Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy

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

Ancient Egypt is not a black civilization or white civilization

As an Egyptian I think this absurd to claim that ancient Egyptians are blacks. What exactly did rest of sub-Saharan Africa took from Egypt, almost nothing no central government or Gods or anything else. Some African Americans are presenting fake pictures from some pharaoh’s tombs. Also they ignore the fact that modern Egyptians Copts don’t show any Negro feature at all.

Were the Egyptians black, white, or indigenous Africans?

The reason I bring this up is because I see this dispute on whether or not the Egyptians were "black" (which is a fallacious, Eurocentric concept) as a ploy. It is apparent to point out that this is a political debate that has nothing to do with science, even when/if Egyptologists argue about it (which they hardly do). Using the word "black" as a label for any population group from Nigeria to southern India is a misnomer.[1] It is easy to see that once the arbitrarily defined barrier that comprises distinct "races" is collapsed, one can immediately lay out a coherent case which makes sense... This is what we're clear on:

• AE are not shown to have come from anywhere other than the Nile valley and/or early Sahara. Not Europe, not Southwest Asia, not West Africa.. These are the words of Yurco, Keita, Boyce, Ehret, Zakrzewski, Wilkinson, Shaw, and countless others aside from Basil Davidson..

• People indigenous to this area, have been found to be overwhelmingly indigenous, hence, no indication of invaders from the near east or Europe. We know that near easterners and Europeans are indigenous to the near east and Europe, and not the Nile valley. They (AEs) possessed southern haplotypes shared with Saharo-tropical africans that have been in place since first dynasty times.[2] Again, these genes have a much higher frequency in Africa than anywhere else and are mostly only shared among other Africans.

• To emphasize that point, I will refer back to Zakrzewski and Keita. Keita notes a tropical morphology among the Egyptians, consistent with tropical africans. Zakrzewski confirmed the results in 2003. Keita stresses the implication that a tropical body is a reaction to heat stresses from tropical environments and differs drastically from different climactic belts, hence, the AE were not cold adapted Europeans (in his words, more or less).. According to Hiernaux, those most frequently seen with this body type are Nilotes of the Nile valley or east Africans from the horn..

• Keita reports continuity between Badari, Naqada, and first dynasty crania from Abydos (seat of the founding dynasty), and found them all to cluster closest with Kerma Nubian crania, while the Badari even overlapped Kenyan and Bushman groups..

• Studying crania from these same periods, Zakrzewski found continuity stretching into the early dynastic and also noted a relationship between Badari and later Egyptian groups..

• Chris Ehret of course places the Egyptian language to the south

Yurco emphatically refers to Egyptians as Africans, closely related to Nubians, Somali, and other Nile valley peoples.

Trigger refers to them all as African who need not be arbitrarily defined or seperated

The data and consensus seems to suggest that they were Africans.. Since race is a fallacious concept, it is clear that arguments by way of racial identity will remain cyclic, when what is of value is that the AEs were biologically and culturally African.. Taharqa 19:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing the same things over and over at every chance you get. Could you summarize the following into 2 or 3 sentences? You continue to say that "Ancient Egyptians were black" yet you also say that "race is a fallacious concept" and ""black" as a label for any population group from Nigeria to southern India is a misnomer". So I don't know what you're trying to say. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Once you quote where I've advocated such a term ("black") in any biological context, I should be able to better elaborate. But as of now, your Straw man comments will only lead to distraction since I've never asserted what you attribute to me and what I've stated is what I meant, which is attributed to the various sources produced.Taharqa 19:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well let's forget about my comments. Elaborate in 2 or 3 sentences what you're saying. Summarize it for me. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay.. What I am addressing and what also seems to be the mainstream consensus are summed up in at least 5 parts that come from empirical research..

• AE language/culture is seen as having indigenous roots in continental Africa, elements of which can be found through out the Sahara, Nile Valley, and Eastern Africa.. The most notable of scholars place AE civilization along with the people themselves, within this context

• Biological data suggests population relationships with groups who inhabit these regions, notably the nile valley and the horn of Africa (Somalia, etc.)

• State formation is seen as being overwhelmingly indigenous, notwithstanding trade and external contacts, which did occur

• Race is considered obsolete by most physical anthropologists and native Africans are seen as comprising generally the most phenotypical variant populations, despite relationships

• "Black and white" only obscure the implication of this African diversity since by standards of nomenclature, the AE were Africans, culturally and biologically coextensive with other indigenous African populations of which they shared spatial origin and lasting contact

In other words, I will quote Bruce Trigger:

all of these people are Africans. To proceed further and divide them into Caucasoid and Negroid stocks is to perform an act that is arbitrary and wholly devoid of historical or biological significance.

So those who keep lashing out at the idea of a "black egypt" are totally misguided in their aims and it is ultimately futile to refute as it is a subjective social construct. What matters is the raw data on the ground.Taharqa 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Then what point would it be to use old references to the supposed race of the Great Sphinx as modern for instance? Right now as the article stands, It seems like a long essay using weak arguments to support the idea that the Ancient Egyptians were "Black". That's how the article reads. Sort of like an essay opposed to an encyclopedia. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the argument is "weak" is your opinion, not to be confused with an objective fact or even a notable view. The sphinx section, of which I wasn't even discussing at this point, merely records views from notable sources of the past and present, no one has made any argument by simply not choosing to suppress relevant information to the section. It is pov and OR to impose yourself or your views onto the said citations of which merely record pov themselves, along with one empirical study. One lacks the credentials to apply their own interpretation and expect it to be notable.. But this isn't about that, that one example is trivial and doesn't express nearly what you have charged..Taharqa 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is having the section formed in a way that is using centuries old opinions as somehow contemporary or modern. The entire section fails to provide context. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've always been willing to compromise on that section as I suggested to Zerida, but Muntuwandi and Luka are opposed. I think maybe you should direct your concerns more so in that direction to get a better justification for the context of the section, and as I see fit, I can add input when relevant..Taharqa 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

appart from a few minor attempts at restoration, the great sphinx is essentially the way it has been for the last thousands of years. Since it is a monument, there can be no genetic tests on it. what I am getting at is that with regards to the sphinx even historical accounts have some credibility. But nevertheless recent scholars have expressed the same thoughts. Muntuwandi 21:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is well known that ethiopia and kenya were members of the egyptian empire and trade routes. however you overlook the deductive capability of such populations, they are, mind you, different from subsaharan and west african "indiginous people", or as some people put it "black people", you seem to be overlooking a great opportunity in your quest for the ethnicity of the acient egyptians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.123 (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't well known.. Though seeing as how no one African is the same in reference to another, and seeing as how this article isn't about west Africans, I'm not sure how this is relevant? Sure, Kenyan and Ethiopian ethnic groups are different in a lot of respects from some west African groups, while Kenyan groups differ in many respects from Ethiopians (diversity!), but they all have entirely much more in common with each other than say they do with Northern Europeans. You've created an arbitrary standard by which to evaluate, not to mention that this is irrelevant..Taharqa 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Very true they are, after all, both black gypies as opposed to white gypsie, arab gypsies or the egyptians themselves. When you take into account the large "family" of gypsies {you do know that means light of egypt don't you}, it would seem your quest to find the ethnicity of the ancient egyptians would become much easier than you appear to be making it. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 207.14.129.123 (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It means that "black and white" are subjective terms, but you will be hard pressed to find a "white Ethiopian" or Kenyan that fits any of the world's modern social standards. Though diversity has always been the rule, especially as it concerns Africa..Taharqa 20:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

---

 So is the term "african"  you would be in all senses including morroco, lybia, tunisia, 

and algeria. Predominantly non "black" communities {countries}. Some people believe that the name itself Africa in indicitive of egypt. But the continent was only so modernly named due to the egyptian shores of the mediterranian being in "africa" of course the same could be said for Europe {the ep phonetics in the name}, being modern in name that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.123 (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

---

 Heroditous um are you people thinking that melano is the same as melatho/melado they aren't 

one means darker{to an extent] the other means white [uhh don't it] so herouditous said the ethiopians were white????? maybe he was speaking in that the darker ethiopians were at that time more similair to whites that black africa, in a phrenologial way????? And heck who was white at that time everyone was farming or hunting or working out side getting a tan.--207.14.129.123 21:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

---

 As for taharqa Use of the word "black".  Your argueement in the inital posting of my

queery "why is this article in the africa deaspora" in favor of such a placement in and of itself removes all except black africans from the statments you say. Have you seen the african deaspora page? The page make no reference to their being anything other than black africans, it is a though the entire northern 3rd of the continent ceases to be in existance. You would be able to see this accept someone deleted the inittial posting. I am not sure why my name ,and possible location, are so important to you taharqa. Is not the information what is important?--207.14.129.123 00:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro

@ Wikidudeman

The new intro is solid and is well written, I must say. I have one request.. It seems that you've sufficiently and neutrally covered aspects of a section that was in dispute, that would be the "ancient writers section".. I recommend you go ahead and just remove that section since it is very subjective and you've given a great over view of it in the introduction. Thanx..Taharqa 18:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No can do. The introduction is actually a "Summary" of the article as a whole. I'm moving down from the intro and will improve the article little by little. We can't have something in the intro if it doesn't exist in the article itself. I will however drastically improve that section soon. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem.. I wanted to add something anyways in accordance with neutrality..Taharqa 18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a direct link to that Keita source? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/Egypt-Africa-Theodore-Celenko/dp/0253332699Taharqa 19:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a book by someone named Theodore Celenko. I'm asking for the link to the actual paper published by Keita. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is cited as being in the book, the page numbers and everything.. You can get a copy at the library of congress or find it on amazon or ebay.. I posted the actual paper here numerous times in its entirety, which can be read here[3]..Taharqa 20:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous editor and his obsessive edits/revisions are in no way helping..Taharqa 20:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Afrocentristc" should be either "Afrocentrist" or "Afrocentristic." ➳ Quin 08:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the first sentence of the article. ➳ Quin 05:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the paper exist though? If Keita wrote it then it should exist as an independent paper, separate from a book by someone else. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, I've shown you the paper. I you're not going to buy the book, there's nothing else I can do for you, it is available through the outlets which I've shown you and it is a definite reference citation from one of the most reliable sources there is. Besides showing you the entire paper, word for word, I have nothing else for you, nor am I obligated under wikipedia policy to provide more. You seem to be confused. It is an independent paper by Prof. Keita and A.J. Boyce, submitted to Theodore Celenko for inclusion in the said book by way of the Indianapolis Museum of Art/Indiana University Press (publisher). Many authors from a variety of sources have contributed to that book, and you seem to be unaware that the book its self is a compilation of essays from top scholars of their fields, all tackling the same question. The overall consensus of the book is summed up near the end of this essay aswell[4].

Seeing as how there are many other raw reference cited herein, I'm curious as to why you aren't pursuing direct quotations or verbatim excerpts for those. No moving the goal post please, you asked for a direct link, meaning, a direct source along with the extracted material, and I've provided both. If you're concerned if whether or not "Keita wrote it" (which would be rather strange) and that this isn't some form of fraud or forgery, simply copy and paste the citation (page number, etc) that I gave and google it.. Then again, your suspicion would be irrational since I've already provided a verbatim extract. Why are you so concerned with these sources in particular, anyways? So much so that you make a draft?[5], even when you have links that you can clearly read in less than 5 minutes? Unusual if you ask me, but I hope that you're satisfied sooner or later..Taharqa 16:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Drawing from the tomb of Seti?

Who brought this picture again? It was removed a year ago. There are people who do not follow well the discussion of this article. The famous "1820 drawing of a fresco of the tomb of Seti I, depicting from left: Libyan, Nubian, Asiatic, and Egyptian" is not a picture, but a modern rendering. Not being authentic, it has to be removed from the article as agreed upon in the past.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I added it. I disagree. The image is relevant even if it's a modern rendering. The image is very exemplary of Egyptians perspectives of differences between themselves and others. It's not meant to be some sort of scientific piece or anything like that. Just an image showing how Egyptians saw themselves compared to others. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can find an actual photograph of the topic of the drawing to be used. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What consensus is there on adding that image? We've already agreed to leave it out, so I suggest that you do so. There's another rendering that I can upload which is more elaborate, yet shows obviously different complexions. What basis do we have in choosing one over the other? Why not leave it out? And can someone please revert the disruptive IP who just altered and blanked cited material for no reason?Taharqa 19:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is full of Afrocentrist myths because it's being edited by Taharaqa, who is a paragon of afrocentrism mythology and pseudo-science. This is an absurd article. Now, I do not mean to be rude, but I'm sorry to say, I am surprised he is allowed to spread these myths. No wonder wikipedia is no longer taken seriously by many people outside it. Please desist from playing the race card online in order for you to push your POV wishful thinking and accept history and reality. Spurious sources from myth makers will not suffice in the real world! please be civil reason and try to cooperate. 203.109.33.35 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article needs a main image and that one is very descriptive and relevant. Please upload the actual image if you have it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay.. But in the meantime can you rv the disruptive editor per discussion please?Taharqa 20:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone checks history of article, you appear to be controlling this article as though you owned it. Be reasonable and cooperate. 203.109.33.35 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Maiherperi2.jpg

Mummy of Maiherpri

File:Maiherperi.jpg

Maiherpri from the book of the Dead

^This is what I was referring to btw..Taharqa 20:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This aswell (to the right)..

Horus and four Egyptians as one of the "four races of mankind." in the Book of Gates in the Valley of the Kings.

.. I actually think that since this article is exclusively about Egyptians, this would be more appropriate, but imposing any picture over another is arbitrary, which is why we agreed to keep it out..Taharqa 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The first one needs a source. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Then forget about the first one, it is the same image anyways..Taharqa 21:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That one doesn't show any differences though. They are all the same. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously both of these renditions depict the same scene, yet depicted differently (and actually more accurately since tomb scenes show each group represented in fours) from the front page rendition that you've included.Taharqa 22:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, as I told you that image is a modern drawing, a Copy of some figures from the Seti I tomb by Minutoli in 1820. The photograph is at the left side and in bad shape. I don't know what was in the mind of Minutoli when he made it. But it is not authentic, because not Egyptian.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for reasonable justification; will assume good faith as of now..Taharqa 05:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually upon looking at this link I can see that the 1820 drawing is quite accurate. Even down to the skintones depicted of nubians and Egyptians. The fact that it's a drawing of the scene opposed to a picture itself doesn't seem very relevant as it's quite depicting of the scene itself. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, we better take the picture even if it is not in good shape than a modern drawing. How can you be sure of his accuracy of this drawing? The commentary speaks "possible". Drawings are subjective. They depend heavily on the spirit of the drawer. How can you ignore that? Actually the skin of the Egyptian is not in question. Many Blacks, in Nubia, in Kemet or today in Africa, have brown complexion. Besides, many Egyptians are dark. We see that in the picture which is in good condition, just down the first picture. Its drawing is at its right side. One sees two dark Egyptians. This is a picture. Why don't we take it?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that I'd like a picture comparing Egyptians with other peoples of other nations as the current one does. this is the original image. Not good quality photograph however that's the original. this is the 1820 drawing. While the drawing isn't perfect, it's a fairly accurate rendition of the wall painting. It's from a historical source and this should all be explained. The point of having the image is that it shows how th Egyptians saw other peoples in comparison to themselves. Simply having an image of 3 Egyptians wouldn't show that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

We are not sure of the accuracy of the rendition as the commentary says: "possible"!. We can take the rendition of the second picture. Both are in good shape. But you feel maybe a bit shaken because the Egyptians are shown to be dark like the Nubians. One needs a bit of courage and objectivity when one deals with this kind of stuff! Browness is not stranger to Nubians. One cannot oppose Nubians and Egyptians in terms of brown (Egyptians ) and dark (Nubians). This just fantasy. Please, visit The Tomb of Huy--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

To pull up a garbled photo from geocities and asserting from personal opinion that it looks accurate is an invalid justification. To me it isn't anymore accurate than the rendition on the right depicting them in fours, and as I said before, less accurate upon viewing it. Also, justifying by saying this is what you'd like seems selfish considering the painstaking discussion it took to reach agreement among all to leave it out, only for one editor to come by and insist on its inclusion, especially at the expense of other options. Taharqa 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The image posted on Geocities, this image is the original one that the artist used to draw in 1820. That's the wall painting. The 1820 drawing of it would thus be justifiable to use. I'm afraid I don't understand the objections to using it. The fact that it was done in 1820 really shouldn't be relevant, nor should the fact that it's a drawing of the original painting. No one is saying that it's somehow 100% accurate however that's all explained on the caption. All in all it's a good photograph showing what Egyptians thought of other peoples compared to themselves. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what it is, that's irrelevant. Both drawings depict that same scene so your logic is faulty. The objection is rooted in your insistence of one over another for no explainable reason. Honestly, you are double talking. The others above are also good 'drawings' of the same thing, yet you weasel away from addressing this.Taharqa 15:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify. Image:Egyptians BOG.jpg is not suitable since it shows only Ancient Egyptians themselves, however since this article is discussing the "race" of Ancient egyptians, an image showing how the Ancient Egyptians saw themselves compared to other peoples is more relevant. Image:Seti.jpg would be good except for the fact that it's source is not provided and it could be deleted soon. This means that Image:Egyptian races.jpg is the best choice since it's free and shows how Egyptians saw themselves compared to other peoples and is thus more relevant to the topic of the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But why don't we take the picture of the tomb of Ramesses or the drawing made of it? The picture is in good shape, and one can notice easily than with the picture of the tomb of Seti, how the drawing is accurate.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What image are you referring to? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

^^It shows the Egyptians as jet black in that tomb, though it is controversial since some say it wasn't authentic, while others (including the one who initially copied it from the tomb) have stated its accuracy and Manu Ampim has even allegedly taken photos of the tomb.

