormfront.  That's what you've done here by insulting me, rather than further developing your argument you've shown that you can't participate in rational debate.  I must sincerely say that I am glad you're not editing anymore, because collaboration requires not insulting people with personal attacks, even if you disagree with them. --Urthogie 13:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you (User:74.128 and Lusala).. I thought about it also and there's no use in leaving simply because of frustration with ignorance. Some people get it the first time, but others you have to keep pounding the facts over and over again in their head until they finally get it, and I guess I'll just have to take that rout. I'm a member of WikiProject Africa and have an obligation, so I guess that I need to start practicing patience now then if I'm to continue my research for here.Taharqa 18:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

a couple of comments on the future of this page
The article:


 * Even though Tarqah is now gone, I will still add her sources to the various article sections and to the lead, and consider every rational comment she adds.
 * I will improve the lead to mention the views of ancient historians.
 * I will add a section on Hair.
 * I will improve the section on kmt to use sources. I will also add more on language.
 * I will add the Sphynx's nubian appearence to the art and architecture section, per Nkuka Luka's comments.
 * I will improve and build up the Background section.
 * I will improve and expand upon the discarded hypotheses section.
 * I will make various style changes to make the article look better.
 * I will clean up and double check references.
 * I will submit the article for scientific peer review once it has the acceptance of the editors on this talk page.

For all of this to be accomplished, the following will be required on the talk page:


 * No more personal attacks, per No personal attacks.
 * We should avoid conflicting over two issues at once.
 * We should argue against arguments, not editors.
 * We should keep this a relatively non-stressful experience, and leave our prejudices at the door.

Thank you,--Urthogie 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reclaiming Taharqa
Taharqa must come back. He is a powerful thinker and contributor. We all make mistakes. Urthogie in this must recognize that he pushes people to the extreme. Myself I am sorry to Urthogie for the pain I caused to him, but he has to know that he takes initiative contrary to the consensus, like the coming back of the picture of the tomb of Seti I which was removed after a consultation being an artistic rendering. I have more access to French and Italian litteratures. Tahaqa to English. I am more a Historian, Taharqa a Scientist. He must come back. I cannot fully trust Urthogie, because he changes too quickly his mood. Now, for example, he looks like the owner of the article. Is this normal? In the past, Taharqa admired him calling him a sensitive man. But what now? Taharqa must come back. Urthorgie, like anybody who "knows" Egypt can contribute. But, Taharqa, not only knows Egypt, but he is also an African. This is a great advantage, because he feels things from inside, Egypt being an African Civilization. Taharqa, I am not happy with your silence. Please say something, something positive, meaning you are coming back. Could you begin contributing with the Sphinx? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though my mood changes, it never gets to the point where I call people stupid and incapable of discussion. I will only agree to continue working with Taharqa if rules of discussion are laid out.--Urthogie 17:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's cool Nkuka, I'll just deal with it in a different way and I just won't push the issue too hard when he's being too stubborn.. I thought about it, and this isn't his article and I have an responsibility to spread the truth so I won't let some little thing like a disagreeable person stop me from doing that.. You're right, I was being irrational due to my frustration with the guy.. I won't be as active as I have been though, but I won't leave like all the others, just yet.. Thanx btw..Taharqa 18:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you to both Taharqa and Urthogie. Muntuwandi is discreet, but present. Thank you also to him! There are still many things to do to improve this article. A bit of patience to each one of us will be for sure of great help! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Egyptians thinking of themselves as distinct

 * Paul Johnson, the Civilization of Ancient Egypt:

"They a metal rare in the Old assumed they had always inhabited the Nile valley as a distinctive race... (page 10)"


 * Frank Yurco:

"As these examples illustrate, Egypt's relations with its neighbors were based upon political concerns; ethnicity had only a coincidental, secondary role, and from all the evidence extant, the Egyptians were not race conscious..."


 * The image the 4 races of the world, even if you think it is an inaccurate drawing, really did represent the idea that the Egyptians were a race of the world, and Nubiabns were another, and Semites another, etc.

Thanks, --Urthogie 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll let this go for now, I still have concern with the interpretation and contradictory quotes with in those sources, and there is no denying that Egyptians saw different "ethnicities", but as Yurco pointed out himself, they weren't "race" conscious. I don't mind the inclusion though, no contest..Taharqa 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's more an issue of finding better sources. These ones aren't perfect, but it's basically a verifiable fact like you said that they weren't race conscious.--Urthogie 22:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

proposed compromise
Taharqa was right about the mixed race sentence, but not for reasons he (or she..?) listed. I thought about it privately for a while while riding the bus this afternoon.. I noticed that it's too close to original research to keep in a scholarly article. I am willing to remove this sentence, although I don't think the article should comment on what race they really were whatsoever. Perhaps we could add a section on Afrocentrism, by the way. For the most part though, the article should just neutrally present the evidence.

I insist, though, on making clear in the lead that they thought of race as basically identical with nationality. I don't think there's any serious debate to be had on the sentences which make this clear.

Taharqa, I expect an apology by the way if you ever want to collaborate again. I think you were being a complete asshole.--Urthogie 20:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I will acknowledge that I came off a bit crude, and if my words in anyway affected your opinions about my character, control, and maturity, and also if it affected you personally it is indeed something that I solemnly regret. Though in hindsight and foresight I can't move past any rationale behind it, and in ways I felt justified in my initial decision and actions given the frustrating situation. I felt extremely disrespected myself, but this is why I appreciate your compromise. I'm always willing to do just that, just as long as there is reciprocation. At the end of the day, I will in fact apologize because I didn't even have to type what I did, if I was going to leave I could of just did just that.Taharqa 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it just seemed like you were saying because I disagree with you I must be a European chauvanist. That really doesn't help the discussion or your argument.--Urthogie 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

^That isn't what I based any of my arguments on and I never used those words...Taharqa 22:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"^^^You removed my contribution on hair, you removed my contribution indicating that Sudan and Somalia were Egypt's closest cranial matches, you force a 'mix-race' consensus into the article when such a thing does not exist, you removed over half of the studies I've contributed, you reword things in favor of Eurocentric dogma like a true propagandist, and bottom line, you're simply a troll.."

"No one needs a farewell from you, I'm still willing to collaborate with Nkuka since he seems to average out above or at the normal IQ range, It's just worthless to engage with such lower life forms as yourself."

You sure?--Urthogie 22:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Eurocentrism has nothing to do with race or nationality, I only accused you of being caught in that typical dogmatic approach, bias, and/or lack of commitment to understanding. If I was wrong on those assumptions, I'll take responsibility, you can easily prove them to be a baseless assumptions. But I didn't use the words "European chauvanist." I didn't take it to the level of race and ethnicity/nationality.Taharqa 22:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by eurocentrism, then, exactly? I hear this word tossed around a lot but I don't know what it means.  Does it mean an irrational bias in favor of Europe?  I'm against that, for sure.  Sometimes the word is used in that way, although other times it seems like pointing out things like France was, on the whole, a more advanced society than the indigenous societies of Australia is called Eurocentric.  I would say that that's actually a completely rational statement but that would likely be called Eurocentric.--Urthogie 22:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's basically a way of saying some one is brainwashed into thinking the same way some biased Europeans do, and look at the world through biased lenses in favor of ideals that came out of Europe. African Americans who think like this usually referred to as "sell-outs", or "house slaves". It's an ideology that seeks to appease European ideologies. I don't think of you as being biased, it was just hard to tell and seemed that way since you mind kept changing. You seem sincere enough though right now. Gotta go, be back later on, maybe tomorrow. I have nothing against you Urothie, and in the future I'll watch how I address things. Be safe, Hotep.Taharqa 22:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For when you get back:


 * Some European ideologies express universal truths, though. Others, such as fascism, are some of the worst ideas ever thought up.  Surely, you must see that there is some value to the largely western developments of democracy, deductive logic, science, and..Wikipedia?  I value the Egyptian cultural developments because they invented the nation-state, the basic mathematical rules of thumb, etc.,  not because they're Egyptian.  Could you clarify, though, which ways of thinking and which biased Europeans you're refering to?--Urthogie 22:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just forget about it, no big deal, I'd have to get into a whole discussion about Ethnocentrism..Taharqa 05:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, so it's European ethnocentrism, then?--Urthogie 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sphinx
Taharqa, in the past, there was "a section" (?), I don't remember well, on the Sphinx. I would like the Sphinx coming back because many writers commented about it as unveiling (or indicative of ) the race of the original (before the invation of the Semitic and Indo-European speaking peoples) Egyptians. The section "Art and architecture" might have a contribution on the Sphinx and, why not on those pictures we were debating (how much they can help determine the race of the ancient Egyptians). Please Taharqa, can you help writing this section? Thank you for the initial informations you found for the section "Ancient History". Very nice and instructive indeed! Urthogie, I think, will not disagree on the coming back of the Sphinx. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 06:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, the sphynx should be added to the art an architecture section.--Urthogie 13:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I can get some info on that for sure, give me some time if it isn't already up by the time I get back.. I'm going to a Cabin with my girl upstate so I'll be back in a day or two..Taharqa 18:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Taharqa, can you find informations in English about the commentaries of D. Vivant Denon on the Sphinx of Guizeh to be added to the article? He was an artist. He took part in the expedition of Bonaparte to Egypt and, once there, made a design of the Sphinx. Here are some informations in French http://www.africamaat.com/article.php3?id_article=155. Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 16:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Make sure to ad some other views of the sphynx by the way. Balance is needed.--Urthogie 16:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, if you know views stating that the Sphinx is not made out of a Black African background, please bring them to the article. Myself I have to confess that I haven't met them yet. Of cause, your contribution is also expected. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the sphynx looks black to me. But rulers are oten portrayed in several colors, from brown to black to green.--Urthogie 17:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

According to controversial Boston University professor of geology Robert Schoch, the core portions of the Giza sphinx predate Khafre by millenia and further possesses a ""a distinctive 'African,' 'Nubian,' or 'Negroid' aspect...." lacking in the face of Khafre. Shoch also believes the earth was populated by extraterrestrials thousands of years ago.

The New York Times subsequently published a letter from orthodontist Sheldon Peck expressing his concurrence with Domingo's findings:


 * ''From the right lateral tracing of the statue's worn profile a pattern of bimaxilliary prognathism is clearly detectable. This is an anatomical condition of forward development in both jaws, more frequently found in people of African ancestry than in those from Asian or Indo-European stock. Taharqa 05:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A letter to the editor is not a usable source.--Urthogie 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

suggested section
How about we add a section on race of slaves and prisoners. It seems like they came in all sorts of colors from both north and south.--Urthogie 17:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are those slaves and prisoners Egyptians to be dealt with in this article? According to me, such a section will bring confusions! I don't see the link between race and slavery, or between race and punishment. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 18:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the thing is they're not Egyptians but we can clear up some of the portrayals. The connection between race is just to show that they were of all races.--Urthogie 18:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a good idea. The article is not on races, but on the race of the ancient Egyptians. It is better to focus on the subject. Let's wait for the suggestions of other contributors. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the slaves were in Egypt so it kind of seems relevant.--Urthogie 21:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

^If they were native to ancient Egypt, yes..Taharqa 05:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

art and architecture section
We should make it a gallery of images, showing like 10 or so images of ancient Egyptians from blue to black to brown to light. We shouldn't give undue weight to particular portrayals.--Urthogie 19:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the statue of Cleopatra in the heading? We can't get a statue of a native Egyptian up there? She was Macedonian.. I didn't like this quote either. 'Egyptian art shows a variety of appearences, 'some of which would be classified as "black" by modern onlookers. Traditionally, the women are drawn lighter than the men, which is thought to be a stylistic touch' ^That statement is too relative and dependant on stereotyped thinking, we don't know what most people would assume given their notions on what is or isn't "black'. Taharqa 05:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm moving Cleopatra to a new "Myths" section, because I just added her because some people believe she was "black."


 * I actually added the sentence because I thought you would want it. I'm glad you want to remove the mention of what they would likely look like.  I support that.--Urthogie 18:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

^Shouldn't that be in the "Afrocentrism article", this has less to do with the ethnicity of the native ancient Egyptians than people's fascination with legendary figures, like the 'race of Jesus", etc.. Cleo wasn't Egyptian, why should this be included in an article concerning "ancient Egypt and race"?.. Besides, it isn't necessarily a "myth", but more of a controversy since "black" is a social term and a lot of Mediterranean people were not of pure blood. A Myth would be that she was a native Egyptian..Taharqa 00:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

New entry.

"However, Lefkowitz actually does cite examples of Afrocentric scholars who have made such claims. One such example she supplies is a chapter entitled "Black Warrior Queens" published in 1984 in Black Women in Antiquity, part of the Journal of African Civilization series.  It draws heavily on the pseudoscience of J.A. Rogers:

Yet and still, most Afrocentrists consider this particular matter to be of inane interest and generally see it as a trivial distraction since Cleopatra is known by most people to have not been a native Egyptian.".Taharqa 02:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Diop's Melanin tests
^What's the problem with this section?Taharqa 05:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who added the neutrality dispute, but that last sentence is clearly biased against the idea of the Egyptians being dark-skinned people. The sentence preceding it refers to the (high) LEVEL of melanin being non-existent in white races, whereas the line in question states that Diop had asserted melanin was entirely non-existent and uses this false quote to discredit him and his research. Braves27 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll replace NPOV template with expand section template.--Urthogie 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually he did say that.http://www.africawithin.com/diop/origin_egyptians.htmTaharqa 00:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh.--Urthogie 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

sphynx section should be a shorter summary
Is there really a need for full blockquotes in this section? Can't we just summarize or list the many people who observed how it looks "black" or "negroid"? I've made major updates to the Art and Architecture section. For now on, to add an artpiece just follow the convention of adding it to the "gallery."--Urthogie 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, what are you doing? The Great sphinx is very important. It is almost at the beginning of the Egyptian history (Old Kingdom), meaning before the invasions of White races from Europe and Asia (Second Intermediate Period). The Great Sphinx is in itself indicative of the race of the ancient Egyptians. I would say, it is the real solution to the problem of the race of the ancient Egyptians. It deserves a good developement, like the article which was before, and even more. Actually, if in that remote time, the kings of Egypt were Blacks, I don't see how and why their people won't be. Would you be kind, Urthogie, to bring back the text you just removed? Besides, I don't understand why the picture of Cleopatra is bigger than that of the Great Sphinx. Who arranged the pictures that way? Is it you? For the gallery of pictures, don't forget among others, Urthogie, to put Imhotep, Nefertiti, Nefertari, Akhenaton. They are very famous indeed! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 22:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Most researchers don't regard it, or any art, as able to determine what Egyptians looked like. If you think this is the key to understanding what they looked like you're completely different than the average researcher.  Even if you are right, Luka, you need to remember that an encyclopedia represents what is researched, not what one thinks is true. This is why it is not necessary to discuss it so much.  We can add Imhotep, Nefertiti, Nefertari, and Akhenaton if you can find sources that their images look a certain way, like the Sphynx.--Urthogie 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, were you sleeping when you wrote this: "Well the sphynx looks black to me. But rulers are oten portrayed in several colors, from brown to black to green.[3]--Urthogie 17:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)". "The Sphynx looks black to me"? The Sphinx is a testimony for future generations of what was at the beginning in the African soil before the invasions of White races! The African soil does not produce White people, only Black. I would like to know the researcher who states otherwise. Please Urthogie, bring back the text you removed. The actual text does not reflet anything. It is odd. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 23:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The sphynx does look "black" to me. But that doesn't mean it should get a large part of the article. Art evidence, in general, is not deemed important by most researchers.  The reasons for this are listed in the art section.  Also, two other issues apply with the Sphynx in specific: a) Is it Khafre or is it someone else? b) Even if it is Khafre, this doesn't mean that other Egyptian kings looked "black".  Take for example Senu or King Tut.--Urthogie 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

King Tut does look "Black" to me, as can be seen from King Tut's statues, you have no idea what Senu or Tut looked like from various conflicting reconstructions (especially when they lack knowledge of skin color, nose width, eye color, and various other animated features) their features as they stand are well with in the range of "Blacks" in East Africa with elongated features and lack of prognathism and these lack of so-called "Negro" features do not at all mean "Caucasoid", "White", or any less "black".

Quoting Professor S.O.Y. Keita:
 * ''A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.

For example, take a look at this Afar elder next to the picture of Ramsees II. http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/rameses_2.htmlTaharqa 00:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My main point was that Art is not used as a major source by researchers, including, presumably Keita. So I presume you support giving minimal emphasis to the Art in this article...?


 * I'm not especially interested in continuing the discussion of what's black and what's not, but I will say this: If we really wanted to group human beings genetically we'd more logically separate Africa at the Saharan desert, rather than taking Africa as a whole and cutting off at the Sinai peninsula, since the Saharan desert is a greater barrier to migration than the Sinai Peninsula. (yes, I'm aware that it's possible to pass any barrier, the question is how long it takes and how easy it is...) So "African variation" is a rather meaningless term in my book, an artifact of mapmaking and colonial history.--Urthogie 00:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry to bring it up Urgothie, but you simply aren't that aware with African diversity and these traits are from people in so-called "sub-saharan Africa".. And actually you should be aware of Geography and history, the Sahara covers mostly the whole of North Africa with the exception of the Nile and the Coasts.. Egypt is a natural barrier to people coming in from Siani because of the harsh desert conditions, the best way to get there is up the Nile.


 * ''Ancient civilizations arose along the narrow floodplain of the Nile, protected by the deserts that were natural barriers to invaders. Egyptians take pride in their rich heritage and in their descent from what is considered the first great civilization. http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/countries/country_egypt.html

^That Sub-Sahara nonsense doesn't work as far as Biology or genetics..


 * ''Cavalli-Sforza findings were before the finding of the Pn2 clade. The Pn2 clade was found to unite africans from North, South, East and West africa. The finding of the Pn2 clade has changed the way that African genetics is viewed. Most Africans including Egyptians are overwhelmingly of the Pn2 clade E3a and E3b.*Hammers recent study on 34 Egyptian samples found 53% Yap + haplotype. Yap + is African specific.http://mbe.library.arizona.edu/data/1994/1105/4hamm.pdf

^In other words they're common origins is the same as that of what you personally would define as 'Black", Sub-Saharans only. They have a closer underlying relation with the rest of Africa as a whole before anywhere else, Genes that are found most in the geographical space of Africa. Obviously it must be harder to get in than out. As a matter of fact I need to add this info into the genetics section.Taharqa 01:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The fact that Egypt is surrounded by desert does not, of course, rule out the obvious barrier called the miles of Saharan desert between North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa.
 * 2) Cavalli-Sforza's clades were way off in regards to Africa in 1994, if I remember correctly. I'd like to see what the most recent groupings are.  Even if they are the same, I would still be slightly suspicious, for reasons I can get into if you like.  [As a sidenote, I can't find the quote you pasted in that article... what page is it on??]--Urthogie 01:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

^Yea, well the main point of contention is that it's easier to travel the Nile valley from following the Nile or coming from the southwest, and archaeologically this is supported seeing as how the Egyptians themselves migrated from the south. There is no evidence of a large influx from the North, but there is much evidence of large influxes from the south. Besides, the Sahara was fertile at the time.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Nilotic_peoples#The_Sahara_and_the_Sudan_in_Nile_Valley_peopling.

You quoted Mary Lefkowitz for the Cleopatra section, after reviewing the evidence from the long drawn "Black Athena debate" this is her conclusion..


 * "Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54." Taharqa 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

35,000-30,000 years ago: "Oldest human skeleton found in Egypt" was of tropical African (Black) morphology. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/badarians.html

First mummy ever found, in North Africa also had Tropical African (Black) morphology.. This culture ran North Africa during the Neolithic, before Egypt. http://www.parthenonentertainment.com/Pages/Programs/Historycivmyth1hours/black_mummy.htm The Sub-Saharan stuff is getting old, and the genetics info I posted explains it all anyways, they're Africans in that they're related to Africans more than anyone else because of common ancestry. These are the most recent studies, just check the source.Taharqa 01:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

'''I can't find the quote you pasted in that article... what page is it on??'''

Which quote that I put in the article?Taharqa 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you have an essential misunderstanding of the role of barriers in evolution. They don't just make it difficult to get some place, they also make you diverge from people on the other side to a great degree once you get there.  Noone is denying they got there.  This is indeed the strong hypothesis, as the article notes.

