User:Deeceevoice/Tutankhamun Talk Page - Tut's Racial Identity

Controversy surrounding "race"

/Controversy surrounding racial characteristics

The above material is from the 'old' Race of ancient Egyptians article, from the revision dated August 17, 2008. It is rearranged and partly rewritten, and it wouldn't take to much time to incorporate it into this article. However, after the discussion at Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza‎, I think it would be best to wait with merging the material here, but I would appreciate comments or suggestions about it. Zara1709 (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Any information relating to the identity of Tutankhamen -- including his race/ethnicity -- is wholly appropriate right here. It as relevant to an article on Tut as the nationality and family information would be to an article on anyone else. Whatever information presented, however, should relate specifically to Tutankhamen and his family and not go beyond the parameters of the subject of this article. People wishing to quash the Afrocentrist viewpoint at Race of ancient Egyptians have argued that the racial/ethnic identity of a single pharaoh should not be used to make broader statements about the general population of Dynastic Egypt, that such information does not belong there. I was editing that article when the information regarding Tut's "race" was excised from the article. And now you're saying it doesn't belong here? Nuh-uh. I ain't buyin' it. Tut was a man, an Egyptian, a pharoah. His family came from the South (Sudan). All that belongs here. Tut was also a Black man. The archaeological evidence points clearly to that fact. And that also belongs here. deeceevoice (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What you (apparently), and several other editors, regardless of their skin colour, have yet to realize is that 'race' is a social construct. Outside of the extremely limited context of Western and Western influenced societies in the 19. and 20. century (hopefully not in the 21.) is doesn't make sense. With ancient Egypt as it was, a mixture of several populations of varying skin colour, it would equally be possible to describe Tutankhamun as black or as white, I think. After all, Barack Obama is considered African-American, too.

Whilst this is

To me, at least, this issue is clearer than the similar one at Great Sphinx of Giza‎. The controversy was about Tutankhamun and the reconstruction of his face, it was not about Afrocentric historiography. Lefkowitz and Asante are battling about Socrates or Cleopatra, not about Tutankhamun or the Sphinx. I understand your feelings when you say your contributions were excised from this article, but I think that a neutral summary of the controversy would belong here (and not in some ancient Egyptian race something article). And it is the Afrocentric minority view that I am striving to include here. Currently the material is not used anywhere. Zara1709 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That's funny. You don't need to/can't school me on "race." I understand completely what "race" is and what it is not -- which is why I often put it in quotes. But as long as there is racism, as long as Whites and Arabs try to appropriate that which is not theirs, as long as things like that insulting, bogus, blatantly falsified image of Tut that was emblazoned across the cover of National Geographic magazine continue to pollute, poison and twist the truth, as long as the myth/lie of a White/"mixed-race"/Arab/Semitic dynastic Egypt continues to haunt the psyche of deliberately miseducated masses, as long as history is contorted and subverted in the service of White supremacy, then the ethnicity, skin color, obvious relatedness of Tut to other Black, African populations (and not to Whites or Arabs) is important and an issue to be examined and clarified/rectified. As far as I'm concerned, that is what "race" is legitimately. A means of addressing the biological relatedness of human populations. And in that context, it is entirely legitimate. Never mind the lies and attendant myths. And, frankly, I don't care what you call it: "race," ethnicity -- whatever. But the issue of Tutankhamun's identity is an issue, and it will continue to be addressed and examined. The blatant POV-pushing of Zahi Hawass of Cairo's Supreme Council of Antiquities and gatekeeper to dynastic Egypt's tangible past apparently thinks Tut's ethnicity/"race" is important. (It was he who triumphantly announced, after the forensic reconstruction effort a few years back that the scientists involved determined Tut to be "Caucasoid" -- something which Susan Anton of the American team denied in no uncertain terms when I traded e-mails with her.) And for once, I agree with Hawass. Tut's ethnicity is absolutely important. And information relevant to the subject certainly belongs in this article. deeceevoice (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing. Barack Obama is not African-American. It's a common misuse of the term. He is Kenyan-American. African-Americans are descended of the people formerly known as "American Negroes," people whose ancestors survived the Middle Passage and slavery. We chose that term for ourselves, having decided to discard the term "Negro." Furthermore, I see no relevance of Obama to this issue. All evidence points to the fact that Tutankhamun was unmixed and flat-out Nilotic Black. Within geographic context, there is absolutely nothing about the totality of his craniofacial characteristics -- and certainly not his physique -- that could lead any knowledgeable rational, dispassionate investigator to any other conclusion. (I regret to say that the member of the French team I spoke with who assigned a skin color to their forensic reconstruction was/is a police professional -- with no background in the peoples of the region, or their phenotypical characteristics. I, therefore, cannot characterize him as "knowledgeable.") Finally, reading your response further, my "feelings" have nothing to do with this. This is about scholarship and truth. deeceevoice (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a (somewhat unfortunate) habit of skimming people's comments and not reading them in their entirety -- at least almost never on the first pass if they are of some length. If you are of the opinion that the issue of Tut's ethnicity/"race" -- whatever you choose to call it -- should be addressed here, then great. We're at least on the same page in that regard. My contributions will have to come later. I've got to get back to work. deeceevoice (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am a relatively uninvolved editor here as I have done for the most part only copy editing and clarification of some material. I also think that it would be pertinent to this article to include a section on the controversy surrounding skin tone/colour keeping in mind Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability so the gathering and inclusion of information that is sourced and would or should include both sides of the controversy neutrally with weight given to the most widely accepted view as per the sources. This certainly could present problems and should be discussed here as per Wikipedia on contentious articles/information. Given that you both seem to be knowledgeable and possibly professionals in this field, I would think an excellent encyclopedic section could be written.(olive (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

I also am aware of the issue of "verifiability." Not a problem. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, I had actually failed to notice that you put "race" in quotation marks; Still, I would hesitate to describe Tutankhamun's skin colour as black, at least I would add some specifying remark like "but not as black as someone's from central Africa." Anyway, from my current knowledge on the topic I think that it is actually not possible to determine what "race" Tutankhamun would belong to. Since the skin colour of the ancient Egyptians was varying around a darker tone than those of the Europeans, so it is quite like that Tutankhamun was black by modern standards, but actually I don't see a way to prove this. I can't understand how Zahi Hawass can be sure that Tutankhamun was white (unless he got a time machine in the basement of his museum.) For the article, I think I would be important to simply give an overview about the controversy, and not to actually attempt to say what Tutankhamun's racial characteristics were; I don't think that there is any scientific consensus on that.