But Wikidudeman, I'm about to leave real fast, but will be back and will leave on this note for now. The article is about Ancient Egyptians, which is why I think an isolated photo of Egyptians is more appropriate than capturing different peoples. Even with that, tomb scenes depict the different ethnys in fours, it is convention, so the unsourced one above is more accurate if anything anyways. I can find the source, which is no problem and which is why I'm discussing it as if it has one. That was a speedy upload just to show you something, but it is indeed public domain as it is over 100 years old and I can provide the source whenever it is seriously demanded..Taharqa 16:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What picture are you referring to? Please link it. Concerning the image I'm supporting, How is an image simply showing random Ancient Egyptians more relevant to an article about the RACE of Ancient Egyptians? The image showing how Ancient Egyptians saw themselves compared to other peoples is clearly more relevant in an article about the race of Ancient Egyptians. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What abount that picture though? Of the mummy. Real impressive considering that hair is not as strong, cohesive, tensil or long lasting as skin. That is an amazing feat of mummification, mind you only one {appearently} out of hundreds of mummies that gets to keep it's supposed hair. not even affected by the bandages sprie, lite, bouncing with full body after "thousands" of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.123 (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, this is your opinion as to what you think is and isn't relevant to the article. I feel an isolated picture of how the AE saw themselves is more than sufficient. In fours is also the conventional way to depict these murals, so the ones above are more accurate. I haven't looked yet because I've been busy, but as soon as I grab a source for the other scene that includes the various ethnys, I'll present that also.. As of now, you don't seem willing to compromise though, I'm trying to understand why? Even when more than one editor has expressed concern about prior consensus, including alternatives.Taharqa 16:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

An image showing ONLY the ancient Egyptians wouldn't really be as relevant as we're discussing the race of the ancient Egyptians and thus an image showing them COMPARING themselves to other peoples is much much more relevant. You may not understand my not compromising, however it's a yes or no issue. Either the image stays or it goes. I think it should stay. I don't understand your reasoning though. You state that it's not relevant because it's a drawing? Well you endorse other drawings. What's specifically wrong with this one? As far as Prior consensus. Consensus can change. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I endorse more accurate representations, period, and I've explained that above. Also, seeing as how the article is about ancient Egyptians, I don't see your reasoning for comparative renditions being that (1), the Egyptians are not depicting races since their concepts of human biodiversity is totally different from ours, and (2), the source is old and inaccurate.. We've already agreed that it should go along time ago, yet YOU say "stay".. What I'm suggesting for compromise is to either put up more than one rendition then (show both), to remove it, to put up one that is more accurate, or to omit the foreigners and simply include an isolated rendition of how the AEs saw themselves, since the article is about them, not any random ethnic groups with whom they came in contact. But again, it seems that you aren't putting any noted effort into acknowledging past consensus or trying to compromiseTaharqa 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How is it inaccurate just because it's old? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope that in the future during discussion you'd think more of me to actually pay attention to what i explain to you the first time.

Taharqa wrote (directly above you): - In fours is also the conventional way to depict these murals, so the ones above are more accurate.

^This is how they're depicted in the tombs themselves..Taharqa 17:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: As far as Prior consensus. Consensus can change.

Well, it hasn't and trying to force consensus or being unwilling to comply or compromise is not the answer.. I'll address this later, when I come back with the source to the rendition in question.Taharqa 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Further pictures that may be of use

Seeing the debate over the use of images within the article, I have just uploaded a few I took while at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston to Wikimedia Commons that may be useful. They all depict captives and are from the palace of the 20th dynasty pharaoh Ramesses III:
- depiction of a pair of Nubians: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PalaceInlays-DepictingNubians-MuseumOfFineArtsBoston.png
- depiction of a Philistine and an Amorite: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PalaceInlays-DepictingPhilistineAndAmorite-MuseumOfFineArtsBoston.png
- depiction of a Syrian and a Hittite: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PalaceInlays-DepictingSyrianAndHittite-MuseumOfFineArtsBoston.png
- all three sets of images compiled into one image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:PalaceInlays-NubiansPhilistineAmoriteSyrianAndHittite-Compilation-MuseumOfFineArtsBoston.png
There are other images on Wikimedia Commons (from the same era) which could be of use:
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypte_louvre_119_ennemi.jpg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypte_louvre_120_asiatique.jpg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Egypte_louvre_121_ennemi.jpg. Captmondo 01:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

---

  Wkiedudeman makes sense.  In that what the egyptians defined themselves as different and

to an extenet similair to the "other" ethncities. It's a shame the carving appeared to be so damaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.123 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Egyptians and foreigners in the tomb of Ramesses III

Wikidudeman, have a look at this: Physionomie de l'Egyptien Ancien. In the Foreign "races" from Ramesses III, Egyptians are said to be Nubians by some commentators, because these Egyptians are dark!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep.. Manu Ampim has basically refuted all those opposed by actually taking photos of the tomb and posting them. The dark skinned figure to the far left who looks exactly like the Nehesi, or Nubian to the right, is clearly labeled "rm.t" by the glyph which corresponds to him, r.mt of course meaning 'Egyptian".[6]Taharqa 16:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

---

That doen't acount for the rest of the figures in the drawings! The picture states that at that time nubia was part of the egyptian empire. The picture in no way states that the egyptian "ethnicity" were or is black nubian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.129.123 (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a typical stormfront argument.. But one thing we're not here to do is debate the unsubstantiated opinion of a random editor. One thing is certain though, and this is that the person in that tomb seen portayed in almost identical fashion as the Nubian, is labeled as an Egyptian, and the tomb photos confirm it.. But yes, it is not conventional, which means nothing by way of proving your case either since both kushites and puntites were depicted as dark reddish-brown aswell.. It is a complexion seen quite frequently among African horners and the Nile valley.. And please sign your comments.. Taharqa 20:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't accuse people who oppose your views with much stronger evidence as being "Stormfront". These photos are taken from an amateur website and clearly have been distorted. Just because they agree with your extreme, un-supported views does not mean they are more accurate. Many of the pictographs clearly show lighter skin tones than that of of those known to be portraying Nubians, not to mention different facial features. The photos are also subject to the mercy of those supplying them and one of an Egyptian may be in fact of an Ethiopian or Nubian. The fact remains Ancient Egypt was a large Kingdom and Empire encompassing peoepls with varying origins, not just indigenous Egyptians. Epf 00:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---

  so basically you agree with me but, have backed yourself into a corner, so you feel that your
words don't admit that you agree with me.  Did you just delete my state-ment about wooly hair
being no tight and kinky but more open curls than even michelangelo's david, like the hair of
a ram or sheep?  Just wondering because some just did that.

---

     Holy dingleberries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I just foundout what stormfront is!!!!!  That 

pretty interesting alligation. WHWWHOOooaaa. How exactlly did you know that I were white? My statments could have been made by any ethnicity. Your powers are strong young jedi. To obtain all of that sympathy in just a few short words. To write off an extremelly ,even if I do say so myself, intellegent and learned assertation of a multiethinict picture in such a fashion would not be of any benifit if you ever were suspect of using wikipedia for

propoganda purposes.  At least the stormfront page is an article not a membershipdrive.--207.14.129.123 21:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

postscript

 An extremelly interesting allegation indeed.  Considering what I posted on October 7,  

Two days before your foul weather "ranting and contention". Who deleted my origional "Why is this in the African Deaspora" Querry????--207.14.129.123 21:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for unprotection

The administrator Pedro noted that the page can be unprotected as soon as we show that we're all on common ground. I'd like to see what others feel will improve the article and prevent so much conflict. Please participate and I'd like editors to describe their take in at least 4 parts..

• Why are you concerned with editing such a controversial topic and what do you seek to promote?

^This can mean merely to prevent edit wars or push neutrality, or because you're interested in the topic, or because you have a strong opinion on it. What is your aim?

• What content is disputed?

In your opinion, what parts of the article do you have a problem with, wording, undue weight, organization/format, unreliable sources, etc. Please pin point what you have a problem with and what you feel needs to be revised. It may be easier to cover it all in one swoop, and then we can go over it one by one.

• How to prevent disagreement/encourage compromise

Suggestions on ways to compromise? For example, when material is hotly disputed, should it be best to remove it, pending discussion to avoid edit warring? Maybe this can be an unspoken rule? That is only one example o compromise

• Dealing with new editors, unaware of consensus..

Do we immediately rvv them, or explain to them that discussion is pending and only rvv them if their edits are in bad faith or misguided? How do we deal with the unruly?

Just some thoughts. I'll be back in a bit to add my take, but in the meantime, please participate so we can continue the process of coming together, in order to finally come together and at least somewhat resemble a team, as the appellation "editing team" implies.Taharqa 16:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudemans answers

• Why are you concerned with editing such a controversial topic and what do you seek to promote?

I'm concerned because the article is in bad shape and needs improving.

• What content is disputed?

Generally it's not the content itself that is disputed but the way it's presented and worded. Many sections need rewritten and better presented.

• How to prevent disagreement/encourage compromise

Don't make edits that you think are controversial until you get consensus on talk page. If you think an edit might be reverted, Don't make it. Discuss it first.

• Dealing with new editors, unaware of consensus..

Revert them once. Leave note on their talk page. If they revert again then don't revert back, simply try to get them to discuss their edits. If they fail to discuss them then revert their edits and report them to WP:AIAV. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka

I think like Wikidudeman. I will add trust or good faith.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

I think all parties should make suggestions on what they think the direction of the article should be. I have noticed that when the article is protected Zerida and Egyegy disappear. When it is unprotected they reappear without much discussion and edit wars follow. This is unhelpful in achieving a consensus. Muntuwandi 23:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have expressed my views ad nauseam and have engaged in a lengthy dialogue with Taharqa and reached consensus on the aforementioned additions, only to have many of them substantially reverted/POV-ly rewritten. There is a point in the discussion when it becomes a form of terrorizing editors into having to state their positions a thousand times after having repeated them a thousand other times when consensus had earlier been reached in order to justify another round of reverts and tendentious editing, under the pretext that editors did not take part in the discussion. That Taharqa continues to renege on our previous agreement and to engage in this type of tendentious editing [7], in addition to your equally inappropriate revert [8] of previously agreed upon material, do not change the fact that we had come to consensus on the main issues, and more importantly, that we had agreed *not* to delete reliably sourced information from the article (I had left Taharqa this note [9] about it). The latter should not be hard to do nor requires lengthy discussions -- simply stop deleting whole portions of the article, particularly those representing mainstream/academic scholarship, to advance one POV.

Unfortunately, I really don't have much hope that this article will ever achieve stability due to its history. Needless to say, having the article express a particular POV will inevitably attract the kind of edit wars that happened in the last 24 hours (although everyone would do well remembering WP:AGF and WP:BITE with newcomers, at least to avoid making the situation worse). If we were to really give this article a chance to remain balanced with information from different sides, I don't think it would be subject to so much heated dispute. As I have never seen this article remain stable in the last two years, I have no doubt that the tendentious editing will quickly resume following unprotection, with each side attempting to overwhelm the article with one side of the debate or undue weight of fringe opinions, and the cycle will simply continue. I, however, am not planning to fight an uphill battle to maintain this imaginary stable version -- I have neither the heart nor the time nor the patience for it. This article has proven time and again to be an exhausting exercise in futility. I've never seen an article go from one long protection period to another in such a short span of time (though that might be because I don't get around much). At any rate, I have already stated my position and have come to consensus on the issues that I felt needed addressing. The current version meets my biggest concerns. Whether this material remains, gets deleted, or substantially altered/distorted, only time and the ability of other editors to respect consensus will tell. — Zerida 02:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Zerida, please, cool down! Don't you see any positive point in what Muntuwandi is saying? This is a common work. We have to prepare ourselves to accept other views than what we like the most. Muntuwandi is speaking about separating sections between pro and against. You and everybody can edit having this separation in mind. But always using reliable sources. Muntuwandi is very clear. If you want to see only your school of thought taken into account, it won't work.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 08:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Lusala Luka, why don't you cool down? Muntuwandi wrote his suggestions after Zerida posted her response to his accusations. Assume good faith, this is getting old. Egyegy 16:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to Zerida. But Muntuwandi is repeatedly making this suggestion of pro and against. Look at his past interventions. I think that is the just way to go.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 12:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

---

  Yes Yes  I too am outraged the sincere lack of accountablility during such critical

discusions lead me to belive that the lone gunman the delete button wielding savior has struck again. If only we had someway of thanking such a noble person saving the world from intelegent discusion and intellegent minds. Truly an unsung hero of the modern day. How come you decide what reliable sources are?? hmmmmmm just a thought just a question.--207.14.129.123 20:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi

• Why are you concerned with editing such a controversial topic and what do you seek to promote?

I would like to see an article that is the reflection of the truth.

• What content is disputed?

Material that is "Afrocentric" is disputed. Material that is anti-Afrocentric is also disputed. This is what is causing edit wars

• How to prevent disagreement/encourage compromise

The only way this article can ever achieve some stability is if both sides of the debates are given a voice. I don't know what race the Egyptians were for sure, though my personal opinion leans toward a black/African egypt. I am also pretty sure that Egyptology in the past and present has been affected by racial bias and the African presence in Egypt has been understated. However I am not in favour of deleting anti-Afrocentric material if it is relevant or reliably sourced. The only way the article can have any credibility is if it gives an opportunity to dissenting views. My suggestion remains the same, to have distinct "for" and "against" sections of a black african egypt. The "Africanists" can edit the "for" section, and the non-africanists can edit the "against" section without deleting each others' material. The only checks that we need to make on all sections should be reliability, relevance and verifiability.

• Dealing with new editors, unaware of consensus..

To be taken seriously they need to earn credibility. Muntuwandi 05:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa

• Why are you concerned with editing such a controversial topic and what do you seek to promote?

I seek to repel abuse and encourage accurate information. Of course with the prevailing views of politics, but this is what I'd like to mainly limit and such articles while having it reflect genuinely verified research from empirical data, variability of opinion notwithstanding. In such an article, I'd also like to prevent undue weight given to obscure authors in order to push a view or refute another.

• What content is disputed?

Similarly to wikidudeman, I'm not so much concerned with the "content" per se since no one as of yet has been able to offer a formidable rebuttal to the peer reviewed or reference material cited, only that such data isn't subject to distortion or rejected by emotionally invested editors with a point to prove. That is honestly not aimed at any one in particular, though it has been noted..

• How to prevent disagreement/encourage compromise

I'd think that me and Zerida's earlier compromise (before things got out of hand again) was a decent one. To simply remove material that is so hotly disputed that edit wars seem inevitable. Though if we'd all practice restraint (including myself), that wouldn't be necessary.

• Dealing with new editors, unaware of consensus..

