Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy

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

Archives

1. 14:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
2. 17:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
3. 13:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
4. 04:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary of Archive 1

• http://www.vdare.com/francis/pseudo.htm was posted as a source for the validity of DNA testing for race. This and other attempts at discussion were not addressed.
• http://www.nubianet.org/about/about_interpret3.html was listed as a possible source for inclusion, with no response.
• There was an unresolved argument concerning the admissibility of white-supremacist/"eurocentrist"/racist material; it was between DreamGuy and Deeceevoice (against) and 155.91.28.231 (for). At present (14:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)), it is not included.
• The admissability of Herodotus and 18th Century sources for racial identification were questioned, but their inclusion was agreed upon (not as conclusive, but as sources).

Summarized by Mgreenbe 14:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

Summary of Archive 2

• An argument of modern standards (suggesting that contemporary American standards would mark Egyptians as Black) was left unconcluded when Mgreenbe asked what changes were desired; none were given.
• The article was accused of being written from a Black-supremacy POV (Zuzim); Zaphnathpaaneah asked for evidence. No conclusion.

Summarized by Mgreenbe 17:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection lifted

Since there was still some ongoing editing (albiet among adminstrators) I've lifted the protection. If anyone edit wars any further, leave a note on my talk page and you'll get see a block for disruption quick-smart. - brenneman 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

what i learned from this page

Egypt = Mixed Race Society seems to be what scientific evidence supports, contrary to white racists and the afrocentrists. Good job wikipedia on a great page. Peace,

--winatchess

Er..wrong. Science doesn't support the existence of race. See the AAPA's statement on it here. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 00:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Race as in the social use of the term. --winatchess

It doesn't work that way. Egyptians didn't believe in race in the social use of the term as you are applying (i.e. the modern American view). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 08:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

21 December Edits

Enriquecardova, I see you have returned to this article today. Unfortunately you don't appear to have used the time away to read the talk page or the manual of style, as you are still making major, largely unformatted, additions to this controversial article without discussing it here.

I'm not sure why we need a Scholarly Dissent heading in an article about a Controversy. It mostly either covers ground already adequately discussed in Wikipedia's Race article, or contains information that would be better-suited to the article's Anthropology subsection. In particular, the Luigi Cavalli-Sforza information is duplicated within the article.

Today's Frank Yurco-related additions appear to represent a fairly mainstream view - in fact this Egyptologist is probably notable enough for his own Wiki article in which more detail could be expounded upon his theories. The information could then be summed up in a somewhat less verbose way in this article under Anthropology. StoptheDatabaseState 16:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Cut the nonsense. You are not fooling anyone. You (and whatever other user names) were one of the primary people making unilaeral reverts to this article, rather than deal with the content, as the logs and history well show. Now you finally show up on the Talk page to spin a load of malarkey about "you don't appear to have used the time away to read the talk page," and "making major, largely unformatted, additions.." What a load of utter rubbish. Stop. Its not even good, creative parody. You are only exposing yourself. Now let's get down to bidniss:

• You say "I'm not sure why we need a Scholarly Dissent heading in an article about a Controversy.." Agreed, but since the section seems so important to many people, I would be inclined to let it stay. The fact is that there are a number of scholarly debates on this subject. Scholarly Dissents is a misnomer. I would support changing the heading to Scholarly Approaches, and letting others add in their 2 cents.
• You say the section covers "covers ground already adequately discussed in Wikipedia's Race article, or contains information that would be better-suited to the article's Anthropology subsection." Actually the section is extremely thin, and does not even begin to cover the scholarship on exactly this controversy- which include Yurco, Trigger, Keita etc etc. There is really no "coverage" at all. As for the duplicate Luigi Cavalli-Sforza information, a quote is duplicated, however his approach has been questioned by various scholars particularly his use of the controversial Extra European Caucasoid classification to incorporate North African peoples like the Egyptians and Ethiopians.
• On the Yurco addition, it is a 3 line quote and is thus hardly "verbose," and is directly related to the topic at hand. It is not even in his own article as of this writing. The rest of the information sums up the scholarship in the field with documented references to currrent scholarship.
• Also the Yurco addition was added 4-5 days ago. It is one of the things that was removed by the multiple username/reverts. It is hardly something just added today that "appears to represent a fairly mainstream view."

It seems that for some reason, you want to remove or bury what mainstream scholars are saying about this topic, even though what they are saying is well documented and verifable, and is indeed part of what Wikipedia seeks in its articles. Making dubious cliams with lofty tones is no substitute for logical analysis and clear documentation. I believe the Scholarly Dissent section could stay, with a renaming or expansion. If we are going to do an article on Controversies, lets at least be intellectually honest and deal with the data on this topic.

Alternatively:

• I will shift the verbiage in "Scholarly Dissent" to Anthropology as you yourself suggest. My only bottom line is that there is real reference to the various scholarly approaches in the field. As it stands right now, those are in place, including the mainstream Yurco quote, and the questions surrounding the Carvili-Szorza approach.
• I will then leave it to you, to replace the Scholarly Dissent section with an intro or starting section of your choice. As long as its neutrally worded, and based on proper scholarship, I have no problem with it. If you want you can even bring back the controversial King Tut picture. I have problems with it, including its copyright status, but I will not stand in the way. I will remain neutral on Tut's pic, whatever other editors do.
• Other editors of course may have completely different ideas, and that is fine. The more the merrier. They can make their own changes. We can of course open up another RFC and spend yet another 4 weeks of edits and cross edits, or we can settle this along the lines suggested above right now, subject of course, to what other editors want or think. If they want to put it back and continue the discussion fine.Enriquecardova 00:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is looking much better with the latest changes. StoptheDatabaseState 11:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? I notice wholesale reversion to the controversial King Tut picture and the previous version without discussion. Enriquecardova 20:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Who was it who replaced that picture and reverted to the poorly-worded edits (e.g. 'Causcasian' instead of the properly wikilinked [[Caucasian race|Caucasian]]? Not me - it was some anon. Please actually take the time to look at the edit history. You and I are not the only editors having their say in this topic's article-space. StoptheDatabaseState 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Keita reference

Nebakneil, resurfacing to work his bogus double game with "other" accounts, alleges that the S. Keita reference casts no doubt on use of catch-all categories like Mediterranean or Middle Eastern to define racial categories. Passages used by Keita were quoted in full earlier. Nebakneil removed them. Now he develops a mysterious memory lapse and says that the reference really don't say what they said earlier. What a dumb game. No one is being fooled. He can use tags or "good cop, bad cop" routines under "other" user accounts, but his game is growing stale. Can't you people be more creative? Very well, here are the quotations again. Its just a simple matter of copy and paste. The old version is on hard disk. Once again, the BS, obstructionist, tag splashing approach being used by certain people is being exposed. If we are going to play at an "academic" approach, then I too must reevaluate the use of the King Tut picture per Wikipedia guidelines, as other editors will no doubt do.

Nebakneil removed the quotes below earlier. Now he says they really didn't say what they said earlier :)lol - people please- give me some better comedy ...