^Well like I said, that isn't supported in this case according to the bio-anthropological data, and these original North Africans were not any closer to non-Africans than they were to Africans.. Barriers weren't an issue when man traveled out of Africa to people the entire world, and I think the vast majority of anthropologists will disagree with you on the claim that the Sahara desert is or ever was a barrier for the "races" or distinct people with distant common lineages. There are many deserts in Asia and North America also anyways.. Keita explains it better than me about genetics and how the PN2 clade unites various Africans from all parts of the continent, and non-Africans do not hold this Clade, along with Yap+.http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/Northeast_african_analysis.pdf (See "Discussion")Taharqa 02:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote I was referring to, by the way, was the one on this talk page from (Cali-Svorra 1994) [spelling..?]--Urthogie 01:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

^That was from another article translating the information for the layman. Again, Keita explains it better.. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/Northeast_african_analysis.pdf (See "Discussion") I'll quote Keita directly when I put it in the article..Taharqa 02:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The actual link you provided shows them grouped separetly. I insist that you use the primary source in this case.  Usually I'm ok with secondary sources but here I'm going to insist since the primary source is used, since its so easily available.  I completely respect Keita's credentials by the way but it must be noted that the Calli-Svorra source actually distinguishes between North Africa and the rest of Africa, contrary to Keita's claim, it would seem.  So please use Calli-Svorra, not Keita, when it comes to reporting the former's research.

Urgothie Wrote: The actual link you provided shows them grouped separetly

^Yes, for research purposes but they are not clustered separately, which undermines your point.. There's an isolated Egyptian sample in use for comparative purposes.

'''As far as Calli-Svorra, I'll mention him if you want, along with the harsh criticism he received. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheikh_Anta_Diop#Criticism_of_the_racial_clusters_approach But I am to let you know that Professor Keita is a peer reviewed Biological Anthropologist who has been publishing his work for over 20 years and it is not against wikipedia policy to use him as a primary source on genetics and "race" or ancient Egyptian Biological relationships with other groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shomarka_Keita http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioanthropology ' Topic: Ancient Egypt and Race Wikipedia reliable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources'''. This research was not a result of "the former", they are simply gene sequences and Clades that were found after Cali-Svorra' work was published. Looking to Cali-Svorra' chart for an interpretation of this data would be devoid of sense..Taharqa 05:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what Keita was saying was that for a certain gene Africa was grouped together. But Svorra has shown that he finds in the end that North Africans cluster one way, and the rest of Africa another, when all of the human variation is considered.  [This is assuming I'm reading both of them right... which I think I am].

'''No Urgothie, you have it all wrong, these were for numerous genes that formed a transmission and common origin, mainly haplotypes V, XI, and IV (all native to Africa) haplotypes in high frequencies, and these merge into the Pn2 Clade.. Modern Egyptians (especially southern) were also shown to have substantial amounts of the African specific Yap+, as much as 53%, much higher than anywhere outside of Africa, and particularly high in Bantu-Speakers (Sub-Sahara), and for instance it's 66% in Pygmies. North Africans cluster various ways because of admixture and limited samples, Calli-Svorra took limited Egyptian and other African samples in his day. He has since been criticized for his approaches''' This is about sifting through the obvious admixture of today's foreign and native genes, identifying genes which are native to the region, and finding relationships/common origins among these genes, which has been done... Keita would never report such a horrendous notion of an "African divide". Him, Kittles, and Armelagos are main critics of Calli-Svorra, along with the majority of Bio-Anthropologists, check the sources of his criticism on that page. Taharqa 02:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This does strengthen your argument in one way, though Taraqh. Even if sub-saharan Africa is distinguished from the north, the claim that Sudan and Ethiopia can be grouped with the Egypt is looking increasingly credible, both because of craniometry and genetics.  Although the whole idea with the sub-Saharan Africans clustering with them in any way whatsoever is starting to look pretty shabby.--Urthogie 02:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No one says they all cluster perfectly, there's clinal variation.. But these mutations signify recent common origins and an unbroken chain.. That "they don't cluster whatsoever with Sub-Saharans" stuff won't cut it though and it seems that you're speaking in the words of the 1993 Brace, and not from your own personal inferences of the research. Brace has already been checked for his terminology and lack of sample sizes as well, and corrected some of his faults.

Comments from Brace on his more recent study of NorthEast African Crania..


 * ''The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample - both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians - and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, (Pg. 4) there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/brace_2006.pdf (See Pg. 5, under Fig. 4)

^Cranial studies that also report an unbroken chain (with in the same cluster) from "Sub-Saharan" Africa that ends all the way up to even the Fellaheen of Israel (who are known genetically to have noticible amounts of E3b East African specific Haplotype). The most recent osteological, genetic, and archaeological research does not support a barrier at the Sahara. Taharqa 02:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said I don't want to get into these complex debates about genetics because it takes time away from improving the page. I think we can agree to quote both Calli-Svorra and the criticism of him by Keita in the genetics section, right?--Urthogie 12:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

^I wasn't really debating you, I was only pointing out to you that Calli-Svorra is irrelevant and I really don't need to mention him since we're past him, if you insist then I certainly don't mind mentioning him but new plots and clusters/ methods were discovered after him as it pertains to Keita and the rest of the biological sources. You made it seem as if you respect Keita, yet only his results contradicts Cavalli-Sforza when the majority of the Anthropological community's results contradict a lot of his results and approach. Cavalli-Sforza is not a priority source, he's respectable but some of his methods have been discredited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-European_Caucasoid#Use_of_racial_categories_in_modern_DNA_studies Mentioning him only makes the section longer since his old views would have to be dealt with in the face of more recent data and cluster analysis. I just didn't think you understood who the primary sources are concerning this issue.Taharqa 17:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sahara is not a barrier
Egypt, Urthogie, was populated before the desiccation of the Sahara by Black people before the existence of the other races as stated Cheikh Anta Diop in an interview in Guadaloupe http://www.loccidental.net/spip.php?article458. Other Blacks joined them in the Nile Valley from the Sahara because of the beginning of that desiccation. At the same time, populations left the Sahara in direction of West Africa. "L'histoire de l'Egypte ancienne, en particulier prédinastique, a fait l'objet d'un grand débat à partir des années 1950. Envisagée comme étant d'origine essentiellement proche-orientale, sinon méditerranéenne, la civilisation égyptienne a montré avec éclat ses sources africaines méridionales" (Bernard Nantet, Dictionnaire de l'Afrique. Histoire, Civilisation, Actualité, Paris: Larousse, 2006, p. 104). Did you understand this quotation Urthogie? Do I have to translate it in English for you? This is a recent synthesis and edition (2006). It speaks about the southern origin of the Egyptians! In the past, you said that African American scholars are writing that the Greeks are Blacks. I brought a text confirming this. You did not pronounce yourself about that. Now, you have to tell us on the basis of this international study if it is true that Greeks are from Black Africa http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057002118.x. Now, if the Greeks are from Black Africa, why not Egyptians before the Greeks? Where is the Sahara to prevent Blacks to populate Greece? Finaly, I remind you, Urthogie, that you agreed on the coming back of the Sphinx section. Your change of mood is not helpful to a common work. You have to be a bit coherent. Bring back the text on the Great Sphinx. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 08:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, I put a small text on the Great Sphinx while waiting for the full text you removed. Don't remove this one until you restore the text of Muntuwandi and others you removed. I went through the messages people left in your box. Most of them are complaining of your acts of vandalism. When are you going to stop doing this? If you are against an opinion, just add yours next to it. Don't remove anything for respect of other people's contributions. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 09:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Luka, I explained my reasons for only having a gallery of art. It is because most researchers don't think art is important. Wikipedia doesn't give all opinions equal weight. More common opinions would get more discussion. The opinion that art is significant here is a relatively unheard of one in academia. Can you name any single researcher alive today who thinks art definitively tells us the race of the ancient Egyptians?

Also, I'm not denying that the Egyptians are from the south originally. The first Egyptians were surely just like the Africans neighboring to the south. The issue is more complex than that, though, because we are not interested in the predynastic egyptians as we are in the dynastic Egyptians which means a gap of several millenia. For an analog, consider that Asians originally migrated from Africa, but after thousands of years they adapted to the higher latitude and climate. "Race", then, is not the same as which continent your ancestors moved from. (But to be honest I am not interested in this debate. Let's work on improving the article.)--Urthogie 12:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And Urthogie, please give now your opinion on the Black origin of the Greeks on the light of the study I provided http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057002118.x. You are the one who raised the issue: "Becuase these wacky myths are introduced by some notable academics like the one who says the Greeks were as black as Egyptians.--Urthogie 15:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)" . Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 12:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Greeks are of largely African origin. I haven't studied that issue.  But you are confusing origin with appearence.  The ancient Greek civilization was not the first civlization in the area.  The place was conquered by several peoples before the rise of Athens, Sparta, etc. If the pre-Hellenic Greeks were basically similar to Africans in appearence, that's interesting, but not that interesting to me.  Also, it's completely irrelevant to this article, anyways, because this article already makes clear that Egyptians most likely moved in from the south.  Also, like the Egyptians, the Greeks had thousands of years to be effected by evolution.  Lastly, those "wacky myths" I was referring to are not the idea that there may have originally been an African migration to Greece, but rather that the Socrates, Aristotle, and the hellenic greeks looked as dark as the egyptians, and even more ridiculous the idea that they looked like sub-saharan Africans.  Many Afrocentrists even deny those wacky myths. --Urthogie 13:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is you Urthogie who is rudiculous. If it is a genetic study which has to decide the race of people, Greeks are Blacks. Genetically speaking Greecs of today are not related to other Europeans but to sub-Saharan Black Africans http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057002118.x . Did you understand, Urthogie? I see that you don't even follow the rythme of publications in that matter. Why did you raise that issue? Ignorant as you are, please, read the study and give a scientific opinion. It is you who began with that subject. Besides, we agreed in common on a section about the Sphinx, why are you removing it? When are you becoming normal, Urthogie? I want other contributors to judge if Urthogie is right in what is doing with the Sphinx. To me it seems that Urthogie has either a personal problem or a hidden agenda. There is something wrong with that guy. As we don't know each other, we must work leting humanity, truth, respect and objectivity prevail. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 13:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Luka, are you incapable of arguing without insulting people? The article is about HLA genes, and specific alleles, not all genes. When it says Macedonians or Greeks cluster with Africans, they're saying only in regard to HLA genes. The study claims an African origin to the greeks, which seems reasonable to me. But the article does not say that Greeks "are not related to other Europeans but to sub-Saharan Black Africans." What it says, rather, is that in regards to HLA genes, the Greeks group with Africans not Europeans. This is HLA genes, not all genes, a huge difference if you'd actually study genetics rather than misreading papers. Please calm down and discuss this rationally, rather than resorting to insults without thinking out what you're saying. You're sounding eerily like someone with a conspiracy theory, convinced that anyone who disagrees with them has a "hidden agenda." --Urthogie 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, see this study which was written in reply to that one:

"Abstract: The Macedonian population is of special interest for HLA anthropological study in the light of unanswered questions regarding its origin and relationship with other populations, especially the neighbouring Balkanians. Two studies have been performed to examine HLA molecular polymorphism in the Macedonian population, so far. The present study is the first to be performed in Macedonia using high-resolution sequence-based method for direct HLA typing. The study included 158 unrelated healthy volunteers of Macedonian origin and nationality, having a Christian Orthodox religion. After the simultaneous amplification of exon-2 on both HLA-DRB1 alleles, DNA sequencing was used for genotype assignment. In the 158 samples analysed, all 316 alleles were typed and a total of 29 different DRB1 alleles were detected, with DRB1*1601 being the most frequent allele (14.9%), followed by DRB1*1104 (13.9%). A phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of the high-resolution data deriving from other populations revealed the clustering of Macedonians together with other Balkan populations (Greeks, Croats, Turks and Romanians) and Sardinians, close to another 'European' cluster consisting of the Italian, French, Danish, Polish and Spanish populations. The included African populations grouped on the opposite side of the tree."

And people say I'm biased??--Urthogie 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of cause you are biased. The fact is that Greeks are found to not belong to the "older Mediterrean substratum". The study you gave is not paying too much attention to the Greeks. Only mentioning them very quickly. "Abstract: HLA alleles have been determined in individuals from the Republic of Macedonia by DNA typing and sequencing. HLA-A, -B, -DR, -DQ allele frequencies and extended haplotypes have been for the first time determined and the results compared to those of other Mediterraneans, particularly with their neighbouring Greeks. Genetic distances, neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analysis have been performed. The following conclusions have been reached: 1) Macedonians belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum, 3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt" http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057002118.x Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 15:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well aside from accusing me of being biased, you've said nothing new, you've just put in bold what I've already read. Perhaps you aren't aware that the "substratum" is referring to the groupings based on the HLA gene alone, not a clustering analysis of all the genetic differences. In the future, it might help not to call people biased when you're wrong.--Urthogie 15:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, you are really biased. You are forcing Mesopotamian elements into Egypt. I am sure if you had such a study like the one I am mentioning, you would have quoted it as a major proof for the Mesopotamian origin of the Egyptians. But you failed to find one. Greeks are found to make an exception among Mediterranean peoples. They don't belong to the "older substratum". Explain why only Greeks, but not the other Mediterraneans, are related to sub-Saharan Africans of today. Is it by chance? Stop dreaming Urthogie! Now look well at the second part of the title of the study and to the contributors:

''A. Arnaiz-Villena11Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain *, K. Dimitroski22Tissue Typing laboratory. Institute of Blood Transfusion, Skopje. Republic of Macedonia *, A. Pacho11Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain, J. Moscoso11Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain , E. Gómez-Casado11Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain , C. Silvera-Redondo11Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain , P. Varela11Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain , M. Blagoevska22Tissue Typing laboratory. Institute of Blood Transfusion, Skopje. Republic of Macedonia, V. Zdravkovska22Tissue Typing laboratory. Institute of Blood Transfusion, Skopje. Republic of Macedonia, J. Martínez-Laso11Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain 1Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain ,2Tissue Typing laboratory. Institute of Blood Transfusion, Skopje. Republic of Macedonia'' Received 6 October, revised, accepted for publication 20 December 2000
 * HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks


 * The contribution by A. Arnaiz-Villena and K. Dimitroski is equal and the order of authorship is arbitrary

Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 17:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Great way to ignore all of my points, buddy. It's obvious you're bullshitting when your only reply is to paste a list of the authors, ignoring all of my points.--Urthogie 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

^Actually Urgothie I never was an adherent to an African presence in Greece, but the Abstract indicates an Ethiopic/Greek cluster, the fact that Greeks cluster towards Ethiopians more so than any other "Mediterranean" population says a lot and is a tell-tale sign of a very close relationship in the past, I have no opinions on what that relationship was. What's of note is that obviously the Egyptians aren't classed in the "Mediterranean" sub-stratum, but the Ethiopian/NE. African one(according to the abstract from what is inferred)..Taharqa 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that's ignoring that they cluster only in reference to a certain gene, and even on that gene a separate study came to completely different conclusions. I know you love criticizing my views, but for once could you actually point out to Luka that he's actually wrong in some important ways here?  His responses have been to bold text I've already read, and paste a list of authors, and then criticize me for being biased, or having a secret agenda, etc.  It's honestly harassment (not to mention how you've already acted), and I could report both of you for making constant personal attacks.  I haven't done this because I happen to enjoy a healthy argument.  But what kind of rebuttal is he making here?  He's bolding text and pasting lists of authors, instead of actually addressing my point. He won't listen to me because I'm "biased."  Maybe he'll listen to you.--Urthogie 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not only one gene, you fail to realize the significance of these studies and/or interpret them, and no one is harassing you Urgothie, how is this?Taharqa 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just HLA.--Urthogie 19:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, "It's just HLA". But the you seem to not looking to the title of the article: HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks. Don't minimise people with "It is just". The Greeks are from African origin. They don't belong to the "older mediterranean substratum". They are related to sab-Saharan Africans. Are people affraid of that? African Americans put it forward. Ancient myths spoke already about it. Now the war is among you Europeans and Asians (Martin Bernal). Still Ancient Egyptians are from the south of their country. And Egypt does not whiten the skin color of people. All the contrary! According to Herodotus "la chaleur y rend les hommes noirs (the heat turns people into black color)" Stories, § 22. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310."

"Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group"

"Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses"

^What does all of that mean to you, "It's just HLA" isn't sufficient, and actually the anthropologist proposed this as an interpretation.

These relationships "might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt".Taharqa 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Listing the specific HLA alleles does nothing but show me something I've already read. And by the way, "displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt" doesn't prove at all that ancient/Hellenic Greeks clustered over all-- not just with HLA-- with the ancient Egyptians or any other Africans.


 * The African origin of the pre-Hellenic Greeks/macedonians is indeed a credible hypothesis. I'm likely to believe it if it develops some more with further research.  After all, it seems logical, as man originated in Africa and migrated North from Ethiopia.  But that's not what I'm arguing against, you see. I'm criticizing the idea that has no evidence-- that the ancient or Hellenic Greeks were more similar genetically to Africans than to Europeans, which none of these studies show.  Luka seems to think that the HLA gene indicates some sort of overall genetic similarity.  Apparently he's unaware of such issues as admixture, the possibility that HLA was beneficial for the greek climate, or the basic principle that one gene never indicates all the other ones.


 * Update...I know this might be striking a nerve, I just realized after writing it. I want to say that like any scientist I won't rule out the possibility that the Greeks were more similar to Africans than to Europeans.  I just feel like it's scientifically an untenable position at this point in time.--Urthogie 20:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Predynastic and dynastic Egypt
Urgothie wrote: "The issue is more complex than that, though, because we are not interested in the predynastic egyptians as we are in the dynastic Egyptians which means a gap of several millenia"

^Urgothie, I beg of you to please check the research and time tables. Keita's study of Bardari crania which found them to be like East African Teita covered the predynastic era of the Badarians, (5000 B.C. - 4000 B.C.). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badarian

Brace's study and Keita's later observations that found them to cluster primarily with East African Somalia and NorthEast African Sudan covered Naqada II (3500–3200 BCE). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naqada

^^This is the predynastic.. Dynastic period begins under the unification of Narmer in 3150 BC.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt

^Are you seriously arguing, Urgothie that there could of been some significant change in the Biological make-up of the ancient Egyptians during only a 50 year period from the end of Naqada II, into dynastic Egypt, even when conquest is noted to have been from the south? Shouldn't that take centuries or millenia, like you said? In fact as I've pointed out before the studies confirm continuity lasting from the predynastic up until after the New Kingdom. You're being confusing now, were you unaware of this perhaps?Taharqa 17:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As much as I love a good argument, I'm tired of getting called "biased" at every turn. Until Nkuka Luka and you agree to stop making personal attacks I'm not going to engage any argument. I'll reply to this once that's accomplished.--Urthogie 18:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

^Well I didn't call you Biased, don't take that out on me, I simply addressed you on a comment that you made.Taharqa 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well I'll be reporting him for personal attacks next time he does it. Same with you.  if either of you make any more personal attacks I'll try and get you blocked.  Until now, I've been calm about it but a discussion can't occur when you make personal attacks.--Urthogie 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, I might be wrong, but it seems that the word biased came from you and then I used it in reference to you. You are the one who introduced it. "And people say I'm biased??--Urthogie 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)". But it is true that it is very difficult to work with you. You don't look intellectual. We agreed together in restoring the section on the Sphinx. After this has been done, you removed it. So I wanted to know who you are. I went to your box, and found there a lot of messages from people asking you to stop reverting texts. So I concluded that people are having hard time with you through Wikipedia. According to me, you have to learn respecting people if you want to be respected. Respect other people's contributions. Put your comments without damaging other comments. Please, Urthogie, restore the Sphinx section for respect to Muntuwandi and others who contributed to it. Sorry if I made you suffer. Peace! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Taharqa, check to Urthogie's box if it is not true that many people are complaining about his wrong doing with other people's text. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone who edits controversial articles has these types of messages. I only edit controversial articles lately, so I have a lot of them.  Also, you've made another personal attack: "you don't look intellectual."  Luka, this is your last warning.  I've been relaxed about it until now but if you make any more personal attacks I'll report you.--Urthogie 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also see that he/she also admitted to being an "asshole" and is even securing his/her authority at the Underground Hip Hop article.. Me and Urgothie went over what I said more than two days ago, I have no idea why he/she's saying that he/she wants to report people today and get them blocked. I simply wanted you to address my question concerning the predynastic and dynastic, no one has done anything wrong. I'm trying to discuss the article now and you are getting personal Urgothie, maybe we should report you, you started this..Taharqa 20:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't broken any rules, though. What would you report me for?  And by the way, you're of course not doing anything wrong right now.  All I ask is that you both promise to avoid personal attacks.  There's a lot of stuff I've wanted to say here but I didn't, I stayed focused on the discussion.


