Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006/12/10. The result of the discussion was keep.

Asian Hypothesis

Writing in point/counterpoint fashion renders this article incomprehensible. Editors continually attempt to add numerous statements to the Black theory section which contradict the previous assertion in support of the Black theory. Let's follow the same logic and apply it to the Asiatic section. As you can see, it will become incomprehensible. This is why we should stop the point/counterpoint approach:

...the most dominant view was that the ancient Egyptians were the lineal descendants of Ham, through his son Mizraim.[18] A theory which subsequently became known as the "Asiatic Race Theory".[19] The native Egyptians, by a literal interpretation of Biblical chronology, were believed to have arrived in Egypt from South-West Asia, usually between the 4th or 3rd millennium BC after the flood and dispersal of man at the Tower of Babel.[20] The descendants of Ham were traditionally considered to be the darkest skinned branch of Humanity, either because of their geographic allotment to Africa or because of the Curse of Ham.[21] However it became disputed at least by the 18th century whether Mizraim’s descendants, the Egyptians, were Negroid or in contrast a dark skinned Caucasian race.[22] {{{{{{{Here a sentence would be inserted stating that supporters of the Black theory argue that if most of Ham's offspring (Cush, Phut) are accepted as Black, all of his offspring should be accepted as Black}}}}}}}}}}

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a proponent of the Asiatic (Biblical) origins of the Egyptians in 1776 argued that the ancient Egyptians were "degenerated" (darkened) Caucasians, a theory also supported by Georges Cuvierwho in 1811 conducted one of the first scientific analyses of Egyptian mummies, writing: "I have examined, in Paris, and in the various collections of Europe, more than fifty mummies, and not one amongst them presented the characters of the Negro.[23]{{{{{{{Here a sentence would be inserted stating that supporters of the Black theory argue that the idea of a black Caucasian is absurd and a clumsy way of avoiding calling the Egyptians black}}}}}}}}}}

Thomas Joseph Pettigrew, a surgeon and antiquarian who became one of the earliest experts on mummies, also agreed with Cuvier that the ancient Egyptian mummies were Caucasian, showing "not the slightest approximation to the Negro character".[24] Very few Egyptologists or scholars of the 19th century argued against the Caucasian identification of the Egyptians through the Asiatic Race Theory,[25] among them however was the anthropologistJames Cowles Prichard who although agreed the ancient Egyptians were not 'proper' Negroid, maintained they were a "black race", more connected to the Negroid than the Caucasian race.[26]{{{{{{{Here a sentence would be inserted stating that supporters of the Black theory argue that the melanin content in mummy skin samples indicate that they were black and that recent DNA studies of the Amarna period mummies classify them with black Africans }}}}}}}}}}

The Caucasian racial identification of (Biblical) Mizraim and the ancient Egyptians was popularized outside scholarly literature, for example in travel books e.g. by William George Browne in his Travels in Africa, Egypt and Syria(1806).[27] Theological proponents of the Asiatic Race Theory such as John Kitto further argued that the Curse of Ham only afflicted Canaan, not Mizraim, asserting the Egyptians were racially dark Asiatic Caucasians and not Negroid.[28] {{{{{{Here a sentence would be inserted stating that supporters of the Black theory argue that if most of Ham's offspring (Cush, Phut) are accepted as Black, all of his offspring should be accepted as Black}}}}}}}}}}

...reddish-brown' branch of the Caucasian, but sharply distinguishable from the Negroid.[32] Wilkinson, after analysing several ancient Egyptian crania concluded: "the formation of the skull, which is decidedly of the Caucasian variety, must remove all doubt of their valley having been people from the East."[33] Rawlinson after studying the hair texture of several ancient Egyptian mummies considered them to be non-Negroid, writing in his History of Egypt: "The hair was usually black and straight. In no case was it ‘woolly’, though sometimes it grew in short crisp curls."[34] He further proclaimed that the ancient Egyptians were culturally Asiatic in origin.[35]{{{{{{Here a sentence would be inserted stating that Snowden (while quoting Greeks and Romans) indicates that there are known red/reddish brown negroes. Another statement would indicate that there are black people with straight hair.}}}}}}}}}}

The Asiatic Race Theory was only first seriously challenged as late as 1894 by the Egyptologist Gaston Maspero, who wrote: "the hypothesis of an Asiatic origin however attractive it may seem, is difficult to maintain."[36] In response to the increasing skepticism of the Asiatic Race Theory, various alternatives were proposed, albeit related. In his treatise Der babylonische Ursprung der ägyptischen Kultur ('The Babylonian Origin of Egyptian Culture') published in the 1890s, the Professor of Semitic languages Fritz Hommel argued that the ancient Egyptians were the descendants of the Akkadians and Babylonians. Hommel’s Babylonian theory was not popular,[37]but received some support by the archaeologist Jacques Rougé, the son of the Egyptologist Emmanuel de Rougé who argued the ancient Egyptians were Chaldeans.[38] By the 20th century the Asiatic Race Theory and its various offshoots were abandoned but were superseded by two new theories: {{{{{{Here a sentence would be inserted stating that practically every mainstream scholar agrees that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was indigenous to the Nile valley. If the proponents of the Asiatic theory could get the predynastic homeland of the Egyptians so wrong, how can they be trusted on any other point?}}}}}}}}}}

This seems silly, but this is exactly what editors try to do to the Black theory section each and every day. For every point given in support of the Black theory, a detractor is found and immediately quoted. We already know that the Black theory is controversial and that some don't agree. The rest of the article gives balance with other theories. We don't need to hear from every person that disagrees WITHIN the Black theory section. Group those statements in a different part of the article.Rod (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is a pretty big difference, because you're forgetting the cause. The Asian section isn't full of bizarre claims of proof and cherrypicked pictures intended to advertise the theory. The reason the black theory section got so long was the placement of these pieces of "evidence" all over the place as well as these pictures, and then it got longer when the quotes of authors countering these claims were added to maintain nPOV. None of the other theories have so much of this. A good example would be the melanchroes translation. It really shouldn't even be there at all, obviously the only reason it was placed there in the beginning was to advertise the theory (its actually totally irrelevant, since the Ancient Greek language, just like most languages of the world, and unlike English, doesn't have the word "black" meaning Sub-Saharan). All that should've been mentioned was "Diop says so and so and his critics say so and so", the end. It's about the history of the controversy, after all. Just like the Asiatic theory does. --Yalens (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Nofret's and Cleopatra's (A Greek) pictures are cherrypicked. They aren't representative of the Egyptian populace.Rod (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I can appreciate that the controversy is alive and well. I also appreciate all editors doing their best to fairly represent all sides of the controversy. This should be very informative for those that don't have time to dig into this subject in great detail. For those casual readers, it is important to note that most every book written in support of the Black theory spends a considerable amount of time quoting Greeks (concerning their views on the race of Nile valley inhabitants). This inevitably leads to a lot of rebuttals from other authors expressing a different viewpoint on the translations. There has been considerable controversy around these translations and this article commendably highlights that controversy. Supporters of the Black theory would indeed find the claims in the Asiatic theory as bizarre (hence the controversy).Rod (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed. And so we have two bizarre theories, both of them rejected by mainstream scholarship. We can all agree on that. The issue actually is that your constant POV additions are a transparent attempt to "prove" Diop's bizarre theory, and in the process you are drifting away from the point of the article. Few if any still punt the "Asian Hypothesis", and thus it is a historical oddity rather than something to be defended. Sadly some people are continuing to punt the "Black Hypothesis", for reasons of their own, and are determined to pack wikipedia articles with all the scraps of so-called evidence they can find in this effort. The "truth" is whatever is the latest mainstream opinion, and other theories are oddities - interesting oddities, but oddities nonetheless. I think we are reaching the point where we need to seriously consider creating an article dedicated to the "Black Hypothesis", where you can list all your shreds of "evidence", and then we will load a big statement into the intro that says "modern scholarship holds that this theory is as much bunk as the equally-discredited Asian Hypothesis, although some scholars continue to cling to it nonetheless". That should solve all the needs and issues, in an encyclopaedic manner. Should I create the new article for you quickly? Wdford (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see how creating a different article would make things better. Then, instead of having one problem article, we have two problem articles to deal with...--Yalens (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, I feel just as strongly that the article is a problem without my contributions. The lay person will think that Egyptians were the same race as Greeks.Rod (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

We already have two problem articles - please check out Racial identity of Tutankhamun when you have a chance. My idea here is to have a focused article wherein Rod etc can expound on the Black Hypothesis, laying out every single contested translation is copious detail, without contravening the "History of the Controversy" theme of this article, and then we can have a single para in this article with a link to the Main Article. Ditto the Tut articles - a short para with a link to the Main Black Hypothesis article. It will make the encyclopedia more complete, and also make these other articles more readable. The Black Hypothesis already provides 21,000 characters out of 84,000 so it already makes up a quarter of the article, and some editors would clearly love to make it even bigger. We already have articles on the Dynastic Race Theory, the Hamitic hypothesis etc, so why not move this detail elsewhere as well? Seems like a win-win solution? Wdford (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's passion around this topic, but there is considerable evidence that the mainstream scholarship in this area has been sloppy scholarship for a couple of centuries. This is one area where the mainstream has been proven to push a political agenda and not further science.Rod (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, we have a separate page for the Dynastic race theory, but the Hamitic page is for the idea of "Hamites" in general. I honestly don't see how this would relieve POV issues, as illustrated by the page for King Tut's race. It's looks like just another page for people to edit war on :(. --Yalens (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of the Racial identity of Tutankhamun seems to be OR, using sources that don't mention Tut to argue for Tut's racial identity. I've tagged it as OR and started a discussion. Dougweller (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"{{{{{{{Here a sentence would be inserted stating that supporters of the Black theory argue that the idea of a black Caucasian is absurd and a clumsy way of avoiding calling the Egyptians black}}}}}}}}}}" WHAT? Cuvier et al examined the mummies and found "no Negroid traits", how the heck does that translate as them being "Black"? OrangeGremlin (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please reread the UNESCO conference chapter of the General History of Africa. Many mainstream scholars agree that at least 33% of examined Egyptian skeletons should be classified as negroid. I'm not talking about Diop. I'm talking about the mainstream scholars. It's right there in the General History of Africa.Rod (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"Another statement would indicate that there are black people with straight hair.}}}}}}}}}}" Since when have Negroids had "straight hair"? They are uniformly wooly haired. The only Sub-Saharan Africans with wavy hair are Horners who have recieved substantial gene flow with Caucasoids. Show me a Western or Central Sub-Saharan African with natural straight hair. OrangeGremlin (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nubians have straight hair. Some Ethiopians have straight hair.Rod (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I take a short break from contributing to this article and look at the results. The pictures remaining are of a Greek foreigner (Cleopatra VII) and a historical nobody, Nofret. You can pretend that this isn't POV, but it is. When lay readers open an article on the race of Egyptians and see Greeks, that is misleading. The Greeks conquered Egypt at a very late date in the civilization and aren't representative of the race of the Egyptian populace. Also, why is the Asiatic theory so much longer than every other theory? I will make a spin off article and restore balance to the page.Rod (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Spin-off article

