Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

More discussions 2

Need for a new section

Taharqa, Zerida and Egyegy, I am suggesting this. We leave the section Ancient writers as it stands now. There is no need of braking it into subsections. It focuses on one thing: the testimony of ancient writers on the phenotype of the ancient Egyptians as they knew it. It does not have to contain critics to those ancient writers. But, we can create a new section with the heading Modern writers. This section can be broken into subsections such as Ancient Egyptians were Whites originated from Europe and / or Asia, Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Black Africans, Ancient Egyptians were a mix of foreign Whites and indigenous Black Africans. Quotations added to Ancient writers (Snowden...) and to Sphinx (Budge...), writers quoted in Egyptian response and in Alleged eurocentrism in Egyptology will find their place in the subsections of the new section. This means that the section Alleged eurocentrism in Egyptology has to be incorporated to the new section. And the suggested section Egyptian response will be as well incorporated in that new section. Do you agree?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 10:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Luka; there is no need to add new sections wen so many are covered. We need to begin refining in order to condense, but reflect the information properly. But I do agree, all views should be mentioned, but not given equal weight. It appears that the mainstream outlook is to avoid the ethnicity issue. Budge had his views, but a lot of them changed so citing him would be extra tricky since one would have to acknowledge the diversity in his views. An "Egyptian response" isn't notable since that is but one of many modern day ethnic groups and to give them equal weight with the empirical research at the expense of other ethnic groups is unjust. In any event, drastic changes should be discussed in phases as Luka suggested.Taharqa 22:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

african egypyians

we see here in this discussion the question of the race of the egyptians,its self evident by the colors of the egyptian people are clearly not of caucasian group egyptians dont generally have red hair,blue eyes,green or grey eyes they posses african features similar to the SAN peoples of the sahara they DID NOT develop in EUROPE they developed a civilization thousands of years before Europeans this agreees with the fact that the africans were the earliest people and therefore developed civilization first —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.164.110 (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't as simplistic as "black and white".. We merely have a lot of pov-clashing and conspiracy theories of "afrocentrism" and "eurocentrism" when te point is to let the research speak for its self. How people interpret it is their business, but there shall be no room for distortions in order for people to support their biased agendas; trying to include their inane arguments into a wiki article..Taharqa 22:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

move

The article had finally found a name that didn't act as a troll magnet, Population history of ancient Egypt. Why was it moved to Race and ancient Egypt (controversies)? is there a Race and ancient Egypt article that is not about "controversies"? Are there contoversies? This is purely a topic of Afrocentrist pseudoscience. I see two possibilities: We do an article on "Afrocentrist Egyptology", for whatever it is worth, or we do an article on the population history of ancient Egypt as a bona fide topic, with Afrocentrist nonsense reduced to a minimum per WP:FRINGE. We cannot present this stuff as having any shade of credit as an Egyptologist topic. It is a topic of US sociology, and nothing else. As such, it has some notability, but it should not be misrepresented as having an impact on an unrelated field. dab (𒁳) 12:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Non racialized articles about Ancient Egypt exist already, such as Ancient Egypt. This article is about race. I think you have a wrong view of what afrocentrism is. You seem to be equating afrocentrism with pseudoscience, but afrocentrism is a very broad concept that even includes well established science. Muntuwandi 16:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, what I'm more concerned about Dab, is how in the world yo edited the page? Secondly, Zerida changed the title and why in the world did someone else make a separate page, while modifying everything to their liking? That is POV-pushing and content forking to the extreme and is not allowed! It was obviously a sockpuppet.

But anyways, Dab, the page only deals with Afrocentrism when notable, 90% of the article addresses current research and since it is a controversy however, and that is the name of the page title, Afrocentrism is notable. To suggest labeling an entire discipline however, and not any particular theory as "fringe" is unacceptable original research; we need you to pinpoint what theories are actually fringe, who says so, and why. What you may label as "pseudoscience" may just be an emotional reaction to something you don't like, even though it may be true, so I'm no sure how valid your comment is concerning that.Taharqa 17:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

90% of this page is fringy nonsense. As is evident from the title. "Race and ancient Egypt (controversies)", give us a break. Move it back to population history of Ancient Egypt, cut down the afrocentrist crap, and if you absolutely insist, do a separate Afrocentrist Egyptology dedicated to the fringe stuff. I agree Afrocentrism is notable: in US politics, not in Egyptology. If you do an article about Afrocentrism, make it conspicuously a topic of US politics, and don't try to give it academic credibility it does not have. This is what I "don't like". I have every sympathy for movements for African American pride, recognition, equal rights and what have you, but not when it involves dishonest representation of scholarship. "Afrocentrist Egyptology" is not a "discipline", it is a US lobbying movement. This article has existed for two years, and it still fails that there even is a "controversy" in Egyptology proper. The "controversy" is entirely an artefact of a lobbying campaign and does not exist in Egyptology. --dab (𒁳) 08:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See, It's difficult to communicate with Eurocentric conspiracy theorists on a rational level. This is getting nowhere. I will try and simplify this for you as much as possible.

Your original research is shameful and may in fact expose a biased agenda of yours as you base what you're saying off of double talk and fallacious ranting. There is no way that any sane human being can take what you say at face value when you do nothing but give us hyperbole and let us know your apparent goal, which is to zone in on "afrocentrism" when it doesn't even apply. The name of the article has never been "Afrocentrist Egyptology", nor has it ever been named "Eurocentric Egyptology", or even "Egypto-centric Egyptology". It isn't even mainly about Egyptology, it is spelled out for you as "ancient egypt and race (controversies)"(before that it was merely (AE and race)..

Please, if you need someone to complain to about the title change, direct it at User:Zerida, the person who actually changed the name of the article!

For you to assert that "90% of the article is "fringy nonsense" is hilarious and eliminates what credibility you may have had. We've been through this twice every time some disgruntled Eurocentric comes along, angry at the fact that the article isn't pushing some defunct "North African Caucasoid" ruse, lol and they of course immediately, immaturely, and ignorantly scream "afrocentrism". It is definitely played out. But again, we've been through this before and no one has ever answered the challenge, and I definitely don't expect you to. See here and see here

^Crackpot conspiracy claims from people such as yourself have been addressed and refuted more than once. Now again, there are over 50 different sources of information and everything in the article is cited, even if it needs a bit of refining or formatting. My challenge for you is to show the audience how 90% of these (over 50) sources are "Afrocentric" or even "Fringe".. What conclusions presented therein by these sources can be considered unverified or fabricated? The reality is that the people cited are virtually all mainstream and esteemed within their respective field of interest. Brace, Keita, Irish, Zakrzewski, Yurco, Ehret, Kittles, Newman, Hammer, Roth, Nicholson, Davidson, Greenberg, Britannica, Shaw, Redford.. I mean c'mon now, all evidence is against you so if you cannot answer the challenge or the pleas of fellow editors to actually present some type of case or sufficient (more than 1 or 2 selective/out of context examples) instead of pov-pushing in your ethnic crusade against the perils and dangers of "afrocentrism", then your rants can easily be blown off as ethnic bias towards your own unsupported ideas and struggle against other ideas, even ones that have been reported by the credible sources in question, so you undermine them all by deceiving with your fallacious whines in referring to them all by way of blanket terms that cannot be supported and are actually contradicted. Your original research is not needed. Thank you for your concern though. :)Taharqa 15:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

dab, even if you have good intentions for the improvement of the article, you have little chance to convince people. How can you edit an article while it is being protected? You made me laugh! Besides, you can notice that the article have references. If you don't agree with some authors, please mention them. But don't try to reject the all article. That's nonsense! Take into account what Muntuwandi and Taharqa told you and give weight to your arguments.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention to convince anyone of anything. My single intention here is enforcing Wikipedia policy. The regulars of this talkpage quite obviously have never heard of or no understanding of WP:SYN or WP:FRINGE. Taharqa apparently doesn't even try to make any sense. I don't dispute that bona fide sources are quoted, but in a completely distorted way. "population history of Ancient Egypt" would be a good neutral title. What has "race" got to do with it, and on what grounds do we organize the article along the lines of an alleged "controversy"? "Race and ancient Egypt is a topic that has been mired in controversy in the Western world" is a tall claim. I see no evidence of such controversy. All I see is normal discussion of population genetics etc. Plus, since 1990 or so, there are some Afrocentrist fringe authors harping on Eurocentrism and Blackness. Why are they even mentioned, except maybe in a minor subsection alongside "Nordic Egypt"? As is typical with fringe topics, a red herring is inflated to a point where it all but eclipses the actual topic.

briefly, my request is the following:

• move this to a title involving "population history". the present title is a troll magnet pure and simple
• drop all discussion of "race" in favour of "genetics" and "phenotype"
• summarize the whole Afrocentrist/Eurocentrist red herring debate to a h3 subsection "in Afrocentrism"
• if people must discuss Afrocentrist literature on the topic in greater detail, create a separate Afrocentric Egyptology article.

--dab (𒁳) 14:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the "fact" that in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim texts, Moses was in Egypt, probably before King Tutankhamun, as slaves. The story is that Jewish slaves were in Egypt. Also, it is commonly belived that Tutankhamun's mother was not his father's wife, rather a servant of some sort. Doesn't this fit in with a depiction of ancient Egyptians having a full range of skin tones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.223.190 (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Black Africans have "a full range of skin tones"! There is no problem with that. Now, how do Muntuwandi, Louisvillian and Taharqa respond to dab's suggestions? Of cause, I read Muntuwandi saying that this article is about race. That there are other articles about Egypt dealing with other themes. But it seems that dab is not yet satisfied.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparentlty dab is completely lost out of his mind and has exposed himself as a careless admin who spews ad hominem attacks towards resident editors on wiki when no one understands some of his nonsense proposals.

• Complaining about the title of the article serves no purpose here, since the people you're directing your comments to never changed the name. Zerida did and is defending her action below..

• You claim that you're not here to dispute any sources, yet the way they are presented. The sources say what is presented and unless you can prove otherwise, by directly citing each one that you dispute, this ranting can be considered hot air bias against the implications you must have received. You're having a pov fit, just calm down and be rationl, since up to this point, you have not been.

• You're being dishonest imo. You claim that it is a red herring, but it isn't if the format for the article is laid out in the title (unless the name is changed). It is a genuine controvery, we'll just have to attribute the controversy to who it pertains to. Secondly, as noted before, it is the implications that bother you, not policy, which is why you took your pov rampage to the fringe boards, asking whether or not "black Egypt" was fringe, selectively neglecting whether or not "White" or "purple" Egypt is, which is a red herring in on its self. The article makes no mention of a "black Egypt", so where you got that from is a testimate to your pov-pushung imo and your insecurity about the implications of the research cited, which is why you can criticize it (give it sweeping criticism) with out really criticizing it at all (directly)..Taharqa 22:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

I think we should request unprotection because the discussion has died down. The moment the protection expires the edit wars will resume. So I believe that we should just request to lift protection, even though there will be some edit wars this will invite more active discussion that will help improve the article. For those editors who believe that this article is too afrocentric, I think they should not delete information that has been reliably sourced but should be able to provide counter information, which should also not be deleted if it is reliably sourced. Muntuwandi 23:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this argument. If you truly believe edit wars will resume if the article is unprotected, the obvious step to take is to renew the protection status of the article. Edit wars don't at all help with generating discussion--they help generate arguments and anger and discontent and personal attacks and blocks, but they don't generate actual productive discussion. --Miskwito 03:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to get them over and done with, because protection is not helping. At the moment those disputing the article have not made any significant suggestions, the discussion is stale. Better unprotect the article so that discussion can resume, the 3RR and other measures can be used to prevent excessive edit wars. Why should a stale article remain protected for almost another two weeks. Muntuwandi 04:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If by saying that "discussion has died down" you imply that you accept my proposal above, I certainly do endorse unprotection, and do not believe much further edit-warring will occur. --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that he directly agreed with anything that you suggested dab. You actually came rather late in the middle of all of the chaos, and some of your sugggestions frankly don't make any sense as we've went through a lot of it already.