 * If you're wondering by the way, I love hip hop and did most of the developments on rapping (check out the history section, I wrote all of it), among other articles. People get mad when you remove their original research.  You've only edited one page basically all your time in Wikipedia, so of course your talk page isn't littered with hate mail.--Urthogie 20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And you stop reverting texts. To begin with, restore the Sphinx sub-section you removed. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between disagreeing on ideas and insulting someone, you know. I clarified my reasons for questioning the significance of artistic portrayals.  Taharqa (spelled it right this time), would you agree with my assesment that the art section shouldn't be split into subsections for each piece of art?  It seems to me like it would get too big that way and that it's best then to have a gallery.--Urthogie 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You've only edited one page basically all your time in Wikipedia, so of course your talk page isn't littered with hate mail

^This is untrue and also personal, I was under the screen name BabyHorus for 2 years, Taharqa is only about a few months old. Stay on topic though please, I've edited plenty of articles btw.. But about the predynastic/dynastic, do you have a response to what I posted?Taharqa 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I think what you did is take my comments completely out of context to make them look false-- we were arguing over genetics, not crania.--Urthogie 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you address the problem presented with in this thread though?Taharqa 21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well I think there are several difficulties here... one would be equating the Badarians with the entire Egyptian populace... I was under the impression there were several distinct communities in pre-dynastic Egypt.... another would be accepting completely the clusters offered by Keita, without considering alternatives.... Also, cranial clustering with Ethiopians or Sudanese seems to me rather unremarkable.... Their facial structure has led some to group even them with non-Africans, if I remember correctly... Of course all of this is up to debate but I don't think cranial affinities will give the last word on any of this.--Urthogie 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

1. You'd have to provide evidence that there was any significant difference between Badarian and other cultures in Egypt, even though the Badari were the predominant culture, same applies to Naqada II.

2. There are no other alternatives, him and brace report the same thing, the data is clearly shown and I don't think that you have a source which argues the way Egyptians clustered, that's personal research, you aren't authorized to question authority.

3. Yes, Sudanese and Ethiopians once were grouped arbitraily with non-Africans, but the results show Somali affinities and if you'd check the studies, Sudanese and Somali do not cluster with non-Africans. You're bringing up the Hamitic myth, which is a discarded myth. No need to rely on discarded myths, isn't there a section here for that?

4. Cranial affinities, along with body proportions, DNA, language, and culture all have the last word and they all point to these same conclusions, you have no sources to prove otherwise. Also, can you respond to my initial and most critical question? Keeping in mind that Naqada II ended in 3200 B.C. and the Dynastic period started in 3150 B.C...

Taharqa Wrote: Are you seriously arguing, Urgothie that there could of been some significant change in the Biological make-up of the ancient Egyptians during only a 50 year period from the end of Naqada II, into dynastic Egypt, even when conquest is noted to have been from the south?Taharqa 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with a lot of what you said and I'll argue my case [using sources] tomorrow. Real life calls.--Urthogie 21:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok...Taharqa 22:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I replied in below section, "Badarians."--Urthogie 16:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed criticism paragraph
Taharqa, there was no source provided for Afrocentric criticism except this: http://u.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,211~23523~2921859,00.html. Dead link. Need a source for that paragraph. Thank you, --Urthogie 20:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't bring it back till you've addressed this.--Urthogie 20:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.africaresource.com/conferences/viewabstract.php?id=59&cf=6 And please don't remove the rest of my contributions with out consultation.Taharqa 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Where in that article is the Afrocentric criticism claimed in the article? Also, please move the broader discussion of the limits of research to another section, as this section should only cover stuff specific to King Tut.--Urthogie 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong link.. http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=24634a08ac06c9ae96400ee0728de9a0

Also please don't revert the section that I added below the reconstruction section..Taharqa 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's good info but could you put it in a higher up section somewhere? It's not just specific to King tut. I'll check out the link.--Urthogie 21:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No reason to move it, it is specific to facial reconstruction, which concerns King Tut and Senu, and is in the section directly below as Senu is directly above. They're both facial reconstructions, this is the perfect context, no disputing this. And please stop erasing my contributions.Taharqa 21:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it relates to Senu as well why is it under King Tut?--Urthogie 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Because King Tut is below Senu.Taharqa 21:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It goes against style guidelines. I'm just sayin though.--Urthogie 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

^No it doesn't, I fail to see how, to the contrary it is beyond reason to assume that it isn't appropriate.Taharqa 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. My mistake.  Hadn't noticed you changed it. --Urthogie 22:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

remove OR
"The use of such elusive racial categories however, have been highly criticized. Selectively lumping such peoples into arbitrary 'Mediterranean' or 'European' categories because they do not meet the narrow definition of a 'true' type, or selectively defining certain traits like aquiline features as Eurasian or Caucasoid, ignores the complexity of the data on the ground. Critics note that similar narrow definitions are not attempted with groups often classified as 'Caucasoid'."

This can't be kept unless those links talk about Senu specifically. Otherwise it's considered original research to create such a synthesis.---Urthogie 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

^I don't see how that it original research, these aren't my words and opinions, it is criticism of this approach, which is wide and deserves mention, no use in hiding information from the public especially when things like this are discussed with in the biological field and definitely concerns Senu.. This must be addressed and not left to stand on its own, people will inquire as to what a "European race", or Mediterranean" race is, and how a "European race" got into Egypt 3700 years ago. When you announce someone's "race" to be "European or Medit", neither which are biological distinctions it needs explanation from the sources at the Anthrpological community and how they feel about the existence of such "races" (even if race were valid) and how can you tell to which race belongs in varying degrees by looking at a skull. So I provided the proper criticism and response. Please do not erase sourced material, simply put sign over the section indicating your problem with it.Taharqa 18:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it's original research to add it to the Senu section. Just because something is relevant doesn't mean it's not original research.  It has to be specifically tied into the section of the article its in.  So I have to remove sourced material, for the reason that it's original research.  I did this when someone added the Ethiopia study by Risch, I removed that too even though it was sourced.  It would be a double standard not to remove this. --Urthogie 18:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just let it go, it's original research.--Urthogie 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas.[1] Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. See this example for more details.

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR#What_is_excluded.3F
 * It introduces a theory or method of solution;
 * It introduces original ideas;
 * It defines new terms;
 * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
 * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
 * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
 * It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

^I fit none of this criteria, so therefore you have your definitions mixed up, you can't redefine things to your liking Urgothie, this is perfectly fine according to guidelines, now please stop erasing sourced material. Taharqa 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You do fit one of the criteria:


 * "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"


 * The key point here is you have a source but the source doesn't make this synthesis.--Urthogie 19:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

^First of all, this is a personal accusation, none of the info is particularly favored by me as much as it is reflected in the sources, I actually quote Kittles, so either read the source or do something else.. Besides, it says "without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source is false, simply read the sources. You can't argue with me about what my sources say if you haven't read them, anybody can do that, I don't feel like playing games right now though, it says exactly what I posted. Do not erase my sources unless you tell me what they don't say, and I'll show you where they say it..Taharqa 19:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm filing a request for comment, I think you're wrong on this.--Urthogie 19:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

^Go ahead, maybe they'll tell you how petty this is.Taharqa 19:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It clearly does further a certain point of view, since you only added itto the Senu study (which happens not to agree with your POV), when the Senu study isn't even mentioned in the source. That's Original research.--Urthogie 19:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

^It was in criticism to the racial categories of Senu, no one uses distinct categories like "European" or "Mediterranean" in anthropology, even forensic anthropology who sometimes thinks of "race" as valid. Therefore such categorization needs explanation and it just so happens that this approach has been highly criticized, not by me, but by anthropologists so I posted sources. You can't throw that personal POV stuff in my face, if it is my POV, I'm simply agreeing with the sources. I form none of my own opinions as I am not an expert.Taharqa 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not against including that paragraph, it just doesn't fit under Senu section. How about you create a separate section, either in the background, or placed similarly to that other one you created seperately like "Difficulties".  Could you do this as a compromise, to avoid Original research issue but keep the content?--Urthogie 19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Naw Urgothie, it belongs here to clear up unresolved issues and view points for the readers, it is perfectly valid with in the context of how they classify him, such classifications are considered arbitrary by most scientists, so the criticism must stay with in the context in which it applies.Taharqa 21:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

--

Hi guys, as a third party not invested in this article, I thought I'd share my opinion. Regarding the paragraph by Taharqa, I am inclined to agree with Urthogie that it is original research, or at least a questionable synthesis of existing research.

However, looking at original claim about race, I am not sure Urthogie's source is reliable in this context. Now, I don't mean that a research paper isn't a good source, but that not every research paper is a good source for every type of claim. Specifically, there are reasons to question that this paper is a reliable source for anthropological claims such as race. To wit, the authors are artists and anatomists, and the primary result of the paper is that they were able to model the face, not that they derived the race of the mummy. It seems likely that, rather than making claims about Senu's race, they were using race as a stand-in for common genetic features of various peoples (they mention eye, nose, and lip size and shape in the very next sentence, apparently in support of the race claim).

So I would probably remove the whole section. Although the paper on Senu is interesting, it doesn't appear to be relevant in the context in is used. And without that, Taharqa's paragraph is unnecessary. Any thoughts?

--AndyR 05:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

^I agree with you totally which is the only reason the paragraph is provided in the first place, to provide clarification, because if it (the Senu entry) were to stand alone non-clarified it could possibly be mis-leading as representing "race" and certain phenotypical variation isolated between "races" as an anthropological (non social/scientific) concept, along with the arbitrary classifications (solely based on predefined stereotypes of "race") as are presented here specifically. So I agree with you 100%..Taharqa 20:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

AndyR writes: "Specifically, there are reasons to question that this paper is a reliable source for anthropological claims such as race. To wit, the authors are artists and anatomists, and the primary result of the paper is that they were able to model the face, not that they derived the race of the mummy."

The authors of the papers are not only artists and anatomists but also Egyptologists. I don't see how more specific to Ancient Egypt and race it could get. It even mentions the National Geographic study as an analogous to itself, indicating that this is just as spot on for inclusion in this article as the National Geographic reconstruction of King Tut (which adds to the article very much). If you still aren't convinced, consider this line from the study:

It is important to consider the background history of “Senu”, race and Egyptology to reconstruct the soft tissues such as nose, lips, and ears as well as other details such as skin color. His race can be presumed as a mixture of racial types, including negroid, Mediterranean and European.

So I think it's obvious that it's spot on for this article, and as you said, it's not OR. Thanks, --Urthogie 17:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

--

I'd have to disagree. Only one author is an Egyptologist, and he is the last author listed; this usually means that his name was added for posterity, not because he was a major contributor at the research level. The primary authors are not anthropologists or anything similar; they are artists and medical researchers.

Additionally, the publication was submitted to SIGGRAPH, which is a conference on computer graphics. Any opinions about race within the publication would never be peer-reviewed by anthropologists, and computer scientists, artists, etc. are not qualified to evaluate claims made about race. Thus, although the publication is a reliable source for facial-modeling claims, it is not a reliable source for claims about race.

Perhaps most importantly (and I didn't notice this before), the publication is just a research poster. Posters are not usually subject to stringent peer review, and are often not subject to any peer review at all. See Poster. I cannot determine whether SIGGRAPH posters are peer-reviewed, but this SIGGRAPH page indicates that they are accepted very close to the conference. I can find no research paper that expands upon this poster; perhaps it has not been released yet, or maybe it was just released as a talk. In either case, the poster provides limited information about its claims, and no specific information about its methods and basis for making claims about race. Therefore, once again, its claims about race could not have been peer reviewed, and therefore it is not a reliable source for such claims.

So this poster is either completely unreliable for making claims about race, or, at best, is a very weak source. We (Wikipedia editors) should not be using weak sources to back up contested claims; we should strive to find well-known, peer-reviewed, and oft-cited articles from major journals from the appropriate fields. If there are no good sources to back up a controversial claim, then the claim must be removed. I believe this is the case here, and the Senu section should be removed.

Any further thoughts about this?

AndyR 18:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, several further thoughts.


 * Scientists who specialize in reconstructing mummies using computers actually tend to know more about race than the average Egyptologist.
 * The authors of this study are the ones who developed the current state of the art method, developed in 1999 for reconstructing mummies. Their method is used by Egyptology at large since 1999 for the reconstruction of mummies.   They are merely applying this method to Senu, so it can't be considered just another exercise in computer graphics.--Urthogie 19:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

--

Your first claim is completely unsubstantiated.

As for your second claim, are you stating that the Senu poster's authors are the same as the 1999 study's authors? If so, you are mistaken. The Senu study's authors are Danjou, Tateishi, Itabashi, Masunaga, Koiso, Uchiyama, Asano, Hirata, Nagaoka, and Yoshimura. The authors of the 1999 study are Attardi, Betrò, Forte, Gori, Guidazzoli, Imboden, and Mallegni. Also, the 1999 study has only been cited

Nothing you said has anything to do with the fact that your Senu information is not from a reliable source. To summarize my last comment,


 * The publication is a poster, not a paper, which means:
 * It is short, concise, and does not detail its methods
 * It is not stringently peer-reviewed
 * There was no follow-up paper, which means:
 * The result was either a talk (no peer review), or
 * The paper was not later accepted (failed peer review), or
 * The paper has not been finished (no peer review yet)
 * Only the last author, Yoshimura, was an Egyptologist, which means:
 * Yoshimura very likely contributed little to the poster
 * The primary authors were not qualified to make scientific claims about race
 * The publication is part of a SIGGRAPH conference, which means:
 * Its results are chiefly relevant to the state of computer graphics, not Egyptology or anthropology
 * It has not been peer-reviewed by anthropologists, Egyptologists, historians, etc.

Once again, this is a weak source. There may be nothing wrong with using artist reconstruction methods to discuss Egyptian race, but this is not a good source for that. Surely with all of the work done on King Tut recently you can find some more in-depth research papers that are more widely cited and reviewed, no?

AndyR 20:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. They use the current state of the art method, developed in 1999 for reconstructing mummies.  How about this as a compromise-- what if we specify what it was, where it was published, that it was mainly computer graphics related, etc.  This way we can inform our readers without giving them the impression that it's a "strong" source.  This would seem to address your criticisms, wouldn't it?--Urthogie 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your willingness to compromise, but I would still be opposed to this. Wikipedia demands reliable sources, period. You cannot get around this by warning the reader. This appears to be a controversial article, at least to the people editing it, and as such each claim must be backed by a fully reliable source. I would again recommend removing the Senu section. You asked for a third party's opinion, and this is it. --AndyR 22:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One last question, then. If you knew the article would have Senu in it (which might be the consensus that emerges), would you favor including Taharqa's paragraph or not?--Urthogie 23:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Urgothie, it seems as if the third party even disagrees with you so either the quote stays, or the section goes. You asked for a third opinion and got it.. I see that you still removed the paragraph also, but I reverted it back Urgothie, we have to acknowledge the fact that you're out gunned on this one.Taharqa 04:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh?? The third opinion said your paragraph is OR, but they suggest the section be removed.  So either we remove Senu or we keep Senu and remove your paragraph..  "Outgunned"?  Please turn off the fighting switch in your brain.--Urthogie 13:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

^You're seriously twisting the guy's words, he suggested that the section be removed period, there is no fight in me, it's just agreed upon that this is a weak source, therefore I just removed the section then. No big deal, no need for you to keep removing the paragraph/sources I provided while refusing to remove yours even when the person whom you asked for an opinion agreed. Again, I removed it, It's all gone.. Settled.. Taharqa 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Twisting these words?:

"Hi guys, as a third party not invested in this article, I thought I'd share my opinion. Regarding the paragraph by Taharqa, I am inclined to agree with Urthogie that it is original research, or at least a questionable synthesis of existing research."

How so?--Urthogie 17:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

badarians
You cited Keita correctly:

"Urgothie, I beg of you to please check the research and time tables. Keita's study of Bardari crania which found them to be like East African Teita covered the predynastic era of the Badarians, (5000 B.C. - 4000 B.C.)"

But let me explain why it doesn't disprove the views I currently hold about them being similar to both Northeast Africans and Near Easterners (such as Mesopotamians, etc.).

I went through his study and it seems to suggest that the Badarian crania cluster with North and East Africans, but not with Europeans. While this would outrule European ties (something I found highly suspicious in the first place), this of course doesn't outrule the crania clustering with various southwest Asian crania, though. It's important to note that this doesn't go against what I've been saying. I've not been trying to argue similarity with Europe, but rather with the places to the North like Mesopotamia specifically, and perhaps middle east, southwest asia etc.

Another thing worth noting is that Keita's study is not the final word on this. His findings seem to be at odds with earlier findings, which would be expected if, as he says, they're using methods that don't capture the whole situation. However, it's worth noting that he may not be right. But even if he is correct, I believe my point remains, and I'll explain why.

Check this quote out:

"The results are not supportive of European agriculturalists colonizing el-Badari in the early- to mid-Holocene. The Badarian series evidences greater phenetic affinity with the tropical African comparative groups and, notably, the east African Teita. This affinity is relative and not to be taken as indicating identity"

As you can see, this study seems to rule out the idea of clustering with Europeans, and seems to indicate clustering with Africans, but doesn't rule out my current view, even if Keita is 100% correct (which a scientific study rarely is). Even Keita notes that:

"Chance resemblance, parallelism, and microconvergence may also be possible explanations for biological similarity"

Oh, and what about the whole argument that's been put forward here about similarity to sub-Saharan Africans being "similar" to North East Africans:

"Additional analyses using 22 variables and including additional material from Sudan, late dynastic northern Egypt (Gizeh), Somalia, Asia, and the Pacific islands, show the Badarian series to be most similar to a series from the northeast quadrant of Africa and then to other Africans."

I believe that a metanalysis would likely find that if Northeastern Africans were taken out of the sample, and Badarians alone were compared to sub-Saharan Africa, there wouldn't be clustering. But this is just a conjecture, albeit one that seems pretty reasonable.

Keita's study shows three things:
 * That Europeans almost surely did not colonize, and that Badarian crania don't cluster with them.
 * That Badarian crania cluster primarily with other Northeastern afridcan crania, but not with other Africans.
 * That the jury is still out on the Near East influence.

Thank you, --Urthogie 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Urgothie, your terminology and way of thinking is screwed and I'll explain why..

Firstly, what about my first question?

I wrote: Are you seriously arguing, Urgothie that there could of been some significant change in the Biological make-up of the ancient Egyptians during only a 50 year period from the end of Naqada II, into dynastic Egypt, even when conquest is noted to have been from the south?

^There was no Middle Eastern clustering at this time..

The similarities last into the 1rst Dynasty as Keita and others have observed... Crania from the royal tombs at 1rst Dynasty Abydos share the same affinities and cluster with Nubia and Naqada..


 * ''The Nagada and Kerma(Nubia) series are so similar that they were barely distinguishable in the territorial maps; they subsume the first dynasty series from Abydos - Keita http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita_1990_northern_africa_1_.pdf (See Pg. 6)

^I just want to know where do the Middle Easterns come into play? The 2nd Dynasty? Third? fourth? Where's your evidence for your theory?

1. They do not only cluster with just "NorthEast" Africa, but East also, as Somalia is in the Horn, and they Cluster with the Teita in Kenya, the only ones in NorthEast Africa proper is Sudan, Somalians and the Teita both reside in "sub-Saharan" Africa. Keita never said that they didn't cluster with anyone besides NorthEast Africa. He considers them ancestors of the Saharan neolithic.

2. Keita's studies do not come at odds with other studies, as keita said himself, writers of the past undermined the variability of opinion and scholars used biased approaches, the data has always been the same. He says that here and cites dozens of past studies. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita-1993.pdf

3. Again, to say the NorthEast Africans don't cluster with Sub-Saharans is immaterial, "Sub-Saharans" don't cluster perfectly themselves, it's not a monolithic group. Yet to the contrary like I brought up before, Brace found a unbroken chain from Niger-Congo speakers leading up to Nubia, Bronze age Egypt, and the Israli Fellaheen (who are known to posses substantial amounts of East African specific e3B), and the break ends at the Middle East. With in a larger context they all fit with in the same cluster and not a Middle Eastern one, but an African one. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/brace_2006.pdf

4. You have no evidence whatsoever for your personal theory of a Middle East connection since none of the studies show them to cluster and they only cluster primarily with East (Sub-Sahara/Somali, Teita) and North East Africa. You can't find anywhere where they cluster primarily with Middle Eastern people.