I am busy preparing a new article to be called Black Egyptian Hypothesis. Thereafter the bulky, POV and off-point Black Hypothesis sections in various other articles can be reduced to a relevant paragraph or two, with links to this new article for the detail. All comments and suggestions most welcome please. Wdford (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can't persuade you... sigh... I wish you good luck in making that page more balanced than the section in this one. I would have two alternative suggestions to how to go about it: one is the timeline, the other is by category. The timeline would be breaking it up into the various "stages" of the controversy. The category method, on the other hand, would see the page broken into various sections, one for each of the various elements of the controversy: language (Diop claims Egyptian is related to Wolof, modern scholars disagree, etc, etc), ethnic affiliation, mummy reconstructions, artwork, writers in antiquity, claims about certain cultural customs being black (circumcision, totemism), and so on. --Yalens (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the second option, as the first approach will be largely incoherent. The main idea is to concentrate the problem in one article, rather than have to correct it individually in half a dozen different places, and then to ensure the material is accurate, verifiable and balanced. What do you think of the proposed article name? Wdford (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with the page, remember to put it in obsolete scientific theories though. OrangeGremlin (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the name. --Yalens (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Another suggestion: a no-pictures policy for the page, to avoid the sort of picture warring that occurred here. --Yalens (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Both this article and the new article are still POV and biased. Who invented the concept of the "black race" in modern science? White Europeans. Who created the notion of race and racism? White Europeans. Who invented the concept of "caucasoid" or non black African ancient Egyptians? European scholars. Therefore, the idea that African scholars studying the history of Egypt and saying the people were black, using the same terminology created by white European racists are somehow being racists themselves is simply asinine, nonsensical and offensive. Both this article and the other article are trying to rewrite history and down play and omit the outright fact of white racism in their scholarship, society and culture throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th century, precisely the time when Napoleon conquered Egypt. European scholarship and racism is the core of the controversy and there are no end of documented writings from Europeans that will readily support this fact. Trying to make Africans who were the victims of this racism and racist scholarship into the racists is simply insulting. It is no coincidence that the beginning of the modern science of anthropology started with European scientists examining Egyptian mummies and assigning them to a particular "race" (most often close to Europeans). But even with that, many of these same scholars also noted quite clearly that in their analysis of the ancient Egyptian mummies, they placed closest physically to Ethiopians as specimens of the "black races". Case in point the following writings from Blumenbach, who invented the concept of "races" and was one of the first athropologists, which shows the many contradictions and outright falsehoods put forward in this article in portraying the facts surrounding this "controversy":

It appears to me that we must adopt at least three principal varieties in the national physiognomy of the ancient Egyptians; which, like all the varieties in the human species, are no doubt often blended together, so as to produce various

shades, but from which the true if I may so call it, ideal archetype may however be distinguished, by unequivocal pro- perties, to which the endless smaller deviations in individuals may, without any forced construction, be ultimately reduced.
These appear to me to be, 1. the Ethiopian cast; 2. the one approaching to the Hindoo; and, 3. the mixed partaking in a manner of both the former.
The first is chiefly distinguished by the prominent maxillae turgid lips, broad flat nose, and protruding eye-balls, such as Volney finds the Copts at present;* such, according to his description, and the best figures given by Norden, is the countenance of the Sphinx; such were, according to the well-known passage in Herodotus on the origan of the Golchians even the Egyptians of his time ; and thus hath Lucian likewise represented a young Egyptian at Rome. ( See Tab. XV 1. fig, 1. )
The second, or the Hindoo cast, differs toto ccelo from the above, as we may convince ourselves by the inspection of other Egyptian monuments. It is characterized by a long slender nose, long and thin eyelids, which run upwards from the top a short and very thin bodily structure,* and very long shanks. As an ideal of this form, I shall only adduce the painted female figure upon theback of the sarcophagus of Capt.Lethieullier's mummy in the British Museum, which has been engraved by Vertue, and which most strikingly agrees with the unequi- vocal national form of the Hindoos, which, especially in England, is so often to be seen upon Indian paintings.
...
Adopting, as I think it conformable to nature, five races of the human species, viz. 1. the Caucasian ; 2. the Mongolian; 3. the Malay; 4. the Ethiopian ; 5. the American ; I think the Egyptians will find their place between the Caucasian and

the Ethiopian, but that they differ from none more than from the Mongolian, to which the Chinese belong.

— John Frederick Blumenbach, Observations On Some Egyptian Mummies Opened in London, http://archive.org/details/philtrans05951465

Note the references to Greek authors, Volney and others which has absolutely nothing to do with so-called Afrocentrics. And note the fact that this man placed the ancient Egyptians closest to Ethiopians in terms of physiognomy, but also groups them with Europeans. This makes the whole idea of Africans pointing out these exact same relationships with other Africans as somehow a "theory" or "controversial" simply unfounded and biased POV nonsense. In fact, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach who created the concept of "races" was not a racist per se(even though his idea that all humans descend from the caucasian race is often critiqued as racist) and it was later scientists who used the concept of "race" to justify and reinforce social and economic structures of exploitation. Big-dynamo (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

More of your off-topic ranting about how the page is biased for not sharing your POV really isn't welcome. And fyi, the term Sudan referring to "black Africa" south of the Sahara (Arabic, from bilad-as sudaan, land of the blacks) and the Berber term "aginaw" (referring to "blacks") who lived in "akal n'Iguinawen" (land of the blacks, etymology for the English word Guinea) go more than a millenium back in origin, dating back to the Middle Ages and originated with non-Europeans... --Yalens (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yalens, please cease and desist with the off topic ranting of your own and address the facts. You are pushing a POV. I don't need you to teach me anything about Africa and certainly do not try to tell me an "Africans place" in Africa, because it is offensive and racist. And since you want to spout off your own POV why do you not address the fact that Ethiopian also means burnt face African and black? Stop trying to push that nonsense that Africans created racism when everything about racism in the modern sense of the word comes from European society, culture and scholarship. Big-dynamo (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

When exactly did I tell you an "Africans place" (whatever that's supposed to mean) or that "Africans invented racism"? No, that's not a question -- I never did. Clearly, seeing as I seem to irk both OrangeGrimley and you, I must be doing something right. --Yalens (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Races are not limited to Humans. You need to stop with the personal emotions and political correctness. Races are a biological reality of all polytypic species, including plants. Therefore when Humans are studied, the same zoological laws should apply. OrangeGremlin (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pictures in this article. Cherry picked? Let the public decide.

Queen Ahmose-Nefertari

Tiye, King Tut's grandmother

Nofret, 4th Dynasty

I would like to ask the objective public, what is more reasonable? Should we have pictures of:

• Ahmose Nefertari - A queen of Egypt and progenitor of the heralded 18th dynasty (which includes King Tut and the Thutmosid pharaohs). She's famous. Her children are famous. She gave birth (literally and figuratively) to one of Egypt's most glorious periods.

• Tiye - Great royal wife, matriarch of the Amarna dynasty, and King Tut's grandmother. Much of the recent controversy over the race of the Ancient Egyptians has surrounded King Tut. Therefore, it stands to reason that the public would be interested in a bust of King Tut's grandmother.Rod (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

or

• Nofret - Parents unknown. Children are unimpressive. Most don't have wiki articles or their lives can be summed up in one sentence. She is a virtual nobody in Ancient Egyptian history. Why is her picture so necessary for this article. There hasn't been any widespread controversy over this lady.Rod (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Rod (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, is it not pushing a POV to prominently display a picture of a Greek, Cleopatra VII, in an article about the race of Ancient Egyptians? This is misleading to the uninformed. Greeks are not Egyptians and they aren't even Nile valley inhabitants.Rod (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that they're cherrypicked when you choose to use pictures that look "black" when, being familiar with Ancient Egyptian art and whatnot, we know that is only the case for a small minority of samples- specifically the ones you picked out (not to mention your frequent use of Nubians, who aren't even Egyptian, on this page and on the Black Hypothesis page). In addition, some scholars theorize that Tiye might have been at least partially of foreign origin (and for the record, I never supported having Cleopatra here)... can we please get back to constructive things, rather than picture wars? All they do is waste time. I'm starting to think we shouldn't even have ANY pictures in these articles at all. --Yalens (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Tiye only looks "black" because that's the colour of the wood, just as you look "white" if you're carved out of marble. It doesn't mean anything more than the fact than the fact that Tutankhamun is black, white, brown and gold in different images. Paul B (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me. It's an indisputable, unquestionable fact that Ahmose-Nefertari and Tiye are considered as Egyptians by any reasonable person familiar with this subject. In the opinion of many, the majority of Egyptians (with their famous reddish brown color) would best be classified with Black people. The definition of Black is large enough to accommodate them. Especially, since paintings (such as that of Ramses II at Beit el-wali) clearly show Nubians (in leopard skins) painted the exact same reddish brown color as the Egyptians (in the same painting). We all know that there is absolutely no proof that Tiye is a foreigner. That's conjecture. It's unscientific.

There is no picture war. That's misdirection and a straw man being built up to discourage good faith editors from challenging the dictatorship of pictures showing Greeks and inconsequential Egyptians in a really important article for humanity. The bottom line is that any and all pictures would be accepted in this article as long as the sculpture or picture showed a fair skinned person (e.g. Nofret and the Greek Cleopatra VII). For balance we must show the EGYPTIANS that were painted as jet black by Egyptian artists (e.g. Ahmose Nefertari).Rod (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

RodDailey, choosing a handful of pictures of black-painted figures to represent all Egyptians is clearly biased, and that is why your choice of pictures is being rejected. Mainstream scholarship, supported by DNA, says that the ancient Egyptians were the same as the modern Egyptians, although some black people lived among them. However having some blacks in the population does not make the population black, any more than the USA or the UK are "black countries". In addition, most surviving ancient Egyptian art is of deities or royalty, and as the article itself states quite clearly, the representativeness of ancient Egyptian art is questionable. Cleopatra is specifically described by some Afrocentrists as being black, and thus she has a specific section dedicated to her in which her statue is specifically included, as does the Sphinx. However sprinkling the article with cherry-picked arbitrary pictures is not neutral or balanced.

