Talk:Tutankhamun/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Photos and perspective

I suspect Petrograd was talking about Perspective distortion (caused by camera to subject distance). This seems to me to be the most logical explanation for the difference in facial features, especially the ears.

Right. I apologize for my old school summary; it's true though that macro lenses are constructed intentionally to amplify natural perspective distortions. (Petrograd 10:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC))

If we are attempting to accurately show facial features, anything other than an orthographic image is disingenuous. Jim Apple 20:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. I selected the Harry Burton black and white photo mostly because it showed the mask at an off-angle, different than the main image. It also showed the mask without a goatee, giving a slightly different visual interpretation of the face. But most importantly: you can more clearly see that the lips and nose do not project in an exaggerated way. (Petrograd 10:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC))

From the image discussion page

With regard to claims of possible image "distortion," I draw your attention to the fact that the photo is provided as an example of Tut's facial features -- not his ears, or anything else peripheral to the face. (I've changed the caption -- which I thought I had already done -- to conform with that in Tutankhamun.) Note that the same characteristics of the nose and mouth of the mask, as well as the prominent alveolar prognathism, are also visible here[1] and [2], as well as in numerous other photos -- including the one you provided. Quite clearly, they are not all extremely close-angle shots. It can be argued that the secondary image of the mask[3] you inserted in juxtaposition to the National Geographic shot doesn't look anything like the images of the mask on these pages, either. Again, it's all about lighting. Any experienced photographer knows that the brighter the light, the flatter the image. If you really want to see the contours of an object, then you use a filtered or dimmer light source. These potographs show the actual contours of the mask much more accurately -- as, again, does the photo you took the time to find and, which, incidentally, I prefer because it shows the buzzard/cobra crown and is simply a more beautiful, very moving photograph. Further, it also does not have the Freeman Institute copyright information superimposed on it, which makes for a "cleaner" image. It cannot be charged that the "wallpaper" shots are on the website of a "radical Afrocentrist cult," either. (Freeman is a Jewish professor specializing in cultural diversity training.) Further, here's a link to a photo of the mask on the Discovery Channel website.[4] The image looks very black African -- and not at all like the image you inserted. Note that the ears are not flattened, and the lighting is such that the contours of the mask are clearly visible. deeceevoice 12:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

{This is a recap of comments I made on now-deleted image talk pages long ago} Of course, the flattening of the ears is evidence of the macro lens, but the features are still distorted from the orthographic projection. The Discovery Channel image is covered below, but it, also, suffers from macro-lens distortion. Jim Apple 05:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Was skin tone related to facial structure?

Petrograd, you keep claiming that it's impossible to tell what color Tut's skin was. deeceevoice's implicit claim is that we can tell by his facial structure. If you disagree with him, why not let the text and references support your point, rather than just continuing to delete his text?

There already are parts of the text indicating that some people think it's not possible to determine what his skin tone was. If that doesn't make your argument for you, you should add more text not delete deecee's. Jim Apple 21:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Understood, Jim. It's fair to say that I deleted Deecee's text, though I'm not sure it was originated by her. The process of deletion/substitution, however, was mutual, as it often is in edit "wars." My intent was not so much to strangle Deecee's point of view as to BALANCE the article overall. I tried to include, in my own text, references and links to the alleged skin-tone controversy. I found Dee's entries excessive and shamelessly weighted toward one side, her side. I think, frankly, a lot of what she inserted was little more than thinly veiled propaganda. So I tried to show the best evidence against it without digging through my library of books, searching for the exact references -- the hallmark of someone's whose main job is not lexicography. I remembered, in The Discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamen, that near the end Carter included plates of photographs by Harry Burton. Some of these showed closeups of "black Africans," depicted as enemies of Egypt, and the sculptural work was unmistakable. The sculptors really knew how to distinguish races from one another. So I found these images online and uploaded them. They are closeups and clearly show that, had 18th Dynasty sculptors intended Tutankhamun to look like a black African, he would look like a black African. Instead, he looks like Jaye Davidson.