5. When Keita states that these similarities can possibly be due to other reasons, he's simply covering himself with caution as all scholars do, he does the same thing when a Northern series was compared to India, he considered it unlikely to be a genuine relationship since there is no evidence for Mass migration from India, the Next similar samples were from of course, Sudan, and he considered that relationship to be more plausible. In a dental study he criticized people for finding similarities (that weren't there) with Europeans, but a closer look found that these people had fourth molars (which is rare) similar to Nubians at Kerma, suggesting a genetic relationship. Yet some scholars replied that it could of of been coincidence, Keita was curious as to why people would so quickly rule out of relationship between neighboring groups who are contiguous, in favor of a relationship with groups further distant. You can't twist Keita's words, he's definitely reporting a relationship, same with Brace, and others. You can't quote two cautionary lines from Keita and use it as a rebuttal to his own studies and conclusions (did you read his conclusion and discussion?), he has a million other studies confirming these results with the same conclusion, that's not casting doubt on anything, this is empirical research.

6. There is no reason for you to keep mentioning the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa, which isn't a monotypic group and has hundreds of ethnicities. The fact of the matter is that we've demonstrated that the Egyptians were of the same ethnic group as Somalis, Ethiopians, Ancient Nubians, Beja, and Teita, none of whom are MiddleEastern or socially labeled "White".. Scientifically they're simply another Nile Valley group.. No way are NorthEast Africans more related non-Africans than most other tropical Africans. We know what Beja, Somali, and Ethiopians look like in persons and we know the relationships they share with the rest of Africa, we know who they are "socially". You have provided nothing in the form of any relationship with Mesopotamia or the mid-east, so until then this will remain just a personal theory of yours, not backed by the available research.

7. Actually, even while you focus so much on other tropical Africans (probably you mean west, when you say "Sub-Saharan), Keita cited a study Berry et al (1967), where Egyptian samples were taken from different time periods to create a single over all series. The West African Ashanti series used clustered closer to Egypt than the Palestinian(Middle Eastern) group. Closest cluster was its self, then some Asian Indian group (which was ruled out as coincidence, since the West African series also clustered with the Asian Indian series and more so than even central Sudan), then of course other Africans, but no Mid-East or Europe. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita-1993.pdf (see Non-Metric studies, pg. 138,139)

^As long as you admit that these are your own baseless (no offense) opinions, that Egyptians had a close relationship with MiddleEastern Mesopotamians then I don't mind hearing your opinion. Just admit that it isn't based on anything..Taharqa 18:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of what you said just here is a bunch of minor corrections, most of which you argue without giving proper context. These corrections are essentially flawed, and don't support your argument, but there's no point arguing them because they don't really challenge my core premise.  (we can argue them at a future point, if you like.)


 * Only point 4 really challenges my position. I think point 4 is false, because this is not just a pet idea of mine.  My evidence, of course, is the fact that Keita corrects the Brace study only in regards to Europe, so the findings of the Brace study in regards to the Near East appear not to be just my theory, but rather an unchallenged part of the brace study.


 * If indeed you think any of your points here challenge my core premise, and need to be specifically addressed, I'll address them. Thanks, --Urthogie 18:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

^My only point is that you have no evidence whatsoever for your Mid-East assumption, you might as well say that had a connection with China, it would be just as plausible since there's no biological evidence for it. Culturally in the form of trade (maybe), but where's your evidence or are you just using your own reasoning and common sense while disregarding the data? Do you have any sources like I do? My opinion is that they related to tropical East Africans and other NorthEast Africans more so than Mid-Eastern people, which is as far as I'm going since this is what the data says. I'm not arguing that they'd cluster with all Africans, Africa is too diverse, but they do not cluster with people of Non-African origins, therefore they share a broader relationship with most of those on the continent than those who are not.Taharqa 19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My Mid-East assumption has evidence from the Brace study, and other studies, if I were to search. I can search if you like, but I don't see why the Brace study alone isn't enough to convince you this isn't just a pet theory, but a viable hypothesis.--Urthogie 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Brace's 1993 study used limited samples and he found a closer relationship with Europe than the Mid-East.. After it was reanalyzed it was found that they clustered Firstly with Sudan and Somalia, and secondly with Europe, and more remotely with the Mid-East, so you're being confusing now. Brace also re did his study in 2006 and found that they indeed did not cluster with Mid-East. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/brace_2006.pdf So to the contrary Brace's data argues against a Mid-East relationship, you're the only one holding on to that, I don't see why? It's been established beautifully that the ancient Egyptians had more relationships with tropical Africans, other relationships are obscured and making assumptions about "other possible" relationships with out evidence fails the test of Occam's razor. As it stands the Egyptians were Saharo-Tropical African variant. Nothing argues against it, but everything for it.Taharqa 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Which source, Taharqa, says "more remotely with Mid-East"? I clicked the link but couldn't find such a phrase. Also, which one is it?  First you say they found Middle East "did not" cluster, then you say only "remotely".  Instead of giving links, please actually quote the part of the study which says this.


 * UPDATE: Well, it turns out that Brace's 2006 study contradicts what you're saying. For example, Egypt is closer on the dendrogram to the Middle East than to the Berber.  It also does show ancestral ties to places in Europe such as Italy, Sicily, and the German Neolithic.  Congo is on the other side completely.  When it comes to the sample plot, even Iceland is closer to Egypt than the Congo!  Thanks for the link by the way.  I'm going to reconstruct these images and put them in the article if I have some free time to photoshop. --Urthogie 19:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my fault you're right.. They never Clustered with the Mid-East at all, lol, I was thinking of the early Brace study and confused the Mid-East with India.

"As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World." - Brace

^And of course when this was rechecked by Keita and later Brace himself, of course it was found that Europe got bumped out of the primary cluster which actually included East African Teita, Somali, and Nubian Sudan (which is probably what Brace originally meant by North Africa, which is intellectually dishonest). So there you go, all you did was deflate your case even more by pointing out my contradiction, which I corrected since the Mid-East were never clustered with them at all from the studies read.Taharqa 20:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Egypt is closer on the dendrogram to the Middle East than to the Berber

Hahaha! Are you serious and do you know how to read the plots? You misinterpret the tree and plot tables, also you have no idea how to interpret spacial relationships on the charts and dendogram.


 * ''The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample - both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians - and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, (Pg. 4) there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/brace_2006.pdf (See Pg. 5, under Fig. 4)

Look at the tree on Pg. 4, figure 1, the relationships are with in the tree which represents the cluster(horizontally). The Middle East begins in a different and distinct cluster directly adjacent to Bronze age Egypt, while Egypt fits with in an African cluster that includes the Fellaheen

Using your logic and lack of expertise in reading canonical variate charts, you'd assume that Egypt and Nubia had a closer relationship to France than France to Denmark, you're just not reading the charts correctly and taking the spatial differences literally like a child (no offense). These are the variates used to create the trees which he did in figure 1...


 * ''Placement of the samples used in Fig. 1 determined by the values of canonical variates: (30%) and 2(16.2%).. - Brace

I will not let you add things that you don't understand in the article, this is why Brace typed an entire report in PDF, to explain the results himself just in case people like Urgothie grossly misinterpret it because they aren't used to reading charts.. Again..


 * ''The Niger-Congo speakers, Congo, Dahomey and Haya, cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample - both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians - and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, (Pg. 4) there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/brace_2006.pdf (See Pg. 5, under Fig. 4)Taharqa 20:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A valiant attempt, but your points can once again be addressed. Apparently you're only going by the abstract (which doesn't mention west asia or the middle east explicitly). From the 1993 brace study, however: There are more examples, if you want me to find them. Secondly, my other point still remains true, that the 2006 clusters show Iceland closer to Egypt than the Congo. It's all in that "africanity" variation, no? The quote you added says it well: the Congo cluster "more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel." Is this the "more remotely" you were looking for?--Urthogie 20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * page 19: "As our data show, the people of the horn of africa are craniofacially less distinct from a spectrum of samples marginally including South Asia and running all the the way to northwest Europe than they are to any group in sub-Saharan Africa."
 * page 21: "The latter in turn show ties with the inhabitants of the circum Mediterranean basin past and present. Geographic proximity alone would lead us to expect such a result."

that the 2006 clusters show Iceland closer to Egypt than the Congo

^Why are we talking about the Congo first of all, and secondly again, you simply don't know what you're talking about at all, it's almost funny, but it isn't.. I have no time to argue the obvious but the only single analysis was in Fig. 1, and it showed Congo and Bronze age Egypt with in the same cluster, Ice Land is no where to be found. You're looking at Canonical variates, not the analysis, you just don't know what you're looking at basically. Also, Somalia is in Sub-Saharan Africa, right next to Ethiopia and Kenya, and Eritrea, with whom they share closest affinities before any one outside of Africa. The important part about this is that Keita notes these traits to be indigenous to East Africa, and yes, a part of the phenotypic variation. What we do know as far as DNA, modern Somali people cluster with other Sub-Saharan Africans and we know what they look like.. The point is that Egyptians do not cluster with Mid-Eastern people which is your theory, my opinion still holds, that they were more similar to other East and NorthEast Africans first, before any where else. And we know how East and NorthEast Africans look today and the majority of them aren't traditional ethnic Semite, therefore just another variation of the African.Taharqa 20:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC) tTaharqa 20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting tedious.
 * 1) I'm talking about the Congo because they cluster "more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel." Meaning that using Somalia as a stand in for sub-Saharan Africa won't help you much, since Somalia, Egypt, and the Middle East appear to be more correlated than any of them are to Congo.
 * 2) The canonical variates are of course a good way to look at how things cluster. This shows us how the variable associated with their craniometries match up to one another.  In this case, Iceland is closer to Egypt in regards to both the x and y axis.
 * 3) Noice also that Somalia is closer on this chart to Israeli, Egypt, and even Portugal than to the Congo.
 * 4) In conclusion, my current theory is that Egyptians clustered with their neighbors, but only remotely or not at all with those far south or north of them.--Urthogie 20:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Somalia and Kenya does, and the Fellaheen aren't in a Mid-East cluster, they have African skulls probably due to admxture since they're known to have E3b East African genes.. Why are you bringing up Congo? That ethnic group has nothing to do with the conclusions? You're reaching now... Taharqa 20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To show you how the variation among sub-Saharan africans is larger than the variation between the Middle East, Egypt, Nubia, Somalia, etc. This confirms my view of it clustering much closer to its neighbors to the north and south more than to any of those far north OR south.--Urthogie 20:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

^Not really because Somalia and Kenya are extremely far away from Egypt and Egyptians had tropical body plans, so obviously they were a part of the Saharo-Tropical variation. Explaining to me that Africans are the most diverse group in the world is immaterial to my point, I know this and Keita points it out a lot..

Urgothie Wrote:
 * 1) I'm talking about the Congo because they cluster "more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel." Meaning that using Somalia as a stand in for sub-Saharan Africa won't help you much, since Somalia, Egypt, and the Middle East appear to be more correlated than any of them are to Congo.
 * 2) The canonical variates are of course a good way to look at how things cluster. This shows us how the variable associated with their craniometries match up to one another. In this case, Iceland is closer to Egypt in regards to both the x and y axis.
 * 3) Noice also that Somalia is closer on this chart to Israeli, Egypt, and even Portugal than to the Congo.
 * 4) In conclusion, my current theory is that Egyptians clustered with their neighbors, but only remotely or not at all with those far south or north of them

^^^1. Congo as a stand for Sub-Saharan Africa won't help either since these are just geographic distinctions and variates and Somalia lays in the same latitude as Nigeria. Meaning that Somalis are neither more or less "Sub-Saharan" than Congolese, and using Congolese as a starting point is a fallacy.. No where does it say that Somalis cluster nearer to Mid-Eastern people than Fulani, or Mande people, or Dogon, or Yoruba.. Brace only took three samples in which he labeled "sub-Saharan". Most so-called "Blacks" aren't even directly descendant from those select groups and those groups do not represent the whole of Sub-Sahara, especially since Somalia is in Sub-Sahara.

2. No, you don't know how to read the variate chart, plain and simple, I have no idea why you pretend that you do.. Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 explains the results, period(you go by the dendrogram trees), and IceLand is in a distinct cluster extremely separate from Egypt, while even Congo is in the same remote cluster/tree. The variate chart simply lays out the data with out putting it into perspective that indicates cluster relationships.

3. Again, Somalians have much much closer relationships to all other Africans than any Europeans, similarities between geographically distinct groups is simply due to variation in Africa or distant common ancestry like all humans. DNA shows Somalis to Cluster in the Sub-Saharan range, no where near Europeans (cranial data is useless when DNA contradicts it). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheikh_Anta_Diop#Challenges Your point seems invalid..

In other words, Africans can resemble anyone and still be relatively distinct from non-Africans, just how Australian aboriginals cluster craniometrcally with Central Africans, yet they are the most genetically distinct people in the world. Anyways, reading fig.1 and Fig. 3 on the charts will show you that the Niger Congo speakers are closer to the NorthEast African twig relative to Modern Europeans or Modern Mediterranean groups.. Apparently the closest modern relationship they had was with the Niger Congo, maybe with an exception that I haven't caught yet...

Your conclusion isn't noteworthy, again, Egypt is not in the Tropics yet Egyptians had tropical body plans, not to mention that Somalia is more than a thousand miles away, so any relationship with them indicates common ancestry and migration. No way to sneak Europe or the Mid-East into this equation, the data has spoken and your conclusion is dismissed as unsubstantiated and has nothing to do with the article.Taharqa 21:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ''A review of the recent literature indicates that there are male lineage ties between African peoples who have been traditionally labeled as being ‘‘racially’’ different, with ‘‘racially’’ implying an ontologically deep divide. The PN2 transition, a Y chromosome marker, defines a lineage (within the YAPþ derived haplogroup E or III) that emerged in Africa probably before the last glacial maximum, but after the migration of modern humans from Africa (see Semino et al., 2004) This mutation forms a clade that has two daughter subclades (defined by the biallelic markers M35/215 (or 215/M35) and M2) that unites numerous phenotypically variant African populations from the supra-Saharan, Saharan, and sub-Saharan regions based on current data (Underhill, 2001).

^Updated in the genetic/demographic section, and yes, Cavalli-Sforza' work was mentioned and I did not use sources who criticized his findings, I simply used the sources in the context of Y Chromosome and Mtdna tests to determine origins, which is the goal. I think that we have a clear picture of the distinct 'Africaness' of the ancients. Reliable sources >>>> Baseless opinions..Taharqa 00:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, I've returned every serve you've sent over so far, and I'm not interested in returning any more. Typing in bold doesn't convince anyone.  Neither does pretending that you have the mainstream opinion supported by "reliable sources", when you truly don't.  In addition, it's rather stressful for me to argue with you-- not because of the points you make, which are relatively easy to correct, but because of the psychological intensity you introduce to the debate.  --Urthogie 15:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Senusret III
Some the photos of Senusret III shown here appear quite african. I am looking for a free image to use.Muntuwandi 19:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A source is required who makes this comment to include him in the article. Otherwise it's OR.--Urthogie 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well come back Muntuwandi! I checked, you are within the rules. Just compare your first source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SenusretIII-FragmentaryStatueOfHead_MetropolitanMuseum.png with that of Nefertiti found in the gallery of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nefertiti_bust_%28front%29.jpg. It is the same source. Please, go ahead! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, don't go ahead until the "race" or appearence of the image is mentioned by a source, similar to the Sphynx or Nefertiti, which are both mentioned in reference to race.--Urthogie 20:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, as far as I can understand, the race of Nefertiti or the appearance of the Sphinx are not mentioned by your "sources". Can you show me how they are mentioned? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They're right Urgothie, I went ahead and erased the Berlin Bust of Nefertiti because it's hypocritical for you to tell them they can't post a certain picture because it doesn't mention race, yet you post the Nefertiti bust, and no comments are made about her race, ethnicity, or affinities to any particular group, based on the Bust. What counts as a reliable source to discern what "race" an artistic bust belongs to anyways? I understand the sphinx because they actually had orthodontists do measurements of the face.

Hey, Why don't you guys use a bust of Seqenenre Tao II(17th Dynasty pharaoh and ancestor of the 18th Dynasty?

Pictures: http://www.historiarte.net/egipto/personajes.jpg http://www.mein-altaegypten.de/internet/frauen/images/koenigin_ahhotep_2.gif

Comments about Tao:

Cephalometric work on Old and New Kingdom remains demonstrates variability in the ancient period, as noted in observations by Harris and Weeks (1973:123) of a Seventeenth Dynasty pharaoh:'''

"His entire facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs (it is closest to that of his son Ahmose) that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian-that is, non-Egyptian-origin for Seqenenre and his family, and his facial features suggest this might indeed be true." - Harris and Weeks

Or would this belong in the mummy section? Oh, and what do ya'll think about this quote?

"that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings"

Nubian/Old Kingdom Giza? Later Egyptian Kings? Wouldn't this imply that the original Kings (of the Old Kingdom at least) were basically the same as Nubians or extremely similar? Wouldn't that imply that the late 17th and 18th Dynasty kings were throwback originals? Maybe this is why they took it upon them selves to battle the Hyksos invaders and run them out of Northern Egypt and return unity to the nation. Not to mention the fact that they were all from Southern Egypt (Thebes). No evidence that Tao was from Nubia, he is known to have come from Thebes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_II_the_Brave This stuff makes more and more sense to me, really. Taharqa 00:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

what we agree on, and some stuff about the article
We've been arguing a lot, Taharqa, so let's first lay out what we agree on:


 * That Egypt was originally inhabited by nomads from Africa.
 * That the ancient Egyptian crania cluster with Sudanese and Nubians more so than they do with Europeans.
 * That the ancient Egyptian crania cluster with Southwest Asians more so than they do with Europeans.
 * That the ancient Egyptian crania cluster more with Southwest Asians than sub-Saharan Africans cluster with Southwest Asians.
 * That there are severaly difficulties with cranial analysis, and that there is therefore some room to Odisagree among both scientists and those who read them.

We disagree in regards to:


 * Whether the idea of "africanity" is a valid one
 * Where exactly ancient Egyptians cluster genetically, cranially, etc. in regards to neighboring populations both North and South.

We both think that one another's opinions on these questions aren't within the bounds of the research (or perhaps even common sense) on the issue. We will have to agree to disagree, and I suggest we avoid long dialectical arguments.

In regards to Senu, the third opinion that I asked for came here and agreed with me that the paragraph constituted original research. I therefore suggest that we remove this paragraph from Senu's section.


 * Please take another look at what I wrote. I agreed with you that the paragraph was OR, but I also contended that the entire Senu section was not based on a reliable source, and should be removed entirely. If you disagree with my analysis, please note it in the section "remove OR"; I would be happy to discuss this further. --AndyR 17:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll leave a comment there. You missed out on a key point in suggesting it be removed.--Urthogie 17:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Nefertiti, her portrayal is I believe brought up in discussions of race. I can find a source, if you insist.

Thank you,--Urthogie 19:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also the ancient egyptians predominantly portrayed themselves as dark skinned, usually reddish brown but sometimes dark brown. The question is whether the colors they used were representative of themselves or just used for stylistic purpose. But given that these colors were used most often and over long periods of time, there must have been a reason.


 * Black or Africoid people were present in Ancient Egypt. the question is were they the ancient egyptians themselves, or simply visitor or passers by. Some pharoahs though appear distinctly africoid.


 * If indeed the ancient egyptians were dark skinned, which at least some of them were, were they africoid. for example some south indians tamils as dark skinned as africoid peoples but are classified as caucasoid.


 * what was the effect of mixing between africans, asians and europeans in ancient egypt.Muntuwandi 04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Africoid is a scientific fossil. Noone calls anything Africoid today.--Urthogie 15:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

^Actually "Africoid" is a newer term Urgothie... It is only a term to describe peoples whose genetic heritage in predominant part, lay primarily with in the context of African bio-historyTaharqa 23:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Egypt as a Black Nation
Urthogie, let us be coherent. If "Egypt was originally inhabited by nomads from Africa". If "the ancient Egyptian crania cluster with Sudanese and Nubians", I think you have to admit that Egypt is a Black Nation from its origins. That this was disturbed only a millenium after the unification of Egypt with the invasions by "the People of the see", by "the People who run on the sand", and by the "Shepherds". In other words, you agree with Basil Davidson who says that Egypt is a Black Nation. According to me, the discussion must now evolve within the boundaries of the blackness of the ancient Egyptians. How black they were? How did they incorporate foreign elements? and at which periods exactly? Besides, I don't understand why you are contesting the term "africoid" used by Muntuwandi while you are using freely terms like "European", "Mediterranean" to speak about "white races". I fear that for you, the only term for the Black race is "negroid". In one case one speaks about color and on the other cases about geography. There is no logic here. Peace! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 21:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they also clustered with Southwest Asians (e.g Mesopotamians) as well as with Nubians and Sudanese. From a logical standpoint, this is what anyone would expect-- that the civilization placed between two climates both north and south would reflect some place in the middle of those two, clustering with both, based on evolutionary adaptions over the years to that climate (and to a limited extent continued demographic effects from both).  But yes we agree Egypt most likely was inhabited by African nomads.