The reason I mentioned the Barack Obama example, b.t.w., was to illustrate the difficulties of the concept of race. You might not be aware of this, but there was a debate on Wikipedia whether Barack Obama was African-American of multiracial, to which I was referring. Regardless of Obama's very mixed heritage, and his vision of an America where race doesn't matter (I've read some of his speeches), he is perceived as African-American. I would suspect that even someone with a lighter complexion than him would be perceived as black in the United States, at least by by 'white people', which is what gives substance to the argument that Tutankhamun would be black, then, too. So I don't see a reason for the fanciful account of ancient Egypt from radical Afroecentrism, not that we should discuss them here, anyway. Zara1709 (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The argument for King Tutankhamun's Blackness and the archaeological record

Nowhere have I stated Tut's skin was black, merely that he was Black. And he wasn't mixed with anything. At least, there's certainly absolutely nothing to indicate that. With all due respect, you (Zara) really don't know what you're talking about in that regard.

Below are what we know of the physical characteristics of certain human populations and what the bare, unvarnished archaeological record tells us about Tutankhamun. Here's one link I've dug up (no pun intended). [1] Here, too, is a link to two artist's renderings, side by side, one of a "Negroid" skull, the other of a Caucasoid skull.[2] I regret the link is to a blog, but both are legitimate images -- and both once appeared on Wikipedia, but were excised over time. This is the first website I was able to find them together, so this is what you get. Feel free to refer to them when examining the following information.

1. Tutankhamun was extremely, almost ridiculously dolichocephalic; his head was elongated from front to back -- so much so that for decades some archaeologists posited that he had some kind of congenital deformity.[3] Others speculated that his head had been bound. Subsequent examination has shown that his head was perfectly normal -- no deformity, no premature fusing of the skull plates such as would have occurred if his head had been bound. In fact, Tut exhibits the same dolichocephalism found in renderings of his sister Princess/Queen Meritaten (busts of whom clearly are of a Black woman) and of his presumptive father, Akhenaten.[4]. Be sure to scroll down the page on this one [5] for more images. Yes, artists of the Amarna period tended to exaggerate dolichcephalism, but the pronounced dolichocephalism of the Tutmosid line -- and the degree to which Tut exhibited it in the extreme -- is generally widely acknowledged.

Here is another website -- totally crackpot/off-the-wall.[6] But the images are useful. Scroll a bit past halfwaydown the page until you get to the highy stylized Amarna image of Akhenaten.

2. What human populations are characterized by dolichocephalism? Nords and Black people. There's no plausible explanation of why or how a Nordic human being would/could be in the Horn of Africa over 3,000 5,200 years ago. The only people who've attempted such a contorted approach to the history of Egypt are neo-Nazi wack-jobs like those found at Stormfront.

3. Tut had maxillary prognathism. This is evident from his death mask, the numerous contemporary renderings of him and from examination of his skull.

4. Tut had a pronounced alveolar prognathism -- also evident from his death mask, contemporary renderings and from an examination of his physical remains. In fact, his alveolar prognathism was extremely prominent/exaggerated. As a result of the alveolar prognathism, Tut also had a pronounced receding chin.

5. Tut also had big buckteeth -- enlarged incisors -- that protruded, so much so that, judging from his mummy, even allowing for the natural retraction of the lips after death and the embalming process, he looked pretty much like a freakin' gerbil.[[7]][8] (See view 6.)

Without meaning to offend, think of the peoples of the region -- Ethiopians and Somalis, for example, both peoples denizens of dynastic Egypt. Here are a few photo links. (Forgive the last source (racist a**holes). I'm taking photos where I readily can find them.) Enlarged, prominent incisors: [9], [10],[11] and [12]. Buckteeth: [13] [14]

6. The so-called classic "Negroid" phenotype is: 1) dolichocephalic (see footage of Masai at 3:10 here [15], [16],[17] and a photo of another Masai here[18]; 2) has enlarged incisors (note also the buckteeth in the preceding image), here[19], here[20], and here[21]; 3) has a receding chin line (again, see previous image, "Masai 19"); 4) has alveolar and maxillary prognathism (again, previous image, "Masai 19"). Such characteristics are in abundant evidence throughout Africa and the African diaspora. Just take a look around you. At Black men. African-Americans call these long heads "peanut heads," because in the more elongated examples (such as Tut's), there's a dip in the crest of the skull that mimics the natural separation of chambers in a peanut pod. Note how our profiles protrude forward. That's prognathism. That's a Black characteristic. There are, of course, some exceptions (Senegalese and some populations of the Horn and the Nile region) but this is most assuredly not the case with the majority of ummixed "Negroid"/"Congoid" -- call them what you will -- Black people.

Prognathism is ubiquitous in the art of the Egyptians. It is why when people "walk like an Egyptian," they thrust their faces forward; it is an attempt to mimic the prognathic artistic renderings found on countless murals and in the statuary of dynastic Egypt.

7. Tut had rounded eye sockets. This is readily evident from an examination of his skull.

The classic Caucasoid phenotype has ovoid eye sockets and a flat face. There is little or no maxillary prognathism, no alveolar prognathism. In fact, generally speaking, a plumb line can be drawn from the bridge of the nose, through point where the nose is seated above the top lip, through the point directly below the bottom lip and the chin line.

8. While not 100 percent accurate, forensic archaeologists and other forensic artists/professionals can approximate soft-tissue depths/dimensions utilizing cranial remains. Two of the three teams who participated in the 2005 reconstruction gave their models very full lips of the sort highly atypical of Caucasians, but extremely typical of Blacks/the classic "Negroid" phenotype, with the American team being the only (and inexplicable) exception. Virtually all the contemporary renderings, including his death mask, show Tutankhamun with very full lips.[22] Akhenaten and Meritaten -- ditto.

