Talk:Racial identity of Tutankhamun

Exception taken with article's approach
Hello, I take exception with the approach taken in this article. There is a scholarly disagreement on many points, so please do not delete my work before the community has had time to discuss the disagreement.


 * People that subscribe to the Ancient Model of Ancient Egyptian history rely heavily on White (mostly Greek) sources and resent being framed as "Afrocentrists." Martin Bernal inspired scholars in this camp to listen to the voice of the Ancient historians and he is not black, or an Afrocentrist.  He studies Chinese history.  Cheikh Anta Diop repeatedly apologized for having to return to the subject of race in the UNESCO conference.  He felt that he was dragged into the debate by the poor scholarship of his predecessors.  Both sources that are cited in the first paragraph fail to mention the word Afrocentrist.  Therefore, how is the editor drawing the conclusion that the debate is between Egyptologists and Afrocentrists alone?  I am proposing to mention Ancient Model alongside Afrocentrists wherever it appears, as Afrocentrists is often a mischaracterization.


 * The word "sub-saharan" is anachronistic in the context of an article on Ancient Egypt, as there was no such geopolitical construct as "Sub-saharan" Africa during Ancient Egypt.  The Nile valley region was a unique cultural group and it is impossible to compare it to modern day entities such as sub-saharan Africa.  Similarly, there was no such thing as North Africa during Ancient Egypt.


 * The statement that black paint was used to depict the skin pigmentation of Africans that were not from Lower Egypt is not cited and inaccurate. At the Oriental Institute (University of Chicago), the exhibit clearly states that Nubians are depicted with "dark red to brown to black skin" in the caption.  It also states that "Skin tones for some of the women are lighter."  This is in the images of Nubians section of the Nubia gallery, University of Chicago Oriental Institute.  These are NOT my words.  The statement by the Univ. of Chicago scholars is backed by evidence from the paintings at the Tomb of the Egyptian Huy and Ramses II's temple at Beit el-Wali.  It is inappropriate to remove a cited, yet differing statement, while leaving an uncited statement about the type of paint used to depict Africans that were not from lower Egypt.  A legitimate difference of viewpoint has arisen, so both statements should remain, or both should go.


 * This article is about the racial identity of King Tut. Therefore, it is fair game to post pictures of his grandparents, in an attempt to ascertain his racial identity.


 * Diop, Emily Teeter, and others flatly reject Dr. Hawass' claim that the Ancient Egyptians are not Africans. Their research provides considerable evidence to support the belief that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was indigenous to Africa.   The discoveries at the royal graves in Qustul, near Abu Simbel, provided the earliest images of Nile vally kings with their Dynastic regalia.   These tombs are at the border of modern day Sudan and in an area that is full of finds from the Nubian Kerma culture, such as Nubian ceramics.  Most other theories describing settlers creating the civilization can best be described as outdated.

Rod (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You've yet to demonstrate that "the Ancient Hypothesis" is a well published term that should be preferred over "Afrocentrism." You also haven't cited actual peer-reviewed secondary sources that comment on the skin tone of Nubians in art, or on the skin tone of Tutankhamun's grandparents. It's most certainly not fair game to link to primary source material and make your own inferences. It's original research. Thanatosimii (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Doing some digging on JSTOR, I see no evidence that the term "Ancient Model" has use outside of the works of Bernal, who appears to be using it to refer to a tradition among some Greeks that civilization came to them via Egypt. That is quite different from the use you're supporting. Thanatosimii (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The first chapter of Martin Bernal's well reviewed work is titled, "the Ancient Model." It is the crux of his work, which aligns well with that of Diop.  They both rely primarily on Ancient Greek historians to espouse their viewpoints on the Egyptian civilization.  I am saying that the Ancient Model group is a group interested in this topic, just as Egyptologists proper, and Afrocentrists are interested in this topic.  The motivations are vastly different, as a Bernal has no vested interest in promoting an Afrocentric agenda.  I reviewed the citations following the first mention of Afrocentrists and I can't find the word "Afrocentrist" in the cited sources.

Rod (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Entire sections of Diop's works deal with skin tone in Egyptian art. His work is peer reviewed and highly critiqued.  He responds to critics in chapters of his books.  I have cited Diop numerous times in this article.  If you would like, I will add more citations from Diop's work where he discusses the skin tone of Nubians and Egyptians in art.  He consistently concludes that individuals shown as dark red, brown, and black all belong to the same Nile Valley group and that dark red and black skin will both fit under the black umbrella.


