This is an archive of past discussions about Tutankhamun. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Actually, the text here is perfectly appropriate here, but the problem is that it is duplicated elsewhere. It's actually a word-for-word version of something I wrote earlier for Afrocentrism which the no-name contributor has excerpted and placed in this article. There has been some discussion about relocating the "Egypt and black identity" section of Afrocentrism elsewhere. And until I (or someone else with appropriate sensibilities) decides how best to do that, I think it's probably best for now to more heavily edit that information, but to keep its essence in this piece. While the text I've inserted here addresses the issues I raised in Afrocentrism, it could stand more detail.
Perhaps, when the matter of the "Egypt and black identity" matter is settled, it may be appropriate to include even more information here, but worded somewhat differently. Again, I think the material is perfectly appropriate, but it might be best to wait a bit until the overlapping of information is settled and what (more) goes where can be sorted out. deeceevoice18:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
i've added a separate RfC section with a template for the various proposed versions. is there at least agreement on what the rough versions are? the edit history seemed to have many side issues mixed in with the reverts. would a proponent for each version mind adding the version (wikified) in the new section for people to comment? for the benefit of keeping the section pure RfC comment from outsiders, current editors please refrain from commenting/advocating there, but instead create a new section or add to this one to reply to any RfC comments or argue for your version. remember though: they're just comments (opinions), not argument from existing editors just itching to modify the article. thanks.SaltyPig19:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
One of the difficulties is that the political controversy re Nat Geo's reconstruction, which is pretty minor and of no lasting historical interest, overshadowed the actual issue of Tutankhamun's racial background. Perhaps it would be better to separate the two - put factual discussion of Tutankhaten's origins (well he was born Tutankhaten!) in a different section, to do with his family, and cut the political controversy bit to a minimum. That said, I still think any discussion of the factual aspects of origins should be kept short and sweet and non-speculative - a short para, not an essay. Rd23219:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
No real controversy here
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
There is no real controversy that needs settling here. As I've already stated (in the previously, IMO, improperly and precipitously archived discussion), some anonymous contributor began to insert copy I wrote some months back (in June, probably) for Afrocentrism. Personally, I think the subject matter of those edits is perfectly appropriate here, but some of it was out-of-date and virtually all of it is duplicated elsewhere -- which is precisely why I edited it out.
The real back-and-forth was with User:Petrograd, who had been engaging in a series of ad hominem attacks and who charged me with using the anonymous contributor as a sockpuppet. The accusation is typical of Petrograd's shrill attacks and over-the-top approach to editing this piece and to his/her comments on this page.
I inserted a photo of a close-up of the death mask of King Tut, which shows more detail, across from the National Geographic image. It was a perfectly reasonable insertion. This juxtaposition of images also appears in the Afrocentrism piece. Petrograd immediately deleted it and inserted a black-and-white shot of the death mask shot from another angle, but which showed no more detail and added nothing to the article -- and included a nasty edit note complaining about "Afrocentrism," blah, blah, blah. I have reverted Petrograd's mindless insertions of an inferior image, because I see it as an attempt at censorship.
I also inserted text about the noted Egyptologist Petrie and a short sentence or two regarding the facio-cranial characteristics of Tutankhamun, which have a direct bearing on the issue of "skin tone" -- which existed as a sub-topic before I began editing this piece. This, too, Petrograd continued to delete, with no substantive objections -- just more rantings about "Afrocentrism," etc., etc. The text I inserted is brief, to-the-point and on-point.
User:Petrograd, in typical over-the-top fashion, then flounced petulantly off to the RfC page. And here is where we are.
My earlier suggestion (which should have been one huge, honking clue to User:Petrograd that the anonymous contributor is not my sockpuppet) about leaving the article pretty much intact as is until the matter of "Egypt and black identity" in Afrocentrism is resolved is, I think, a reasonable one. But this inane back-and-forth and childish name-calling and nastiness and bytchiness on the part of User:Petrograd and others[1] should stop. deeceevoice20:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
This tirade is absolute hypocrisy. Practicing name-calling while ridiculing it of others in the same breath.