Muntuwandi.. The admin stated that until he sees some time of consensus, the page should not be unprotected. From what I can tell, like you pointed out, the initial users who had their disputes have provided no useful input and are apparently unwilling to compromise. And the conversation so far, as pointed out isn't necessarily productive. I say give it time, let people come to some kind of common terms and actually discuss point for point, as suggested by me and Luka from the beginning. Edit wars will only lead to more chaos, I sort of have to agree with Miskwito.Taharqa 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"rather late"? I've been part of this "debate" before you even made your first edit to Wikipedia. But it got too silly, and I only check back occasionally. Be that as it may, Muntuwandi claimed "the debate had died down" without bothering to answer my minimal requirements for a constructive way forward. Consequently, I must assume he has nothing to say against them. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is POV to suggest an article Afrocentric Egyptology. Muntuwandi 16:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

au contraire, it a the proper npov title for the material in this article. Quoth A. M. Roth:[1]

"Afrocentric Egyptology," as practiced today, has an international scholarly literature behind it. (The movement is, if anything, more prominent in France than it is here, to judge from the numerous displays of Afrocentric books and journals I saw in Paris book shops last summer.) In America, however, Afrocentric Egyptology is less a scholarly field than a political and educational movement, aimed at increasing the self- esteem and confidence of African-Americans by stressing the achievements of African civilizations, principally ancient Egypt.

it would be an article about a pov, no doubt, but we will of course strive to keep its discussion npov. That will be difficult, because we may have a few adherents of the movement trolling Wikipedia, but we have policy to take care of that. dab (𒁳) 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, you are soooo right!! He had no business whatsoever trying to link that here, it is actually appalling. It shouldn't have even been linked to Afrocentrism, which is why it was deleted and he recreated it. There is no such discipline and no such name is noted in mainstream academia by any one so it violates the Original research policy and notability. His personal obsession with Afrocentrism has no bearing on the progression of this article, afrocentrism, or wikipedia. He claims that it isn't a scholarly field when it isn't a field at all. The discipline is called Afrocentrism which covers a variety of topics, therefore he is pov-pushing what he feels should be labeled what and what shouldn't. Afrocentrism is simply an approach to data and has nothing to do with any one discipline. This isn't the place to discuss this though, it should be taken to the proper page, which is "Afrocentrism". Useless discussion.Taharqa 17:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

did you even read my proposal? I agree this isn't scholarly. It is belongs in Category:African-American topics. It is you who continually tries to pass this off as a topic of Egyptology. Show us there is such a controversy in Egyptology (as opposed to "Afrocentric Egyptology", which we seem to agree is bogus). See WP:UNDUE: we have two options (a) make this ostensibly about Afrocentrism, or (b) remove all Afrocentrist claims of "bias" or a "controversy" as irrelevant. dab (𒁳) 11:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

When this page is unprotected, I recommend you remove the paragraph about a great nordic empire whose only refernce is the white power hate site Storm front. ThuranX 00:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, will do. Minor viewpoints covered by no one but the proponents need not be covered in an encyclopedia. Picaroon (t) 01:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you guys feel that unprotection, even just to see if we can get to the stage of cooperatively trimming the article of original research, is worth a try, I guess I could unprotect it. Picaroon (t) 01:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Title

Why is the title "Race and ancient Egypt (controversies)"? Why not "Race and ancient Egypt"? Picaroon (t) 01:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if I remember correctly there was an article named "Race and ancient Egypt" but it became a battle ground of one view against another. I guess that's the reason "controversies" was added. Although, someone more knowledgeable will help explain in a better way, why this article came to be, as I've lost track. - Jeeny ^Talk 01:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is time to go point by point! For me, one can come back to the title "Race and ancient Egypte". Picaroon (t), can you raise other questions?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 23:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I prefer "Race and Ancient Egypt" because it is short and simple. But there was a lot of complaints about attracting trolls. Also the title race and ancient egypt may be suggestive that there is no controversy. So affixing the term controversies already lets readers know from the beginning that scholars have different views. Muntuwandi 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

affixing the term controversies already lets readers know from the beginning that scholars have different views While there may be a controversy, it does not exist among scholars outside Afrocentric circles. In fact, the lead indicates: The debate usually occurs outside the field of Egyptology today...Mainstream Egyptologists maintain that Egyptians were, and still are, simply Egyptians... Afrocentrists and some members of the African American community contend that ancient Egyptians were "black". I think the term 'controversy' is appropriate only in that it points to the fact that this for the most part is a social debate. Yaacov Shavit of Tel Aviv University extrapolates on this in History in Black: African-Americans in Search of an Ancient Past (2001).

Of course, the construction of national mythology is common to most human groups. In fact, one of the chapters in the book opens with an anecdote about a native Egyptian physician who, after studying a bird figure depicted on an object at the Egyptian Museum, concluded that it was an ancient airplane model and wrote about it. Local publications in Egypt frequently include such flights of fancy. It's an expression of national pride, and they are not very different from what one would find in Afrocentric writings.

What I recently discovered from all the activity here, and find patently ridiculous, is the section on the "Ancient Egyptians" in the Black people article. Not only because no non-Afrocentric scholar would entertain the idea that the Egyptians are relevant to that topic, but also because there is no mention of Nubians! This is symptomatic in that, as critics of Afrocentrism have often pointed out, Afrocentrists focus almost exclusively on ancient Egypt and ignore the accomplishments of civilizations like that of Nubia, which is at least securely "black". On the other end, I don't see a corresponding section in the White people article about Ancient Celts, Ancient Greeks, etc. In any event, I think having the word controversy in the title is a minor point. It's important, however, that the non-mainstream information in the article, if kept, is contextualizd within the modern social debate, with views from both sides accurately presented and accorded due weight. — Zerida 20:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider myself an afrocentrist, yet I do find this debate interesting. It is for this reason that trying to make this debate solely about Afrocentrism is not the appropriate approach. The people who started this debate were actually white, people like herodotus and Volney. while some afrocentrists have made outlandish claims, I haven't seen any editor trying to include these claims as part of the debate. Rather it is other editors who use these outlandish claims to try to discredit afrocentrism in this article. As far as I am concerned the article should include the various information from sources and how this data is interpreted differently. Since everyone has access to the same information, be it egyptian art or the sphinx, it is mostly the interpretation that is controversial. Yes you are right that the Nubians had a black civilization. But if nubia was right next door to Egypt, then it is not impossible that the Egyptians were black or at least part black.Muntuwandi 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Where I see Zerida's argument failing is exactly where I see it to be valid. She stresses (and I do agree) that a controversy is noted. However, it's a controversy with racial overtones built on biological relationships and how that fits with in the general context of today's social framework. It isn't so much a controversy per se in Egyptological fields mainly because they are neither sociologists, biologists, or anthropologists. The very reason I'd say that it is relevant to the article on "black people" is due to the controversy in question which deals with the defining power of such a term, "black". The fact that the civilization of Nubia is taken for granted (socially) as somehow undeniably "black" doesn't warrant its inclusion so much. Where the debate lies is within the double standard. To suggest that the "Egyptians were Egyptians", while the "Kushites" weren't just "Kushites" is an overt example. No one has proposed where the dichotomy lies and all indication is that these two populations were related and were coextensive, with southern Egyptians considerably overlapping Northern Nubians culturally and biologically, and with each group having southern affinities and tropical adaptations, respectively. So when one delves into the said controversy, these tendencies are of course important to address and any citations as to what separated Egyptians from Nubians other than ancient national/ethnic identity would be generally welcome, and why one would fall out of the general definition of that article and the dictionary definition as seen here would indeed be as well.

It is apparent that "Egyptian" is very simplistic and "Egypt" (Greek for house of Ptah) today is definitely not "Km't" of yesterday. Ethnic differences (between ancient and modern) notwithstanding, but most generally the cultural separation and perception of identity is immensely wide. This also undermines the variability of opinion in Egyptology circles, when people like Frank Yurco fit Egypt within a non-racial, Nile-Valley context, incorporating Nubians, Ethiopians, and Somalis. Hardly direct ancestors of African Americans, but definitely groups socially identifiable as belonging to the extended family of "black African", whether or not that term sits well with some African Americans, Modern Egyptians, or "White" Americans, the appellation does exist and is imposed. It also undermines the implication when people such as Bruce Williams notes that few Egyptians would have a seat reserved at any "white-only" dinner tables in the 1960s in the American south, or Ann Roth stating that many ancient Egyptians would have indeed resembled African Americans, while few, if any resembled her (European). - See here

Even the 8th/9th century writer, Al-Jahiz counted the natives of Egypt as being among "the blacks" (al-Sudan).. After classifying the various ethnic groups, he proceeds:

The Copts natives of Egypt are also a black race. Abraham wished to have a child by one of their race and thus Ishmael the ancestor of the Arabs was born. The Prophet Mohammet also had a child by Mary the Copt. If a black skin is thought unsightly what then must be said of the French, the Greeks, and the Slavs with their thin, red, straight hair and beard? The paleness of their eyelids and their lips appear to us, Negroes, very ugly...God did not make us black in order that we should be ugly; our color comes from the sun. The proof of this is that among the Arabs are also black tribes as the Beni Solaim ibn Mansour - Al-Jahiz, Risalat mufakharat al-sudan 'ala al-bidan

Generally when these types of data and views are given light, the simple, "The Egyptians were Egyptians", there is nothing else to dwell on mentality seems deceivingly suspect. No one says they weren't, so that doesn't mean anything in the absence of elaboration, so it is always welcome when an anthropologist or someone applying population biology to the question can shed some light beyond that obscure, seemingly evasive, semantical response. Questions go unanswered, especially the most critical..

Were they indigenous people of the Nile Valley who were generally coextensive with other indigenous natives of that area of NorthEast Africa (Nubia, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia), or did they receive more influence culturally and genetically from the north?