There are many other examples of black Africans appearing in contrast to light-reddish Egyptians in ancient art, but I have had little luck securing them to show here. I know for certain you can see several such comparisons in the excellent PBS documentary "Egypt's Golden Empire." So my main omission was a failure to be diligent, to seek out definitive sources and references. In fairness, though, the sources I did provide would have been more than satisfactory in any other circumstance. Deecee's fervent refutations have made this one anomalous. (Petrograd 09:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC))

+ Realize I didn't address your question: was skin tone related to facial structure. Every orthopedic opinion I've read has said positively "No." In some cases skin color can be inferred by facial or bone structure, but it is always and only inference. Unfortunately the specific references have evaporated in my mind... Give me a few days. (Petrograd 09:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC))

The process was not mutual in the sense that deeceevoice stopped deleting your text. "I'll find references later that refute it" is a bad excuse. Some of the reverts by deeceevoice were unfair, like removing the quote from the National Geographic spokesperson. Nonetheless, the edit war at the end, for which this page was protected, was you deleting her text.

If you don't like deeceevoice's text, refute it with your own. Don't just delete it. Jim Apple 10:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

A response

King Tut looks like Jaye Davidson? ROTFLMBAO. Yeah, sure. This[gallery/ss/0111282/Ss/0111282/ScanImage33.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Davidson,%20Jaye] looks just like this [5], this[6], this: [7] or this [8]? (Note the alveolar and maxillary prognathism of the last image in particular -- and the receding chin.) Looks like someone's been o.d.-ing on Doritos and "Stargate." Perhaps "Petrograd" also would like to offer a theory on the alien origins of dynastic Egypt? :p

I just realized the link to the photo of the mulatto Jaye Davidson is defective. Went on the internet and found this photo gallery.[9] Gawd. Is this bwoi a freak, or what? :p Actually, Davidson's nose is closer to the classic Negroid/Africoid phenotype than Tut's. But his lips are much thinner, and his skin tone is likely wa-aaay too pale. Ha! Not even close. deeceevoice 13:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

But seriously, folks:

While not exact, of course there is a correlation between facio-cranial characteristics and skin tone. Miscegenation between blacks and whites or Asians results in not only changes in skin tone, but also in altered facio-cranial characteristics. I see it in my own family, among my parents, my siblings and myself. It stands to reason that extremely dark-skinned black people are likely to be less (or not) miscegenated with, say, whites than are fair-skinned black people. It is a fact that as generations of blacks (or members of any "racial" or ethnic group become miscegenated with other groups with different physical features, the distinctive "racial" characteristics they possess are mitigated/blurred or disappear altogether over time.

The more archetypical the cranial phenotype, the less likely it is to be possessed by a member of a diferent "racial group" or a miscegenated individual. Whenever I've seen a starkly archetypical black phenotype with fair skin, it's been the result of vitiligo or albinism -- and it's really striking/odd-looking. Why? Because it's not normal. Just think of the old Michael Jackson (original nose, lips, chin, hair, etc.) with vitiligo having completely destroyed the pigmentation in his face. He's white-skinned. How odd would that look? Such is not the case with white albinos I've seen. They may be creepily, deathly pale, but they don't look strange.

King Tut had the classic cluster of Nilotic phenotypical features, not one or two here or there; he had all of them -- and he had them in spades. Tut's mummy is so bucktoothed and the teeth so large, the poor kid looks like a freakin' gerbil. He's got the prominently recessive chin. His head is so dolichocephalic, that for decades white scientists automatically assumed a genetic deformity. And placed in the context of the widely accepted (new) infusion of Nubian blood into the Egyptian dynastic line during the 17th and 18th Dynasties and the results of similar studies conducted of the skulls of other royals preceding and succeeding him, it is quite likely that Tut was pretty close to pure Nilotic. Other royal mummies during different times exhibited signs of miscegenation -- less pronounced prognathism; considerably mitigated dolichocephamism, even to the point of almost globular skulls, etc. But if one were to search for a near-perfect, even extreme, example of the Nilotic Africoid phenotype among the Egyptian royal line, King Tut is the man.

Given all these factors, and given the fact that Tut is most commonly represented in contemporaneous images as having dark, chocolate-brown/deep red-brown skin, it is highly unlikely he was anywhere near as fair as the scandalously racist French reconstruction. And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in any of the images contemporaneous with Tut's life that he had hazel eyes or that his nose was anywhere near as thin as it is in the reconstruction. And these people knew the identity of the specimen they were dealing with! It is quite clear what the intent was: typical whitewashing.