 * This article's lead sentence pitches the debate about King Tut's racial identity as one between Egyptologists and "Afrocentrists." It cites two websites (sources).  Neither of the two websites contain the words, "Afrocentric", "Afrocentrists", or "Afrocentrist."  If editors can take liberty to throw around the word "Afrocentrists" without any citation, is it not equally fair that "Ancient Model" should be used?   Bernal's work was one of the most controversial works of all time.  It led critics to create books in reply, such as Black Athena revisited.  Since the number of Afrocentrists and Ancient model adherents cannot be easily quantified, I think that they are both viable naming conventions for the groups of people that differ in their viewpoint from scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries.


 * The second website, Science museum images, makes a very convincing case that Tut was black and black skinned. From the home page, click "Face of Tutankhamun", and then "next" to the second picture.  Diop and I rest our case.  Neither of us want to be viewed as Afrocentrists.  We review the data and make a conclusion.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  Rod (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just read the page on primary sources. Thanks for the suggestion.  I will review my work and remove primary sources, where I fill that they don't comply with the wiki rules.Rod (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I had to edit the paragraph on Hawass because the material cited and his position don't interact with each other. Your citations argue that Egyptian civilization is indigenous, as opposed to, say, what a proponent of the Dynastic Race theory would say. Hawass isn't arguing that. He's arguing that ancient Egyptians can't be though of as being African in the term's racial connotations. So far as Bernal's work, it may be well received (in some circles, certainly not in Egyptology) but the term "Ancient Hypothesis" seems firstly to be idiomatic to his own work without any broad school of thought growing up around it, and secondly, seems to refer to the hypothesis that Greece got its culture from Egypt, not that Egyptians were black. That's problematic for the way you want to use it. So far as the lead paragraph goes, leads should never be cited. They should summarize things that are cited in the body of the text. As far as Diop's work on art goes, you may by all means cite his specific arguments as they pertain to this page. Putting up pictures and asking the reader to draw his own conclusion won't fly though. Thanatosimii (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that there is a compromise to be had here. I don't want to see "Afrocentrists" in every other paragraph, as Diop does not identify as an Afrocentrist.  Let's just say other, or scholars where "Afrocentrists" is stated.  Diop apologized for having to talk about race at all in the "Reply to a critic" of "The African Origin of Civilization." (page 236)  He felt forced into the discussion on race.  His was a discussion of history, using the work of historians.  Rod (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem arises that mainstream scholarship doesn't really concern itself with trying to determine which modern social construct the Egyptians would have belonged it. The body of scholars that do, and who place it within a "black" or "African" construct thus naturally open themselves to being treated as a singular group defined by their conflict with Egyptology. That group needs a name, and for the most part "Afrocentrist" seems to fit the bill. It may be worth noting in the Afrocentrism article and the Race of the Ancient Egyptians article that there are dissenters who dislike that term, but it would be awkward to do so in an article that is more about Tutankhamun's physiology than the variations within the school of thought typically called Afrocentrism. Thanatosimii (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I read from Hawass' statement that he denied both that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was ethnically (black) and geographically from Africa. If the Ancient Egyptian civilization, which was in Africa in prehistoric, protodynastic, and dynastic periods, was not from Africa, where was it from?  Atlantis?  Also, there are plenty of scholars that disagree with him on the ethnic point.


 * The lead was already cited when I found this article and the citations don't support the allegation that there is a debate raging between Egyptologists and Afrocentrists. It also conveniently ignores all peoples that have expressed a great interest in this topic, but don't fit under the umbrella of Afrocentrism.  Again, I'm proposing that we say "Egyptologists and others" and move on with our lives.