I believe this question has been answered numerous times in recent years, so indeed, the controversy has to do with nit picking over "racial taxonomies"; however, one thing is clear and is summed up emphatically by Howard University prof. and Smithsonian affiliate, S.O.Y. Keita:

Quote: In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin. - 1996

Renowned "Afrocentric" critic, Mary Lefkowitz, with all of the nit picking over Cleopatra and Socrates, doesn't seem too bothered with Egypt's apparent origins within the African interior:

Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. - Click here

^^Given Mary's known disdain for Afrocentrism, that is pretty substantial. The problem is that all implications are there, but since "race" is unscientific it can be seen as a misnomer to label an ancient population as a "black" one, and used as leverage to evade the implication, it is only a double standard when this is selectively done, which gives it a political overtone. Blaming the debate on "Afrocentrism" and labeling all interested as "ethnocentric" is another convenient cop-out. Geographically and locally, most of today's scholars see Egypt as an indigenous civilization in northeast Africa and won't focus on race and relationships, as it isn't important for them, but the data that is available is open for scholarly and/or social interpretation. Taharqa 21:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Zerida for your convictions, but one cannot say that the Egyptians were just Egyptians! This means nothing. They belonged to a noticeable race, and one can speak about it. They had black skin and wooly hair! Their ancestors are from the Sahara (Cfr Bernard Nantet, Dictionnaire de l'Afrique, Histoire, Civilisation, Actualite, Paris: Larousse, 2006, p. 105: "Dans cette région (du Nil) des royaumes liés à l'Egypte par une civilisation dont les références étaient les mêmes s'en séparèrent graduellement, reculant de cataracte en cataracte sous la pression d'une désertification continuelle (Kerma, Napata, Méroé". It is actually from Nubia that they occupied the northen part of the Nile, which is Egypt. Nubians and Egyptians cannot be separated. The recent debate started by those who tried to negate the black race of the Egyptians and to make them Whites for political reasons. They are Hegel, Maspero, Erman... Champollion le Jeune, the father of Egyptology, stayed clairly in its book Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens (1828) that Egyptians belong to a race proper to Africa. And this, to be said against those who think otherwise, wrote Champollion. Is Basil Davidson Afrocentrist? For this historian, the Egyptians were just Black people Kemet - Black Civilization. To blame Afrocentrism is an excuse for not accepting the reality, that the Egyptians were Blacks, and that they spoke a language which has cousins in modern Black Africa. But I agree, all the arguments about this subject must be mentionned in the article. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

objective statements are one thing, turning them into propaganda or nationalism another. the following is undisputed: (a) geographically, Egypt is in Africa. (b) the Egyptian language is a separate branch of Afro-Asiatic. (c) genetically, there is a sub-Saharan admixture in Ancient Egyptian populations, particularly in Southern Egypt in the Early Dynastic period. That's it. Does that make Ancient Egypt a "Black Civilization"? The answer is, yes, to Afrocentrists. Outside Afrocentrism, "Black Civilization" is not a meaningful term any more than "White Civilization". You people keep mixing up scholarship with the sentiment of "Black identity". The latter is something thoroughly modern, and simply does not apply. dab (𒁳) 22:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Zerida for your convictions, but one cannot say that the Egyptians were just Egyptians These are not my "convictions", it's the mainstream stance on the topic. One in fact quite frequently points out that Egyptians are simply Egyptians -- "one" in this case being scholars who are worth their weight. In fact, yes, Kushites are simply Kushites, and Nubians are simply Nubians. The difference here is for a scholar to argue that Nubians should not be considered black when they clearly were and still are is pointless. They also views themselves as black. I have no inclination, however, to turn this talk page into a discussion forum. I do want to comment on Al-Jahiz, which is used in the same way that some ancient Graeco-Roman writers are quoted in Afrocentric writings to support their arguments. I couldn't immediately find the original in Arabic, but according to this site [2] Al-Jahiz includes Berbers, Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis in his definition of "blacks". I assume this means "non-whites", though that wouldn't necessarily apply to a lot of Berbers. That medieval Copts/Egyptians were clearly distinguished from their southern neighbors, however, is made clear, not only by other writers, but more importantly by the name with which the Sudan itself came to be known in the Islamic period. Snowden's cautionary notes with regard to the reliance on ancient descriptions of the "color" or "race" of ancient peoples clearly apply here as well. — Zerida 00:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So... headcount for the non-ethnologist here. Who is in favor of moving the article to Race and ancient Egypt, and who is in favor of leaving it? I'm not asking for a vote per se, but since you all have already given your positions, ahem, summing it up with "move" or "keep as is" would be helpful. Picaroon (t) 00:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• move- with no strong convictions Muntuwandi 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• move. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• move (although I really don't mind either way, I'll agree with them)Taharqa 22:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Will move soon unless there are any objections. Picaroon (t) 01:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Defining power in Egypt and Nubia

Misconceptions should in no way be avoided so this is what I'll address.

In fact, yes, Kushites are simply Kushites, and Nubians are simply Nubians. The difference here is for a scholar to argue that Nubians should not be considered black when they clearly were and still are is pointless. They also views themselves as black.

• Apparently and unfortunately, Zerida doesn't seem privy to the political situation in Sudan and how this situation has effected identity in the region. Many Northern Sudanese actually consider themselves Arab, "black" is a label imposed on them by outsiders, such as yourself. So this is demonstrably wrong and exemplifies the double standard.

• Zerida says they were "black" in the past (a socio-political term in the 21rst century) as they are now. Well if true, it seems that even today Southern Egyptians are more closely related to Nubians or Northern Sudanese than they are to even Northern Egyptians/Northern Egypt (which we know has a higher density of foreigners). Possessing/sharing southern haplotype frequencies by way of the Y-Chromosome (V,XI and IV or E3b2, E3b1) at a much higher percentage than in northern Egypt, with northern Egypt actually being an outliner in this respect. - [[3]]

This is repeated with Mtdna, showing a close, ancestral relationship with Ethiopians near the Tigre region. So the sought after dichotomy that one group is "black" while these people over here are exempt from classification, even though the two groups in question are related and always have been by all indication, is just a ruse.

• Concerning Jahiz, Snowden never referenced Jahiz and it can be clearly shown that Jahiz never includes inhabitants of Mainland China, but rather he says "Indo-China" and between Ethiopia and India. Many of those people were often referred to by the Greeks as "Eastern Ethiopians" and in modern usage they were called Dravidian/Australoid, or Veddoid. Berbers also come in a variety of complexions, many of whom are considered black, especially the Tuareg, groups whom Jahiz was most likely citing since he considered all groups to be darker than Arabs and grouped them within the same "race" as the Zanj. Also, he specifically notes that the natives of Egypt can be described as such, as the distinction implies, there were others in Egypt aside from the natives, which is why he refers to the natives using the same terminology that Arabs of the time used to describe the modern Sudan. So either people of the time were speaking relatively when they named modern Sudan, "land of the "blacks", or they meant it when they called someone black. No need for double standards where not needed. Ironically he is echoed by Volney centuries later, though I'd suspect Volney's emphasis was exclusively on features rather than complexion as well.

In any event, this study I'm about to cite says it all basically (the actual title and implications). The Nubians of today were most closely related to the aboriginal Egyptians then, as they are today (the aboriginals that is). Therefore, if one is black, so is the other, or otherwise we should stop double talking and drop this kind of terminology indefinitely and appeal to Keita's professional terminology in classifying the early Nile Valley peoples. They were "Saharo-Tropical African Variants" (which also includes the group formerly known as Negros and excludes non-Africans):

Concordance of cranial and dental morphological traits and evidence for endogamy in ancient Egypt.

A biological affinities study based on frequencies of cranial nonmetric traits in skeletal samples from three cemeteries at predynastic Naqada, Egypt, confirms the results of a recent nonmetric dental morphological analysis. Both cranial and dental traits analyses indicate that the individuals buried in a cemetery characterized archaeologically as high status are significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently nonelite cemeteries and that the nonelite samples are not significantly different from each other.

A comparison with neighboring Nile Valley skeletal samples suggests that the high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada, which is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighboring populations in southern Egypt. - American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 101, Issue 2, October 1996, Pages: 237-246

For those unfamiliar with the terminology;

Endogamy/Endogamous - Biology: Reproduction by the fusion of gametes of similar ancestry.

^^And indeed, the charts show each respective population clustering closely with themselves and more remotely with each other. So much data substantiating the relationship between these groups that it almost seems insane to create a false dichotomy, and according to Frank Yurco, it is. So I believe the politics of identity (who is an "Egyptian", what is a "Nubian", blah, blah) is notable, but ultimately useless when one allows the data to speak for its self with out obscured interpretations from wiki editors (including myself)..

One more thing.. This is what Keita and Boyce says about Snowden's views:

“ The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kushites and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms. ”

- S.O.Y. Keita & A. J. Boyce. Egypt in Africa, (1996), pp. 25-27

That's about it, and this was only addressed because I want (and I hope others agree) to prevent politics from being too much of a distraction in the article, as I feel it has been overemphasized here a bit too much at the expense of the data and its implications. Views vary and pushing one view as "mainstream" really does nothing for us since it isn't sufficient in elaborating on the question or topic presented by the article's title. The consensus also seems to be that the people of Egypt, or the cultural forbeaers and founders of the state, were indeed indigenous to the Nile Valley and were closely related to A-Group Nubians. So much so that Bruce Williams of the Oriental Institute proposed an Egyptian origin in Nubia, based on his findings at Qustul.[4] Some of his evidence has been overshadowed by newer findings (casting doubt on the "origin" scenario), but the same theme is reoccurring. That these people were ethnically and culturally the same/extremely similar and most likely shared common origins, with one being emphatically regarded as black while the other is generally protected from categorization and public scrutiny, which is politically suspect to some seeing as how nothing indicates a dichotomy between the latter and the former. Which is why my emphasis has always been on the data.......Taharqa 00:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Taharqa! This post is illuminating, because well informed.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection 2

This article is protected too often. I hope we can avoid edit wars because protection is becoming unhelpful. Muntuwandi 05:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed..Taharqa 07:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest mediation. Yahel Guhan 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

discussing disputes

I will touch on a few things now, in order to try and gain some common ground.

Budge/Sphinx section

Trying to cite Budge to me, just seemed rather odd because he's considered outdated by a wide group of people and I was personally told that he isn't an appropriate source to cite? I have the impression of Budge as somewhat eurocentric, early in his career, until he seemingly came to some kind of realization or change of heart. His later writings and translations are often used as evidence in afrocentric literature because he began to reveal his position that the Egyptians were Africans.. He writes:

after deducting all the triliteral roots, there still remains a very large number of words that are not Semitic, and were never invented by a Semitic people. These words are monosyllabic, and were invented by one of the oldest African (or Hamitic, if that word be preferred) peoples in the Valley of the Nile of whose written language we have remains. These words used to express fundamental relationships and feelings, and beliefs which are peculiarly African and are foreign in every particular to Semitic peoples. The primitive home of the people who invented these words lay far to the south of Egypt, and all that we know of the Predynastic Egyptians suggest that it was in the neighborhood of the Great Lakes, probably to the east of them...the Ancient Egyptians were Africans, and they spoke an African language...--EW Budge, Hieroglyphic Dictionary, pp lxvii-lxix

I have more but I just wanted to touch on that. It is definitely out of context.. I can elaborate later on that.

Brace (2006)/Crania section

Brace was just criticized for the "sub-Saharan" terminology. He had 3 samples of niger-congo speakers, it was found that Nubians and Somalis were in the primary cluster. As Keita points out, the fact that Somalia is in sub-Saharan africa, directly undermines his claims.

One approach, although limited, with which to explore the possibility of migration in earlier times, is through analysis of craniometric affinities. Previous studies have not specifically addressed the immigration of farmers from Europe into the NileValley. However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia. Brace et al. (1993) seemingly interpret these results as indicating a population relationship from Scandinavia to the Horn of Africa, although the mechanism for this is not clearly stated; they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat (incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims. Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity'. Keita (2005)

^This, in addition to the citation in the front leaves no reason why Brace's fallacies should keep being repeated while not criticism goes unanswered.. It is undue weight.

Punt section/Minoans

Of course the punt section, with the inclusion of the pre-selected Minoans can be considered original research since no scholars have made note of this comparison, no? Or that this is the conventional complexion of Minoans?