"The territorial map in Keita (1988) shows the late dynastic northern Egyptian "E" series to be similar to a subset of Middle Eastern crania. Harris and Weeks (19731, imply that Old Kingdom Giza crania were more like Nubians. The previous work for the Maghreb and Nile Valley suggests the presence of notable variability.. Overall the crania were seen as Mediterranean," "Semitic," "Negroid," hybrid, some composition of these, and/or a hybrid between these groups.. Skeletally "Negroid" cannot be restricted to a monotypic extreme concept (Rightmire, 1975, 1977). Coon et al. (1950) note groups who have almost stereotypical tropical African soft part characteristics coupled with "Mediterranean" bony cranio-facial form, but they do not report the reverse.. Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been “lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers. Randall-MacIver (1901) concludes that the predynastic people were “a blending in various proportions of Semite and Negro.” Myers (in Pearson et al., 1902-31, describes morphological variability in predynastic crania as ranging from “Negroid to “Mediterranean,” to argue against claims of homogeneity determined by metric analysis...""Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa", AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990)

"Nebakneil" also claims that quotations from mainstream scholar Yurco "POV". Duh. His tactics is to put tags by everything in an attempt to get what he doesn't like removed. His bogus AFD request was in similar vein It is obvious that scholars have differng points of view. is there any scholar that doesn't have one? The proper Wikipedia approach is comparing Yurco to ANOTHER scholar so an objective comparison can be made. But Nebakneil and his "other" accounts remember, removed such comparions. Now, piously, he laments about "POV" by some scholars, after earlier removing the comparisons. lol.. Doesn't this BS approach get tiring for you people? comedy people, comedy, gimme a better routine..

***END OF TODAY'S LESSON*** Enriquecardova 00:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I would like to inform you that English is not my native language so forgive my grammatical errors.

  This is regarding Kemets ethnicity

This message is to all researchers of ancient Kemet. The ethnicity of ancient Egyptians is of an Ethiopian. A lot of you get confused of what is “BLACK”. The fact that there were and are two main “Black” complexions in ancient kemet or Cush is confusing for the so called white and African American history students. The very dark black natives of that area are known as the “Aiye-oakes” or “Gam-bella” and they can be found today leaving in the western parts of Ethiopia and the Durfur regions of Sudan. The less dark black natives of that area are generally known as the Habeshas. The Habeshas are the Eritreans and Ethiopians. A lot of you history researchers don’t have enough information about the region and are usually writing or trying to understand an old culture based on solely books. If you are really serious about learning or finding out the true identity of ancient Egypt, then try learning a bit of Tigrinya , Amharic or geez (the older version of the two languages) and you will see that most of the names of ancient Egyptian city’s , kings , queens are very Ethiopic. I don’t even know how to read Hieroglyphics (has been done already for me ….. thank god) but without even reading the explanation of what the names mean I can tell you accurately what they mean, due to my understanding of these two languages.

Most of you whether you are white or black don’t seem to be interested in the history of kmt but are mostly interested in the politics. When there is nothing to politicize. Your goal seems mostly to proof that you had a CIVILIZATION or to proof that they (“Blacks”) were not part of the greatest CIVILIZATION of all time... I definitely understand the frustration of most of the arguments coming from black researchers, but in regard to some and very some white researcher’s comments, it is very clear, it only has one purpose, i.e. to continue the distortion of African or Kemets History. But, as I said if you are serious about learning kmts, history learn the above two languages and you will be so amazed how fast your learning of kemet will be facilitated.

History is for all of us. It’s not a black or white or yellow or red history.

IT’S OUR STORY, HUMANS. SO PLEASE LEARN IT WITH AN OPEN MIND.

Regards,

Tariku

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tariku"

This "controversy" was over thousands of years ago. Egyptians were NOT black.

This picture[[1]] says it all.

Egyptians characterized Negroes as another race, different than themselves. See Book of Gates.

Even sillier and more pathetic is the claim that the AEs were somehow "ancestors" of American blacks.SveinForkbeard 13:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear SveinForkbeard. Like other Eurocentrists, you are trying to amuse people using your own fantasies. The brown-color of the skin of the Egyptian is caracteristic of the black race, in the same way is the dark-color of the Nubian. I see that you have never visited Africa. So, don't speak about things you don't know well. Now, if the "Egyptian were not black", why according to you did Herodotous say that the Egyptians have black skin and wooly hair? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you did Herodotous and Basil Davidson say that the Egyptians occupied their soil from the south, meaning from Nubia? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you did Aristotle say that the Egyptians like the Ethiopians are very dark? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you did Plutarque say that the Egyptians consider themselves as being southerners? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you did Plutarque report that the Egyptians are offspring of Osiris, a black-skin-god? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you did the Bible put Misraim (Egypt) and Kush (Nubia) under a common ancestor Ham? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you Erman and Ranke did write that the people who most resemble the Egyptians are the Nubians? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you did they consider the south of their country as the country of their origin, and the country of the gods? If the "Egyptians were not black", why according to you did they call themselves kmt(rmT), meaning "the Black people"?, and their country kmmiw(niwt), meaning "the country of the Black people"? I think that you know nothing or just a little about African civilizations. To begin with, please watch the "4 Online videos by Basil Davidson" in www.homestead.com/wysinger/ancientafrica.html (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka).

First, I would like to inform you that English is not my native language so forgive my grammatical errors.

  This is regarding Kemets ethnicity

This message is to all researchers of ancient Kemet. The ethnicity of ancient Egyptians is of an Ethiopian. A lot of you get confused of what is “BLACK”. The fact that there were and are two main “Black” complexions in ancient kemet or Cush is confusing for the so called white and African American history students. The very dark black natives of that area are known as the “Aiye-oakes” or “Gam-bella” and they can be found today leaving in the western parts of Ethiopia and the Durfur regions of Sudan. The less dark black natives of that area are generally known as the Habeshas. The Habeshas are the Eritreans and Ethiopians. A lot of you history researchers don’t have enough information about the region and are usually writing or trying to understand an old culture based on solely books. If you are really serious about learning or finding out the true identity of ancient Egypt, then try learning a bit of Tigrinya , Amharic or geez (the older version of the two languages) and you will see that most of the names of ancient Egyptian city’s , kings , queens are very Ethiopic. I don’t even know how to read Hieroglyphics (has been done already for me ….. thank god) but without even reading the explanation of what the names mean I can tell you accurately what they mean, due to my understanding of these two languages.

Most of you whether you are white or black don’t seem to be interested in the history of kmt but are mostly interested in the politics. When there is nothing to politicize. Your goal seems mostly to proof that you had a CIVILIZATION or to proof that they (“Blacks”) were not part of the greatest CIVILIZATION of all time... I definitely understand the frustration of most of the arguments coming from black researchers, but in regard to some and very some white researcher’s comments, it is very clear, it only has one purpose, i.e. to continue the distortion of African or Kemets History. But, as I said if you are serious about learning kmts, history learn the above two languages and you will be so amazed how fast your learning of kemet will be facilitated.

History is for all of us. It’s not a black or white or yellow or red history.

IT’S OUR STORY, HUMANS. SO PLEASE LEARN IT WITH AN OPEN MIND.