 * Chancellor Williams made a point that Queen Tiye was Black in his book, "The Destruction of Black Civilization." I think that there is agreement that she was Tut's grandmother and that she was the mother of both of his parents.  If Chancellor believes that Queen Tiye was black and she gave birth to both Tut's parents, then Tut would be at a minimum 50% Black.  Any non-black elements would need to come from Tut's grandfather.  I am now citing a secondary source, Williams, and the pictures support Williams point.  They're relevant in an article on racial identity.  If we wanted to identify the race of a living person, we would definitely be interested in the phenotype of their parents.  I'm not drawing a conclusion, Williams drew it.  I just referenced his analysis and cited it.Rod (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The term "others" serves the purpose just as well as "Afrocentrists." Many believe that the use of "Afrocentrists" is an attempt to paint others with alternative views into a box and discredit their findings.  I will agree to the use of "Afrocentrists" if you agree to replace "Egyptologists" with "Eurocentrists."  That will level the playing field.Rod (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it hard to take Hawass's statement that way, given, as you say, if Egypt is not from geographic Africa, where does that put Egypt? It's hard to become the chief of an country's antiquities if one doesn't know basic geography. The statement has to be taken as going beyond geographic Africa. Williams' argument that Tiye was Black would not be accepted by Egyptological peer review. We don't think modern social constructs are meaningful in doing Egyptology to begin with, and Tiye's parent's lineage is unclear. If her father was anything other than a typical Egyptian, it's generally believed he would have been an Asiatic because of the spelling of his name. It's an unsettled matter. Williams' argument may be noted, but he can't be used authoritatively. "Others" would probably be considered a weasel word here. If they're important enough to mention, they're important enough to name. This puts us in the position of needing a name for a school of thought, and Afrocentrist is the name generally used for the school of though that tries to incorporate ancient Egypt into modern Africa-oriented social constructs. Eurocentrist would be the term used for a school of though that tries to integrate Egypt into a Euro-oriented social construct. Egyptology dismisses both approaches. Thanatosimii (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My commentary no longer references Dr. Hawass' statement, so no further discussion is needed. There are a lot of ways to get a job (knowing the right people, right place right time, loyalty/service to the person filling the position), even the job of Chief of Antiquities.  Doesn't necessarily mean that he is supremely qualified.  I'm not saying that he isn't, I'm just saying that it's not a given, as in the case of "Brownie" that headed FEMA in the USA recently


 * I moved the commentary by Williams to the section for proponents of an African identity. It's a given that people supporting the status quo will not agree with Williams.  That does not make his assertions invalid.  Even if you do not agree with his assertions, you have to admit that there are many people that do agree with his assertions.  Since other proponents of the African identity model, do agree with Williams (that the Egyptians, in general, and the New Kingdom, in particular, were black skinned), it should stay.  Williams is just another leg of the argument that leads some to the conclusion that the Ancient Egyptians were very dark skinned.  The same argument is made by Herodotus, Diop, Lucian, Appollodorus, Aeschylus, Professor Obenga, Marcellinus, Volney, Massoulard (in part), and Vercoutter and LeClant (both conceding that from the 18th dynasty onward a negro representation in Egyptian iconography became apparent).  You agree that Tiye's parents were "different" and that the matter is unsettled.  Therefore, Tiye's parents could just as easily be from Nubia, as some unnamed point in Asia Minor.  Even if they were from "Asia Minor", it doesn't necessarily change the ethnic conclusion as there is considerable evidence that occupants of Southern Arabia (Yemen, etc.) were not much different from the Africans a short distance across the Red Sea or Gulf of Eden, as is noted by the Saba, Ethiopia, Axum connection.Rod (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * On the Afrocentric point, we will both agree that Diop and Bernal are the most widely read and most often cited scholars that oppose the traditional paradigm. Neither of them self-identify as Afrocentrists, so why should their adherents allow people to impose the term upon them?  The term is ridiculous in reference to Bernal and doesn't work for Diop either.  Afrocentrism is generally noted to be an American invention.  Diop is from Senegal.  It doesn't fit.  It offends.  If you need a term, use scholars.  Use researchers.  Use opposition.  Use dissenters.   Use contrarians.  Use dissidents.