This is what I have for now. Please address your concerns on the disputed material in question Zerida, or why you felt necessary to add some of these entries.Taharqa 07:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Budge; as I've explained before, I only added him because of the insistence on including what I see as irrelevant 19th century travelogues and the quotes by W.E.B. Du Bois. If we want to keep the article scientific, then let's do that across the board. I relied on Yaaco Shavit for the citation of Budge; in other words, Budge simply happens to be mentioned in Shavit in response to Volney's views (Shavit: most of the European travelers and scholars reject Volney's views, including British Egyptologist E. A. Wallis Budge who wrote that.. .etc.) It's a direct response to Volney, therefore it's relevant only if we want to keep Volney. As far as Brace et al., I think you might be mixing their 1993 study with the 2006 one? Keita was responding to the 1993 study. However, since you quoted Brace et al. (2006), I added another part from the article, again to contextualize the information. Finally, with regard to the Minoans, the picture is illustrative in the same sense that the one of the Puntites is. As you know, I did not make any claims regarding their appearance being similar to the Egyptians' or otherwise. But again, it helps add balance to that section, which relies primarily on a non-mainstream source at the moment. — Zerida 07:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but but would you not agree that the quote by Budge is out of context, seeing as how these were not his death bed views? Also, the quote did not address Volney's opinion of the Sphinx, but only the Copts (he didn't even mention the Fellahin specifically). I think that some opinions on the Sphinx is notable, but I agree that it may be a bit excessive. Since I did not contribute to this section however, I feel others should join the conversation about their view. NPOV is encouraged, but it should also be contextual and relevant..

• No, I'm not confusing Brace (2006) with Brace (1993). I was pointing out to you that Brace has repeated the same fallacy that he was criticized for by Keita and Kittles, and it is being given undue weight. I'm not sure that you noticed, but these are the exact same samples for Howell's data base, being reassessed in the context of another study and other samples. He states that Naqada clusters closest with Somalia, etc, and more remotely with the Niger-Congo, where there is an unbroken link. Before or after (forget which), he states: "in this particular test there is no such (sub-Saharan) evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples".

Given that he was already criticized for doing the exact samething that is contradictory to his claim, this falls under undue weight, does it not?

they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat (incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims. Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity - Keita (2005)

The wording, but definitely not the data, also contradicts the 2007 paper by Zakrzewski[5]..

When Mahalanobis D2 was used, the Naqadan and Badarian Predynastic samples exhibited more similarity to Nubian, Tigrean (sub-Saharan Africa), and some more southern series than to some mid- to late Dynastic series from northern Egypt (Mukherjee et al., 1955). The Badarian have been found to be very similar to a Kerma sample (Kushite Sudanese), using both the Penrose statistic (Nutter, 1958) and DFA of males alone (Keita, 1990). Furthermore, Keita considered that Badarian males had a southern modal phenotype, and that together with a Naqada sample, they formed a southern Egyptian cluster as tropical variants together with a sample from Kerma.

Keita elaborates in 1990[6]:

the Nagada and Kerma series are so similar that they were barely distinguishable in the territorial maps. [p. 40] they subsume the first dynasty series from Abydos. [p. 40]

^Indicative of continuity with southern phenotypes, albeit some morphological differences.. That is also exactly what both Keita and Zakrezewski says:

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. Am J Phys Anthropology 132:501–509, 2007. VVC 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc. - Zakrezewski, 2007

An analysis of First Dynasty crania from Abydos was undertaken using multiple discriminant functions. The results demonstrate greater affinity with Upper Nile Valley patterns, but also suggest change from earlier craniometric trends. Gene flow and movement of northern officials to the important southern city may explain the findings. - Keita, 1992

I hope that you get my point..

Concerning the Minoans. It is original research, would you not agree? Balance is only valid where it is notable and this is new to me. Bard and Kitchen have commented on the similarity in appeance between puntites and Egyptians, and I even cited them. If no one has ever made note of a Minoan similarity, how can we justify the random inclusion of an obscure picture as "neutral" when it obviously violates a wikipedia policy. No original research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taharqa (talk • contribs)

No, I do not agree that citing a study by one of the top biological anthropologists in the world accurately, and not selectively, is giving "undue weight". I also do not agree that including the tomb painting of the Minoans has anything to do with "original research" anymore than the one of the people of Punt does. If there are pictures of foreigners as depicted by Egyptians in the article, then automatically any such depiction becomes relevant.

WP:UNDUE states: 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. That pretty much sums up the policy on undue weight. Minority views are those of Diop, the Senegalese Afrocentric school of thought and the like, not mainstream scholars like Brace, Snownden, Hawass, Keita etc. Furthermore, it is not our job on Wikipedia to subjectively choose which parts of a particular study to include and which ones to exclude based on our own interpretations or those of others -- that is original synthesis. If a particular source meets the criteria set in WP:V, we cite it. If there are responses to it, we can cite that too. We don't, however, include our own original analysis.

That said, there is no contradiction in Brace et al. (2006) -- what they mean by "Egyptian samples" are those of historical Egyptians, as opposed to prehistoric (i.e. predyanstic) ones. In this case, the Naqada II sample did have the Sub-Saharan element mentioned (also found in the 1993 study when compared to Somalians), while the historical/dyanstic samples did not. What Keita mainly objects to is the exclusion of people like Ethiopians or Somalians from the definition of "Sub-Saharan", which is sometimes used in a more restricted sense (like West Africa or whatever). Those are two different things.

This again applies to your comments on my talk page about Keita (1992). I simply quoted Keita. You said that he does not suggest a progressive reduction of the Africoid pattern took place, which he clearly does. Here is a larger chunk of the study.

The predominant craniometric pattern in the Abydos [First Dynasty] royal tombs is "southern" (tropical African variant)... However, lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity... The Maghreb [i.e. Berber] series does have a modal pattern most similar to late lower dynastic Egyptians (Keita, 1990)... The centroid values of the various upper Egyptian series viewed collectively are seen to vary over time. The general trend from Badari to Nakada times, and then from the Nakadan to the First Dynasty epochs demonstrate change toward the northern-Egyptian centroid value on Function I with similar values on Function 11. This might represent an average change from an Africoid (Keita, 1990) to a northern-Egyptian-Maghreb modal pattern. It is clear however from the unknown analyses that the Abydene centroid value is explained primarily by the relatively greater number of crania with northern-Egyptian-Maghreb and European patterns in the series. Badari crania analyzed in this fashion revealed few or none which classified into the northern-Egyptian groups (Keita, 1990). This northern modal pattern, which can be called coastal northern African, is noted in general terms to be intermediate, by the centroid scores of Function I, to equatorial African and northern European phenotypes.

We can include his description of the northern pattern in the quote. This analysis is consistent with Brace et al. who also found predynastic samples to overlap with some Sub-Saharan ones, and is consistent with Irish (2006) as well:

[The Egyptian] samples [996 mummies] exhibit morphologically simple, mass-reduced dentitions that are similar to those in populations from greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1998a–c, 2000) and, to a lesser extent, western Asia and Europe (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a). Similar craniofacial measurements among samples from these regions were reported as well (Brace et al., 1993)... the Neolithic Western Desert [Nubian] sample is significantly different from all others [but] is closest to predynastic and early dynastic [Abydos] samples.

— Zerida 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• What I was getting at, concerning Brace is giving undue weight to his double talk, not his results.. The only thing contradictory about his claims and others', is the fallacious terminology he is sometimes reduced to. Which has been addressed....... Brace is respected, of course, but he has a lot of controversial views aswell that aren't mainstream, like his Neanderthal views. Which is why when criticism is noted, I don't see it appropriate giving undue weigh to the object of that criticism when the criticism has went unanswered. As you say, that is cherry-picking..

• The Minoan inclusion is undeniable original research and I've you'd address that directly, I'd appreciate it. In terms of how it is not and why scholarly mention of punt is?

OR - Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position

Of course you're aware that most portraits of Minoans depict extremely light to red dark-pigmented skin tones. This is an observation made by myself and it would be original research for me to impose that conclusion into an article with a pre-selected photo that probably isn't even conventional.

Both Kathryn Bard and K.A. Kitchens comment on the physical appearance/similarity.. Hawass even comments that they wore similar dress. All I ask for is your citations.. If we're to be rationally fair here. This is a more direct and primary source here, from Wisdom of the Egyptians By Brian Brown[7], he even mentions it in the intro, commenting on how early iconography resembled early depictions of Somalis/Puntites. These are not my words..

• As far as assessing who is and who is not authoritative, besides fitting Hawass (who is a secondary source and not a primary) along side Brace and Keita, etc, I have no reason to disagree, but I've already addressed the significance in not giving undue weight to disputed terminology and nit picking over them. It is good to cite it once and if there's noted criticism, why cite it again when the same flaws are repeated, as reported by the scholarly critique? No, Brace' data doesn't contradict Keita at all, merely his terminology does since Keita doesn't delimit authentic Africanity below the Sahara desert, and most anthropologists who study clusters and clines have the same approach as it is more methodologically sound. Not to mention that Keita's badari study finds overlap with Kenyans and Naqaada overlaps with Kush and Somalia (sub-Sahara). Too much elaboration would be needed to explain the contradiction when Keita and Kittles already have addressed it.

You wrote:

:This again applies to your comments on my talk page about Keita (1992). I simply quoted Keita. You said that he does not suggest a progressive reduction of the Africoid pattern took place, which he clearly does. Here is a larger chunk of the study.

Zerida, I never denied what was directly reported, I only had issue with what was ommitted. What was omitted was indeed the closer, conclusion, and most critical part of the study. Also weasel words I was concerned about..

Keita wrote:

The centroid values of the various upper Egyptian series viewed collectively are seen to vary over time. The general trend from Badari to Nakada times, and then from the Nakadan to the First Dynasty epochs demonstrate change toward the northern-Egyptian centroid value on Function I with similar values on Function 11. This might represent an average change from an Africoid (Keita, 1990) to a northern-Egyptian-Maghreb modal pattern. It is clear however from the unknown analyses that the Abydene centroid value is explained primarily by the relatively greater number of crania with northern-Egyptian-Maghreb and European patterns in the series.

^^In the study, he describes the presence of "real northerners". He also describes this pattern as a "northern modal pattern, that is already intermediate between Northern Europeans and Tropical African populations, while the southern pattern overlapped tropical Africans. What is important, as not to be confused in interpretation, is to quote him in context, along with the conclusions reached, not just one comment he makes in the middle of the study. We need a summary in his own words... In other words, he says nothing about a "reduction" or a "large reduction"; that is weasel wording, what he says it stated about. That change occurs, with change consisting of southerners conforming to a northern modal pattern overtime during the predynastic, but the southerners were still predominant by first dynasty times, and no change was reported by second dynasty times, only a tendency of convergence observed in the predynastic.

Previous concepts about the origin of the First Dynasty Egyptians as being somehow external to the Nile Valley or less “native” are not supported by archeology. In summary, the Abydos First Dynasty royal tomb contents reveal a notable craniometric heterogeneity. Southerners predominate. The suggestion of previous work, namely that crania with southern and coastal northern patterns might be present in these tombs, has been demonstrated and explained by historical and archaeological data.”

^In conclusion, he states that the modal pattern that is most predominant among the dynastic founders are southern patterns that overlap Nubia/Kush and share continuity with the prior predynastic Naqada and Badari..

As noted earlier, Howells’ work (1973) also demonstrates this, and Howells notes the difference with the Nakada predynastic group. The Abydos crania as a series do have continuity with the southern pattern, but change occurs.

^Continuity...

"The phenotypic situation can also be interpreted as representing two differentiated African populations, with northerners having diverged early and notably from the southerners, or an early ancestral group, by drift and gene exchange with the Near East. (This however, would not negate their lineage relationship with southerners.)

• • Later**, depending on "starting" orientation, the **dynastic Lower Egyptians by convergence, secondary to gene flow and micro-adaptation, either became more African "Negroid" (Howells 1973) or became more mediterranean "White" (Angel 1972).** Making a neat north/south "racial" division in dynastic Egyptian epoch would be difficult (and theoretically unsound to most current workers), although trends can be recognized. These racial terms are unnecessary. The variability in the population in Upper Egypt increased, as its isolation decreased, with increasing social complexity of southern Egypt from the predynastic through dynastic periods (Keita 1992). The Upper Egyptian population apparently began to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptian patterns through the dynastic epoch; whether this is primarily due to gene flow or other factors has yet to be finally determined. **The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan series.