The resulting image looks downright strange: [10] Every black person I've spoken with who's seen it either laughs out loud or curses at the deception. We recognize the cranial shape immediately -- not as a possible "genetic deformity," but as a "peanut head," a common ghetto term for Tut's pronounced type of dolichocephalism. Without fail, they've said the reconstruction looks damned abnormal. It's white skin and a skinny nose on what should be a dark-skinned black man. deeceevoice 13:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

This is what gets to me about the King tut image. People who say he was white cannot use the death mask and show it in any light because to be honest the mask looks like a black guy. Why the controversy over tut he was black. Now was most of the dynasties black that is the questionWhat I said earlier was that unlike in the U.S. Europeans seem to be more ready to accept that Egypts roots are in Africa and that it was maybe started by Black Africans. Petrograd how can you look at the mask of King Tut or his skull, and the paintings on the wall and see something other than a Black guy. I find it hard to believe anyone who is unbiased can say he is not black it is just too obvious. Like I said earlier I now believe that most of Ancient Egypt was black. The evidence is just too much to ignore. Those who try to convince me that they were white show me evidence that still points to them being mostly black. I now need people to prove to me that the Ancient Egyptians were white people. Some people try to now convince me that the Ancient Egyptians were mixed. This seems to be what allot of egyptologists are now trying to say now that "White Egypt" is dying out. So now the debate seems to be if the Egyptians were Black from the beginning or came from diffrent races. This is what makes me confused. From what I have learned of Egypt. People first thought they were Black than White and now Mixed. Do Black people have a point when they say it is a conspiracy or what? (Anonymous post)

Since no one else has responded to your entry, I will. It deserves a response. The answer is yes, we do. The megalomaniac head of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities Zahi Hawass flat-out lied about how the reconstruction teams all agreed that Tut was a "Caucasoid North African." I traded several e-mails with Anton, the person charged with making a geographic and "racial" determination regarding the skull of Tut. And she told me she pointedly avoided using racial classifications because professionally she doesn't believe in it. She said she never uses racial terms. Further, she told me that the cluster of Africoid characteristics is what caused her to designate a "North African" origin to the specimen -- despite the narrow nasal cavity. Here is an earlier version of what I wrote which details my exchanges w/Anton. The quotes are absolutely accurate, but they were deleted because, under wiki policy, the information is "original research."

Apparently, the "Caucasoid North African" terminology has emanated from only Hawass, who has been accused by some of orchestrating an ongoing campaign to Arabize ancient dynastic Egypt, when the Arab conquest of Egypt dates from only the 7th century CE. In an SCA press release dated May 10, 2005, the agency reported, "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)."

However, in the words of Susan Antón, a member of the American team, "Our group did not, in fact, find Tut to be a 'Caucasoid North African.' We classified him as African based on many of the [skull's facio-cranial] features...." Antón noted that this was done regardless of the fact that the nasal cavity was relatively narrow, because the metrics were within the range of probability for the Nilotic peoples of the region. With regard to any finding of European origins, Antón commented that, in light of the cumulative evidence, she "determined the statistical association [with Europeans] was very low and, therefore, based on the nonmetric characters, was not likely to be accurate." "... it would have been less confusing," Antón added, "if that terminology ['Caucasoid North African'] had not been used." "I think his features are consistent with him being African."

Antón refused, however, to assign a specific racial designation to the specimen, citing inherent problems with the concept of race.... Referring to the skull's pronounced dolichocephalism, alveolar prognathism, "large teeth," receding chin and pronounced sagittal ridge [13] (an indentation in the skull, forming what African Americans commonly refer to as a "peanut head"), Antón stated she was "in general agreement that, based on the cranial skeleton, an estimate of African is appropriate. What that implies in terms of skin color," she added, referring to the [French] team's reconstruction, "is an inference."