 * You say, "According to me, the discussion must now evolve within the boundaries of the blackness of the ancient Egyptians." Well the problem with such a discussion is the idea of "blackness." A more appropriate statement would be that the discussion must now develop into a discussion of similarities compared to Southwest Asians vs similarities compared to Nubians/Sudanese.  The ideas of "Negroid" and "black" don't help that discussion at all, I think.


 * Also, its worth noting that the idea of a continuum of "Africanity" doesn't enjoy much respect among most researchers, for various reasons we can discuss, if you like.


 * I, like most physical anthropologists and biologists who research human populations, oppose the term "Africoid" because it claims a solid category of appearence, specifically of "race". European however, refers to people of the European continent, just as African refers to someone of the African continent.  It indicates geographical place, rather than a genetic or cranial grouping.  Egyptians obviously were Africans and one needs only look at a map to know this.


 * The case of the Egyptians gets peculiar in regards to "race" when one considers that they are on the border between the continents that Afrocentrists and some others use to define "race". The reasonable question to ask is where they clustered in regards to the people north of them or to the south of them, respectively.  The answer, of course, is both, to varying degrees.  We can't be sure of the exact degrees but we can debate them endlessly, of course.--Urthogie 01:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason I use the term Africoid is simply because there are other people such as the dravidans or Tamils who are as dark skinned as Africans. to make a distinction between being dark skinned and dark skinned african. Because that many Egyptians were dark skinned is not in much dispute but whether they were Africoid, negroid or African, whichever is the preferred term, is what is controversial. The term negroid is currently falling out of favor, So Africoid sounds more politically correct. There is no debate that the Egyptians were africans but were they africoid.Muntuwandi 01:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The term Negroid fell out of favor decades ago. Africoid has fallen out of favor more recently, so even if its still politically correct it's not biologically correct.  There is still some level of debate over the idea of "Africanity", although most researchers don't embrace the idea.--Urthogie 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The race(s) of the ancient Southwest Asians
Urthogie, you wrote: "I think they also clustered with Southwest Asians (e.g Mesopotamians) as well as with Nubians and Sudanese". When you speak about Southwest Asians or Mesopotamians, I believe you are refering to people like Sumerians. What is their race? Can Urthogie, Muntuwandi or Taharqa respond to this question? The answer can help understand the configuration of the races in ancient time. To be more clear. Nubians and other Sudanese are Blacks. Are Blacks as well Sumerians? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 12:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(I am breaking up this link--it triggers the spam filter Antonrojo 19:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)) http://ezinearticles. com/?Tracing-the-Origin-of-Ancient-Sumerians&id=311587 may be of interest.--Urthogie 13:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, I read the article. It mixes many things, but it is clear that it associates the Sumerians to the Aborigines of India and Australia. Thus the Sumerians belong to the "Australoid or Austrics" race. The article speaks of "Austric Sumerians". If I say from that association that the Sumerians were "Black people" exactly like the Aborigines of India and Australia, did I make a good conclusion? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 15:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It says they resemble the Armenoids and Australoids (closer to Australoid than Armenoid, I think.). Armenoids are known as the "true" Caucasians according to old classifications.  Australoid is a very broad category as it includes not only Australia but also the Philippines, Malaysia, India and the subcontinent, New Guinea and Melanesia.  Generally, though, indigenous Australoids are very dark (perhaps darker than ancient Egyptians in many cases).  It's worth noting, though, that neither Armenoid or Australoid are respected as very solid categories today.


 * In America today, I think it's safe to say that a great number, perhaps the majority of ancient Egyptians would be thought of as "black" because people adhere to the "one drop rule." For example, people that are half-indian and half-african or half-indian and half-african, or half-arab and half-african, they are all considered "black" in America and probably in the rest of the world too.


 * So if you study this area to show people that they would have called ancient Egyptians "black", then you are likely correct. Although when the issue is approached scientifically without a silly "one drop rule" (which was created by racists, and for reasons of solidarity eventually appropriated by much of the civil rights movement) we find that the Egyptians were a very unique population, who clustered closer to, say, Sumerians and Nubians than to Congolese.  So there is a lot of nuance here but I believe it is basically right to say the majority (at least in the pre-Hellenic period) would be considered "black" today.


 * Taharqa claims they fit into some sort of "africanity" based on the work of Keita, but most researchers don't embrace this concept partially because ancient southwest asia and ancient northeast africa cluster closer together both genetically and cranially than either of them cluster with far South Africans.--Urthogie 16:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, I can understand that ancient Egyptians cluster together with ancient southwest Asians and with ancient northeast Africans because they belong to same ancient time period. South Africans and people from Congo trace their origin back to Egypt. But they are modern. There is a room for evolutions and changes in genetics as time passes, I think. Otherwise, because all the humankind originated from Black Africa, we will claim that there is only one race genetically speaking, the Black race. This will look absurd to conservative Whites. Do I make sense to you? In other words, I have the impression that you don't take fully into account the time factor. To be logic, you have to compare ancient Egyptians to other ancient Africans of the same time period. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 16:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Congolese trace their origin to Ethiopia much more than Egypt, but your basic point is well taken. The idea of race just doesn't hold though, and I think you mean to replace the "black race" with "the human race."  Skin color, despite its visibility, occupies a microscopic part of the human genome.--Urthogie 18:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, when one refers to White races one uses easely geographical terms like "Caucasian", "Caucasoid", "Australoid", "Autrics", or ethnic terms like "Armenoid". And about Africans, a color term "Negroid". Humankind migrated from Africa. We are all essentially "Africoid". Aborigines from Autralia, Philippines, India are Blacks. I think, the old term "Negritos" must be allowed for use if for the Africans one does not use a geographical term. Are there not genetic differences among Caucasians? Egyptians are indigenous from Africa according to their traditions and to recent archeological findings. "L'histoire de l'Egypte ancienne, en particulier prédinastique, a fait l'objet d'un grand débat à partir des années 1950. Envisagée comme étant d'origine essentiellement proche-orientale, sinon méditerranéenne, la civilisation égyptienne a montré avec éclat ses sources africaines méridionales" (Bernard Nantet, Dictionnaire de l'Afrique. Histoire, Civilisation, Actualité, Paris: Larousse, 2006, p. 105). "Toutefois, ce sont les recherches en climatologie et les fouilles archéologiques entreprises au Soudan et dans le reste du continent qui ont montré l'identité et les continuités existant entre le Sahara et les débuts de la pastoralisation dans la vallée du Nil, au fur et à mesure que la sécheresse fasait son oeuvre et que le fleuve affirmait son lit" (p. 105). Where is Mesopotamia? If Egyptians resemble people from Mesopotamia, on can conclude that Egyptians migrated to that part of the world. Quite logic because the Egyptian Civilisation is older than the Mesopotamian. Caucasians entered Africa during the second millenium BCE. As to the Congolese, I am sorry but the Bantu speaking people who inhabit a large part of the Congo are from Egypt, not from Ethiopia. Was Ethiopia called Kmt? The very word Congo derives from Kmt. If you need a demonstration, I can do it for you. Meanwhile, I would like to quote Aboubacry Moussa Lam who wrote that "le Mani-Congo est bien l'un des héritiers du grand Méni, premier pharaon d'Egypte" (Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l'Egypte ancienne et l'Afrique Noire, Paris: Présence Africane / Khepera, 1997, p. 122). Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the cultural and linguistic arguments you put forward aren't very relevant to this page, which deals with the appearance and genetic/cranial clustering of the ancient Egyptians, not their language or culture. As far as your definitions of Blacks I think its all very subjective here, so I avoid such categories.--Urthogie 20:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, I see that you don't even read the document you post. Anthropologists used linguistic analysis to trace the origin of the Sumerians. The link between the Sumerians and the Australians was confirmed through linguistic tools. Anthropology cannot go by itself. About the origin of Egypt, the quote of the book by Bernard Nantet is very clear. Like it or not, Egyptians are indigenous Africans like the Nubians. The Egyptian language does not resemble the Sumerian language. If Sumerians look like Egyptians, it has to be understood in the light of the African origin of the the humankind. They can be a mix of Armenians who maybe don't resemble Egyptians (transformed as they were in the cold climate) and of Australians who kept African anthropological caracteristics (Autralians are Nigritos) because they remained in tropical zones. I don't see Sumerians in Africa because Egytians are indigenous as I said. Besides, learn more about the importance of linguistic studies in anthropology and about migrations inside Africa. You seem to ignore many things about Africa. Thus your confusions between Ethiopia and Egypt while speaking about the origins of the Congolese people. How can Congolese speak Egyptian while being from Ethiopia? How can Congolese remember Egypt and not Ethiopia in their traditions while being from Ethiopia? Mystery signed...! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 23:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Linguistic evidence is not as direct as cranial or genetic analyses, and furthermore your linguistic arguments about congo aren't even in that article. Why are we arguing.. I don't even see what the disagreement is about except you accusing me of "not reading documents" and "ignoring many things about Africa".


 * The only actual substance to your claims is your arguments about Congo, so let's look at that. What evidence do you have that they spoke the ancient Egyptian language??  From the article Niger-Congo languages:

"One of the world's major language families; although links with other families have been proposed, none of these has received mainstream acceptance"

Thanks, --Urthogie 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urthogie, I am sorry to come back to this discussion. But I want to remind you some few things touching methodologies.

Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka,--195.110.156.38 13:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "Linguistic evidence is not as direct as cranial or genetic analyses". Do you remember our discussion about "HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks" done by highly distinguished scholars http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1399-0039.2001.057002118.x? You undermined the credibility of genetics with expressions like "It is just". I have the impression that you believe in genetics only when it serves your interest. Is that science? There is a lack of coherence here. It is double standard!
 * When I say that you don't read well things you post, I am not playing with words. In the past, you posted a study taking into account Jewish and Arabic litteratures to show that Egyptians and Nubians are considered as Blacks. You were quick to reject what you found! Now it is the case with the study on Sumerians. To confirm the links between the Sumerians and Autralians, the study used linguistic tools. Without the linguistic elements, it could have been impossible to interpret accuratelly the archeological findings. Do they belong really to the same people? Yes, they even spoke the same language! The same method has to be tested between the Egyptians and the Sumerians. There is a section in the article about language. It is time to expand it. It does to deal not only with the Egyptian language, a meaningless exercice in a article on "Racial caracteristics" which discusses also foreign elements. It has to be a comparative study. If it is true that Egyptians and Sumerians are related, this must be refleted in some degrees in their respective languages. Your contribution in this section is highly expected because you are the champion of the Mesopotamian theory of the peopling of ancient Egypt. Craniology, as shown by the article you posted is not enough in a subject like this. We need other methods to confirm the archeological discoveries (The same thing can be done to confirm the importance of Senu. If it is true that the mummy of Senu is so important. If it is true that Senu is a mix of European, Asian and African elements. It must be also true that he spoke a language refleting this diversity. Let us see if the Egyptian language is a mix of the tree). Urthogie, you will not have room to escape. Our methodology must be at plural.
 * The map of the African Languages does not deal with the genesis of the African languages. It presents the actual situation of those languages. My argument is on the historical level. You did not get my point. Read Théophile Obenga "Origine commune de l'égyptien ancien, du copte et des langues négro-africaines modernes. Introduction à la linguistique historique africaine", Paris: L'Harmattan, 1993 http://www.menaibuc.com/article.php3?id_article=35 and of cause Aboubacry Moussa Lam "Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l'Egypte ancienne et l'Afrique Noire", Paris: Présence Africane / Khepera, 1997. This last book demonstrates the limits of archeological interpretations and the importance of linguistics and oral traditions in the study of African Civilizations. Ancient Egypt is one of them.


 * Almost all of what you wrote has no direct bearing on the actual subject matter we were discussing (only a small paragraph at the end discussed Congo). It as is if to say, "I can't argue well about Congo so I will criticize your past actions then add Congo on the end."  When you're ready to discuss only the subject matter then we'll continue.  Thanks, --Urthogie 15:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, are you not aware of the fact that your map is about the actual state of the languages spoken in Africa? And that it does not deal with the genesis of those languages? You will not escape. Forget about the Congo. I wrote mainly about methodology. Read again my last contribution. You minimised genetics about the African origins of the Greeks. Will you be consistent? The study you posted based its arguments about the link between the Sumerians and the Australians on linguistic elements to confirm archeological findings. We will do the same in the section language of the article. Your contribution is highly expected about the link between the Sumerian and the Egyptian languages. It is you the champion of the Mesopotamian origins of the ancient Egyptians. You tried to prove that link with pastoralism. Taharqa reminded you that it does not work. Pastoralism in Egypt looks to the Sahara. Now, you must prove that the Egyptian language kept in some ways the so called "Mesopotamian origins of the Egyptians". There is a section on language. If you cannot prove that, you must be honest to abandon that theory in this article. You must be coherent with yourself and with the studies you are posting. I told you this time you will not escape. And please, read well the studies before posting them. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 17:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good! Still, there is a need to say something about the Egyptian language in relationship to other African languages, to European languages as well as to Asian languages in order to see where the Egyptian lean. There is a section on language. We are going to exploit it. The linguistic argument is important, as I saw in one of the studies posted by you, to clarify archeological findings. Taken alone, Archeology is almost dumb. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 22:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I am being consistent. Saying "It's just HLA" doesn't mean HLA doesn't indicate strong evidence for origins, what it means is that HLA doesn't indicate an overall genetic similarity, something you seemed to suggest. Also, when I said "Well the cultural and linguistic arguments you put forward aren't very relevant to this page", I wasn't saying all cultural and linguistic arguments, just yours about Southwest Asia.  Basically my point was that some linguistic arguments suggest origins, while other's don't.  If you want to prove me wrong, and show that your arguments do indicate origins or demographic effects, then find sources which make these points.  If you do find such sources, my apologies for dismissing too quickly your points.--Urthogie 21:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) The early Sumerian language is classified as a Language isolate currently, but if roots are identified then one would expect the roots to be in "Australoid" or "Armeniod" areas.
 * 3) There is no mainstream view that I know of which hold that the people of the Congo region spoke a Nilo-Saharan language.  Even if it was the case, and the mainstream opinion is just lagging behind some hidden view (highly doubtful), this would not demonstrate a connection to Egypt necessarily, but more likely to closer Nilo-Saharan speaking nations such as Nubia Ethiopia, etc.
 * 4) Taharqa did indeed correct my false theory. I did not know anything about this subject when I first came here but I have kept an open mind and considered ideas.  My acceptance of this point from Taharqa shows that I am a critical thinker, and open minded, not that I am biased as you have suggested.  I do not currently believe that a Mesopotamian origin was likely, although Mesopotamian demographic effects surely did exist during the predynastic, even if only slight.
 * 5) I "will not escape"?  This is not a fight, Luka.  Chill out.--Urthogie 21:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The information on Linguistics in this article is indeed the worst section. My brother who deciphers hieroglyphics says that the info on kmt was blatantly false in several regards.  We will have to research a lot to build and improve this section.--Urthogie 22:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

^^The Km.t problem has been an enduring one, however, the root of it is simple. Km literally translates to "Black", and is represented in hieroglyphs as a burnt piece of wood. The extra .t stands in as a noun (person, place, or thing). In the context that the Egyptians meant it when referring to Egypt it was a place, literally the "Black nation".. It gets confusing I guess because if it were necessary to use this term to refer to people it seems plausible, though most academics believe this not to be the case. The "Black soil" argument is basically speculation, but it isn't reflected in the language, there is no reference to "soil" in km.t, "soil" is a thing, in this context km.t is a place.

Kem, kame, kmi, kmem, kmom = to be black

Kememu = Black people (Ancient Egyptians) in both Ancient and modern Egyptian (Kmemou). (Hypothetically speaking, I haven't sen this in Hieroglyphs)

Kem [khet][wood] = extremely black, jet-black

Kemet = any black thing. Note: "t" is silent - pronounced Kemé

Kemet [nu][community, settlement, nation] = Black nation = Ancient Egypt. Kemet [Romé][people] = Black people. Ancient Egyptians. (hypothetically speaking, only if they would/did refer to themselves as such)

Kemit [Shoit][books] = Black books, Ancient Egyptian literature.

Kem wer [miri][large body of water] = The Great Black sea (The Red sea). This sea is neither black nor red, this is in reference to which nation, Black or Red, at a particular time, controlled this body of water. (This is also a title of the god Osiris)

Kemi fer = Black double house; seat of government. Note: by reference to Wolof again, we know that to make a plural of per or house, the "p" becomes an "f" or fer. Thus fero=great houses (double), it is not pero as Budge writes.

In Ancient Egyptian, the ordinary adjective always follows the noun it modifies, whereas a sanctified adjective usually comes before its noun. The sanctified adjectives are:

Kem -- Black Suten - Royal Nter --- Holy, Sacred

Examples:

Kem ti = Black image, sacred image : ti oubash = white image

Kem ho = Black face/title of a god  : ho oubash = white face

Kem ta = Black land, holy land       : Ta deshret = Red land (also; Ta Sett)

This rule does not apply when Black is used as a noun-adjective of nationality:

Hompt Kemet = copper of Black; Egyptian copper : Hompt Sett = copper of the Red nations; Asiatic copper

Ro in Kemet (page 416a) = speech of Black; mute ro n Kemet = word of the mouth of Black; the Egyptian language Kemet Deshret = Black and Red; good and evil; fertile and barren, etc.; Duality Taharqa 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Urgothie Wrote:

'''There is no mainstream view that I know of which hold that the people of the Congo region spoke a Nilo-Saharan language. Even if it was the case, and the mainstream opinion is just lagging behind some hidden view (highly doubtful), this would not demonstrate a connection to Egypt necessarily, but more likely to closer Nilo-Saharan speaking nations such as Nubia Ethiopia, etc.'''

Actually Modern day Nubians indeed speak Nilo-Saharan, but Nubia isn't some monolithic group that stretches back to predynastic times, the ancient people South of Egypt are known to have spoken both Cushitic and Nilo-Saharan. Also I have to correct you about Ethiopia, Ethiopia is in no way shape or form a Nilo-Saharan speaking country, generally all of its inhabitants speak some form of Afroasiatic (same language phylum as the Egyptians). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopic_languages It should also be important to note that Afroasiatic, the language phylum of the Egyptians began in NorthEast/East Africa (which I'll include in the article later). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Asiatic_languages#Original_homeland

The Origins of Afroasiatic, by Ehret, Keita and Newman, Science (2004) http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/afroasiatic_-_keita.pdf

Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture Professor Christopher Ehret. http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=319&mforum=africa

The major languages spoken by Congolese are among the Niger-Congo group, though many West and Central Africans speak an Afro-Asiatic language very similar to the Egyptians, namely Chadic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadic_languages

"In America today, I think it's safe to say that a great number, perhaps the majority of ancient Egyptians would be thought of as "black" because people adhere to the "one drop rule." For example, people that are half-indian and half-african or half-indian and half-african, or half-arab and half-african, they are all considered "black" in America and probably in the rest of the world too.

Not necisarrily true, because this would seem to imply that the Ancient Egyptians only had "1 drop" of African blood, which is mis-leading. The predominant culture was indeed African, there is no evidence that they were "half" anything, no one in any of the studies makes this claim, they only describe the clusters, which fits with in the context of NorthEast/Eastern Africa, who are extremely distinct from any Australoid/Ameroid hybrids. Also, even if that were some how entertained then it would render the population no more than 1/4 archaic Caucasoid, even though there were no Ameroids or Australoids in Egypt (even when these terms were valid) so it won't be entertained.

"So if you study this area to show people that they would have called ancient Egyptians "black", then you are likely correct. Although when the issue is approached scientifically without a silly "one drop rule" (which was created by racists, and for reasons of solidarity eventually appropriated by much of the civil rights movement) we find that the Egyptians were a very unique population, who clustered closer to, say, Sumerians and Nubians than to Congolese. So there is a lot of nuance here but I believe it is basically right to say the majority (at least in the pre-Hellenic period) would be considered "black" today."