Yet, as noted, the southerners didn't go anywhere, which is what I was trying to emphasize:

Southern elites and or their descendants eventually came to be buried in the north (Hoffman, 1988). Hence early Second Dynasty kings and Djoser (Dynasty 111) (Hayes, 1953) and his descendants are not buried in Abydos. Petrie (1939) states that the Third Dynasty, buried in the north, was of Sudanese origin, but southern Egypt is equally likely. This perhaps explains Harris and Weeks’ (1973) suggested findings of southern morphologies in some Old Kingdom Giza remains, also verified in portraiture (Drake, 1987)....... Further study would be required to ascertain trends in the general population of both regions

^I'm only worried about the omission of such relevant information; selective quoting aside. He says that southerns began to move north and that after the first dynasty, southern patterns were found in the north aswell. He also states that more research is needed to establish tends in the north...

The “European” metrics of some of the crania clearly emphasize the contrasts found in the tombs. This may denote the range of variation encompassed by the coastal northern pattern, given its intermediate position, or reflect the presence of middle easterners. There is no archaeological, linguistic, or historical data which indicate a European or Asiatic invasion of, or migration to, the Nile Valley during First Dynasty times.

This exemplifies why I was trying to alert you a while back to the fact that when Keita says "European phenotypes", he is referring to one sub-set of the "coastal northern pattern", which is found overall to be intermediate between Europeans and tropical africans.. The similarity to the Maghreb doesn't necessarily indicate affinity since Keita mentions that the Lower Egyptian patters were more heterogeneous. Meaning that the individuals studied varied from broad southerners, to more sharp featured northerners, which when combined, formed a coastal north African twig, unlike modern Maghrebians who are a more homogeneous group...

This pattern is seen in both group and unknown analyses. However, lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity. The Maghrebian affinities may be difficult to interpret, given that this series contains a range of variation from tropical African to European metric phenotypes (Keita, 1990). It is not possible to say, because of the complex geometry of the multivariate method (Blakith and Reyment, 1971), what more specific affinities individual crania may have. The Maghreb series does have a modal pattern most similar to late lower dynastic Egyptians (Keita, 1990).

^So even within the coastal northern patterns, he notes certain tropical affinities. That's why it is important to stay within the context of the paper and not practice selective quoting of isolated passages, with out elaborating. Sorry if that's a long read, but it is necessary since you didn't understand what I was trying to explain..

This is also why I cited Keita 1993, yet you seemed only interested in Keita 92, when in the 1993 paper he elaborates a great deal more on how the southern patterns predominated early in upper egypt, with accompanied continuity reported stretching into the dynastic.. Zakrzewski found limb ratios to be consistent with "sub-Saharans" aswell, which remained steady through out the dynastic, though change in stature did occur, which was attributed to diet. Speaking of, Zakrzewski (in the study directly above) confirms Keita, and elaborates on morphological continuity:

the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or \Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material, (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), - Page 506[8]

Conclusion of her paper basically indicated that these predynastic people in question were not displaced during the periods that she studied, and were indeed the nation-state by the first dynasty. She was assessing the validity of the Dynastic race theory, and found it of course to be bunk since there's is genetic continuity from the predynastic and into the dynastic. Even noting continuity with later Egyptians, as did Irish..

As far as dental studies, Keita 93 reports the discovery of fourth molars, that are characteristic of more southernly africans. He also attributes the dental reduction to in situ microevolution, driven by dietary change. Keita doesn't necessarily agree with Irish and you'd notice this if you'd read page 141, here.[9].. I really recommend that you read this, as Keita 1992 isn't his only study concerning this topic.

For the most part, this was just an exercise... The only things disputed actually are addressed at the top (Brace and punt), and you can choose to address that if you will, as per discussion, of course you're not obligated to address the Keita and Zakrzewski citations above as they were only cited for elucidation purposes.. I can consider omitting the section on punt altogether though, if others agree. As far as the Brace study, you merely quoted that passage for balance, but it seemed very redundant to do so and was a late addition. Maybe its relevance in relationship to the criticism and raw data its self can be discussed further, but as of now, seeing as how it was a relatively later addition, it can probably wait.. Progress in communication is the most important thing and I feel that has been established....Taharqa 20:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One problem however, seems to be that they (those who contributed it) insist on the inclusion of the Sphinx section, regardless of our discussions/compromise. Of course this is understandable since neither you or I possess ownership over the article and I can only make suggestions. I suggest that you reach out to Luka and Muntuwandi aswell, in reasoning with them in order to gain a consensus. As it stood however, I still firmly believe that using Budge as a reliable source is always problematic, since he can be used to support a variety of things. He's one of those who identified punt as the land of Egyptian origins and translated Nubian Ta Khent as literally meaning "ancestral homeland". Later in his career, as demonstrated, he emphatically regarded Egyptians as Africans in origins, when earlier he did not.. Most scholars for whatever reason, consider him outdated.[10] It was also out of context since Budge was criticizing Volney and what he reported to have seen in relation to the sphinx..

^^He is cited by afrocentrists more than anything which is why I found that surprising. Yaacov Shavit's examples only consisted of Budge. So I don't mind if Yaacov's take on it is mentioned, but the Budge reference, as noted is problematic.

Shavit seems to be discussing many past (and now defunct) hypotheses' which he attributes to other researchers, and a lot of which is today considered fringe (like "the brown race", etc).. Also, which is why I love to reference check, what was clearly omitted was that in the notes, Shavit also cited people who described the same exact thing as Volney. Actually, he cites more people in support of Volney than critical of him.

However, many travelers were also of the impression that the face on the Sphinx has black features - Pg. 333, note 24..

More importantly, Shavit commented on Volney's view that the ancient Egyptians were black, based on the modern inhabitants that he came across. Shavit says: However, many European travelers and scholars rejected this view... Not surprising at all (he even cited a few racist comments), but given that Shavit never addressed or cited rebuttal of Volney's observation of the Sphinx, that can be seen as original research.

After reading some of his material, I must say, Shavit is a weird read. I understand that he is not a certified Egyptologist, so it isn't surprising that a lot of his note taking seems rather scatter-brained. He seems neutral and rather realistic in some sectors, while in others, his scholarship is rather sloppy. He cites a lot of outdated material, racialist views (on both sides), and unverified assumptions. I have no grounds to dispute his credibility, but I'm not sure as to the context of his authority. That's insignificant however as I'm not scrutinizing him, only pointing out things that were missed and looking to gain some common ground between you and the other editors concerned..Taharqa 23:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, there doesn't seem to be disagreement from what I see. Neither one of the other editors objected to the additions I made, and as I recall, one asked everyone not to delete valid citations. I think it's pretty clear from the discussion, however, that the Sphinx section is not that important to you, and far more important to the other editors. Since you've said that you're past the reverts, I'm going to restore some of the material. As far as the endnote from Shavit, all the quotes reproduced in the back are of modern Egyptians and they seem fine to me. However, in the next note (25), he writes: While Afrocentrism regards Volney as a non-racial observer, one may wonder whether his portrait of the Egyptian was not based on racial prejudice against the modern Egyptians. At any rate, as long as Volney, who I regard as very unreliable, is included in the article, we need to include a response by a contemporaneous author who disagreed. — Zerida 01:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem.. Still had concerns about Budge, but I think it's just simple to ackowledge his views in the context of the time, so I elaborated. The picture is problematic merely because it is selective and generally has little to do with the Sphinx or even Volney's comments about the Copts. It's original research.. I also added Shavit's mention of other descriptions, as not to deprive anybody of the totality of what he reports, as opposed to the isolated reference to Budge. One more extremely minor thing is the issue of past and present tense, in relation to weasel worded statements.

most of the European travelers and scholars reject/ed Volney's views

Shavit's support of this assertion is in the form of about 2 or 3 citations of 19th century scholaras, contemporary with budge. To say that most scholars rejected Volney is a weasel worded statement unto its self if uncited, but it is cited (even if he even cites contrary interpretations aswell). But "most of the European travelers and scholars reject Volney's views", of course is a weasel worded statement, not supported by any reliable sources/citations. It is also clear that grmmar-wise, and put in context, he was referring to those 19th century writers with views contrary to Volney. this is why he says: However, many travelers were also of the impression that the face on the Sphinx has black features

^^But this is self-evident, I'm only going through the motions. Finally, I clarified on his credentials, so people don't mistakenly assume him to be an Egyptologist instead of a Jewish Historian. This really isn't a big deal, but balance should of course neutrality, along with accuracy is the general rule.. cheers.. :)Taharqa 02:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't suppress sections without discussing the issue

Egyegy, please, stop removing entire sections from the article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann's pov-pushing

Instead of choosing to discuss and gain a consensus, Dab chooses to make nonsensical edits, propsing mergers with "population history of ancient Egypt" and "Afrocentrism".. What dab doesn't realize is that we've already had months worth of discussion to form a consensus on merging population history with appearance of the ancient Egyptians. User:Zerida is the one who eventually merged it, and we all agreed.

You, tagging random sections as lacking relevancy without elaborating seems like pov aswell, not to mention your proposed merger with "afrocentrism", when there are relatively no afrocentrists cited in this article, nor are the ones who were considered so given undue weight (namely just Diop), which is why me and Zerida (and others) are trying to discuss the disputed aspects of the article. Please cease from your destructive behavior dab, as you're trying to undermine progress as we're trying to establish a productive dialogue here, with out your irrelevant and minority pov. You have no consensus for your proposal and we have already established the consensus for a merger. You've already participated in one pov-fork dealing with this article and are trying to create another.Taharqa 16:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Accusing other editors of "Pov pushing" is unhelpful. Secondly, From reading this article, It's clearly a topic of Afrocentrism. Whether or not this entire article should be merged there is another discussion though, but there is no doubt that it's an Afrocentrism topic. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have no citation demonstrating why such an article is "clearly a topic of Afrocentrism", then I suggest that you adhere to the no original research policy. Just because you affirm something to be true doesn't make it so.Taharqa 18:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

How many times does this article mention "Afrocentric" or "Afrocentricists"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Article on Yahoo which might be a good source...(Zahi Hawass)

This article reports about Zahi Hawass explaining that Egyptians were not "black" and that Tutankhamun was not black. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

, User:Taharqa, Please do not remove my comments from talk pages. This information may or may not be useful for the article, however I think it is and I will post it here for others to review. Hawass is one of the most prominent experts in Egyptology and his opinions are quite relevant to this topic. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for being so rash in my revision, but you must realize that this type of trivia is generally more adaptable to message board discussions. Hawass' comments are obscure and even fringe. I'm not sure how healthy it would be that someone create another section every time someone offers their subjective opinion on a particular issue.

"Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilization as black has no element of truth to it," Hawass told reporters.

"Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa," he said, quoted by the official MENA news agency.

• Tutankhamun was not black?, hawass says, according to this media outlet. Egypt was not a "black civilization, hawass says again, according to this media outlet.

• Egyptians were not Arab or African, even though Egypt is in Africa, Hawass says, according to this media outlet.

