Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Keita and Diop, am I in the wrong wiki?

I could have sworn I was in something academic regarding Egypt, yet these guys are noted raving afrocentrists that are the laughing stock of the athropology and egyptology mainstream. Perhaps someone confused this wiki for afrocentrism?[[User:KillerPlasmodium |KillerPlasmodium]] 13:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Shomarka Keita is not an Afrocentrist. If we use the definition by Dr. Molefi Kete Asante, who coined the term, an Afrocentrist is someone who views history in general from an African perspective (i.e. "How do I as a person of African descent fit into this equation") in defiance of the Eurocentric Western establishment. Keita neither self-identifies as an Afrocentrist nor views the world from such a perspective.

He is a Biological Anthropologist with a Phd from Oxford University in that field. His professor was Dr. Larry Angel, one of the most reputed anthropologists in history. His speciality is the biological relationships of ancient North Africans. He comes to the subject of the bio-affinities of the Ancient Egyptians as an authority and any serious debater would recognize him as such if they hope to refute his claims rather than hurl Ad-Hominem attacks.

This is what a webpage on Egyptology has to say about his place in this discussion.

Quote: The contributions by Keita are outstanding exceptions to the general lack of both demographic study and objectivity (Keita 1990; Keita 1992). DNA research is expected to transform this debate, though self-critical consciousness is not always displayed by proponents.

Source: The Question of Race in ancient Egypt

Louisvillian 03:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sign your comments next time [[User:KillerPlasmodium |KillerPlasmodium]].. I regret to say (in your case) that Louisvillian is absolutely correct, and while Prof. Diop may have been what some can consider "afrocentric", he is notable and so is the criticism of his work, yet what made him "Afrocentric" per se was the fact that his work was in large part in response to Eurocentric dogma and revisionist history that sought to eliminate so-called "blacks" out of world history. He wrote during an era of intense racism and pseudo-science, so yes, he definitely had an agenda as he was in the middle of a war and had something to prove. To suggest that he was a 'laughing stock' however, is nothing more than hyperbole and can be seen as a distraction that springs from misguided discourse.

And LMAO @ Keita being an Afrocentrist, this was already addressed here and I feel anybody who'd make such a claim is entirely mis-informed and really have no reason discussing this topic, and I put extra emphasis on that. In addition to Louisvillian's very valuable points that cannot in any way be overlooked, I'd like to quote the man (Keita) himself:

An understanding of this concept shows us clearly that 'there is no evidence that the region was empty and primarily colonised by non-African outsiders, who had differentiated outside and then returned to Africa' (emphasis in original). Keita's summary position is that 'It is not a question of "African" "influence"; ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not "Afrocentric," but simply correct' (emphasis added) Source.Taharqa 20:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Afro-Asiatic

The reason why I say introducing the language phylum of the ancient egyptians by stating, "The Ancient Egyptian language is part of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes semitic languages such as Arabic and Hebrew, is redundant is because Afro-Asiatic includes many more languages than that, and it doesn't destroy the context at all to not include them and just provide the link, it's just a bad starter.. I see it more appropriate to simply state the obvious, that it's part of the Afro-asiatic family, then get into details about why semitic may or may not originate in Africa. It makes it seem as if semitic is the only language group closely associated with Ancient Egyptian, which isn't true anyways, even tho proto-semitic probably did emerge in Africa..Taharqa 07:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Somalis and East Africa

Geographic East Africans themselves are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations.

^^^It has been brought to my attention that the editor who goes by the name of Evil Greek has contributed the particular entry above into the intro. The problem with this is that studies cited in this article have not compared ancient Egyptian crania and skeletal remains to "East Africa" as some type of single, biological unit. The main African sources of comparison were Nubians and Somalis.. To support this assertion, the user cited this study here, from the European Journal of Human Genetics.. However, the study in question undermines this claim as is noted in the abstract its self:

The data suggest that the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population – closely related to the Oromos in Ethiopia and North Kenya – with predominant E3b1 cluster italic gamma lineages that were introduced into the Somali population 4000–5000 years ago, and that the Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa.

^So obviously these East Africans are not anywhere near "more related to Eurasians than to other Africans", it specifically states that they are most closely related to Omoros in Ethiopia and populations in Northern Kenya.

However, the paper did make a broad generalization, claiming that East Africans as a whole were more closely related to Eurasians then to other Africans. Yet, the data its self doesn't seem to reflect such a position.

I will cite a collaborative 2004 study on Ethiopian MtDNA performed by several scientists to examine the validity of the claim in question...

Approximately 10 miles separate the Horn of Africa from the Arabian Peninsula at Bab-el-Mandeb (the Gate of Tears). Both historic and archaeological evidence indicate tight cultural connections, over millennia, between these two regions. High-resolution phylogenetic analysis of 270 Ethiopian and 115 Yemeni mitochondrial DNAs was performed in a worldwide context, to explore gene flow across the Red and Arabian Seas. Nine distinct subclades, including three newly defined ones, were found to characterize entirely the variation of Ethiopian and Yemeni L3 lineages. Both Ethiopians and Yemenis contain an almost-equal proportion of Eurasian-specific M and N and African-specific lineages and therefore cluster together in a multidimensional scaling plot between Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African populations. Phylogeographic identification of potential founder haplotypes revealed that approximately one-half of haplogroup L0–L5 lineages in Yemenis have close or matching counterparts in southeastern Africans, compared with a minor share in Ethiopians. Newly defined clade L6, the most frequent haplogroup in Yemenis, showed no close matches among 3,000 African samples. These results highlight the complexity of Ethiopian and Yemeni genetic heritage and are consistent with the introduction of maternal lineages into the South Arabian gene pool from different source populations of East Africa. A high proportion of Ethiopian lineages, significantly more abundant in the northeast of that country, trace their western Eurasian origin in haplogroup N through assorted gene flow at different times and involving different source populations. - Source

^The study its self indicates that Ethiopians sampled, share 52.2% maternal lineages in common with "Sub-Saharan" Africa, with Yemenis sharing 45% of the same lineages.. In other words, "half and half", as they've obviously exchanged gene flow over the past few millennia.. To suggest that half and half = "closer to Eurasian populations" is an obvious exaggeration..

^But besides the point, this study is on Ethiopians and Ethiopians were not cited anywhere on this page if I recall, so it isn't notable since Somalis were specified as the "East Africans" of interest.Taharqa 04:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

most importantly the study just focusses on y-chromosomal or mtDNA lineages. These do not correspond with autosomal admixture. The study says 77% of somalis in the sample were of e3b1, but this is an east-African haplogroup. So the assertion that somalis are more closely related to eurasians than to other Africans is not supported by the data in the rest of the study.Muntuwandi 13:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point! So again, the broad claim made within the article by this Evil Greek character must be reverted as it is obviously original research and I have no idea why it was even added. He also keeps coming back trying to revert and I had to restore the previous page..Taharqa 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Evil greek has not attempted to discuss his findings. I believe it is unfair to edit war without defending ones edits on the discussion page.Muntuwandi 03:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

^Yea, well this is exactly why the page is protected now until people learn how to discuss their edits reasonably with out edit warring.. I've already messaged him and with out being rude, suggested this same thing and all I got was attitude.Taharqa 04:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Direct quotes from the Link

....."Cruciani et al10 suggested that the E3b1 cluster lineages originated in East Africa and estimated that the TMRCA was approximately 9600 years. We estimated that the E3b1 cluster DYS392-12 lineages of the present Somali population sample originated 4000–5000 years ago, and that the expansion of the E3b1 cluster DYS392-12 lineages in these Somalis involved a relatively small number of Y chromosomes (around 1000 males)."

"The distribution of the haplogroups J2*(xJ2f2) (0.5%) and J*(xJ2) (2.5%) in Somalis support the recent gene flow hypothesis. Haplogroup J*(xJ2) was probably spread by the Arab people.40 The ratio between the haplogroups J2/J*(xJ2) may be an indicator of the genetic components from populations like (1) Balkans, Turks, Georgians and Muslim Kurds and (2) Bedouin and Palestinian Arabs, respectively.40, 52 The ratio was 0.26 in the Oman population.9 The J2/J*(xJ2) ratio of 0.2 in the present Somali sample suggest a predominant gene flow of Arab Y chromosomes.

In conclusion, the data suggest that the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population – closely related to the Oromos in Ethiopia and North Kenya (Boranas) – with predominant E3b1 cluster DYS392-12 lineages that probably were introduced into the Somali population 4000–5000 years ago, approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa. Work is in progress in order to study closely related populations with new informative markers to obtain a better understanding of the E3b1 lineages settlement process in East Africa."

"East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African population.1, 2, 3 Investigations of Y chromosome markers have shown that the East African populations were not significantly affected by the east bound Bantu expansion that took place approximately 3500 years ago, while a significant contact to Arab and Middle East populations can be deduced from the present distribution of the Y chromosomes in these areas.

So tell me what are we arguing about now? LOL Evil Greek

just to let you guys know this is Evil Greek. I cant seem to be getting My password on my account right. Anyways I will just be under this IP until I can log into my user name. And im not trying to be "disruptive" as you put it. i'm trying to add valueable information to this article. Evil Greek.

Evil Greek, you have merely quoted what we have already quoted and the data does not suggest in any kind of way that East Africans are closer to Eurasians, please, please pay attention and comment on what we have cited above. Which East Africans? Somalis only have 15% paternal lineages from Eurasia and are most closely related to Omoros and Kenyans, this is cited by yourself. The bare boned quote that "East Africans are closer to Eurasians than other Africans", is contradicted by every other study(even this one), one is cited above, on Ethiopian DNA. You can't dig up some obscure source, take one out of context, unsubstantiated claim from it, and use it as an authority over all others, especially when there is no data to substantiate this claim and data available to refute it.. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources.. Please re-read was it posted above, no need to re-quote what we already have done for you. Thank you for coming to the talk page also to address thisTaharqa 07:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The tag

{{editprotected}}

^Can an admin please remove that "stray from the topic" tag at the top f the page? It shouldn't be there and I only added it because the previous version had unverified claims and Original research, that are no longer present or notable. The tag basically is there for no reason at all and you can see in the history that I'm the one who put it there in the first place. I may not be around, so if this request is handled, please disable template (users: whenever you see it), and that goes out to whoever (admin, user, etc)..

We will also continue to discuss how we can later improve the article and prevent future disputes..Taharqa 01:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 13:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

^^Thank you!!Taharqa 14:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The recent edits

I am placing this on the Wider Attention list to solicit more community input. Here are my impressions of this and the "appearance" articles:

There are very clear violations of WP:NPOV (especially, WP:UNDUE), WP:V and WP:NOR in the two articles that deal with this topic. In particular, they give too much undue weight to Afrocentric theories and fringe ideas, particularly those *unanimously* rejected by scholars and scientists in the field. For example, the "kemet means black people" business is presented casually as a claim that enjoys as much scholarly consensus as the fact that it means Black Land. To do that without violating UNDUE, a reference such as a peer-reviewed journal or another mainstream academic source should be cited. None of the references in the article satisfy these criteria with regard to this particular point, they are rather in a league of their own (i.e. Diop et al.)

According to the policy: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.... We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.

The problem is compounded by the fact that the article was recently split and their titles no longer make any reference or allusion to the actual "racial" debate. "Population of ancient Egypt" is stated very matter-of-factly, and if this is the case then it must give more weight to the majority view, which corresponds to present-day Egyptological/scientific consensus (that Egyptians are Egyptians, not black or white; that Kemet means Black Land not the anachronistic "Black People", etc.) and include those views which diverge from the consensus in their own section (or article). See Great Pyramid of Giza for an example of this.

Scholars should ideally meet the criteria set in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Claims given majority weight should not solely be based on fringe researchers whose work no one in the mainstream academic community takes seriously, are never published or cited (except to rebut) in respected academic sources or invited to speak at regular conferences to present their research findings to their peers. This paper is an example of an academic response [1] to a popular Afrocentric idea propagated by Diop about the supposed relationship of the Egyptian language to some West African languages like Wolof.