9. A point not often mentioned about Tutankhamun in discussions of this sort, and never in the context of the 2005 reconstructions, is his body proportions -- wholly understandable, because the participants in the project were provided only his skull. However, those archeological/scientific professionals who have examined Tut's remains have classified him as "gracile." The same can be said for Akhenaten, judging from his statuary, for whom no physical remains have been found. As with head shape, Tut's relatively long, thin limbs (longer than the human norm) were a family trait, one of lineage, as well as a trait of whole clusters of Nilotic populations -- not some sort of spontaneous mutation or congenital defect.

There are no gracile Caucasians. And from what we know of the archaeological record and human evolution/adaptation, there have never been any gracile Caucasians. The trait is thought to be an adaptation to extreme heat as a means of efficiently shedding body heat. (Think Dinka (Alek Wek[23]). Think Masai[24]. Think Tutsi[25].) The only known humans (Homo sapiens) to have developed a gracile phenotype are the Nilotic peoples of the African continent, and they are Black people -- among the blackest in skin color on the planet (some Sudanese so black, their skin has a purplish cast), the latter also an adaptation to the sun's rays/heat.

10. As with other species, human offspring are composites of both parents, possessing the DNA of both lineages. The most obvious manifestation of this fact is physical appearance. Persons tend to have physical attributes of both maternal and paternal family lines. "Racially" mixed individuals generally will exhibit attributes of both ethnicities: in skin color, hair texture, faciocranial characteristics, etc. Mixed populations show clear evidence of miscegenation. In the case of dynastic Egypt, there is certainly some evidence of "racial" admixture over the ages, varying in degree among dynasties -- and this is evident in human crania. In certain dynastic periods, the skulls become less dolichocephalic and more brachycephalic, or the reverse. There is less or more prognathism.

This is not the case with Tutankhamun. He exhibits the full spectrum* of "Negroid" phenotypical characteristics -- and he does so in spades. If one were to choose a classic "Negroid" phenotype, one could do no better than to pick Tut: a noggin so long, investigators thought him congenitally deformed, thick lips, extreme alveolar prognathism, enlarged incisors, receding chin, rounded eye sockets.

And given the fact that there is every evidence that Tutankhamun was an unmixed, Black African, neither his skin color nor his eye color would be anywhere near that of the National Geographic reconstruction. His skin, not surprisingly, would be closer to the contemporaneous renderings of the king which show him to be dark red-brown in color, and his eyes would be dark brown. deeceevoice (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

11. *In all of this, the one exception to the classic "Negroid" phenotype is Tutankhamun's nasal index.

Tutankhamun had a relatively narrow nasal index. It is the only characteristic of his physical remains that would cause anyone to term him Caucasoid. (And I hope I need not spend time drawing the distinction between "Caucasian" and "Caucasoid.") I invite you to take a look at Africoid and what it says about Black phenotypes and the use of the word "Caucasoid" to describe some indigenous Africans. I also invite you to take a look at photos of Black people in our amazing phenotypical diversity. Africa's amazing biodiversity is manifested not only in its flora and fauna, but in its humanity as well. In the horn of Africa (and elsewhere on the continent), there are unmixed Black populations who lack the "broad, flat" nose of the classic "Negroid" phenotype.

According to Susan Anton of the American reconstruction team, the skull she examined was "clearly African" -- her exact words. Not European. Not Asian. And not maybe. Unmistakably. Enough to allow her to pinpoint the skull's origin without equivocation. The nose was the one thing that didn't fit. It caused her to classify the remains as "North African."

Okay. So, we're talking "clearly African," but not wholly, classically "Negroid." Why? Because of that nose -- a nasal index that, yes, could be of a Caucasian/European or someone Black with "racial"/ethnic admixture, but that also easily falls within the range of that possessed by thousands, in fact, hundreds of thousands, of unmixed, Black Africans across the continent. Curiously, however -- despite the overwhelming preponderance of phenotypical evidence to the contrary -- Tut's nasal index was enough for Zahi Hawass to disingenuously and triumphantly announce to the world that Tutankhamun was "Caucasoid."

Anton's assessment regarding the skull's geographic origin was dead-on. A true expert takes into account the cluster of phenotypical characteristics. A competent, dispassionate investigator considers a specimen in its totality and does not isolate a single characteristic, while disregarding the rest. Unlike Zahi Hawass, Anton flat-out refused to classify the skull as "Caucasoid." And she refused to assign the American team's reconstruction a skin color.

12. The majority of the renderings of Tut -- and virtually all, if not actually all, of the everyday manifestations -- in everyday family life with his wife, for example -- that are not thought to be stylized depictions symbolizing death (where he is literally black) or some other metaphysical/spiritual aspect of his life -- are of him with dark, red-brown/dark brown skin.[26][27][28] And nowhere is he depicted (as on the National Geographic cover/in the French reconstruction of 2005) with hazel eyes. And given the fact that the phenotypical evidence would seem to indicate a complete lack of "racial"/ethnic admixture in the Tutmosid line, generally, and in Tut, specifically and especially, as well as numerous contemporaneous artifacts showing him with dark skin -- and the fact that the indigenous peoples of the region are dark-skinned, ranging from red-brown, brown, dark brown to blue-black, it would seem logical to conclude that Tutankhamun was, likewise, a dark-skinned, Black African -- and not of a "mid-range" or "medium" tone as was blatantly and falsely depicted in only the French reconstruction, which was deliberately chosen as the image to be emblazoned on the cover of National Geographic magazine.

The two other teams declined to affix a skin color. Why? I believe it was because, given the history of lies, a history of whitewashing the truth surrounding dynastic Egypt -- and because Zahi Hawass is the gatekeeper to the ancient archaeological history of dynastic Egypt. The scuttlebutt in the field is if you displease him, you're effectively excommunicated from on-site study and excavation. Frankly, I doubt you'd be allowed back into the country at all. Perhaps it was thought better to skirt the issue entirely.

13. The article to which this talk page is an adjunct quotes a man named Terry Garcia. He's a decent enough fellow, a guy I worked with briefly wa-aay back in the 1970s at a think-tank/lobbyist organization called New Directions. But he's an attorney by training, with no credible background in history, archaeology or Egyptology. He's merely a spokesperson for the National Geographic organization. He likely has even less knowledge about the peoples of the Nile region and Egyptian history than even the police forensic specialist on the French team I spoke with and traded e-mails with.