Again, the One Drop Rule doesn't apply since Egyptians were shown to have their origins with in Africa and not in predominant or equal part from any where outside. Never will you be able to cite a study which claims that Egyptians fit with in the same cluster as "Sumerians", their (Egyptians) culture obviously came from the south and wasn't affected by any Sumerian language and/or customs. And To the contrary, these Congolese people you emphasize actually clustered remotely, yet in an unbroken chain while Sumeria was never even the subject of comparisons. In other comparative studies, Egyptians actually Clustered with West African Ashanti (Ghana) before they did with Palestine (Which is important since Egypt is much closer geographically to Palestine than it is to West African Ghana, apparently indicating a closer biological relationship, which reflects the fact that the majority of Ancient Egyptians migrated from the South, nearer to the tropics, and not from the Near East). Source: http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita-1993.pdf. (See Pg. 11, "Non Metric Studies") All Africans aren't the same, you have to pick your samples, what's apparent is that Egyptians shared much closer ties to other Africans (Nubians, Somalis, Kenyans, Ethiopians,), all of whom are socially considered "Black" with out any application of some "one drop rule", which has changed meaning. So the "one drop rule" analogy is slightly mis-leading. The uniqueness of Egypt came much later, and we're discussing Egypt's Early dynastic beginnings and subsequent continuity anyways.

Taharqa claims they fit into some sort of "africanity" based on the work of Keita, but most researchers don't embrace this concept partially because ancient southwest asia and ancient northeast africa cluster closer together both genetically and cranially than either of them cluster with far South Africans

Not based solely on Keita, but based on DNA studies, work from Sonia R. Zakrzewski, Bruce Williams, Bruce Trigger, Frank Yurco, Rick Kittles, A. J. Boyce, and many other people of whom the majority I believe are cited in the article. Genetically, NorthEast Africans have their own cluster and do not cluster closer to South/West Asians, though the particular groups in question with whom the Egyptians clustered with specifically (Somalis, Nubians/Sudanese, Ethiopians, Teita tribe in Kenya), they all are East African and cluster genetically with other "sub-Saharan" Africans.. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fig.2.3.542pop.jpg (Other NorthEast Africans like the Beja, Amhara, etc plot in between the Berber and other East Africans, but most of them are mixed with a hint of Eurasian due to the Arab invasions and/or recent/historical social interaction) I have no idea where you're getting your info but sources would be nice, East Africans in general overwhelmingly cluster nearer to West Africans than anyone else if you're talking spacial distance. Craniofacial links again are also found among African groups from Dahomey to Naqada Bronze age Egypt. Taharqa 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note-- I wasn't saying Egyptians were one drop, the one drop rule applies to anyone with one drop or more. I'd like to see a new talk page discussion discussing who else confirms the idea of Africanity, by the way. Perhaps it can find a place in the article to be discussed.  As a final point, the third user opinion was that the extra text you added was original research.  We can remove Senu if you like (this is what the third opinion suggested), but if we don't we'll have to remove your paragraph per the third opinion.--Urthogie 13:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

^^It doesn't matter, your logic is still flawed because the "one drop rule" applied to "Blacks" (a social term) in America, and not Africans. "I'm" not not calling the Egyptians Black Americans, I'm saying that they were Africans who were related to other Africans way more than they were to Asians and Europeans, they most likely had more African blood than me on average. The "one drop rule" was never applied to Africa, and indeed the Ancient Egyptians were probably not even one drop Sumerian, since it has yet to be proven. All we know is that they were Africans in Africa, not America in the 19th/20th century. I corrected you on a lot of other points also, especially language.Taharqa 16:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not even gonna respond to this straw man.--Urthogie 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

^I wasn't using any Straw Men, do you know what that is? You're simply using your terms wrong, no big deal..

Also it doesn't matter what other people "think" about Egypt's Africanity, that depends on how some people define "Africanity", when I say it all that I mean is essentially African. Composed of biological elements that arose primarily with in Africa. Ethnic classification, NorthEast or East African (not Eurasian, Mediterranean, Southern or Northern European, etc.).. But essentially African, in biological make-up, culture, and language. Everyone has opinions, but it really doesn't matter unless their opinions can stand the test of scrutiny. My opinions were formed only after reviewing the research and not before, I'm repeating what the research says in lay terms. I doubt that anyone can prove otherwise, that the Egyptians were anything besides regular old NorthEast/East Africans..Taharqa 16:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I corrected you on a lot of other points also, especially language.. And if you think I'm being contentious, I'm not, just clarifying issues.Taharqa 17:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your opinion doesn't reflect all of the research. It reflects a conscious effort on your part to criticize everything that doesn't agree with your views, such as the fact that "Africanity" isn't a mainstream idea in human biology.  Claiming a minority view isn't contentious doesn't really change the fact that its.. a minority view.--Urthogie 17:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

^^It doesn't matter if the terms I use isn't used in conservative biology, but you won't get one specialist to disagree with what I said.

1. The Egyptians were African

2. They were more closely related to Nile Valley Africans than anyone else

3. Their language and culture came out of the African continent and not Asia.

^Unless this is a minority view your appeals to imaginary authority is useless, since you're making up a false consensus. The mainstream view is that the Dynastic Race Theory is dead and you're a part of that minority view, I'm a part of the updated more scholarly view which places Egypt with in its African context, I don't see anybody out there in academia disagreeing with it, maybe a few people on wikipedia and stormfront do, but not the scholars. And again, I corrected you on a lot of other points also, especially language.Taharqa 17:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. Yes, we probably agree on these three points.  Stating your mainstream views doesn't change the fact that your minority views such as "africanity" don't have scientific consensus.  You're emotionally tied to the defense of these minority views, too, as anyone can see.  When you get frustrated you lash out at people accusing them of "Eurocentrism", or mention them in the same sentence with stormfront, or accuse them of holding views which they don't (Dynastic Race Theory). --Urthogie 17:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

^If we agree on these three points then we both agree on Egypt's "Africanity", because it means nothing else besides that. So that is indeed a mainstream view and you're just confusing yourself. I'm not emotionally tied to anything, it seems that you're emotionally tied to me since all of your responses are reactional and accusational. Again, I have no minority views, the only people that do is you and the people at storm front, I believe I'm on the same page as most of the editors in here and most anthropologists who study the issue. You simply don't study the issue and frankly, half of the time you don't know what you're talking about, your knowledge of Africa is limited.

For Example:

Urgothie Wrote:

"this would not demonstrate a connection to Egypt necessarily, but more likely to closer Nilo-Saharan speaking nations such as Nubia Ethiopia, etc."

^I believe that it's common knowledge for any high school graduate that Ethiopians traditionally don't speak Nilo-Saharan, they've spoken Afro-Asiatic since time immemorable.. So your personal attacks are irrelevent since it's obvious that I know more about the subject than you, which renders your Ad Hominems useless..Taharqa 17:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My point was that the idea of a biological Africanity (which is how Keita has used the term) isn't accepted in mainstream biology. So while we might agree very much outside of biology, we don't agree about "Africanity" in relation to biology, which is truly a minority view.


 * If you don't want people to be reactionary/defensive don't mention them in the same sentence as stormfront or claim that they believe in hypotheses that they have explicitly made clear they don't believe in.--Urthogie 17:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

1. You'll never be able to quote where Keita uses the term "Biological Africanity", he simply refers to Africans (including Ancient Egyptians) as "Saharo-Tropical African variants", which is a term that has seen no criticism. You're essentially seeking to create some false dichotomy between Keita's peer reviewed research and mainstream view, which isn't going to work since you can't use your own logic to undermine scientific results. When I say "Africanity" it simply means the same thing, maybe others may define that term differently but it isn't a term used in Anthropology and therefore it's a misleading accusation to claim that "this isn't mainstream view" since no one even addresses the term to begin with and generally have no position. The way that I personally define it is only based on my interpretation of the term and how I relate it to anthropological terminology. Only anthropological terminology will be used in the article and people will decide for themselves, I have, and I'm sure Keita, Trigger, Yurco, Davidson, and many others have/had also. You're obscuring the main point of contention, which is that they weren't from Asia or Europe, or mixed with Sumerian or spoke a "non-African" language, they were essentially Africans in the biological form, related culturally, linguistically, and biologically to others who dwell with in the geographic confines of Africa before Asia or Europe. You've failed to make a connection outside of Africa, therefore your oppositions are truly baseless and basically "hot air".. We can play with definitions all day, but the facts are clear..

2. I don't care about your reactionary habits, I only made an analogy and if you took offense to it, so be it, it still does not obscure the facts of the discussion.Taharqa 19:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I didn't say he says the exact phrase "Biological africanity", I said that he uses "Africanity" in a biological sense. I'll find a source if you want me to.  And guess what-- if noone else thinks there is an "africanity" in this biological sense-- it's not a mainstream view.
 * 2) Egyptians did mix with those in the Near East to some degree, increasing as time went by.  Keita acknowledge this, as do other researchers.
 * 3) I never said they spoke a non-African language.  Straw man.
 * 4) Actually, comparing someone to the storm front because they disagree with you does obscure the facts of the discussion.--Urthogie 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

1. No he does not use it in any "biological" sense or for classification purposes, only as a reference to Africa. You've still failed to quote him in context anyways, so for now I'll just disregard your slander towards the very respectable professor.

2. You can't prove that they were mixed with any one in "the near east", you've failed to cite a source so your claims aren't acknowledgable. "As time went by" is apparent, however, that would seem to acknowledge that the elements absorbed over time were initially foreign, we're concentrating on who the "Egyptians" were at the onset of the civilization, those who established the principle culture and united Egypt into a state, creating the Dynasties, the "Native Egyptians", sons of Heru. "Substantial admixture happened over time gradually and long after the 1rst Dynasty, which is reflected in the research.

3. Maybe you didn't, but if you're to gain any support for your dynastic race or mixed theory it would be helpful to show what elements of language or culture Egyptians absorbed from any "Australoid/Ameroid" Sumerians or mysterious Near Eastern people.

4. Anyways..Taharqa 20:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean no disrespect to Keita. Having a minority viewpoint is something to be celebrated, and he of course never claims that a biohistorical concept of Africanity is not in the mainstream.  So it was a criticism of your interpreation, not his writings, which I can't really find fault in, and don't want to either.


 * Keita himself acknowledges the demographic influence of the Near East, see (Keita 1995), referenced in the lead. I can find other references too, and I think I will.--Urthogie 20:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Where's the link, can I verify this? If you just read it you should have a link.. I'm sorry, I don't believe you because he says the exact opposite here in his conclusion.. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/badari.pdf And Keita has no minority view point, your spin language isn't going to work, that is a gross distortion of his research which you obviously just don't read...Taharqa 20:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/c1q2117768552415/

I don't think you get it, Taharqa... in science, most scientists have some minority viewpoints (and this is good/necessary, too!). The key thing is that they don't claim such viewpoints have mainstream consensus until they do.--Urthogie 20:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The early southern Egyptians belonged primarily to an African descent group which gained some Near Eastern affinity through gene flow with the passage of time. - S.O.Y Keita

^Over time urgothie, I can't believe I'm letting you drag me into this circular argument which I addressed above, which is apparent. Keita and countless others have explained that change in Egypt was gradual and well after the founding Dynasties, just read some of the studies in the article. All this preaching to me about Minority views being good is useless since it doesn't apply here. At the end of the day these are just cliams and you've still failed to provide any one else who disagrees with Keita's research or interpretations, you might, but no one in the field that I know of has criticized his approach, only you do.. And why should I entertain your opinion on a decorated professor who cites all of his researched and is backed by his peers?Taharqa 21:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On one thign we agree: we're just going in circles now.--Urthogie 21:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

^We don't agree unless you acknowledge that you're the cause of it due to slander towards Keita and misinterpresation and misrepresation of the research.Taharqa 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

africanity
Do a google scholar search on it. Almost every article is non-scientific, and is related to Afrocentrism or Black studies.--Urthogie 17:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? Ad Hominems are useless, either refute this view or leave it be. My 3 points is all that matters, we need not bicker over the social definition of "Africanity", let alone make a topic about it. African = Africanity, period. Disagree with it or not, my main point for the article is that they were Africans related to other Africans, which is indisputable. Africanity in the way I say it during debate simply means the same thing, devoid of Non-African qualities, and predominantly African. End of discussion, I won't debate social definitions here.Taharqa 17:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keita uses it in reference to biology, and is alone as far as I know in this respect when it comes to modern biology. Am I wrong to say that you agree with his view in this regard?--Urthogie 17:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop using Red Herring arguments please? Again, Keita doesn't use that term in regard to any classification, he describes Ancient Egyptians, NorthEast/East Africans, West Africans, and Central Africans as part of indigenous variation from the early Sahara, Nile valley, and inner Africa, "Saharo-Tropical African variants", which is a term that has seen no criticism and results that have not been disputed since it literally means variants which arose in Africa. When I say Africanity I point to these results, period, there's nothing to debate only that you disagree with my terminology, but you have no basis in disagreement with Keita or any other bioanthropologists, you're not even qualified to disagree, all you can do is provide sources of disagreement, which you haven't.Taharqa 20:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "biocultural Africanity"
 * "biohistorical Africanity"

Thanks, --Urthogie 19:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

^You've failed to quote the man in context and have failed to show me where he classifies anyone under an "Africanity" umbrella, he classifies them as African. You're worthless attempts to discredit Keita, and therefore have an argument are futile.Taharqa 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

One more point..

1. Humans left Africa around 50,000 years ago and populated Europe, Asia, the New World, etc..

2. When I propose "Africanity" for Egypt I mean that the ancient Egyptians were among those people who never left Africa over 50,000 years ago, and stayed, only later to eventually migrate through out Africa and find their way in the Nile Valley, while others eventually went West, some South, some stayed East, yet they never for any long period of time left Africa, so their entire memory and essence was African, yet like all Africans, they vary in traits but mostly resembled their direct ancestors in Africa and those closest to them who adapted with them in the NorthEast African zone.

3. An opposing view would suggest that maybe there was back-migration, that people who fully adapted outside of the continent, came back and either mixed with the native inhabitants, or replaced them, essentially deAfricanizing the population and stripping them of their bio-cultural relationships with other Africans. Hence the Dynastic Race theory, or Saharan barrier, or mass back-migration/population replacement.

4. Anthropological, geological, linguistic, archaeological, and historical research in the past years has shattered these arguments and attempts at creating a false dichotomy between the Egyptians and Africa has failed when in the face of the undeniable evidence/facts and common reason. This work isn't even in dominant part due to Keita (though he played a crucial role in the debates over the past 20 years and changed many people's approaches).

5. "Africanity" means culturally, linguistically, and biologically African. Unless you can provide an updated source which disagrees with these facts (that the Egyptians were culturally, linguistically, and biologically African) then you have no argument and all that you can do is argue over how I define "Africanity", which you have no say so in, as much as you don't have any say so over who and who is not defined as "Black" in America. End of discussion, back to science. Taharqa 20:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dozens of sources reject the idea of an African biological group. They're relatively easy to search for.  I think this is another situation where we disagree with each other very much over a very minor issue :)


 * I've made many changes to the article structure, and added many sources. Please tell me what you think of this.--Urthogie 20:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, you quote people out of context, this is a Red Herring argument, no one (especially Keita) proposes any singular group, that's like advocating "race".. You just don't seem to understand the premise, again, it simply emphasizes people who developed their traits in Africa and have recent common ancestry with other Africans from being direct descendants or direct Ancestors, with limitied influence outside of Africa, period. Your only argument is to just say Africa doesn't exist.

As far as your changes, seems a bit sloppy right now, and I moved back the "difficulties in Cranial Analysis and Forensic reconstruction and put it back where it was since there's no justification in moving it.Taharqa 21:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Biology is concerned where traits were developed, only what the results were. So I think Keita's usage is not limited to place, culture, and language, but also to biological traits.  I say this because he sometimes uses the term while discussing genetic or cranial analyses.  Do you have any evidence otherwise?  It'd be interesting to email him.  Even if I am wrong about Keita's intention, it's undeniable that you bring up "Africanity" when we're just discussing purely biological thigns like genetics or crania.--Urthogie 21:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Taharqa, your last arguments are very powerful. I suggest that you bring, provided with sources, n°2,3,4 to the article at the top in the section "Origins". It is well known that man is from Africa. Egyptians are among those who never left Africa. Bernard Nantet in his "Dictionnaire de l'Afrique" (2006, p. 104) defends this view: "la civilisation égyptienne a montré avec éclat ses sources africaines méridionales". Did this people who remained in Africa keep something in common biologically speaking? Yes in large part! You provided sources to demonstrate that fact. I don't see why people have to exagerate with Egypt making it an exception in Africa. Unless one implies that the degree of their development is due to "some particular racial caracteristics". But this is racism, ideology, not science. Are Europeans different biologically? Who can answer to this question? Actually, I am looking forward to contribute to the section "Language". Even at this level, "Africanity" covers a broad area. Peace! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Not based solely on Keita, but based on DNA studies, work from Sonia R. Zakrzewski, Bruce Williams, Bruce Trigger, Frank Yurco, Rick Kittles, A. J. Boyce, and many other people of whom the majority I believe are cited in the article. Genetically, NorthEast Africans have their own cluster and do not cluster closer to South/West Asians, though the particular groups in question with whom the Egyptians clustered with specifically (Somalis, Nubians/Sudanese, Ethiopians, Teita tribe in Kenya), they all are East African and cluster genetically with other "sub-Saharan" Africans.. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fig.2.3.542pop.jpg (Other NorthEast Africans like the Beja, Amhara, etc plot in between the Berber and other East Africans, but most of them are mixed with a hint of Eurasian due to the Arab invasions and/or recent/historical social interaction) I have no idea where you're getting your info but sources would be nice, East Africans in general overwhelmingly cluster nearer to West Africans than anyone else if you're talking spacial distance. Craniofacial links again are also found among African groups from Dahomey to Naqada Bronze age Egypt. Taharqa 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)" This argumentation speaks quite clearly about the biological unity of Africans. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

^I'll incorporate all of this into the article somehow, obviously Urgothie keeps missing the point, talking about "results' or something else irrelevant. The fact is that the results were African, that's what Biology cares about, Urgothie must have never heard of biogeographic ancestry, this is 3rd grade stuff. The thing is just because they develop different traits doesn't mean that they're "evolving" towards any particular racial category, or getting distant from other Africans while getting closer to Europeans/Asians, these are "random" mutations, the point is that they are African ones. Urgothie doesn't know what he/she is talking about, biologogists identify DNA patterns associated with regions, you have African DNA or African traits, that means you have traits and DNA that arose in Africa and not the Near East or Europe. Also ancestral ties that lead back to other Africans and not Europe or the Near East. It isn't hard Urgothie, you only make it such to present a fallacious argument.Taharqa 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't incorporate an image that doesn't have ancient egypt on it into the article. It's called original research.--Urthogie 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

^Nope, I'll simply provide sources and quote them, no big deal, no need to debate over what I haven't posted yet, the sources back every thing I've explained in here.. My opinion will not be imposed onto the article, but mainstream opinion will. We all know what original research is by now Urgothie, which you're becoming a master of, appealing to imaginary authority, giving false consensus statements, and imposing your personal opinions of scientific results on us as if your opinions matter and as if you're qualified to dismiss anything that Keita or the numerous other people (quoted in Nkuka Luka's post) say. Frankly we don't care, especially when it lacks merit or significance..