Finally, I'm a little appalled by the unhinged display of ownership by some of the regular editors of this article, saying in effect that anything which questions the "Africanity" (read: Afrocentric) POV will not be included in the article. Wikipedia is not Afrocentrepedia. It is not a venue to promote a certain POV to the exclusion of all others, nor to give it undue weight in contradiction to the overwhelming consensus on the topic. Wikipedia is not a quote farm either. Quote farms lack substance and are a poor substitute for actual articles. It's OK to have quotes when there is otherwise substantial and substantive content. I was also a bit surprised to recognize my own writing in an article to which I have not contributed. This is of course completely fine by me (it's wiki) but not when it is being misrepresented to give in effect the opposite conclusion of the cited study. This, among many other things, needs to be amended. — Zerida 07:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Km.t

Firstly, in reference to Km.t, your original research claims aren't notable, and both points of view were offered. Just because one makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean it will be burried under the ground and Diop wasn't even cited for that.. Calling anything "afrocentric" with out a source is POV driven and has been discussed here already and we came to a consensus that name-calling, and blanket terms like "Eurocentric and "Afrcentric" has no basis here and stems from those who seem to disagree with whatever for whatever reason but have no means of refutation. All of that as far as the sources are concerned, has been discussed and consensus has been reached.

See here

^None of the sources are "afrocentric" and Diop is notable and was also subjected to criticism, that got the last word. You haven't made note of anything whatsoever that doesn't meet wiki quality standards and have double talked for three paragraphs. Check the ref list, scholars such as Irish, Brace, Keita, Zark, Yurco, Leftkowitz, the Britannica, etc, etc. etc. are all noted!! All mainstream and top notch authorities of the field whom everyone depends on for this type of stuff. We've referenced Underhill, Redford, Shaw, Ehret, and you have done nothing but try to undermine it all by screaming "afrocentrism".. This will not be tolerated and I suggest you go back and see the consensus on it and third, fourth, and fifth opinions.Taharqa 07:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, none of these are recent edits, the page has been stable for ages and unwarranted commotion isn't needed. One more thing.. It would of been much better for you to direct this to the appearance article since this article doesn't deal with POV at all, but scholarly research.. The other article deals with that baggage that you bring to this page... I'm so sick of that Afrocentric word being tossed around like nothing, people have no better means nowadays to discredit what ever they don't except and now we have people making conspiracy theory like accusations and posting irrelevant PDF articles to give an illusion that there is some kind of point. The article was just fine and we have been discussing issues which you refuse to do and instead cast stones and post up some tag.. I don't understand.. I guess I never will..Taharqa 07:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

______ Note: some of this elaborates on arguments already posted. The starting quotes are from the corresponding wiki page.

1. "However, this very avoidance has aroused the suspicion of Afrocentrists who believe that mainstream Egyptologists have attempted to play down the contribution of Black Africa to ancient Egypt." The fallacy here is an attempt to start a poisoned well and have the reader finish it off by automatically discrediting those who question mainstream egyptologist/automatically put them into a Afrocentric category. The term Afrocentrists denotes people who are related to pseudo-science. Those that are suspicious about mainstream Egyptologists such as Diop and his followers are supporters of mutli-disciplinary scientific testing. This is not an Afrocentric view at all, but a Truthcentric one sense the vigorous multi hurdle testing that Diop and others like him are suggesting would yield the truth of Ancient Kemet's "racial" identity no matter what the outcome is. The suspicion comes from the fact that Euro/Arabcentric Egyptologist are basically running from all forms of solid testing that they fear will yield undesirable (black) results for them. I use the term Euro/Arabcentric to reiterate the fact that mainstream egyptologists are the ones who would rather rely on artistic, opinionated renditions of mummies, rather than seek factual data from the mummies themselves. This is pseudo-centric science not those looking to test mainstream claims.

2. "a melanin level which is non-existent in the "white-skinned races".[36] However, Diop does not describe any tests that verify his claims that melanin is "non-existent" among the "white-skinned races", nor provide evidence supporting his assertion that the absence of melanin in the epidermis is due to embalming techniques." Huge fallacy in the comment referring to Diop's work. Diop said that his test detects a LEVEL of melanin not present in white-skinned races, but here we have a straw man fallacy in which the argument is replaced with a suggest that Diop is arguing that melanin is non-existent among white-skinned races. Diop never said melanin is non-existent in whites he said that there is a level of melanin, a degree of being "melanated" which is not a characteristic to whites. To break it down further Diop basically said that he is testing for a level of melanin content that whites just don't have. A more valid argument would be to question what this level between black and white melanin levels is. This in turn changes the path of the debate from a racial one to more of a biological anthropological one by which the use of racial categories is un-scientific.---but thats just me offering a better example of an argument than a straw man. _____ A. Haye

Melanin, afrocentricity, and pseudoscience

"A component of the Afrocentric movement has incorporated a theory that black people, including ancient Egyptians, have superior mental, physical, and paranormal powers because they have more melanin both in their skin and in their brains. By extension it is also claimed that black people have more melatonin and -MSH in their systems and that these compounds also contribute to the superiority of people of color over whites. In this paper, these claims are detailed and refuted. A review of the genetics and biochemistry of human pigmentation shows that all humans have similar amounts of neuromelanin (brain melanin), and that its concentration is absolutely independent of skin color; that adult humans do not synthesize -MSH; and that human melatonin has no clearly demonstrable physiological function and no relationship to skin color. Melanists also distort human evolution by claiming that European whites are descendants of negroid albinos. The main problems posed by this ideological movement are that it will increase the already rampant scientific illiteracy in this country, it will contribute to further widening the gap between the races, and, most importantly, it is being introduced into the public school curriculum under the guise of multicultural education. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc." http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110532267/ABSTRACT

I request that the pseudoscientific claims in the article conflicting with this view will be removed. The afrocentric bias in this article is obvious.

MoritzB 10:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, this wouldn't even be an issue without the ideological drive behind it. Remove as fringecruft, or merge into afrocentrism. We do not discuss random nordicist claims in History of Scandinavia either. "this very avoidance has aroused the suspicion of Afrocentrists who believe that mainstream Egyptologists have attempted to play down" needs to go as well. This is standard crank behaviour, if mainstream rejects your theory, there must be a conspiracy. dab (𒁳) 11:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're playing these games Egyegy, but have fun.. Again.. MoritzB, u were merely confused about some so-called "melanin theory" that wasn't even a part of this article, hopefully you don't dwell on an irrelevant issue...Taharqa 01:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think moving this stuff to the article on afrocentrism is the best solution to the problem. It's an embarassment to Wikipedia that this original research stays like that. Egyegy 23:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dbachman, that claim was attributed to an afrocentric points of view, not anyone else's and how is accusing someone of "playing down" something, "Pseudoscience"? It is a POV, what the heck? Personalization? Afrocentrism isn't a person. Your criticisms of afrocentrism needs to be taken there, that extra weight doesn't belong here. Nordicists haven't been anywhere near as notable concerning ancient egypt, or african history in general, that is a bunk analogy. Also, I don't think the mainstream plays down the theory at all of an African origin, they merely play down the importance of their ethnicity while emphasizing the "blackness" of the Nubians. Very straight foward to me, it is a double standard. "Race" and ethnicity isn't important concerning Egypt, but it is concerning Nubia who was right next door..

"The afrocentric bias in this article is obvious."

MoritzB, that is ironic of you to say seeing as how you immediately went to the appearance article flaunting what you claimed to be "Caucasian" reconstructions of Ramses, LOL, in your words. Even though no one in here has been adhering to racial terms such as "negro", since forever. But this isn't Eurocentric discourse right? Then what is? Laughable. Ramses is the only mummy that I see Eurocentrics use as their so-called evidence, why? Are you not driven to prove some type of point, with out searching alternate views, like a so-called "negro" mummy? Like say, Seqenenre Tao? You're requesting removal of unnamed and cited material, yet you suggested an inclusion of a "caucasian ramses" in the other?!! What is going on, I do not understand this irrationality. I can never take claims of afrocentrism serious when the Eurocentrism is so overt..Taharqa 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And what in the world does that nonsense abstract have to do with anything? OMG, help me..Taharqa 16:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Diop should be mentioned in this article only as an Afrocentrist pseudoscientist, if at all. The melanin theory has been completely debunked.

MoritzB 16:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What Melanin theory? You're entirely confused and I will excuse you for that. I agree, that the Melanin theory is pseudo-science and scientific racism used as a counter-intuitive method to enhance the esteem of "blacks" in direct opposition to white supremacy. It is malarkey, I totally agree. But I will point this out to you..

1. Calling Diop a "pseudoscientist" is groundless since not much of his work has been debunked and for you to impose that label on him with out sufficient scholarly reference and proof, is original research and won't even be acknowledged.

2. The test addressed in the article has nothing whatsoever to do with "super melanin properties" inherent in blacks. It was a simple study on mummy tissue where Diop used a method of extracting melanin from the derm to assess the amount of pigmentation present, in an effort to examine the biological affinities of the ancients. Has nothing to do with the crazy claims of the melanin theory, we're talking about actual melanin in mummies. However, criticism is noted because embalming methods damage tissue rendering it almost useless. Diop argued that the derm still showed a level that wasn't consistent among light pigmented people, but this is based on racial taxonomy and the assumption that only the so-called "negros" posses such melanin levels and that there can be no in betweens or exceptions. Plus, his methods are deemed outdated. This test was mentioned for notability in order to update readers on past study and why or why not mainstream science considers them valid. In this case, Electro-microscopy is the method used today and considered the most accurate.

I don't see your point because it ended on the note that I explained, that his results were inconclusive, and criticized, but there's no reason to hide the existence of the said study because the point is to inform and it is notable. But your confusion stemmed from something else, so I see what you're talking about, this is a big misunderstanding.. That's why it is always good to communicate.Taharqa 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

^Moving what stuff? The fact that you're not making sense is what's really embarrassing, this was most likely posted out of spite, so no one will pay it any mind. You've already been following me around making similar comments with every post. Nothing is being moved to any Eurocentric or Afrocentric articles, your Eurocentric POV has no basis which is why you haven't addressed anything in specific or responded to the challenge below..Taharqa 00:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

---

 All you need to get melanin in your skin is a tan.  Therefor the test is only a gauge of 

whether or not your a coppertone tan fan. Basically the test proves absolutlly nothing.

---

 Don't they have enough dna in those jars to do a test or has everybody been trying to put 

their own dna in that stuff and made any dna in there useless.

---

 BY the way you ever see those black hindus.  they don't look black like subsaharin africans 

no way. they are much, much, much darker. They have been working on that tan for quite a few generations. man the are blacker than black. check em out it's wild man.

Eurocentrism, red herrings, cultural bias, and double talk

I see some real nonsensical baggage being brought to this article and a lot of generalizing with out anything to back up charges. It is sickening how easily one can merely make a claim with out defending it and demand change with out being specific. With out citing mainstream references and so on. It seems like a polarization issue to me, that people accustomed to the polar opposite of Eurocentrism aren't accustomed to neutrality and empirical research so anything that deviates from that initial paradigm is deemed "Afrocentric instead of Euro. My suggestion is that if we're to open some type of dialogue that at least out of courtesy, one should be able to point out examples and bring fourth sources that exemplifies the point. In this case I see such claims again, as borderline conspiracy theory based on absolutely nothing but a few disagreeable editors who didn't even have the etiquette to respond directly and in the appropriate thread, but took the liberty to make another simply to rant on about some imaginary conspiracy that they can't even defend or elaborate on. I suggest again that you go here and see how such notions were brutally rejected in the past.

I'll also make the same challenge and assuming that the challenge isn't taken and passed, then this is yet another display of polarizing issues by way of red herring arguments from a Eurocentric standpoint, as mainstream academia is the basis for this page and these comments in essence are absolutely baseless, which as of now, isn't supported by the undressed statements made above..