^You see where this is going? He makes obvious contradictory statements by way of a secondary source, and doesn't cite his sources. His opinion is respected by many but as noted, this is trivia and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Discussion in reference to it only leads to forum-style debating.Taharqa 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

indeed, it has everything to do with this "discussion". The genetic studies handed around indicate that the general population of Southern Egypt in the 4th millennium BC were black(ish). Tutankhamun was a pharaoh of the 2nd millennium BC. This link shows that now even Egyptologists feel compelled to react to this silliness, making clear that this is entirely a debate of hysterical "black activists" and has nothing whatsoever to do with Egyptology. Which is why the entire "blackness" debate belongs merged into Afrocentrism. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 18:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how his statements are contradictory. He's saying that the ancient Egyptians were neither Arabs (as they had not migrated there yet) or Blacks (Sub-Saharan Africans). This is the opinion of one of the most respected and well known Egyptologists in the world and I would neither call it "fringe" or "trivia". Not by a long shot. This is a reliable source and is quite reputable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

^^What is his evidence? His sources are not cited and he is not an expert on racial classification.. It is trivia.Taharqa 18:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

agreement again. Taharqa, it is you who are pushing "fringe" statements, without even the benefit of coherence. You repeat Hawass' statement back at us and somehow imagine by doing that you have refuted it? If you're going to take up the attention of your fellow Wikipedians, at least try to pretend you have some point to make. dab (𒁳) 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa, Hawass is an egyptologist who's expertise is everything ancient Egyptian. Simply being a physical anthropologist or an expert on racial classification really would be irrelevant in this context of ancient Egypt if the person in question knows nothing about ancient Egypt itself. Hawass is stating his expert opinion based on his knowledge on ancient egypt and ancient egyptian people and ancient egyptian culture. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not "refuting" anything, I am asking for a reliable source, since his trivial statements to some random media outlet seem to contradict some of the peer reviewed data mentioned (mainly the "African" part, minus the racial emphasis).Taharqa 18:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hawass is considered a Reliable source. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought that by me repeating Hawass quote for quote, it would be self-explanatory. But I guess not...

Hawass says (to some random media outlet): Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa

To be honest, Hawass' statements are what has "no element of truth to them".

Frank Yurco writes:

Certainly there was some foreign admixture [in Egypt], but basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times... [the] Badarian people, who developed the earliest Predynastic Egyptian culture, already exhibited the mix of North African and Sub-Saharan physical traits that have typified Egyptians ever since (Hassan 1985; Yurco 1989; Trigger 1978; Keita 1990; Brace et al., this volume)... The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East Africa, Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic (i.e. Nile River) continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions (Trigger 1978; Bard, Snowden, this volume). Language research suggests that this Saharan-Nilotic population became speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages... Semitic was evidently spoken by Saharans who crossed the Red Sea into Arabia and became ancestors of the Semitic speakers there, possibly around 7000 BC... In summary we may say that Egypt was a distinct North African culture rooted in the Nile Valley and on the Sahara

So why are we giving undue weight to the fringe comments of mr Hawass by way of some media outlet, probably catching him off guard or feeling emotional? The difference here is that Yurco's quotation above is citable. He wrote this for that intention as an authority in the field of Egyptology.

"The southern affinities with the series are striking given the commonly held or stated classical "racial" views of the Egyptians predict a notable distinction from"Africans". Thus any scheme to label Nubians or all Egyptians as a "Caucasian" monotypic entity is a hypothesis which is easily falsified. Metric analysis clearly suggest in fact that at least southern Egyptian groups were part of indigenous holocene Saharo-Tropical African variation." - Keita 1993

Now please take this to some web forum.. Why discuss it here when it is only about a few unsubstantiated fringe comments reported by the media and attributed to Hawass, who apparently doesn't cite any sources for his obscure and contradictory comments.?Taharqa 18:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Who says we're giving undue weight? Who says that Hawass is fringe and Yurco isn't? A google search yields the top results for Yurco is his response to Hawass. The fact is, Yurco seems to be the fringe here, Not Hawass. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yurco is fringe? Yurco has provided citations sir ((Hassan 1985; Yurco 1989; Trigger 1978; Keita 1990; Brace et al., this volume)).

Hawass made some random and unsubstantiated comment to the media.. Focusing on it is giving it undue weight. I won't even comment about your comment on Yurco.. I cited Keita aswell..Taharqa 19:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dab writes:

indeed, it has everything to do with this "discussion". The genetic studies handed around indicate that the general population of Southern Egypt in the 4th millennium BC were black(ish). Tutankhamun was a pharaoh of the 2nd millennium BC. This link shows that now even Egyptologists feel compelled to react to this silliness, making clear that this is entirely a debate of hysterical "black activists" and has nothing whatsoever to do with Egyptology. Which is why the entire "blackness" debate belongs merged into Afrocentrism. Thanks

I'm starting to understand your concern a bit better, but this is a red herring yet and still. It isn't about "Black and White", yet you seem to zone in on the factor of "black" with more passion. It is entitled "race and ancient Egypt".. Yes, before hand we split it off to "population history of ancient egypt", but honestly, that title it suited more to this article here[11].. An admin gained consensus to change the title from "race and ancient egypt (controversies)", to simply "race and ancient egypt".. These decisions are not mine; I have only been defending some of them. Too many things have been changed and flipped around that what I am suggesting is that you be patient and gain some kind of consensus and explain your reasoning. As of now, your reasoning seems slightly misguided and you seem oblivious to previous discussions/consensus, but this is my opinion..

Also, why is this relevant?

The genetic studies handed around indicate that the general population of Southern Egypt in the 4th millennium BC were black(ish). Tutankhamun was a pharaoh of the 2nd millennium BC.

Continuity is reported as stretching far into the dynastic by the majority of accounts. Your terminology is based on early remains sharing similarities with Nubians and more southernly east Africans, yet as noted, since then, the ancient Egyptians were pretty much a homogeneous group..

Recent studies on New Kingdom remains:

7.4. Variation by biological affinity

These data on the strontium isotope ratios of predicted groups are difficult to interpret, as the differences between Egyptian and Nubian cranial morphology are far from straightforward. Although Egyptian samples examined by Buzon (2006) appeared to form a more morphologically homogenous group than the Nubians, it is clear that these ancient Egyptians and Nubians share many similar features. Several individuals with Egyptian cranial morphology are within the local range. This finding that some individuals who appear local in their strontium isotope ratios would have Egyptian cranial morphology is expected. Considering the time span of the cemetery (1400e1050 AD), it is probable that Egyptian immigrants would have had children at Tombos, who would then have the local strontium isotopic signature in their dental enamel as well as Egyptian cranial morphology. This corresponds well with the presence of individuals who were buried in Egyptian style and have 87Sr/86Sr values in the local range. Individuals with Nubian morphology outside the local range may be natives from another region of Nubia. - Buzon (2007)

Taharqa 19:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Taharaqa, Do you have the texts to these studies that Yurco cites? The source from Keita 1993 actually agrees with Hawass. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

^I have maybe 3 of them, but Yurco is a reliable source; what grounds do you have to dispute his interpretation of the archaeological and anthropological data (that he cites for all to reference check)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taharqa (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as this statement: The source from Keita 1993 actually agrees with Hawass.

^^This is false.. Please read the entire thing..Taharqa 19:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Please post the full texts for us to read so that I can see them.

2. The Keita 1993 sources does agree with Hawass. Hawass is saying that Ancient Egyptians were not Arabs or Blacks. The Keita 1993 sources says that there are notable distinctions between native Egyptians and other Africans. It also says that "any scheme to label Nubians or all Egyptians as a "Caucasian" monotypic entity is a hypothesis which is easily falsified" which isn't what Hawass is doing. He's not claiming that Nubians or Egyptians were "Caucasian", he's simply saying that they weren't black. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

1. 1.. Yurco is an authority and I'm not obligated to post any sources that you're able to look up yourself.

1. 2. If you claim that the Keita paper agrees with Hawass, that Egyptians aren't indigenous Africans who were biologically coextensive with other more southernly Africans, then you obviously did not read what I asked you to.

Just because anthropology doesn't have the same hang-ups of "black and white" as Zahi Hawass does, therefore not resorting to such classifications for any populations, doesn't mean that what the two were reporting is harmonious. For lack of a better term, Keita does resort to such terminology actually to emphasize the point:

Conclusion of the paper:

Early Nile Valley populations are best viewed as an African descent group or lineage with tropical adaptations and relationships. This group is highly variable, as would be expected. Archaeological data also support this position, which is not new. Overtime, the gene flow (admixture) did occur in the Nile Valley from Europe and the near east, also giving "Egyptians" relationships with those groups. This admixture, if it had occurred by Dynasty I, little affected the southern affinity of southern predynastic people, as illustrated here. As indicated by the analysis of the data in the studies reviewed here, the southern predynastic people were Saharo-Tropical African variants[150/151]

Other notable comments, for context:

The "Negro" craniofacial morphotype is not a sole denotation for Saharo-tropical African, any more than Nordic is for European.[143]

There is no evidence for a sudden, or gradual mass migration of Europeans or Near Easterners into the valley, as the term "displacement" would imply. There is limb ratio and cranio-facial morphological and metric continuity in Upper Egypt-Nubia in a broad sense, from the late paleolithic through the dynastic periods, although change occurred.[142]

The issue of "authentic' African is a non-issue. The concepts of variation and micro-evolution clearly allow better understanding of the early Saharan-Upper Egyptian peoples. They were tropical variants, not cold adapted migrants.[146]..

The problem is that Hawass creates a false dichotomy that is illogical, contradictory, and political double talk. There is nothing scientific about arguing over whether or not somebody is "black or white", like the paper emphasizes, what is important is "biological affinities", since terms like "black and white" differ regionally.. Trivia..Taharqa 23:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Taharqa, 1. The burden is on you to provide the actual sources and texts to them so that other editors can see them for themselves. Simply relying on one egyptologist while ignoring a much more notable and reputable one is against WP policy. 2. I still fail to see how the Keita source disagrees with Hawass. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptians were indigenous Africans

Wikidudeman, whoever knows the history of migrations cannot say what Hawass is saying. And maybe he never said that. Arabs are not indigenous to Africa. But Egyptians are. They are from the Sahara, exactly where those who are called Sub-Saharan Africans are from. And they began creating their civilisation from south (Nubia) to north. Later Egyptians moved to the interior of Africa trying to escape the persecutions of the Persians. Please, whatch this video by Basil Davidson Kemet - Black Civilization.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Arab's are semitic and didn't come from Sub-Saharan Africa but from what today is the middle east.[[12]]. Hawass never said that Arabs are indigenous to Africa. Please read the article initially posted above. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hawass's views are not new. This is simply a reincarnation of the 2005 King Tut controversy, where Hawass claimed that he was "Caucasoid North African". tut reconstruction. we can include the information that he says, but the problem is he does not give any forensic details to back up his claim. Muntuwandi 22:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The link you provide actually details the forensic evidence based on the facial features of the mummy, The two country team concluded that the individual reconstructed (King Tut) was of Caucasoid North African stock. That's what the scientific team concluded based on their reconstruction and findings. The American team actually KNEW that the individual was North-African without ever knowing who exactly it was, so it was a blind study in that sense. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the study, is if you look at Tut in profile, he does not look "Caucasoid". Muntuwandi 22:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The experts concluded that he did. You're thinking "Caucasoid" equals "White" or "Anglo Saxon" but in fact it doesn't. The team of experts concluded that his features were North African Caucasoid so personal interpretations of the image would be Original Research. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