: . . . But this inane back-and-forth and childish name-calling and nastiness and bytchiness . . .
So, clearly, words and logic have little effect on Deeceevoice. Discarding all the spiteful words, let's examine some substantive objections. I'll begin by posting the one Deecee consistently pretends does not exist:
Thank you for stating your opinion. (Petrograd 22:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)) + What is "Pharlap"?? I searched around and all I could find was stuff about a race horse and a Korean convenience store ("Phar Lap"). Am I missing the reference? Please educate me. (Petrograd07:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC))
RfC
Latest comment: 19 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
Withdraw RfC request, and consider investigating/branding User:Petrograd, a sockpuppet if ever there was one (accusing another here of using sockpuppets; ludicrous). i don't think i've ever agreed with Deeceevoice before, but the edit history supports that she was chilled out on this (big shocker!), and that compromise is just around the corner, assuming no Petrograd. SaltyPig21:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Please investigate me. You'll find that I am the most significant contributor to the Tutankhamun article of anyone posting here, including the contribution of personal research such as the Tours (now Exhibitions) section, much of the introduction, significant additions to the Discovery of Tutankhamun's Tomb, many of the photos and photocompilations (done personally), almost every source link past the "2005 controversy" section, and in general what is being resisted here -- an attempt to preserve the article's neutrality and veracity. (Petrograd21:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC))
helluva an accomplishment for someone whose first wikipedia edit was apparently 23 August2005. no sandbox. no worries. no floundering — just straight to talking like a wikipedia pro, uploading pics, etc. SaltyPig21:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
One doesn't have to be a total "Wikipedia pro" to know how to edit photos and contribute content. Not at all. The methods are fairly well laid out and not difficult to pick up. Insinuating that by knowing how to do these things one must have had an account already and be fairly well-seasoned is contrary to the concept of Wikipedia -- "the free encyclopedia" -- where anyone is supposed to be able to edit anything. So your comments do not reflect reality. (Petrograd22:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC))
please forgive me for stating the obvious, and doing so in a way that... what was that i did? i insinuated a reality "contrary to the concept of Wikipedia"! bwaahahahaha! obvious, ridiculous sockpuppet. no growth whatever reflected in your contribution history; you were a seasoned wikipedia guy when you started this account. SaltyPig23:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
"Sockpuppet" has apparently metamorphosed from a useful analogy into a negative propaganda buzzword. As such, though, it has very little meaning or weight. You'll find that the Sock puppet article even says there are "legitimate uses" for "sockpuppets," and further quotes the term's originator as stating: "There is no official policy against it."[2]
All, of course, considered quite apart from the fact that I am not one of them. There have been times I've edited a page without signing in, but I've never taken advantage of that anonymity to perpetrate devious ends.
The matter that should be under discussion here, however, is Tutankhamun. I'd prefer it if the photo Deecee re-inserts, the closeup of Tut's mask at Cairo Museum, were edited so as not to include an obvious link to "Return to Glory," which of course would not be permitted in an actual encyclopedia. I don't think there's anything unreasonable about my request. I do find some of the accompanying text to be of dubious intention, on occasion, but am willing to deal with that as a separate issue, later on. (Petrograd07:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC))
[[Image:Carlb-sockpuppet-02.jpg|thumb|150px|Libelous slander.What you'd "prefer" isn't going to happen. No can do. When I inquired and obtained permission to use this photo, I specifically asked if I could be provided a "clean" digital copy of it without the superimposed copyright information. No dice. The photo was provided with the specific proviso that the copyright info remain superimposed. It's the name of the copyright holder (a Jewish professor, not some rabid, "radical Afrocentric cult") and the name of his website. And that's his way of protecting what's his. Get over it, Pharlap. You wanna deal with the content? Gee, you're welcome to try. But we both know you can't. Fact is fact, and all your ad nauseam, ad hominem sniping won't/can't change history. deeceevoice07:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I am the anonymous contributor and why I puin all those text, is because I use to think the Ancient Egyptians were white people and had nothing to do with the rest of Africa. That is until I began looking into Egypt and asking Black And White people and looking at the