Here is the ref list from which every single relevant entry is cited. Go through the list, associate which reference applies to which statement/s, then explain how they disagree with "mainstream view" and are not mainstream themselves, in addition to telling us what qualifies them as afrocentric?

Diop aside, his criticism was noted and being such a front runner in the movement and such a controversial Egyptologist, he is notable even if it is just to note his research and criticism. I don't want anyone using him as a red herring and trying to focus on him as if it applies to the entire article though, which undermines everything else. No one is here to debate over him, even though frankly in my opinion, besides the cultural unity theory and the strictly racially-based approach (which was prevalent from the 50's to the 70s with classifications like "negroid and caucasoid" and wasn't unique to him in any way), not much of his work has been discredited, but again, he is not the issue and emphasis on him is a red herring and will not be continuously entertained..

Now elaborate on these sources and answer the challenge please............

Ref list:

  1. ^ The Civilization Of Ancient Egypt
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ a b Ann Roth: Building Bridges to Afrocentrism
  4. ^ Keita, op. cit.
  5. ^ Redford, Egypt, Israel, p. 17.
  6. ^ (Keita 1995)
  7. ^ [2]
  8. ^ [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_199706/ai_n8769532 (Bosch et. al, 1997)
  9. ^ Egypt in Africa, 1996, pp. 25-27
 10. ^ July, Robert, Pre-Colonial Africa, 1975, Charles Scribners and Sons, New York, p. 60-61
 11. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica, macropedia, 1984 ed, "Nilotic Sudan, History Of", p. 108
 12. ^ http://www.wellesley.edu/CS/Mary/contents.html
 13. ^
 14. ^ http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/badari.pdf
 15. ^ Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., P. Menozzi, and A. Piazza. 1994, The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton:Princeton University Press.
 16. ^ [Hammer, M. et al. 1997.]
 17. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14748828
 18. ^ American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [3]
 19. ^ http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/haplotypes_in_egypt.pdf
 20. ^ [http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita6.pdf
 21. ^ http://mbe.library.arizona.edu/data/1994/1105/4hamm.pdf
 22. ^ http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/Northeast_african_analysis.pdf
 23. ^ http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/who_were_egyptian.pdf
 24. ^ Bosch et. al, 1997
 25. ^ Newman 1995
 26. ^ Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review" in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, eds. Black Athena Revisited. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. p. 62-100
 27. ^ [Zakrzewski, et al. 2007.]
 28. ^ [Irish, et al. 2006.]
 29. ^ http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita6.pdf
 30. ^ Brace et al., 'Clines and clusters versus "race"' (1993)
 31. ^ S.O.Y. Keita and Rick A. Kittles,' The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence', American Anthropologist (1997)
 32. ^
 33. ^ http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/brace_2006.pdf
 34. ^ http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/egyptian_body_proportions.pdf
 35. ^
 36. ^ http://www.africawithin.com/diop/origin_egyptians.htm
 37. ^ http://www.webzinemaker.com/admi/m7/page.php3?num_web=27310&rubr=3&id=290477
 38. ^ The Afroasiatic Language Phylum: African in Origin, or Asian?
 39. ^ Raymond Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford: Griffith Institute, 2002, p. 286.
 40. ^ Aboubacry Moussa Lam, De l'origine égyptienne des Peuls, Paris: Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1993, p. 181.
 41. ^ Greenberg, Joseph H. (1963) The Languages of Africa. International journal of American linguistics, 29, 1, part 2
 42. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropedia, 1984 ed, Vol 13, "Nilotic Sudan, History Of", p. 108
 43. ^ Yurco, op. cit.
 44. ^ M.Diakonoff, Journal of Semitic Studies, 43,209 (1998)
 45. ^ Redford, Donald B., Egypt, Israel, and Canaan in Ancient Times (Princeton: University Press, 1992), p. 13.
 46. ^ Gardiner, Alan. Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford: University Press, 1961), p. 392.
 47. ^ Shaw, Ian. and Nicholson, Paul, The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt (London: British Museum Press, 1995), p. 228.

^Thank you..Taharqa 15:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger

I think before we proceed into the discussion the two articles need to be merged. The same editors ar e discussing the same points on two different pages. I suggest we revert to Ancient Egypt and race or Ancient Egypt and race (controversies). Muntuwandi 15:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Pages are protected so we might as well discuss, at least for now. IMO, the discussions brought to this page didn't belong here and was better suited there. I agree though with the merger.Taharqa 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, I agree with your merge proposal to Ancient Egypt and race (controversies) (or "historical debate" or some similar title). This would at least address some of the violations of WP:UNDUE in the article. — Zerida 04:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for the structure of this article

Racial History of Egypt - Eugen Strouhal Taken from "Rassengeschichte der Menschheit - Afrika I: Nord- und Mittelafrika" (1975). Just some comments out of the book made by Strouhal who claims possible relative cultural and anthropological continuity in Egypt rather than foreign immigration:

III. The Oldest Agricultural Populations 1. Neolithicum: Findings from Badari brought 59 skulls, 83 skulls from Mostagedda und partly from Badari. The skulls are small, relatively gracile, predominantely dolichocran, medium- to high faces but relatively broadnosed. They differ from later series by having a high nasal index and in the non-metrical features (BERRY, BERRY, UCKO 1967). Its about prognathy, flat noses and other features in various individuals which could be interpreted as Negrid influences. Body height ranged from 150-180 cm, body build was gracile with weak muscles. Hair was black or dark brown, wavy or simple, but there were 12,2 percent frizzy hair (BRUNTON and CATON-THOMPSON 1928). The Sudan was at the same time inhabited by predominantely Negrid fisher, gatherer and hunter cultures (CHAMLA 1968). It can be assumed that the agriculture and animal husbandry was brought by a new population from the Middle East to Egypt (HAYES 1964). This new growing Neolithic population mostly absorbed the small mesolithic settlers. The immigration could date from the 7. to the 6. thousand B.C., in the beginning of the wet makalic (makalisch) phase. At this time was the Sahara habitable again and Europid population movements from the North met Negrids from the South (TRIGGER 1965). It came to a Negrid infiltration of the Upper Egypt population, but its possible that the specific environmental conditions added to the morphological differentiaton of Upper- and Lower Egypt.

2. Predynastic Time: In conclusion we can say that the development of the Mediterranid type was related to the transition from the hunger-gatherer subsistence to agriculture and animal husbandry in Egypt. Its possible to see a local cultural and biological continuity from the original Badari population with stronger Negrid affinities from which the Egyptians evolved away. The length and breadth of the skull as well as the facial breadth increased, whereas the height of the skull decreased. The profile angle increased and the nose became longer and somewhat broader. The LBI increased and the LHI and BHI, the maxillary index, upper facial index and NI decreased. There were brachycran (always at the border to mesocrany) skulls especially in Lower Egypt and it can be discussed whether they were rather "Alpine" or Armenoid. Ferembach claimed that Alpines came up in the Middle East out of Protomediterranean or Mediterranean types (FEREMBACH 1966). They appear there for the first time in the Neolithicum and Chalkolithicum and more numerous in the Bronze Age, whereas "Armenoids" appear first in the Chalkolithicum sporadically (SAUTER 1945). The hypothesis could be made that the Egyptian brachycrany developed directly at the border of the Mediterranid range of variation. IV. The Populations of the Historical Time Egypts The type of the population of Lower Egypt is taller, more robust and appears therefore more virile than the shorter, more gracile and therefore more feminine appearing population of Upper Egypt.

3. The Question of Negrid Admixture Egypt was neither very far away from Negrid areas nor isolated. Egyptians often expanded towards the South for various reasons (business, ressources, slave trade, political expansion etc.) On the other hand attracted the rich country inhabitants of the South in the rich land of the Lower Nile. Its not surprising that even in the primitive times (Badari-Culture) Negrids appear in Egypt (STROUHAL 1971), which numbers decreased later but rose again in the time of the New Empire (JUNKER 1927) and because of the Arabian slave trade. Negrid immigration determined the anthropological history of Nubia. In Egypt itself was the proportion of Negrids much lower, in contrast to the claims of DIOP (1962, 1967) about a predominantely Negrid character of the Old Egyptian civilisation. After the anthropological record we can estimate it about 1 to 5 percent, together with a proportion of mixed individuals. Some comments about Nubia:

4. The Kerma-Culture: Negroid and non-Negroid elements were that mixed that they couldnt be separated with the exception of two markedly Negro-skulls.

5. Pan Graves: In the 2nd intervening period appear in Lower Nubia and Upper Egypt flat, pan-alike graves with squatting positions. Its assumed that this are burials of Nubian mercenaries. They have even stronger Negroid admixture than the Group C of Lower Nubia. Their character together with the wide distribution in the South, to the 17th degree of latitude speak for a black African origin. EHGARTNER and JUNGWIRTH (1966) pointed to an old Protomediterranid or Eurafrican substratum. This could be rests of the mesolithic groups which are known from the environment of Wadi Halfa (STROUHAL and JUNGWIRTH 1971). Strouhal speaks in his overview about the "Negroidisierung" ("Negrisation") of the Nubian population with the exception of the New Empire which was a period of Europoid expansion. The differences between Lower and Upper Egyptians show the tendency to decrease, which might be primarily the result of mixture (S. 50).

MoritzB 04:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Nordic Theory and Ancient Egypt

The theory that Ancient Egyptians were of Nordic racial character has been seriously considered. (Unlike Afrocentrism which has always been a fringe theory)

Thus, I propose that some of the following citations by prominent European anthropologists will be added to the article.

In 1902, E. A. Wallis Budge, the renowned Egyptologist, described the pre-dynastic Egyptians thus:

"The predynastic Egyptians, that is to say, that stratum of them which was indigenous to North Africa, belonged to a white or light-skinned race with fair hair, who in many particulars resembled the Libyans, who in later historical times lived very near the western bank of the Nile." [E. A. W. Budge, Egypt in the Neolithic and Archaic Periods (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trübner, 1902), p. 49.]

Later, in the same book, Budge referred to a pre-dynastic statuette that: "has eyes inlaid with lapis-lazuli, by which we are probably intended to understand that the woman here represented had blue eyes." [Ibid., p. 51.]

In 1925, the Oxford don L. H. Dudley Buxton, wrote the following concerning ancient Egyptian crania:

"Among the ancient crania from the Thebaid in the collection in the Department of Human Anatomy in Oxford, there are specimens which must unhesitatingly be considered to be those of Nordic type. If this is so, it would seem that they probably entered Egypt with the other alien elements which began to filter in from Asia in early dynastic times. How far the Nordics ever formed any appreciable element in the population is doubtful, but these specimens prove their existence." [L. H. D. Buxton, The Peoples of Asia (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trübner, 1925), p. 50.]

Harry R. Hall, the Keeper of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum in the 1920s, had this to say about the invaders who formed the early dynastic Egyptian type:

"The oldest representations of ruling Egyptians, who may be presumed to belong to this race, shew remarkably a definitely central or even north European type, and it is very probable that this invading people belonged to an early folk-wandering from the 'Nordic' regions that made its way south through Syria, after possibly a period of settlement there." [H. R. Hall, A General Introductory Guide to the Egyptian Collections in the British Museum (London: Harrison & Sons, 1930), p. 24.]

Later in the same work, he refers to the "northern invaders," who formed an "aristocracy of northern (and possibly Nordic) origin," over the native Egyptians. [Ibid., p. 25.]

The American physical anthropologist J. Lawrence Angel, studied a series of Egyptian crania dating from the predynastic period, down to the time of the Ptolemies. He concluded that during the invasion of Egypt by the Hyksos (15th Dynasty), Lower Egypt was settled by large numbers of individuals who were "Nordic-Iranian" in type. [J. L. Angel, "Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean Populations during Pre-dynastic and Dynastic Times." Journal of Human Evolution I (1972) pp. 307-313.]