 * The word "Afrocentrists" should be reserved for people that self-identify, as such. Let Diop frame himself.Rod (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was using technical language. By "Asiatic" I meant roughly Syrio-Palestinian. In Egyptology it translates a word that has no exact geographic equivalent - basically, the strip of land starting at the Sinai and going north until the Egyptians lose interest in the region. Yuya is generally viewed either as a generic Upper Egyptian noble, or a Syrian. I am not exactly up to date on my contrarians - Bernal is certainly the only one Egyptologists really interacted with - so I can't say who's representative of what. But the problem still remains, a school of though that will be referenced frequently requires a name for practical purposes, even if it's an exonym. This is particularly the case on Wikipedia, where undefined groups of people like "some researchers," "certain scholars," etc., are considered words to watch out for. The literature happens to use "Afrocentrism," regardless of whether or not you or I or the thinkers involved agree or not. Thanatosimii (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I understood. Asiatic as in Mittani, as one possible location.  We both agree that it's unsettled and I wouldn't buy into the foreign origin for Tiye's parents.  It's more likely that they were from Upper Egypt.  The same arguments that are used to assert that Yuya was "Asiatic" are used to assert that the 25th dynasty of Egypt was "foreign" (e.g. having several names).Rod (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The new lead/intro is great. Fantastic job!!! Rod (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Discuss changes in Ancient Egypt that could mislead the Greek historians of the 5th century BC

 * An editor has posited that changes in the Ancient Egyptian civilization between the time of King Tut (14th century BC) and the time of Herodotus (5th century BC) may have led the Ancient Greek historians to make errant statements concerning the phenotype of people throughout the Egyptian civilization. I contend that there were no large scale population movements or displacements during the time period in question (especially movements that would have made the society more black) and that the Egyptian population of the 14th century BC and 5th century BC are in general phenotypically and genetically the same.


 * We know that the New Kingdom was a period of Egyptian expansion and conquest. The Egyptian empire was too strong at this point to be overrun by foreigners and have its population displaced. Therefore, we should be able to conclude that no large scale changes happened to the Egyptian population in Egypt during the New Kingdom.  If anything the Egyptian conquerors brought white and Asiatic slaves back to Egypt, which would have whitened the population.


 * Next we have several dynasties led by people that are the descendants of Libyans. Are we to assume that the weak and fragmented Libyan dynasties displaced large numbers of Egyptian inhabitants and significantly altered the racial makeup of the region?


 * Next were the Napatans. They barely ruled for 100 years and are known to have spared the lives of their captives (the captives were forced to work on civil engineering projects).  Should we assume that in less than 100 years that the Napatans significantly altered the genetic make up of the Egyptian civilization?  Even if they did, isn't it well known that they were forced to retire to Napata and Meroe before the time of Herodotus and other Greek historians?Rod (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Finally the Assyrians and Persians ruled right up to the time of Herodotus. The Assyrian and Persian phenotypes are well known and Greek historians NEVER referred to Assyrians and Persians as black (melanchroes).


 * In summary, throughout the period from the time of Tutankhamun to Herodotus, Egypt was mostly ruled by people with a phenotype that would not be considered "black." The only exception is the less than 100 year rule of the Napatans, which was a full 200 years before the time of Herodotus.  Although, many elements filtered into the Nile valley that could have tilted the phenotype of Egyptians AWAY from what the Ancient Greeks might describe as "black", somehow in the 5th century BC the Ancient Greeks (Herodotus) still referred to them as black.  The only other people that they referred to as black were the Ethiopians and we can all rest assured that the description was accurate as it pertains to the Ethiopians.  The conclusion is obvious.  If in 5th century BC Herodotus still found the Egyptians to be black (he used the exact same word for Ethiopians), even after being ruled for a couple of hundred years by the Assyrians and Persians, they must have been Black in the beginning.  Rule by the Assyrians, Persians, Libyans, etc. would not have done anything to make the civilization more black.  The underlying blackness that Herodotus observed must have been there before the Libyans, Assyrians, and Persians, which takes us right back to the New Kingdom.Rod (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a number of issues to be considered here. First, stylistically we should be avoiding point-counterpoint. It's generally better if we try to group arguments by similarities in general thesis, and then cover dissent from that thesis in another paragraph. Second, this argument seems to be a violation of Synth. Unless a source that can be cited criticizes Diop's specific argument by bringing up the separation in time, it's not the job of a Wikipedia article to make that criticism. However, Diop's own claim is something I would want to see clarified. "Black" as we presently define it is regarded by a great many as just a social construct, not something real. There are thus two ways to go about interpreting ancient writers who use the term "black" to refer to skin. The first view is to assume that our racial terminology is objective and that humans have always been classified the same way throughout history, thus any use of a racial term in history can be taken the same way our own society uses terms, without considering differences between social constructs. The nuanced manner acknowledges the subjectivity of race and racial terms, and makes detailed argument from the most detailed descriptive texts available to attempt to deduce what phenotypes are indicated by which terms. I assume Diop would have been aware of this and had done the latter when he wrote, and if so, I'd like to see his argument flushed out a little more. Presently though, the article seems to try to steer the reader towards the former understanding, since it simply states the historians called Egyptians black, without any context to indicate what that means to a classical Greek, and how it lines up against our present constructs of race. Thanatosimii (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I TOTALLY agree with Thanatosimii. It degrades the article to write in point/counterpoint.  Each time that the proponents of an African identity make a point (within a paragraph expressing the African identity POV), it should not be immediately followed by a sentence attempting to undo what was just said.  Please create your own paragraph in another section with any and all arguments that you can think of to promote another POV.