Regards,

Tariku

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tariku"

Are ancient Egyptians "ancestors" of African Americans? Oh, yes! Mr SveinForkbeard doesn't know well African history, but he is making comments about it. African traditions, especially among the Western African populations and among the so called Bantou speaking people report the migrations from Egypt. The Kikuyu in Kenya, indicating the north, say that they came from "Kana". This word reminds us "Kmt". In Senegal and Gambia, people have records of their migrations from Egypt. Scholars like Cheikh Anta Diop, Aboubacry Moussa Lam, Théophile Obenga confirm in their investigations what people know from their traditions. Lam in particular wrote a book on "De l'origine égyptienne des Peuls". In another book, "Les chemins du Nil", he showed how Egypt is present through out Africa. After Diop, Lam thinks that it is the invasion of Egypt by the Persians which provoked those migrations we are talking about. Obenga states that "l'Afrique profonde, précoloniale est la dispersion culturelle de l'Egypte ancienne à travers le continent noir". "Kmt" survives in words like "Kongo", "Ghana", "Kumbi Saleh (Saleh = srx = the throne of Horus), "Tur Kana (Tur = ta wr = great country)", "Khemi", "Bughanda", "Kong"... Now, I hope that you know the story of the European Atlantic Slave Trade. Europeans uprooted Africans mainly from Western and Central Africa, the home of the descendants of the ancient Egyptians. That is why the African Americans are normal heir, along with other Africans of the legacy of ancient Egypt. Mr SveinForkbeard, if you visit Africa, you might come out saying like David Livingstone that the Angolans, by their way of weaving, and of making their hair, remind us the ancient Egyptians as we can see them in the London Museum! (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka).

Lies exposed

"And 40% of Ethiopians are Arab genetically. Minorcorrections"

"Hahaha, any evidence (reliable sources, not thread posts in forums about skyscrapers)? I didn't think so (see Semino et al 2004 and Kivisild et al 2004 for Ethiopian and Arab DNA). Yom" "Maternally, Ethiopian genes are entirely of local origin. Yom"

Yom is exposed by his barefaced lies. He says that his studies say Ehtiopian maternal genes don't have Caucasoid admixture. Kivisild[2]

Maternal lineages of Semitic- (Amharic, Tigrinya, and Gurage) and Cushitic- (Oromo and Afar) speaking populations studied here reveal that their mtDNA pool is a nearly equal composite of sub-Saharan and western Eurasian lineages. This finding, consistent with classic genetic-marker studies (Cavalli-Sforza 1997) and previous mtDNA results, is also in agreement with a similarly high proportion of western Asian Y chromosomes in Ethiopians (Passarino et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2002), which supports the view (Richards et al. 2003) that the observed admixture between sub-Saharan African and, most probably, western Asian ancestors of the Ethiopian populations applies to their gene pool in general.

What kind of deception is Yom operating under here? Since Yom has now been exposed for his lies, can we say Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.207.195.254.202 19:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Anon editor, as I warned you here, you can disagree with another person without calling him a liar. Because you have accused Yom of being a liar (with the exact same childish language) & this is considered a personal attack, consider this your last warning: if you call him a liar again, you may be blocked from editting Wikipedia. -- llywrch 21:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we focus on improving the article

I don't think the question or not should be if the Egyptians were black it should really be how black were they. There are too many descriptions of the Egyptians being described as black and dark and wooly haired to say that they were not black. Heck even a visit to stormfront.org and you will see that they even acknowledge that many of ancient egyptians were black but they dispute the time when they were black. I think I might have to agree with the afrocentrist because if a white supreamacist website acknowledges a black influence in Egypt then I would be worse than a white supreamcy if I did not acknowledge it, especially with all the evidence. Even after my question no one has really proved that the egyptians were white or not black. I saw that picture with the nubian and the syria, and libyan and egyptian. The Nubian was black in skin color the egytian was reddish brown and the other two relatively white. Now if ancient egyptians were white they should have the same skin color as the syrians. Odds are the ancient egyptians had the facial characteristics of Nubians but the skin color of Ethiopians. As for the arguement that ancient egyptians are the ancestors of african americans, well that is a bit farfetched imo

truncated

This article has been severly truncated from the original articles and has been replaced with a lot unrelated material. what happened to the sphinx.

Regarding personal attacks

Enough. I've seen a lot of personal attacks, things like accusing others of being "liars", unfounded sockpuppeting jabs, and debate over the controversy itself. I was going to remove these as personal attacks, but it would take me quite a while, and would probably start a useless edit war. In the interest of policy, and of keeping this page relevant to article improvement, I would like to propose the following guidelines for this page for all editors:

• This is a talk page for improving the ARTICLE, not a page where we argue over ancient Egyptians and their ethnicity.
• Stop throwing accusations of sockpuppetry around. Unless you have a checkuser confirmation, don't bring it up. This isn't the place.
• Stop calling others "liars"
• Stop accusing other editors of having POV issues. For example, I don't have a POV, having absolutely no interest in race issues. Some or most of the editors here might have a POV, but we have to AGF and assume that they are keeping it under control. I really don't see much POV pushing from either side happening here, and I think the article as it stands now is rather neutral.

Some of this is already policy, some of it isn't. But can all sides agree, from this point forward, to uphold these and discuss the article, not arguing over the merits of its topic? --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

afrocentric arguments?

Ok, first off none of the notable sources in this section are afrocentrists. Secondly, its original research to claim their work is afrocentric. Thirdly, its original research to even claim that the afrocentric "argument" has any place in science whatsoever. Science simply produces theories. If some famous afrocentrist says that science has made afrocentric conclusions, we can quote them as saying that in a section called "Opinions", or something along those lines. The current content should be dispersed to other sections. I've placed an original research template on it, and I think it should be moved to other sections. I plan on keeping it there until this issue is discussed and a resolution is reached.--Urthogie 00:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The section could do with some work but still has some important insights that should not be left out of this article.Muntuwandi 05:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the content should be in the article, but the section definitely shouldnt. Do you see how it is a blatant original research to call these arguments afrocentric? And that blanking is better than possibly lying to people and giving them original research? Why don't we move the content to this talk page for a while and plan where to put it, rather than giving people original research?--Urthogie 05:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than, IMO, irrationally target an entire section for removal, treat the subject text as one would any other text. An editor should identify specific passages that he or she finds problematic and address them on their merits (or purported lack thereof). This same approach should be taken toward subsequent edits, as well -- notably my last round of edits --rather than wholesale reversion (by Urthogie) with an absolutely meaningless edit note about "afrocentrists" which is neither informative nor germane. deeceevoice 15:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point DC. I reverted your edits wholesale because I felt they made the entire article focus around afrocentric opinions which come secondary to an actual discussion of the science and facts. The opinions of afrocentrists and eurocentrists surely are notable, but not as notable as the research itself. I reverted your edits because they made huge changes to the article that should be discussed on the talk page first. We would have an easier time compromising if you reverted it to the pre-"big change" version, and discussed it here. As far as the "afrocentric arguments", my problem is not with the content, so much as the fact that it's grouped together in the way it is-- a synthesis that is clearly original research. Would you oppose integrating it into other sections? If not, why?--Urthogie 17:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "huge changes" were made earlier -- when this information was gutted from the article without justification. Again, you must cite specific passages with which you take issue. Reverting text wholesale, gutting passages and reinserting bullsh*t disinformation from a Stormfront website, as well as a blatant, flimsy and wholly unsourced mischaracterization of mainstream opinion w/regard to the skin color of ancient Egyptians ---- which is what you did -- is not the way to improve the article. deeceevoice 18:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the so-called "afrocentric opinions" you refer to are information that is the result of credible and rigorous research by well-regarded academicians and historians (mainstream and otherwise), and are supported by ample evidence, as reported in the article. Despite your opinion, information which supports an afrocentric perspective is not, ipso facto POV; it is what it is. deeceevoice 18:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