The Scottish physical anthropologist Robert Gayre has written, that in his considered opinion:

"Ancient Egypt, for instance, was essentially a penetration of Caucasoid racial elements into Africa . . . This civilisation grew out of the settlement of Mediterraneans, Armenoids, even Nordics, and Atlantics in North Africa . . ." [R. Gayre of Gayre, Miscellaneous Racial Studies, 1943-1972 (Edinburgh: Armorial, 1972), p. 85.]

When English archaeologist Howard Carter excavated the tomb of Tutankhamen in 1922, he discovered in the Treasury a small wooden sarcophagus. Within it lay a memento of Tutankhamen's beloved grandmother, Queen Tiye: "a curl of her auburn hair." [C. Desroches-Noblecourt, Tutankhamen: Life and Death of a Pharaoh (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972), p. 65.]

Queen Tiye (18th Dynasty), was the daughter of Thuya, a Priestess of the God Amun. Thuya's mummy, which was found in 1905, has long, red-blonde hair. Examinations of Tiye's mummy proved that she bore a striking resemblance to her mother. [B. Adams, Egyptian Mummies (Aylesbury: Shire Publications, 1988), p. 39.]

The French Egyptologist Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt, has this to say about the famous Egyptian beauty, Queen Nefertiti: ". . . her beauty was of the noble Theban type seen in the necropolis paintings . . ." She goes on to state that ". . . the coloured bust now in Berlin shows the rosy tint of her complexion, which suggests that she was careful to avoid sunlight or, alternatively, that she was of northern stock." [Desroches-Noblecourt, op. cit., p. 90.]

A painting of the mother of Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (18th Dynasty), reveals that she had blonde hair, blue eyes and a rosy complexion. [W. Sieglin, Die blonden Haare der indogermanischen Völker des Altertums (Munich: J. F. Lehmanns Verlag, 1935), p. 132.]

Princess Ranofri, a daughter of Pharaoh Tuthmosis III (18th Dynasty), is depicted as a blonde in a wall painting that was recorded in the 19th century, by the Italian Egyptologist Ippolito Rosellini. [Ibid., p. 132.]

In 1929 archaeologists discovered the mummy of fifty year-old Queen Meryet-Amun (another daughter of Tuthmosis III); the mummy has wavy, light-brown hair. [R. B. Partridge, Faces of Pharaohs (London: Rubicon Press, 1994), p. 91.]

American Egyptologist Donald P. Ryan excavated tomb KV 60, in the Valley of the Kings, during the course of 1989. Inside, he found the mummy of a royal female, which he believes to be the long-lost remains of the great Queen Hatshepsut (18th Dynasty). Ryan describes the mummy as follows:

"The mummy was mostly unwrapped and on its back. Strands of reddish-blond hair lay on the floor beneath the bald head." [Ibid., p. 87.]

Manetho, a Graeco-Egyptian priest who flourished in the 3rd century BC, wrote in his Egyptian History, that the last ruler of the 6th Dynasty was a woman by the name of Queen Nitocris. He has this to say about her:

"There was a queen Nitocris, braver than all the men of her time, the most beautiful of all the women, blonde-haired with rosy cheeks. By her, it is said, the third pyramid was reared, with the aspect of a mountain." [W. G. Waddell, Manetho (London: William Heinemann, 1980), p. 57.]

According to the Graeco-Roman authors Pliny the Elder, Strabo and Diodorus Siculus, the Third Pyramid was built by a woman named Rhodopis. When translated from the original Greek, her name means "rosy-cheeked". [G. A. Wainwright, The Sky-Religion in Egypt (Cambridge: University Press, 1938), p. 42.]

We may also note that a tomb painting recorded by the German Egyptologist C. R. Lepsius in the 1840s, depicts a blonde woman by the name of Hetepheres (circa 5th Dynasty). The German scholar Alexander Scharff, observed that she was described as being a Priestess of the Goddess Neith, a deity who was sacred to the blond-haired Libyans of the Delta region. He goes on to state that her name is precisely the same as that of Queen Hetepheres II, who is also shown as fair-haired, in a painting on the wall of Queen Meresankh III's tomb. He deduced from all of this, that the two women may well have been related, and he suggested that Egypt during the Age of the Pyramids, was dominated by an elite of blonde women. [A. Scharff, "Ein Beitrag zur Chronologie der 4. ägyptischen Dynastie." Orientalistische Literaturzeitung XXXI (1928) pp. 73-81.]

The twentieth prayer of the 141st chapter of the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, is dedicated "to the Goddess greatly beloved, with red hair." [E. A. W. Budge, The Book of the Dead (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trübner, 1901), p. 430.] In the tomb of Pharaoh Merenptah (19th Dynasty), there are depictions of red-haired goddesses. [N. Reeves & R. H. Wilkinson, The Complete Valley of the Kings (London: Thames & Hudson, 1997), p. 149.]

In the Book of the Dead, the eyes of the god Horus are described as "shining," or "brilliant," whilst another passage refers more explicitly to "Horus of the blue eyes". [Budge, op. cit., pp. 421 & 602.] The rubric to the 140th chapter of said book, states that the amulet known as the "Eye of Horus," (used to ward-off the "Evil Eye"), must always be made from lapis-lazuli, a mineral which is blue in colour. [Ibid., p. 427.] It should be noted that the Goddess Wadjet, who symbolised the Divine Eye of Horus, was represented by a snake (a hooded cobra to be precise), and her name, when translated from the original Egyptian, means "blue-green". [A. F. Alford, The Phoenix Solution (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1998), pp. 266-268.] Interestingly, the ancient Scandanavians claimed that anyone who was blue-eyed (and therefore possessed the power of the Evil Eye), had "a snake in the eye," and blue eyes were frequently compared to the eyes of a serpent. [F. B. Gummere, Germanic Origins (London: David Nutt, 1892), pp. 58, 62.]

In the ancient Pyramid Texts, the Gods are said to have blue and green eyes. [Alford, op. cit., p. 232.] The Graeco-Roman author Diodorus Siculus (I, 12), says that the Egyptians thought the goddess Neith had blue eyes. [C. H. Oldfather, Diodorus of Sicily (London: William Heinemann, 1968), p. 45.]

A text from the mammisi of Isis at Denderah, declares that the goddess was given birth to in the form of a "ruddy woman". [J. G. Griffiths, De Iside et Osiride (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1970), p. 451.] Finally, the Greek author Plutarch, in the 22nd chapter of his De Iside et Osiride, states that the Egyptians thought Horus to be fair-skinned, and the god Seth to be of a ruddy complexion. [Ibid., p. 151.]

MoritzB 13:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry, but this is nonsense. There isn't even such a thing as a valid concept of "Nordic race", so that the question whether the Egyptians were derived from it is perfecly moot. This is perfect fringecruft no better than the Afrocentrist nonsense. Your references at best serve to illustrate that the matter was indeed under debate in the early 1900s, backing up the allegations of Eurocentrism in Egyptology at the time. If you want to present this as actually valid research, present post-WWII sources at least. dab (𒁳) 13:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we can agree that Ancient Roman, Greek and Egyptian literature are valid sources. So are tomb paintings. Is there evidence that there were no people with Northern European appearance in Ancient Egypt?

The blond Queen Hetepheres II: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/fourthqueens5.jpg

MoritzB 20:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

nope. We can agree that academic sources discussing ancient sources or tomb paintings are valid. Simply patching together some frescos and some Greek quotations would be WP:SYN. dab (𒁳) 21:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you question the authenticity of the tomb painting of Queen Hetepheres II? Of course I know the necessity of academic sources.

MoritzB 06:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

^MoritzB, Egyptians wore wigs, which shows how much you know.. And geocities isn't a reliable source as people can twist interpretation to their own liking. You're welcome to check out the geocities page I provided which uses a lot of the same sources.. Plus, I've already provided mainstream sources that you have no rebuttal for and you merely keep throwing up different links that don't say anything.Taharqa 20:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

@Dbachmann

^Don't know who or what you're referring to, but I reiterate that geocities is not a reliable source, and neither are 50 year old debunked Hypothesis' about some Nordic race in Africa over 6,000 years ago.. Let alone the consensus being that race is a social construct and has no scientific validity.

American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"

I'd also appreciate it if you didn't give your comments priority over mine by pushing mine to the side. That is rude in my opinion..Taharqa 21:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to the so-called "Nordic theory"

First of all, it isn't even a theory, it is a totally rejected model of reality..

Moritb, I'd have to agree with you.. This Nordic theory is the most fringe, and absurd of them all and accepted by no one in academia whatsoever.. Crania, skeletal, and cultural factors wash all of that nonsense away. The academic approach indicates an African origin (getting rid of the burden of "race") and not a Northern European one. White pigmentation probably wasn't even around during the time of Egypt's early development in the Nile.. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/316/5823/364a.. And Moritzb, your solutions haven't seemed to be any better since you strike me as someone with "racialist views. "Caucasian ramses", Egyptians were a part of the "Black or White" race, you have offered nothing better and see to undermines scientific research which avoids any mention of racial stigma and lets the data speak for its self. Screaming "afrocentrism" no one is being bothered with that here, or Eurocentrism(like the Eurocentrism above). Data is indicative of the fact that ancient Egyptians were Africans, closely related to other southernly Africans in the Nile valley, like Ethiopians and Bubians.. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise..

For instance. Respected anthropologist C-Loring Brace writes in his most recent 2006 study, while comparing egyptian 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, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from sub-Saharan Africa. The other obvious matter shown in Fig. 3 is the separate identity of the northern Europeans Source

There is no break that separated Egyptians from Niger-Congo speakers and they were most closely related to Nubians, Somalis, and according to him, some Arabic-seeking Fellahin cranio-facially, (probably a bit of northern influence on them, or southern influence on the Fellahin, which to me is more plausible).... Anyways, he points out that Northern Europeans, or so-called Nordics are separate and share no affinities.

Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski, after studying skeletal remains from 2003, concluded and confirmed the results of earlier studies, writing:

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. Source

^The Egyptians were adapted to a tropical environment somewhere south of Egypt, with adaptations typical to that of Somali, Nilotic Nubians, etc, etc.. They used to call this a "negroid body plan", but due to scientific accuracy and political correctness, we refer to it as "tropical adaptation. Egypt is not in the tropics.

S.O.Y. Keita, a highly respected Howard University professor and anthropologist who is often cited by his peers and virtually never criticized by them, studied Badari remains in Southern and Middle Egypt concluding:

The Mahalanobis distances between all of the series were unlikely to be due to chance at the 5% level, with nearly all having even lower probability values (usually p < .001). An examination of the distance hierarchies reveals the Badarian series to be more similar to the Teita in both analyses and always more similar to all of the African series than to the Norse and Berg groups (see Tables 3A & 3B and Figure 2). Essentially equal similarity is found with the Zalavar and Dogon series in the 11-variable analysis and with these and the Bushman in the one using 15 variables. The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4). The clustering with the Bushman can be understood as an artifact of grouping algorithms; it is well known that a series may group into a cluster that does not contain the series to which it is most similar (has the lowest distance value). An additional 20 dendrograms were generated using the minimum evolution algorithm provided by MEGA (not shown). In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series. In additional analyses, the Bushman series was left out; the results were the same...

Source = Early Nile Valley Farmers, From El-Badari, Aboriginals or “European” Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data (2005)

They clustered with Africans and not Europeans at all, much closer to the tropical African series.. Another study from 1rst dynasty tombs at Abydos found that this southern pattern was predominant.

An Mtdna study performed by several esteemed geneticists, on a modern population of Gurna Egypt, found DNA patterns pointing to an ancestral link with Ethiopians and East Africans, that agrees with the anthropological studies.. Study is from 2004..

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.

Source

So it would be better if we left all POV and old "pseudoscience" out of this discussion and focus on key aspects of empirical research, as I've been doing all along. Let the data speak for its self.

Here is some suggested reading from the highly respected and renowned Egyptologist Frank Yurco, who says that it is useless to think of an ancient populations in terms of "black and white".. He goes on to say in the article though, that the Egyptians were closest ethnically to the Nubians.. Though, he concludes that the Egyptians were Africans and that's all that matters, one need not adhere to bunk and subjective racial terminology..