Similarly unbalanced is your insistence on repeatedly dumping a long rehash of Diop's discredited theories into the article. Diop's theory has been discredited by mainstream scholarship, as the article clearly states. Diop's theory thus has no greater credibility than any of the other discredited theories, and dumping in a tedious rehash of the handful of Greeks who used the word melanchroes gives this section undue weight. In order to give Diop's discredited theory a full airing while avoiding undue weight in this article, we created the Black Egyptian Hypothesis article, with a summary and a link in this article. Please respect the rules, and stop dumping the discredited Diop detail into this article. Wdford (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We have resolved this matter by removing the cherry picked pictures of the Greek Cleopatra and Nofret. Thanks for restoring balance to the article. The USA is only 13% black and mainstream scholars list Ancient Egyptians as at least 33% black (see the summary in the General History of Africa about the UNESCO conference). You can review the older versions of this article and see the numerous mainstream scholars that list Ancient Egypt as being at least 33% negroid. That's a significant difference between Egypt and the USA. If the USA was 33% black and another 33% dark reddish-brown, Americans would say that it is a majority black country. While trying to make your point, please keep in mind the reality of the concept of race in the USA. In the USA, if you are even partially black, then you are black (e.g. Obama. He's only 50% black, but he is black to Americans). We all know from the historical record, Egyptian art, etc. that there was rampant miscegenation between Northern Egypt and Nubia. Have we forgotten that the A-group Nubians and other Souther Egyptians started dynastic Egypt, Egypt colonized Nubia for centuries, and then Nubia colonized Egypt? These mixed breeds and blacks certainly would not pass as white in the USA today.Rod (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute, why are we using American cultural definitions here? Isn't that cultural imperialism?

Anyhow, regarding these claims... I'm not so sure even of your claims about American culture. Back in the olden times in that country, the "one-drop-rule" applied, but now it isn't so. People who are born of mixed race in the modern day are called "multiracial", and President Obama is classed in this category, as simultaneously being both black and white (indeed, many Americans don't even view him as half-black, but rather as "half-Kenyan", of a totally different- and foreign- cultural heritage than "African Americans"). African Americans are proud to call him their own, but so are members of the newly emerging multiracial social group. As a side-note, because of the one-drop rule, many "blacks" in the US have substantial non-African blood (dating back to the , and indeed if they went to Africa, many would be told they don't look completely African... but why are we even talking about the US? --Yalens (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's just an example. I gather from your statements that you don't live in the USA. Yes, we have a multiracial category on our census forms, but trust me Obama and anyone like him will be treated as if they are 100% black throughout their lives in the USA. Not so long ago (50 years ago), there were all white institutions and places in the USA. Obama would not have been admitted to any of these all white places, because he IS viewed as black in the USA. We have agreement that we should not be talking about the USA and we have agreement with the removal of all pictures. Let's move on with our lives.

I want to focus on Ancient Egypt.Rod (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rod! This entire controversy page has been ran like a dictatorship. No matter how valid the argument in favor of and how flimsy the rebuttal the black African hypothesis gets the short end of the stick, because enough racially biased people barge in and say that they don't like it! It's like a lynch saying well the MAJORITY of us find this black guy guilty without the verdict of an objective court of law so we must be right. If the U.S. was still ran by this system put in place on Wikipedia then blacks and most other minorities will still have second class citizenship. Make no mistake racism is the key factor behind certain people (in the states and Europe) fighting tooth and nail against the black African theory EVEN when every mainstream contemporary scholar verifies it (Oxfords, Fitzwilliams, Cambridge, or Manchester anyone). They feel that acknowledging the fact that ancient Egypt was originally black is a threat to the racial hierarchy that they put in place, and that's part of the forbidden truth folks. Don't believe me? Here's some scholarship affirming the belief:

"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....."

"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' [i.e in a social sense] while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28 "

Those "Afrocentric" scholars at Oxford are at it against I see. See how it was put in a point blank context? Gee now I wonder why information like this is not presented in the position of modern scholarship section...could it be that it confirms that "DREADED" theory and completed rejects the other racist LIES..I mean OTHER "scientific theories". Yet for some reason the conclusions of lingering racist Egyptologist who caught an intellectual ass beating by two African scholars from over a quarter century ago is presented as the end all on the subject. Let's get real here folks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.97.33 (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

IP (who are you? You seem familiar), it is wonderful to read about how you think we're running this page like a "dictatorship", but you've done nothing to justify your deletions of sourced material (including that of Brace, Mokhtar, Edwin, Redford, and even, in one instance, Keita) other than saying in various ways, that you don't like it, without providing sourced criticisms of all these sources you loathe. In other cases, such as deleting Mokhtar, you offer utterly no justification, not even that one. And then, on the other hand, you replace it with a variety of sources whose info you twist to support your point (in particular, I find the sourcing for this statement ["In layman's terminology several contemporary authorities have described these physical variations as those which are consistent with variations seen in ancient and modern people who are generally deemed black Africans"] pretty dubious)...

It is totally your right to have your own point of view that Ancient Egyptians were somehow closely related to African Americans and every single person who doesn't think so is a vicious racist. But it's not your right to impose that view on the page. Here at wikipedia, we strive for a balanced POV. If you want, you may opt to make a blog where you can express your opinions unhindered by the "dictatorship" of wikipedia's rules. --Yalens (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok well Yalen, that is first of all a straw man argument. Where was it asserted by me that ancient Egyptians were closely related to African Americans? If you're going to argue then argue then why not address the points that were really made. The ancient Egyptians were most closely related to Nilotic Africans and Sub Saharan East Africans. We all everything from anthropology, linguistics, archaeology, culture and NOW genetics to seal the deal on this argument. But since you seem to be so against African Americans why don't you take a look at the new study released about Ramses III [1]. Here is what was concluded:

"Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies (table 1⇓); using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a. The testing of polymorphic autosomal microsatellite loci provided similar results in at least one allele of each marker (table 2⇓). Although the mummy of Ramesses III’s wife Tiy was not available for testing, the identical Y chromosomal DNA and autosomal half allele sharing of the two male mummies strongly suggest a father-son relationship."

Gee now in what population is that genetic marker most common...[2] West and Central Africans who are the primary ancestors of African Americans. Dnatribes also showed close genetic affinity between West Africans and the Amarna period pharaohs (with the primary affinity being Nilotic) [3]. Funny how every genetic test on actual ANCIENT Egyptians all prove to have primary affinities with various Sub Saharan African populations. Oh and trust me one Hell of a genetic study is going to be released this year (2013), to put a complete end to all of the Eurocentric/racist naysaying (wink) Asante90 (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. That's two editors agreeing that the DNA tribes study is relevant, modern, mainstream scholarship. Please stop removing it from the article, as it is relevant. The ANCIENT EGYPTIAN AMARNA MUMMIES are best classified with black africans according to modern DNA studies (read mainstream modern scholarship).Rod (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Impartial administrator review needed

A couple of editors are acting like dictators concerning this article. It's obvious that their POV does not support the Black hypothesis, but they want to have complete control over the content in the black hypothesis section. They don't leave any time for the public to weigh in or consider the facts presented by editors with opposing viewpoints. These editors are making patently false claims, which we are supposed to endure, but the public will not endure these falsehoods. A few examples:

• Some editors are trying to push the viewpoint that melanchroes is most frequently translated as dark. In fact, in practically every book on this subject English speaking translators have translated it as black (see the citations in my version of the article). This is a major point of contention in the history of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy and is not to be glossed over. Entire books have been written on this subject.

• Cleopatra VII is a Greek foreigner and we have to see her picture in an article about the race of Egyptians and yet the editors keep removing pictures of some of the most famous Egyptians in history (Ahmose Nefertari and Tiye).

• The editors removed a couple of sentences about Martin Bernal's books and rebuttals. I cannot think of a more lively exchange in the history of this controversy than the exchange between Bernal and his opponents. This is a major event in the history of the controversy and even that is being deleted by the articles dictators.

• The other editors state that "mainstream scholars have rejected all of Diop's points", which is patently untrue. Any person that reads the account of the UNESCO conference will see that Diop could not convince the participants to endorse his theory in its entirety, but they agreed with Diop on many points. It was also noted by all that Diop's points were painstakingly researched and that the scholars in disagreement were seriously ill prepared for the conference. As an example from this article, you cannot disagree with Diop's assertions about cultural similarities between Egyptians and Ethiopians (who are unquestionably black), because even mainstream scholarship agrees that they were culturally similar. Will you try to argue that both Egyptians and Ethiopians didn't both practice circumcision, which was not a widespread practice in antiquity? That is a major point of Diop's theory. Do mainstream scholars disagree with that point?

We will not stand for a watered down Black hypothesis section (written by people that are clearly opposed to the theory), while the article rambles on for paragraphs about an Asiatic theory that is outdated and disproven. As stated in the last paragraph, if the Asiatic theory was only seriously challenged in 1894, then there was no controversy before then. Why do we need four paragraphs talking about all of the non-sensical theories from the 18th and early 19th centuries? This is a history of the controversy article. Without a challenge, there can't be a controversy. There was a challenge to Bernal and there was/is a very large controversy concerning Bernal's work. Stop removing this very relevant information from the article.

Finally, we will remove the pictures of Egyptians (Ahmose Nefertari and Tiye) when you remove the pictures of Greeks (Cleopatra VII).Rod (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

RodDailey, the UNESCO conference agreed with Diop on certain points, but thoroughly rejected his contention that the ancient Egyptians were black. The Diop Hypothesis has thus been rejected, it is dead, it is not valid, it does not live on. It matters not that one editor felt Diop’s work was “painstakingly researched” – the delegates rejected the Hypothesis. Fin. Flogging that dead horse here is thus WP:UNDUE.

Cultural similarities are not the same as racial similarities, as any intelligent person knows. A white family in New York City may live an identical lifestyle to a black family next door and an Asian family across the hall, with identical education, religion, language, voting preference and taste in cheese and alcohol, but they will still not be of the same race (assuming that race even exists to begin with). A white Irish Catholic family can live down the hall from a white Polish Jewish family, with seriously different cultures, religious views, education, language, voting preference and taste in cheese and alcohol, and still be of the same race. Egyptians and Ethiopians did indeed both practice circumcision, but so did the Jews and the Arabs. If circumcision is the basis of your argument, then the ancient Egyptians were as likely to be Arabs as Ethiopians.