discovery reconstruction. Muntuwandi 22:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What about it? Are you saying that it looks more "Black" than the initial one? I disagree. The black background makes it look darker and it's a low quality image to begin with, however the facial features are almost identical. Unless you can show me where the Discovery team concluded that he was NOT Caucasoid north African but was "black" then I don't think it's very relevant. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say he was more black, you did. The point is there have been a number of reconstructions and they aren't necessarily in agreement. Muntuwandi 23:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Some aspects of the king's appearance, however, are destined to remain mysterious. The shape of the top of his nose and of his ears, as well as the color of his eyes and skin, cannot be determined by CT scan skull data. These features are likely to remain forever unknown[13]Muntuwandi 23:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Experts don't need exact knowledge of such features to make a conclusion about background, origin, or racial characteristics. The former team of experts mentioned SAID that he was of North African Caucasoid extraction and the latter Discovery team never contradicted that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Excessive use of POV tags is not going to resolve problems with this article. This is the most tagged article I have seen. It just obscures readability. Muntuwandi 23:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Who says the reconstructions aren't in agreement? Some have lighter and some have darker skin tones but the basic facial characteristics are the same. Concluding they aren't in agreement is O.R. The one team mentioned concluded that he was of North African Caucasoid extraction and no other reconstruction teams contradicted that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The tags are necessary as there are numerous separate issues with this article that one tag won't cover. Readers need to be aware of this. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone places a tag, they should be able to defend it. I see a lot of editors reading an article, if they don't like it, they tag it without an explanation and then disappear forever. The tag remains and nobody knows why. Muntuwandi 23:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, there are no Caucasoid indigenous to Africa. No African region is known as Caucasia or Caucasus. Africa before any foreign invasions was populated by Blacks. Sub-Saharan Blacks are from the Sahara. Egyptian, who are actually part of the Nubians, are a mix of local black populations and black people from the Sahara. Did you watch Basil Davidson? If King Tut is Caucasoid, it means that his ancestors are not indigenous Africans. Which may be true. By this time, Whites have already invaded Africa. These minorities did not change the ethnicity of the Egyptians. On the contrary they have been assimilated. The Fulani or Peul of West Africa are thought to be offsprings of assimilated Whites by black populations in northen Egypt (Diop and lam wrote about that issue). But, the history of Egyptology shows that it is quite impossible to convince people about any whiteness of the ancient Egyptians, especialy those of the first dynasties, without falsifying facts.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 23:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The sources disagree. Please provide reliable sources saying that Egyptians are a mixture of "local black populations" and people from the Sahara. You also need to define what "black" means. Does "black" mean having skin the color of say Al-Sharpton? If that's the case then indigenous Egyptians aren't "black". The source found here says clearly that Tug was a North African Caucasoid. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If King Tut is Caucasoid, it means that his ancestors are not indigenous Africans. Which may be true.

^But it isn't.. Tut is descended from Seqenenre Tao of the 17th dynasty at Thebes. This is what Harris and Weeks had to say after reviewing his mummy:

His entire facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs (it is closest to that of his son Ahmose) that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian-that is, non-Egyptian-origin for Seqenenre and his family, and his facial features suggest this might indeed be true." - X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980)

The implication behind what I put in bold is also noteworthy and was addressed by Keita.. Here is a full explanation of Harris and Week's findings, after examining various mummies from the New Kingdom.[14]Taharqa 00:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the scientists never described tut as a "North African Caucasoid", that's a distortion on Hawass' part.. They claimed that he possessed "Caucasoid features", which is considered a misnomer in physical anthropology. Jean Hiernaux introduced the elongated african concept years ago, allowing for diversity that is real and indigenous, and has nothing to do with non-Africans who are sometimes considered "Caucasoid"..

the inhabitants of East Africa right on the equator have appreciably longer, narrower, and higher noses than people in the Congo at the same latitude. A former generation of anthropologists used to explain this paradox by invoking an invasion by an itinerant "white" population from the Mediterranean area, although this solution raised more problems than it solved since the East Africans in question ***include some of the blackest people in the world*** with characteristically wooly hair and a body build unique among the world's populations for its extreme linearity and height............ "There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia, as they usually are in literature." - Jean Hiernaux,, "The People of Africa, 1975..

^Of course, Keita, Zakrzewski, and others have already addressed this.. They have also clearly noted early Egyptians as belonging to this range of Saharo-tropical variation, and reports continuity stretching into the dynastic. The Buzon study and the X-Ray atlas should shed light on that aswell..Taharqa 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually that isn't true...The press release says :"Based on this skull, the American and French teams both concluded that the subject was Caucasoid (the type of human typically found, for example, in North Africa, Europe, and the Middle East)." This is what that the press release said based on the scientific findings. Hawass only agrees with them, and he's right to do so. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yurco and Hawass

Both Yurco and Hawass are notable Egyptologists. Hawass has always used the word "African" in the popular sense of meaning "Black African", but in the same breath, he will say that Egyptians are North Africans. Terms with regard to ethnicity and "race" have different meanings and connotations where he comes from. It's also important to point out that Yurco has been very critical of Afrocentrists. Here are some of his thoughts on the topic quoted from the University of Chicago NES department's mailing list, to which he was a regular contributor:

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 12:53:58 CDT

From: Frank Joseph Yurco <fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu>

Subject: Re: kemet

We are dealing with the usual sleight of hand practiced by the Afrocentrists. km, vocalized kem, is the adjective "black" in Egyptian. I do agree with Diop that it represented a charred piece of wood. To get the term to refer to the Egyptian people, in Egyptian Grammar, you have to transform the adjective into a noun through the nisbe process Gardiner, Grammar, sections 79-81. That is the normal way Egyptian transformed adjectives into nouns and there's a plethora of examples citable. Now that yields, again following Gardiner, "those of the black land" since actually the nisbe is derived, from kmt, a noun, "The Black Land". Still the Nisbe process was used even when extending the meaning of nouns. The form would be kmtyw nisbe plural, and it could be tranformed thereby into another noun, so "those of the black land", or "black landers" at most. No way can this be equated with the Egyptians being described as black, at least not through Egyptian grammar. Diop knew Egyptian grammar, so he was foisting a fraud by pushing this notion.

The Nisbe process also exists in Arabic, as Gardiner pointed out, so it is well established in the Afro-Asiatic languages. There's absolutely nothing Eurocentric about this solution and response. It is based upon Egypto-Coptic and Arabic rules of greammar. So, again, the charge by the Afrocentrists is ill-informed and spurious...

Indeed, we have solid proof that when the Egyptians wanted to call someone black, they used adjective plus noun as the construction. This is found in the Montuhotep II complex, where a group of priestesses and possibly wives of the pharaoh were buried. One of them is named Kmst, Kemsit vocalized, and her name translates, "the lady is black". Now depictions of Kemsit in her tomb chapel depict her as ebony black, darker than the males and females serving on her, and in the reliefs from the Upper Chapel, she is depicted also ebony black, and with tightly curled hair....There's another case, from the Old Kingdom. A nomarch from Meir, in Middle Egypt, in Dynasty VI was named Ny-ankh-Pepy km, that is Ny-ankh-Pepy the black.

Some Afrocentrists would love to deny these developments because they run counter to their theories of Egypt deriving in population and culture from inner Africa. Population wise, this is bunk. Keita himself decries this garbage. He knows perfectly well and acknowledges how variable African populations are. Culturally also, this is bunk. Egypt is closely related to Nubia, because as neighbors, they shared population and culture both. However, south of Khartoum, a different culture emerged in earliest times, the Khartoum Mesolithic and Neolithic. It was distinct from Egyptian and Lower Nubian culture. So, Egypt is most closely related anciently to the Saharan peoples and the Nubian peoples who likewise derived partly from the Saharans. The Saharans also are the speakers of Afro-asiatic languages, and they spread all across Northern Africa.

These are the closest relatives of the ancient and modern Egyptians.--

— Zerida 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanx Zerida.. I'm in agreement with Yurco here for the most part. Which reminds me of Keita in his address to the Society for the Preservation of the Greek Heritage, which was designed as a condemnation of Afrocentrism.. In reference to Egypt, Keita states:

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). (79) [15]

That pretty much sums up what comes across in his research..

Some Afrocentrists would love to deny these developments because they run counter to their theories of Egypt deriving in population and culture from inner Africa. Population wise, this is bunk. Keita himself decries this garbage. He knows perfectly well and acknowledges how variable African populations are. - Yurco

Agreed.. The thing about that though, is Keita creates no dichotomy between "inner" Africa and indigenous Nile valley populations. They all subsume the array of indigenous Saharo-tropical african variation, which he emphasizes in nearly all of his relevant studies, reporting overlap between the former and the latter.

So, Egypt is most closely related anciently to the Saharan peoples and the Nubian peoples who likewise derived partly from the Saharans. The Saharans also are the speakers of Afro-asiatic languages, and they spread all across Northern Africa. - Yurco

^Agreed. Yurco was on point.. This is what Ehret has to say about the Egyptians and the Afro-Asiatic language group..

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. - Professor Christopher Ehret, Egypt in Africa, (1996), pp. 23-24

I've been saying all along that attempts to separate Nubians and Egyptians were futile.. "Black and White" simply doesn't capture the indigenous diversity that is Africa. Diversity that has little to do with influences external to the nile valley and ancient Sahara (before it was a desert of course)..Taharqa 04:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on my reading, Yurco seems to agree with what I'm saying. Yurco says: "Some Afrocentrists would love to deny these developments because they run counter to their theories of Egypt deriving in population and culture from inner Africa. Population wise, this is bunk. Keita himself decries this garbage. He knows perfectly well and acknowledges how variable African populations are. Culturally also, this is bunk."

Moreover, Taharqa, Please to to limit the amount of spaces between your paragraphs. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Split

I would agree to the proposed split if the "Population history" article was kept strictly scientific, which means no Afrocentric authors, no Nordic theories, no 19th-century travelogues etc.; and certainly no selective quotations and/or exclusion of legitimate studies on the topic. I've always maintained that violations of UNDUE like the aforementioned should go into their own articles or be kept in an article about the controversy itself. Because some editors preferred the latter, I opted for the title change as a compromise. I am still open to other compromises. — Zerida 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about this article Zerida, and how would it relate?[16].. I agree to the effect that I'm tired of dealing with petty disputes over subjective pov. But consensus is of course needed before any such haste actions..Taharqa 03:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No split is necessary. It was tried before. One would need to make the same edits in two articles at the same time. Better to have everything in one place. There is already an article History of ancient Egypt, that is non racial. Muntuwandi 03:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi has a point though.. I'm not sure that I see a good reason for another split. Between History of ancient Egypt and Origin of the Nilotic peoples, "population history would seem like a contentfork.. It would be in our best interests to continue to discuss matters in a civil fashion, gain consensus, keep the main emphasis on neutrality and reliable information/sources. We shouldn't have to worry about too much if we stick to the format..Taharqa 04:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The split is not necessary. I agree with Muntuwandi.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Kmt

Yurco, according to a post by Zerida, accuses Diop of transforming kmt from an adjective into a noun. Kmt is not kmtyw, Zerida. Kmt-A1 is really a noun, while kmtyw is a nisbe (In Bantu languages the nisbe exists too. It is not peculiar to semitic languages like arabic). You find it in Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, p. 286. Faulkner translates it into Egyptians. But this is not a litteral translation. The litteral translation is the Black people. Kmt-A1 comes from the papyrus of Kahun. Look for example at Plate III, lines 3 and 5. You click on the pages in order to turn them. [17]. Concerning kmt, Yurco is totally wrong.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, If "Diop" is a notable individual then they can be included in the article also. We just say what Diop says and also say what Yurco says. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Great Sphinx of Giza