He writes:

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. The Libyans were also closely related to the Egyptians, living in the oases west of Egypt; ethnically the Libyans were Berbers. In the historic periods, both Nubians and Libyans readily moved into Egypt and were integrated into the Egyptian populace.

WERE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS BLACK OR WHITE?Taharqa 17:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood. The Mediterranean Egypt is the standard theory. The Nordic Theory is a historical mainstream opinion and a modern minority opinion. "Black Egypt" is pseudoscientific crap that has no basis in reality at all.

The Afrocentrist lies debunked: http://www.geocities.com/enbp/

MoritzB 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Geocities isn't a reliable source and I have provided reliable sources above, there is no such thing as a "medit race", they were indigenous Africans.. Here is a similar page debunking "Eurocentric lies".. http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/

^^Anyone can do it..

Again, quoting Zakrzewski:

Spatial and temporal relationships were assessed by Mantel and Partial Mantel tests. The results indicate overall population continuity over the Predynastic and early Dynastic, and high levels of genetic heterogeneity, 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. - American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc

^Early dynastic remains, especially from Upper Egypt, in general reflected closest relationships with Nubia.. - Source

Reliable sources are quoted in the article.

MoritzB 20:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

^And the interpretation is twisted and they are being selective, while telling lies at the same time.. Again, the geocities page I provided goes through many different sources and disagrees with everything on that page. Which is why geocities isn't realiable.. I can make a geocities page myself, it is free.. And again, you have no rebuttal to the reliable sources posted above..Taharqa 20:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh man it's seem as though a few stormfronters have rushed this page in attempt of spreading more Nordic non sense, with second rate sources LOL. SOmetimes I just wonder are these guys even serious!74.128.200.135 01:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

SOmetimes I just wonder are these guys even serious!

^LOL.. Just sadly mistaken more than likelyTaharqa 03:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL i see other people have joined the debate...well NO the Egyptians were not Northern European (Nordic). People that claim that are as bad as the Afro Maniacs. Actually only the decendents of the Germanic Tribes (who originated in Scandinavia) are Nordic. Celtic people like the Iberians, Scottish and Irish, ect are not considered Nordic.

Anyways back to Egypt. The Egyptians, were Egyptians. North Africans are something completely different than Black people. Saying the Egyptians are Black because Egypt is in the Continent of Africa is like me saying the Russian people Are Asian because Russia is in the Continent of Asia. Egypt was a multi racial society...this is the reason why you see much "black" art in Egypt...for instance one battle between Egypt and Nubia...The Egyptians took some 70,000 Nubian Prisoners. Nubia eventually took over Egypt when Egypt was on the decline and yes the Nubians were some of the last Pharaohs of Egypt. Egytians considered themselves distintively different from their neighbors. what i mostly see from the hyroglifics is jet black hair and tan skin. with a much more caucasoid facial feature.

Afrocentrism is pseudohistory and is mostly Fairytale...I think its ashame so many black people are ashamed of their own history and try to steel others. Its not just Egypt.....Ive heard Afrocentrics try to claim the Moors, Hannibal....even the Shogun and Samurai of Japan.

I have watched so many documentaries on the discovery channel about Ancient Egypt...not once have they said they were black. I have seen plenty of reconstructions on the Discovery channel of the pharaohs of Egypt...from Ramesses to King Tut. None of them came out looking like a black person.

Also Diop needs to be removed from this article indefinitely. No one takes him seriously. He is not even an Egyptologist. much less a geneticist. Evil Greek

^^Please end your unsubstantial rants and address the topic. What you've seen on TV and artwork seems like a personal problem but has nothing with the peer review process and or the concensous in scholarly opinion, or the raw data in question *which you have not addressed. We're only interested in information.

Anyways, the Egyptians were Africans and your imposed false dichotomy doesn't apply to ancient Africa. But nice try anyways. Produce the citations..

The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food. - Christopher Ehret

Professor of History, African Studies Chair, University of California at Los Angeles

"Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture"(1996) Taharqa 10:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

---

 Then how come their is a larger population of non-black africans that look egyptian 

than black africans. Of course you would say that it was the "sons of god marrying the daughters of men" however that would require that the entirety of the black sub-race to appear egyptian and they don't, no not at all. I will admit their are black Gypsies "lights of ejypt" primarally in the communities directlly bordering the nile. however the nordic conection is also their in thore alluding to oreaz or horus as some inappropriatlly call him and odin with the caininites or cain. And the fact that only 10000 years ago the glaciers started melting as far south as the italian alps. that isn't very far north of the medeterranian sea. however I have hear of similar legends as wotan and such. I belive that is how the wotan clan got their name in some claim that they were the father of odin, or the norse, trying to stir up trouble. Even in the bible their is reference to a son of shebba and solomn settling in etheopia. Some of the isrealits on the exodus had egyptian genetics. Black communities have accepted certian members as being descendents of the exodus for some time now. You guys fight to much over this and you wind up being the next batch sent out on an exodus.

Reply to Evil GreeK

Egypt in Africa, Theodore Clenko, Editor (1996), pp. 104-105

The Diversity of Indigenous Africans Professor S. 0. Y. Keita Department of Biological Anthropology Oxford University

The living peoples of the African continent are diverse in facial characteristics, stature, skin color, hair form, genetics, and other characteristics. No one set of characteristics is more African than another. Variability is also found in "sub-Saharan" Africa, to which the word "Africa" is sometimes erroneously restricted. There is a problem with definitions. Sometimes Africa is defined using cultural factors, like language, that exclude developments that clearly arose in Africa. For example, sometimes even the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea) is excluded because of geography and language and the fact that some of its peoples have narrow noses and faces. However, the Horn is at the same latitude as Nigeria, and its languages are African. The latitude of 15 degree passes through Timbuktu, surely in "sub-Saharan Africa," as well as Khartoum in Sudan; both are north of the Horn. Another false idea is that supra-Saharan and Saharan Africa were peopled after the emergence of "Europeans" or Near Easterners by populations coming from outside Africa. Hence, the ancient Egyptians in some writings have been de-Africanized. These ideas, which limit the definition of Africa and Africans, are rooted in racism and earlier, erroneous "scientific" approaches. Classical European writers ("eyewitnesses") are not very helpful either, since they were not working within modern science. Ancient Greeks made a distinction between Egyptians and "Ethiopians," but such a distinction does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were not Africans. Also, it is not clear whether the distinction was actually sometimes more cultural than biological. Curiously, some Greeks reported that Egypt was an Ethiopian colony.

There is a stereotyped image in the minds of many people about what a "real" African looks like, or what characteristics can be "authentically" African. This stereotype also affects scientists, as noted with candor by Professor Jean Hiernaux (1975:54).

Stereotyped concepts of African human biology seem to persist because of a failure to integrate the facts of paleontology, genetics, and ecology into an interpretive framework based on evolutionary principles. This failure has led some scholars erroneously to explain that diversity in Africa is mainly the result of "true Africans" intermarrying with invaders or colonists from Europe and Asia. Hence, the eye fold, yellow skin, and hair form of most Khoisan speakers were once explained as the result of a very ancient mixing of "Mongoloids" with "true Africans." The narrow noses and faces of many Tutsi were seen as the result of "Caucasian," and ultimately European, admixture. What is wrong with these explanations, given that "intermarriage" does take place, producing people with "variable" features? The answer is straightforward, although multifaceted. First, the explanations are mainly the result, erroneous theories that postulated that humans had evolved into distinct non-overlapping types at some point in the past. This required explaining all variation as a product of the blending of these types. This perspective largely predates modern understanding, yet it persists to some degree! Secondly, there are no adequate data supporting the massive invasions of Africa required by these explanations, especially those that imply that some groups resident in Africa are not African in origin.

The diversity of Africans, which includes ancient Egyptian; and Berber speakers, is real and largely indigenous. An evolutionary perspective helps us understand why. Modem Homo sapiens have lived in Africa longer than anywhere else, according to most scholars. This length of time means that more random genetic mutations, the ultimate source of genetic variation, have accumulated in Africa. Furthermore, Africa is climatically and ecologically diverse. This favors diversification by Darwinian selection. The continent is large, which allows great movements and fissioning of populations. This promotes random genetic variation, since small portions of larger populations rarely accurately represent the range of genetic variation in a larger group, whether it is ancestral or exists at the same time.

Molecular data suggest that the early modern human population began to divide between 150,000 to 115,000 years ago. This fissioning would have taken place in Africa. Modern human fossils dated to about 90,000 years ago are found outside Africa, but the next genetic fissioning is believed to have occurred after this, perhaps about 70,000 years ago (Bowcock et al. 1991). Modern human remains in Asia, including Australia, are dated after this period, and in Europe, to around 35,000 years ago. Why are these data important? Because they indicate that the background genetic variation of Europeans, Oceanians, and Asians originated in Africa and precedes in time the presence of modern humans in these areas. Europeans and Asian-Australians did develop more unique genetic profiles over time, but had a common background before their average "uniqueness" emerged. This background is African in a bio-historical sense. Therefore, it should not be surprising that some Africans share similarities with non-Africans.

The alternative to this explanation would be that a population of genetically uniform individuals left Africa before or between 100,000 and 90,000 years ago, evolved into ancestral Europeans, Oceanians, and Asians, and then returned at some point to Africa. This would then account for certain resident Africans having genetic characteristics only found in Africa, and others being similar to non-Africans. The various kinds of data do not support this scenario. No part of Africa was initially populated from Eurasia-Australia in the time frames given, nor to any great degree in the last 15,000 years, in the sense of different populations replacing each other. This does not mean that the relatively recent historic movements of Europeans and Near Easterners did not probably have some impact on northern African gene pools. However, it may be difficult to determine which genetic variants are not indigenous to northern Africa.

It is important to note that a small amount (one to five percent) of sustained migration, generation after generation, into a population can alter its genetic character in a few thousand years, assuming that the migrants freely intermarry. This is not the same as a new population coming in and displacing, exterminating, or reproducing in greater numbers than the locals. However, both can have the same genetic results. Historical genetic analyses and hypotheses are made more difficult when newcomers may be only slightly different genetically.

"Hamitic hypothesis" is the name given to the migration theory developed by Seligman (Sanders 1969). This theory postulated that "Hamites" migrated to Africa from the Near East bringing new languages, superior genes, and culture and influencing the indigenous people. Hamites were seen as lost Europeans. Hamites allegedly peopled Northern Africa and influenced other regions. Narrow noses and faces, lighter skin, straighter hair, certain lifestyles, and political systems were attributed to Hamites, such that wherever these were found, "Hamitic blood" was alleged to be the source. This is all now known to be untrue. The so-called Hamitic languages are part of a family called Afroasiatic or Afrasian (formerly Hamito-Semitic), which originated in Africa. Only one branch, called Semitic, is spoken outside of Africa.

Admixture with non-Africans probably does not explain the bulk of the variation from Algeria to South Africa, although northern Africa was more affected in this regard. At the DNA level great African continent-wide diversity preceded the minor European and Near Eastern migrations of later Holocene times. There may have been some migration during the Neolithic Period, although Neolithic Northern African sites do not, in the main, look like the work of European or Near Eastern settler colonists. Even "new" "non-African" genes would be subject to the human and physical environment of Africa and hence would be reworked, thereby becoming a part of African biohistory, just as recent tropical African genes have been processed in Greece, Sicily and Portugal. In any case, it is important to reiterate that Africa equals diversity. Evolutionary theory predicts and extrapolations from molecular analyses and skeletal remains all indicate an early and ongoing diversity in the indigenous populations of Africa. The implication of this is that terms like "Negro," "Caucasian," "Hamite," etc., are misleading and non-scientific as applied to Africa.