The melanchroes issue has been discussed in detail in the Black Egyptian Hypothesis article, which has been linked here. It is indeed a major point of contention in the history of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, but it doesn’t matter how many or how few Greeks mentioned melanchroes in their work, and the contention will not be decided by how many copies were sold of each translation. The issue is unclear and undecided, and that’s where it stands.

Bernal’s contentions have likewise been thoroughly rejected by mainstream scholarship. Bernal gets a hearing in the Black Egyptian Hypothesis article, and he has his own articles as well at Martin Bernal, Black Athena and Black Athena Revisited. Rehashing Bernal here is again WP:UNDUE.

See my response in the above section re Cleopatra. There is a specific controversy about Cleopatra, but not about Tiye.

The Asiatic theory is indeed utter cr*p, but Diop’s theory is no less discredited. The Asian theory gets a few more lines here purely because it doesn’t have an article of its own, unlike Diop or Bernal or the Black Egyptian Hypothesis. I am personally in favour of trimming it still further.

Wdford (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Administrators don't arbitrate on content disputs. And yes, remove all the pictures. I said that already. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We have regained balance with the removal of Nofret and Cleopatra's pictures. I will not repost Ahmose Nefertari's and Tiye's pictures. We have agreement on this point.

Just as you are saying that there is a specific controversy over Cleopatra, there is a specific controversy over the translation of melanchroes and Bernal's works. Those two subjects created enough of a controversy (and long lasting controversy I might add) that they should always be mentioned in an article about the history of the controversy. In most Greek books that I own, the English translator goes through the trouble of adding a footnote outlining the melanchroes controversy (after translating melanchroes as black). You can find these footnotes in the Penguin publishing editions of Ancient Greek texts. It's a specific and well documented controversy and it should be mentioned in the article. I don't need to expound on Bernal, as we all know there is a RAGING controversy over his works concerning the race of Egyptians. This article would be incomplete without specifically and explicitly referencing that controversy.

Let's agree to disagree with the cultural similarities argument. During this period, practically no humans on Earth practiced circumcision. Most of the people that did practice circumcision were Nile valley inhabitants (what I would consider a racial group. My definition is as broad as the approach that allows blond/blue eyed Northern Europeans and olive skinned, brown eyed Southern Europeans to be in the same racial group), such as Ethiopians and Egyptians (a difference in nationality and not race). Others that practiced circumcision and were racially different (e.g. Hebrews) shared a border with the Nile valley and were in captivity for 400 years in the Nile valley, were they learned the practice from the Nile valley racial group.Rod (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Created new spin-off article

I have spun off the material in the Asiatic Race Theory section, to a new article called the Asiatic Race Theory. It was done to remove the WP:UNDUE resulting from the amount of material which had accumulated in that section. Please assist to tidy up the new article. Wdford (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yurco material

Tracing this back, it appears that it first appears in Afrocentrism last March[4] when it was added by EddieDrood (talk · contribs). I can't see, at least at a glance, any reason to think it wasn't added there in good faith, nor that it's move to other articles wasn't in good faith. It probably should have been checked first and any copy/paste needs attributing in the edit summary, but this sort of thing happens and it's no big deal normally. I can't verify it as I don't have the book. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "DNA studies have indicated that ancient Egyptians had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians, which would make the current population largely representative of the ancient inhabitants." This statement may well be accurate, I can't say, but it certainly does not appear in the Yurko article cited (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 the book. I've just read over the article. He does indeed discuss race, but only through skeletal analysis, not DNA. In fact the word (or rather acronym) DNA never appears in the article. There is a discussion of DNA in the last article in the book by C. Loring Brace et al, but even that one emphasises that it is very difficult to make judgements about DNA with ancient skeletons (of course that was in 1996. Things may have improved since then). The clearest summaries of the relevant discussions are as follows:

Yurko: "The resulting 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 drying climate also impelled other peoples into the Upper Nile Valley. ... The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East African Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic 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/" (p.66-67)

Loring Brace: Attempts to force the Egyptians into either a "black" or a "white" category have no biological justification. Our data show not only that Egypt, clearly had biological ties both to the north and to the south, but that it was intermediate between populations to the east and the west, and that Egypt was basically Egyptian from the Neolithic right on up to historic times. In this, our analysis simply reinforces the findings of other recent studies (p. 158)

Paul B (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I should have verified the citation before copy-pasting it, and I'm sorry for not doing so... since it apparently doesn't show up anywhere in those 39 pages as per Paul Barlow owning the book and checking (?), I think there's no reason to restore that phrase. --Yalens (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

What's the question mark after "checking" for? Paul B (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing important- just that I didn't know whether you know the book thoroughly and didn't have to check or if you did check. It didn't mean that I doubted your testimony (now I see how it could be interpreted like that, sorry). --Yalens (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I read it ages ago, so I don't have it by heart! I read over the Yurko chapter just this afternoon - admittedly rather hurridly. There's no discussion of DNA, but there is in the Loring Brace one. Paul B (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, that the claim of genetic similarity between modern and ancient Egyptians appears no where in the source cited. In fact more recent genetic evidence however confirms that their is in fact genetic distinction between ancient and modern Egyptians:

"It is possible that the current VII and VIII frequencies reflect, in the main, movements during the Islamic period (vs. the Neolithic) and the effects of polygamy (Salem et al., 1996; Nebel et al., 2002), as well as some of the impact of Near Easterners who settled in the delta at various times in ancient Egypt (Gardiner, 1961), and even more recently in the colonial era due to political events. Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times." - Keita (2005), pp. 564 [5]

Considering the fact that this is consistent with other contemporary genetic and anthropological studies and that Keita is considered to be the authority on the bio-cultural origins of the Nile Valley this should be reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.97.33 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the populations of modern Paris and London are particulary representative of the ancient peoples of Britain and France either. Also the quotation says "possible", and also refers to population movenents in ancient times. Why are ancient movements from the south somehow 'real' but movements from the north don't count as part of the real ancient population? Paul B (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In general, modern scholarship has come to the viewpoint that total population replacement (by which the old population is completely replaced by the new) in areas that are very densely populated (such as the Nile river valley) are extremely rare. In fact, in most highly densely populated areas (such as Iraq, Egypt, Turkey), the view is that the newcomers pretty much never even come close to outnumbering the natives whom they eventually assimilate (in order to do so, they'd have to commit a pretty massive genocide). In the case of Egyptians, genetic studies (such as Arredi's and Manni's) have shown that, surprise-surprise, their genetic affinities match their geographic location: North and Northeast African, with an additional proximity to the Near East, and have supported the view of the Egypt's population being largely continuous to the modern day. --Yalens (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are more sources which verify that there are significant biological distinctions between the early ancient Egyptians and post New Kingdom Egyptians, due to gene flow from the Middle East and Europe:

"Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."

-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528

or A comparison of regional levels of diversity (i.e., Upper and Lower Egypt) reveals a greater average distance to the centroid among Lower Egypt dynastic populations (Table 7). This increased level of diversity is likely the result of greater extraregional in-migration during the dynastic period relative to that in Upper Egypt, and/or genetic drift, or differences in group sizes. When we mapped levels of diversity onto an MDS plot of geographic distances, we were able to identify a clinal pattern of increasing group structure from predynastic groups in Upper Egypt to dynastic groups in Upper Egypt and to dynastic and Greek period groups of Lower Egypt (see Fig. 4). ...Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose.Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians. Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009

All indicate morphological distinctions between early and later Egyptians, which is consistent with what Keita's genetic analysis states. This however does not mean that modern Egyptians are not the descendants of the ancient's, but for anyone to assert with all of this evidence to the contrary that modern Egyptians (especially those in the urban northern areas) are the splitting image of their original "tropical African variant" ancestors is only doing so for ideological (hence not the truth). More points issues and points will be brought up later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.97.33 (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic for Lay Readers

I am not a wikipedia writer or editor. I visit this site for information. The content and syntax of this article, poor grammar, rampant use of scare quotes, and awkwardly and deliberately placed counter arguments strain its utility as a credible reference, and makes it appear as little other than a debased debate society for internet frequenters with one or another ideological chip on their shoulders. Inserting every hair-brained counter to the African-origin academics immediately after quotes or even mere mentions of those researchers' work does not make this article appear balanced or neutral. Balanced and neutral would be to allow those academics' work to speak for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.42.244 (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No one disputes that Egyptians had an "African origin", though of course there was input at various times from elsewhere. You are equating the origin of the population with the classication of it. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Almost everyone agrees that Egyptians are Africans by origin- just like Zulus but also like Swedes, Koreans, and Mayans. What we call "race" is merely the result of adaptation to different climates. Because the Egyptians live at the same latitude and in a similar climate to Arabia and the Maghreb, they look somewhat like Arabians and Berbers. Conversely, something would definitely be bizarre if they looked peoples from a much more southern latitude who lived in a humid jungle, because the latter evolved in a very different climate (and by the way, it would be equally weird if they looked like Northern Europeans, who also evolved in a very different climate).--Yalens (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

They looked like other Nile valley (such as Nubians) and East African (such as modern Ethiopians) inhabitants and they surely would have been classified as black/brown/African using today's social constructs. I agree with the statement to lead this section that the point/counterpoint style makes this article ridiculous. As I've said before, all pro theory x statements should be together and all con theory x statements should be elsewhere.Rod (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Keita's statements

First let's acknowledge that Keita's statements on the National Geographic's page is representation of the mainstream positions of the key issues on the bio-cultural origins of ancient Egypt. His statements in regards to biological affinities are largely based on his own past, still relevant, respected and heavily cited works. [6] (the source in dispute)

For some reason or another his statements are being blatantly misconstrued on the modern scholarship section to state the exact opposite of his actual positions on the issues. Here are the misstatements of those facts (where they are cited) in the article

1. Demic Diffusions of farmers/agriculture/cattle and peoples from the Middle East is cited by the source in question when in reality the source clearly negates almost all of this:

"In the case of food procurement, ancestral Egyptians living on Lake Fayum added to their tradition of foraging by raising Near Eastern domesticated plants (wheat and barley) and animals (sheep and goats). Domesticated cattle came from the Sahara but may also have come from the Near East. Considering that wheat and barley agriculture was practiced in Asia (the Near East) 2,000 years before it was in Egypt, it is important to note that the early Egyptian way of life did not change abruptly at this time (around 5000 B.C.), which is what one would expect if Egypt had simply been peopled by farmers migrating from the Near East. These early Egyptians incorporated the new food stuffs and techniques—and likely some people—into their culture and society on their own terms."