Unfortunately, Anton's reluctance to play the game of racial classification left ample room for the French team, working in conjunction with Hawass, who long has been on a crusade to Arabize dynastic Egypt, to perpetuate the lies. Why is it that only the Egyptians and the French knew the identity of the specimen? And isn't it interesting that the team who knew the least about the skull came up with a dead-on accurate location for the skull's origin? I've explained that in the text.

To answer your question: yes, it is a conspiracy. The wholesale destruction of the archaeological record of black dynasties along the Nile has been underway since at least the flooding of ancient Nubia in 1959 or 1960. What they cannot claim, they destroy. It's that simple. And the inability and unwillingness of individuals to see beyond the blatantly white spremacist appropriation of African culture, their amazing obtuseness when it comes to thinking critically about this matter, have allowed the lies to stand -- and to be repeated in the mass media generation after generation.

The curious thing is the Mediterranean scholars of antiquity readily acknowledged the black skin and woolly hair of the ancient Egyptians, and no one ever has successfully debunked these claims -- nor can they. The Eurocentrists just act like the written historical record doesn't exist; they ignore these ancient scholars. They simply continue to heap lies on top of lies.

Fortunately, more people -- like you -- are awakening to the truth. Stay inquisitive and analytical. As the old, white historians die out, new, highly educated, highly principled, highly determined historians of color, their vision unclouded by racism and the lies of white supremacy, are looking for the truths of their own histories with new eyes and sharp minds.

So, keep your eyes peeled. New discoveries and new connections are being made, and old scholarship and old evidence is being revisited with new eyes. Stay open-minded. "The truth will out." Peace 2 u.  :) deeceevoice 13:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentrism as a misnomer

Even if Afrocentrism is a misnomer, it hardly belongs here. It belongs, if anywhere, on the Afrocentrism page.

It's hard to say that it belongs there, anyway. Movements often get to name themselves. See Lubavitch and Objectivist philosophy. Jim Apple 04:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Early in my editing there was a clause omitted from later versions of the Tutankhamun article. It went something like, " . . . a radical African roots-empowerment group [link to Return to Glory], heavily influenced by some of Alex Haley's Afrocentric additions to The Autobiography of Malcolm X . . . "

I don't know if Afrocentrism is everywhere a misnomer, but in the sense that it's been employed here it is. I think there's something deeper going on. It's a bit like trying to sift truth from testy articles on Christianity or Islam; someone's joined the edit party and is insidiously veering the article away from neutrality. Alarming as it sounds, I suspect some of the people editing "Tutankhamun" with POV information meant to appear "irrefutable" are in fact secretly (not-so-secretly?) impassioned, on a mission or crusade. "Fighting the good fight," etc. etc., the farthest thing from an objective editor. Absolutely refusing to be satisfied with satisfactory encyclopedic data from other, not-similarly-impassioned editors is something I suspect to be indicative of this behavior. Supplanting text that explained the same but did so with fairer regard for other points of view. (Petrograd 09:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC))

If their information is sourced, you need to fight it with other sourced information not just accusations. Jim Apple 11:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"... a radical African roots-empowerment group...." And I deleted that garbage. The passage shows precisely how off-base this all is, and that you somehow still think it was appropriate is extremely telling. "Return to Glory" is a website originated by a JEWISH professor who specializes in diversity training, who traveled to Egypt and was struck by the black images he found there. This is a typical ignorant, knee-jerk response of the highly opinionated and abysmally ill-informed when presented with information they cannot, or refuse to, absorb: utterly baseless ad hominem attacks. deeceevoice 12:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Jim.

Wow...

It's like you didn't even see anything I wrote! Deecee's snarly absolutisms are pretty simple to defeat -- it doesn't require a direct onslaught. Logic is logic; science is science. Deecee practices neither. (Note that the "Discovery Channel" photo of Tut's mask is also done close-in and at a low angle, exaggerating prominences).

All this vituperation has highlighted, for me, Wikipedia's fundamental flaw: user egos. With that now acknowledged and understood, I leave you to your war. Goodbye, Wikipedia.