But for the sake of argument, let's take a gargantuan leap of faith and assume good faith here, as apparently Garcia has, with regard to the forensic reconstruction project directed by Zahi Hawass.

In response to the firestorm of criticism surrounding the project, Garcia said the skin tone of the French model was a "mid-range" based on modern-day Egyptians. WTH? Why? Today, Egypt is the seat of the Arab world. Yet is common knowledge that Arabs weren't present in Egypt in great numbers -- if at all -- in 3,300+ A.D. B.C. and didn't conquer Egypt until 700 A.D.[29] And the great modern influx of Arabs into Egypt didn't actually occur until the time of Nasser (a man who, incidentally, firmly asserted the essential Africanness of the Egyptian nation). The Egypt of today is not the Egypt of the dynastic period.

Would any sane individual use the ancient remains of a First American (Asiatic or Australoid -- take your pick) unearthed in, say, Tierra del Fuego to reconstruct that individual with pale skin and blue eyes in the image of George Bush?

14. Furthermore, the contention that the fair skin of the reconstruction is a "mid range" for the current Egyptian populace is specious, at best. The fact is once one leaves the major cities for the towns and villages of rural Egypt -- away from the relatively few and far-between Arab-dominated metropolises, the populations get darker-skinned, more closely resembling the indigenous African peoples of the region. And this is certainly the case as one travels farther south -- toward the region from whence the Tutmosid line originated.

15. Finally, with regard to skin tone, this is the reconstruction of King Tut's face that forensic professionals employed by The Discovery Channel, a perfectly respectable, mainstream institution, came up with only a few months before: [30].

Which skin tone seems more accurate/plausible, given the evidence herein presented?

So much for the "Afrocentric minority view."

16. Lastly, in attempting to pinpoint Tutankhamun's "race"/ethnicity, one ultimately must cast one's gaze beyond the dead monarch's physical remains, beyond the archaeological artifacts of defunct dynasties and other things slowly moldering to dust, to the living record in an attempt to place Tutankhamun in broader context. Where did his people come from? What did they look like? And what do they look like now?

Again, the Tutmosid line came from the South -- a fact widely acknowledged by Egyptologists and historians. They came from Sudan, the location of the oldest pyramids on Earth, the birthplace of Egyptian civilization. What did indigineous Sudanese look like in 3,300+ B.C.? What do they look like now? Were there any human populations known in the past -- or are there extant today -- who possess the precise cluster of phenotypical characteristics of Tutankhamun and the known members of his family? Where are they? Who are they? What is their skin color? Eye color? And what is their "race"/ethnicity? Are they considered Black? (X-ray of Tut's skull: [31] and a Masai today: [32]; CT Scan of Tut's skull, halfway down the page[33] and photo of Somali man [34].)

Was Tut Black? For the truly open-minded and objective inquirer, I've just provided you the answer.

Duh. deeceevoice (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to think of myself as open-minded, and I have no real racial axe to grind (I'm a white European just to let everyone know), but I don't think that Tutankhamum was Caucasian, and I would hope that no sane person does either, although I have seen people argue that Yuya and Tjuyu were Nordic in appearance! However, I would argue that some of your above statements are not correct, "They came from Sudan, the location of the oldest pyramids on Earth, the birthplace of Egyptian civilization" for example. Where in any contemporary source, does it say where Thutmose I was from? Where are the "oldest pyramids on Earth" - Djoser Netjerikhet's Step Pyramid is the oldest known stone structure, so where are the older ones in Sudan? I would also take issue with the "birthplace of the Egyptian Civilization" part, what evidence is there that this is so ? The rest of your comments I can't really argue with as I am not a genetist. Markh (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Markh. Thanks for weighing in. Yeah. I know about the step pyramids at Saqqara, but for some reason my memory had them in Nubia/Kush. It's been some time, and my memory is probably faulty. I'm in the middle of deadlines right now, but I did Google "Saqqara" and checked its location. It seems to have been fairly close to the site of the Giza Sphinx -- that monumental statute of a (clearly) Black African. ;) Looks like, when I get a chance, I'll have to go back and do some reading and refresh my memory. I appreciate the correction.

If memory serves the kingdom of Kush -- a Black/Nubian civilization, predates Egyptian civilization, and fairly recent recent archaeological studies have established Hier[a?]konpolis (or something like that), in Nubian Egypt and Kerma, farther to the south in Sudan as extremely ancient, with Kerma being the oldest advanced city of any yet discovered along the Nile. It is well known that Egyptian civilization traveled from south to north -- giving far more credence to the indigenous, Black origins of Egyptian civilization than to, IMO, silly contentions of a somehow Semitic, or non-Black origin.

In fact, the ancient Egyptians themselves said their origins were in Punt, thought to be in Somalia or Sudan, where the indigenous peoples are certainly Black -- and very black. In fact, the modern-day province of Puntaland/Puntland, is located on the Somali coast.

I am not a geneticist either, and nowhere have I mentioned genetics. In fact, "race" is not determined by genetics. Genetics simply establishes the relatedness of populations -- or not. And for those of us who've been subjected to decades of lies about a non-Black dynastic Egypt, or some sort of crazy, "Well, the Egyptians were 'mixed race'," "Or, the Egyptians weren't black or white. They were ... Egyptians" crap -- just how does a distinct, sort of sui generis population suddenly just appear in Egypt (or anywhere else), anyway? Spaceships? The so-called "Mediterranean (or brown) race" is a nonsensical fiction -- it is not enough to say that Tut was "not white." It is important to state definitively and affirmatively what Tut was. He was clearly an indigenous, Black African. And geneticist or not, I think anyone capable of rational, dispassionate analysis would have to admit that the preponderance of the evidence points to that.