1. The section heading is what I have issue with, not the content. And headings are up to editing and talk page discussion if you haven't heard.
2. I also have issue with the blankings you did in the lead and in several sections. You should justify your blankings if you want that content kept out.--Urthogie 18:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you hadn't heard, immature, snide remarks should be dispensed with. And I'm still awaiting specific passages and your objections. deeceevoice 18:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Apologetics for a black dynastic Egypt". That sentence in the heading. Most of these people (perhaps all) are not apologetics, many of them are scientific studies which clarify a certain point which most scientists would say doesn't deductively prove anything about the race of ancient egyptians. For example, a study that shows some element of human geography that lends possibility to the afrocentrist view wasn't necessarily conducted by scholars who think Egypt was black. It's original research to say their findings are apologetic. In many cases, this is even a blatant lie to say so.--Urthogie 18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That relatively minor change was simply an attempt to address the matter of the subhead in labeling the information as "afrocentrist." An earlier version of this article split the issue artificially, eurocentrists versus afrocentrists -- in effect, erecting strawmen. Clearly, there is much mainstream, non-black, non-afrocentrist scholarship that supports the afrocentrist take on ancient dynastic Egypt. Pigeonholing and mischaracterizing information from, say, Herodotus and Petrie, the Father of Egyptology, as "afrocentrist", rather than merely as the result of objective observation and research is misleading and, depending on one's perspective, simply an ad hominem attack approach to the matter ("afrocentrist" being treated as pejorative term in some circles). If you have a suggestion for alternative wording, then advance it for consideration. And "blatant lie"? Refrain from such accusatory language. Your actions and attitude exhibited herein (and elsewhere lately) are not helpful to the project. deeceevoice 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My alternate suggestion is a restructuring of the article based on the research, rather than the current organization, which is based on opinions-- be it afrocentrists versus eurocentrists or apologetics versus non apologetics. Why not remove this heading "Apologetics for a black dynastic Egypt" and discuss all sides of the evidence as far as the egyptian art, people, and the discussion of the sphynx and other architecture?--Urthogie 18:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I abandoned this article in disgust some time ago, after much of the useful, interesting information had been gutted. If you check back to some of the earlier versions, countevailing information was, indeed, presented. I haven't focused on readding that stuff; it's not my interest, but you're certainly welcome to dig it up. Much of the heavy lifting in that regard already has been done. If you'd like to start another, work page for the article for review/discussion/debate before drastically restructuring the current article, that's fine with me, too. But I have focused on correcting errors and deleting racist disinformation from Stormfront-related websites frontin' like scholarship and will not tolerate you or anyone else continuing to reinsert it into the article. deeceevoice 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll make a couple small big changes in restructuring and you can revert me at any point if you want to discuss a change. I promise I won't revert back if you'll discuss. Oh, and I'll make sure to keep the stormfront out-- I'm Jewish :)--Urthogie 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

NY times letter to the editor is not reliable source

Letters to newspapers, comments on blogs, etc. are not notable unless the person themself is notable in the given field. Otherwise, only the content of the publication is considered notable.--Urthogie 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sheldon Peck is a college professor -- at the time, at Harvard University -- and published[3][4][5][6][7]. His opinions on related subject matter should be, and are, considered authoritative -- hence the publication of his letter in the NYT and works in multiple scholarly journals and other venues. The information is restored. deeceevoice 00:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

From the discussion: "Schoch and Peck are not qualified to make opinions about race of ancient peoples. Qualified experts would include Anthropologists, Archaeologists and Egyptologists." This is correct. It's just a professor extending his field where he's not authoritative. An orthodontist commenting on this subject is like a professor of pediatrics commenting on the evolution of neoteny.--Urthogie 01:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The above statement is misleading. Prof. Peck made no statement whatsoever about ancient peoples. He commented solely on the craniofacial characteristics of the Giza Sphinx -- a subject fully within his training, education and expertise. The statement will be restored. deeceevoice 13:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with mentioning it as a ref, but including the whole letter is excessive, and is an extremely minor point. Does any serious scholar really say, "hey, lets print out this letter to the editor from an orthodontist!" No, because orthodontics is the study of how to put in braces and correct teeth, and the guy is stretching his field. But I'll compromise, I"ll mention that its been pointed out. But including the whole letter is ridiculous, and also in bad style as it takes voice away from the article.--Urthogie 16:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

restored blanked lead

DCV apparently replaced a paragraph of the lead describing the mainstream scholarly consensus with a sentence describing what Afrocentrists claim the evidence shows. I restored the old lead, and also the picture, which (whether you like it or not) is extremely revelant to the discussion, and represents scientifically derived conclusions. DCV, just want to remind you that an encyclopedia doesn't exist to synthesize truth, but rather to organize and present what reliable sources say (Wikipedia:No original research). Discuss before reverting me, please. Thanks, --Urthogie 01:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The "blanked lead" reads:

The mainstream scholarly opinion is that the Egyptians were primarily a light-skinned to brown-skinned group of people with features that resembled more a multiracial society leaning more towards an appearance that is alluded to in the scientific attempt to reconstruct the facial likeness of Tutankhamun which appeared on the cover of National Geographic in 2005.

You would do well to note my rationale in "blanking" the offending passage before presuming to school me on the purpose of an encyclopedia. I deleted it because it is incorrect on two very important levels. The assertion regarding skin color of ancient Egyptians by so-called "mainstream scholarly opinion" is not sourced -- as my edit note indicated -- and as is required per Wiki guidelines; it cannot be, because there is no such opinion. Where is the "reliable source" for such an outrageously off-the-mark assertion? Answer: nowhere. "No original research"? How about "no blatantly erroneous information"?

Secondly, of the three teams who participated in the Tut reconstruction in 2005, producing three, separate reconstructions, only one opted to affix a skin color to its bust and, by the team's own admission, it was an arbitrary decision based on the present-day, highly miscegenated/Arabized Egyptian populace -- and at that, the Egyptians of Lower Egypt, given that the Egyptians in the South are, on average, by many scholarly and anecdotal accounts, considerably darker and more "Negroid"/Africoid in appearance than their compatriots. They made no effort whatsoever to rationalize how, knowing the identity of the specimen, they could apply fair skin and hazel eyes to their reconstruction, given the complete absence of contemporaneous, nonsymbolic representations of Tut with anything remotely resembling fair skin; he is portrayed as having dark, red-brown skin -- and not a single representational artifact of the young king with hazel eyes.

Finally, a Discovery Channel reconstruction of Tut a scant two or three years before -- also an effort of scholars -- produced the following reconstruction.[8] Hardly a light-skinned, mixed-race looking guy with hazel eyes -- is he? Clearly, the author of the above passage is ignorant of the facts and jumped to some unfounded conclusions based on the scandalous reconstruction sponsored by Zahi Hawass and National Geographic. It is deleted. Again. deeceevoice 13:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The mainstream consensus is they were a mixed-race society. The picture should stay, as its not meant to represent fact, but rather what a reliable source says. The caption even makes clear its controversial. Please stop censoring it. You can add the other picture that suits your agenda if you like, noone is stopping you. I'll edit the "mainstream" sentence, but I'm reverting back the picture.--Urthogie 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the text in question, there is no singular, mainstream consensus regarding a prevalent skin color of the ancient Egyptians. Nor is there a consensus as to when and to what the degree there was purported "racial" admixture among the population. The so-called indigenous "Caucasoid"s of North Africa were/are black peoples, as were the Abssyinians/Ethiopians/Eritreans, the Sudanese (Kushites) and the other Nilotic peoples of the region, with the Arabs not present to any great degree until the 7th century A.D. Lotsa luck with finding a reputable source that asserts, as this editor tried to, that the ancient Egyptians were pasty pale with hazel eyes. deeceevoice 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It now says the consensus is of a mixed race society, influenced by the demographics of whites blacks and arabs. The references confirm this.--Urthogie 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Gee, still nothing about skin color??!!!! :p deeceevoice 16:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence makes clear now that a variety of shades existed in ancient Egyptians (and no, noone is suggesting that some barbarians from Europe teleported to Ancient Egypt and turned everyone white). I even added some photos that your afrocentric spidey sense should love.--Urthogie 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is useless