Also see: The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient EgyptiansTaharqa 10:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The great pointless talk page debate

Please remember that the goal here is not to push the truth but to expose the reader to all academic information out there. A quick comparison to some european history, the evidence of the Holocaust is quite overwhelming but it does not mean wikipedia should ignore the abnormalities that consist of the holocaust-deniers. Present all the information and let it speak for itself. Remember there are many controversial subjects in history, look around to see how others deal with it. My thoughts about this egyptial race revert wars and talk page debates is that they are idiotic in the purist form. If you have no intention of improving this articles the weight of your opinion drops dead right there. Do some true research and write sourced drafts about how you wish this subject should be presented. If its well researched and does not consist of cherry picking of authors who present only one "theory" then the article will contain your information. If others refuse to accept it then measures can be taken agains't them assuming your comply with all policies. Stop wasting time with this debate and try to improve this articles, if your interest does not lie in this then you should go off and visit an ancient-egyptian forum and have your debates there. 74.13.92.176 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

^I agree with you here, this is the voice of reason..Taharqa 21:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. We present what sound sources are saying. If somebody find a sound source not mentioned here which gives another point of view, let him bring it to the article. But to reject what is already in the article because one doesn't like it is nonsense.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 08:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I Concur

this very discussion should have been posted in the article in the form of "various opinions" section or so. --Tsboncompte 20:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC) I am therefore removing the article from "requested to have community-wide attention" list--Tsboncompte 20:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done!

Thank you Taharqa for merging the two articles, Population history of ancient Egypt and Appearence of the ancient Egyptians. I wish that people edit this new article peacefully. This is possible only if we discuss changes in this page before making them in the main text. Hotep!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary of changes

Here is a summary of the changes I just made to the article:

• I took Muntuwandi's suggestion and moved the article to Race and ancient Egypt (controversies) to answer some of the concerns raised before.
• I balanced some of the sections by adding information from mainstream Egyptologists and Classicists, particularly in response to Afrocentric writers.
• Minimized the amount of quotes, though all the studies remain intact under the Research section. Several quotation remain which help give an overview of the research (e.g.; Yurco) and those with an added insight (like Keita).
• Added a small section on the Egyptian reaction to Afrocentrism as I was recently asked about it.
• Diversified the picture gallery a little more since all of the previous images represented Amarna art only, which is a significant diversion from conventional Egyptian art forms.
• The Ancient Writers, the Great Sphinx and the Alleged Eurocentrism in Egyptology sections were the clearest violations of NPOV, OR and UNDUE. I tried to balance them as much as I could without deleting something that took way from the integrity of the text. Some citation tags remain as they need further verification.

I think this about covers it and hope most of the changes work out for everyone. — Zerida 05:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to be honest, a lot of what you just did was completely dishonest or misguided. I will first address the most egregious examples, starting with the Ancient Writers.

• You blanked out and reworded almost the entire Ancient Writers section (which was not in anyway POV) in favor of a seeming rebuttal to a particular idea, which was not emphasized when it came to the another description (though Indians are just as dark as Africans and darker than most Mideasterners in many cases). Then Snowden (a classicist) is used to try and undermine an afrocentric view (when afrocentrism wasn't being discussed), and even his nationality/ethnic background is stated (for what?). All of that strikes me as odd.

Points to go over:

1. 1 You changed what Herodotus said from "Black-skinned" to "Dark-skinned" with wooly hair. Why, when any Latin linguist or classicist will alert you to the fact that Melas literally translates into "black", while Aethiopes merely means burnt faces (those closest to the sun). So it is ironic since conversely the Egyptians are described as "black"(in complexion by Herodotus and the Nubians weren't. Crazy, lol.. Both him and Aristotle describe them as "Black-skinned" and "wooly haired".. Aristotle compares their hair with that of Ethiopians calling it "crookedness of the hair", and describes them both also as bowlegged from the heat.

melan-: From the Greek "melas", black. Terms containing melan- include melanin (dark pigment), melanocytes (cells that make melanin), and melanoma (a tumor arising in melanocytes).

Melas means "black, hence the word melanin in medical literature.[2]

1. 2. You blank out Ammianus Marcellinus and replace it with disinformation. He in fact never ever referred the Egyptians as being lighter than the moors, that is absurd. What he did say was what was posted and cited, that he described them as "black and brown, with a skinny and dessicated look", which is a more vivid and detailed description, this also undermining the assertion that the ancient writers couldn't differentiate between merely dark and what they perceived as "black"..

The Sphinx:

First of all, you removed cited sources and then you actually cite budge to discredit the idea of an African sphinx, out of all people? Wow. The same budge whose views changed drastically, who advocated the distinct Africanity of ancient Egypt, placing their origins in the south? I thought Budge was off limits as I tried to cite him for the section on punt, since he translates "punt" as "land of the ancestors", but met resistance and we agreed that it is best that he be left out. But if we have consensus that he should be listed as an authority, then by all means, we should cite his later views, subsequent to his review of the evidence. Also there was a deliberate effort to try and discredit the character and research of Diop in the melanin test section that wasn't notable. We are only concerned with the criticism received for the Melanin test, not about his language classification, etc, which have nothing at all to do with the melanin test. This is called an ad hominem. Noted criticism for his language classifications says nothing about the validity of his test. Criticism in that aspect is noted by French anthropologist, Dr. Froment...

Quotes:

I think it to be better to merely explain which quotes seem redundant on a case by case basis as doing it in one swoop is problematic. Others may find them helpful, so it is better to consult first before making such overzealous edits and compromising data.

Citing classicists:

If in fact it has nothing to do with Greece or Rome, I have no idea why they are being cited.

Egyptian reaction:

Egyptians are a modern nationality. If we aren't talking scholarly, unbiased/unnationalistic views, then what priority do we give to this nationality and why? We might as well cite opinions from English people and African-Americans as well, their opinions are just as valid from a scholarly standpoint. It makes no sense to throw in random opinions that aren't founded in evidence, and that deals with the issue of "race". When dealing with perceptions of "race" we are discussing a social construct as it concerns layman perception, anthropologists are the authority in question.

Alleged Eurocentrism in Egyptology:

I can see your point here and it will be dealt with accordingly, but whoever wrote it should have a chance to speak also.

Punt:

Original research by showing a random picture of dark-skinned Minoans, when dark-skin would have been the only resemblance and the so-called similarity isn't noted by any researches while the puntite comparison is actually cited. The similarities include dress, style, stature, features, and color among other things. K. A. Kitchen makes note of this.

Art gallery:

^I agreeTaharqa 17:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I can't communicate with you when you are resorting to personal attacks, and if you do it again as is your habit, this discussion will end here, though I will continue to defend my additions to the article.

Second, there is no justification whatsoever for the removal of the reliable, sourced information I added, all of which addresses the points raised in the article. The Egyptian reaction section is taken directly from the Brace et al. craniofacial study, therefore it is very much relevant. I already explained that we needed to remove some of the quotes to avoid a quote farm -- otherwise, the article will have to be tagged as such. There was at least one quote from the "Ancient writers" section that I could not verify; it needs a *secondary source* per WP:V to provide verification. For example, the quotation I added is from Shavit (2001), which is a reliable secondary source.

The "black" vs "dark" point is also explained in the sources I provided as well -- the word is melanchros and "dark" is how it is translated in the secondary works I added, though I think this is a minor point which is already explained by Snowden and Shavit. The tomb wall painting of the Minoans is relevant as long as you think the one of the Puntites is. Again, it all goes to balancing the article. There is no claim that "Egyptians looked like Minoans", so I don't know where you pulled that from -- that's for the reader to decide. In any event, if you want to bring something back to the article, do so without blind-reverting or compromising my additions. Removal of valid, sourced content as you already know constitutes vandalism. — Zerida 18:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Zerida, nobody personally attacked, this is a cop-out to releive you of your responsibility to discuss. Again, I've read Snowden and he doesn't translate Melas to "dark", he merely suggests that the ancient writers could have been speaking in relative terms which is equatable to dark, however, I have provided you the literal greek definition indicating "black", it literally means "black". There is no need to distort the literal translation, this in tandem with wooly haired people in Africa. Why would aristotle be describing both Ethiopians and Egyptians as "too black", if he only meant "slight dark", when the Ethiopians are supposedly "black". You then distort the meaning of Aithiopian which simply means "burnt faced ones", and not "black", as is indicated in the word "melas".. You also overwrite the description of Marcellinus with a falsification about him describing Egyptians as lighter than moors, which he did not. He claimed that they were less sun burnt than Ethiopians, but he also described them as "black and brown with a skinny and dessicated look", why blank that out? For what?

The fact about the Egyptian reaction being cited in Brace' study has nothing at all to do with the study its self and neither does the study have anything to do with that section. You're trying to bridge two things that don't apply and this is but one reaction from a couple of people who are irrelevant to the subject of "race" unless every other opinion is noted from people of different nationalities.

I reiterate, it is original research to post a picture of two out of context Minoans whose ancestry we have no idea about, and which is not noted by any researchers while puntities (as a whole) are. I've seen much lighter depictions of Minoans and the only thing similar is dark skin. That is Original Research and nothing else. Your edits are not justified at all imo..Taharqa 18:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How on Earth is it original research if everything has a reliable source? Don't impede improvement of this page. It needs to be balanced by all sides. Egyegy 19:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Zerida your edits are pretty sneaky and unnecessary! Your blantant attempt to water down ancient Greek testimonies (which state that these people were black) to fit your own agenda is not needed here. Please disscuss your edits with the talk page before you just haul off and do so! Louisvillian 15:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing peacefully

Zerida and Egyegy. I am not against you, because I don't know you. We are editing the same article, let's do it in a constructive manner. I came back to the last version as a starting point. Before making any change, as the subject is explosive, we better discuss the matter. I noticed for example that in the section "Ancient writers", there is a tentative to explain what Herodotus meant. But this not the right place! We do report what people said about the ancient Egyptians, not what they meant. The section "Alleged Eurocentrism in Egyptology" became "Afrocentric writers". Who told you that Basil Davisdon or Maurizio Damiano-Appia are classified as Afrocentrists? Besides, I don't understand why you are refusing on-line videos as sources. This about what Diop and Davidson. I think that if we agree on some rules, we can make this article become very nice. But if we go on waring, the article will suffer and we with it. That's what you want?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 19:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Egyegy, what are your proposals for impoving the article? Let's go section by section.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 20:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lusala, first everyone really should understand that there is *no* justification of any kind for the blind deletions of my additions. It is very discourteous and yet another violation of one of our policies. My additions are sourced, clearly relevant to the topic, and balance out the article (i.e., provide another view). You said there is a tentative to explain what Herodotus meant. But this not the right place! -- I'm afraid, Lusala, it is. This helps contextualize the information presented with insight by Classics scholars. I realize that not all of the changes I made will make everyone happy, but to simply revert all the effort I put into the article is unacceptable. Please feel free to add to the article without compromising my edits. I believe I have extended the same courtesy to you since almost all of the information that was previously included is either still intact or a little summarized. Thanks for elevating the level of discussion, by the way. — Zerida 20:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Luka, of course the justification for reverting is because nothing was added, if you'd look, over 1000 bits of data was lost. A lot of things were omitted and reworded with out valid explanation or concern for other people's contributions. Also there is original research and unattributed claims left in the article. No violations have occurred (especially on Luka's part) other than what is specified above.Taharqa 20:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You are only trying to be provocative here by encouraging people to edit-war. This really needs to stop. You are trying to block out any information that might disagree with your views. Don't forget that we have rules about neutrality. I suggest you read it. Egyegy 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Egyegy. Nobody can impose his views here. Not even Taharqa. Only sources if they fit in the right place. That's why we have to discuss to clarify the ideas. We can start editing with the text as we have it now. Section after section. Please, give your objections beginning with the first one. Go on Egyegy! I invite also Muntuwandi and Louisvillian to take part to the discussion. Because they know well about this article since they have been editing it. Hotep!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 20:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As Luka has pointed out, any rash changes to the article should indeed be discussed unless there is a clear violation, which there is not. It is POV dispute and again, as was suggested, it is a lot easier and more responsible to address concerns on a case by case, or section by section basis until consensus can be established. Introducing some pre-selected "draft", while omitting other's contributions, totally disregarding them, and rewording and insisting on the inclusion of original research is unhealthy to the development of any article and just because one brings a wagon load of sources doesn't mean you should be able to distort, omit and overwrite the ones already here, nor does it mean that you should be able to misapply and misrepresent them. This is why again, to keep things on the safe side it is better that whomever it concerns and whomever wants to help improve the article by way of seemingly overzealous revisions should first gain consensus and discuss with those other editors who may be opposed, in order to start a reasoning process. Any way people decide to do it however, it is completely their own prerogative in life..Taharqa 19:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We can edit a very nice and balanced article if we respect rules and each other.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Lusala, I've responded to you on my talk page again. I've also created Talk:Race and ancient Egypt (controversies)/Draft so people can actually look at the changes I made more thoroughly, as the blind reverts suggest to me they are not being carefully considered. — Zerida 21:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and accusations Egyegy.. Thanx.Taharqa 21:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussing Race and ancient Egypt (controversies)

We can begin discussing the article. Once unlocked, we will incorporate the results. I invite all those who are interested to take part in the discussion!