statues. I am an honest guy who just wants the truth. The truth that I have seen is that most people who say that the Egyptians are White look at the dynasty 19 and people who say they are black look at dynasty 1-4 12 17 and 18. So for me who thought they were White people I now believe they are Black. The evidence that most Blacks and some Whites put forth to prove the Blackness of Ancient Egypt is hard to ignore or refute. So I am sorry if I caused any problems but when see more proof that they were White than I will Edit the exact same way. Most Egyptologist that I spoke to say they were not Black or White but then show me evidence that they were actually Black. So from what I see I find it hard to believe that The Egyptians were white. All I want is the Truth. One thing that gets to me is why so many statues have their noses broken off and why in books most statues are shown from the sides and not from the front. This bothers me when all I want to do is learn about Egypt and I find stuff that make me believe that their is some sort of cover up. Which I would laugh in the face of any Black person who would say this to me. Now I see that their maybe something to it. Why do we see the same statues over and over again in the books and different ones like they have in Egypt. So in closing I am sorry for all the problems I have caused but I JUST WANT THE TRUTH. IF THEY ARE BLACK THAN THATS THE TRUTH. IF THEY ARE WHITE THAN THATS THE TRUTH. I JUST WANT TO LEARN ABOUT EGYPT. (unsigned post)
First of all, there's no need to be defensive, and there's no need to apologize. But let me explain something to you. I am the person who wrote the information you inserted. Using someone else's material without giving proper attribution is plagiarism. The information was obtained from an earlier permutation of the article Afrocentrism. I have absolutely no problem with the appropriate related information being inserted here -- at the appropriate time. However, because that material is already available on this website in another article, it wasn't appropriate here -- at least not at the present time. Got it?
Normally, it wouldn't be much of a problem. But there are issues between User:Petrograd, (a sockpuppet of User:Pharlap), and me which go way back. He tries to pick fights me wherever he goes and gets the azz whenever the point he's pushing is contradicted or his contributions are corrected. He doesn't know how to be civil with me. He goes ballistic. Pharlap has embarrassed himself so frequently in the past in his irrational tirades against me, that I guess he decided to disappear (at least temporarily) and come back as a sockpuppet and continue in his twisted mission. But his shrill, nasty modus operandi was immediately recognizable, and he gave himself away.
So, don't worry about it. You did nothing terribly wrong. In the future, though, when someone edits your contributions, pay attention to the remarks in the edit notes and on the discussion page and respond accordingly. Don't just simply reinsert the same information repetitively without trying to dialogue with others.
Also, in the future, please sign your contributions. Anonymous contributions cause confusion. You can't tell who's written what. If you don't want to join Wikipedia formally, fine. Just affix some kind of signature so we know where your post ends and another begins. Peace 2 u -- and welcome to Wikipedia. :) deeceevoice15:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and one last thing. You say you always assumed the ancient Egyptians were white. Yes, there're a lot of people in your shoes. But it seems that what you read was convincing enough that you wanted to insert it here. It's to your credit that you were open-minded enough to ascertain the truth. My hat's off to you, and I'm glad something I wrote made a difference. Again, peace. :) deeceevoice16:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I did not know that this information was already available some place else. I got most of the info off of Answers.com. I have been learning alot about Ancient Egypt and it just bothered me that people who agree that the Ancient Egyptians were at least for the most part Black, is automatically an Afrocentric and has some kind of agenda. When I first came to wikipedia I would read stuff that made me wonder why people got so worked up over Egypt. Now I know it has most to do with the U.S. debate because most people in Europe seem to be coming around to believing that The Egyptians were for the most part Black. What I want to know is why do so many of the statues are missing noses and lips? And why do most of the pictures of the statues are shown from the sides and not from the front? This is something that keeps coming up when I take a look into Ancient Egypt. Some people say it is erosion but that seems to easy a answer to me. Some Black people say it's to hide the Blackness of the statues but even this is hard to believe. I also want to say that the reconstrution of King Tuts face does not look anything like his death mask or of his busts. Also the only people who have that kind of head shape is Nilotic people and the are all dark skinned, so how come they made his skin so light?