This article appears to have been written by someone too leery/PC to make any clear, definitive conclusions. The author of this article toys around with defining/refuting the concept of "race" rather than making any distinctions. Furthermore, this article actually appears to give credence to the possibility that Egyptians were black- a foolish idea that is already beyond refutation. Also not show is the picture of Ramses II's mummy (http://www.geocities.com/enbp/eg_pics.html), which has Mediterranean features. --Pewpewlazers 07:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the article deals primarily with how the ancient Egyptians viewed themselves, and not how modern people view them relative to current reality. In effect, the article completely side-steps it's title- not only by undermining the solid concept of race (not abandoned by a majority of scientists), but by making race a complete non-issue. --Pewpewlazers 07:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The unscientific, afrocentric original research and lack of balance you observe is definitely there. Please add sources to this article, and I will help you in the process if you follow the Wikipedia policies.--Urthogie 18:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV confusion

Apparently, there is at least one editor who seems confused about the nature of POV and NPOV. I've replaced the inappropriate NPOV tags with "balance" tags. deeceevoice 13:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reinserted the "balance" tags. POV indicates the insertion of groundless personal opinion. Unless and until specific passages are identified in the article as it stands that misrepresent facts, then the POV tags do not apply. And even then, I would argue that those passages either need to be flagged with "fact" notations and discussed. If documentation of the information cannot be provided, then it needs to go. From what I've read, the problem here is one of balance -- not of factuality. The information provided appears, by and large, to be reasonably presented and adequately sourced. If there is a passage that is not, then raise the matter here so that it can be discussed. Plastering the article with POV tags with no real explanation is inappropriate. Those who seek to have an alternative viewpoint represented -- which is fitting and proper -- should present that information so that the "balance" tags then can be removed. . If no such information is provided, then it may be assumed that there is no credible, countervailing information, the result being the eventual removal of the "balance" tags deeceevoice 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It was the anon who removed the balance tags. I have no problem with em, its just tags.--Urthogie 16:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

want more references in the lead?

I've added several sources that attest to Egypt as a mixed-race society, with a variety of skin colors. These are all scientific and modern, and represent the common view of scientists who study Egypt. I challenge you to find one mainstream Egyptologist who thinks the Egyptians were not a mixed-race society. I also added some middle-eastern looking faces from ancient egyptian art. Thanks, --Urthogie 16:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, Basil Davidson, a great British historian, thinks that Egyptians were Black people. Cf. homestead.com/wysinger/ancientafrica.html . Your article contains misleading informations. (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.110.156.38 (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

• The site you linked to is a private, very biased web page.
• Davidson's book was published with evidence from 1959 and ealier. (very much out of date)
• Very few researchers agree with him. However, there have been notable exceptions, such as Dr. Diop, who seems to basically agree with him on this point.

• Diop's views relied on a view of race that is seen as partially correct, but outdated, today. (Don't believe me? Read his book: Evolution of the Negro world' in Presence Africaine (1964))
• Diop admits that the Egyptians were a mixed race society, which is what I insisted in the first place.("Whilst acknowledging that the ancient Egyptian population was 'mixed', a fact confirmed by all the anthropological analyses...")
• Diop also made a mistake in claiming there was a Broad black worldwide phenotype.
• Diop's work was done in the 60's and 70's. Much of it is out of date, (especially its conceptions of race).

Anything else you want to bring up?--Urthogie 21:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, Basil Davidson is correct. His analyses are conform to the testimonies of ancient writers like Herodotus and Aristotle. They knew the Egyptians, they lived with them. Their testimonies are essential! Herodotus wrote that the Egyptians have black skin and wooly hair. Aristotle said that the Egyptians like the Ethiopians are very black. Now, will you come saying that Herodotus and Aristotle are out of date? There is more. Herodotus said that the Egyptians are people from the south because the Delta did not exist before, being under water. This observation is true. The first Egyptian nome is Ta Seti, meaning Nubia. Diodore de Sicile learned from the Nubians that the Egyptians are Nubians. Plutarque confirms this. While he was in Egypt, he learned that the Egyptians consider themselves as belonging to the southern world. Actually an Egyptian text says that Osirus flies from the left side. Now to the Egyptian the left side is the south. Do you see, Urthogie, in this ancient time, white people or mixed races coming from the south of Egypt? Usually, when one speaks of the Egyptians being a mixed race, one thinks of a mix of black Africans with Asians. Asian and African ancient sources agree in refuting this modern western idea. What do the Bible says to you? Does is not put together Egypt and Cush under the same ancestor, Cham? The Egyptian priest Manetho does the same. Are you going to say that Manetho is out of date? Why don't you mention in the article these writers who wrote your classics? Maybe because they contradict you! What about the picture of the races found in the tomb of Rameses III? Where is it in the article? The hieroglyphs put in the article are not even well translated. When "Kmt" refers to the place, it means "black (nation)". Not "black land", as says the article. Kmt is feminin. Land is masculine in the Egyptian language. But the city (niwt) is feminin. When it refers to the people, it means the "Black (people). Not "people of the black land". Where do you see the determinative of land in this last hieroglyph? You will say that you are quoting mainstream Egyptologists. OK! Just continue to quote people who are misleading you. But this is neither science nor truth. Finaly, I really don't know where you found what you are saying about Cheikh Anta Diop. You better listen to his interviews in Guadaloupe and America to refresh your memory in www.africamaat.com/article.php3?id_article=821 (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.110.156.38 (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

• As for Aristotle, noone is denying that Egypt was very curly haired and black as compared to Greeks. Its also worth noting the confusion as to how they dealt with race in this period.[9]
• Herodotus, the father of history, was accused in his time and ours of fabrication, plagarism, and general misinformation. For example, Herodotus claimed that Ethiopians had black semen, unlike whites (aristotle had to correct him on this!)![10] If you want another scientific source which lays the specific claim by Herodotus that Egyptians were all black and wooly haired into question, read this: [11]. See, surely some Egyptians were black and wooly haired, but the point remains it was a mixed race society, and your weak sources don't prove otherwise.
• Plutarch was born millenia after ancient egypt-- so I think I'll trust the confirmations of modern scientists over him.
• Egypt does not have a single ancestor, but many.
• I'm not gonna look up how someone uses the word "black". I don't have time to research this, but if you think its necessary I can prove you wrong on this too probably. My brother, who masters in Egyptology and actually reads hieroglyphs for fun doesn't agree with you. But if you insist I can prove this point, probably.
• What exactly did I say wrong about Diop? Be specific.
• As you can see, your points rely on relatively weak sources. This took me ten minutes to reply to supposedly rock solid evidence, but as you can see it's not scientific to claim egypt wasn't mixed raced.--Urthogie 01:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

removed claim that Punt was where egyptians traced their origin to

What I removed

Ancient Egyptians themselves traced their origin to a land they called "Punt" (pwnt), or ta nṯrw (read "Ta Netcherew"), the "Land of the Gods". Punt is thought to have been located near the Somali border and northern Ethiopia, lands occupied in ancient times and today by indigenous, black African peoples.