In more recent interviews the likelihood of cattle and a mass migration of peopels coming from the Middle East during pre-dynastic Egypt is refuted thoroughly in his 2009 lecture at the University of Manchester [7] (7 mins for agriculture) (8:20 for cattle). Also the food products and domesticates which were incorporated "on their own terms" into the in place Nilotic foraging strategy of Lower Egypt are specified as being "wheat, barley, sheep and goats"...why then is their an issue with this very short specification in the article? There was no mass migration of farmers into the Nile Valley as Keita states that their is NO evidence to suggest that this was the case and especially considering the fact that these early Lower Egyptians did NOT speak Semitic as migrating populations from the Levant most certainly would have been speaking.

2. The notion that Pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt was an offshoot of Levantine cultures or that there was mutual influence from both Africa and the Levant in the region is again cited by the same source in which this same notion is refuted:

"he Neolithic (food-producing) cultures after 6000 B.C. in the Nile Valley became a part of the foundation for the ancient Egyptian way of life. The archaeology of early Egypt indicates continuity with local cultural traditions along the Nile as well influences from the Sahara, Sudan, and Asia (the Near East). The Neolithic cultures in northern Egypt show evidence over time of varying contacts, with Saharan influences the most dominant."

The Saharan cultures which Keita and every other archaeologist and linguist labels as belonging to Nilotic African was the dominant culture of Pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt. While there was certainly influence from the Levant during this period and LIKELY pockets of people from the Near East in Lower Egypt, the dominant element was Saharan African.

The true statements from the article and Keita need to be reflected in the article, not simply what certain people want to read. Asante90 (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Who's the new IP helping 99.2.97.33 force their edit in?

Suddenly a new IP comes in and reverts me. No other edits. What a coincidence. I've given 99.2.97.33 a 3RR warning, but looks like 99.2.97.33 doesn't need to revert again if other IPs are doing it for him/her. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please address my points about the blatant distortions on this page of what sources really state.Asante90 (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Again - this is the HISTORY of the controversy, not the place to argue the controversy

People easily forget this. 99.2.97.33- you seem to be arguing the controversy. Very recent stuff is hardly history. The article is meant to be descriptive of the history of the controversy. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Black African Hypothesis censorship

Now everyone of the edits that I've put forth in that section (and all others) are verified by the sources which are cited. The following was added to the section:

"The current position of modern scholarship is that the original inhabitants of Nile Valley were primarily comprised of a variety of indigenous Northeast Africans from the areas of the desiccating Sahara and more southerly areas, who are described as being of a "Saharo-tropical African variant" and that overtime gene flow from the Near East and Europe added more genetic variability to the region.[90][91] In layman's terminology several contemporary authorities have described these physical variations as those which are consistent with variations seen in ancient and modern people who are generally deemed black Africans.[92][93]"

1. Claim number is that the ancient Egyptians were primarily comprised of various indigenous Northeast African populations, who came from the regions of the ancient Sahara and more southerly areas. SOURCES CITED STATE:

Archaeological evidence suggests that the ancient Egyptian Nile Valley was peopled in large part by immigrants from the Sahara and more southern areas, who brought neolithic traits there (Hassan, 1988). Some movement from the Levant is also postulated. Possibly the earliest indigenous African full neolithic tradition (called Saharo- Sudanese or Saharan) is found in the Western (Nubian) Desert of Egypt, near the Sudanese border (Wendorf and Schild, 1980; Hassan, 1988) and is dated to the seventh millinneum BC. Common core cultural traits are noted in the Saharan neolithic and Nile Valley predynastic sites, with some Near Eastern influence in the north (Arkell and Ucko, 1965; Hassan, 1988). Predynastic Egyptian culture is most parsimoniously explained by a fusion of Saharan and Nilotic peoples (Hassan, 1988>. The predynastic cultural sequence of southern Egypt is accepted as leading directly to the dynastic culture. The sequence is as follows (after Hassan 1988): early predynastic (Badari; 4000-3900 BC), middle predynastic (Nagada I; 3900- 3650 BC), late predynastic (Nagada 11; 3650- 3300 BC), terminal predynastic (Nagada 111; 3300-3050 BC). However, 4000 BC is a minimal date for Badari; 4400-4500 BC is probably more accurate (Hassan, 1988). However, 4000 BC is a minimal date for Badari; 4400-4500 BC is probably more accurate (Hassan, 1988). Ttherefore, Badari and later predynastic cultures stand chronologically and culturally between the Saharan Neolithic and dynastic culture. S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48) [8]

and more recently and STILL CONSISTENT with this earlier conclusion:

"There has been scholarly interest in the biological variation and genealogical relationship of the ancient Egyptians to other populations outside of the Egyptian Nile Valley. There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa." [9]

2. The second claim is that the early ancient Egyptians were comprised of peoples who represented a "Saharo-tropical African variant" and that overtime gene flow from the Near East and Europe added more genetic variability to the region. SOURCES CITED STATE:

"Actually, it was always biologically wrong to view the Broad phenotype as representative of the only authentic "African," something understood by some nineteenth century writers. Early Nile valley populations are best viewed as part of 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.

Over time, gene flow (admixture) did occur in the Nile valley from Europe and the Near East, thus also giving "Egyptians" relationship with those groups. This admixture, if it had occurred by Dynasty I, little affected the major affinity of southern predynastic peoples as illustrated here. As indicated by the analysis of the data in the studies reviewed here, the southern predynastic peoples were Saharo-tropical variants." SOURCE: S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54 [10]

The other source that is cited for this statement is the Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt. SOURCES CITED STATE:

"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)[11]

3. The tail end of the new edits states that the anthropological evidence proves that the "Saharo-tropical variant" which is used to describe the ancient Egyptians is biological translation for black Africans: SOURCES CITED STATE

"Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid)."(Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)[12]

and of course the Oxford Encyclopedia quote from Donald Redford shown further up the page is cited. In that quote it is put in point blank language that the consistent biological evidence indicates that the ancient Egyptians were in fact black Africans.

4. (Which really should have been number one) States that racism is the primary was the reason why early Egyptologist outright refused to consider the evidence that the ancient Egyptians were black. SOURCES CITED STATE:

"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....." Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28 "

Verification by authoritative sources that these statements are correct! Therefore the edits are valid and relevant to the sectionAsante90 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to see that I am not the only editor trying to bring common sense and truth to this article. For the past couple of years, I have been fighting censorship in the Black theory section. I agree with Asante90's statements and they should remain in the article. That's two editors in agreement, so please stop removing his edits. This is a history of the controversy article and in the history of the controversy two of the biggest controversies are over origin of the Egyptians and race (in most modern societies, a social construct based on phenotype). It was controversial when scholars, such as Diop, refuted years of sloppy scholarship and informed the world that Ancient Egyptians were indigenous to the Nile valley (read Africa). Modern scholarship has confirmed this position. It is now an irrefutable fact. It should remain in this article because that was not the consensus 100 years ago, hence the controversy. Similarly, 100 years ago "mainstream" scholars were trying to convince the world that Egyptians were White, or at least mostly White. Modern scholarship has soundly refuted that outdated theory, hence the controversy. The modern scholarship section has been improved by Asante90. The Black theory section has been improved by Asante90. I support his edits.Rod (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

How dissapointing: I thought that you, although you have the same viewpoints as Asante, would at least disapprove of his (her?) emotional ranting and uncivil attitude. It's sad to see that I was wrong- and sad for the page too. --Yalens (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

C Loring Brace

The inclusion of this ONE INCONSISTENT study in the section dedicated to the MAINSTREAM and modern view scholarship, while desperately trying to hide the conclusions of the Oxford Encyclopedia 2001 and the Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt which present the MAINSTREAM VIEW from an AUTHORITATIVE platform idicates that there is a motive other than provided readers with the TRUTH!

C.Loring Brace's study has been criticized and REFUTED (10 folds) by people who are considered authorities and is NEVER cited amongst contemporary Egyptologist. Therefore that one study is completely irrelevant to this article. It's inconsistency (meaning no later study corroborate it's findings) and down right fallacious claims is reason enough that it should not only be excluded from the article but that it should not even be put in the population history of the article. This is by no means representation of mainstream view points! Asante90 (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

So Doug rather than trying to refute any of my points (which you seem to have such a hard time accepting) you attack me because I'm focusing on one article at the moment? Asante90 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt

This article is about the history of the controversy of the race of the ancient Egyptians. There is a subsection dedicated to the position of modern scholarship which is supposed to reflect the mainstream view in regards to current research which should help indicate the biological affinities of these ancient Africans. Therefore this FULL statement:

"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' [i.e in a social sense] while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28 " "

Is completely relevant to the position of modern scholarship section. This is especially true when there were completely unsupported statements such as "there were certainly blacks present in ancient Egypt" (trying to throw the truth a bone) plastered throughout that subsection (which I cleaned up according to the sources cited). Like it or not this is the position of modern scholarship, not that the ancient Egyptians were the exact same as modern Egyptians (every single genetic analysis that was actually conducted on ancient Egyptian/Nile Valley remains completely negates this claim) or that they were the result of some unsupported mass migration on lighter skinned non Africans into the Nile Valley during pre-historic times. Asante90 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Asante90's assertions. I think that he has presented a factual and reasonable position and his edits should remain in the article.Rod (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You aren't bothered by new editors suddenly appearing? In any case, we Americans call all sorts of people 'Blacks'. And we do not interpolate quotes to give our interpretations of what the quote maeans - why are you supporting this? Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The new editors have injected a lot of energy and bold edits into the article. I think that the formatting could be better. There are a lot of words on the talk page, but to summarize this is what I'm hearing:

• Modern scholarship has concluded that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was indigenous to the Nile valley and there were no significant migrations from anywhere else prior to the Dynastic period. I have tried to state this repeatedly in this article, because it was controversial when Diop/DuBois/Williams and others said it. When I tried to add the word "indigenous" to the Black theory section, it was constantly deleted by other editors. This censorship tries to hide the fact that "mainstream" scholarship tried to persuade the world for a couple of centuries that Egypt's genesis came from outside of Africa. It was controversial when that position was refuted and modern scholarship has vindicated Diop and others once controversial position. More importantly, modern scholarship has proven that dynastic Egypt started in Southern Egypt/Northern Sudan and the "Egyptians" were living side by side with A-group Nubians. Then the A-group Nubians vanished. Later Egypt colonized Nubia for centuries and later still Nubia colonized Egypt. This yields the obvious conclusion that there is not much difference between Nubians and Ancient Egyptians. The indigenous discussion should remain in the article.Rod (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• "Mainstream" scholarship talked about race for centuries. "Mainstream" scholars misused and abused the social construct of race to further their interests. It was controversial when scholars like Diop/Williams/DuBois/Bernal started to challenge the "racial" nonsense. It would be convenient for "mainstream" scholars to now abandon the concept of race, as they are done doing centuries of damage using the social construct. However, the controversy is alive and well because "mainstream" scholars from various fields (archaeology, genetic studies, etc.) keep publishing works that would have led to the Ancient Egyptians being classified as Black using the criteria that we've used for the last 200 years. I'm hearing a lot of talk about using America's or maybe Europe's viewpoint, but the Western viewpoint is the viewpoint that characterized the first half of this controversy (19th and 20th century). For symmetry we're stuck with using the Western viewpoint of race for the second half of the controversy (recent scholarship). We can't change the rules in the middle of the game. We can't, for example, start using rules where mixed people are considered white. If we use that approach, most black people in the Western hemisphere would magically become white although they are mostly NOT descended from Europeans, don't have white skin, and have a noticeably different phenotype than white people. The Western viewpoint is characterized by scholars from majority White countries and in those countries a mostly black/brown person of African descent would best be grouped in the Black race. The other races are White and Asian (and possibly Native American, as they split off from Asia so long ago and lived in isolation). Using all of the facts that modern scholarship has provided us, if we had to place the Nile valley, Saharo-tropical variants into the Black, White, Asian, or Native American group they would best fit into the black group (like Nubians and modern Ethiopians). One variant of the African/Black race is the tropical type, but that is only one variant. The tropical type isn't any more black than Nubians or modern Ethiopians, although these groups don't look exactly alike. Steatopygia, course hair, and other clues let us know that these variants are from the same mold and are not sufficiently differentiated to bother placing them into different races.

• Previously, I would add studies, such as the DNA Tribes genetic study, that prove that Ancient Egyptian mummies are most closely related to sub-saharan Africans and somehow editors would view this DNA study as NOT "modern scholarship" or unworthy of this article. Conversely, any unsubstantiated statement by a "mainstream" scholar that disagrees with the black theory should be taken at face value. I think it's clear from the recent bold additions that the "mainstream" is occupied as much by scholars (e.g. Oxford Encyclopedia, Emberling, etc.) that agree with the black theory, as those that don't. The only difference is that editors are attempting to skew this article to silence the voice of "mainstream" scholars that support the black theory in favor of "mainstream" scholars that don't. The best example of this censorship is when the UNESCO conference results are mentioned in this article. I have the books that recount the UNESCO conference and most of the "mainstream" scholars agreed that at least 1/3 of the Ancient Egyptian population was unquestionably black/negroid. They give another 1/3 of the population as some mysterious dark reddish/brown indigenous African group, without admitting the obvious (which is that using the Western paradigm of race, that would mean black). There are clear images of Libyans, Asiatics, and Europeans in Ancient Egyptian iconography. In non-intermediate periods, the Egyptians NEVER portrayed themselves as Libyan/Asiatic/European (please show me the image of a pharaoh with the Libyan, Asiatic, or European style of dress and beard). Conversely, there are images of jet black Egyptian queens, like Ahmose-Nefertari. What race makes the most sense for the Ancient Egyptians?

• In conclusion, there is nothing fringe about the black theory. It's actually the mainstream.Rod (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've said elsewhere that we shouldn't use DNA Tribes studies in our articles so I'll mention that again. But my main problem with it is how this is part of the history of the controversy. It's part of the controversy, but not the history. It's an example of how this article is used to further the controversy. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

When I first started editing this article, I would see quotes from Hawass stating that there is no element of truth to assertions that the Ancient Egyptians were black. He didn't try to prove or demonstrate his statement. He didn't provide any corroborating evidence, he just flatly asserted it and the public was supposed to take his word for it. We are presenting DNA evidence, which I consider conclusive, that concludes that mummies from one of Egypt's most heralded periods are most closely related to black Africans. Why would that be less relevant than Hawass' unsubstantiated assertions.

Switching topics: When lay people think of Ancient Egyptian society they think of two periods, the Old Kingdom and the New Kingdom. Lay people think of the Old Kingdom because of the great pyramids and the sphinx. These structures were built immediately after people from the South (that were living side by side with A-group Nubians) unified the Nile valley. European visitors saw the sphinx and concluded that Ancient Egyptians were negroes, like all other black Africans. This was controversial and many books were written about the sphinx's appearance (on both sides of the argument). I think it serves the article well to have a block quote about that subject.

Lay readers associate Ancient Egypt with the New Kingdom because of the spectacular finds from Tut's tomb. The New Kingdom is the same kingdom where "mainstream" scholars FINALLY admit to the Negroid element in Egyptian iconography (including the rulers, like Ahmose-Nefertari that were obviously jet black skinned). Now that we have DNA evidence to corroborate the iconographic and archaeological evidence, at what point do we admit that some "mainstream" scholars are not being reasonable if they can't admit that the Ancient Egyptians would be classified as Black today using the Western world's criteria. Asante90 and others are stating that the critical mass is shifting in the "mainstream" and the Wiki article is failing to represent that "mainstream" shift that can be so easily found in printed books on this topic.Rod (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The block quotes seem to make the article more difficult to read. You don't see many block quotes in other articles on Egypt, Nubia, etc.

Doug this is Wikipedia why are you trying to keep tabs on editors, when there are millions that come and go? No one is "interpreting" the quote! It is simply being presented to the public without any further commentary. This is the MAINSTREAM position based on a collection of evidence (hence NOT just one study) from a contemporary authoritative source (OXFORD). This belongs in the modern scholarship section, and there is no logical reason to justify it's exclusion when deals directly with this article. Asante90 (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The section 'Position of modern scholarship' is currently problematic. As I understand it the mainstream position today is that Egyptian civilisation was developed independently by the Ancient Egyptian population in the area near to present day Luxor (possibly influenced by foreign trade with Sumeria) - see Naqada III. The now non-mainstream position is that a band from the Sumerian sphere of influence hauled their boats from the Red Sea to near Luxor, overcame some native Egyptian tribes there in a battle and became the elite of a state which went on to conquer all of Egypt - see Dynastic Race Theory. But this section only mentions a third theory that Ancient Egyptian civilisation was developed by Nubians in the area that later became known as Kush and was then picked up by, or possibly imposed on, the Ancient Egyptians. There are other theories, but these three are ones which are consistent with genetic testing and have some archaeological evidence. This article is supposed to document the controversy, not present one theory over another. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the mainstream position on the biological origins of ancient Egypt is stated right below:

"Conclusion To sum up, Nubia is Egypt’s African ancestor. What linked Ancient Egypt to the rest of the North African cultures is this strong tie with the Nubian pastoral nomadic lifestyle, the same pastoral background commonly shared by most of the ancient Saharan and modern sub-Saharan societies. Thus, not only did Nubia have a prominent role in the origin of Ancient Egypt, it was also a key area for the origin of the entire African pastoral tradition." [13]

A recent publication from Maria Gatto (Yale) details the origins of both Nile Valley civilizations. These are the consistent statements of contemporary researchers on the subject of ancient Egypt's bio-cultural origins. Asante90 (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What does "Nubia" mean here? The same as Egyptian "Wawat", i.e. the land between the first and second cataracts, or the the same as Greek "Aethiopia", i.e. all Africa outside Egypt, or Latin "Nubia", i.e. the land south of Egypt, i.e. the Kushitic/Meroitic realm(s) ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Meantime I'm puzzled by the quote "by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' [i.e in a social sense]". What does this mean? My naive reading of it is that Americans divide people into whites, Hispanics and blacks; since the Egyptians (ancient or modern) clearly aren't either Hispanic or white, they must be black. But such a broad division doesn't say very much at all. Can we settle this controversy right now by agreeing that the Ancient Egyptians were neither Hispanic nor white? Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Modern American standards are irrelevant to the subject of this article. Ancient Egypt existed long before America was re-discovered by Europeans and before a "race" named Hispanics (i.e. native Meso- and South-Americans mingled with Europeans) existed and US-Americans could apply some simplistic racial classification on the world. Very ancient Egyptians (before 2500 BCE) were already an amalgam of the original inhabitants of the Nile valley and people(s) from Arabia and Mesopotamia (which unfortunately leads into the similar race controversy about Sumerians). Ancient Egypt of the pharaonic age also had an alternating but steady influx of people (individuals and groups, not necessarily whole ethnicities) from Kush, Libya and the Levant, due to ancient Egypt's unrivaled economic power (based ultimately on her abundant grain production). Egyptians were a mixture of a multitude of peoples and "races". This whole black vs white discussion is weird.

In fact, this whole Ancient Egyptian race controversy is rather a symptom of modern US race issues than one of ancient Egyptians. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see now this article is about the history of the controversy, not about the race question itself. In that case I would raise the question of notability. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole issue of race is weird, but lots of people froth over it, so its notable. We can easily agree that the Ancient Egyptians were neither Hispanic nor white, and nor were they black. What most Americans fail to appreciate is that there are more races than just those three, assuming there is such a thing as race to begin with. Modern Egyptians don't all consider themselves to be of the "Arab race" either, assuming there is such a thing. However Afrocentrists work on the "not-white-nor-hispanic-thus-black-we-win" mentality. Weird doesn't begin to cover it. Nubia is wherever the Nubians lived, and the borders were different at different times. Wdford (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is whole avoidance of the biological evidence which lead these authorities to conclude that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans is Eurocentric childishness and not genuine concern of the facts. When knowing good and well for centuries who is considered "black" in our society when presented with the evidence they would rather degrade this discussion into a petty argument of semantics revolving around "who is black". Consistent biological evidence (both anthropological and genetic) proves that the original ancient Egyptians were comprised of a variation of indigenous tropically adapted Northeast Africans (largely Nilotic Saharans in the earliest stages):

Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans. Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans." (S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)

So what else are Nubians, Kushites, Nilotic Saharans and modern Sub Saharan East Africans (hence indigenous tropical Northeast African diversity)generally labeled as (from a sociological perspective) if not black? The Nubians especially are who the ancient Egyptians were biologically indistinguishable from and formed a biological continuum in with. This recent article in the Nytimes accurately summarizes the racist distortions of this fact:

"More recently, our own Western prejudices — namely the idea that geographic Egypt was not a part of “black” Africa — have contributed to the dearth of knowledge about Nubia. The early-20th-century archaeologist George Reisner, for instance, identified large burial mounds at the site of Kerma as the remains of high Egyptian officials instead of those of Nubian kings. (Several of Reisner’s finds are in the show, reattributed to the Nubians.)