To anonymous poster above:
Firstly, examine your sources. You'll find that whoever wrote or told you "most people in Europe seem to . . . believ[e] that The Egyptians were . . . black" was not telling you the truth. The best remedy for this is probably to read books by notable European Egyptologists. Even Howard Carter -- who discovered Tutankhamun and his KV62 tomb. The first thing you will notice is a very obvious distinction between Egyptians and "black Africans." Though some here might try to confuse you by saying the "black Africans" in question are "simply Nubians," understand that the two are in fact one and the same. And black Africans did not only appear in Nubia.
Again, when you ask about statues missing noses and lips, you should examine your sources. You will find that this complaint simply has no basis in reality. Here is an excellent place to start: http://www.virtual-egyptian-museum.org/
Similarly, the complaint that "most of the statues are shown from the sides and not the front" is simply inaccurate. See the above link for assurance.
It should be remembered that more likely King Tut's death mask doesn't closely resemble King Tut. The facial reconstruction is based on Tut's skull. The mask is an artist's interpretation. There are actually striking similarities, but certain nuances made possible by the direct skull-model reconstruction are not (and should not be expected to be) present in the idealized gold likenesses.
The shape of Tutankhamun's skull has little bearing on his coloration. The shape may have been artificially imposed, as with other cultures, as a mark of royalty and divinity. (Petrograd10:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC))
Protected
I have protected this page because of an on going edit war. This is not an endorsement of a particular view but merely a forced cease fire in an ongoing edit war. Please keep in mind the tenets of wikilove and wikiquette in dealing with each other and please try to understand each others postions even if you cannot agree with it. Thanks. -JCarriker 20:00, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Image replacement
Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
They are all the same mask. (Hm-m-m. Maybe not. The ears look different -- don't they?) Anyway, depending on the lighting, certain features can be flattened or made to essentially disappear. I like the photo that is already there, because the way it is lit clearly shows the projection of the upper lip -- the very pronounced alveolar prognathism -- as well as Tut's full lips -- though I must say I love the last photo. It just doesn't show as much detail. Pharlap's complaints about the copyright notice are flimsy and downright ridiculous. It's the name of the copyright holder and his website -- nothing more. deeceevoice23:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
What the heck. I'm willing to compromise. I'll accept the third pic. It's gorgeous -- and the man is still obviously black. :p Thanks for taking the time to find acceptable alternatives. deeceevoice23:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
After doing some research, I concluded that there was only one mask found in the tomb. These pictures must be under different lighting conditions. From most of the pictures I've seen, the darker conditions are those under which the mask is displayed in the museum.
I suggest we display both images. If that's ok with you, deeceevoice, I'll ask JCarriker to make the change for us, bringing us one step closer to unlocking the page. Jim Apple16:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
If you're suggesting one of the other images be presented in addition to the one at the beginning of the article, along with the third one, I'd say no. That's overkill. Just as with any photo on Wikipedia, an enlarged, more detailed version is available by simply clicking the photo. Substitution of the third photo, in lieu of the one with the superimposed copyright info, however, is acceptable and, I think, reasonable. deeceevoice18:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Deecee, I now understand that you mean to insinuate I am a user named "Pharlap." This was not immediately clear to me. However, I have never operated under that name, here or elsewhere. You are wrong in accusing me of being "Pharlap." So, please, stop. It's unfair and offensive -- I don't have to know who or what Pharlap represents to feel such.