In Libya, which is mostly desert and oasis, there is a visible Negroid element in the sedentary populations, and at the same is true of the Fellahin of Egypt, whether Copt or Muslim. Osteological studies have shown that the Negroid element was stronger in predynastic times than at present, reflecting an early movement northward along the banks of the Nile, which were then heavily forested..

Fellahin, in fact, is the name Arabs traditionally gave to the indigenous peoples of the lands they conquered. The term means tiller or peasant.

Why I removed it

• This is a faulty usage of the Brittanica passage. The passage only states that there was an early movement northward, it doesn't state that it was the only movement into ancient Egypt, as the text would suggest.
• The Brittanica source is from 1974, and is as a result really outdated. (If you think date doesn't matter, take a look at some shit from the early 1900's and late 1800's and compare it to the mid 1900's)
• Even if the above issues weren't irredeemable problems, which they are, the above text claims, using weasel words, that Ethiopia was thought to be the location of Punt. This is one man's view on a problem that is, as of yet, unsolved in Egyptology. The strongest hypothesis is that it is somewhere south of Nubia.
• I'd like to see a reliable, scientific source that says the Egyptians thought they originated in Punt. I can't find such a source, but maybe it exists and im just being ignorant here. The sources I've looked at (which are mainstream and credible) say that ancienct Egyptians saw themselves as being created by Gods in Egypt [12][13]
• This is not central to my reasons for removal, but I must ask: Why was this earlier categorized as an "Afrocentric argument"? It's not disputed by modern science that Egypt had descendents of sub-saharan africans throughout its society. It's also not very disputed that the sub-saharan african presence diminished and mixed as a result of wars, trading, being colonized with/by peoples north of egypt. What afrocentrists argue, that simply isn't true-- is that the ancient egyptian civilization was originally all a migration from sub-saharan africans, and wasn't mixed with those from the fertile crescent (and perhaps other places). The ancient egyptian civilization, with its pyramids and art, was mixed. Hunter gatherers from the south may have likely come before hunter gatherers from the north-- but this is not the question of the article. The question of the article is the Egyptians. And the egyptians were mixed.

Discuss

I'll keep it removed until you prove that these problems either don't exist or aren't significant enough to warrant removal. Please don't revert until you've attempted to discuss this.--Urthogie 19:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness Urthogie I think you should have to prove why he is wrong and his statements should be removed. Unless you want an edit war unilateral edits are not wise especially when everyone seemed to agree prior to your arrival that it was true. Now I'm not saying your wrong all I am saying is that to keep order and procedure you should be the one who disproves what is already in the article and whoever wnats to keep it in should have a chance to rebute that argument and we can go with the better argument.

My personal opnion is that anicent egyptians may not have come from ethiopia but they did seem to believe based on the britannia source that they came from south of where they were living. Furthermore I would consider britanntan dictionary to be a pretty reputable choice because this is prior to the period when you could right a book with pc self censorship

I did supply reasons, in the above section "Why I removed it." Your personal opinion is in fact addressed in that section as well. --Urthogie 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested move

Racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians. If its controversial, that can be stated. It just seems to me like theres more to it than controversy-- there's also uncontroversial research performed all the time.--Urthogie 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia should a location for definitive, concise answers. Doooo it.--Pewpewlazers 10:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

removed content

What I removed

File:Punt khoisan.jpg

Wall relief of Puntite queen resembling a Khoisan woman.

A wall relief of Puntite royalty reveals a dark-brown-skinned king and queen, the latter exhibiting the characteristic attributes of a Khoisan woman. Commerce existed between Egypt and Punt, with Egyptian royalty mounting expeditions to what they regarded as their ancestral home. Among the items they brought back were whole trees of myrrh and other species, aromatic woods, incense, leopards, monkeys, ivory, ebony, panther hides, cinnamon, and gum.

Why I removed it

• What proof is there that Egypts "regarded Punt as their ancestral home"? This seems to go against severa sources Ive read.
• It's original research to include this in the article unless its been said by a given mainstream scientists to be relevant to the issue of race of ancient egyptians. No original research means editors can't decide whether something related is truly relevant-- they need a source confirming this.--Urthogie 20:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A pic is worth a thousand words. Muntuwandi 06:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a thousand words on the subject of Punt. This article is about Egypt, and there is as of yet no proof added on the page that the Egyptians regarded Punt as their ancestral home.--Urthogie 19:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

great sphynx of giza -- Original Research?

It's OR to include this in a section called "Research" if noone has actually researched this and linked it to the race of ancient egyptians. It could still be included in the afrocentrism section, though, even if it isn't formally researched. DC, anyone else, do you know of any reason why its not original research to include this in a section called "Research"? Thanks, --Urthogie 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

sections to add to background

• Section explaining dolichocephalism
• Section explaing prognathism

Not sure if I spelled these right, --Urthogie 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

french wikipedia article worth looking at

• This article on the French Wikipedia has a lot of good content worth integrating.--Urthogie 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

continued discussion

Urthogie. Herodotus, Aristotle and Jean-François Champollion wrote before the falsification of the history of ancient Egypt. Herodotus is considered to be the father of history. He said that the Egyptians have black skin and wooly hair. Aristotle is said to be the father of natural sciences. He said that the Egyptians like the Ethiopians (the Nubians) are very black. Champollion is said to be the father of Egyptology. He said that the Egyptians look like the Nubians! There is even more. The Bible - a book from the Semite people - put Misraïm (Egypt) and Cush (Nubia) under a common ancestor, Cham. Manetho, the Egyptian-priest and historian put together Memphis, This and Ethiopia. Is it by chance? Do you know, Urthogie, that the very first Egyptian nome is Nubia? "Sti: Ta-Sti, Nubia, properly Ist nome of Upper Egypt; Styw Nubians" says Gardiner in its Egyptian Grammar, p. 593. Yes, Ta Sti is the first nome of Egypt because the Egyptians are from the south. Herodotus agrees with that when he says that long ago the Delta was under water. But the Egyptians existed since there are human beings. Their home was in the south. In those ancient times, this south was inhabited only by the black race. I don't think that you have another theory about that. Plutarque mentions also in one of his numerous works that Egyptians considered themselves as being people of the southern world. If they were mixed people, they could never speak like that, and go so far as to call themselves "kmt" which litteraly means the "Blacks". I repeat, "Kmt" doesn't mean "people of the black land" as states the article. There is no determinative of the land in those hieroglyphs for the people. Urthogie, if you know a bit of the Egyptian language, you can see this by yourself. I insist, about the Egyptian nomes, there is none in Europe or in Asia. All of them are in Africa, and the first of them is Nubia. This is simple fact. Finally, let's indicate that according to Diodore de Sicile, the Ethiopians (Nubians) say that the Egyptians are their descendants. As you can see, the ancient sources speak the same language. Modern Egyptologists, I put it also forward yesterday, avoid carefully to mention them. But in other fields, and you know that well, the ancient writers from Greece especially are considered to be the founders. Why not in Egyptology? There is surely something wrong with the kind of Egyptology promoted in the West. It is inaccurate, yet arrogant! How long is it going to last? (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.110.156.38 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

You're repeating several points I already addressed without responding to what I said. If we're going to discuss this it has to be a back and forth and not just you sharing your knowledge of Egypt. If you don't want to discuss this with me, you can still edit the article without reversion as long as you follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and occassionally stop to explain your edits. If you want to have a full argument with me (you clearly have researched a lot) then feel free to Instant Message me, my AOL screen name is Urthogie. But right now we're working on editing Wikipedia, not arguing, so please edit with sources, rather than just talking on it.--Urthogie 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie. I am not closing the dialogue. Imagine when I began writing my last message your response to my previous remarks was not visible on my screen. Sorry for the repetition. This page is made for discussion. And that's what I am trying to do.