(Petrograd 18:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)) (final post)

Right. If the problem of "distortion" is the same, then tell me: why are the ears not flattened? So, you're telling me the Discovery Channel doesn't have the good sense to present a decent, accurate photographic representation of Tut's death mask? Or, perhaps it's a conspiracy from the "Jew-controlled" media -- like, say, www.returntoglory.org?? Worse still, is Discovery Channel the tool or co-conspirator of "a radical Afrocentrist cult"? Uh-huh. And "vituperation"? You seem to forget you're the one who was admonished about your snide, nasty, ad hominem attacks -- not I. Bye, Pharlap -- uh, I mean Petrograd. Don't let the doorknob hitcha.... deeceevoice 18:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

My answer to this was deleted when these images and their talk pages were deleted. For the record, I'll add it here: The ears are somewhat flattened, and you will see that the posts sourrounding the frame are curved in the image, though they clearly aren't in real life. The DC photographer probably didn't think that the slight distortion in his image would have any scholarly consequences. Jim Apple 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

Since Petrograd is gone, I have asked that this page be unprotected on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Request_to_unprotect_Tutankhamun and User talk:JCarriker#King_Tut_edit_war. Jim Apple 17:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Image problems

First up, I removed three images that are tagged as potential copyright violations.

Secondly, the "close up" image is extremely misleading. We have thousands of depictions of what the mask actually looked like, and it does not look like it appears in this image. I glanced at the above conversation and have to agree with those who feel that it was either taking with a lens that distorted the features quite dramatically or was modified in photo manipulation software. The coloration also is supsect but could be from poor lighting. Not to mention that it is also a copyright violation.

I certainly would not object to an image like that being included as an example of why some people claim Tut was Nubian, but it absolutely needs to have a caption specifying that the dimensions have been distorted trough use of a lens and the color being dark from low lighting conditions, referring to the image at the top of the article (or elsewhere if we add a comparison of the two) as a more accurate rendtion.

Furthermore, the claims in the caption that the mask is shown on th National Grographic cover to the left is misleading, as that image is clearly of the accurate and undistorted dimensions and coloration. Claiming that the "close up" version is on the cover is simply false.

To top it off, it is clear from the comments that the close up image is being advanced here specifically to take a POV that Tut had Nubian features. This sort of thing should not happen. Editing decisions should be made to cover all important sides, and then explain which sides the experts come down on. The idea that Afrocentrists are trying to sneak their agenda into this article is quite disturbing, especially as it is such a minor part of the scholarly view and generally only held by lay persons. DreamGuy 21:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

.....riiiiighhhhhttttt.....

my word, this place is a regular adolescent pissing contest! ease up on the egos a bit and throw in a pinch of egyptology, wouldja? real science.

the nubia/africa thing cracks me up!

i mean, arguing by the artefacts?! pscha! take a stroll through cairo museum!

File:Tut unguent crush nubians.jpg

One of Tut's unguent jars -- smashing flat three black Nubians.

File:Tut chest defeating nubians.jpg

Archer-tut on horseback, annihilating an army of black Nubians.

File:Tut garrett nubian slave staff grip.jpg

(Upside down view). Tut's walking-staff handle, a black Nubian, so his hand always smothers his enemy.

(Dark droid 06:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC))

Wro-o-ong

No one disputes that Egypt and Nubians engaged in military conflict. The same artist who accurately depicted the Nubians as black-skinned, depicted Tut as having chocolate-brown skin. Now, what does that make Tut? It makes him a brown-skinned black man. Egyptian art is extremely detailed. Note the obvious, virtually ever-present prognathisms when the Egyptians depict themselves -- and the absence of prognathism when they depict others in the same piece of artwork. Prognathism = black people. Tut's phenotype is classic Nilotic black African -- nothing else. The science doesn't lie. deeceevoice 03:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Chocolate brown skin? The skin coloration typically used is not chocolate brown but reddish, which is actually more in line with Mediterranean skin tones. Also it was quite typically to depict males as having tanned skinned to contrast with the whiter skin of the women, an artistic style that went all the way to the Etruscans in Italy. Using your argument we should wonder why all the Etruscan men were "black" Africans and the women were Nordic pale white. We know from DNA evidence, comparative art styles, anicent records and half a zillion other ways that most of the Egyptians had Meditteranean skin tones, which shouldn't be surprising as that's where they lived. DreamGuy 04:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Bull. I say "chocolate brown" to differentiate between people who might be simply tanned. Red? Hell, lots of black people have reddish brown skin. Even an old Encyclopaedia Britannica from 1911 (cited below) describes some black people as having reddish brown skin. The website of a white makeup artist describes brown skin as having red undertones, which is true. It is why when white companies first started making cosmetics for black women, their flat brown colors looked terrible -- turdy, ashen, like death. It was evident in the old days of television when blacks were relative newcomers to the medium. Any everyday cosmetologist or African American woman will tell you that the brown skin of "black" people typically has red undertones. Lots of African Americans, for instance, turn a deep red-brown in the summer sun -- myself included. Need more proof?