Photo Distortion -- The effects noticeable in some of the photos posted here, mostly a difference in the way the "face" of Tutankhamun appears, is a result of optical physics. The first "main mask" photograph was taken with a normal, orthographic lens, which represents exactly what our eyes see. The second was taken with a macro lens, which distorts and exaggerates the frontal projections of the object photographed. Macro lenses are often used in the photography of jewelry, tiny electronics, etc. , to make the main portion easier to see, and in the case of jewelry, more prominent. This is why the ears appear "pushed back." The lens is VERY close to the front of the mask, but with an aperature wide enough to capture the whole thing (hence "macro"). It is not a fair representation of Tutankhamun, and sets up an incorrect expectation for people wishing to view the mask themselves. When you see the mask in person, you will notice immediately that it shares no resemblance to the exaggerated macro photographs shown here. It will look unfailingly like it does in the main photo, and every other photo ever taken of it.
Many things can be accomplished with macro or other forms of "perspective" warping photography (really wide angle lenses do this also). However, the results of such should never be used to portray actual items in articles outside of ones on "macro photography" or "forced perspective photography," because they do not represent the actual appearance of the items depicted. The dim lighting of the distorted photo is also unfair, as it is a preservative effort on the part of the museum, to keep the mask at low temperature and with minimum exposure to incandescent rays. Ancient Egypt was an empire of the sun. Aten, the visible image of the sun; Amun-Re, the sun-god. The gold was meant to glorify the king in its brightness and brilliance. Not the dim luster shown in the macro photos. Those are my main issues with the "Return to Glory" photo, outside of its origin. Encyclopedias should not mislead. (Petrograd20:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC))
Latest comment: 19 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion
Assuming we can resolve the picture issue (see above), what's the best way to resolve the text? I was thinking that we could have a short section here, with a full separate page, like in country pages: Appearance, Main article: Appearance of Tutankhamun. This wouldn't necessarily resolve the dispute, but at least it would hem it in.
A new page may also defuse criticisms like "this isn't the right place". It would also allow conflicting viewpoints to be put on the page, rather than just sparking revert wars.
There is no text dispute. Read Pharlap's final comments on the matter. His gripe is content -- which he says he'll "deal with" later -- assuming he can. :p And, heck, no. We don't need a separate article on the matter. This is getting ridiculous. deeceevoice18:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
By "text" I meant "content", so I don't think I understand your comments on Petrograd's comments. Why not make a separate page? Do you think it will reduce the quality of this article? Do you think it will fail to end the edit war over this article? Jim Apple19:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Jim, a while back I moved the whole issue to an external link. Titled something like, "Face of Tut" or "Tutankhamun's Appearance" -- it went to a non-Wiki page. NPR, I think. It really cleaned up the page, I thought, but the whole "Appearance" section was soon brought back in. I've always felt it was a burdensome section. An encyclopedia would make very brief mention of it then post something like "See:Relevant Article," not allowing it to practically dominate the whole article, with more text overall than any other section. The problem is that the issue isn't resolved, and can't be. Not until someone makes a time machine. So the only real feasible option I can think of is a separate page openly acknowledging the subject's touchiness, supplying people with a forum to discuss it. Otherwise it becomes vandalism, using an encyclopedia article as a vehicle to supply opinions and convictions. (Petrograd21:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC))
There isn't even an edit war over this issue, so the subject is moot. Read the comments of the anonymous poster whose repeated inserted set the touchy Pharlap off. An article on King Tutankhamun is the perfect place to deal with the issue of who and what he was. One of the great things about Wikipedia is it isn't like other encyclopedias and covers interesting aspects of subjects not addressed elsewhere. It is the perfect venue for presenting facts and letting the reader come to his/her own conclusions. The subject of Tutankhamun's ethnic identity is a subject of great controversy. There's absolutely no reason to skirt the issue here -- and every reason to treat it in depth, either here (later) or elsewhere. Presently, the matter is treated very superficially with a link to a more in-depth discussion in Afrocentrism. That may change in the future, but for now, that's where things stand -- and without complication until Pharlap went off. This entire matter obviously could have been resolved with the anonymous poster, who seems like a reasonable enough person with good intentions, without going to the RfC page. There's absolutely no point to changing/restructuring the piece as it now exists.deeceevoice21:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
A survey of this article's edit history does not support your assertion that "there isn't even an edit war over this issue." Clearly, there is...