This is honestly what I have trouble with dealing with and it was more of a personal question. I appreciate your answer wikidudeman, and admit that it is something that I need to work on as it has been hard in the past. Even as applied to resident editors who don't make much of an effort to communicate rationally on the talk page.

Taharqa 21:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

Wikipedia consensus process flowchart

I plan on getting this article to be unprotected however this can only happen if EVERYONE involved agrees to a preset of rules that will prevent edit warring. Here are the rules:

1. If you make an edit, please think twice before making it. If you believe the edit might be controversial or might be reverted then don't make the edit. Instead propose it on the talk page and reach consensus.
2. If an edit that you made was reverted then, if possible, revert that revision and make an alteration so that the initial reverter might be satisfied with it. If it is reverted again then DO NOT revert it back. Take the discussion to the talk page. Never revert more than once.
3. Only reapply your initial edit after consensus is reached or after a few days and the reverter(s) have failed to justify their actions.
4. If reverters continue to revert and do not justify their actions on the talk page after given warnings to do so then report them to WP:AIV
5. If an edit is made that you disagree with. Revert it. If it is added back with a change that you agree with then don't revert it. If it is added back without any change then advise the editor making the edit to justify their actions on the talk page.

Everyone who agrees to these rules simply say Agree. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the content is too controversial for people to restrain themselves from reverting others. We were beginning to make some headway before the article was protected. Now that it is protected, some of the other contributers have disappeared again. I suggest that we create a sandbox, and work on a version from there. We can request all interested parties to make their contributions and suggestions. If we find a stable version that we all agree on, we can request for unprotection.

Alternatively we can ask that the protection expiry be brought backwards, say to next week, because one month is too long. Muntuwandi 23:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why everyone just can't agree to the above rules so as to prevent edit wars. Here is a flow chart describing the basic process I'm putting forth...Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, only that in special circumstances when edits are clearly seen as disruptive to prove a point or is original research under the same guise, other editors shouldn't be discouraged to revert, however, again, I agree overall that each editor should limit him/herself to one revert, unless there is a complete debauchery of the article by newer editors who won't comply with the talk page. If it is not blatant vandalism, it isn't so simple to merely report an unruly editor to WP:AIV. Nonetheless, once more, if it doesn't concern a mass distortion of the material already included, then I agree to this with no strings attached.Taharqa 20:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion still is the content should be reorganized to "please everyone". There are probably six or seven editors interested in this article, so i don't believe that limiting reverts will have any success if editors are unhappy about the content. Wikidudeman had began a process of rewriting the article that had some consensus, before the article was protected. Instead of waiting for the article to be unprotected, we can simply copy all the text into a sandbox and continue trying to build a consensus from all participating editors. Then we can have a good case for unprotection. As it stands now when the protection expires we will be back to square one. Muntuwandi 21:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of waiting for the article to be unprotected, we can simply copy all the text into a sandbox and continue trying to build a consensus from all participating editors.

Best idea yet! Yes, make edits into the sandbox or something until we can get a draft that shuold be subject to less contention.Taharqa 21:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandboxing it is generally a bad idea in this case since most of the editors would be unwilling to participate in a rewrite. With my proposal, we streamline the process and rid ourselves of the truly disruptive editors as they would be weeded out fairly quickly if they make changes, refuse to discuss and continue to revert. Also, As far as these rules go, The ONLY exception should be to vandalism. If someone adds Original research, revert it and explain why you reverted it. If they revert your revert then don't revert again, discuss it on the talk page. If they fail to discuss then in a few days revert them and if they revert again, notify them to the Admin noticeboard. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, nothing usually happens at the admin notice boards, and I've been there several times. The most they'll do is advise dispute resolution or something similar. But I'm still open to whatever should work the best, and I'm willing to comply with both you and Muntuwandi, though given that there is somewhat of a disagreement, I feel the difference in opinion needs to be reconciled. I'm quite sure Muntuwandi would be willing to further justify or maybe you can bring him around to yours. I'm on board wherever it takes us though and regardless, I'm willing comply to those rules put fourth.Taharqa 22:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules will always take precedence over any kind of informal agreements we make about editing. Thus in the long run only rules such as the 3RR can have any validity. I think we should make an attempt at sandboxing, we can ask Zerida, Egyegy and Luka to have their comments on a balanced version. If we come to some kind of consensus, we can request unprotection. Muntuwandi 22:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If an editor continues to make a revert but fails to discuss the reverts on the talk page then we would be justified in re-reverting that specific editor and I would back anyone up doing so. If after relevant notification, the user disregards attempts to discuss the dispute and instead simply reverts then I will make sure that anything the editor adds will be reverted. We can all do that as the editor, not us, would be breaking wikipedia policy and thus the reverts on our part would be justified and the single editor would then be reported upon violation of 3rr, if the editor went that far. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a draft where we can discuss and alter the article until consensus is met:

User:Wikidudeman/RaceEgyptdraft.

Please don't start an edit war on the draft. Follow the above rules when editing it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think sandboxing is the way to go but put the draft at Talk:Race of Ancient Egyptians/Draft so everyone watching this page can see and edit it if they want. Egyegy 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As per Wikidudeman, no need to edit war on a draft since it is a proposal.Muntuwandi 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Article subpages like that aren't supposed to exist and with my tools and setup I am unable to edit them. That's why I made User:Wikidudeman/RaceEgyptdraft so that I could edit it, but it's also just as visible as any subpage of this article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

When you guys figure it out, let me know. I'm not sure why it matters which draft should be edited, as long as one is edited on to encourage progress.Taharqa 16:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying I simply can't edit that other one. Only the one on my userpage. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

^My fault.. Well then, I see no harm in editing the draft that you set up. If that's true then it should limit our choices to which draft that we edit, in which case, I guess that it should be yours. Hopefully Muntuwandi and others will agree since as I've stated, I don't see the big difference.

As far as unruly editors who don't abide by the consensus on the talk page, we really need to work together in repelling them since in the past it seems as if no one really showed any real concern.Taharqa 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

location is not a big issue, we can even have more than one draft. Muntuwandi 19:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

this article is suc a bloated mess that such a step by step procedure will only make sense if we start over from scratch. Move the present version to a subpage, turn the live article into a substub, and then only transfer paragraphs from the subpage to the live article if consensus has been reached. There are simply too many things wrong with the present version to attempt anything else. --dab (𒁳) 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

^^I disagree and am not sure how valuable this proposal is mainly seeing as how it doesn't make any sense and is overly in general..Taharqa 00:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start editing the draft on my userpage here:User:Wikidudeman/RaceEgyptdraft. Those of you interested please add it to your watch list and make any changes that you think should be made. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

first edit made More will come. Improvements will come, additional info, etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, what you are doing now is not good at all. We better ask for unprotecting the actual page than to try to escape from it in order to create another page. What we cannot solve here can hardly be solved elsewere!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 16:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I could get the page unprotected but I think that edit wars would just start again immediately. I'm just doing what Muntuwandi and Taharqa suggested and am making a draft and editing that until the protection expires. If you and the other editors agree to the above rules of a 1 revert rule then we can get it unprotected, otherwise I see no alternative. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the meantime, I've made some edits to the draft..

• Corrected a distortion or two by the anonymous IP. Firstly attributing genetic affinities of moderns from one study to dental affinities of ancients in another with out reading either. This was corrected for better reflection (from the intro).

• Removed the distorted section on "White Egypt" in which the only source provided takes no stance either way, nor cites any demographic influences, not the mention the problematic name of the section and the fact that others have disputed it and its very presence is rooted in a blanking of a previous contribution and removal of reference sources. So it is better to be kept out period.

• Corrected the claim that Ammianus Marcellinus wrote 'Astronomica, when he wasn't even alive. That was Marcus Manilius and I gave a better source for that in Frank Snowden.

• Corrected some of the rewording by wikidudeman. Some of it indicated to me that you didn't read the studies (namely the Keita study from 1992) and how it was reworded by Zerida is just fine since a quotation went along with it. So I simply restored that without the citation.

• Same with the mtdna studies, some weasel worded statements replaced terminology that was actually used in the study. Particularly "influence" over "ancestral heritage" or "link"..

• Reference to the 2007 Zakrzewski grammar wise didn't sound right and what was inferred initially. Phrases like "continuity occured" and "genetic differentiation was sustained" are not phrases used or reported by Zakrzewski.

• Removed both the Minoan picture (which is completely irrelevent anyways) and the punt photo, simply because its relevance was also disputed.

• Added a bit more info, corrected redundancy in Cleopatra section, and that's basically it.Taharqa 17:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my wording was accurate. The study says "The predominant craniometric pattern in the Abydos [First Dynasty] royal tombs is "southern" (tropical African variant)... However, lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I see what the problem was, you took focus off the theme of the study and cited northern trends. I've reverted what I previously wrote because I was confused. The problem here still is cherry picking since it doesn't elaborate on what the Northern modal pattern consists of and leaves room for distortion.

"The Lower Egyptian pattern is 'intermediate' to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan" - Keita 1992

The Maghrebian affinities may be difficult to interpret, given that this series contains a range of variation from tropical African to European metric phenotypes (Keita, 1990). It is not possible to say, because of the complex geometry of the multivariate method (Blakith and Reyment, 1971), what more specific affinities individual crania may have. The Maghreb series does have a modal pattern most similar to late lower dynastic Egyptians - (Keita, 1990).

The “European” metrics of some of the crania clearly emphasize the contrasts found in the tombs. This may **denote the range of variation encompassed by the coastal northern pattern**, given its intermediate position, or reflect the presence of middle easterners. There is no archaeological, linguistic, or historical data which indicate a European or Asiatic invasion of, or migration to, the Nile Valley during First Dynasty times - Keita 1992

In summary, the Abydos First Dynasty royal tomb contents reveal a notable craniometric heterogeneity. **Southerners predominate.** The suggestion of previous work, namely that crania with southern and coastal northern patterns might be present in these tombs, has been demonstrated and explained by historical and archaeological data.” - KeitaTaharqa 20:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You also mentioned that the 2004 study doesn't mention Ethiopia when it clearly does. I recommend that you read it. I've provided a link to the full PDF.[10]Taharqa 20:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The intro also needs a lot of clean-up. There is a problem with summary and attribution. Studies on modern Egyptians for instance wasn't reported accurate as someone reworded it in such a way as not to reflect the relationship with East Africa, by way of the Mitochondria studies which were used as references but not given any weight. Dental and crania studies aswell, seeing as how I just elaborated on summarizing Keita's main points directly from the paper/s, and it being notable that Zakrzewski 2007 reports the same thing. We can discuss it a bit more later but I suggest that if you're going to rewrite the intro and cite sources, make sure that you've read and understand all of them.Taharqa 21:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to ONLY reflect the sources. If something in the article is said that doesn't come from the sources it cites then it needs to go. Also remember that we must summarize what the studies say. If the studies say both northern and southern populations relations then we mention BOTH of them, not just one or the other. We can continue discussing the draft on it's talk page. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

While discussing issues, I only ask for two things in order to avoid repetition.

1)Please address me point for point if you're going to address me.

2)Please do not misrepresent what I say.

Of course we only need to reflect accurately what the sources say, which I've done in citing him directly, including his definition of what the Modal pattern is and his comments that the tropical variant dominated in the south, while the northern patterns were intermediate. The problem is that you omit the details..

Also, you again, reworded the 2004 study of the Gurna population, giving conclusions that were not reached or emphasized by the authors. Putting your own emphasis onto another's work is a form of original research since you mislead by misquoting and mis summarizing. Please address your concerns with direct quotes and bold for emphasis. The focus was on the M1 haplotype which is identified as East African in origin. For instance, the abstract summarizes the entire thing:

The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers. This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations. ***Our results*** suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population.[11]

The "western Eurasian" component merely addresses further similarities with Ethiopians who possess the same haplotypes (though in relatively lower frequencies compared to M1), so this in fact/actually reinforces a link with Ethiopian populations, which was their point. You made your own point based on a misrepresentation of the paper and/or selective reading.. Remember, initially you said that they didn't even mention Ethiopians..Taharqa 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting study in terms of its comments and conclusions regarding the Egyptian population, and it is ludicras to think that such a huge replacement of the Ancient Nubian/East African elements of Egpytians, most present in and Ancient times and today in Upper Egypt, was down to more recent settlements of Greeks, Arabs and Middle Easterners which are known to have settled very little in Egypt or anywhere else they conquered such as in North Africa (most peoples of NW Africa are Berber in origins, whether Arab-speaking or Berber-speaking). Clearly there was a significant indigenous population in Egypt most similar to Berbers that althogh more isolated in pre-history, neighboured and mixed with the population in Upper Egypt that was more similar to Nubians and Eastern Africans, although this element was smaller than that of the former in the populations but nevertheless clearly present. These elements are still found in Egyptians today, especially from Upper Egpt, as well as in the Nubian populations that still inhabit parts of Upper Egypt. Epf 00:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Using your own cited quote from above, notice its a trace of East African (Nubian) markers:

"...Our results suggest that the Gurna (Upper Egypt, near Luxor) population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population." [12] Epf 03:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original researchTaharqa 05:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• There was no original research in any of my discussions or in this response. Most of my discourse is based on references found in the article itself. My quote here is takenfrom one you just used above, but apparently did not understand correctly. Do you ever take the time to read ? I'm not even bothering with another detailed response below because your agenda has been so weaved into your arguments, you deny and attack anyone who challenges your extremist, fringe ideas that barely anyone, and especially barely any Egyptians, support. Overwhelming genetic, archaeological, anthropolgical, and historical evidence is against yours or any unsupported Afrocentric claims to the the enitre Ancient Egyptian populace. Epf 22:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for misreading the study. I've been busy lately. I'll try to read more carefully what the sources say. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Khafra

Statue of Khafra vs the Sphinx

Unlike the giant Sphinx which has been constantly weathered and eroded for centuries, this statue of Khafra was recovered and dates to between 2558 BC and 2532 BC. This statue (and practically all others) has little or no Negroid craniofacial features whatsoever and does not have the so-called "protruding jaws" of the Sphinx. I think we need to bear in mind also that pictographs and statues of Pharoahs and other ancient Egyptians (all which show a predominantly North African appearance in cranio-facial features, rather than sub-saharan African) are more accurate depictions than some giant half-human, half-lion statue exposed to the elements.

(Many scholars debate whether the Sphinx was built at the time of Khafre, including Robert M. Schoch who has stated that the sphinx has a distinctive "African," "Nubian," or "Negroid" aspect which is lacking in the face of Khafre.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epf (talk • contribs) 02:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case, we know Ancient Egypt was divided both into Upper and Lower kingdoms, with the former bordering the clearly "black" (or darker skinned) African kingdom of Kush/Nubia (but still quite distinct in features themselves from other non-eastern, sub-saharan African peoples) and was even controlled by the Kingdom for a few centuries (Kushite dynasty). With this in mind it is even possible that it resembled an Egyptian leader who had origins in Nubia/Kush, but was a minority of the Upper classes and did not resemble the general population. As we have seen in anthropology and genetics, there have been many cases of elite ruling upper classes conquering populations, but forming a small miority in the population (eg. the spread of the Arabs over North Africa and parts of the Levant such as Lebanon, where only a small few are wholly or even mainly descended from ethnic Arabs today, mostly Bedouin)

Afrocentric nature to "black" claims of ancient Egypt

Afrocentrists have pretty much no basis for their claims that Ancient Egypt was primarily "black", especially when both the Nubians, Ethiopians and other ancient peoples of North-Eastern Africa were themselves not fully "black"/Sub-Saharan in the same sense as those those in West, Central and Southern Africa. Most of these Afrocentrists pushing this are themselves generally West, Central or Southern Africans distinct from both the modern and ancient "black" peoples of North-Eastern Africa, with the Nubians, Ethipoians, etc. having some simlar cranio-facial features to "white" populations not shared by other Sub-Saharan Africans (Western, Central, Southern Africa).