• As far as I know, Diop doesn't say that the Egyptians were a mixed race. He states the contrary. In the interview in Guadaloupe, he even says that Black people began colonising the Nile valley before the existence of the other races.

You're right on this specific point and I'm wrong on it. My mistake.--Urthogie 00:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Did Aristotle contradict Herodotus on the issue the blackness of the Egyptians? No! He even says more. That the Egyptians like the Ethiopians are very black. Of cause, black is black compared to other colors. So I don't see the importance of your remark according to which "Egypt was very curly haired and black as compared to the Greeks", if not a way of acknowledging the blackness of the Egyptians.

My arab friend got called black today by some dumb white kid. And he's not from egypt, he's from saudi arabia, and his skin is medium brown. This is just an example of how people who look different from us we often think of as opposite. Noone actually is black-- even blue blacks are a very dark brown, just as noone is white, just pink and beige. So one question is: What did Aristotle and Herodotus mean by black? Was it a category that included people that were a mix between Nubians, Arabs, and Mediterraneans? The ancient egyptians were a mix of those three-- and I think they were thus included in the category black. The term "black" cannot be taken as a scientific description, so you'll have to prove exactly what he meant before we even consider his evidence.

Allow me to be more specific. The Egyptians were neither Nubian nor Mediterranean. They were Egyptian-- a unique mix, with its ancestors in more places than just Nubia. Also, race is usually refered to in classical literature solely as either white, black, and asian. So how you can know that they didn't just group all arabs with blacks because they are more similar to black than to the other two groups? Where does Aristotle call anyone an arab? You'd have a very strong point if he scientifically defined arabs and blacks and defined the difference between them. --Urthogie 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Plutarch was born millenia after ancient egypt". Are you sure of that? Plutarch lived around 50-120 CE and the last Egyptian temple was closed in 535 CE. Plutarch could still have access to accurate informations.

OK, so tell me how Plutarch could prove anything about Egyptian ancestry centuries after Greek and Persian conquest, using scientific tools of his time?--Urthogie 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• So, you don't know the Egyptian language, and you rely on your brother who "reads hieroglyphs for fun". The race of the Egyptians is well mentioned in the hieroglyphs. Please, read them for knowledge!

Actually he doesn't just do it for fun, he graduated with Egyptology at an Ivy League University. But that's besides the point. To argue the race of the egyptians was visible in the hieroglyphs is ridiculous because the hieroglyphs show people which are different looking than their Southern African neighbors-- they even intentionally distinguish. For example, this is a hieroglyph of an egyptian[14], and this is a hieroglyph of a Nubian[15]. Secondly, the Egyptians distinguished between kingdoms, not between races.--Urthogie 00:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• The affirmations of modern Western Egyptologists according to which Egyptians were mixed race is not echoed by ancient writers. Those affirmations are baseless. They are subject to change in a matter already resolved. Color exists because it can be seen. Herodotus, Aristotle and the biblical writers saw the Egyptians as being black.

I addressed the flaws in taking their testimony for granted above. But I want to add another point. If we were to take everything the ancient writers say for granted, we would still believe that the Ethiopians had black semen! Herodotus actually said that! Do you see why modern science is more reliable, then?--Urthogie 00:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Peace and good luck to you Urthogie! (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka).

I just want to say, by the way, that I'm not doing this out of racism or some agenda other than seeking the truth. I despise white supremacism and I think blacks are equal to whites. The blacks have had many great civilizations (Ethiopa, Zimbabwe, Mali, Sahel), but their geography and natural resources is what led them to not do as well as their white brothers-- not skin color! The Europeans were able to get Guns, Germs, and Steel faster than the Africans, so they were able to take over Africa before it had a chance to get guns, germs and steel of its own. I only argue with you out of respect for the truth, and not for any agenda. Thank you for discussing this, --Urthogie 01:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page not a discussion forum

The talk page is not a discussion forum. Please take this argument to the proper place. This is for discussing the article. --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is relevant as edits will emerge if he proves that his presented evidence is notable, scientific, and sourced. (in fact I plan on adding many of the things he's discussing)--Urthogie 01:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncontroversial

Based on the evidence in this article and elsewhere it is incontrovertible that blacks or dark skinned people were present in Ancient Egypt. What is controversial is the who when what where or how. I think this should emphasized. "The mixed race society" is an oversimplification and appears to dilute the influence that blacks had on Ancient Egypt.Muntuwandi 06:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Clearly, for much of its existence, dynastic Egypt was overwhelmingly black and African. The text you suggest actually was in one iteration of the article. And, certainly, until several centuries after Arab domination in the 7th century A.D., it remained clearly black and African in predominant part. (Indeed, it remains so today; it is merely a society of blacks heavily miscegenated with Arab blood and Arabs to the north, with most of the populations in the south retaining their clearly Africoid physical characteristics and syncretic religious and cultural beliefs, with holdovers from pharonic times. deeceevoice 14:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is correct to say that Ancient Egypt clearly had black people in it. DCV is wrong, however, in saying that dynastic Egypt was "clearly" overwhelmingly black (all of it, of course was African by geography). The scholarly consensus (which is what the article is meant to present) is that dynastic egypt was overwhelmingly of mixed ancestry between Black North Africans, arabs, and greeks, etc. That is to say, it was overwhelmingly a unique mix between the surrounding regions.

The mixed-race views is "clearly" represented by mainstream science.--Urthogie 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Dear Urthogie. Thank you for your answers, which indeed are very clear. I thank also Muntuwandi and Deeceevoice for their contributions.

• I see that you are raising an epistemological question. How can we know if what an ancient writer is saying is true or faulse? My answer will be to see if other sources confirm its observations or not. Like in the issue of the semen of the blacks, Aristotle did contradict Herodotus. But in the issue of the race of the Egyptians he confirms him. So we can say that ancient Egyptians were black because all ancient testimonies agree on that. The article, "Early Jewish and Christian Views of Blacks", you asked me to read is clear about that. On page 6 one reads: "The Graeco-Roman, and Christian sources depicting the Egyptians as a dark-skinned people, paralled the Islamic accounts that consider the Copts, i.e. the Egyptians, as one of the Sudan". Some lines before, the text put the Sudan (all the blacks) among the children of Ham. Now, which are the colors of the children of Ham? The same text you gave me answers on pages 8-9: "A Jewish text, Pirqei R. Eliezer, depicts God as dividing the world among Noah.s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and decreeing different skin colors for them (literally, blessing them with different skin colors): ligth colored skin for Japhetites, medium dark (brown) for the Semites, and very dark (black) for the Hamites". I think that here you have the response to your question: "Was it a category that included people that were a mix between Nubians, Arabs, and Mediterraneans?". Yes, the Semites! And the Egyptians are not Semites. They are descendants of Ham! Actually, even Egyptians sources say the same thing. According to Plutarch, the Egyptians says in their mythology that they are the decendants of Osirous, the Black-God, while the Jews and Jerusalem are descendants of Seth the Red-God. It is clear now that if the Egyptians were a mix, the jewish sources would have said that they are the sons of Sem. The arab sources would have not put them among the Sudan. The Greec sources would have not said that the Egyptians have a black skin.