Tutankhamun's ethnic identity is not in dispute and never was. As I mentioned before (in a since deleted post), the emphasis of Afrocentrism should be geography, not skin tone. Tutankhamun was African; Egypt is an inextricably African state. His absolute skin tone cannot be determined even with the best forensic evidence, but that shouldn't matter -- that shouldn't be a "sticking point" with Afrocentrists, because, of course, it changes nothing about the fact that ancient Egypt is IN Africa. It's unfair to the whole of Africa to wrongly favor the darkest skin shades possible there. The SCA and NGS together chose to select a mid-range, as it reflects the one true unknown about Tutankhamun. Opinions abound, but fact in this is unobtainable.
AND DEECEEVOICE. MY NAME IS PETROGRAD. PLEASE STOP REFERRING TO ME AS "PHARLAP." I DO NOT CALL YOU "ELIJAH MUHAMMAD". GRANT ME THE SAME RESPECT. (Petrograd01:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC))
The edit war -- a recapitulation of a possible outstanding issue
Because of the precipitous archiving of the discussion page, this might be useful.
Again, there remains no real edit war. The so-called "edit war" was about your repeated and arbitrary deletion of an image that is perfectly legitimate and useful and replacing it with something that added absolutely nothing to the article. JimApple's contribution of an alternative image without the copyright information, IMO, the only truly antagonisms were the additions of the unnamed contributor, who clearly is no longer an issue.
But there is one remaining item. A recap:
I added: "Others scholars insist that at the time of King Tutankhamun, dynastic Egypt remained substantially black African in nature, with an influx of Nubian blood into the royal line during the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties. (See Afrocentrism#Egypt and Black Identity.)" as, in your words, "acceptable alterations."
But Paul Barlow objected, challenging the veracity of the claim and my use of "other scholars" as being unsubstantiated. I responded with several links on the discussion page and tweaked the sentence to read: "However scholars, notably the 'Father of Egyptology' W.M.F. Petrie among them, contend that there was an influx of Nubian blood into the royal line during the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties. (See Afrocentrism#Egypt and Black Identity.)" I then copied and pasted the entire paragraph to the end of the quote by Terry, because it seemed fitting to do so. I felt the reference to respected scholarly opinion closed out the section more effectively than the quote from someone whose background is political science and lobbying. (Unfortunately, I apparently forgot to delete this text from its earlier position, though, but returned later and did so.)
I then added: "Further, forensic examinations of King Tutankhamun's skull reveal that he shared a precise cluster of distinctive physical characteristics specific to the indigenous, black, Nilotic and Cushitic peoples of the region— factors used to bolster criticism of the light-skinned National Geographic-sponsored reconstruction. (See Afrocentrism#Egypt and Black Identity.)" It is a logical follow-on to the comment regarding the reintroduction of Nubians into the Egyptian royal bloodline. And you deleted it, with the somewhat curious, and typically antagonistic, edit note: "Bypassed malicious Deeceevoice 'Afrocentric' edits. AFROCENTRISM IS IMPROPERLY NAMED: *OF COURSE* TUTANKHAMUN WAS AFRICAN, EGYPT IS *IN* AFRICA. SKIN TONE DOES NOT EFFECT THIS.)"
Of course the influx of Nubian bloodlines into the Egyptian royal lineage has quite a bit to do with skin tone. And whatever you feel about Afrocentrism is totally irrelevant to the text." I reverted your deletion of this perfectly factual and useful information.
So, let's leave the insertion of text from Afrocentrism out of this. You're saying you stand prepared to repeatedly excise: "Further, forensic examinations of King Tutankhamun's skull reveal that he shared a precise cluster of distinctive physical characteristics specific to the indigenous, black, Nilotic and Cushitic peoples of the region— factors used to bolster criticism of the light-skinned National Geographic-sponsored reconstruction. (See Afrocentrism#Egypt and Black Identity.)"?