In one of his catalog essays the archaeologist Geoff Emberling, who conceived the show along with Jennifer Chi of the institute, examines some of these historical errors.

“We now recognize that populations of Nubia and Egypt form a continuum rather than clearly distinct groups,” Mr. Emberling writes, “and that it is impossible to draw a line between Egypt and Nubia that would indicate where ‘black’ begins.” [14]

As the first statement in that quotation asserts it is nothing more than Western prejudice why certain people try to dismiss all of these consistent facts and cherry pick inconsistent pieces of evidence to deny that the ancient Egypt was black just like Nubia. This is consistent with the relevation from Maria Gatto that I posted above which confirms that pre-Dynastic Egypt started off as essentially a northern extension of Nubia which in turn was descended from earlier Saharan Nilotic pastolist cultures.Asante90 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Maria Gatto

I have just finished trawling through Gatto’s interesting presentation. What struck me most is that nowhere does she even HINT that the ancient Egyptians were of the same race as the Nubians. In fact, very much the opposite. Allow me to quote a small number of examples from the text:

1. “Nubia strongly influenced the Egyptian culture at its formative stage during the 5th and 4th millennia BC.” IMPLICATION – Egyptian culture was not Nubian, it was influenced by but was separate to the Nubian culture.
2. “What the archaeological work is bringing to light, though, is the irrelevance of the race-based theory, as cultural identities do not necessarily match or relate to race.” IMPLICATION – cultural similarities do not mean they were the same race.
3. “The cultural evidence found in the Nabta-Kiseiba region of the southern Western Desert is indeed part of the Nubian cultural tradition, while that from the oases region belongs to a different cultural unit. The Badarian derives the lithic technology primarily from the Oases Neolithic.” IMPLICATION – the Badari were influenced by a people other than the Nubians, so there were people other than Nubians even this far south.
4. “It is worth remembering that domesticated grains reached northern Egypt from the Levant only at the end of the 6th millennium BC and it probably took another millennium or so for them to be adopted by the Nubian population.” IMPLICATION – the Nubian population was far removed from the Egyptian population, who in turn had much interaction with the Levant.
5. “With the aim of enlarging their land availability and expanding cultural and economic relationships with northern regions, such as the oases region and the Delta (including the Fayum), the Nubians moved north towards Middle Egypt. (Pg 24)” IMPLICATION – the Nubians had relationships with “northern Egyptians” long before Nubians actually entered Middle Egypt.
6. “The relationship with the animal world seems to have followed two different trajectories in Nubia and in Egypt.” IMPLICATION – even in this “shared pastoral tradition” they were not actually so close after all.
7. “A rapid increase in social stratification occurred during the 5th and 4th millennium BC as result of the new cultural relations between the Nubian world, through Badari, and the Mediterranean world, via the Delta. Being part of this process made it possible for the Badarian culture to reach a high level of complexity.” IMPLICATION – the southerners learned cultural complexity from the northerners – they were thus not the same people, and Egypt was the "cultural ancestor" of Nubia, not the other way around.
8. “If the Egyptian Predynastic took advantage of the Nubian social development process, Nubia did the same in return. In Lower Nubia at least two polities evolved during the second half of the 4th millennium BC, namely atSayala/Naga Wadi and at Qustul. These Nubian kings (or, more precisely, chiefs) adopted the same royal iconography as that of the Egyptian kings.” IMPLICATION – the Egyptian kings were not Nubian, and the Nubian kings adopted Egyptian ways. (This made me to think also of the Qustul burner). Once again Egypt was seemingly the "cultural ancestor" of Nubia, not the other way around.
9. “With the rise of the Naqada culture Upper and Middle Egyptian society took a separate pathway from Nubia, and Nubian elements in Naqada material and beliefs became less and less visible.” IMPLICATION – by Pre-Dynastic times the social contacts were diminishing.

Then, seemingly ignoring completely all the evidence she has just presented, Gatto concludes by saying that “To sum up, Nubia is Egypt’s African ancestor.” However she then continues – “What linked Ancient Egypt to the rest of the North African cultures is this strong tie with the Nubian pastoral nomadic lifestyle.” There is no mention here of race, just this one aspect of their lifestyle, which is consistent with the evidence above. In particular it links nicely to her opening statement that Egyptian culture was influenced by (but was separate to) the Nubian culture. The inescapable conclusion then is that the “ancestorship” is merely in terms of "influencing" Egypt to adopt an "African" pastoral tradition. No other interpretation honours the wealth of evidence she has presented. It’s a pity she was so ambiguous in her “summing up” sentence – it offers a tiny straw of hope for Diop’s spiritual descendants to cling to. Wdford (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

^^^ An example of a Eurocentric editor who cannot accept what contemporary mainstream scholarship has concluded on the matter. Gatto's study is dealing with ARCHAEOLOGY, which is ONE major piece of the puzzle that is needed to indicate the bio-cultural origins of the ancient Egyptians/Nile Valley. This was NOT a piece on the "race" of the ancient Egyptians and the source is NOT cited in this main article to indicate race. This study concludes what has been consistently indicated by contemporary research for the past three decades but never bolded stated.

None the less you points are focusing on semantics and are irrelevant to article as the study is only cited to indicate what is it was FOCUSED ON which is the archaeological evidence in 4th paragraph of the modern scholarship section. I however will really like to debate you on your fallacious interpretations on her piece over on the HISTORUM forums [15]. If you PLEASE create a thread presenting this argument over there I will enter it. Asante90 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert Bauval "Black Genesis"

Doug makes the claim that his book represents fringe scholarship. Here is his interview about his book on "Just Energy Radio" [16]

Here are some reviews of his article on Amazon:

“Readers of Black Genesis will never think of ancient Egypt in the same way again. Bauval and Brophy make the case that this venerable civilization was originated by Black Africans from the Sahara Desert and that the pyramids, the statues, and the hieroglyphs were the result of their knowledge and ingenuity. The authors trace the series of errors and misjudgments that have obscured the origins of this remarkable civilization. It is time for the record to be set straight, and Black Genesis is the book that may well do it. This is an authoritative, excellent, well-written book.” (Stanley Krippner, Ph.D., professor of psychology at Saybrook University and coauthor of Personal Mythology )

“Black Genesis offers astounding new insights as Bauval and Brophy forcefully support, with hard data, the radical idea that Egyptian civilization was the outgrowth of a sophisticated Black African culture that existed thousands of years prior to the earliest known pharaohs. Their book is a must read for anyone interested in genuinely understanding the true origins of ancient Egypt and the dynamics of how civilizations develop.” (Robert M. Schoch, Ph.D., author of Voyages of the Pyramid Builders and Pyramid Quest )

His assertions in his book (as far as archaeological and anthropological evidence) are consistent with that of S.O.Y. Keita and Maria Gatto's (of Yale) recent publication, which proclaim that the Nilotic Saharan pastoralist cultures of Nubia are was the primary ancestor of ancient Egypt.

Doug if this "fringe" and you feel that it should not be mentioned in the black theory section then that means that every other theory which is now clearly DEBUNKED (hence "fringe") should not be mentioned for that very fact. Bauval is a best selling author and his recent works deal directly with this article and the section that it is put in. The claims that he asserts in the book in regards to the origins of the ancient Egyptians are backed contemporary research (see above)Asante90 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually own this book. Bauval gives lots of info about black people living in the desert, and he demonstrates that the Egyptians made trips to those oases and met with the local black people, but nowhere does Bauval manage to produce actual evidence that even vaguely supports the theory that these black people were the ancestors of Ancient Egypt. It was a very disappointing read - I expected more from Bauval. Wdford (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

From Bauval's own mouth [17]

Both the long form interview in the first link and this shortened version above Bauval ADVOCATES that the ancient Egyptians were originally black Africans and that overtime admixture from the Levant and later Europe created a mixture of people. This is coming strictly from the interpretation of Bauvals' work and beliefs in regards to the subject.

Also why are your interpretations of the book so different from all of the reviews from professors and authors? They all agree that the book clearly states that the ancient Egyptians CAME FROM the black Africans of the ancient Sahara, and were not as you are suggesting distinct people (the black Saharans AND the Egyptians).Asante90 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the book, or did you just read the back cover and get excited? Please quote me the chapter and page number where Bauval presents evidence of a racial ancestry. Wdford (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither Schoch nor Kripner have the qualifications to comment on Ancient Egyptian civilization. And Bauval has no qualifications for determining the ancestry of the AE. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issues

I'm sure there are many, this article is one of the most fought over ones we have. The most obvious is the use of block quotes. IMHO they should be avoided as much as possible, especially in controversial articles. As I recall we got rid of them at one point, but now they are creeping back. In this case both obviously are putting forward the same pov. Cherry-picking in this way is never a good idea, and of course using a block quote for a short sentence is against our MOS. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The block quotes should be removed immediately, as all they do is make it painfully obvious how biased this page has become. Cherrypicking at its worst. If we had a block quote we could all agree on (i.e. one that epitomized the issue in some neutral way) we could use that, but that's unlikely to exist anywhere. --Yalens (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Worse still, the section starts off with this: "It is now recognized by mainstream academia that anti-black racism played a key role in the development of the understanding of ancient Egypt in the Westernized world"... really? I honestly can't think of a bigger way to violate NPOV in the first sentence of a section. --Yalens (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's probably unsourceable anyway. Plus I don't think it belongs there. I've removed it and the block quote. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Redford quote

Has anyone got this book and has read this chapter? Is the quote accurate where it says "[i.e in a social sense]"? Asante90 claims that isn't an interpretation, so either the quote includes that or he hasn't read it. And can someone verify that Redford is the author? I imagine he is but it also wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't and his name is attached as he's the editor. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently this "encyclopedia" is a collection of many articles by various authors, so we can't attribute it to Redford (a recognised scholar) and we need to find out exactly who the actual author was. It may well be yet another Keita or Diop article. On the subject of Redford himself, take a look sometime at "From Slave to Pharaoh", at [18] I haven't read it all, but the opening few pages speak volumes about how the Ancient Egyptians themselves regarded the "ancestor" Nubians. Wdford (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have it, but it's in the library over the road, so I will look later today. I can access the Amazon version of the page [19] which does indeed include the line on page 28 column 1. I am less than impressed by it, I must say. It says that scholars in the late 19th century said that Egyptians were "defined the Egyptians as either non African (ie as either near Eastern or Indo-Aryan) or as members of a separate brown race (as opposed to black) race". One wonders if the authors have any clue what the word "Indo-Aryan" actually means"! Still, by the rules it is a "reliable source". Paul B (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do we know the author who wrote that section? --Yalens (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry for accidentally reverting you when we edited at the same time earlier.