Most common held view amongst scholars and Egyptians themselves

Overwhelming, archaeological, anthropological and genetic evidence, as well some less-reliable historical evidence clearly shows the ancient Egyptians were an indigenous and relatively homogenous population that was most similar to other North Africans (Berbers) with a smaller but significant affinity to the neighbouring peoples of the Horn of Africa (Nubians, Ethiopians, etc.). Their Kingdom and Empire however encompassed many other peoples with varied origins during different periods, as did most other Empires and Kingdoms of the Ancient World. With this in mind, there was obviously Nubians, Ethiopians and other groups present in Egypt apart from the the indigenous Egyptians, athough clearly the Nubian element was much more integratred and part of the populatoin (and Egyptians themselves) due its origins in (or bordering) Upper Egypt.

Epf 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Djoser6.jpg

I'll address this sentence by sentence, even though it is completely irrelevant babble full of original research and fringe views. The numbers correspond to each paragraph..

1) Firstly, wasn't this handsome gentleman to the right (Djoser) an earlier predecessor of Khafre? Judging from the Cheek bones, lips, and brow ridge, I'd think it safe to say that he was a southerner (euphemism for "Negro"), which is also implied by Keita and in fact he was from the south, hence, a southerner. To suggest that an eroded sphinx would overtime give it a profile reminiscent of many mainland Africans, as is indicated by the noted prognathism, lips, etc, is both original research and absurd. Erosion is a process of reduction, not addition, therefore a protruding jaw cannot possibly be the object of erosion. Sorry, but you make no sense there.. As far as Khafre not showing any "Negroid" traits, your subjective opinion on that is immaterial to expert testimony:

“ Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation. ”

- Keita and Boyce, 1996

2) This is pseudo-scientific babble that has no reflection in current scientific discourse pertaining to the subject. Hassan, Wilkonson, Keita, Ehret, Williams, Wendorf, and Vogel, among others all place their origins to the south (exactly where you place the so-called "black" populations). Keita and Zakrzewski note a predominance of the very modal pattern (Africoid/Southern/Tropical) that you give minority status, in upper Egypt, still apparent by first dynasty times. Yes, there is evidence of endogamy, with early rulers at Naqada resembling Northern Sudanese more so than the rest of the southern Egyptian populace, as is indicated by the Lovell and Prowse study; however, one has to be familiar with biology to understand exactly what endogamy means within an anthropological framework, when used by biological anthropologists.

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

In other words, they were already related in the first place.. Nice try tho..

3) Afrocentrists have every right to claim what they choose since you don't seem that capable of deconstructing an arbitrary social construct denoting skin color to fulfill your purposes of rebuttal. Also, what you are pushing by suggesting that northeast Africans were never "fully black" is both a false dichotomy and an appeal to popular ignorance by repeating an already debunked myth. Cranial studies of early remains have shown closest similarity with Somalis (concerning East Africa), who are in fact overwhelmingly indigenous with only 15% paternal ancestry from extra-African sources. This is less admixture than even African Americans who generally possess 20% European ancestry, along with Native American. Biohistorical East Africans whom differ phenotypically from many West Africans are still completely indigenous and are a part of indigenous Saharo-tropical variation. They are of the elongated morphology which has nothing to do with non-Africans..

Hiernaux Writes:

The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa [resemble] several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia.. - The people of Africa, 1975

Keita Writes: Much of the previous work focused on “racial” analysis. The concept of race is problematic, and (‘racial” terms have been inconsistently defined and used in African historiography as noted recently (MacGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Vercoutter, 1978).. There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual. - 1990

4) I do agree that the consensus does seem to cite an indigenous origin among Egyptians, but not among modern day Berbers of North Africa, and this is for two reasons, one of which is critical..

A. The Ancient Egyptians did not speak Berber, therefore, they were not a Berber people since Berber is a linguistic classification.

B. There is a noted heterogeneity in lower Egyptian (as opposed to Upper) remains that resembled Maghrebian patterns, but are noted to not be as homogeneous since it contains more southernly patterns.

It is also worth noting that the Egyptians had tropical body plans, or as Robins calls it, "super-negroid".. Hence, the Egyptians were tropically adapted. Comment: Egypt is not in the tropics.. Figure out the implications yourself..

In conclusion, you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about..Taharqa 01:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Response:

1) You did not respond accurately or even read accurately any of the widely-supported information that I had just entered above. Notice how you compeletely ignore Khafra in your response here and jump right to another example which has been damaged and which the cranio-facial features are by no means precisely deciphered (compared to the relatively decent condition of the Khafra statue). I also admitted that the Nubian element (as in a partial element) of some indigenous Egyptians, mostly from the south, as well as Nubians themeselves inhabiting the Kingdom of Egypt. Djoser may have pre-dated Kafra (not by much though) and may have even been of Nubian or mixed Nubian-Egyptian ancestry/origins himself, especially since he was of the ruling classes which in various Kingdoms are known to be of heterogenous origins, especially due to royal mixed marriages and conquests. You also erroneously are claiming statements I did not enter in my discourse above, and I did not say anywhere that erosion caused the protruding lower jaw of the Sphinx, I merely said that due to factors such as erosion and the elements (amongst other factors), features of giant statues like the Sphinx are not reliable in assessing facial features, especially regarding a whole ancient population. You also completely ignored the fact that it is a monument depicting a half-human, half-lion mythical creature with exaggerated features of many sorts. Even if it did reflect a ruler, and one who was either of Nubian or mixed Egyptian-Nubian origins, it would have been remniscent of a member of the ruling classes (in Egypt or Nubia), not the population itself. Clearly my comments did make sense, but you need to read them accurately first in order to understand them. As for your excerpt from one researcher (notably, you seem to over-rely on a few specific ones, especially Keita; as well as others who are known Pan-Africanist or Afrocentrists), this comment from Keita does not answer anything regarding specifically Kafra and merely states the fact that you cant rely on any of these artifacts wholly, and especially not a massive, damaged statue like the Sphinx. The characteristics also mentioned about East Africa are also found in Middle Eastern and Egyptian populations and Keita is only admitting that these features which were once attributed to elements originating from non-Africans, are indigenous to East Africa since all non-African humans migrated out of this region over 100,000 years ago, spreading to the rest of the world.

2) I have no idea what you are labelling as pseudo-scientific, but you could be no further from the truth. I very much doubt most of those researchers place all of Egyptian origins in the south (no one has claimed this whatsoever apart from Afrocentrists), and only that portion of their origins came from Upper Egypt or from Nubia. The darker-skinned populations are today still found in parts of UE, and as is shown by your own genetic studies you cited in previous discussions, is where the Nubian or East-African associated markers are most common (approx. 20%) in indigenous Egyptians. You also do not need to define endogamy to me, but I do not understand your point here. I agree that the populations were endogamous, but that the populations in Upper Egypt that originated from Lower Egypt (similar to Berbers) mixed with the Nubian elements present there (more similar ot East Africans). Most studies have stated that the East African elements (those most common there anyway) in UPPER Egypt are still smaller there than that compared to other markers more common in Lower Egypt and North Africa. You also need to take in mind that Upper Egypt is much less densely populated today than Lower Egypt and that the Nubian populations which still exist are primarily in Upper Egypt.

3) I do not know what arbitrary social construct regarding skin colour you are referring to, but defining aspects of "race" involve cranio-facial features, skin/hair/eye pigmentation, stature etc. Afrocentrism has no right whatsoever to claim all the indigenous ancient Egyptians were "black" since these views are motivated by political, extremist opinions and are insulting to most modern Egyptians today since it ignores theeir predominant non-sub-Saharan (non-Nubian) Ancient Egyptian ancestry which is indigenous to mainly Lower Egypt. Above all, they do not hold a neutral prespective on the subject matter and have been criticized by numerous Egyptologists, anthropologists, and other academics for corrupting data to weave into their own agenda. Science is suppsoed to discover facts and truth from an un-biased perspective, and clearly Afrocentristm is far from this. I never said anywhere that North-east Africans were never fully "black" and again you misinterpret my argument. I only said that they have never been the same or as closely related as other Sub-Saharan Africans of Western, Central and Southern Africa are with each other. East Africans have long been a distinct branch within Africa that has some physical and genetic features similar to non-Africans that is not shared or seen with the other divergent groups in Sub-Saharan Africa. They are of course completely indigenous and sub-saharan African, but they still show clear affinities with those populations which migrated out of Africa from that region and have a closer relation to non-Africans than those from other parts of Africa do.

Your excerpt by Hiernaux dates to 1975 and pre-dates much of the modern anthropological, archaeological and especially genetic studies regarding human populations. The Tutsi themselves originated from East Africa (the Horn), and although East Africans obviously differ from non-africans significantly, at the same time they are also the Africans most closely related to non-Africans as has been shown by population genetics (eg. Haplogroup L3 (mtDNA)). As for Keita (again your main source) it is from 1990, disagrees with more modern and complete analyses on both remains and genetics regarding the population of Upper Egypt. In anyc ase, I have not denied the significant presence of the Nubian or "East African" element in Upper Egypt, only that it was not the only ancestral indigenous group in Egypt as awhole and that the indigenous populations of Lower Egypt were more closely related to the Berbers. Upper Egypt was essentially a crossing point (between these populations and this has been shown with most sutdies. Remnants of the ancestral Nubian population are sitll found in UE to this very day, but they were not the only indigenous group in this region as it was likely a "crossing point" between the people of Lower Egypt/North Africa and the peoples of Nubia/Kush/East Africa (a singificant cline in genetic variation, which has also been clearly documented in genetic studies).

4) a) The language of the ancient Egyptians, as well as it's descendant, Coptic, was not Berber language but was most closely related to Berber: "Egyptian is an Afro-Asiatic language most closely related to Berber, Semitic, and Beja. (Loprieno 1996)" (taken from the Egyptian language article).

b) this comment here is somewhat confusing, but the population of Lower Egypt has indeed been shown to be more heterogenous than that of Upper Egypt, and both have been regarded as fairly homogenous populations retaining mainly indigenous genetic markers. The presence of East African/Nubian markers in Egypt, although still smaller compared to those more similar to the Berbers, merely shows that ancient Egypt (especially Upper Egypt) was a mix of people with origins indigenous to Nubia/Kush (which it directly borders) and with peoples indigenous to mostly Lower Egypt and North Africa (most closely related to Berbers). The cline here again has been noted by the huge majority of genetic studies since the Sahara has been shown to be a significant genetic barrier which separated the populations of Sub-Saharan Africa from those of North Africa except in the Nile Valley, which is obviously the site of Ancient Egypt.

Image of Narmer, founder of the first dynasty and unifier of the Lower and Upper Kingdoms, in the traditional pose of smiting the enemies of Egypt from the Narmer Palette.

Graywacke statue of the pharaoh Menkaura and his consort Queen Khamerernebty II. Originally from his Giza Valley temple (circa 2548-2530 B.C), now on display at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

I do not know what or from where you are reffering to regarding Egyptians having tropical "body'plans" and in this very article, there are numerous references as to why many quotes from ancient historians are not deemed as very reliable. You also needo take in mind that the writer who wrote such comments may have been referring to Nubians or Nubian-descended people within Egypt or merely exaggerating the Mediterranean or mixed Mediterranean-African features of a certain example. Also, what constitutes "tropical adaptation" in human variation apart from a very dark skin tone and who deciphers this ? I am going to conclude here that you may be pushing some elements of an Afrocentric agenda with little scientific validity, and in fact you clearly recognize that I do "know what I am talking about". Next time, I recommend you READ more carefully what I discuss and try not to get angered by the fact I'm only stating opinions and facts that are most widely held amongst scholars, and especially Egyptians. Please try to appraoch this from a more neutral perspective. Epf 03:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)).

Unfortunately you are dealing with the paragon of all Afrocentric mythology. The study about body proportions is being Afrocentrically manipulated to distort the facts... What we see is: "Stature and the pattern of body proportions were investigated in a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the biological effects on human growth of the development and intensification of agriculture, and the formation of state-level social organization. Univariate analyses of variance were performed to assess differences between the sexes and among various time periods. Significant differences were found both in stature and in raw long bone length measurements between the early semipastoral population and the later intensive agricultural population.... The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations."[13] There was LATER mixing in the southern area of Upper Egypt with Nubians that led to this body proportion, that's all. Most indigenous Egyptians were not affected by this. This needs to be corrected in the article. 80.58.205.49 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I will follow the same format, and respond by number.. Though first I'd like to say that posting random, pre-selected images after ignoring the anthropological testimony does nothing for your case. I can do the exact same thing with tiye, whom imo has striking Ethiopian features. But instead I've cited experts to say it for me instead of reducing myself to your level of sloppy original research..

• "Random, pre-selected images" ? You really are starting to not make snense in alot of statements. I did not ignore anthropological or genetic testimony whatsoever and I posted sources from Keita and others below which you completely ignored. I have not posted any original research and it is you who has been quite sloppy, but very ignorant and abrasive, not even responding directly to my own sources. Epf 03:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are posting images and giving us your bunk, biased opinion of them, disregarding what the citation stated, as if we're to give undue weight to your antics. You have cited not one geneticist nor anthropologists who in any way support your distorted view. No mention of Berbers, Mediterraneans, none of that. Just intermediate/variable phenotypes and tropical variants. Your original research is extremely sloppy and easily exposed, and your reverse logic is fooling no one.Taharqa 05:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am posting images supporting the facts and opinions I have stated which are widely held among researchers. You of all people can not accuse others of bias, especially when it simply is not the case here. "You have cited not one geneticist nor anthropologists who in any way support your distorted viees". This basically proves my point that you have not read or responded to the facts and quotes I entered in this discussion which clearly DO support this widely held viewpoint. There is no original research and my quotes do specifically mention the Egyptians being closely related to the Berbers, especially Lower Egypt (and in the pre-dynastic period). Epf 06:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Tiye

Also, citing Robert Schoch' (a non-anthropologist) opinion of one statue as evidence over me citing Keita's (an anthropologist) opinion on the great bulk of Egyptian statuary really says nothing..

• I already citied examples from anthropologists and geneticists as well, and I cited Keita much more thoroughly than you (and from more recent excerpts), however you completely ignored this information because it completely refuted your extremist claims. You also leave out much of Keita's excerpts to suit your biased agenda. Epf 03:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Not one person out of the two (one of which was initially cited by me) has commented on your "north African Berber" or Mediterranean statuary, yet now you go off on a tangent because a noted anthropologist says most of them look like east Africans. How typical.. You are overstating your miserable case to counter anything I've given you. Your paranoia of extremism has mind rapped you of any logic you may have possessed.Taharqa 05:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you read my quotes, Keita did comment repeatedly about the relation between the indigenous people of Lower Egypt and the Berbers. My quotes from Keita were also more extensive and recent than most of those you entered. What noted Anthropologists says who looks like East Africans ? Again, almost all of what limited anthropological data you gather is from samples in Upper Egypt. You have over-stated your case and completely ignored the facts and opinions I have presented, focusing ONLY on repeating your close-minded unsupported opinions, rejecting and denying everyone and everything else. Ask anyone from a neutral POV who reads this discussion and believe me they will tell you that it is 'your paranoia of extremism' that has in fact 'mind rapped you of any logic you may have possessed' (again, you keep up with the 'ad hominem' attacks btw). Epf 06:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

1) You are seriously grasping at straws and there are so many holes on top of desperate speculation in your argument that I don't know where to start. I'll start with the ad hominem attack against Keita I guess. You assert that Prof. S.O.Y. Keita, who publishes in the most prestigious journals, was a student of Larry Angel, and is a current affiliate of the smithonian institute and foremost expert on North African biohistory, is an Afrocentrist? Let's see what a reliable source/non wikipedia editor has to say about that.

The contributions by Keita are outstanding exceptions to the general lack of both demographic study and objectivity (Keita 1990; Keita 1992). DNA research is expected to transform this debate, though self-critical consciousness is not always displayed by proponents.[14]..

In other words, that's just another asinine comment from you that can easily be disregarded as nonsense.

As far as your "expert' opinion that such sustained damage to the Sphinx should render it unreliable for analysis, funny how a Harvard Orthodontist and Senior Forensic investigator in Sheldon Peck and Frank Domingo begs to differ, in that they did just that, while drawing the relevant conclusion that the Sphinx has an African physiognomy.[15]

Funny how the scholars seem to unanimously disagree with you and all I have to do is cite them.