 * Whatever helps you sleep at night. I'm just saying don't add that image unless a source relates it to ancient Egypt.--Urthogie 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Taharqa, you speak often about Urgothie. The true name is Urthogie. Pay attention to this for respect. Besides, I think that Urthogie believes in Biogeography. When we were discussing about the African origin of the Greeks, he said that maybe the Greeks kept something from Africa thanks to their particular area. Did I understand you well, Urthogie? Hotep! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes! By the way, both of you, I think this link is very interesting.  Building Bridges to Afrocentrism and Professor Ibrahim Sundiata: "Afrocentrism: The Argument We're Really Having".--Urthogie 22:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I do apologize for that, "Urthogie", not Urgothie, I'll keep that in mind. I'll check that link out too in a minute Urthogie, and for clarification no one ever said anything about adding an image, you were confused and I was confused on what you were saying.Taharqa 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we just have conflicting personalities.--Urthogie 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

^I don't know about all of that, but the building bridges article was a good read.. Pretty old, none the less, relevant and a good read so far. I haven't read it all yet. I don't really find the author to be disagreeing with most of my points thus far either, despite any socio-political strifes or arbitrary racial umbrellas no one seems to be denying Egypt's place in Africa culturally. We'll leave the biogeographical relationships issue up to the bioanthropologists. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.htmlTaharqa 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing you have to admit though Taharqa is a lot of young Afrocentrist kids get a strange mixed up version of Afrocentrism, of the Napoleon and the Sphynx type, etc.. Also, some of the more radical afrocentrists seem to have an anti-semitic bias, which I can't help but notice.--Urthogie 23:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Afrocentrist Egyptologists (...) want to show that according to modern Western categories, the ancient Egyptians would have been regarded as black". Urthogie, Ann Macy Roth, the author of the article you posted, is either ignorant of ancient literature or a dishonest intellectual. Are Herodotus and Aristotle modern writers? Yet, they spoke of the Egyptians being Black people. The ancestors of the Jews and of the Arabs spoke (you know that well from a study you posted in the past) of the Egyptians being Blacks. How can Egyptians be just Egyptians? Is there an Egyptian race? This is an invention of Eurocentric Egyptology dating from Champollion Figeac who said "having black skin and wooly hair is not enough to make somebody be called Black. The conclusion of Volney is forced (Volney stated after visiting the Sphinx that he understood why Herodotus said that the Egyptians are Blacks)". Egyptians are indigenous Africans. Their country does not make White people as Herodotus wrote in his book 2: "La chaleur y rend les hommes noirs" (§ 22). Herodotus spoke three times of this blackness of the Egyptians. The second time about the black doves :"Et lorsqu'ils ajoutent que cette colombe était noire, ils donnent à entendre que cette femme était égyptienne" (§ 57). The third time about the Colchians :"le premier ce qu'ils sont noirs et qu'ils ont les cheveux crépus" (§ 104). Herodotus might be a crazy man in his work. But at this particular point not. Only the black race produces wooly hair. Another consideration. Herodotus linked Egypt to Ethiopia (Nubia) while making cultural arguments: §§ 104-106. The article on the African origin of the Greeks clearly clustered the Egyptians with the Ethiopians and other Africans. As Taharqa commented, it is interesting to see that the Egyptians are not listed among "the older mediterranean substratum". Rather with their southern neighbours. I am feeling inclined to say that Ann Macy Roth must go back to school to learn more about Egyptology before teaching it. She made false statements on a group of indigenous Africans, influenced by considerations on race in modern Egypt (black as a pejorative color in modern Egypt). Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 23:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Herodotus never spoke of a black "race."--Urthogie 23:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At the time of Herodotus, Egyptians were surely regarded as Blacks. Ann Macy Roth is speaking in terms of having "been regarded".Afrocentrist Egyptologists (...) want to show that according to modern Western categories, the ancient Egyptians would have been regarded as black. Does She not ignore ancient history? Yet she teaches Egyptology! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 23:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

She agrees with them, Luka... why are you so angry she says this if she agrees that the Egyptians would be regarded as blacks?--Urthogie 00:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * She is lying when she says the view that the Egyptians were Blacks fits "modern Western categories". This view is ancient. On the contrary "modern Western categories" tend to whiten ancient Egyptians as she is trying to do, puting Egyptians in a kind of "neutral race". Not black, maybe surely white! What is not black, how is it? I repeat, Ann Macy Roth is either ignorant of ancient literature or a dishonest intellectual. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 09:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

further development of the articles
Here are my suggestions/plans:


 * We should use Harvard referencing, to clean up our references. This means we will have to expand this Bibliography section.  I have already begun this as you can see.
 * We still have many stubs, some not even having any content whatsoever. Taharqa, you will have to write the Afrocentrist section if you want it to be good.  I can't be expected to explain their views very well, we agree on that.
 * We should include some of the useful stuff referenced at this site: http://www.geocities.com/enbp/. Of course, we won't use the website as a source, but it is a good launching point for finding further sources/information.  It also has several good images.
 * We need to eliminate long quotes where possible, and convert them into prose. This should be easier since we will be using Harvard style, which allows us to just say...New studies have found X. (Author, 1999a)....without having to quote them in full every time.--Urthogie 23:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

'''*We should include some of the useful stuff referenced at this site: http://www.geocities.com/enbp/. Of course, we won't use the website as a source, but it is a good launching point for finding further sources/information. It also has several good images'''.

Urthogie, are you kidding me? This i the most outdateed, racial rebuttle to Afrocentrism out there, it has a political agenda and quotes everything out of context. Most all of the information contained in the link is expressed in the article with updated interpretations and view points. They mention the brace study, Herodotus' quote, everything, it's in the article already and we have gone over this. That site is worthless. You might as well use thise site as a source if that's the case. http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/Taharqa 23:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the site is stupid in that the author references studies of modern egyptians several times, like (Di Rienzo, A., et al. 1994).  He says that shows egyptians are not genetically as similar to Africans as Sardinians, but fails to mention its modern not ancient egyptians being studied.  Nonetheless, despite its bias, it does represent some sources I hadn't read before that are relevant for this article.  I'm making sure not to use this biased source, just using it as a jumping off point.--Urthogie 23:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

^Like I said, no sources from that site will be used since it isn't put into context and is extremely outdated and all of it is mentioned here, I bet there's new information available to you in the link that I posted also, but being selective to biased websites isn't cool and can't be tolerated. I can rebut everything there personal by putting the information in context and updating it with more recent results and interpretations.

Also many of your section inclusions are unnecessary in my opinion, too many things dealing with socio-political interpretations and not enough emphasis on the raw data and scientific/historical interpretation of Ancient Egypt's closest bio-geographic and cultural-geographic relationships.Taharqa 23:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: Only 3 of these studies deal with ancient egyptians, while 4 of them deal with modern egyptians at this link: http://www.geocities.com/enbp/genetics.html. Basically, a fraud.  But the other sections of the site are still worth looking into, just to see if we can find interesting sources.
 * I did add some research sections though, like dental, body plans, demographic influence subsections, etc.
 * Wikipedia should cover all angles, not only scientific but political discussions as well. --Urthogie 23:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

^Again, the site is worthless, it seeks to obfuscate the points of contention and cites very selective and old outdated and obscure studies and uses logic to twist interpretation and influence naive readers. I insist that you remain cautious of the source you seek to contribute unless put in context and quoted from a reliable source. ^No political content in my opinion, it obscures the issues and seeks to discredit and/or stereotype entire groups. They have their own sections for that, Afrocentrism has its own article explaining what it is and their arguments, can you some up the entire article here? Is it worth it?Taharqa 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article's title is Ancient egypt and race, not Ancient egypt and race research. This means we have to cover all angles.  There's nothing wrong with this.--Urthogie 23:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Too many sections
Please discuss why all of these sections are needed Urthogie, and your obscure quote from Keita for Near Eastern influence will not suffice, it is not put into context and misrepresents Keita's study and conclusion in that particular study. And stop erasing my contributions and replacing them with yoursTaharqa 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're removing several sources. Please justify these removals.  For example, you replaced Svorra's views on ancient Egypt with his views on modern Egypt.  Why?  And why remove the sections on demographic influence, which I plan to grow very much?  Please justify before revert, per our earlier agreement.--Urthogie 23:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, you removed my entry and replced it with yours, it doesn't work like that.

And Can you cut it out? It's amazing how much you try and force a muti-ethnic demographic population in Egypt, yet this isn't necessary seeing as how it's already been reported by anthropologists that there were no apparent demographic shifts, so you scramble for evidence is futile, unreliable source and mis-quotations will be handled, and the article is very sloppy now so I'm removing a few irrelevant sections that seeks to deviate our focus away from the topic of the article.Taharqa 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just asking why you're removing my sources. Please supply a reason before you revert.--Urthogie 23:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you separated the sections once more, your source is fine with me, just as long as you know it isn't supported and is an old theory. I addressed it, no big deal. But you're making the article extremely sloppy and are forcing lay information and questionable/unreliable sources into the article with out giving alternate or updated viewsTaharqa 23:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll add them when I get the chance. Please help by adding them.--Urthogie 23:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, please reply before removals.--Urthogie 00:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * hmm.. good point about me splitting it up too much. it seems like its impossible to discuss demographic influences without discussing them all together.  I'll merge them.--Urthogie 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Also stop taking Keita out of context and keep the demographic stuff in one section, no need to split it up, le the data tell the story, otherwise you're being intellectually dishonest by seeking to source outdated material and misrepresenting data intentionally.Taharqa 23:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think the demographic influences section is pretty neutral now.--Urthogie 00:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't need it, let the data speak, no unsourced material for now and no quoting out of context. It was better before you started messing with it.Taharqa 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything in the section is sourced...--Urthogie 00:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^No it was not, and for skin color, Frank Yurco is not a reliable source.. Also there are no sources claiming that anyone outside of Africa demographically. Taharqa 00:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please quote which line is not sourced. I want to see it, truly.--Urthogie 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert back all of my contributions please
You've erased so many of my contributions and switched so many things around, i insist that you revert everything and discuss this first, you didn't even discuss it before you made all of these changes. You erased various amounts of sourced material put in context, why are you rampaging?Taharqa 00:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against you adding content, but you are the one who is removing what I add. For example, you removed about a fourth of the article here: .  Feel free to add, but do not remove sourced material without a damn good reason.--Urthogie 00:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You've already removed so much stuff, no, this can't go on.. You've moved my stuff out and made way for yours, this isn't going to happen. You removed my references in the ancient Egyptian view, you removed my frank yurco quote at the top of the page, you've removed and reworded so much stuff, why? Can you revert it all please before you continue, or should I just replace your stuff with my own. You keep insisting that the Egyptians believed in race when they didn't, you're destroying the article, it was much better yesterday.Taharqa 00:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Egyptians believed in race...and you can go ahead and add the Yurco quote back, I just thought it was redundant, since we already made clear what he said in other ways in the lead. Perhaps it would fit better in the Ancient Egyptian view section? What else do you want brought back? We don't disagree as much as you think... it'd help if you'd stop blanking parts of the article without reason though, especially considering i support most of your additions.--Urthogie 00:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You've already removed so much stuff, no, this can't go on.. You've moved my stuff out and made way for yours, this isn't going to happen. You removed my references in the ancient Egyptian view, you removed my frank yurco quote at the top of the page, you've removed and reworded so much stuff, why? Can you revert it all please before you continue, or should I just replace your stuff with my own. You keep insisting that the Egyptians believed in race when they didn't, you're destroying the article, it was much better yesterday.Taharqa 00:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Egyptians believed in race...and you can go ahead and add the Yurco quote back, I just thought it was redundant, since we already made clear what he said in other ways in the lead. Perhaps it would fit better in the Ancient Egyptian view section? What else do you want brought back? We don't disagree as much as you think... it'd help if you'd stop blanking parts of the article without reason though, especially considering i support most of your additions.--Urthogie 00:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, just stop switching my contributions around and erasing them with out consulting me first, you changed so much stuff and I had to spend a lot of time searching for my past contributions, so for future reference please don't do it again, and stop erasing sourced material. It doesn't matter if you agree with the sources, they are there, cited, and quoted, you can't oppose that, you're breaking rules.

Please stop posting the most random and dated slap stick journalism and varied opinions that you can find on the subject and posting them as gospel truth with out putting things in context. You keep making the article contradict its self, and blanking stuff out, c'mon now. All you're trying to do is take Egypt away from Africa and force some socio-political message that you want to get across in the form of various random sources you find on biased geocities sites, and opinions in random internet essays, with a strong emphasis on "Afrocentrism". We're not trying to force people what to think or tell them what the Egyptians thought(since we don't know what the Egyptians would think today), or talk about everyone's old theories about Egypt's demographics, we're trying to get a consensus from the raw data, and today's overall consensus opinion based on the data from the biological relationships, and since it's 2007 we need to be updated with 2007. We don't need random opinions with no explanation or consensus in the demographics section. The data has already put this to rest a long time ago, you just keep dragging on about old theories of Mesopotamian influence, which isn't supported by any peer reviewed studies, so this aspect of it is not looking good for you.. Where do we stand, scientifically, were the Egyptians more related to groups in Asia, Europe, or Africa, namely east? And was Mesopotamian influence any real factor and is there evidence for any demographic shift? No, the research is displayed in the sources and is clear, all updated various sources who confirm that Egypt was an indigenous society in the Nile Valley with characteristics in body plans, craniofacial traits, genetics, culture, and language similar to other related Africans, namely NorthEast/East, all before anyone else. This is summed up in all of the updated and mainstream books out now on Egypt and studies/scholarly articles. You should read more and stop depending on random google searches.Taharqa 01:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also,

Quote:

The ancient Egyptians considered themselves part of a distinct race

^Unless you can quote where some one uses these words besides you, I'm changing the wording to ethnicity, not "race".. And since there isn't a section of "Eurocentrism, why would you put one up for Afrocentrism? Any "ism" has no bearing on the Ancient Egyptians in their natural state.. You're literally destroying the article, it's a mess. The Extra-terrestrials section is extra ridiculous, that was so random and unorganized.. I also removed that redundant section of the nose of the shpinx, since the truth may never be known, it's all hearsay..Taharqa 01:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleopatra
Was the bust of Cleopatra made by (an) Egyptian artist(s) to be put / mentioned in the section "Art and architecture"? I don't understand the meaning of this initiative. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 07:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^No, the bust of Cleopatra is a modern rendition, I don't see the point of it being in the article either.Taharqa 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

analysis of taharqa's changes:

 * "However, a minority of scholars".
 * Not a minority. Keita recognizes small change over time, as do others.


 * You removed "The nature and extent of Egyptian evolution that resulted from natural selection and migration/war with neighboring Mesopotamia and East Africa between the Neolothic and dynastic periods is still debated and researched to this day. ".
 * We added this together. Please supply a reason for removing this good sourced sentence.


 * replaced "but of high importance to the Afrocentric movement."
 * who else outside of science cares about their "Race"?


 * "However, demographic analysis and work done by various anthropologists conclude that there was overall population continuity stretching from the predynastic, well into dynastic times with small amounts of possible miscegenation outside of the Nile Valley, placing Egyptian society with in a localized African Nile Valley context. The general consensus is summed up here:"
 * I don't agree that it has consensus. It's debated.


 * Removed "African-American scholar Frank Snowden says that Kemet has nothing to do with skin color, though. The "black land," he says, refers to the fertile soil watered by the Nile, in contrast to the red land of the desert. "
 * What's your reason for removal?


 * Removed "Even if an individual portrayal was known to be accurate (there is no such case), even that would do nothing to indicate the appearance of the ancient Egyptian populace as a whole."
 * Why?


 * Removed "According to archaeologist Kathryn Bard, it was conventional in Egyptian art to paint men in a dark-red ochre and women in a light-yellow ochre to distinguish them. This artistic convention, she says, is ignored by Afrocentrists who use it to claim that Egyptians looked darker than they did. "
 * Why?


 * Removed afrocentrism section
 * Sorry, but this article isn't just about science, but about related topics as well. This is a general encyclopedia, that covers all angles, and afrocentrism is mentioned in the literature and by the scientists/egyptologists quite often.


 * Removed two myths
 * Why? These are established myths concerning race?

Taharqa, you have added one paragraph and removed tons. Don't pretend I'm the one doing the removing. Please don't revert me right away this time. Can we discuss first before you remove all this material again?--Urthogie 15:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait one second, we'll discuss this, make no changes, one second..Taharqa 15:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm implementing many of your changes though... Like removing cleopatra bust and changing race to ethnicity and other stuff too.--Urthogie 15:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^Many many other things because you're writing nonsense, and I've put a lot of work into editing words and reorganizing so I can't have you revert the entire page, I need you only to add what you need only if it isn't nonsense, like the quote about "several scholars disputing that Nefertiti was black", Your previous translantion of Kemet, your redundant language in the article. Also your constant addresses to Afrocentrism, we have to discuss this all over again.Taharqa 16:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, well let's discuss change by change, starting with "minority of scholars" edit. Please justify that first.  (and not reverting until you reply each time, that's our rule)--Urthogie 16:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

1. ^Well, it's anthropologically incorrect to post a message claiming that several scholars dispute that 'Nefertiti" is black, that isn't even an argument among scholars, you find one person that says no, others will say yes, most don't use the term. That kind of language doesn't belong in the article, Here's a facial reconstruction of Nefertiti's mummy. No debating this, it will not be in the article since it isn't anyone's dispute and "Black" is a social term that doesn't apply to scholars.Taharqa 16:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC) http://emeagwali.com/speeches/black-history-month/nefertiti-reconstructed.jpgTaharqa 16:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, stop reverting the whole page, we'll go through this one by one..Taharqa 16:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We aren't discussing nefertiti yet! We're going through your edits one by one.  Please justify the first one: "minority of scholars" which doesn't relate to nerftiti.--Urthogie 16:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

'''However, a minority of scholars".
 * Not a minority. Keita recognizes small change over time, as do others'''

Exactly, Keita has no minority view so stop changing the position of my sources and quotes in the demographic section, unacceptable, we need a conclusion and this is the mainstream conclusion and the sources from the studies back it up, these aren't theories, I won't let you undermine empirical research.Taharqa 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, so if they all agree in some degree to a near east influence over time, why are you calling it a minority view? That was your edit, not mine.--Urthogie 16:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^They don't agree on Near Eastern influence, only over great amounts of time, I will not let you distort the conclusions of the studies, no debating this. Also, Keita says over time because it's apparent in today's population, but none of the studies mention them in the dynastic period as mixing with Egyptians, until you can quote a time frame or a near eastern influence at the beginning or even early old kingdom, you have no case and you have no basis in switching my wording around, please stop touching my contributions. on to the next issue.. Also The Dynastic Race Theory is indeed an extreme minority view that has fell out of favor, there was no near eastern influence on the civilization, but on Egypt its self some time later, which is redundant and apparent as can be seen todayTaharqa 16:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop reverting the entire page and only what you need in there, again, I edited a lot of stuff! Have some decency and show some maturity.Taharqa 16:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The dynastic race theory is a false theory of origins, not a theory of influence.
 * How about we replace minority with "The exact degree, or even existence of, a near east demographic influence during the predynastic, is at this time unknown"?
 * No, you didn't edit a lot of stuff, you erased a lot of stuff.--Urthogie 16:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^^Dynastic race theory is a theory of both origins and influence, your spin language won't get you out of that fact, you can't twist definitions your way.

You removed "The nature and extent of Egyptian evolution that resulted from natural selection and migration/war with neighboring Mesopotamia and East Africa between the Neolothic and dynastic periods is still debated and researched to this day.[15][16]".

^We did not do this together and the wording and everything sounds as if it were written by a layman, it's uncyclopedic. Also it is not being "researched til this day", the theory is disregarded. Plus, there was no Mesopotamia in the Neolithic and even with natural drift the studies show that they were most similar to East Africans in the first dynasty, numerous studies have shown continuity, and evolution doesn't work like that. Everything said here seems like it's just twisted from the perspective of a Naive writer, evolution doesn't happen that fast, there were no reported wars between mesopotamia and Egypt, and migration into Egypt is thought to have been minimal so I can't let you pick up some ten year old sources and act as if this is still heavily debated.Taharqa 16:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Parts of dynastic race theory such as origins have been dropped, but the influences are still debated. Several studies indicate this.  Ten year old sources?  You use (Keita 1995) frequently.--Urthogie

^Not debatable, the theory is dead and everyone knows it, read the Oxford - History Of Ancient Egypt also.

'''* replaced "but of high importance to the Afrocentric movement."

who else outside of science cares about their "Race"?'''

^I already addressed that, you keep singling out Afrocentrism like there's some obsession going on, yet it affects anyone who is interested in this topic, just look at your own myths section.Taharqa 16:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * one at a time. We're not done with the first part.  Taharqa, you were right about neolithic which i replaced with predynastic.  the influences of the near east are debated.  You found 2/3 studies which disagree with the significance of these early influences, and I've found 2/3 studis which agree.  All of these studies acknowledge that more research is needed.--Urthogie 16:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The other myths are by neo-nazis. Should I add them to the sentence to say "Afrocentrists and neo-nazis"?--Urthogie 16:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You found 2/3 studies which disagree with the significance of these early influences

^Biggest lie I've ever seen, you can't quote one anthropologist who uses the words "near east" "Significant" and "influence" in the same sentence unless they're debunking an old theory.

^It doesn't matter, I can't let you single out one group..

'''* "However, demographic analysis and work done by various anthropologists conclude that there was overall population continuity stretching from the predynastic, well into dynastic times with small amounts of possible miscegenation outside of the Nile Valley, placing Egyptian society with in a localized African Nile Valley context. The general consensus is summed up here:"

I don't agree that it has consensus. It's debated.'''

^No it isn't debated, when yo show me how it's disputed and the opinion of an updated anthropologist who disputes this in any way, please post them, other than that you have no argument, you're just spewing air. Over 20 studies forming the same consensus. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.htmlTaharqa 16:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but which anthropologists? Aside from Keita and Zbrewski or whatever you spell him as, what other evidence is there?  This amounts to two mainstream, peer-reviewed scholars by my count (as many as I've provided).  Please provide quotes from other mainstream peer-reviewed scholars who conclude there was no significant predynastic demographic influence.  A study which shows no connection to Europe doesn't prove your point, by the way, because that's not what I'm arguing.  I'm arguing that there is was a (today debated) degree of near east influence in the predynastic.--Urthogie 16:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^I don't have to, you make the claim that there was so the burden of proof is on you. I have scholars pointing to the fact that there wasn't much demographic influence from anywhere until well after the dynastic.