Now I've got to get back to work. Ugh. I need caffeine.... deeceevoice (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just seeing the bit about people arguing that Tjuyu and Yuya being Nordic. Of course, that's preposterous -- and the sort of nonsense suited only for places like Stormfront. deeceevoice (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest creating a separate article for this (the debate surrounding Tut's race is probably notable). Clearly, however, it is not important enough to clog up the main Tut article. Moreschi (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In response to Deeceevoice's post on my talkpage - quite plausible, I suppose. But unprovable. To begin with, we clearly have different definitions of "black". You subscribe to the Africoid definition, no? I do not. Using this definition - which is not widely accepted in scholarship - Tut is black. If we do not accept it, it is up for debate, although if we can show that Tut's direct parentage comes from Kush roots (or indeed pretty much anywhere South of Egypt) at only a few generations remove we have a strong case for saying Tut is black even with a non-Africoid definition. However, though I am no Tut expert it seems like the article is saying his parentage is also up for debate. While Tut is obviously African (being an Egyptian, who clearly had African origins), this is no case for saying that he is black by accepted definitions (see Berbers for a really obvious example). Nor is he mixed race (the Egyptians, genetically, have been ethnically continuous for ages and ages, from well before the time of Tut up to the present day). No: Tut, being Egyptian belongs to a group that was/is possessed of an intermediate phenotype (determined by environment) that cannot be termed either white or black unless we start horribly twisting accepted definitions. Unless, of course, we can show Tut to have been Nubian in origin: certainly Nubia and Kush have an infinitely greater claim to the title "black civilizations" than Egypt does.
  • I am afraid I cannot really buy into all this Caucasian/Nordic/Negro business. These racial classifications are widely viewed by scientists these days as hopelessly outdated, as a brief glimpse at the relevant Wikipedia articles will show. Head measurements to determine skin colour enjoys about as much credence in scientific circles today as does dowsing or radionics. This stuff was last used by scientific racists to justify revolting treatment of black people. It's disgusting, and pseudoscience like it really does belong on Stormfront. Moreschi (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • Ultimately, however, it's not what I think or what you think. I'm open-minded, but unless we have mainstream scientific and historical sources describing Tut as unequivocally black, no. Diop and the group surrounding the Journal for African Studies do not cut the mustard. And even to import the debate into this article would be a disservice to Egyptology, which wants nothing to do with the hangovers of the US culture wars (the real backdrop to this). A separate article on the debate, however... Moreschi (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Moreschi

Thanks for your input. No surprises. I merely thought a response from someone of your ilk -- you or dBachmann -- would be highly instructive/illustrative.

Moreschi, you're the only person who's mentioned Diop in this discussion. I certainly didn't. The only information regarding forensic anthropology I've mentioned herein vis-a-vis Tut's remains, specifically, and human classification, generally, is that which is widely accepted and utilized by mainstream and highly competent/respected professionals in the fields of criminal forensics and/or forensic anthropology -- such as those who were called in to perform the Tut reconstructions.

The obstinance/obtuseness with which some people seek, as you have done, to blatantly mischaracterize and then dismiss/discredit time-tested forensic methodologies still in use today in virtually every modern criminal forensics or recovery operation and in every modern anthropological dig where investigators seek to identify and classify human remains -- in the face of clear evidence to the contrary -- is laughable and stinks of intellectual dishonesty. The incontestable fact of the matter is that such metrics as discussed above remain in wide use -- by forensic archaeologists and criminal forensic professionals -- every day, because they remain valid tools for differentiating broad groups of humanity, connecting them to their geographic points of origin, and establishing relatedness of populations.

Call the different groups anything you care to; I really couldn't care less. The fact of the matter is that certain clusters of human populations have certain general characteristics in common which can and do serve (as strikingly and flawlessly demonstrated by Susan Anton) to pinpoint precise geographical origin, to perform reasonably accurate modeled facial reconstructions and determine relatedness to other human groups. Say what you will, but absent the silly and downright tragic extrapolations about "race" formulated in the human imagination, the techniques employed today by forensic professionals (as in the case of Anton with regard to this project), utilizing broad human classifications routinely yield accurate results, and these techniques are still taught as fundamentals of forensic coursework. Just Google course materials/syllabi related to forensic identification of human remains.) This despite the best efforts of revisionists, those bending over backwards toward some misguided political correctness or who have an axe to grind, or who seek to expunge certain truths of human history they find unacceptable/repugnant, to reject and pretend that such tools are no longer useful.

For any competent forensic professional knowledgeable of the peoples of North Africa and the African Horn, the forensic anthropological evidence presented herein is solid, coherent, consistent and irrefutable.

"Nor is he mixed race (the Egyptians, genetically, have been ethnically continuous for ages and ages, from well before the time of Tut up to the present day)."

Where is your evidence? Prove it.

You cannot. In fact, there exists a mountain of historical, archaeological and anthropological evidence in stark contradiction to such a preposterous statement.

And please don't direct me to a Wikipedia article on "Berbers." Wikipedia isn't a fit/reliable source on anything. When I visited the article, I saw the image of Ramses II in the info box and disinformation in the article stating he was a Berber -- and using www.white_history.com as a source, a website maintained by a Nordicist (read "Nazi"). You're makin' my head hurt here, Moreschi. deeceevoice (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your argument that Tut was a denizen of peoples of an "intermediate phenotype" simply isn't borne out by the any of the facts, and you provide not a single one in the service of such outrageous and hackneyed fiction. And in the case of Tut, there is nothing at all "intermediate" about his phenotype, save, possibly, his nose -- and then only if taken out of its overall context. Tut's physical characteristics are extreme -- so much so that earlier White investigators, working from a Eurocentric paradigm, presumed him deformed by human intervention (head binding) or congenital defect. To their way of thinking, no healthy White/Caucasian or Semitic ("intermediate" among Caucasian/Eurasian and African) person logically would exhibit such anomalous (paradigmatically speaking) physical charateristics, and in such extremes. However, when placed within an Afrocentric paradigm (which makes sense, because Egypt is in Africa -- another "duh"), Tut's phenotype is perfectly normal; it is, in fact, classic Black African(which is what allowed Anton immediately to identify his remains as African) and wholly congruent with that of millions of his fellow Black Africans of the region.

Further, assuming a mysterious, incongruous, wholly contrived "red-brown"-but-not-Black, "Mediterranean race" (and, according to the French team, hazel-eyed -- assigned without even a weak attempt at justification -- and, curiously, extremely fair skinmed; remember, we're still in Africa), where did they come from? Where did they go? Absent some cataclysmic event -- of which there is no historic evidence -- like the earthquake that consumed the city of Pompeii, or the plague that obliterated much of the population of Europe in the Dark Ages, surely they must still be around somewhere.