• No its funny that you think I said it was totally unreliable for analysis. I only said that in terms of it being a half-lion, half-man creature, and subject to extensive damage, it isn't the MOST reliable when deciphering the appearance of ancient Egyptians. Also, it would be reflecting a ruling class/elite, not the general population. Regardless, there are still more numerous examples of the ruling elite (in both the Old Kingdom and the New) which did not have such "African or Nubian" features, such as Khafre.Epf 03:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

^Your opinion doesn't matter since Keita, Drake, and Petrie says most of the Old Kingdom statuary looks like East africans from the horn.[16].. In addition, Peck and Dominigo commented on the African nature of the Sphinx. Your opinion is immaterial. Not to mention that you contradict yourself by conceding earlier that art objects aren't a reliable source, yet and still refuted by the experts when you choose to rely on it as a last resort..Taharqa 05:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have nowhere contradicted myself and I still maintain that they are mostly unreliable, especially when compared to other sorts of evidence. I have never relied on it as a last resort whatsoever, and only used them as small examples since that was part of the initial topic of the discussion.Epf 06:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Pertaining to Djoser and his family having been probably of Nubian/Egyptian admixture, again, I'll address you by direct quotation:

Drake reviewed numerous volumes of photographs of Egyptian portraits and statuary; using either (old) anthropological or North American social criteria, he found large numbers of "Negroids". Petries interpretation of Dynasty III as having come from the Sudan is based on portraiture. Dynasty III can be seen as having terminated the Thinite period or having begun the Old kingdom, and had Upper Egyptian origins. - Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships

2) You are again lying to yourself and appealing once more to the all too convenient ad hominem fallacy. You claim that those who place Egyptian origins in the south are Afrocentrist? Is that right? Among the people I cited for you, not one of these people are considered by any stretch of the imagination, Afrocentric, nor are the vast majority ethnically African American.

Hassan, Wilkonson, Trigger, Keita, Ehret, Williams, Wendorf, and Vogel, etc..

• At least one of those, Ehret, actually is an Africanist/Afro-centrist, but most of those, as well as most Egyptologists place the origins of Egyptians from both the Upper and Lower Kingdoms, hence the dynastic period did not begin until both were unified. Epf 03:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ehret is no where near Afrocentric, stop grasping at straws and defaming scholars.. You are so lost in your own confusion.. In any event, the citations are clear..Taharqa 05:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• 'Ehret is nowhere near Afrocentric', how about Africanist then ? Don't tell me your going to be foolish enough to deny his Afrocentric opinions on Ancient Egypt, documented significantly by most Egyptologists and academics involed in this subject area. I am not 'defaming' any scholars whatsoever and not grasping at any straws, only pointout the unreliablilty of some of your sources. In any event, you seem to be lost in your own world, ignoring everyone but yourself. My citations are very clear, but you still choose to ignore them and not respond to them. Epf 06:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

^There are plenty more, and for your information, the consensus in Egyptology is that is was not from the north, so ultimately they came from the south. As a matter of fact, concerning your constant appeals to Afrocentrism, this is what the world's leading Africentric critic has to say:

On the Origin of The Egyptians

"Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54." - Mary Lefkowitz

Wow, you're on a roll.

In addition, your claim that upper Egyptians diverged from northern Egyptians is false. The earliest ancestors and cultural forbearers to the AE were the Badarians (4000 B.C.), who were found craniometrically to be much more similar to tropical Africans than to northern Europeans, clustering very closely to the Kenyan series.[17] In other words, they were already tropical african variants to begin with.

Zakrzewski notes continuity between this group and later Egyptians.[18]

3) Hiernaux is far from outdated and is in fact supported by mainstream anthropology and cited by various anthropologists. His elongated African is well established in anthropological discourse as noted by Brace, Keita, and others. He remains generally undisputed. You were also shown another source reinforcing what Hiernaux said. Adversely, Hiernaux was the one debunking outdated anthropology. You are a wikipedia editor with no means to dispute valid research.

Claiming that the Keita source from 1990 is erroneous and is an appeal to novelty.. You've cited not one genetics study yet you feel encouraged to disputed the work of a noted professional?

How about Keita 2005, which addresses the genetics issue?

A review of the recent literature indicates that there are male lineage ties between African peoples who have been traditionally labeled as being ‘‘racially’’ different, with ‘‘racially’’ implying an ontologically deep divide. The PN2 transition, a Y chromosome marker, defines a lineage (within the YAPþ derived haplogroup E or III) that emerged in Africa probably before the last glacial maximum, but after the migration of modern humans from Africa (see Semino et al., 2004) This mutation forms a clade that has two daughter subclades (defined by the biallelic markers M35/215 (or 215/M35) and M2) that unites numerous phenotypically variant African populations from the supra-Saharan, Saharan, and sub-Saharan regions based on current data (Underhill, 2001) - S.O.Y. Keita, American Journal of Human Biology (2004)

He notes that even modern Egyptians are overwhelmingly of the PN2 derivation. Again, these variants have nothing to do with non-Africans, but unites populations throughout.

4) The Egyptians spoke Afro-asiatic, which is a language phylum indigenous to Africa, with particular origins south of Egypt, most likely in Ethiopia. Relationships notwithstanding, many consider it to relate closest with that of Chadic and Berber, Beja and/or Semitic, depending on the linguist; however, most concur that the entire language phyla its self originated in Africa, with ancient Egyptian being on a variety that never left, and with Semitic being the only one that did.

• Ehret groups Egyptian, Berber, and Semitic together in a North Afro-Asiatic subgroup
• Paul Newman (1980) groups Berber with Chadic and Egyptian with Semitic, while questioning the inclusion of Omotic;
• Fleming (1981) divided non-Omotic Afroasiatic, or "Erythraean", into three groups, Cushitic, Semitic, and Chadic-Berber-Egyptian; he later added Semitic and Beja to the latter, and proposed Ongotá as a tentative new third branch of Erythraean;
• Lionel Bender (1997) advocates a "Macro-Cushitic" consisting of Berber, Cushitic, and Semitic, while regarding Chadic and Omotic as the most remote branches;
• Vladimir Orel and Olga Stolbova (1995) group Berber with Semitic, group Chadic with Egyptian, and split Cushitic into five or more independent branches of Afro-Asiatic, seeing Cushitic as a Sprachbund rather than a valid family;
• Alexander Militarev (2000), on the basis of lexicostatistics, groups Berber with Chadic and both, more distantly, with Semitic, as against Cushitic and Omotic.

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

- - Professor Christopher Ehret. "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture", Egypt in Africa, (1996), pp. 23-24

Your simplistic method at presenting correct information is less than sufficient..

B) There is no such thing as a "Nubian marker" and the African markers that are found among modern Egyptians are most consistent with Ethiopians, etc, with a few variants in common with lower Sudan by way of paternal ancestry. As a matter of fact, Lucotte and Mercier 2003 shows that judging from the haplotypes observed, southern Egyptians shared genetically closer ties with Northern Sudan than with Northern Egypt, indicated by high frequencies of E3, or V, XI, and IV. With XI and IV being far more dominant in southern Egypt and lower Nubia but relatively scarce in lower/northern Egypt, while V was far more dominant in lower Egypt, but relatively scarce in southern Egypt and lower Sudan, respectively. The outliners in this study were the lower Egyptians.

5) Your problem is that you don't pay attention. I inform you of the fact that ancient Egyptians had tropical body plans/limb ratios, and you go off on a tangent about the reliability of ancient accounts. I'm referring to modern science my confused friend, simply ask for a citation. And no, they were Nubians, the subjects of the studies were all Egyptians. Skeletons were examined from the predynastic all the way into the dynastic, and the results were the same, with only a slight change in stature (not limb ratio) due to diet, suggesting the the ancient Egyptians generally had tropical body plans.

Gay Robins writes:

An attempt has been made to estimate male and female Egyptian stature from long bone length usingTrotter &Gleser negro stature formulae, previous work by the authors having shown that these rather than white formulae give more consistent results with male dynastic material. Evidence is presented that the tibia length should include the spine in the later (1958) formulae and should exclude it in the earlier (1952) formulae. It is also shown that better results are obtained if the constants in the stature formulae are modified so as to conform more exactly with the basic data published byTrotter &Gleser. When consistency has been achieved in this way, predynastic, proportions are founded to be such that distal segments of the limbs are even longer in relation to the proximal segments than they are in modern negroes. Such proportions are termed «super-negroid»[19]

Similarly, Boyce and Keita point out:

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

Zakrzewski confirms these results while also assessing continuity throughout the dynastic. She writes:

The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; (data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations. - Sonia Zakrzewski (2003)

^You see, the problem is not that I didn't read what you wrote, but that what you've written is totally irrelevant to the facts.. I wish you well nonetheless..Taharqa 04:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Taharaq, I don't have time to fully answer to all this manipulation of quotes and evidence to suit your agenda. You claim to have all this evidence thats widely supported, but you compeltely ignore a larger amount of evidence, shown even in the article, which either coincides or completely refutes alot of the evidence you posted. You also completely misinterpreted much of what I entered into my discussions above, and again you have misinterpreted your own data. Btw, there are a few markers very common to Nubians, but I never said "Nubian markers", I said patterns most common to Nubians, which also happen to be most similar to other East Africans. This is just one example why it's probably not even worth my time to respond to you anymore since you don't accurately read my arguments. Another example is how you claim I labelled Keita as an Afrocentrist which I did not, and haven't researched this academic's background, but only stated that you tended to over-rely on evidence from this source and afew minority of others (clearly I see now that Keita is a reliable source and we have both a variety of sources. The thing you need to realize is that both your fringe evidence and the supported evidence which you have somewhat manipulated into your arguments, almost entirely deal with the indigenous inhabitants of Upper Egypt rather than Lower Egypt. You also completely ignore the fact that not all of Ancient Egypt originated in the south/UE, and the two pre-dynastic Kingdoms were UNIFIED either by Narmer or Menes. In any case, no evidence and none you have provided has shown that the Upper Egyptian populace was dominated by a people 'most similar' to the Nubians and most scholars agree that it was likely a mix between the indigenous population most similar to Berbers (most common in Lower Egypt) and those more similar to Nubians and East Africans, just as there is today in Upper Egypt (too a much lesser extent though).

IF you know anything about Egyptian history, you would know that although the Badarian culture is the oldest pre-dynstic society to have been found (so far) in Upper Egypt, it doesn't negate the fact that the Lower Kingdom arose independently itself until the two were unified.

"Most archaeological sites in Egypt have been excavated only in Upper Egypt, because the silt of the Nile River was more heavily deposited at the delta region, and most delta sites from the predynastic period have since been totally buried. (Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. (Princeton: University Press, 1992), p. 10.) Although Lower Egypt seems to have had a significantly different culture, its nature is still unknown. (Redford)"

(This quote was as taken from the Predynastic Egypt)

Now, throw in the genetic evidence on this very article showing the greatest genetic similarities between people in Lower Egypt to the Berbers of North Africa, with little relation to Nubians or other groups more related to EAST Africans, and you can see how the indigenous populace of Lower Egypt was distinct in many ways from Upper Egypt, just as it is today (though to a lesser extent). All of the modern population genetics studies of this region and others in Europe/Middle/Asia East clearly show the the dominant continuation of indigenous populations over time. In Lower Egypt, the indigenous element has shown to be a population most related to the Berbers of North Africa which have aways inhabited the land there, not to Greeks, not to Arabs, not to Nubians or any other recent settlers which left little demographic impact in the lands they conquered. The main traces in the Egyptian populace to Nubians or peoples more similar to East Africans are in Upper Egypt. The vast majority of anthropologists and geneticists agree there was significant difference between the Lower and Upper Egyptian populations, with those in Upper Egypt still retaining markers more similar to Nubians, Ethiopians etc. compared to Lower Egypt where there is little presence of these markers.

"Beginning in the predynastic period, some differences between the populations of Upper and Lower Egypt were ascertained through their skeletal remains, suggesting a gradual clinal pattern north to south. (Batrawi A (1945). The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, Part I. J Roy Anthropol Inst 75:81-102.; Batrawi A. 1946. The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, Part II. J Roy Anthropol Inst 76:131-156.; Keita SOY (1990). Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa. Am J Phys Anthropol 83:35–48.; Keita SOY (1992). Further studies of crania from ancient northern Africa: an analysis of crania from First Dynasty Egyptian tombs. Am J Phys Anthropol 87:245–254.)"

"Some biological anthropologists such as Shomarka Keita believe the range of variability to be primarily indigenous and not necessarily the result of significant intermingling of widely divergent peoples. (Keita SOY and Rick A. Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544). Keita describes the northern and southern patterns of the early predynastic period as "northern-Egyptian-Maghreb" and "tropical African variant" (overlapping with Nubia/Kush) respectively. He shows that a progressive change in Upper Egypt toward the northern Egyptian pattern takes place through the predynastic period. The southern pattern continues to predominate in Abydos, Upper Egypt by the First Dynasty, but "lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity. (Keita 1992, p. 251)"

Above taken from Egyptians article.

I believe that will end whatever agenda or goals you may (or may not) have had in this discussion, or claims of dominance in the whole Ancient population of peoples most similar to Nubians, Ethiopians etc., when clearly there was a significant distinction between the indigenous Lower and Upper populations, and in Ancient Egypt there was more of a gradual cline in the genetic variation from north (more similar to Berbers) to south (with increasing similarities to Nubians, etc). Epf 23:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"A review of the recent literature indicates that there are male lineage ties between African peoples who have been traditionally labeled as being ‘‘racially’’ different, with ‘‘racially’’ implying an ontologically deep divide. The PN2 transition, a Y chromosome marker, defines a lineage (within the YAPþ derived haplogroup E or III) that emerged in Africa probably before the last glacial maximum, but after the migration of modern humans from Africa (see Semino et al., 2004) This mutation forms a clade that has two daughter subclades (defined by the biallelic markers M35/215 (or 215/M35) and M2) that unites numerous phenotypically variant African populations from the supra-Saharan, Saharan, and sub-Saharan regions based on current data (Underhill, 2001) - S.O.Y. Keita, American Journal of Human Biology (2004)"

"He notes that even modern Egyptians are overwhelmingly of the PN2 derivation. Again, these variants have nothing to do with non-Africans, but unites populations throughout." Taharaq

• He does note that the marker emerged in Africa after migration of modern humans out of Africa, but he only states that the marker "unifies" some of the populations of Sub-Saharan, Saharan and supra-Saharan Africa, but not to which extent. Most of these populations cited have mixed, (eg. the Tuaregs of the Sahara) to varying degrees, but the presence of the marker in supra-Saharan/North African populations, although present, is very minimal.

An example of the connection, although minor, from sub-saharans in North African populations, resembling a steep gradient (compared to a more gradual one in Egypt).

"Rando et al. 1998 (as cited by[20]) "detected female-mediated gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa to NW Africa" amounting to as much as 21.5% of the mtDNA sequences in a sample of NW African populations; the amount varied from 82% (Touaregs, group of mixed sub-Saharan and Berber origins) to 4% (Rifains, Berber/Arab-Berber people). This north-south gradient in the sub-Saharan contribution to the gene pool is supported by Esteban et al." Epf 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

80.58.205.49, I think you're lost. Putting your own spin on the said study does not in reality distort its implication, it merely shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. There is no mention of admixture with Nubians (only a possible Nubian sample in the MK), the preceding populations still had a tropical morphology that clustered along side later Egyptians more than any other population, and the implication is verified by both Keita and Robins just in case you're confused. The only thing that needs to be changed is your attention to detail. Thanx for your concern anyways..Taharqa 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Epf, your main problem is that you expect me to let you get away with your feeble rhetoric and lies without calling you out on it. You indeed asserted that Keita is a well-known pan-africanist and afrocentric, which is laughable and shows how this little discussion was a far gone conclusion from the start. You indeed did use the term "Nubian markers", though when I call you out on the shear ignorance of that statement, you try to save face. The last resort for someone in your situation is to basically babble and accuse, yet not defend or demonstrate. Your claim was that I've shown no evidence that Upper Egyptians were most closely related the East Africans, when I did by direct quotation. The problem is that you conveniently choose not to read what is presented to you. You've shown nothing but sloppy, scatter-brained original research and I will reiterate the point:

No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; (data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. - Sonia Zakrzewski

A review of studies covering the biological relationship of the ancient Egyptians was undertaken. An overview of the data from the studies suggests that the major biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical Africans. The range of indigenous tropical African phenotypes is great; and this range of variation must be considered in any discussion of the Nile Valley peoples. The early southern Egyptians belonged primarily to an African descent group which gained some Near Eastern affinity through gene flow with the passage of time. - Dept. of Sociology-Anthropology Anatomy and Plastic Surgery, Howard University, 20059 Washington, D.C., USA

^There is no way for any fair-minded person without a nefarious agenda to take this out of context, there is nothing to take out of context. Only those in denial, obsessed with distorting relevant facts for their own self-esteem will be able to so overtly spin something that is otherwise so clear..