Defining race

1. Zerida and Egyegy. Do you want to add a section before this one? 2. Do you want to add something to this particular section?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 07:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

^^And also why; what would be the reasoning if so?Taharqa 19:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What would be the purpose??? This has been said like what, a hundred times? The article needs to be balanced, express all views, share knowledge... The Egyptian response section needs to go back in since you have a section by afrocentrist writers, as well as the helpful information from the Egyptologists about the ancient writers. Wikipedia is not censored so you can't just block out information just because you don't like it. Please adhere to wikipedia policies. Egyegy 19:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You're confused, as there were no "Egyptologists" cited in the ancient writers section and the point would be to explain the overzealous edits in question and why certain things were removed and reworded in favor of some contradictory views/distortions, other than what was cited. I have other sources right next to me which confirms what Herodotus says, besides Snowden, and also in an essay published in 1996, Snowden indeed says that they were described as "black", which is why I said he was distorted. His argument was that black didn't mean "negro", in which he was criticized by Keita for applying debunked racial terminology on ancient indigenous africans. "race" is not his specialty, he can only report what was actually said, and in "Egypt in Africa", PP.106 he does say, "both Egyptians and Ethiopians are described as black". But then he goes on about the description of Ethiopian facial features, etc, subscribing to what has been known has the true negro myth, which is why he met criticism by Keita and his views met criticism in the book in question. So no one is censoring anything but the information in question should not be submitted at the expense of other cited information, nor should it be distorted or underrepresented.

Also keeping in mind that more data was lost than contributed in that change, look at the - in bits. To stick with the "wkipedia policy argument" is nothing more than another copout and can easily be disregarded as noncooperation since we have clearly shown that info was removed, distorted and misrepresented with out being discussed on a case by case basis.

The revision quite frankly wasn't good, and if we're pulling for accuracy or "balance" as you phrase it, then that definitely isn't the way to go about it. Also there was no Afrocentric section until Zerida changed the name of it, so an "Egyptian reaction section" is completely irrelevant. Why would the opinion of a few Modern-day Egyptians matter, and why in the world would their opinions matter over an Americans? The bias towards an "Egyptian view", from two Egyptians is is confusing and reeks of original research/pov. The "purpose" once more would be to explain to the editors involved why we should adhere to these drastic, seemingly irrational changes with out discussing and forming a consensus.Taharqa 20:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• What you don't seem to understand is that it is not for you to decide relevance. Of course the response by Egyptian Egyptologists to the afrocentrics is 100% relevant. End of story. Also non-negotiable is the quotes that were vandalized with your edit war. Here they they are:

African American Classicist Frank Snowden cautions us that terms used by ancient Greek and Roman writers to describe the physical characteristics of other ancient peoples were different in meaning from modern-day racial terms in the West. He writes:

....the Afrocentrists are mistaken in assuming that the the terms Afri (Africans) and various color adjectives for dark pigmentation as used by Greeks and Romans are always the classical equivalents of Negores or blacks in modern usage.... Not all the peoples described by such color terms were blacks or Negroes in the modern sense, but only the inhabitants of the Nile Valley south of Egypt and of the southern fringes of northwestern Africa.... That the pigmentation of the Egyptians was seen as lighter than that of Ethiopians is also attested by the adjective subfusucli {"somewhat dark") which Ammianus Marcellinus (22.16.23) chose to describe the Egyptians.... There was also a mixed Egyptian-Nubian element in the population of Egypt at least a early as the middle of the third millennium B.C.E....

According to professor Yaacov Shavit, "most of the European travelers and scholars reject Volney's views, including British Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge who wrote that '...all attempts to prove that the Egyptians are of the Negro race are overthrown at the outset by facts which cannot be controverted... the fact, however, remains that the Egyptian fellah is exactly what he was in the earliest dynasties.'"

This goes to show the constant distortions and afrocentric pov-pushing on this page, since he says that the view by this one 19th century traveler is rejected by most other travelers. We also need to include this quote by Rameses the Great:

"Pharaoh Rameses the Great nodded his head and touched his grandson the wonderful child Se-Osiris with his sceptre, saying, 'Kherheb of today, finish that which the Kherheb of five centuries ago began.' Then to the giant Ethiopian he cried, ' Black dog of the south, if you have magic to match against the magic of Egypt, show it now!'"

All of this debunks afrocentric theories of course, this is why they are relevant. Come up with a better argument than "I don't like it" "it bursts my bubble", all of these are not valid reasons to censor the information. And you think you can let go of your trite overuse of "overzealous"? I guess wikistalking Zerida is another one we can add to your long list of indiscretions.... Egyegy 20:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't go too fast. We have to respect the sections. I can conclude from this first arguments that there is nothing to add to this section Defining race. In reponse to Egyegy, Taharqa said that there is no need to create a section such as Egyptian response, because this is a matter for specialists. Nationality has nothing to do with it. An Egyptian can speak as an egyptologist or antropologist, but not as Egyptian. But I think that there is a need to create a section on Egyptologists' views. Where in time we can put the responses to Herodotus and to Volney, because actualy they cannot fit where Herodotus is peaking of the Egyptians and Volney about the Sphinx. There could have been incorporated there if on one hand the critics speak of the Egyptians, and on the other about the Sphinx. Which is not the case. If one agrees with my analysis, we can say that as soon as the text will be unlocked, we will create a section on the Views by Egyptologists and add nothing to the section Defining race. I am waiting for the reactions before proposing the discussion on the next section.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

More discussions

Lusala, I broke up the section on Ancient writers in the draft into subsections. Please take a look and let me know how this works. I didn't initially touch the "Defining race" section, so I think we can safely move on from that. On the other hand, I do think a section on the reaction by Egyptians to Afrocentric views, Egyptologists or otherwise, is warranted since the whole article is essentially a controversy sparked by modern African groups, including African Americans. One is a statement by Zahi Hawass, which is automatically relevant, and the other is from the Brace et al. study on Egyptian mummies, therefore it is notable to include here as it is all part of the debate.

Note that several sections already contain views by Egyptologists/Classicists, like Roth and Yurco, so it does make sense to incorporate Snowden for example into the section on ancient writers -- a point he addresses directly. Otherwise, I would have simply created a separate section in Afrocentrism for the responses by Egyptologists/Classicists, but this article is not about Afrocentrism per se. It does, however, accord a serious amount of undue weight to such minority views. If anything, it is the minority views and not those of mainstream scholars that need to be separated into their own section/article per policy. However, I think if we stick to two subheadings in each main section that needs balancing, we can address this problem. — Zerida 19:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Zerida, I have the impression from what you wrote that we don't have to review all the sections, but some of them namely Ancient writers, Ancient Egyptian view, The Great Sphinx of Giza, Alleged Eurocentrism in Egyptology. To this sections, you want to add Egyptian responses. As I said already, this is a matter for specialists. Even those African-Americans you are talking about, they can be quoted only if they are specialists, not as African-Americans. We can come back this issue later. Let's start with Ancient writers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk • contribs)

Let's leave the quotes by the scholars aside since we know these are going to be included anyway once the page lock automatically expires. It's the structure of the article that is the issue. I like the idea of sub-sections, it's a good compromise. We're still waiting for a reference for the Rameses the Great quote, so we can put that too. Egyegy 02:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ancient writers

According to you, Zerida, this section has to be broken into subsections. I am inviting the other editors to reat to Zerida's draft, for now, only about this particular section.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Luka, Snowden isn't an Egyptologist and his views aren't widely excepted and are criticized by Keita as typological thinking, as Snowden isn't an anthropologist. I've noted that in the book, "Egypt in Africa", pp106 he does in fact mention that they were described as "black", though he goes on about features described among the Aithiopians that was supposed to approximate to the concept of today's so-called "negro". The problem with that, as Keita pointed out is that he is projecting western ideas onto ancient indigenous african populations and Keita advocates the indigenous nature of Egypt and notes East African affinities, or what he called "Saharo-Tropical" African variation. Also in the very book, Snowden is criticized for seemingly distorting and simplifying.

There is no logical reason in the world why it should be in sub-sections, it focuses on a central issue. Selectivity however, needs to be avoided and imo, the basis were already covered. It mentions that some say that Herodotus could have been speaking relative, but it is also noted that other ancient historians have said the same thing, so in this particular case, it is hard to make that argument.Taharqa 23:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Civilized Men in Egypt", (Coon, 1939, Chapter (Chapter IV, section 4)

Certainly the most satisfactory area in the whole world for the racial study of a people of antiquity is the valley of the Nile. Over four thousand Egyptian skeletons, covering a period of some seven thousand years, have received anthropometric attention. One Egyptian series, consisting of nine hundred males, is the most extensive group of crania of a single sex and from a single place ever assembled. It is possible, therefore, to study variability and change in this isolated valley with delicate precision, for in one district, the region of Upper Egypt about Abydos and Thebes, the cranial material is more abundant than that of any age from any other region of the same size in the world.11

Furthermore, from the beginning of dynastic times until the arrival of Islam, Egyptian painters and sculptors recorded faithfully, often in colors, the physical appearance of their living countrymen, as well as of many different kinds of foreigners. At the same time, the climate of the Nile Valley, and the skill of embalmers, have preserved intact the hair, skin, and dried muscles of both natural and artificial mummies, from the predynastic period onward. With this abundance of evidence, we should be nearly? as familiar with the racial characteristics of tire ancient Egyptians as with those of the people of our own day.

Geographically, Egypt is not unified. In the first place, the Delta, which resembles early Sumeria in its climatic conditions, is a marshy series of water ways, continuous with the coasts of Palestine and Lybia, and easily attainable from both directions, as well as from the sea. It, and to a lesser extent, Lower Egypt, as well, forms an easy route of passage from Asia to North Africa without touching most of Egypt proper. It is possible, therefore, that even in dynastic times movements of racial importance passed from western Asia to North Africa over this coastal route, without affecting the population of Egypt in any notable way. Upper Egypt, on the other hand, is a narrow valley hemmed in by cliffs on either side. Beyond these cliffs lie plateaux, which during the pluvial periods were well?watered and covered with grass and game. There was only one gateway to Egypt from the south?down the Nile?and during the dynastic period the Egyptian kings kept garrisons on their southern boundaries to prevent immigration from this quarter.

The cyclonic rain belt which moved northward from the Saharan and Arabian deserts in the general post?glacial readjustment of climate also took a westward direction.12 For this reason, a climate favorable for hunters and gatherers persisted longer in Egypt than in Mesopotamia. At the same time, this movement may have had much to do with the migration of peoples crossing North Africa from cast to west, keeping ahead of the zone of serious desiccation. Morocco was the last of North Africa to dry, and in parts of that country cedar forests and grassy uplands still remain.