I challenge you to find their surviving descendants elsewhere anywhere in the world today.

You cannot. The only "dark, red-brown" peoples of the region today, and the only ones who exhibit the physical characteristics of Tutankhamun anywhere in the world are the very peoples I've already clearly identified: the Black, Nilotic peoples of Northeast Africa.

(Again, duh.)

I have no desire to write this information for an article main space. I have neither an interest in, nor the patience for, battling the obtuse ignorance or POV pushing of those who stubbornly see this matter as some sort of ideological battle between the "Enlightened" Forces of "Truth" and the The Benighted Forces of "Afrocentrist Fiction." The outcome in a place like Wikipedia is preordained. Sheer force of numbers often means long- and widely held, knee-jerk ignorance grounded in the contorted "scholarhip" of a racist/racialist tradition supersedes informed; enlightened; reasoned; current-day; and, yes, sourced, mainstream scholarship -- the latter all too conveniently relegated/assigned to a few on the "fringe" or dismissed as irrelevant/inappropriate subject matter altogether.

It amuses me when I hear/read, from people who cannot substantiate their contentions of a somehow "racially" sui generis dynastic Egypt, that this entire matter is utterly irrelevant or, in the case of present company, grudgingly, contemptuously, "possibly notable," that it is, borderline, some useless artifact, one of the "hangovers" -- your words -- "of the US culture wars." And what of the head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, Zahi Hawass, a man whose stock and trade is Egyptian archaeology and propaganda-pushing his own Arab "culture-warred" perspectives on dynastic Egypt, who triumphantly and flat-out dishonestly/misleadingly announced that the teams involved in the Tut reconstruction had identified him as "Caucasoid"?

Is his preoccupation with establishing the non-Black (and, therefore heavily Semitic) nature of dynastic Egypt a "hangover of the US culture wars" as well? Hardly. The fact is it was all right to purvey and cling to the nonsensical, contrived fiction of a non-Black Egypt -- until such deeply held, cherished, racist assumptions and beliefs were challenged increasingly and relentlessly by new generations of historians previously without access to the halls of academia by virtue of poverty, gender, discrimination, and ethnicity/nationality -- or by those traditionally privileged, but whose scholarship is untainted by the racist assumptions of the past. Hawass's statement to the world press is simply more glaring proof that such metrics as those discussed herein, and such terms that you contend are so discredited that they have been consigned to the dustbin, are still very much in use (and misuse) in the field.

I've made the forensic argument and documented it. I'll leave the aging guardians -- by virtue of well-meaning, but heretofore abysmal, ignorance; stubborn hubris; intellectual obtuseness; or calculated deception -- of the same, old, tired, racist, white lies to stew in their own juices. (We all know they'll continue to write what they will. ;) ) But there is no way henceforward that they can feign ignorance. deeceevoice (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, the Tutmosid line came from the South -- a fact widely acknowledged by Egyptologists and historians. They came from Sudan, the location of the oldest pyramids on Earth, the birthplace of Egyptian civilization

You've given the game away. The notion that the Napatic/Kushite culture preceded or was the birthplace of Pharaonic civilization is a long-debunked Victorian error, an argument to which only extremist afrocentrics cling. "From the south' refers merely to the Upper Egyptian origin of the Thutmosids; when Kushites did in fact rule Egypt, as the XXVth Dynasty, the fact was recorded.

BTW Hawass, contrary to your assertions, consistently *denies* that the Pharaonic Egyptians were Arabs or Semites.

How did the Egyptians view themselves? Neither as black nor white. In their own art they consistently rendered their own skin in red ochre- and carefully distinguished 'Nubians' by using black pigment; likewise Semites and Hittites were rendered in yellowish cream.

There is also the remarkable 'accidental mummy' in the British Museum nicknamed Ginger: not embalmed, the poor chap was preserved by dessication. His skin tone was yellowish-white.

Here's Tut's stepmother/aunt, from that remarkable period when the Egyptians went in for actual portraiture rather than iconography:

"Black", huh? So scream 'racism' all you want: Black Athena is still pseudoscience on a par with von Daniken. Solicitr (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent archaeological evidence reinforces the notion that Dynastic Egypt was built from the South, up. Reunification of Upper and Lower Egypt -- which laid the foundation for Dynastic Egypt occurred from the South, up. You've written nothing to debunk the information I've provided on the forensic archaeological evidence of a Black Egypt. Here's another example of the "Negroid" cranial phenotype, so characteristic of the Tutmosid line and so prevalent across Black Africa.

A child suffering the effects of severe hunger and malnutrition during the Nigerian blockade

. FYI, the malnourished child pictured here isn't even from East Africa; she is Igbo -- Biafran/Nigerian. deeceevoice (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Racism"? "Von Daniken?" There's not even a credible, distant comparison between him and Martin Bernal. You're grasping at straws. There are plenty of realistic portrayals of dynastic Egyptians that clearly show Black African peoples. And, frankly, Nefertiti is one. Few, if any, scholars, and none who is credible -- and that includes Afrocentrist scholars -- state flat-out that dynastic Egypt was 100 percent Black African through the millennia. The contention is that it was fundamentally indigenous, Black African and remained so. The bust of Nefertiti? She looks a lot like Effie Barry, to me.[35] deeceevoice (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bernal is absolutely on a par with von Daniken. His nonsense extracts "history" from everything from Greek myths to 17th-century Masonic rituals; he even goes so far as to take Herodotus seriously, when of course it's been clear ever since shortly after Champollon that the ol H's Egyptian "history" was a complete load of twaddle.His work has been savaged by every and all academic reviewers- except, odf copurse those from the "African Studies" departments, desperate to expropriate a civilization they can call their own. But no genuine classicist or Egyptoligist would touch his rubbish with a barge pole.Solicitr (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

*chuckling* Channeling dBachmann 2day, r we?  ;) deeceevoice (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHA 5 years later and deeeceevoice is *still* trying to convince the world the Egyptians were black? That old afrocentrist rant has been debunked and absolutely irrelevant for the past hundred years as DeeCee knows very well. Mary Lefkowitz put it well -- afrocentrists want to teach myth as history. Sad thing is, the original afrocentrists just wanted some pride, they knew they were making it all up but hoped for people of the day to have something to be proud of.