Deecee, the reason I have not replied is that I am in Germany and I have very limited access to the internet. So far you have quoted a very old souce - Petrie - to say that Tiye was Ttut's gran. Well we don't really know who was his father or mother, so it's guesswork. Nevertheless it's still the best guess we have. However, as far as I am aware, we have no evidence that Tiye was Nubian, so asserting this as fact is simply unwarranted. There is no skin pigment on the scupture. It looks dark because of the colour of the wood. We cannot say that there was "an influx of Nubian" blood at this time. We have been over this before. You have never provided any actual evidence that Tiye was Nubian, just asserted it. Must go. Paul B07:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I also included a link which speculated that Kiya was Tut's mother. Who cares? Who gave birth to whom is far more speculative than the origin of the monarchs of the 17th & 18th Dynasties. Virtually every source I've consulted identifies Tiye as a Nubian -- and she is clearly Africoid (a dead ringer for black poet Gwendolyn Brooks), as is the mummy that is strongly expected to be her -- a tentative identification the certainty of which has only increased over time. Other mummies of the two dynasties in question are also pronouncedly Africoid/Nilotic/Cushitic. deeceevoice22:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we can 'speculate' that she was Tut's ma too. We can equally speculate that his ma was the Mitanni princess sent over to Amonhotep III and IV's courts. But the fact remains that it is speculation, nothing more and nothing less. We don't know who his parents were. If virtually every source you have consulted says that Kiye was Nubian then I can only assume you have 'consulted' nothing but Afrocentric websites. You have provided no evidence of this assertion at all. As far as I know, there is no evidence. Her father was Yuya, who has been widely speculated to be Asiatic/Semitic. There's not much good evidence for that either as far as I can see, but nevertheless anyone who types in Yuya to Google will find pages of stuff pursuing this speculation. Her mother was a descendant of Ahmose-Nefertari, queen to Ahmose I. None of this suggests that she was Nubian. If you have actual evidence that she was, please present it.
I can't see any resemblance to Gwendolyn Brooks at all, apart from the fact that in these photos they are both middle-aged and female. The shapes of their faces are wholly different
I wish I could find the portrait of Gwendolyn Brooks facing forward that used to be on the Internet. She wore a green sweater, I believe, and sported an afro of relatively the same proportions of Queen Tiye's. Unfortunately, I cannot; I believe the website is no longer there, or the image has been removed. For a long time, I kept returning to the image of Tiye. Her face looked really -- I mean really -- familiar. One day it finally dawned on me, and I mentioned it in a very early discussion thread in Race. Another Wiki contributor (a white guy) found the portrait and posted it with a comment saying basically I was right. The bust of Queen Tiye is a dead ringer for Gwendolyn Brooks. I'd bookmarked the site, but long ago the link became inactive. I've searched the Net. Unfortunately, there seems to be but a handful of the same of Brooks available on the Internet. I kept finding the same ones over and over again -- but the portrait is nowhere to be found. deeceevoice16:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
File:Brigitte and Tiye.JPGThe problem with this look-alike game is that you can conclude almost anything you want to by adopting this method. I can "proove" that Tiye was a "dead ringer" for Brigitte Bardot, by juxtaposing images. Look – there they are, with the same pouty expressions and similar profiles, noses, eyes and eyebrows. Yes, Tiye looks a little grumpy in comparison to Brigitte, but she probably has a lot on her mind. Otherwise, they are remarkably similar!
This dead-ringer method has no scientific or historical justification at all. It's the stuff of dumb websites and blogs, not of encyclopedias. Paul B08:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Brigitte Bardot? You're kidding -- right? I won't get into what cannot be ascertained from a strictly frontal photo. But I will say that Barodot's chin gives her away as being Caucasoid. It's bilobate. And the classic Africoid phenotype isn't; it's straight. No way her facio-cranial type is archetypically Nubian/Africoid. I mentioned the striking resemblance between Gwendolyn Brooks and Queen Tiye not as "proof" (I've presented enough evidence on this website to support the contention that the ancient Egyptians were predominantly black African), but as a means of putting a real face on the artifact. And Brooks most definitely was a dead ringer for Tiye. deeceevoice12:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