• I find it funny you claim this here when you yourself ignore my evidence from Keita and others which shows that Lower Egyptians are quite distinct from this and show more affinities to Berbers, compared to the affinities to Nubians in Upper Egypt. I have not misinterpretd this excerpt here whatsoever and never refuted or disagreed with it, but you have completely ignored the evidence which shows the largeer affinities in mostly Lower Egypt, but also Egypt overall (on average) to the Berbers (though in specifically Upper Egypt there is much more affinities to Nubians). Epf 01:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

1) Upper Egyptians were an early African descent group who received gene flow from the near east overtime. If you'd read Keita, he emphatically states that if any admixture happened by the first dynasty, it did little to effect the population in Upper Egypt.

2) The AE were tropically adapted like more southernly Africans, as can be inferred by their elongated limb ratio.

I've also already addressed Northern Egyptians as well..

"The Lower Egyptian pattern is 'intermediate' to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan" - Keita 1992

I know that breaks you heart, but it turns out that they weren't any more similar to Northern Europeans phenotypically than they were to West Africans and Khoisan. While the Southerners were Tropical variants. This stuff isn't as hard as you make it out to be, lol..

• Actually, if YOU knew anything about Egyptian history you'd know that Badari culture was the predecessor to Naqada, Naqada was the predecessor to all culture which defined Egypt as Egypt was unified from the south. Southern culture = Egyptian culture as Northern culture conformed. All Egyptologists are very aware of this, while you're the only one who isn't.[21]

• It is also funny now how you change the entire premise of your argument to the lower Egyptians. You're reporting to me what I've already been over and have never denied.

• Also, your straw man argument is more than apparent. I've never climed that the entire Egyptian population belonged to one fixed architype, that there can be effectively ignored as a logical fallacy to weasel away from the fact that this entire time you've had no point and oppositely, you're the one who was trying to box Egyptians into your little "North African Berber" category, which has been easily proven to be fallacious. You had a nice run though..Taharqa 00:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Response:

Again, you are misinterpreting my discussion and claiming things I did not say. I NEVER said Keita specifically was a pan-africanist or an Afrocentrist, and only stated that other sources you used were (I didnt specify then, but an example is Christopher Ehret, a known pan-Africanist and Afrocentrist). Yes I did say "Nubian markers' but I intended it to be as a 'short form' for a pattern of markers that are most commonly found in Nubian or other similar East African populations. I did not 'babble and'accuse' whatsoever, and nowhere near to what you have (and are doing now), but made a clear and concise argument with more evident sources.

"Your claim was that I've shown no evidence that Upper Egyptians were most closely related the East Africans, when I did by direct quotation."

I NEVER claimed this and I would like you to actually find where I made any claim of the sort, and again, do you even READ my discussions clearly and thoroughly ? OBVIOUSLY NOT. I have by no means cited "scatter-brained, sloppy" original research and merely summarized that data from most sources I was reffering to in the matter. In my last discussion I actually entered much of thiese sources for you to actually read, but clearly you have ignored them. Again, your quotes prior to this last entry here were ALL DEALING WITH UPPER EGYPT.

"I've also already addressed Northern Egyptians as well..

"The Lower Egyptian pattern is 'intermediate' to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan" - Keita 1992"

This is the first time you've really addressed Lower Egypt, and you also compeltely IGNORED all of the sources and evidence I posted above, including alot from KEITA about the differences between Lower and Upper Egypt in the pre-dynastic period.

"I know that breaks you heart, but it turns out that they weren't any more similar to Northern Europeans phenotypical than they were to West Africans and Khoisan. While the Southerners were Tropical variants. This stuff isn't as hard as you make it out to be, lol.."

What are you talking about ?? This statement makes little or no sense, and again my own evidence, including from Keita completely shows that Lower Egyptians in the pre-dynastic period (and the present day) were far more similar to other inidigenous North Africans such as the Berbers. I also NEVER mentioned "Northern Europeans" and the fact you keep entering this in the discussion CLEARLY shows your AFROCENTRISM.

"Actually, if YOU knew anything about Egyptian history you'd know that Badari culture was the predecessor to Naqada, Naqada was the predecessor to all culture which defined Egypt as Egypt was unified from the south. Southern culture = Egyptian culture as Northern culture conformed. All Egyptologists are very aware of this, while you're the only one who isn't"

And if you actually would take the time to READ my discussion and evidence above, I clearly showed that both Naqada and Badari were confined to Upper Egypt, not to Lower Egypt. My evidence and most academics agree, that the origins of Lower Egypt are still mainly unknown since: (I am re-posting this since you decided to ignore it)

"Most archaeological sites in Egypt have been excavated only in Upper Egypt, because the silt of the Nile River was more heavily deposited at the delta region, and most delta sites from the predynastic period have since been totally buried. (Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. (Princeton: University Press, 1992), p. 10.) Although Lower Egypt seems to have had a significantly different culture, its nature is still unknown. (Redford)"

Lower and Upper Egypt had distinct cultures, and aspects of the Dynastic period originated from both Kingdoms. You also need to take in mind that Egyptologists currently dont even know who actually unified the Kingdoms in the first place (Narmer?, Menes? or others?), but that tablet of the Narmer Palette I showed previously shows him with BOTH the symbols of Upper Egypt AND Lower Egypt.

"Also, your straw man argument is more than apparent. I've never climed that the entire Egyptian population belonged to one fixed architype, that there can be effectively ignored as a logical fallacy to weasel away from the fact that this entire time you've had no point and oppositely, you're the one who was trying to box Egyptians into your little "North African Berber" category, which has been easily proven to be fallacious. You had a nice run though"

The fact you keep saying I have a [[straw man] argument shows what little validity you have in this, especially when you just compltely ignored the evidence I stated. You actually have been claiming that the Ancient Egyptian population was dominated by a poulation more similar to the Nubians, East Africans, etc. with various examples, including the (old) quote from Keita which I refuted with more recent evidence ALSO from Keita showing the actual significant distinction between Lower and Upper indigenous Egyptian populations. I have just shown with the evidence I posted, not to mention overwhelming other sources not shown here, clearly stating that Lower Egypt, including the indigenous people there during the pre-dynastic period, were most similar to other people of North Africa, such as the Berbers, and is no where near being "fallacious". This also goes to shows again that you deny the significant evidence showing that indigenous Lower Egyptians and a few Upper Egyptians had more similarities to the Berbers. Clearly you are advocating some domniance of Ancient Egypt by people more similar ot he Nubians when no evidence and few researchers support this, including KEITA. Epf 00:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Beginning in the predynastic period, some differences between the populations of Upper and Lower Egypt were ascertained through their skeletal remains, suggesting a gradual clinal pattern north to south. (Batrawi A (1945). The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, Part I. J Roy Anthropol Inst 75:81-102.; Batrawi A. 1946. The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, Part II. J Roy Anthropol Inst 76:131-156.; Keita SOY (1990). Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa. Am J Phys Anthropol 83:35–48.; Keita SOY (1992). Further studies of crania from ancient northern Africa: an analysis of crania from First Dynasty Egyptian tombs. Am J Phys Anthropol 87:245–254.)"

"Some biological anthropologists such as Shomarka Keita believe the range of variability to be primarily indigenous and not necessarily the result of significant intermingling of widely divergent peoples. (Keita SOY and Rick A. Kittles. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544). Keita describes the northern and southern patterns of the early predynastic period as "northern-Egyptian-Maghreb" and "tropical African variant" (overlapping with Nubia/Kush) respectively. He shows that a progressive change in Upper Egypt toward the northern Egyptian pattern takes place through the predynastic period. The southern pattern continues to predominate in Abydos, Upper Egypt by the First Dynasty, but "lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity. (Keita 1992, p. 251)"

I cited this again, because you completely ignored it before. Epf 00:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I swear, you're doing nothing now but babbling. I saw no new citations presented so I'll make this short..

It seems that you have done a complete 180 and you now have completely focused your attention on lower Egypt, which I was never concerned with, and you keep citing a statement that I helped contribute to the article as if it is evidence against me; surely you make no sense, in addition to your straw man arguments.. Bullet points..

• You claimed that Egyptians as a whole are most closely related to modern Berbers,

• I called you out on the strangeness of that claim by pointing out to you that Egyptians didn't speak a Berber language, that Upper Egyptians overlapped more southernly Africans, and that lower Egyptians were more heterogeneous than modern day Berbers.

• Unable to refute any of it, you continue to babble and misrepresent my position.

^Point and case: you have no point.. Thank you for your time..Taharqa 01:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I did put new citations, but you chose to completely ignore those above because it removes much of whatever points you were trying to make. I have by no means made a complete "180" and YOU were the one who focused nearly ALL of your evidence on UPPER EGYPT. I have made no 'straw man' arguments and you sound ridiculous by continuing to assert this. I also have no idea what you mean by you 'citing a statement...as if its evidence against you', I don't know what you are getting at there. I was, from the start, concerned with Ancient Egyptians as a whole, but you could only support your extremist views and agenda on the matter with evidence only regarding Upper Egypt.

"You claimed that Egyptians as a whole are most closely related to modern Berbers"

• I claimed that on the whole, most of the indigenous Egyptians have more genetic affinities with other peopels of NOrth Africa suc has the Berbers. This is very true for modern Egyptians, but in the pre-dynasti c period, there was more distinction between Lower Egypt (more related to the Berbers) and Upper Egypt (which had more affinities with Nubians than those in Lower Egypt)

"I called you out on the strangeness of that claim by pointing out to you that Egyptians didn't speak a Berber language, that Upper Egyptians overlapped more southernly Africans, and that lower Egyptians were more heterogeneous than modern day Berbers."

• There was no 'strangeness' and I actually acknoledged these claims and agreed with that there were more Nubian elements in upper Egypt. I also agreed the Egyptians did not speak a Berber language, but a language that was most similar to Berber than to other languages, especially dialects in Lower Egypt. I also agreed that Lower Egyptians were slightly more heterogenous than the Berbers, with minor other Nubian influxes from Upper Egypt and the middle east, but clearly showed they were still a largely homogenous and indigenous population to Lower Egypt, most similar to the Berbers. I also stated that the Kingdom itself had people of different origins, but the majority Egyptians were indigenous to Lower Egypt, and were distinct in genetic affinities from the peopel fo Upper Egypt showing a gradual cline in variation between north and south (more gradual now than in pre-dynastic times).

"Unable to refute any of it, you continue to babble and misrepresent my position"

• In fact I did refute much of it, and did not 'babble' whatsoever. Anyone who reads this debate will clearly see that it is you who did not read much of my arguments, misinterpreted much of what I stated, and also re-worded numerous statements to try and undermine my position.

• Point and case, I obviously made very good points that you were annoyed by or had difficulty responding to directly because of your own extremist viewpoint and agenda on the issue (as other users in discussions with you have also pointed out). Your arrogant, abrasive, and complete rejection of other facts and viewpoints which refute your opinions without even considering them did not help what support you had in this debate. Ciao, Epf 01:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Quote: I did put new citations, but you chose to completely ignore those above because it removes whatever points you were trying to make. I have by no means made a complte "180" and YOU were the one who focused nearly ALL of your evidence on UPPER EGYPT. I have made no 'straw man' arguments and you sound ridiculous by continuing to assert this. I also have no idea what you mean by you 'citing a statement...as if its evidence against you', I don't know what you are getting at there. I was, from the start, concerned with Ancient Egyptians as a whole, but you could only support your extremist views and agenda on the matter with evidence only regarding Upper Egypt.

• The so-called "new citations" that you've presented are nothing more than sources that I've already used initially to refute your initial bogus claims. If you'd notice, my evidence is merely to debunk this nonsense section, and to do that all I need to cite is studies from Upper Egypt, so what's your point? Upper Egypt was the driving force behind dynastic Egypt as well, though at the end of the day, as noted, neither group was closely related to Northern Europeans. The only extreme views have obviously come from you as none of it is backed by the evidence.

• Actually, you never used the specific sources I entered and you only used one similar author of the sources I cited (Keita). I subsequently posted more detailed evidence from Keita which you omitted anad ignored completely because it refuted your claims. You only cite evidence from Upper Egypt because that is the only evidence which shows populations similar to Nubians and others in Ancient Egypt, completely ignoring the distinct people and culture of Lower Egypt. Both Lower and Upper Egypt were driving forces behind Dynastic Egypt and "from the Tasian period onward, it appears that Upper Egypt was influenced strongly by the culture of Lower Egypt. (Grimal, Nicolas. A History of Ancient Egypt. p.35. Librairie Arthéme Fayard, 1988.)" Also, you erroneously stated earlier that the Naqada culture pre-dated the Badarian when in fact, it followed it.

Epf 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your circular reasoning will not suffice here. You merely re-quoted a source that I'm already aquainted with and used it as a red herring. That's not going to work. The point is that your Berber claims have been dismantled by way of lingustic and skeletal evidence, along with your claims of "caucasian" affinity, seeing as how the northern pattern is intermediate, while the southern is tropical variant.

Intermediate - lying between two extremes in time or space or degree

Saharo-tropical variant - Patterns which subsumes the range of morphologies of great time depth found (exclusively) in Africa. - See Keita, 1993

• Circular reasoning ? do you even know what that means ? I did not re-quote ANY of YOUR sources (but did not respond directly to them, unlike you with my quotes) and again you are re-wording entries and making false accusations towards my arguments because they easily refuted yours. My Berber claims have by no means been dismantled, did you even read the references I cited by Keita stating that indigenous Lower Egyptians were most similar to Berbers ? You provided no linguistic evidence that refutues the BErber connection, only enhanced it and your skeletal (and most other evidence) is restricted to UPPER EGYPT. KEita has never said the northern pattern was intermediate and if you read my quote correctly, you wil lsee that Lower Egyptians were most related to Berbers, not Nubians, East Africans, etc. Keita also states that the Maghrebi-Lower Egyptian affinities were also present in Upper Egypt, though to a lesser extent than in Lower Egypt. Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I also reiterate, southern culture totally replaced northern culture during the process of unification. Common knowledge..

The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. - Joseph O. Vogel.Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, AltaMira Press, (1997), pp. 465-472Taharqa 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice how he specifies UPPER Egypt and makes no reference to any sort of connection between the Sudanese transplant and that of Lower Egypt which was distinct from Upper Egypt. Dynastic Egypt only began when Lower and Upper Egypt unified, and both Kingdoms contributed. As I have already stated, nowhere do Egyptologists belive that Upper Egypt "replaced" northern culture, especially when I already quoted Redford stating that from the Tasian period onward (the preiod that PRE-DATES the Badarian culture), Upper Egypt was strongly influenced byt he culture of Lower Egypt. Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I claimed that on the whole, most of the indigenous Egyptians have more genetic affinities with other peopels of NOrth Africa suc has the Berbers. This is very true for modern Egyptians, but in the pre-dynasti c period, there was more distinction between Lower Egypt (more related to the Berbers) and Upper Egypt (which had more affinities with Nubians than those in Lower Egypt)

Your claim was shown to have been bunk when I showed you the study of Badari crania, showing them to cluster closest along side tropical Africans. We all know that Badari culture is the predecessor of Egyptian culture while northern Egypt was not. I've also shown you that there was continuity in upper Egypt that lasted into the dynastic and that Egyptians as a whole had tropical body plans, while Berbers do not.

• If you would have READ my sources and arguments, that claim is what is mostly held and what has been most shown by both genetics and anthropology. Again you only focus on evidence (Badari crania) from Upper Egypt. What most Egyptologists know is that the Tasian culture pre-dated and overlapped with Badarian culture, and ultimately it was the predecessor of Egyptian culture since, and as I already quoted, from the Tasian period onward, it appears that Upper Egypt was influenced strongly by the culture of Lower Egypt. You have by no means showed that "Egyptians as a whole" had "tropical body plans" since practically all the evidence citing this comes from Upper Egypt. The evidence from Keita and others I stated has also shown that the indigenous Lower Egyptian popultation was most cloesly related to the Berbers, so this in turn would also refute your claim.