Regarding Tut, and I hope this doesn't get lost in the archives (archives no one reads: the POV-pushers best friend). Susan Anton has NEVER said claimed anything like Tut was Black/Negroid/Nilotic etc/etc/etc. I spoke with her personally and DeeCee has been misquoting her for years.

Lastly, wikipedia is about referenced material from high-quality sources. Doesn't really matter if DeeCeeVoice can put out a 14-pt diatribe proving blackness. It's called "original research" and is not usable, especially coming from someone completely untrained in the field. And for some good reading....Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice/Evidence Justforasecond (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I see, JFAS, you've still found nothing better to do than follow me around Wikipedia, dragging up moldy, old business and indulging in puerile personal attacks/trolling. Get a life. And unless you can prove I've misquoted Anton, I suggest you drop the baseless charge. I've never misquoted her. She has stated -- repeatedly -- that the skull she examined was, variously, "clearly" and "unmistakeably African." The implications of that statement are clear and unequivocal. And I have made it a practice routinely to state that Anton steadfastly refused to assign, purely as a matter of principle, any kind of ethnic or "racial" identifier to the skull replica she examined. The same cannot be said, however, for Zahi Hawass, the head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, who triumphantly announced that the participants in the project of which Anton was a part found Tut to be "Caucasoid." Your claim that I misquoted Anton is a blatant, seemingly calculated falsehood, a libelous contention you've repeated.

Curiously, though, I don't see you yammering on and on about how Hawass "misquoted" Anton. Now, why is that? (Never mind. That's a purely rhetorical question. I have zero intention of wasting my time in further exchange w/you.)

With regard to the evidence I've presented above, that supports the Blackness of Tutankhamun, it is cited and adequately sourced/illustrated, from knowledgeable, highly reputable, even "mainstream" sources. The only thing that makes my conclusion -- reached after examination and synthesis of established, widely known, published information -- "original research" is that I am -- as you correctly point out -- uncredentialed in the fields of forensic anthropology or Egyptology. I've never claimed or pretended to be. (Neither, incidentally, is the forensic cop on the French team who assigned the Tut bust its controversial pale skin and hazel eyes. At the time I called him in Paris and we exchanged e-mails -- an awkward process, since his English was little better than my French -- my knowledge of the indigenous peoples of the region certainly trumped his.) Whether any authority has so clearly and painstakingly laid out the case for Tutankhamun's Blackness as I have above, I cannot say. I have not seen it done elsewhere as clearly and methodically, but that is not to say it doesn't exist somewhere in similar form.

But no matter. I'll continue to leave it to the intelligence of the reader to come to his/her own conclusions. ;) The forensic archaeological evidence is irrefutable -- as irrefutable/unassailable/flawless as Anton's methodology/logic at arriving at the dead-on conclusion that the replicated skull she examined was not Asian, not European, not Eurasian, but fundamentally and "clearly"/"unmistakeably African." ;) deeceevoice (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A talk page is no more a place to push original research than the article itself, Deeceevoice. Also, don't lie. You have never spoken with anyone involved in the reconstruction of Tut's face. Furthermore, Zahi Hawass is the world's leading Egyptologist, and an Egyptian himself. It's as he said: "Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilization as black has no element of truth to it." Live with it. Afrocentrists such as yourself are grasping at straws, and you've provided no sources for your claims. Stop trying to appropriate what does not belong to you.--KatelynJohann (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And who the eff are you to tell me who I have and have not spoken to? lol As I wrote, the evidence I've presented is readily available on the web and comes from reputable, mainstream sources. It's laid out here, properly sourced, for anyone who chooses to use it. Now, get over it. deeceevoice (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You've been soapboxing on this page, Deeceevoice. Essentially, you just want the article to say that Tutankhamun was black. He was not. The Ancient Egyptians were Caucasians whose ancestors migrated to North Africa from Asia. The Egyptians spoke a Semitic language. All Semitic languages originated among Caucasians in West Asia. The languages of some African populations, like the Ethiopians, were influenced by Semitic languages from the North. If the Ancient Egyptians had been Negro in origin, they wouldn't have been speaking a Semitic language from the beginning. Furthermore, Tutankhamun's face was reconstructed from his skull, so you have no ground to stand on. If you think that contemporary bust of Nefertiti looks black, you are delusional. As for the vulgar, racist, and inaccurate comments you left on my talk page, there were already city states in Mediterranean Europe at the time. Why make fun of people who live in huts anyway? Many people in Africa still live in huts today. Anyway, the Egyptians were a Caucasian people. That doesn't mean that no black people ever lived there. There were no black rulers of Egypt, however, until Egypt was briefly conquered by its traditional enemies to the South, the Nubians. You could be proud of the actual Black African kingdoms that existed: Nubia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Dahomey, Zimbabwe, etc. But there is no reason to continue this argument. It has been made and settled on talk pages many, many times before. You suffer from an inferiority complex. I know that you supported the black supremacist melanin theory before and the idea that melanin is a magical superconductor that makes black people superior to white people. You've also tried to defend and justify Black supremacy on Wikipedia before. Black supremacists have no more place on Wikipedia than White supremacists. This has all been said before. Since you hold racist and fringe views, no article on Wikipedia is ever going to be how you want it to be.--KatelynJohann (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You're flat-out wrong -- on several counts. Ancient Egyptian is widely acknowledged to be an Afro-Asiatic language. Furthermore, Semites aren't even indigenous to Africa, and no credible scholar has ever claimed them to be. It is generally acknowledged that Semites migrated to Egypt sometime around the 13th century B.C. Dynastic Egypt was founded in the third millennium B.C., approximately 1700 years before the first Semite from the Levant and points East ever set foot in Africa. Arabs didn't conquer Egypt until 700 A.D., almost 3700 years after the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt -- by a Black king from the South. Your contention that the Egyptians were "Caucasian" is pure fiction/wannabeism and not supported by any credible scholarship.