 * Diop believes that "Black" should be defined in its broadest and most racially homogeneous sense. It includes all groups of people that for the greater part of human history have lived within the African continent.  They are generally observed to have brown, dark red, or black skin.  They may have straight (as in Dravidians or Nubians) or more course hair (as in many other groups of Blacks).  It's about being from a geographical region and having some basic features in your phenotype.  Most other methods of classifying people into races aren't very scientific and don't need to be added.


 * As far as the Greeks are concerned, it's really quite simple. The Greeks did not use the term "black" (actually melanchroes in the Greek language) very often to describe the people that they encountered.  I'm only aware of the Greeks using the term to describe the Ethiopians in central and Eastern Africa and separately the Egyptians.  I don't think it takes a lot of analysis for us to all agree that the Ethipians/Nubians/Napatans and other inhabitants of central and Eastern Africa always have and still are Black.  In completely separate and unrelated passages, Herodotus uses the exact same term (melanchroes) to describe the Ancient Egyptians.  He states in no uncertain terms that the Egyptians were Black in the same sense that he saw the Ethiopians, as Black.  Herodotus did not attempt to describe other people living in that general area of the planet (for example Semites in the Near East) as melanchroes.  The term was reserved for Egyptians and Ethiopians.  All of what I have just said can be found in Diop's books.  Let me know if you want citations, as I own all of these books and can easily produce them for you.Rod (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem arises, however, that many believe that no method of classifying people into races is scientific, and that this is the predominant view of modern anthropology and history as it pertains to population. We may all agree that Ethiopians and Nubians would be classified as black within modern social constructs, but we do not all agree that such social constructs would automatically be understood the same way by all people over all time. Is Diop addressing the idea of race as a construct, or is he assuming that Greeks understood "black" to refer to the same set of phenotypes that the term implies within modern social constructs? Thanatosimii (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply, duty/work called. We can all agree that this racial discussion, as it pertains to the Ancient Egyptians, is silly, but since there is an article on the race of Ancient Egyptians, we have to do our best to do this article justice.  Diop assumes that the Ancient Greeks used the word Black/melanchroes to refer to a phenotype that mirrors the modern social constructs on the Black race.  Specifically, he refers to Herodotus' statement that the Ancient Egyptians were "Black skinned with woolly hair."  This is the phenotype most identified with Black people in modern times.Rod (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A badge has been placed on the article indicating that statements may be inaccurate. Which statements are viewed as inaccurate?  Let's all work together to improve the article.Rod (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This Article and the talk page are a total joke and clearly biased to try to present Tutankhamun as being negroid. There isn't even a note about the highly controversial DNAtribes data (contamination, very small data used, secrecy and erratic behavior of the guy who took the DNA). 178.190.4.53 (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it seems that a lot of the material in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article that claims to support the Black-Egyptian hypothesis has simply been copied in here, but leaving behind all the material that argues against that hypothesis. We need to agree on whether to have the material here or there, as I don't see value in duplicating it. Whichever side the material lands on, it needs to be balanced, and will need to include the arguments made against Diop's conclusions as well as the argument over the translation of "melanchroes". Wdford (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The DNAtribes data was peer reviewed and published in a prestigous journal. Just because you did not like the results, does not mean you can make accusations about "erratic behavior, contamination" of which you have no proof of.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afri3290 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And yet you continue to add it without a source. Exactly what prestigious journal was this published in? I've searched and can't find any evidence for any outside publication. This is an interesting comment on it.