Epf 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, Zakrzewski clearly shows that Badari is related to later Egyptians in her 2007 paper[22], while the body plan is found to remain stable through out time, from the samples studied (PD to MK).

Re-quoting:

The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; (data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations[23]

I've addressed lower Egyptian culture vs. southern above by citation..Taharqa 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• You actually didn't address anything in Lower Egypt vs. Upper Egypt, only pushing some completely unsupported POV that Upper Egyptian culture was solely or even mainly responsible for Dynastic Egypt and heavily influenced Lower Egypt. This ridiculous claim is barely supported whatsoever and as I have shown with the quote from Redford, the opposite was true from the Tasian period onward. Both Lower and Upepr Egypt formed the culture of Dynastic Egypt. In terms of the evidence of Zakrzewski, I have already staed evidence from numerous sources, including Keita which contradict this, but the quote above is again specifically referring to mainly Upper Egyptian samples.Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no 'strangeness' and I actually acknoledged these claims and agreed with that there were more Nubian elements in upper Egypt. I also agreed the Egyptians did not speak a Berber language, but a language that was most similar to Berber than to other languages, especially dialects in Lower Egypt. I also agreed that Lower Egyptians were slightly more heterogenous than the Berbers, with minor other Nubian influxes from Upper Egypt and the middle east, but clearly showed they were still a largely homogenous and indigenous population to Lower Egypt, most similar to the Berbers. I also stated that the Kingdom itself had people of different origins, but the majority Egyptians were indigenous to Lower Egypt, and were distinct in genetic affinities from the peopel fo Upper Egypt showing a gradual cline in variation between north and south (more gradual now than in pre-dynastic times)

• 1) "Nubia' was never a unified state, remember that Egypt is older than Kush and the first state in the Sudan was Ta-seti, which was actually the first nome of Upper Egypt. The element in Upper Egypt was an Egyptian element since they were the first people there and ones who dynastic culture is attributed to, I have demonstrated this by citation against your ranting.

2) Egyptian was not most similar to Berber and I'[ve even listed linguists who've cited a closer relationship to Chadic, spoken by the people of Chad.. Also scholars have made a notable connection with the Beja.

Quote: Many scholars believe the Beja to be derived from early Egyptians because of their language and physical features. They are the indigenous people of this area, and we first know of them in historical references in the Sixth Dynasty of ancient Egypt.[24]

Typical Beja girl

• When did I claim that Nubia was a unified state ? I was merely referring to the indigenous people of that region. The element related to Nubians in Upper Egypt was an 'Egyptian' element in the sense it was an ancestral population of Upper Egypt, but it still was closely related to the peoples of Nubia and had origins stemming from there. Dynastic culture is attributed to both Lower and Upper Egypt as I have shown, and again began with the unification of those two kingdoms. Read the article on Ancient Egyptian language and you will see how Berber is considered by most linguists to be the most closely related to Ancient Egyptian and especially the Lower dialects. I also admit that it was closely related to Beja and Chadic.

Epf 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you keep referencing "Nubians" as if people whom lived in southern Egypt from the Neolithic until the dynastic were "Nubians" when there was never a state called "Nubia" in antiquity. Territory of Naqada peoples overlapped that of the A-group, but at the same time, neither of these people can be defined as "Nubians". What you mean to say is that Upper Egyptians had tropical relationships, like other southernly Africans.. The rest of what you're saying is redundant..Taharqa 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Umm, actually I keep referring to the affinities between indigenous people in Upper Egypt with the bordering Nubians to the south of that region. The Nubians were the indigenous peoples of these lands, and as you know eventually formed the Kingdom of Kush. Whati mean to say is what I said, that Upper Egyptians had genetic affinities with specifically Nubians, Ethiopians and other peoples of East Africa, not other sub-sharan Africans who are quite distinct from these groups (divergent groups as has ben shown by Y-chromosome and MtDNA analysis, eg. MtDNA haplogroups L1, L2 and L3). ALso, Keita still clearly shows that even in pre-dynastic times, Maghrebi-Egyptian genetic affinities were also found in Upepr Egypt, but no where near as dominant or as common as in Lower Egypt. Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

3) Your claim once again that the majority of Egyptians descend from lower Egypt is clearly proven false by the archaological data seeing as how the first urban centers were at Abydos, from whence Egypt was united. Of course being proven wrong and all, this is your last resort, At the end of the day, the most renowned Egyptologists don't agree with you, even as it concerns Egypt as a whole.

• When did I ever say the majority of Egyptians descend from Upper Egypt ? I thought that was the point you were wrongfully pursuing ? I have constantly mentioned the contribution of both Upper and Lower Egypt, but with a slightly larger emphasis on Lower Egypt since that is where the bulk of the population came from, and the indigenous peoples who had more affinities to other North Africans/Berbers. Abydos is indeed in Upper Egypt, but although it was one of the oldest sites, it still doesn't negate the presence of equally old sites in Lower Egypt, or the fact that when Narmer (or Menes or who else) unified the two kingdoms, Memphis in Lower Egypt was chose as the capital. Rememeber as I stated from my previous quote by Redford, "most archaeological sites in Egypt have been excavated only in Upper Egypt", and "although Lower Egypt seems to have had a significantly different culture, its nature is still unknown".

Epf 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I edited myself; I meant lower Egypt. The first and most complex centers were in Upper Egypt and as the state began to unite, southerners moved north, adding to the populace. This is all mentioned in much of the work I've cited. Upper Egypt is the seat of the founding dynasty.Taharqa 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well actually, based on the number of sites that have been uncovered so far, there were more complex urban centres in Upper Egypt. Also, its typical of yoru arrogance that you admit southerners moving north, while same time ignoring the movement of northerners to south (unless they were already indigenous to that region as well), as has been shown by Keita. Upper Egypt was the seat of the founding dynasty ? based on who and what exactly ? Narmer, Hor-Aha or Menes ? because from the information I've read, they not only dont know who unified the two kingdoms, they don't know the kingdom of origin of these leaders. Again, I also stress the fact that the culture of Lower Egypt significantly affected that of Upper Egypt from the Tasian (pre-dating Badarian) period onwards. Both Lower and Upper Egypt were responsible for the culture of the Dynastic period. Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting Frank Yurco.. "Among the foreigners, the Nubians were closest ethnically to the Egyptians. In the predynastic period, the Nubians shared the same culture as the Egyptians and even evolved the same Pharaonic structure"[25]

• I don't dispute this since Nubia bordered Upper Egypt, but 'ethnically' encompasses culture as well as ancestral origins and physical appearance, and clearly the quote is referring more to cultural relations. Also, was Yurco specifying relations between Upper Egypt to Nubia or Egypt as a whole during the unified, dynastic period ? Epf 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Spin it as you will, but the article is dealing with whether or not the Egyptians were "black or white", which is irrelevant and subjective. Ethnic groups are related by way of similar ancestry as well as culture, there's no need to distort the connotation.Taharqa 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not spinning anything here, but the article and relation it speaks of seems to be mainly from a cultural perspective, not an ancestral one. There's no distortion here whatsoever and I already stated above that both ancestry and culture encompass ethnicity. When you speak of ethnicity though, it doesn't automatically include both and this quote clearly mentions that the Nubians shared the same CULTURE as the Egyptians, but is specifically referring to Upper Egypt, not Lower (since the number of archaeological sites has been far less and the origins of Lower Egypt more obscure). Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact I did refute much of it, and did not 'babble' whatsoever. Anyone who reads this debate will clearly see that it is you who did not read much of my arguments, misinterpreted much of what I stated, and also re-worded numerous statements to try and undermine my position.

• Appealing to imaginary people will not help make sense of your garbled rhetoric and lack of substantiation. You have clearly been refuted on almost all acounts and the most you can provide is boring semantics.

• What do you mean by appealing to 'imaginary people' ? You mean like the other people in this discussion ? How about the examples posted here about you from Egyegy ? I do not need this to make sense of my valid and much more widely held facts and opinions. You in fact are the one who has been soundly refuted and who's extremist, Africanist, Afrocentric viewpoints have clearly been exposed. Epf 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Egyegy is the last person you'd want to personally attack me with. Personal attacks are a sign of petty desperation reflective of a disorganized and unprepared presentation of an extremely sloppy argument. It is a lack luster response to a situation that you find your self humiliated in, thus, you resort to ridiculous ad hominems like "Afrocentrist" this and that, appealing to ethnicity, while conceding within your self that you have ultimately accomplished nothing whatsoever.. That's not going to work..Taharqa 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well I don't know that user, but I was only using it as one example (which itself inluded many examples of your abrasive, arrogant and agenda-fuelled behaviour). I find it amusing you say "that personal attacks are a sign of petty desperation reflective of a disorganized and unprepared presentation of an extremely sloppy argument." I couldn't agree with you more, so why have you resorted to such personal attacks ? Your behaviour in this discussion has been ridiculous, its evident your pushing some agenda with extremist viewpoints, you ignore to respond to any of my quoted material and facts, and you are most guilty of what you ignorantly accuse me of (such as personal attacks). There is no lack luster response and its maazing how you keep describing the format of your own arguments when criticizing mine. You are the one who has most likely been 'humiliated' and embarrassed yourself here, again with your extremist viewpoints now exposed. You by far have resorted to more ad hominem attacks than anyone,and in fact you prove that I have accomplished much by engaging you in this to debate to expose your ridculous, unsupported opinions. Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Point and case, I obviously made very good points that you were annoyed by or had difficulty responding to directly because of your own extremist viewpoint and agenda on the issue (as other users in discussions with you have also pointed out). Your arrogant, abrasive, and complete rejection of other facts and viewpoints which refute your opnions without even considering them did not help what supprot you had in this debate.

• Point and case, you once again have no point and have effectively reduced yourself to the status of conspiracy nut, while not addressing the numerous citations and facts put before you. But hey, who can blame you?Taharqa 02:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Once again you keep asserting I have no point when the truth of the matter is that I have clearly made my points. The issue is that you simply ignore all of the evidence I have posted and still have not responded directly to them, because no evidence that supports your extremist views comes from Lower Egypt. You continue to focus solely a few examples from Upper Egypt and reject any other evidence that easily refutes your ridiculous claims. You are guilty of everything that you accuse me of when I have consistently and directly responded to your evidence and opinions (you have not reciprocated this). You also again resort to personal attacks which is against Wiki policy (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). You have been refuted and you still haven't responded to the evidence I posted, so there is little left for ou to say unless you change your abrasive style of discussion. Epf 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

^^This is an prime example of what modern day Eurocentrism has been reduced to.. Ignore facts, chase red herrings, make up phony charges of conspiracy, and basically whine that he has wasted his and everybody else's time with his senseless diatribe. Oh well, back to the drawing board..Taharqa 04:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• and another example of an accusation and "ad hominem" attack of your own that has NO basis whatsoever. There is no Eurocentrism in my arguments and I have approached this from a neutral, scientific perspective. The same can not be said about you however, and clearly you have a biased, fringe viewpoint. "Ignore facts, chase red herrings, make up phony charges of conspiracy, and basically whine that he has wasted his and everybody else's time with his senseless diatribe": I have done none of this but again I find it amusing that you are guilty of all these things you accuse me of, especially when you have ignored and not responded to my facts and quotes whatsoever. Epf 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

For Pete's sake Taharqa stop attacking and insulting everyone who doesn't agree with you!! The man cited his sources and is contributing to the consensus discussion like everyone else. There is no basis for your harassment of him on his talk page and calling him stormfront and that nonsense, you could get reported for this. Of course Egyptians are closely related to Berbers which is cited in the studies that you yourself on this page quote over and over and over and over again, both the cranial ones and the genetic ones. Quit being so damn aggressive and carry on the discussion without all the attacks. Egyegy 06:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I stopped reading all comments after I realized that certain people do not like to heed information or use practical logic and constantly chase straw men while torturing us with their inane rhetoric. At the end of the day, EPf has changed his argument at least 3 times, has contradicted himself on numerous occasions, and has been soudly rebutted and even embarrassed during this engagement. So If it doesn't pertain to improvement or what we've been discussiong initially, then it shall be ignored.Taharqa 16:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Wikidudeman/RaceEgyptdraft

Please see Please see User talk:Wikidudeman/RaceEgyptdraft for further discussions on the progress of this article. Any opinions on that draft should be expressed there, not here. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research - just a reminder

This talk page contains a tremendous amount of original research, which I hope you all know may and will absolutely not be included in the article. Not only the facts but the conclusions drawn from them need to have been previously covered by reliable sources to be eligible for inclusion in the article. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions. If the preceding statement sounds unfamiliar to you, please read Wikipedia:No original research, especially the part about synthesis, very carefully. Thank you. Picaroon (t) 03:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There definetly is a tendency to regard original research acceptable in this article. In some cases I think its hard to avoid, but you are absolutely correct, it has to be removed. SenseOnes 08:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was just a senseless debate that really had nothing to do with the article, and was rooted in someone else's personal views, in which I inappropriately responded to..Taharqa 16:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

diop melanin test

The web page cited as footnote 48 refers to the wrong paper as (Diop 1977 without a full bibliographic citation). The primary source for Diop's claims about a melanin test is Diop, C. A. 1973. “Pigmentation des anciens Egyptiens. Test par la Mélanine,” Bulletin de l’IFAN, XXXV, B: 515-531.Itzcoatl 04:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC) {{edit protected}}Itzcoatl 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request that footnote 48 be repaced by the citation to the primary source as provided.Itzcoatl 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is currently protected due to disputes about its content. Therefore, could I ask that a couple more editors post here whether they would agree that this change is uncontroversial and beneficial to the article, since I do not know much about this topic and cannot judge the reliability of the sources cited. Tra (Talk) 16:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

One long single view section (Sphinx)

I have no interest in the race of the ancient Egyptians; to me it is rather unimportant. However reading the Sphinx section, I found the source selection incredible selective. Let me just run this section down in a short summery: first a paragraph about specific travellers remarking on the Sphinx Negro features, Volney - Flaubert - Du Bois. Short discredit of Volney, follower by discredit of the discreditor (Budge)!!! Then a paragraph of Budge stuff I can’t actually decipherer the meaning of, followed by a Shavit comment, which is immediately discredit and lastly some forensics stuff, I also cannot really decipherer what it is meant to say.