A summary according to somatological principles has been given lately by J. Deniker (cf. The Races of Man, p. 225), a Frenchman, who has selected the divisions of the earth as the principle of classification in the description of the several races and tribes.

*Frizzly hair, broad nose

yellow skin: the Bushman races, comprising Hottentots and Bushmen -- yellow skin, steatopygous, small stature, dolichocephalic;

dark skin:

Negrito races, comprising both very small, sub-brachycephalic or sub-dolichoceplhalic;

Negro, comprising the Nigritian and Bantu stocks -- black skin, dolichocephalic;

Melanesians, comprising Papuans and Melanesians -- blackish-brown skin, medium stature, dolichocelphalic.

Hair frizzly or wavy, dark skin

Ethiopians -- reddish brown skin, narrow nose, large stature, dolichoceplhalic;

aboriginal Australians -- chocolate brown skin, broad nose, medium stature, dolichocephalic;

Dravidians -- black-brown skin, broad or straight nose, small stautre, dolichocephalic;

skin dirty white: Assyrioids -- nose narrow, and convex with thick end.[11]

Further, from the (racist), 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica:

The relation of the negroids of Africa to those of Asia (southern India and Malaysia) and Australasia ... [are] dispers[ed] from what seems to be a single stock. It will be sufficient to say that the two groups have in common a number of well-defined characteristics of which the following are the chief: a dark skin, varying from dark brown, reddish-brown, or chocolate to nearly black; dark tightly curled hair, flat in transverse section,1 of the "woolly" or the "frizzly" type; a greater or less tendency to prognathism; eyes dark brown with yellowish cornea; nose more or less broad and flat; and large teeth. Sharing these characteristics, but distinguished by short stature and brachycephaly, is a group to which the name Negrito (q.v.)

The expression "jet black" is applied by Schweinfurth to the upper-Nilotic Shilluk, Nuer and Dinka, while the neighboring Bongo and Mittu [of southern Sudan] are described as of a "'red-brown color' like the soil upon which they reside" (Heart of Africa, vol. i. ch. iv.).[12]

What "we know" is not what we know. When you can find me a group of Mediterranean peoples with the same facio-cranial characteristics as King Tut and the royal mummies cited in the Afrocentrism article, when you can contradict the writings of Herodotus, Petrie and scores of other non-"Afrocentric" scholars, then I might consider taking the trollop you've written here with a grain of salt. Let's start with what they knew:

From Diop:

Before examining the contradictions circulating in the modern era and resulting from attempts to prove at any price that the Egyptians were Whites, let us note the astonishment of a scholar of good faith, Count Constantin de Volney (1757-1820). After being imbued with all the prejudices we have just mentioned with regard to the Negro, Volney had gone to Egypt between 1783 and 1785, while Negro slavery flourished. He reported as follows on the Egyptian race, the very race that had produced the Pharaohs: the Copts.

... all have a bloated face, puffed up eyes, flat nose, thick lips; in a word, the true face of the mulatto. I was tempted to attribute it to the climate, but when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says: "As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair. ..." In other words, the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native-born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood, mixed for several centuries with that of the Romans and Greeks, must have lost the intensity of its original color, while retaining nonetheless the imprint of its original mold. We can even state as a general principle that the face is a kind of monument able, in many cases, to attest or shed light on historical evidence on the origins of peoples.