I don't know who removed the section on the Great Sphinx of Giza. This sphinx is historical and a testimony of the Egyptian ethnicity quite at the beginning of the Egyptian dynasties. It is more important than King Tut and Cleopatra who came in later dynasties. There are maybe informations to be removed from the article, but certainly not this one about the sphinx. Who removed it and why?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 15:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's bunk, for one. The Sphinx is HIGHLY damaged and looks nothing like what it originally looked like when constructed due to weathering damage. The front of the face is totally worn down and the nose is entirely missing. This is what caused early European visitors of Egypt to describe it as looking similar to an individual of inner African origin. The "flat nose" as described in many of the bulky quotes in that section is actually no nose at all, it's totally missing. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Who damaged it and why? But it is not so damaged to hide its ethnicity! This is the commentary of Denon, a French artist of the expedition of Napoléon. Sorry it is in French: Je n’eus que le temps d’observer le Sphinx qui mérite d’être dessiné avec le soin le plus scrupuleux, et qui ne l’a jamais été de cette manière. Quoique ses proportions soient colossales, les contours qui en sont conservés sont aussi souples que purs : l’expression de la tête est douce, grâcieuse et tranquille ; le caractère en est africain : mais la bouche, dont les lèvres sont épaisses, a une mollesse dans le mouvement et une finesse d’exécution vraiment admirables ; c’est de la chair et de la vie. And he wrote about the Egyptian art in general: Quant au caractère de leur figure humaine, n’empruntant rien des autres nations, ils ont copié leur propre nature, qui était plus gracieuse que belle. ... en tout, le caractère africain, dont le Nègre est la charge, et peut-être le principe. Do you believe Wikidudeman that the Sahara was peopled by Caucasoid before the desertification? On the contrary, it was peopled by these Blacks you find today in inner Africa. When they left the Sahara, some moved towards the tropical forest, others towards the river Nile. Did you watch Basil Davidson's video? There is no such a thing as Northen African Caucasoid. Caucasoid is not African. Wherever you read, refering to this early time, African, you have to understand Black: black skin (with all the varieties). Only Blacks are indigenous to Africa. Let's not speak about Blacks in Asia and Europe also at this early stage of the world. But I suppose that you know about it. Live Caucasoid where they have to be found, out of Africa.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

1. There are different theories on who damaged it and why, however most of the damage is caused by weathering.

2. I can't read French.

3. I believe that Egypt's indigenous people are North Africans who are distinctly different in appearance from what we would call "black people", but also different from what we would call "white people". They're North Africans who have dark olive complexion skin and features similar to those living in the southern Mediterranean. This is what all of the evidence suggests.

4.Humans didn't originate in Northern Egypt. Homo-Sapiens have lived in inner Africa for the past 100,000 years. Homo-Sapiens did not migrate from Egypt to inner Africa, but vise versa. But this was much longer ago than Ancient Egyptian times. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So you don't read French. I am sorry, because there are good informations in French. I repeat myself. Blacks migrated from the Sahara towards the tropical forest and the river Nile. It does not mean that inner Africa was void. Ancient Egyptians are just Nubians. Please watch again this video of Basil Davidson Kemet - Black Civilization. It is in English. There is no African Caucasoid. Only African Black with all the varieties. You, please, listen also to van Sertima Pr Ivan Van Sertima on For The People. Hotep-Peace!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 17:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Basil Davidson is not a reliable source for Egyptology. Sorry. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who removed the section on the Great Sphinx of Giza I did, Lusala, and I left a note of explanation on your talk page about it. Until we come to agreement not to delete the additions made to each section to balance the information, the questionable material should all be removed until then. — Zerida 17:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Zerida, we could have removed other informations which are less relevant to the topic. But the Sphinx is very relevant.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 17:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sphinx is totally irrelevant. Any resemblance it bares to Individuals from Inner Africa is due to it's deformation from weathering. It's face is flattened and nose is missing all due to decay. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I too believe that the 19th-century accounts in that section are highly irrelevant. But I'd like to get agreement not to delete the sources I added if you insist on keeping them. I'm waiting to hear from Taharqa. What other information you believe should be removed, by the way? — Zerida 17:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The information can't be used as some sort of "argument" in support of the contention that Ancient Egyptians were black. It can only be used as a historical reference to what early visitors to Egypt thought. At most 1 paragraph should be dedicated to it, minus direct quotes. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sphinx is relevant. Quotations are provided. Our points of view are meaningless. Put informations saying that it is not helpful to the issue of the race of the Egyptians. That is called neutrality. I have also put back informations on Alleged whitening of the Egyptians by Eurocentric Egyptologists. There are quotes there. Basil Davidson is a historian who is interested in African history. Egypt is part of Africa. He researched on it. He can be quoted.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 19:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this information is obviously false as an argument for a specific race of the Ancient Egyptians, It can only be used as a historical reference pointing out what early visitors to Egypt thought. It's not scientific or even a viable argument, easily debunked. Basil Davidson, simply having "researched Africa" isn't a reliable resource on Ancient Egypt. He has no credentials on Egyptology and no experience with Egyptology. He's unreliable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not for us to debunk. Nobody knows for sure who the sphinx was. But many scholars have commented on the Sphinx's apparent "Negro" countenance. As Luka mentioned the sphinx is much earlier than Tut or Nefertiti, so it does have significant importance. Muntuwandi 19:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Those "Scholars" are either from 200 years ago or are not Egyptologists. So it's WP:Fringe. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"200 years ago". Then, the Sphinx was in better form to be described accurately!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 00:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In any case the sphinx is a work of art, if the sphinx is a reproduction of an individual, then one need not be an egyptologist to give an opinion on the appearance of the sphinx. Even Egyptologists acknowledge the Negro appearance of the sphinx Muntuwandi 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How is an observation made by a notable scholar a fringe theory? That makes no sense, please review the policy in question.Taharqa 03:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If a notable biologist makes a theory about something to do with physics then that theory can easily be fringe regardless of the scholars notability in biology, he has no expertise in physics. Moreover, There are many individual notable scholars who have fringe theories. We can't use one or two or even a few scholars as evidence of anything if egyptologists in general don't accept what they say as real. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Egypt as an African civilisation

Wikidudeman, Davidson researched on African History. Ancient Egypt is an African civilisation. Don't forget that! If you try to study Egypt against the rest of Africa you will arrive to strange conclusions. Eurocentric Egyptologists already made this big mistake of thinking that Egyptians are from spontaneous generation! Have you read Jean-Francois Champollion, the father of Egyptology? He wrote: "Mais ce n'est point à l'histoire seule de l'Egypte proprement dite que les études hiéroglyphiques peuvent fournir de précieuses lumières; elles nous montrent déjà la Nubie comme ayant, aux époques les plus reculées, participé à tous les avantages de la civilisation égyptienne. L'importance, le nombre et sur-tout l'antiquite des monumens qu'on y admire, édifices contemporains de tout ce que la plaine de Thèbes offre de plus ancien, sont déjà, pour l'histoire, des faits capitaux qui l'arrêtent en ébranlant les bases du système adopté jusqu'ici sur l'origine du peuple égyptien. Il doit se demander, en effet, si la civilisation de Thèbes a remonté le Nil, la peuplade qui forme la nation égyptienne venant de l'Asie, ou si bien cette civilisation, arrivant du midi, descendant avec le fleuve sacré, ne s'est pas établie d'abord dans la Nubie, ensuite dans la partie la plus méridionale de la Thébaïde, et si, s'avancant successivement vers le nord, elle n'a point enfin, secondée par les efforts du fleuve, repoussé les eaux de la Méditerranée, et conquis pour l'agriculture la vaste plaine de la basse Egypte, contiguë à l'Asie. Dans cette hypothèse nouvelle, les Egyptiens seraient une race propre a l'Afrique, particulière à cette vieille partie du monde, qui montre par-tout des traces d'épouisement et de décrépitude. / La constitution physique, les moeurs, les usages et l'organisation sociale des Egyptiens, n'avaient jadis, en effet, que de tres faibles analogies avec l'état naturel et politique des peuples de l'Asie occidentale, leurs plus proches voisins. La langue égyptienne enfin n'avait rien de commun, dans sa marche constitutive, avec les langues asiatiques: elle diffère tout aussi essentiellement que les écritures de l'Egypte diffèrent des anciennes écritures des Phéniciens, des Babyloniens et des Perses. Ces deux derniers faits paraitront deja concluans, et peuvent trancher la question en faveur de la seconde hypothèse, l'origine africaine des Egyptiens, aux yeux des savants qui se sont occupés de l'histoire de la migration des anciens peuples. Tout semble, en effet, nous montrer dans les Egyptiens un peuple tout-à-fait étranger au continent asiatique. / On conçoit difficilement aussi que la peuplade souche de la nation égyptienne, à quelque état inférieur de civilisation qu'on la suppose, ait pu se fixer et se propager d'abord dans la vallée de l'Egypte, entre la première cataracte et la Méditerranée, terrain exposé annuellement à une longue et complète inondation. C'est bien plutôt sur un point élevé, dans un pays que l'inondation ne couvre jamais entièrement, que durent être faits les premiers établissements; et sous ce rapport, la Nubie, et mieux l'Ethiopie, présentèrent de tout temps des localités avantageuses. / (...) il fut un temps ou la partie civilisée de l'Ethiopie, la presqu'île de Méroé, et les abords du Nil entre Méroé et Dongola, étaient habités par un peuple qui avait une langue, une écriture et des arts semblables à ceux de l'Egypte, sans dépendre pour cela des rois égyptiens ou de Thèbes ou de Memphis. / Ce fait doit devenir, sans aucun doute, un des éléments principaux de toute recherche sur les origines égyptiennes" (Jean-Francois Champollion, Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens, Elibron Classics (an unabridged facsimile of the edition published by Imprimerie Royale in 1828, pp. 455-458). I have underlined what is more useful to the discussion. Please, Wikidudeman, look for a translator.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 20:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can read French then translate it for me. If you can't then don't reference it. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You refer often to Egyptology, but you cannot read Jean-Francois Champollion, the father of Egyptology, in the original French. In the future, I will be translating his assertions.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 00:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You can translate them here, for me on the talk page. Don't translate them for the article or that's Original Research. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The punks did it again!!!!!!!!!!

they prematurelly archived a page again. Not only that this is twice they have deleted my no vandalizing remarks about how white people can get tans, about eye genetics nessicary for golden eyes, and about the evolution of nations predesessor and descende nations( egypt to greece, greece to rome, rome to the ottoman, all of which have their national ancesstory in egypt much like the talamys, cleopatras house) I brought the national thing up after they deleted my statements about eye gentetics and tans, when they said "We'll let the evidence speak for itself, thank you very much." I am sick of you people being artificial mourners for a nation that is not really dead and for a people that still play promminent roles in recent history A.D.. You all are a bunch of masachists and "viictims" whallowing in a surrogate pity and self defeat. To whom do I nofity about such inappropriate behavior?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.131.53 (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Well explain what you want to explain here. No one delete or archive this discussion. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Egypt as a mediteranian nation.

Do I have to say any more people. Come on all the arguements about the south aplly dirrecttly to the north in the mediteranian. Now I know you all think White people were placed here by aliens as a joke after civilization was founded. So I guess any refference to the White and other non'black ethic groups of the mediteranian would be a waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.131.53 (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ineretsingly enough. How is it that the ra sun god worship is more intenslly conglomerated in the mediteraanian that any where else in the world. egypt, greece (son of ra's light} the persian branch of xerxses with the turkish peninsuallas solar temples, and the griffins half perian cat half egyptian bird???? rome very reverent to the sun god although usually unnamed and more orriented toward the children there of. while there are churches of the sun god in south african and northern eroupe and other places in the world. It would seem to be more benificial to historians and egyptologist to place egypt as a mediterranian nation rather than african. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.131.53 (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)