In answer to your comment about huts, I wholeheartedly agree. My African ancestors likely lived in huts at the time Dynastic Egypt was at its height. However, there is something seriously wrong about attempted white-washing/appropriation of a civilization by a people, all the while claiming that its builders are inherently inferior/subhuman and, therefore, deserved to be enslaved and starved and worked like draught horses -- while members of the appropriating culture lived, and acted, themselves like barbarians/heathens. After all, it took the Moors -- two of the largest waves of which were Black Africans -- to bring some semblance of sanity and civilization to Europe after the Dark Ages. But that's another story.... ;)

With regard to black supremacy and melanin theory, working on an article isn't the same thing as identifying with or supporting the subject matter in whole or in part. Your ASS-umptions in that regard are merely that. While I can't -- and won't -- try to change your mind about the laughably erroneous notion that Egyptians were "Caucasian," I must ask you to try to keep your mind from wandering to flights of fancy and stay on topic. I will do the same and will not respond further to off-topic comments. This is about Egypt. deeceevoice (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems Wikipedia has included Semitic languages as part of Afro-Asiatic languages. The Afro-Asiatic language category may have some of the same problems as the Altaic language category, due to erroneously claiming that languages share ancestry when similarities have to due with loan words and mutual influence. The issue is confused. Anyway, no one says that Caucasian is synomynous with white or European. As for the hazel eyes of the bust, they probably based that on the eye-color of some Berbers; Tutankhamun probably had dark eyes, but that guess is only as good as their guess.--KatelynJohann (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Afro-Asiatic" has nothing to do with Wikipedia, which I consider an inadequate reference/unreliable source. Linguists place Ancient Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic category, with most stating that the origin of the language is highly likely African. With regard to the bust's hazel eyes, there is absolutely zero evidence that Tut had hazel eyes. None of the contemporaneous renderings of Tut depicts him with hazel eyes; they are always dark. Given the fact that both French and Egyptian teams knew the identity of the skull/replica they were working with, such a representation in light of this fact is highly suspicious, at best. That and Hawass's deliberate misrepresentation that the teams found Tut "Caucasoid" (a term whic Anton flat-out repudiates) casts doubt upon the motives of Hawass and continues to call into question the offensive, pale-skinned bust that disgraced the cover of NG. deeceevoice (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A question of due weight

When I created a (temporary) place for the material on the controversy about the race of Tutankhamun here, I didn't expect the debate to evolve in a discussion of the actual question of the race of Tutankhamun. deeceevoice, you have surely argued you view well and I can't rebuke your arguments easily, which is why I will only reply to them if I find enough time. However, I still remain convinced that it is impossible to determine the racial characteristic of Tutankhamun from the available evidence with a degree of certainty that would allow us to state them as fact, although it is quite likely that Tutankhamun would be classified as Black (or African, if you prefer that terminology).

But the actual question of Tutankhamun's racial characteristic is secondary here. We should simply gather the reliable sources on the topic and let them speak for themselves. What we needed (and still need) to discuss is, what weight we should give the controversy surrounding this question in this article. That we need to discuss this became clear after the similar debate at Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza. This is why, in my last entry at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, I suggested, among other, that we use the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy as a specialised article for those controversies about race (the Sphinx, Tutankhamun and Cleopatra). We don't need a specialised article only for the controversy about Tutankhamun, but we need a specialised article for such issues - or we have to give the full account of the controversy in the respective articles. Zara1709 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

skin colour

The addition of "Black people" is a weasel addition which means that it is a generalization that is not referenced. Unless you have polled all of the researchers of all skin colours who are researching this topic not just black and white concerning this point, such a statement has no place in an encyclopedia. The discussion on skin colour is contentious and scholarly and requires good sources. You might also check the archives since I believe this is not a new discussion. Please remember Wikipedia isn't a place for our opinions, but information must be sourced so that readers know they are getting the best information available in the field.Thanks. (olive (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC))

Orthodontic age

I'm removing the statement "though expert orthodontists have now studied his teeth and have estimated the King died in his early twenties" as it is uncited and presented in a parenthetical manner. If anyone knows of such a study that took place after the 2005 scan, a source would be appreciated. If it is the case, the information should be added as a proper counterpoint, not as an aside. -Verdatum (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Average

The relevant quotation makes it clear that the choise is a median (not a mean) averaging from North Africans (North Africans, we know today, had a range of skin tones, from light to dark. In this case, we selected a medium skin tone, and we say, quite up front, 'This is midrange.'). This is one system of averaging, as most of us learned in school. In any case, deleting a sentence because you don't like it is inappropriate. If it is imprecise you can rephrase with greater precision. Paul B (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the language on two counts. 1) It is misleading. As I indicated in the edit note, "average" commonly connotes frequency of occurrence. When read with that meaning, the sentence is flat-out inaccurate. 2) It repeats information already contained in the article itself -- in a caption that is already overly long. The caption is better with the ambiguous language omitted completely. deeceevoice (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely not inaccurate. If it is removed again, it will be re-added.--KatelynJohann (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the caption so that it is not misleading/inaccurate -- though it remains redundant of material already included in the article. If you have an objection to the wording as it stands, then state why. This tit-for-tat silliness is not helpful. Nor is tag-team edit-warring. deeceevoice (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nilotic Peoples

In one of my email exchanges with Susan Anton during the time of the National Geographic magazine cover controversy, she told me she didn't believe Tut was Nilotic Black. Curious -- since, as I mentioned above, archaeologists working with Zahi Hawass have said the length of his limbs indicated that he was "gracile" -- a characteristic of Nilotic Blacks.

Here's more evidence. The Tutsi are a Nilotic people, gracile, and most definitely Black, indigenous African. Here are side-by-side photographs of a statue of Ramessou II (Ramses II) and a Tutsi of the modern era. Note the similarities. And, yes, the prognathism and receding chin lines -- as I also stated earlier, characteristics of "Negroid"/Black/Africoid peoples. [36] A link to another, more common image. [37].

And look closely. Note the coils in the hair of Ramses II. Spirals/coils are the means by which artisans traditionally have represented the tightly coiled/nappy hair of African peoples throughout the ages. deeceevoice (talk)