The opinion of all the ancient writers on the Egyptian race is more or less summed up by Gaston Maspero (1846-1916): "By the almost unanimous testimony of ancient historians, they belonged to an African race [read: Negro] which first settled in Ethiopia, on the Middle Nile; following the course of the river, they gradually reached the sea. ... Moreover, the Bible states that Mesraim, son of Ham, brother of Chus (Kush) the Ethiopian, and of Canaan, came from Mesopotamia to settle with his children on the banks of the Nile." {endnote 8: Gaston Maspero, Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'Orient. Paris: Hachette, 1917, p. 15, 12th ed. (Translated as: The Dawn of Civilization. London, 1894; reprinted, New York: Frederick Ungar, 1968.)} ...

The Egyptians themselves traced their origins to Punt, surmised to be present-day Eritrea or southern Sudan -- whose indigenous inhabitants are black Africans.

This from Diodorus Siculus of Sicily:

The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians are one of their colonies which was brought into Egypt by Osiris. They even allege that this country was originally under water, but that the Nile, dragging much mud as it flowed from Ethiopia, had finally filled it in and made it a part of the continent. ... They add that from them, as from their authors and ancestors, the Egyptians get most of their laws.

Herodotus in Diop:

To show that the inhabitants of Colchis were of Egyptian origin and had to be considered a part of Sesostris' army who had settled in that region, Herodotus says: "The Egyptians said that they believed the Colchians to be descended from the army of Sesostris. My own conjectures were founded, first, on the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair. ..." {endnote 3: Ibid., p. 115.} Finally, concerning the population of India, Herodotus distinguishes between the Padaeans and other Indians, describing them as follows: "They all also have the same tint of skin, which approaches that of the Ethiopians." {endnote 4: Ibid., p. 184.}

Now, if the classical Egyptians were dark-skinned with woolly hair, imagine what they looked like 4,000 years before. Light-skinned? Hazel eyes?ROTFLMBAO. Yeah. Right.

Egyptian women. Note the prognathisms, receding chin lines and nappy/wavy hair.[13], [14] Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye.[15] and [16] And, yes, the Egyptians knew full well how to distinguish themselves from other peoples. Check the ethnological "portraits" from the Book of Gates[17] and notice the pronounced maxillary prognathism and receding chins of the sub-Saharan and West Africans (and, perhaps, other Nilotics, with the yellow and black leopard aprons), the maxillary prognatism and receding chins of the Egyptian (the first figure), the flat faces of everyone else. This isn't a coincidence. Maxillary and alveolar prognathisms are omnipresent in Egyptian art. King Tut profiles:[18] and [19] And this is not some "stylistic" affectation of the Amarna or any other period. Prognathism: a tell-tale racial trait used by forensic scientists to assess Africoid origin/ancestry. It's everywhere.

So, don't presume to talk about "what we know," because when it comes to in-depth, scholarly consideration of all the evidence (not a regurgitation of the mindless pap designed to perpetuate the myths of white supremacy and black inferiority) -- archaeological evidence, indisputable classical historic record and modern forensic science -- you don't know jack.deeceevoice 09:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

hey, ddv, you're just stirring around the elements emphatically, making an awfully lengthy show but proving nothing. you can't call an ancient egyptian a black man and keep a straight face. can you? have you studied it at all? (and i mean outside of the propaganda site bibliographies). egyptology is a respectable field but people like you make a circus out of it. your arguments are shifty, imbalanced and halting. trying to prove your point, for example, by indicating an article as if it should be taken for sooth, in an encyclopedia you openly proclaim "racist," not to mention published before world war I, is ridiculous. in the real definition of that word: worthy of ridicule. the same with referencing historical commentaries long removed from actual events, to prove egyptians were black men, when we have real egyptian records and artifacts to examine. herodotus a reliable source on eighteenth dynasty egypt? hello.

i can't say i understand the impulse. egypt was a repetative place; always the same sculptures, always the same rituals, always the same supplications, always the same monuments to egos in stone. its colonnades inspired later architects in greece and rome, but for all its monumentality egyptian architecture wasn't worth much more than that. is it because you suppose egypt was the first real civilization? look up ancient sumer.

all the while . . . the heart of the world is africa. we evolved there as a species. erectus to sapiens. after that, we diverged. biodiversity. environmental adaptation. and now we're a little differently hued standing next to each other and of slightly different skeleton. why should that not make us brothers? (Dark droid 00:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC))

(Wiping a tear.) Oh, gee. That was so eloquent. :p

This discussion hasn't got jack to do with brotherhood; it's about historical accuracy. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for all its racism about the presumptive inferiority of blacks, is dead on and extremely detailed in its descriptions of the physical attributes of blacks vis-a-vis skin color. There are numerous other places where blacks are described as having red-brown skin. (Have you googled it? Obviously not.)