Puhaaa…. To me this is scarcely a section worth the bits it occupies. It’s ok to draw some race similarities to the Sphinx, but at least make it a good reading (and understandable), and for all try to put it in a somewhat balanced perspective. For example, Volney is good, but what about those numerous other contemporary (and prior) travellers that does NOT comment on any Negro features of the Sphinx, like Sicard, Norden, Pococke, de Bruijn, de Maillet, de Monconys Sonnini, Vansleb, Granger (Tourtechot), Thévet Thévenot, La Boullaye, Savary, Browne, Bruce, Lucas, Greaves, Sandys etc.. this is just a small selection of 16th - 18th century travellers. There are literally 100s more and when you get into the 19th and 20th there are 1000s more, not one receiving a single word in this section. Of course many noted Egyptologists cautiously, and maybe even wisely, refrain to comment directly on such matters; after all it is a 300 year old subject. But a silence of the masses is also a saying. Please put some balance into this section. Twthmoses 01:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

the sphinx was a black African. Everybody who looks at him says so.Muntuwandi 01:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not – and who is everybody? I can pick 20 random 19th century European/American Egyptian travel works and will find no such view. I look at him (the sphinx) and I don’t see it. Consequence it’s a point of view. The Sphinx does not have any obvious Negro features, cause if it were that obviously there would be a near consent though 800 years of European Egyptian travels litterateur. There is no such thing, actually quite to opposite. Even the Arabs before (and simultaneously) do not say such a thing. This section lists only those that comment on Negro features and displays a total disregard for anybody else. It is a near 100% bias section, listing the views of a minority, while ignoring the plurality that says nothing on the issue or the other minority that talks about non-Negro feature.Twthmoses 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The sphinx is a statute with the body of a lion and the head of a pharaoh Khafre. Khafre other intact statutes do not have any black features and also the statute of his father Khufu and his brother Menkaure. This is a just a hoax that some people are trying to sell. Why there is no mention of the fact that most of the pharaoh mummies do not show any West African black feature? --24.136.161.44 04:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this article conflates a bona fide topic (population history of Ancient Egypt) and "Black pride" ideology (Afrocentric Egyptology). The only solution is splitting this into an Egyptological part and an Afrocentrist part, I don't see any other way to make this "debate" stop going in circles. dab (𒁳) 18:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia very specifically forbids that, as it would be a definite POV fork.--Ramdrake 18:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For those of you interested, We are totally rewriting this article. Please see this link for the current rewritten version of the section about the Sphinx. If anyone has any issues with it, please feel free to reword it for clarity or comment on the talk page on how to improve it. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All that is important with regards to the sphinx is that some notable people have stated that the sphinx looks Africoid. Because the identity of the sphinx is unknown, we may never know for sure. What is factual is that many people have made similar observations. Whether this is just opinion, or whether the sphinx was constructed deliberately or accidentally to look Africoid we do not know. Muntuwandi 23:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Sphinx looks black according to testimonies. Twthmoses failed to mention what people is quoting said about the Sphinx. But here is another testimony. It comes from Dominique Vivant Denon, an artist who was part of the expedition of Napoléon Bonaparte in Egypt (1798-1799): "Je n’eus que le temps d’observer le Sphinx qui mérite d’être dessiné avec le soin le plus scrupuleux, et qui ne l’a jamais été de cette manière. Quoique ses proportions soient colossales, les contours qui en sont conservés sont aussi souples que purs : l’expression de la tête est douce, grâcieuse et tranquille ; le caractère en est africain : mais la bouche, dont les lèvres sont épaisses, a une mollesse dans le mouvement et une finesse d’exécution vraiment admirables ; c’est de la chair et de la vie.". Trying to explain what he meant by "le caractère africain", he says this speaking about the Egyptian art: "Quant au caractère de leur figure humaine, n’empruntant rien des autres nations, ils ont copié leur propre nature, qui était plus gracieuse que belle. ... en tout, le caractère africain, dont le Nègre est la charge, et peut-être le principe". If you don't read French, Denon is saying this: the Sphinx has an African appearance. The African appearance is negro. You can read Denon in his book Vivant DENON, Voyage dans la Basse et le Haute Égypte pendant les campagnes du Général BONAPARTE, Paris, 1ere édition Didot l’Aîné, 1802 ; réédition, Pygmalion/Gérard Watelet, 1990, p. 109.. The problem with many people writing here is that they ignore the different phenotypes of the Black Africans. Please, listen to Ivan Van Sertima Ivan Van Sertima on FTP-Part1C: Human Beings Are Equal--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(to Lusala) I fail at no such thing. As I have already said it is unimportant to me what race the Sphinx is, I’m merely concerned with the absolute one sided view that is presented in this section. I do not in any way dispute that some people sees a black character, I’m asking you to put that into perspective of the masses who does not. If I was unfamiliar with the Sphinx and came to wiki and read this section, I would leave with the opinion that there is centuries of consent that the Sphinx’s face is clearly Negro and that thinking otherwise is an abnormality. That is not the fact. The fact is that the vast masses have nothing to say on the issue, and a minority is indeed to describe the face as “obvious” Negro.

Vivant Denon is a great man, second to non in observation skills and sense for details, and it would be far from my nature to try to discredit this man. Denon do see an African character (and nothing wrong with that), but I have actually read Vivant Denon and to the story goes a little more. Denon had two hours at Giza, of which he spend 1 ½ on the pyramids (yes that is in the very same book you quote from) the remaining minutes he use on the Sphinx and surrounding monuments. As you can see from the copperplate made from his quick sketch he made in 1797, the sphinx is all Negro looking, grossly inaccurate Negro proportions, pretty far from the actual look of the Sphinx. When he wrote his text in 1801/02, what do you think influenced him more, his wage 30 min memory 4-5 years back or an all looking Negro sketch he made? What is really important to Denon is the gracious expression of the Sphinx (and what he actually speaks about), and it is exactly this that concerns most (and they write about it) that sees the Sphinx, not any Negro appearance. You will also find a large number of references to the head, as being that of a woman. In what world does an “obvious” Negro (male?) face gets confused with the face of a woman? What is obvious here is that points of views are colliding. It is that I want to be addressed in the section, not just this one sided minority view the section now relates.

Johann Michael Vansleb systematically reporting anything he knows about Egypt, not shy of running with dubious explanations; he even has a full chapter on the Egyptians and nobody receives any favours in that, black, brown, white, moors or Copts, says on the “obvious” Negro features of the Sphinx – nothing! Claude Sicard, the all knowing and unmatchable Claude Sicard. The expert, not an expert, but the expert in all Egyptian matters in the early 18th century. His remarks on the “obvious” Negro features of the Sphinx amount to – nothing! Benoît de Maillet visited the Giza Plateau 40 times, during 1692-1708, and behold he is an anthropologist and nothing short of an early Charles Darwin, explores the site, even calls for a systematically survey of all monuments in Egypt, remarks on the “obvious” Negro features of the Sphinx with – nothing. Frederic Louis Norden, the one and only primary source to the looks of a whole horde of Egyptian monuments prior to 19th-20th century excavations, systematically takes every ancient authors comments up for review, as to what is really there today (1737-1738) – from Alexandria to short of Abu Simbel, including a couple of modern authors. Makes the first near accurate drawings of the Sphinx, front and profile. His remarks on the “obvious” Negro features of the Sphinx – nothing. The undisputed master of systematically Egyptian research, the alchemist of research and details, the one and only, Edward William Lane. I know of nobody that can pump out a master work – twice (“Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians” and “Description of Egypt”), some 170 years ago, which only fault today is that it’s not up to date on current events. Let me quote him about the Sphinx "The face (see plate 18) is much mutilated; the nose being broken off. The loss gives, to the expression of the face, much of a Negro character; but the features of the countenance of the ancient Egyptian (as well as the comparative lightness of complexion) widely distinguished him from the negro; and the nose of the former particularly differed from that of the latter, being slightly aquiline, and rather rounded at the end"

Jean-François Champollion, Giovanni Battista Belzoni, Giovanni Caviglia, Richard William Howard Vyse, Karl Richard Lepsius, Flinders Petrie etc… on the “obvious” Negro features of the Sphinx - nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing… Let’s try the more common man, the more casual travellers, who does not explore and interpret (at least not as much), but rather tells his/theirs travel tale, Eliot Warburton, Thomas Rees, John Stoddard, D. A. Randall, Robert Hichens etc… on the “obvious” Negro features of the Sphinx - nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing ….

Quoting is good, quoting only those that suits your view is not. There are people that sees an obvious Negro features in the Sphinx, and that is ok and it should definitely be included, but there are many more that does not, and they too have a voice. Perspective, ladies and Gentlemen, perspective.Twthmoses 17:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Twthmoses, you are stressing your "nothing". I am not asking you about their silence. You have to report if they said that the Sphink looks something else than a Negro. Let us say if he looks Caucasian for example. If they did not say anything about this, maybe it was obvious to them that the Sphinx is Negro! So don't speak about what is not said. Denon said what he said. He did not need months to say if what he has before him is african or not. Once more, your notion of the Negro race is too restrictive. It has to include all the ranges of Blacks. Even today, all the Blacks do not look alike. It depends from the region they are from. Quite the same with the so-called Caucasians. They don't look alike. But they are still Caucasian. I understand, micro-anthropology is still alive when it comes to Black issues. Now, if you know somebody who said that the Sphinx looks something else than a Negro, nobody, I think, forbids you to add such an information to the article. But have you already found one?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the rewrite underway. Comment on that if you have any comments. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

^^Even though the user who brought up the issue is using original research to distort what is already presented, wikidudeman is right, the other version is more neutral, please comment on that. One thing I will say is that it doesn't have to be a "single view" if anyone has noticed anything differently. Apparently, the first person you cite Twthmoses, actually agrees, but doesn't share the same sentiment on the ancient Egyptians themselves, which points to original research since the section isn't about the AE population, since there are many different views on that alone. Not to mention modern orthodontists and forensic artists have commented echoing the same thing, so even the application of scientific methodology repeats the same thing. There is one thing to present a view and there is another thing to force neutrality simply because you want it to be there, but that doesn't mean that we should bury these other comments under the sand because you're uncomfortable with them. Simply cite a contrary view (about the sphinx) and this thread would be unnecessary.Taharqa 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Twthmoses, Feel free to E-mail me your arguments, or leave them on my talk page and I'll examine them and figure out what to do from there. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

African Studies vs Egyptology?

how on earth would it be a "pov fork" to treat Afrocentrism at Afrocentrism, as Afrocentrism, and Egyptology at Egyptology as Egyptology?? What is against policy is, much rather, the constant attempt to pass Afrocenrism for Egyptology and vice versa. This needs to stop. dab (𒁳) 12:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, saying that, when speaking of the Ancient Egyptians, that if one concludes they might have been black (or that some of them were, at least)it's Afrocentrism, and if one concludes they were White or Middle Eastern it is genuine Egyptology, that is definitely a POV fork. Both opinions belong in the same article.--Ramdrake 13:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

that's nonsense. nobody even says they were "White", the entire "black or white" non-issue belongs on Afrocentrism, while serious discussion of population history belong on the Egyptological article. We don't separate between "pro-white" vs. "pro-black" sources, we distiuish academic WP:RS, dividing Egyptology (Yurco, Budge, Hawass) from African American Studies (Lefkowitz, Asante) and Afrocentrist ramblings (Diop). Saying Egyptology and African American Studies are two unrelated subjects does not qualify as "pov-fork". dab (𒁳) 14:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, ancient Egypt is an African civilization. Thus, Egyptology, the science that studies ancient Egypt, like Nubology, Congology, Lubology, etc., is just part of Africology (African Studies). --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a pov fork and original research. Dab is trying to redefine academia in order to fit his argument. Plenty of credible academics cite Egypt as a Northeast African, North African, or merely African civilization, while many past scholars cited it as a Near Eastern or Mediterranean society (some still do, but with the death of the dynastic race, it isn't the consensus). These are not political views as they are based on population movements and geography, in addition to culture and language. Please see the section entitled, "academic view".. As far as 'black vs. white", in an article about race, it deserves some brief mention since it is notable to the topic (See WP:Notability), whether or not it is notable to Eurocentrism and Afrocentrism as well.. Trying to change/control the format of the topic by splitting it up is the ultimate pov fork (this has been tried more than once and articles were deleted and remerged).. Also, why would you cite Budge as an "Egyptologist" when he is considered outdated (why? I have no idea) and used by many Afrocentrists (which is probably why he is now called outdated)? You certainly contradict yourself..Taharqa 17:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostafa Hefny and Egyptian view

There was a dispute at the draft page, mainly between me and Egyegy[26] about Mostafa Hefny's inclusion in Egyptian views. It is based on the article cited here, called Black or white? Egyptian immigrant fights for black classification.. He did a google search and claims that Mostafa, although an Egyptian whose family is native to the area around Aswan since ancient times, is Nubian by ethnicity and therefore has no say so in the section entitled 'Egyptian View", even though Hefny is an Egyptian. This is similar to an African American not being able to represent the view of Americans. Not to mention that the article is about Ancient Egypt, while modern Egypt (which the article is not about anyways) its self has no one single ethnicity that defines modern Egypt, so why exclude particular ones?Taharqa 01:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly not like an African American not being able to represent the view of Americans, it's more like an African American trying to represent the view of Hispanic Americans just because both groups have Americans citizenship. They are two different ethnicities just like the Egyptians and the Nubians, even though the Nubians don't have their own independent country and so must carry Egyptian and Sudanese citizenship. The article is about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians themselves, not the ancient Nubians, ancient Berbers who were present in ancient Egypt too, so modern Nubians, Berbers and other ethnic minorities in Egypt do not represent ethnic Egyptians themselves. Egyegy 01:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

^^Your logic is absurd imo since your claim only makes sense if you're arguing that modern Arabic-speaking or lighter skinned Egyptians are somehow more native to the country than so-called Nubian Egyptians (which is original research and contradicted by the press releases which says his family lived around Aswan for thousands of years), or if you're claiming that Mostafa is not an Egyptian, therefore doesn't represent an Egyptian view, as an African American can't represent an American view unless they are Euro-American, even though the indigenous populations are the aboriginals now confined to the reservations. Both suggestions make no sense. Ancient Egyptians weren't semities, or in other words, didn't speak semitic, so why is the opinion of a few semitic-speaking ethnic groups who now inhabit Egypt, somehow more noteworthy than Mostafa Hefny, an Egyptian who is descendant from the ancient people of Aswan[27]. In those days there were no such ethnic group called "Nubians" and Aswan wasn't a part of Nehesi territory since that was south of Elephantine.Taharqa 01:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mostafa Hefny himself identifies as a Nubian like I proved on the draft talk page, so you original research is irrelevant. Your tone toward the Nubians also smacks of colonialist mentality, which is typical of afrocentrics, that denies the Nubians the right to define themselves how they want, independently from Egyptians. The Nubians have been fighting to do that for a long time because they are proud of their unique culture, even though a lot of them speak Arabic now. Stop imposing your warped racialist views on them. He's a Nubian, get over it. Egyegy 01:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

He's an Egyptian citizen and is described as such by the relevant source, which also describes him as being proud of his "Egyptian culture", which I have gone over with you. The very first paragraph states:

Mostafa Hefny was born in Egypt and has always been proud of his Egyptian culture and his African ancestry. But when Hefny immigrated to America, the U.S. government told him he was no longer a black man.[28]

Here, it is reported in a condensed version of a Chicago symposium:

Dr. Hefny, a very dark-skinned Nubian Egyptian native, descendant of a people who have lived at Aswan for thousands of years, wrote a four-page, single-spaced response on January 14, 1988. Among other things, he said:

“ I am a black man at five levels, the biological, social, psychological, political and ideological levels. I want to reconcile my strong black identity with my classification. ... As a black man and as an African, I am proud of this [my African] heritage. My classification as a white man takes away my black pride and my black heritage. ”

[29]

The racism expressed in your denial to include this doctor's opinion and claims as a "Nubian-Egyptian" from Aswan into a section relevant to "Egyptians" demonstrates the hypocrisy in what you seem so desperate to elaborate with the said venom and babblings towards me.

My point still stands.. We are still blessed with nothing but your hateful rhetoric and lack of substantiation and the same scholars you rely on, contradict you with the data. Somebody was so caught off guard by the new and improved 2006 Brace (yet still flawed, according to some contemporaries) for example, that they removed the study. Maybe because he actually has Modern Egyptians in his sampling this time in a much more comprehensive study, and they don't affiliate with the the ancient Egyptians at all, who fit in a NE African twig with Nubians (ancient and modern) and Somalia. - The Questionable Contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European Craniofacial Form (See fig.1, page 3 and fig. 3, page 4)..

^^Of course the irony is that you don't consider Mostafa Hefny a "real Egyptian" due to his ethnicity. Wow..Taharqa 04:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Taharqa try to keep your racist colonialism to yourself, this is a respectable encyclopedia. The man says he is a proud black African not Egyptian, and is proud of his black (meaning non-Egyptian) heritage. He never once calls himself Egyptian despite the cnn article that describes him as an Egyptian citizen, though that part is true. Stop trying to fit him into your afrocentric bubble world like you're desperately trying to do with the ancient Egyptians. Egyegy 04:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The sources say that he is proud of his Egyptian culture and is an Egyptian native from Aswan. There is nothing racist about that; your paranoia is distracting away from what's important.Taharqa 04:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Anybody knows that Nubians moved to Aswan after the establishment of the High Dam which led to the flooding of their native homeland south of Aswan. Some extremist Nubians want a separate country from Egypt. Portion of Nubians are now Egyptian citizens and the majority are citizen of Sudan where their civilization centers actually exist. Nubians are not ancient Egyptians they were mainly enemy of Egypt as shown on the walls of most Egyptian temples. Mr. Hefny has all the right to choose his ethnicity but he represents only himself. --ThutmoseIII 07:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)