''':Sorry, but which anthropologists? Aside from Keita and Zbrewski or whatever you spell him as, what other evidence is there?'''

Everybody: http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.html

It doesn't matter anyways, if you can't find anyone to refute them, then there's no debate, they're qualified to answer these questions a long with the people on the page in the link I gave you of currect genetic studies of Asia and Africa.Taharqa 16:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Even the 2007 study agrees with me!!:

"thereby suggesting that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process. Nevertheless, significant differences were found in morphology between both geographically-pooled and cemetery-specific temporal groups, indicating that some migration occurred along the Egyptian Nile Valley over the periods studied."

So you have to concede this point. Even the sources on that carefully selected list agree with me on this point.--Urthogie 16:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^No one agrees with you, you're just delusional and are trying to trick people into thinking that you know what you're talking about. And I don't see how that's a carefully picked list, but whatever, refute it or not, isn't my problem.Taharqa 16:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Your personal arguments don't matter since they don't reflect any of the studies in the words of data of the anthropologists

"thereby suggesting that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process. Nevertheless, significant differences were found in morphology between both geographically-pooled and cemetery-specific temporal groups, indicating that some migration occurred along the Egyptian Nile Valley over the periods studied."

^Nowhere does she mention the Near East..Taharqa 16:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

From 2007 study: the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.

This indicates that there were small outside influences. As a compromise how about we don't specify "Near East", but just say outside influences, because this is what they all agree on? By the way, stop calling me delusional. Don't be personal.--Urthogie 17:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How is this for compromise:

The dynastic race theory, which argues for a Mesopotamian origin of Egyptian civilization, has fallen out of favor in mainstream Egyptology, as new studies have been published, that conclude Egypt was originally settled by East Africans, not Mesopotamians. However, there is still disagreement over the degree of outside demographic influence on these African settlers. The exact nature and extent of Egyptian that resulted from demographic effects such as migration and trade is still being researched to this day.

If you're Ok with this, we can move on to your next edit if you'll stop being rude.--Urthogie 17:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^I rephrased it, since no one debates war or the extent of evolution in a mere couple thousand years that is to be edited out..Taharqa 17:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ''' Removed "African-American scholar Frank Snowden says that Kemet has nothing to do with skin color, though. The "black land," he says, refers to the fertile soil watered by the Nile, in contrast to the red land of the desert.[3]"

What's your reason for removal?'''

^Frank Snowden wasn't a linguist or Egyptologist, he was just a black classicist involved in a lot of debates, his opinion isn't reliable in this context. Not to mention that this quote is random and redundant. It's enough to just say most scholars simply believe it to be a reference to soil.Taharqa 17:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Next point of order. You removed "but of high importance to the Afrocentric movement."  I guess you have a point because it was important to WEB du bois who wasn't afrocentrist.. how about we compromise and say "but of high importance to those engaged in the politics of race."?  Fair compromise?--Urthogie 17:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In regards to Snowden, why aren't classicists allowed? We use Lefkowitz, why not use Snowden?--Urthogie 17:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^He isn't reliable in translating language, period.

'''*Removed "Even if an individual portrayal was known to be accurate (there is no such case), even that would do nothing to indicate the appearance of the ancient Egyptian populace as a whole."

Why?'''

I don't remember moving that, might of been unintentional. I'll add it backTaharqa 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed "According to archaeologist Kathryn Bard, it was conventional in Egyptian art to paint men in a dark-red ochre and women in a light-yellow ochre to distinguish them. This artistic convention, she says, is ignored by Afrocentrists who use it to claim that Egyptians looked darker than they did. "

^This is a redundant argument towards Afrocentrism, too much redundancy and random/irrelevant pinions that are unencyclopedic. How is this ignored and why would it matter? Totally redundant and misrepresents Afrocentrism the premise of the article.Taharqa 17:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, then we'll remove the Afrocentrism sentence and keep the first sentence.--Urthogie 17:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but only change that, and not the whole page.. As a matter of fact, I'll change it..Taharqa 17:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

'''*Removed afrocentrism section
 * Sorry, but this article isn't just about science, but about related topics as well. This is a general encyclopedia, that covers all angles, and afrocentrism is mentioned in the literature and by the scientists/egyptologists quite often.


 * Removed two myths
 * Why? These are established myths concerning race?'''

^^^Extra-terrestrals? No Eurocentrism section? Why Afrocentrism? How much are you willing to contribute to the section, Afrocentrism has its own article on wikipedia where they touch on the Egypt issue, are you going to copy and paste from there and who are your sources for what the thoughts of Afrocentrism are from their perspective? And starting the section off with a quote from Yurco is sloppy and has nothing to do with Afrocentrism.Taharqa 17:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Eurocentrists go under two sections, mainly: 18th/19th century views of race, and "discarded hypotheses." Afrocentrism gets its own section because its an ideology people say they adhere to today.  Noone admits to being a Eurocentrist today, so its slander for us to call them that without them saying it.


 * In regards to the Afrocentrism section, the fact that Afrocentrism has its own article is not a reason not to cover its view on ancient Egypt. We follow a style guideline called Summary style, where you summarize the main points as they relate to the article at hand.  In an article on dogs you would mention dalmations, even though we have an article on the latter.  The Yurco quote is indeed sloppy.  Feel free to remove it (for now), but don't remove the entire section on Afrocentrism, thanks.--Urthogie 17:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^You haven't convinced me why it should take up its on section and why Afrocentrism over Eurocentrism, and how silly alien myths fit in here?Taharqa 17:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Again, don't revert the whole page, I've made additions.Taharqa 17:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Because Eurocentrism isn't espoused by anyone today. It's slander to call Yurco a Eurocentric, a violation of NPOV.  But if someone calls themselves Eurocentric of Afrocentric it's not slander to call them that.  Why is this simple argument not convincing?
 * If you want additions to be kept, don't pair them with removals.
 * Silly alien myths fit because they say Egyptians weren't even of the human race.--Urthogie 17:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^Eurocentrism is practiced today, you have no source which states otherwise, have you done a survey? No one called Yurco Eurocentric either, he's respected in a lot of ways. Like I said, stop removing my contributions by reverting the page and simply address what you want in the article and why here. Because you blanked out so much stuff yesterday and replaced it with nonsense.Taharqa 18:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone saying someone else is Eurocentric doesn't mean they're Eurocentric. The only way to know if something or someone is Afrocentrism/Eurocentrism is if the person themself says it.  Yes, there are sources which say Eurocentrism exists but are you honestly saying we should trust what these sources specify as eurocentric?  For example, Jared Diamond who writes in his book that Australian Aboriginals were most likely selected for higher intelligence than Europeans because they had no major plagues to eliminate chances for positive selection, is called a "Eurocentrist" for his theory that geography determined the differences in wealth/power between nations!   This is basic wikipedia policy, meant to avoid slander and misattribution.  We only count something as Afrocentrist/Eurocentrist based on the author's words.--Urthogie 18:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Since they aren't equal "isms" in your eyes, simply admit that you have a bias for Eurocentrism, it's a lot more honest. Your explanations about the difference between them makes no sense, you can't redefine terms.Taharqa 22:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

stop reverting the entire page Urthogie
Again, I made many edits and I need you to address this one by one, thank you.Taharqa 17:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I will continue to change the whole page because you removed so much at once. Before long we will have complete consensus on what this page should look like though, so don't worry if there's back and forth.--Urthogie 17:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^It doesn't work like that since you didn't give us that coutesy when you blanked everything out yesterday, so we have to start over. And please discuss the issues above. Most of it besides the myths are added back anyways, we've compromised on 3 or 4.Taharqa 17:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You blanked out other people's contributions yesterday and added a bunch of questionable material, you can't blank people's stuff out and expect to have your nonsense respected, you need to chill and go over this one and a time and start over! I'm warning you now and logging everything going on.Taharqa 18:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Every policy I've broken you've broken as well-- for example 3RR we break every single day that we edit. Reporting me would get you reported as well.  Seems kind of pointless to get us both blocked for weeks.  It's not like you can remove a bunch of stuff several times, and I can't.  That's a double standard.  The sooner we get consensus the sooner this shit will end, so don't worry about it.  We'll reach compromise.--Urthogie 18:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^I'll do what I must, and no compromise, you' change your mind every day. We start from yesterday when you disrupted the article.Taharqa 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You won't get anything done without compromise but an edit war. The page will just deteriorate because of your refusal.--Urthogie 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Taharqa, please try to compromise with Urthogie. But, Urthogie, I know you well! You removed my contributions from the "External links" to prevent people having access to the videos of Basil Davidson on ancient Egypt and to an article of Cheikh Anta Diop on the same subject. Let me not speak about the section "Sphinx" restaured by Muntuwandi, if I remember well, you removed. You said that there was a consensus. There was not. You made an interpretation in a sense of a consensus to satisfy your desires. Actually I am planing to bring back the videos of Basil Davidson and the article of Cheikh Anta Diop in the "External links". I want also to know what other contributors think about restoring the section on the Sphinx. This is a very important peace of art which stands at the beginning of the Egyptian History (Old Kingdom) and which has been discussed a lot by great writers in reference to the racial caracteristics of the Egyptians. It cannot just be reduced to a very little comment as it is now. It can be treated in a section a part from the section "Art and architecture". We will see if this time Urthogie is willing to collaborate to the improvement of the article. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, add back the external links.. just get Taharqa to stop being so hot headed.--Urthogie 19:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no compromising with vandalism, he/she must be blocked since he/she will not stray from his/her disruptive behavior. I put too much work into editing this yesterday in typos and going back looking for lost sources to let some one blank it out with a single stroke declaring some childish "edit war" (which only makes him/her look worse). We have to not let this go on anymore, period.Taharqa 19:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning, Urthogie you are being too disruptive
Again, we will not tolerate you blanking everyone's material out first and then asking for us to come to a pain staking compromise, we should of came to one before you blanked out our stuff. Again, stop your vandalism!Taharqa 18:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're doing vandalism. Are4 you capable of seeing someone else's perspective, or no?  You are also breaking our rule about discussing content in between changes.--Urthogie 18:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I really believe that before removing other's contributions one has to discuss the matter on this page. It is usually Urthogie who does not respect this rule. It is frustrating for many contributors who feel belittled without reason. I invite Urthogie to a change of mentality. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 18:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (diff) (hist) . . Ancient Egypt and race‎; 18:29 . . (-1,436) . . Taharqa (Talk | contribs)
 * Taharqa is removing 1,436 bytes from the article. How is it that I am removing from the article when I am adding 1,436 bytes to it?  How am I the vandal when I ask to discuss and I'm accused of vandalism?  It's taharqa who needs a change of mentality, to stop thinking that removing to the page means "contributing"--Urthogie 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^Because you started removed and replacing stuff yesterday.. I'm simply restoring it to how it was yesterday since you blank over an unclaimable amount of stuff, some that is still lost. Unacceptable, stop your vandalism please! You have a history of thisTaharqa 18:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What did I remove yesterday, exactly? That you want added back?  I have asked you before and you couldn't answer, so I think you're making this up.  Name one thing removed from the article, that you want added back...?  can you?--Urthogie 18:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^Many many things that we've already warned you to stop removing, the Land of Punt entry, the frank Yurco entry, Joel Irish study, switching around and rewording of statements, unattributed sources which blanked over past material which was cited. initially my cited paragraph over viewing studies from Cavalli-Sforza, and countless others things from yesterday leading back weeks. Now you're even blanking over my edits to restore yesterday's and past work entirely. This has gone on long enough.Taharqa 19:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * switching around and rewording statements is not "removing" or "blanking" or "vandalizing". it's editing.

Now let's talk about these:


 * 1) The land of punt
 * 2) frank yurco
 * 3) Joel irish


 * Please, add all three back! I will not revert you if this is what you do and you stop removing my contribution.  However, I do ask that you discuss them once you bring them back, specifically the first two.--Urthogie 19:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The land of punt was removed from the article today, not yesterday. Here is the text if you want to add it back, but I insist you discuss it with me:

The Egyptians considered The Land of Punt as being their ancestral homeland. Punt, was an ancient land south of Egypt accessible by way of the Red Sea. Its exact location has not been identified, but Historians generally agree on eastern Africa, possibly near what is now the coast of Sudan or Eritrea (as is suggested by archaeological evidence). Some argue Punt was as far away as Puntland, Somalia. . Temple reliefs at Deir el Bahari in W Thebes depict an Egyptian expedition to Punt in the reign of Hatshepsut. The Egyptians depicted Puntites to be very similar in appearance to themselves.

There, happy yet? I've just spoonfed you a passage you wanted that was not removed yesterday but today. Please discuss it though.--Urthogie 19:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's too late, you've been altering and blanking material gradually over the past several weeks and and have lost information that I can't even remember now.. Some sources I can't even find again, I had to do so much work retracing reliable sources since it wasn't logged. Yesterday was just an utter and random destruction of the article and that can't be tolerated, you're committing the most extreme acts of vandalism and I think everyone in here agrees that you've been very uncompromising and controlling thus far and that you're the source of most f the vandalism and blanking of material here, you've been warned and pleaded with sooooo many times. It's getting ridiculous and cannot be tolerated. Every time you revert the page you're erasing other material and typo corrections I added yesterday, I am still warning you even now to stop blanking stuff out from yesterday, stop reverting.Taharqa 19:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Taharqa, please try to compromise with Urthogie. But Urthogie, I know you well! You removed my contributions from the "External links" to prevent people having access to the videos of Basil Davidson on ancient Egypt and to an article of Cheikh Anta Diop on the same subject. Let me not speak about the section "Sphinx" restaured by Muntuwandi, if I remember well, you removed. You said that there was a consensus. There was not. You made an interpretation in a sense of a consensus to satisfy your desires. Actually I am planing to bring back the videos of Basil Davidson and the article of Cheikh Anta Diop in the "External links". I want also to know what other contributors think about restoring the section on the Sphinx. This is a very important piece of art which stands at the beginning of the Egyptian History (Old Kingdom) and which has been discussed a lot by great writers in reference to the racial caracteristics of the Egyptians. It cannot just be reduced to a very little comment as it is now. It can be treated in a section a part from the section "Art and architecture". We will see if this time Urthogie is willing to collaborate to the improvement of the article. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to compromise, Luka. Taharqa says "it's too late", accusing me of vandalism without actually citing anything concrete.  When he or she does cite something concrete, I compromise.--Urthogie 19:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^Everything in the article the way it is now is cited concretely, you're delusional, you have no sources at all, you're the one blanking out material adding some blank sections about aliens and Afrocentrism and rearanging words and deleting phrases and sources.

Again, I appreciate your investments Nkuka but There is no compromising with vandalism, he/she must be blocked since he/she will not stray from his/her disruptive behavior. I put too much work into editing this yesterday in typos and going back looking for lost sources to let some one blank it out with a single stroke declaring some childish "edit war" (which only makes him/her look worse). We have to not let this go on anymore, period.Taharqa 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Despite my disagreements with you, have I ever said you shouldn't be allowed to edit? Taharqa-- you are being an asshole.  Look at yourself.  "It's too late."  "Urthogie is a vandal".  No I'm not, I'm a human being asking you to compromise, and addressing your concerns.  No matter how much I have compromised with you I'm still worthless as an editor because you disagree with me on this minor issue, huh?


 * Look-- I am not against your typo fixing!! I'm against your 1400 byte removals!!  Is this too complex to understand?  Just calm down... drink a glass of juice... and we can come to a compromise if you stop thinking of me as a barbarian.--Urthogie 19:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^I'm against what you removed yesterday and everything for the past several weeks, so start over, that isn't my problem Urthogie. You don't remove things and add a whole bunch of blank sections and call that "material".. None of your sources were removed, we can discuss additional sections hereTaharqa 19:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Taharqa, I beg you to compromise this time again. And we will see what happens next. It is never too late! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 19:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^I need a suggestion on how to do that because if Urthogie reverts completely, then all of the other contributions and sourced material will be gone. We'd have to build up from scratch again debating what should and shouldn't be in the article when it's full of sourced material right now from yesterday and days before Urthogie starting blanking stuff out. It'll be hard to find those sources and when Urthogie doesn't agree with something he/she doesn't simply edit or even address it first, he/she reverts the entire page making us start from scratch and lose cited data instead of addressing issues one by one or putting a banner over a section. I don't know how to compromise with that, we've all been compromising, do you have any suggestions? Honestly..Taharqa 20:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Did Urthogie understand this last post of Taharqa? I think it contains the spirit for a compromise: "addressing issues one by one or putting a banner over a section". If Urthogie agrees with this, we can go on to improve the article. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked for this compromise like 2 sections back, so we'll just have to see.. I still insist that this constant disruption warrants a blockage of Urthogie for a while. If not, I guess that we have to put up with further stagnation of the article, unless somehow he/she can miraculously change his/her vandal ways by the time he/she gets back, if he/she gets back.Taharqa 20:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Vandal ways"? You're the one removing content.--Urthogie 21:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sphinx
Could Muntuwandi or Taharqa restore the Sphinx section? For historical reasons, the Sphinx deserves an entire section. I think Urthogie will this time understand the need for this important section which was removed days ago. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would if I could but I don't know how to, search for it through your past contributions and copy/paste it back. I had to keep searching through my contributions and save them to protect them from vandalism with out explanation. This is why it's such a big problem now, too much information is being lost on the count of people blanking stuff out.Taharqa 20:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was mainly a contribution by Muntuwandi. I was just trying to rescue it without success. It was gone! Is this time the best for its return? Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 20:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would restore it, because I like compromise, but I just figured out I'm a "vandal" incapable of compromise. I "need to be blocked", right?--Urthogie 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll find and restore it, don't worry..Taharqa 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you restore it along with removing my contributions, then nothing will be accomplished.--Urthogie 21:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

^I guess so..Taharqa 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

trying for a compromise
Taharqa, any section you want added can be added back. I can even add it for you. However, first you must stop being a baby. It is babyish and immature to talk about "its too late" to compromise because you feel slighted. I am tired of hearing your incessant whining about "vandalism." Do you even know what vandalism is? It means replacing the page with curse words and such. This is an insult to the work I've done for this page, to say I am defacing it, when I'm actually adding sources to it, and working to compromise.

Also, stop threatening to get me blocked. First off, that threat is empty because you have violated the 3RR rule just as much as me (as well as made personal attacks, which I haven't done), so there's no point in both of us getting blocked because we can work this out if you'll stop being so immature about it. Secondly, it makes it impossible to work with you when you rely on rudeness and nothing gets done.

So, like I said, name any section and I'll add it back myself. But remember the golden rule-- treat others as you would like to be treated. Do not remove things that I have added, if you don't want your content removed.

The Sphynx, Yurco, all of them will be brought back if you will stop removing my content. Agreed? --Urthogie 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll compromise as soon as you stop breaking the 3 revert rule.Taharqa 21:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're breaking it too. I don't care, but at least admit this isn't one sided.  You call me delusional but you are the only person I know who thinks a two-way feud is one way.  If you want your contributions kept, don't remove mine.--Urthogie

However you want to call it, There's witnesses here that will testify to the fact that you do this all of the time by blanking out cited sources, I'm only restoring it and trying to start from scratch and you keep reverting the original material. We can't let that slide, I'm willing to start from scratch and address everything one by one, but you only want to control and vandalize the article, so be it.Taharqa 21:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't revert. Simply add what you need one by one with out changing or removing anything.. Why can't you do that?Taharqa 21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Simply add what you need one by one with out changing or removing anything" That's what I've been asking you to do all day.--Urthogie 22:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's compare who's been removing.

You: Me:
 * (diff) (hist) . . Ancient Egypt and race‎; 21:57 . . (-1,440) . . Taharqa (Talk | contribs)
 * (diff) (hist) . . Ancient Egypt and race‎; 22:14 . . (+1,440) . . Urthogie (Talk | contribs) (rvpt)

Hmm.. seems like I'm adding...and you're removing! "Simply add what you need one by one with out changing or removing anything"--Urthogie 22:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what happens when people can't be reasonable, people end up being blocked.. Serves you right especially Urthogie for reverting the original content in the article and playing victim when you initiated it by removing other people's stuff in the first place. Now no more of this stuff next time, the three revert rule and editing policy is in constant effect now! Sundiata Keita 23:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)