The archaeological sequence in Egypt, which has been well worked out, begins with the lowest Palaeolithic and continues without a gap until historical times. During the pluvial and early post?pluvial periods, however, the swampy tree?fringed valley was not the most favorable hunting ground, and Palaeolithic and Mesolithic food?gatherers ranged by preference over the open grasslands to either side, making only occasional visits to the river banks. As the plateaux grew increasingly arid, many of the hunters who did not migrate westward moved into the still moist valley, toward which the game upon which they lived must have been converging. One such concentration of food?gatherers is seen in the Sebilian culture of Upper Egypt.13 The skeletal remains from this culture, which have not yet been published, are said to anticipate in physical type the predynastic, placing a fine Mediterranean type in pre?Neolithic times.14

In another part of Upper Egypt, the earliest known of the sporadic agriculturalists, who at the same time or soon afterward began to exploit the favorable environment of the Nile Valley, were the so?called Tasians, named after the type site of their culture at Deir Tasa. At the tithe of their occupation, this part of the Nile Valley was still swampy, with large trees growing at the fringes of the marsh. In view of these climatic conditions, it is estimated that this culture may have been introduced as early as 5000 or even 6000 B.C.15

Although the physical type of the Tasians has not yet been fully described, Brunton's preliminary notice informs us that the few skulls as yet found are large, thick?walled, and strong in muscle relief, with heavy browridges The cranial form, while prevailingly dolichocephalic, includes some brachycephals.16 The faces are broad, the orbits square, the lower jaws deep, wide, and square, with flaring gonial angles and projecting, bilateral chins. Judging from the drawings of one example published by Brunton, we may deduce that they were orthognathous, and in this case at least, mesorrhine They seem to belong to a purely white category and we may hazard a guess that they represent an Upper Palaeolithic strain of Afalou or Early Natufiian type, forming a link between Algeria and Palestine. They were not, however, important in the ultimate formation of the Egyptian people, for in subsequent times they seem, both culturally and racially, to have disappeared.

Another early Neolithic civilization of Egypt which left no clear traces in the dynastic culture was that of the Fayum people and the Merimdians of the Delta, who, contemporaneously with the Tasians, and following the Sebilians, grew barley, emmer wheat, and flax along the shores of the Fayum Lake and the estuaries of the Delta. They also kept herds of cattle, and especially of swine. Their technology bridges the gap between a Capsian Mesolithic and a full Neolithic. Their pottery, a thick black ware decorated by incision, resembles early ceramic types of Neolithic western Europe and of Anatolia.

The importance of these people is that they probably represent the prototype of the Neolithic agriculturalists who moved westward along the shore of North Africa to Morocco, and over into Spain, whence they spread the Neolithic economy, with emmer flax, and swine, to the Swiss lakes and to the Rhine.17 Although they may have had little importance for Egypt, they had much for Europe. Their appearance in the Fayum and the Delta is dated at about 5000 B.C., and their disappearance about 4000 B.C. One millennium later they or people like them appeared in western Europe. The skulls of these people, which consist mostly of females and infants, are all dolichocephalic and Mediterranean There is no trace of negroid influence and the skulls are said to be larger than those of predynastic Egyptians to be described shortly.18

After this excursion let us return to Upper Egypt to a number of sites close to that section of the valley in which the Tasians had previously lived. From the type site, Badari, come the earliest skulls of a definitely Egyptian group which have yet been discovered. These Badarians lived about 4000 B.C., after the climate had become considerably drier than it was in Tasian times, so dry, in fact, that in many cases the skin and hair of their dead have been naturally preserved. The skin was apparently brunet white, while the hair was black or dark brown in color, thick, of fine texture, and usually wavy in form.

Although the Badarians, like the Tasians and Merimdians, still hunted and fished to enhance their larders and vary their diet, they lived primarily by agriculture and by herding cattle and sheep. Unlike the Merimdians they raised no pigs. By hammering copper they were entering the transition from the Neolithic to the Metal Age. They navigated the Nile in ships, whose shapes are revealed by pottery models, but we cannot be sure that they sailed them. These Badarians were undoubtedly newcomers to Upper Egypt who displaced the Tasians and perhaps other predecessors.

It is very difficult to identify the sexes of Badarian skulls, for the type is a delicate and feminine one, showing very little muscular development.19 For this reason, the various investigators who have measured Badarian skulls have in no two cases agreed on their sexing, and the means vary accordingly, but with the most extreme division, the sex ratios are still unusually small, even for an Egyptian series.

The Badarian series is the earliest cranial sample of any numerical length which has yet been obtained from any part of the world. It is our first series, unified in little and place, which is ample enough to be studied by accurate statistical methods. These show that the series is not very variable, but its variability is no less than that of many modern populations. From this Morant concludes "In the last six thousand years there appears to have been little change in the variability of racial populations."20

The Badarian type represents a small branch of the Mediterranean racial group. The head is unusually high in comparison to the other dimensions, and the facial skeleton is in the absolute scale unusually small; the mandible is small, narrow and light. Its mean male bicondylar diameter is the smallest known, while the bigonial diameter of 91.6 mm. is also extremely low.

Although the Badarian type is definitely related to that of the succeed ing predynastic people, it is distinguished from it in a number of ways. The Badarian skulls are more prognathous than those of their successors, and have higher nasal indices. The nasal index is just on the line between mesorrhiny and chamaerrhiny In fact, while the prognathism and nose form would suggest a negroid tendency, this cannot be established, since the hair form is definitely not negroid.

Morant shows that the Badarian cranial type is closely similar to that of some of the modern Christians of northern Ethiopia ? who incidentally do not show negroid characteristics in the skull ? and also to the crania of Dravidian?speaking peoples of southern India. One might add that living Somalis show a close approximation to this physical type in most respects, and the extremely narrow jaw in which the Badarians seem to reach a world extreme may be duplicated among both Somalis and the inhabitants of southern India. In Europe, the closest parallel to the Badarian type is found among modern Sardinians, but this is not as close as their relationships to outer and later Egyptians.

On the basis of these racial comparisons, it seems reasonable to suggest that this Badarian physical type may have come from the south, near the headwaters of the Blue Nile. It may represent an early Hamitic racial strain, which persists despite some negroid admixture in Ethiopia and Somaliland to the present day.

The Badarian was succeeded in Upper Egypt by a sequence of cultures which may be treated under the collective term predynastic. In predynastic Egyptian times, the inhabitants of Lower Egypt, that is the region around Memphis and the modern Cairo, were physically and culturally distinct from those of Upper Egypt. The Egyptian writing was developed in Lower Egypt where reeds, birds, and other natural objects typical of that environment were incorporated into the syllabic and alphabetical signs. In predynastic times, there were two kingdoms of Lower and of Upper Egypt. The union of the two under Menes, around 3000 B.C., marks the beginning of the dynastic tradition. Predynastic times may be considered, therefore, to have occupied most of the preceding millennium.

In Upper Egypt the early predynastic physical type is best represented by the series front Naqada.21 (See Appendix I, col. 6.) The Naqada people, although they resembled the Badarians in many respects, yet differed from them sufficiently in others to assure us that these were two populations of separate though related origins. The Naqada people were fairly tall, with a mean stature of 167.5 cm. for eighty males. They were probably taller than the Badarians, although we have no definite data on Badarian stature. Both heads and faces were wider and larger than those of the Badarians; the noses were narrower, and there was less prognathism.

The less numerous Badarians were probably absorbed into the Naqada population, though there is no direct evidence to confirm this assumption.

In Lower Egypt lived another group of Mediterranean predynastic people who differed from the Upper Egyptians in certain noticeable ways. The heads were broader, the cranial indices higher, reaching a mean of 75, whereas the Upper Egyptian mean is nearly 72. The vault height is less, the face is no broader, but somewhat longer, and the nasal index is lower.

The two types from Upper and Lower Egypt represent the extremes of a purely native Egyptian population, but from the beginning of dynastic times, around 3000 B.C. until Ptolemaic times, the numerous series which give an excellent picture of the progress of racial continuity and change in Egypt show the interactions of these two types. The racial history of Egypt in the course of three thousand years was simply the gradual replacement of the Upper Egyptian type by that of Lower Egypt.22 (See Appendix 1, cols. 7, 8.) As one looks at the tables from century to century, one sees that the crania increased gradually in breadth from 131 to 139 mm., and the faces from 124 to 129 min. Ancient Egypt must remain the most outstanding example yet known in the world of an important, naturally isolated region in which native racial types were permitted to develop their own way for several thousand years completely uninfluenced by foreign contacts.

Modern Copts, who probably represent the ancient Egyptian type more faithfully than the :Moslem population, have diverged from the earlier types only in a reduction of the skull length from about 183 mm. to 177 mm. Therefore, evolutionary change in Egypt consisted entirely of a slight reduction of head length, and in places of a lengthening of the face, and a narrowing of the nose; but the change has not been notable. Changes in physical type in any part of Europe within the last five hundred years have been much greater than in Egypt during five thousand.

The wealth of contemporary illustrative material from Egyptian art sources may be divided into two classes, conventional representations and portraits. The former show a definite and well?recognized type; slenderbodied and wiry, with narrow hips and small hands and feet. The head and face are those of a smoothly contoured fine Mediterranean form.

The portraits, on the other hand, show two things in particular: that there was considerable individual variation in bodily build as in head and face form within the dolichocephalic and mesocephalic range, and that many of the officials, courtiers, and priests, representing the upper class of Egyptian society but not the royalty, looked strikingly like modern Europeans, especially long?headed ones. This is due perhaps to the fact that the Egyptian nose was not typically high rooted, like those of the Mesopotamians as depicted in their art; and also, perhaps, because the portraiture, at least of the men, shows a greater angularity of line and form than do the conventional representations.

There may also have been some distinction of type in the royal families, for the rulers often have that extremely dolichocephalic head form, coupled with a sloping forehead and high nasal aquilinity, with highly excavated nostrils, seen so typically in the familiar mummy of Rameses III, as in the living emperor of Ethiopia, Hailie Selassie. This strain may well have been derived in most ancient times from the headwaters of the Nile.

The pigmentation of the Egyptians was usually a brunet white; in the conventional figures the men are represented as red, the women often as lighter, and even white. Although the hair is almost inevitably black or dark brown, and the eyes brown, Queen Hetep?Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops, the builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs of her tomb to have been a definite blond. Her hair is painted a bright yellow stippled with fine red horizontal lines,23 and her skin is white. This is the earliest known evidence of blondism in the world. Later Egyptian reliefs, however, frequently represented Libyans as blond,24 and in early Egyptian times, the territory of the Libyans extended to the Delta itself. The Egyptian representation of foreigners is quite accurate; besides the Libyans, who have Nordic features as well as coloring, Asiatics, with prominent noses and curly hair, sea peoples from the Mediterranean, with lighter skins and a more pronounced facial relief than the Egyptians, are also shown, as well as negroes. The blondism of Hetep?Heres II apparently belonged to the Delta and to the connections outside to east or west, rather than to Egypt proper, for it never recurred as an important or characteristic Egyptian trait. The Mediterranean pigmentation of the Egyptians has probably not greatly changed during the last five thousand years.

It is certain that Coon's work gives the best scholarly basis to this article.

MoritzB 23:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard of something called a "summary", rather than this logorrhea?--Ramdrake 23:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how this guy loves to cite the most racist, outdated scientists there were. Coon has been discredited by modern anthropology and is not suitable as a source anywhere. He believed that white people are the product of neanderthals and also believed in "race". No one, I mean no one in the field cites him as a source since he was a racialist nazi pseudo-scientist. This POV-pushing nonsense has to stop; this guy thinks that he can dig up any source on the internet and use it to undermine all of the latest research by today's top scientists. Then people had the nerve to complain about Diop, lol.

Some real reading can be found here: The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians

The only reason anyone should cite coon, is to show why his work is discredited and cite the vast majority of anthropologists who don't adhere to his work and methods.Taharqa 23:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

<- An Afrocentric view by Taharqa. =)

MoritzB 04:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

^You and Coon think exactly alike.. :)Taharqa 06:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)