The DNA tribes conducted research here: http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf Someone blatantly deleted the cited work that was written before. I just don't understand why so many of you nonAfrican/European people are so invested in racializing African history. It's not YOUR history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afri3290 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Afri3290 that the DNA Tribes info is relevant to this article. It deals with Amarna period mummies and King Tut's father was an Amarna period pharaoh.  That's at least two editors supporting the DNA Tribes text.Rod (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's been discussed at RSN. It isn't even one of the best private companies. We should only use peer reviewed material on genetics issues, and the statement that it was in a prestigious peer reviewed journal is clearly false. 'I like it' doesn't make it a reliable source. Please remember we have criteria for reliable sources, and this doesn't meet them. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Original research: Article should be about Tutankhamun's racial identity, not a coatrack of the article on the population of Ancient Egypt
Sources here should discuss Tutankhamun specifically. Otherwise it's WP:OR, using other sources to make an argument. In addition, the article makes it appear that Egypt isn't in Africa. Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously Egypt is in Africa, but not everyone born in Africa is black. Tut's racial identity has never been identified, and probably it can never be conclusively identified. The current article therefore infers his race from the existing arguments about the race of ancient Egyptians generally. The first section sums up virtually everything that is known about the racial identity of Tut - which is clearly not very much. Thereafter the article deteriorates into speculation, and the Black Hypotheans regurgitated their POV yet again. I am happy for both the "identity arguments" to be deleted, as they do not refer to Tut directly. However if one "argument" stays, then for balance they must both stay. Once again, if we had an article that dealt specifically with the unproven and broadly-rejected Black Hypothesis, we could clear this bunk out of this article and merely insert "see also" links to the other articles. Shall we agree on a name for the Black Hypothesis article, so we can get started on cleaning up this (and other) articles? Wdford (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I trust this resolves the issue? Wdford (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The detail of the two background hypotheses has been relegated to their respective main articles. There has been no comment for 10 days. I am therefore removing the OR tag. Wdford (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with the article is that it contradicts itself.  Those who believe that Tutankhamen was a black African are not making a statement of "race".   You are trying to imply that any statement assigning a specific set of traits to an historical figure is racist which it is not, but because it disagrees with the opinions of others you support, you are trying to suggest it is racist.   It is only racist when one assigns such characteristics, outside of the facts and evidence, especially those to the contrary, to support a belief in "race" from a social perspective.  That is why the controversy started specifically when the curators of artifacts from King Tut's tomb decided to create a reconstruction of his face.  There are more surviving images of King Tut than most historical figures of the time, along with a mummy mask, case and the mummy itself. So why the need to "reconstruct" an image for this person and put it on display prominently with actual historical artifacts as if it has the same level of scientific value as the others?  THAT is the controversy and it did not start with any Africans for calling out the obvious nonsense behind such a move and it is precisely because of the racist history within the field of Egyptology that this nonsense became controversial.  The bust of Tutankhamen is a modern interperetation of what he may have looked like by a modern artist and some folks view it as another attempt by those who have a history of being racist in trying to portray an African historical figure as looking closer to Europeans than Africans.   And being an interperetation there is no reason to present it alongside actual artifacts from his lifetime to suggest that modern artists have a better idea what the King looked like than people actually living during his lifetime.  If any artwork should be used it should be artwork from his time, but again, this is where the controversy comes into play by suggesting modern artists know better than ancient people who saw him in real life (and better than the flesh on the mummy itself). This is precisely the basis of the whole controversy over the physical characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians and all of it started with the white academic and scientific community of the United States and Europe which created the modern concept and science of "race".   Therefore, trying to pretend that Tutankhamen exists in some sort of "limbo" with no phenotype such as skin color and other features that can and should be assessed based on science is simply to try and argue that this is something that is not a valid field of study which is quite absurd and incorrect.  It is basically trying to poison the entire field of research by saying if you don't accept the point of view of historically racist scholars that invented the fields of biology, anthropology and Egyptology, then it shouldn't be discussed at all.   That is simply a bait and switch and is using the article to present a biased POV.  Discussing the phenotype and physical characteristics of ancient populations is called physical anthropology.  It is not called "race".   And to that point, this article needs to present the views of anthropologists on the subject of race and stop creating straw man arguments like "determining the phenotype of ancient people constitutes assigning race" when it does not.