No one here has said a damned thing about assigning any subjective value or rank whatsoever to Egyptian civilization vis-a-vis other world civilizations, but since you raise the subject, Sumer came nowhere near to Egypt in terms of power, duration, advancement and influence. And who do you think the Sumerians were, anyway? White people? :p But I will not be drawn into that discussion. It's not germane here.

More to the point -- what? No comeback to Herodotus, Petrie, Volne or Didodorus? The evidence in the face of the Great Sphinx at Giza and countless other artifacts, monumental and diminutive, of dynastic Egypt? Modern forensic science? Just some weak-ass comment about the obvious interrelatedness of (hu)mankind. Ha! No surprise there. You waste our time. deeceevoice 11:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

you can't invoke the sweeping generalities of ptolemaic "historians" to stand as indisputable support for a black ancient egypt. that's just dignified ignorance, and it tarnishes nearly all of your entries. (Dark droid 23:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC))

And you've "evoked" absolutely nothing. And all the rest? Again, you waste our time. I'm done with you. You've offered absolutely nothing concrete -- nothing. deeceevoice 23:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

haughty and cryptic. ddv, when i offer anything "concrete" it does not come in magazine-like abundance because it is not strip mined backfill from propaganda sites. such as your "egypt-women" 1 and 2 pictures, which don't show egyptian women at all but royal concubines gifted to egypt's pharaohs by neighboring sovereigns. this is basic egyptology twisted to fleece the undiligent. disingenuous to the core. (Dark droid 00:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC))

What? And concubines, or female musicians were necessarily not Egyptian? Take the body of images of the human form of Egyptians as represented in their bas reliefs, their monuments, their sculpture, and you'll find a predominance of the same striking profiles -- maxillary and/or alveolar prognathism accompanied by receding chins (hallmarks of Africoid peoples). It's how Anton identified Tut's skull's origin as clearly African -- not European. You'll see wigs with dreadlocks and braids in the African fashion. There is no way a "Caucasoid" civilization is indigenous to black Africa.

Still, you have no substantive comeback to the clear, indisputable historical or archaeological record or to modern forensic science. It is widely accepted by credible sources that the ancient Egyptians came from the south -- not the north -- and settled the Nile Valley. There is no way anyone other than black peoples would originate in southern Sudan (which is and always has been a black nation) or Eritrea, which are where Punt, the land of origin of the Egyptians, is surmised to have been located. If the ancient Egyptians were characterized as a whole as having black/dark skin and woolly hair in Herodotus' time, they certainly were that way in the dynastic era -- and even more so. The populace lightened -- not darkened -- as time progressed. All objective data points to a heavily and predominantly black, Africoid predynastic and dynastic Egypt.

You're a textbook byproduct of "historical scholarship" twisted to the service of white supremacy, slavery and imperialism of the 19th century, and of the pop historical swill and whitewashed Egyptomania of the early 20th: racism, deception and ignorance which ignored the clear archaeological evidence and impartial scholarly observation, both classical and contemporary. Pavlovian conditioning. The opinionated, hidebound ignorant are so comfortable with the lies of their upbringing, they return to their familiar comfort despite clear evidence to the contrary.

I'm not here to convince you. I've written what I've written based on facts. It's there to edit, excise, change, based on any solid evidence you (or anyone else) can present. As with anything on Wikipedia, you're free to do so -- if you can back it up. With all the knee-jerk Eurocentrists on this website, all the white male geeks, do you really think Afrocentrism would have remained substantially intact for the last several months if the information presented there (and here) weren't' accurate?

All you (all) do is bytch and moan on the discussion page. Read the Afrocentrism archives. Everything you've not said has been not said before. You're yesterday's news. You're "déjà vu all over again."

In short, you still got nothin'. *x* deeceevoice 07:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)