Yup. It was written by none other than Stuart Tyson Smith. Paul B (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice how all of you all wait until I'm temporarily blocked to raise issues with my contributions....where was all of this at two days ago? Anywho Doug you are correct on that it was my mistake for not directly copying the statement from the encyclopedia myself and rather relying on another person's upload. After double checking my own copy of the encyclopedia of ancient Egypt the "[i.e. in a social sense]" is in fact additional commentary. Anyway I copied the text image from my own copy [20]. This takes away Doug's concern over the validation of the source which was his reasoning for taking this vital statement (in relation to the article) out of the quote box. Therefore with the proper corrections made the quote box should be reinstated immediately. (cheers) Asante90 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Who is the mainstream?

Editors of this article have tried to make the case that the mainstream is against the Black theory. Let's ask ourselves, just who are these mainstream scholars? In an instrumental example from "The Rescue of Jerusalem" by Henry Aubin, I will DEMONSTRATE using a mainstream Egyptologist's own words why the lay reader should not equate the mainstream with the truth.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, Archibald Henry Sayce was a foremost scholar from Britain. He was a cleric and holder of the chair in Assyriology at Oxford. His credentials are impeccable and he studied and traveled extensively in Egypt and Nubia (he spent 17 winters in the Nile valley). He was described as "a genius that could write prose in 20 or more ancient and modern languages." For all of his admirable qualities, you will see that he was completely incapable of consistently telling the truth about the race of people in the Nile valley. In fact, the subject of the race of Nile valley inhabitants turned this genius and mainstream scholar into a pathological liar.

• Sayce said that the greater the projection of the jaws from the line of the face, the more animal like is the face. He then concludes that because the jaw of Negroes often protrudes from the line of the face that they are not far above monkeys and certainly much lower than Europeans. Following his logic to its natural conclusion, the sculpture of the great sphinx, due to its prognathism, would be that of a negroe (as noted by many European observers of the Great Sphinx). You can't only hold these racist views when they are convenient. You have to be consistent.

• Sayce said the Egyptians were members of the white race.

• Sayce then said (in 1891) that two black races inhabitated the Southern Nile Valley, the Nubians and Negroes. He said the Nubians, in spite of their black skins, were among the handsomest of mankind. AMAZINGLY, Sayce concluded that Shabako, Taharqa, and other Kushite Kings belonged to the White race.

• Four short years later, Sayce said in the book "The Egypt of the Hebrews and Herodotus" that the Kushite Kings possessed "all the physical characteristics of the Negro." He now concluded that the Kushites were Negroes.

• Sayce reaffirmed his belief that the Kushites were Negroes in 1899 in another book.

• After saying that Negroes were subhuman in the 1890's, by 1911 he marveled at the sophisticated civilization and high culture that he found in Meroe (a negroe society). He stated that "the Ethiopian king and his black levies saved Jerusalem and the religion of Judah from destruction by the powerful Assyrian Sennacherib...The Negroes of Africa had saved the city and temple of Jerusalem."

• Also in 1911 (THE SAME YEAR), Sayce no longer considered Taharqa to be a negroe.

• In 1925, his book "Races of the Old Testament" was republished. In that book he let stand the statement that Kushite Kings were White.

• Due to this subject, this man appears in need of admittance to the insane asylum. He is all over the place. Are Kushites black or white?

Public, is this the "mainstream" scholarship that you want to see represented in this all important Wiki article. If Sayce couldn't decide from day to day if the Kushites were black, can we trust his statement that the Egyptians were white? Of course not. There is no one more mainstream than Sayce, but a wise person would not believe a single thing that he has to say about the race of Nile valley inhabitants. Clearly, his scholarship in this area was sloppy and tainted by his hatred and racist views. This is but one example. Many other mainstream scholars present equally absurd arguments in an attempt to prove that which can not be proven.

A wise person would be much better served to believe DNA tribes, Diop, Keita, or others. At least their arguments are coherent.

A wise person would notice that even in the works of the most racist scholars, one can rarely find an instance when Egyptians and Nubians/Kushites weren't mentioned in the same breath. They were one continuous biological grouping of human beings. They are the Nile valley racial group, the Saharo-tropical variant. If they were alive today, people would call them black (like modern Nubians even after years of pressure from Greeks, Persians, and Arabs that entered the area at a considerably late date or modern Ethiopians).

Finally, some editors keep trying to draw this parallel between modern Egyptians (maybe Copts) and Ancient Egyptians. However, when I tried to add content describing a modern Egyptian national's quest to be classified as a Black man (after moving to America), the censors deemed it not worthy of the article. The guy clearly looks like he best fits in the black racial group. If after all of these years of domination by Persians, Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, and Arabs we still have people that are phenotypically black throughout Egypt, how much more black must they have been in the beginning?Rod (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's plenty of black people in modern Egypt: Nubians and the descendents of slaves. Since when were authors such as Diop, who thinks that Caucasus Georgians' ancestors were black and that Ancient Egyptian was related to Wolof reliable sources? Of the same vein, seeing as the page doesn't even use Sayce as a source, why are you talking about him so much?--Yalens (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The point that I'm trying to make (and probably could have made more succinctly} is we can't trust the mainstream on this subject, unless the mainstream provides convincing evidence. It's not enough (in this article) for an editor to state that the mainstream disagrees with this or that statement. It's more important to talk about each side's demonstration of their point when discussing the history of the controversy.Rod (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Mokhtar and Snowden

Apparently, this citation is also questioned by the Asante here ([[21]]). Can anyone verify it? --Yalens (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither the Mokhtar or the Mukhtār books actually state that something is believed broadly, I'm guessing that's an interpretation. Mukhtār does say on p,39 "The peopling of Ancient Egypt was a considerable problem and it would be very premature, at this stage, to adopt a synoptic approach as a means of solving it. The problem should be approached through separate, precise studies. For this purpose, the collaboration of specialists in disciplines not represented at this symposium was

indispensable. All the participants were 'general historians*, qualified to compile and synthesize data supplied by specialists; such data were, for the moment, very inadequate. In any case, it was retrograde to have recourse to authorities who were today completely outdated, such as Lepsius or Petrie. They might be recognized as having 'historical* importance but Egyptology had made great progress since their day."

Snowden mentions what he sees as "failure of many Afrocentrists to give proper attention to Nubians and their experience in Egypt, Greece, and Italy, although Nubians were the only Africans whose physical characteristics, according to the ancient evidence, most closely resembled those of peoples described as blacks or Negroes in modern usage." and comments that Bernal "uses "black," "Egyptian," and "African" interchangeably as equivalents despite copious ancient evidence to the contrary." But that's all. I seem to have access to Black Athena via Questia. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In light of this, say reinstate it where it is appropriate, but attribute the statements specifically to Mokhtar and Snowden and, until/unless we can get a source that says so, don't state that most other scholars adhere to that view. --Yalens (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that these edits commonly take statements out of context, as was blatantly done with Gatto as well. Wdford (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If you look at some of the hyperlink sources the IP/Asante posted, oftentimes its much of the same story... they only quote things they like, completely out of context, and leave out everything in it that doesn't suit their argument. The Mokhtar/Snowden one was from a long time ago, and wasn't IP/Asante though. --Yalens (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Snowden also said this:

Frank Snowden describes at length the terminology used by Ancient Greek (e.g. Homer, Diodorus, Herodotus) writers to describe the appearance of Egyptians and Ethiopians in the Nile valley. In his book for English speakers, Frank Snowden ubiquitously uses the terms "black skinned" to convey the meaning of numerous originally Greek texts concerning race in the Nile valley. In one section, he mentions Diodorus' claims that "black, flat-nosed, and ulotrichous" Ethiopians were "originators of many customs practiced in Egypt", "for the Egyptians were colonists of the Ethiopians." While summarizing Herodotus' work, Snowden states "240,000 Egyptian deserters" settled among and "influenced the customs and manners" of the "black and woolly haired Ethiopians" of the Nile valley. In a different passage Snowden admits that Herodotus believed that "Ethiopians learned Egyptian customs" and other Greek writers noticed "similarity in Ethiopian and Egyptian culture." Snowden also indicates that Statius spoke of "red Ethiopians" and Romans had accurate knowledge of "negroes of a red, copper-colored complexion...among African tribes."

In conclusion, Snowden like everyone else can't seem to stop mentioning Ethiopians and Egyptians in the same breath, while at the same time trying to pretend that they are so different. In your quote, Snowden complains about Bernal using black, African, and Egyptian interchangeably, but he is guilty of the same thing in his books (240,000 Egyptian settlers among black Ethiopians, Egyptians are a colony of Ethiopia, black Ethiopians originated Egyptian customs, red Ethiopians and negroes, etc.)Rod (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Strabo's comparison of Ethiopians and Indians

It is original research to claim that Strabo implied that Egyptians and Ethiopians were of different races because (in his words) Egyptians looked like Northern Indians and Ethiopians looked like Southern Indians. I have Strabo's book (volume 7, book 15, page 21) and he doesn't mention race. He only mentions their appearance, but does not draw a racial conclusion. If we follow the parallels in your original research, Northern and Southern Indians would be of two different races because they have slightly different pigmentation. Surely, you don't believe that Northern and Southern Indians are of two different races. If so, are Southern Indians Black? If not, wouldn't Egyptians and Ethiopians be allowed into the same racial group (Saharo-tropical variant) although they have slightly different pigmentation? Are not pale Scandinavian whites and olive whites from the Mediterranean grouped into the same race? Keep in mind Strabo lived around the start of the Christian era and Egypt had been ruled by foreigners for about 600 years before he would have visited the country. He likely met Greeks, Persians, and Assyrians there.Rod (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course Strabo wouldn't speak of 'race'- it didn't exist (at least in its modern form) during his times! The quote should be reinstated, but with "appearance" rather than "racial appearance" next to it... --Yalens (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)