 * And I notice that all of these new articles all take the same biased approach in trying to paint the African scholars calling Africans in Africa black as racists, yet totally downplay and outright ignore hundreds of years of documented historic racism in the same field of study by European scholars.  Stop trying to play games with history by using wikipedia to promote historical propaganda by painting white scholarship as being all innocence and light where anyone who has contrary arguments is somehow going out of there way to present untruths when these fields have a documented history and doctrine of promoting racialist thought against Africans and other people of color around the world.Big-dynamo (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issues
Just a quick looks shows 2. One is images - as most editors here by now, I'm against images in articles about racial disputes. The other is the idea expressed clearly in the article that Egypt is not part of Africa. I'm sure it is, I've been there. What are the two section headings supposed to mean? Taken at face value and trying to make sense of the section headings, maybe it means one argument is that Tut's ancestors were Egyptian and the other is that his ancestors came from somewhere other than Egypt. But I don't think that's what the argument is. Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the argument here is obviously the same as in every other article about ancient Egypt - some editors try to "prove" that the ancient Egyptians were black. "African" is being used here as a synonym for "black". The two arguments presented are that a) the ancient Egyptians were of the same "race" as modern Egyptians, which has considerable support, vs b) that the ancient Egyptians were "black" as per the Diop hypothesis - they make the argument that anybody who lives in Africa must automatically be black. The section heading should properly read "BLACK" instead of African, and I would personally support changing it accordingly. Wdford (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a mischaracterization of the Black theory. The Black theory does NOT state that Berbers/Libyans and other North Africans with a White person's phenotype are black.  However, the dark brown/red/black Ancient Egyptians have a phenotype that places them with the other blacks in Africa (Great east african continuum, saharo-tropical variant, etc.).  The cultural affiliations (totemism, circumcision, divine kingship, etc.) seal the deal for the A.E.Rod (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Who created the article and what is the point?  If there is no justification for this article then why was it created? On what grounds is this new article justified if it is going to cover the same ground as the other article?   Namely, if it is about a controversy over the "race" of Tutankhamen, and Tutankhamen is an ancient Egyptian then there is already an article for this topic.  Stop creating new articles on the same topic if you don't like going over the same issues.
 * And on top of that, the controversy that caused people to come out and protest was that the reconstruction was not in any shape or form a resemblance to the ancient artwork and artifacts, including the mummy mask. And therefore it was seen as an attempt by certain scholars to make Tutankhamen appear more like a European and nothing like the actual artifacts.   It was not a controversy about Tutankhamen himself it was an article about the institution of Egyptology being historically racist, being founded by imperialists with racist agendas and historically dominated by European racist scholarship.   And this reconstruction of Tutankhamen was simply, in the minds of the protestors, a continuation of this history of racism within Egyptology itself.   Note that there have been multiple reconstructions of Tutankhamen done by the SCA BTW and this last one was not the first.  Which begs the question why the need for so many reconstructions and why did they pick this particular one to travel with the exhibit of the ancient artifacts?  Given the subjective nature of such reconstructions, why not show all of them instead of trying to pretend that this one represents anything other than the imagination of an artist in many respects and is NOT what he actually looked like in life.   But of course rather than focus on that as the ACTUAL controversy some folks will pretend that black folks went out an protested for no reason.  If this bust wasn't included then there wouldn't have been any controversy.  Nobody is protesting over King Tut's actual artifacts.Big-dynamo (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with B.D.Rod (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

nominate for deletion
This material is already covered in depth elsewhere. I propose that we delete this article on the grounds of redundancy. Wdford (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Easier to redirect to an appropriate section of an article if there is agreement. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The best place would probably be the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Any objections? Wdford (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it appropriate? the article is meant to be about the history of the controversy. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The specific case of Tut already has a section in that article, and it is certainly controversial. There is little material here that is not present in that section already. We need a decision on the WP:RS of the DNA testing, and then we can redirect this without needing to carry over much at all. Wdford (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's redundant and should be combined with the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy article.Rod (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hawass quote
I've just realised that the way this is used may be original research - how do we know that Hawass was not using the term 'African' to mean black? It's not as though this would be an unusual use of the word 'African'. We are interpreting him as claiming that Egyptians were not indigenous, but he doesn't say that. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If that were the case, it would be a very redundant passage for him. He just said in the sentence before that they were not Black.  Why say it twice in adjacent sentences?Rod (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's my point, we don't know. People use redundancy frequently. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)