My point isn't that the Egyptians were as light as the semites, but rather that they were a mix between the semites and the Africans. If we divide the world into three groups, we'll have very rigid guidelines, and of course group people incorrectly. The Egyptians were a unique mixed race, and a three-way division doesn't address this fact. The ancient religious sources are not at all scientific. You are trying to argue a basically scientific point with a history given by religions, which are not scientific in nature. If we accepted religion as scientific we'd say we're all descended from Adam and Eve, materialized by god, when the scientific reality which proves this myth wrong is evolution. This is an example ofwhy modern science is more powerful than ancient religious myths in answering questions such as the one this article deals with.--Urthogie 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• The picture you mentioned in number 15 is according to you the one of a Nubian. You said this because it is clear that it represents a black man. Now let me tell you that this man is an Egyptian! In the tomb of Ramses 3, he belongs to a series of 4. He is number 1. Between them is written the hieroglyphs RMT with the determinatives. RmT means "man", but also "Egyptians" (Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, p. 149). Please check this information with your brother in www.alain.guilleux.free.fr/vallee_des_rois/vallee_des_rois_ramses_3_ramses_9.html or in www.manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm

This doesn't at all go against my point. I'm not denying that there were blacks (nubians, and others) in ancient Egypt-- it's only reasonable that traces of black Africans would be in Egypt-- because they were part of the society! I'm just denying the idea that they were the whole society. In fact, if that man in the hieroglyph with Nubian ancestry was also Egyptian, that actually helps my point-- that Egypt was actually a gestalt of arabs, greeks, nubians, etc. Lastly, the skin color in egyptian art does not present solid, scientific evidence for youre view several reasons:

• Women are drawn lighter than men.
• Some impossible skin colors are sometimes drawn.
• Some traits are exaggerated. (This also occurs in European art where they draw beige people as pure white)
• Egyptians drew a variety of skin colors.
• The link you provided tries to argue based on Ramses III's tomb that the Egyptians were overwhelmingly of black African origin. However, take a look at this relief of Ramses III: [16]. Clearly, art goes both ways! (which is only expected in a mixed-race society)

If we take art as scientific evidence, then how do you explain the lighter skinned portrayals of people in Ancient egypt? The whole argument, if based on art, results in proof of a mixed race ancient Egypt.--Urthogie 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• You put a very interesting question. "OK, so tell me how Plutarch could prove anything about Egyptian ancestry centuries after Greek and Persian conquest, using scientific tools of his time"? Deeceevoice gave already the answer. Even today traces of the black indigenous are visible! That helped Volney in the eigtheen century to identify the Great Sphynx as negroid.

Best regards! (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.110.156.38 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

This doesn't go against the mixed race hypothesis. In fact, its expected to find such traces from a mixed-society.--Urthogie 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe mixed race hypothesis is an oversimplification because of the timeline involved. The dynastic period began around 3100BC but even before evidence of habitation and some organized society can be traced to 10000BC. It is unrealistic to believe that throughout the period several races could have co-existed in one place without some assimilation and homogenization of the population. Muntuwandi 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not disputed anywhere that I know of-- even among Afrocentrists-- that the people living in egypt had extensive contact with the fertile crescent before 6000 BC. To clarify, the article is mainly concerned with what ancient Egyptians looked like. The folks who built the pyramids-- what did they look like?-- these are the questions that are of such significance to Afrocentrists. The mainstream scientific consensus-- which has overwhelming evidence-- is that from day one of the Ancient Egyptian society they were a gestalt of neighboring races.

"It is unrealistic to believe that throughout the period several races could have co-existed in one place without some assimilation and homogenization of the population." Indeed, it is unrealistic to believe such. And afrocentrists would unrealistically argue that despite continuus trade and assimilation with the Fertile Crescent for several millenia before the existence of the first pyramid (2700's BC), that the builders of such pyramids and pharoahs that ruled over them would be non-homogenized and non-assimilated blacks.

Now, it is correct to point out that pre-Dynastic Egypt is generally regarded as much more african than ancient Dynastic Egypt. I wouldn't be against adding this to the article. However, it should also be noted that scholars still take pains to note the significant Mesopotamian influence that existed even before dynastic egypt.

One thing you have to recognize, though, is that the whole modern debate that Afrocentrists are concerned with is dynastic egypt. THey want to prove that Egypt-- pyramids and all-- was a purely black african civilization. On this point, they are wrong-- or at least according to the mainstream scientific consensus, they are.

(As a side point, I want to note that scientists care a lot less about this issue than the race obsessed Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists. I only started editing this article to make sure that Wikipedia didn't give a false presentation of the research relating to it. I could care less about whether Egypt was black or white, or purple, and I think it's pretty obvious that Afrocentrists are so obsessed with deviating from the historical record because they have internalized the racism of whites. Frantz Fanon makes this clear in his excellent book, which everyone should read if they get a chance.)--Urthogie 05:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse scientists care less about the issue largely because up until recently the scientific community has largely been caucasian. They naturally assumed (see systemic bias)that it was impossible for such a civilization to have had anything to do with blacks. If not for afrocentrists, the world would still believe that Ancient Egypt was "lily white".

The prevailing undercurrent is that blacks were present in ancient egypt but only used as slaves and the more caucasoid egyptians were the pharaohs and runing the show. This is false because the Great Sphinx of Giza is definetly black african. And they would not build a sphinx for someone unimportant. The sphinx is believed to be king Kafre. Furthermore black Nubian Kings seized the thrown of egypt on a number of occassions[17],

[18]. Taharqa was also a black african king.

File:King taharqa.jpg

Black king Taharqa

This issue is and will continue to be very important especially for people of African descent. This so as western society has taken for granted that africans have had no contribution to modern society. What is ironic is that it is entirely plausible the beginings modern of civilization could have actually started in Africa by africans before spreading to the middle east, the phoenicians, greeks and then the romans. I definitely suspect there will be a lot more noise and controversy in the future regarding the race of ancient egyptians.

skin color with latitude

Pre-dynastic egypt should still be mentioned because it is the precursor to the dynastic but we could have separate sub-sections. Muntuwandi 08:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong in saying that before afrocentrism they thought egypt was lily-white. Some of the stuff from the late 1800's and early 1900's suggests that they looked similar to arabs. Also, scientce today doesn't say there werent nubian kings. That's a credible hypothesis-- one that doesn't contradict the mixed-race hypothesis. As far as slaves, many of them were nubians, and many of them were semites. If you want to add a section on pre-dynastic egypt go ahead. There are several theories regarding it.--Urthogie 15:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

timeline

It's been pointed out that our timeline is basically limited to the dynastic Egyptians. Should we formalize this limitation, and make it clear in the lead that the article only deals with those Egyptians who actually had a sedentary civilization, or actually break it by including info on pre-dynastic egypt? It seems to me like what afrocentrists, eurocentrists, and even scientists are mainly concerned about as far as race in egypt was dynastic egypt. However, the afrocentrists might also be gleeful to learn that the early pre-dynastic Egyptians would likely be considered black today. So what are the thoughts on this?--Urthogie 06:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

continued discussion

Urthogie.

• I really take your statements seriously. You wrote: "To argue the race of the egyptians was visible in the hieroglyphs is ridiculous because the hieroglyphs show people which are different than their Southern African neighbors - they even intentionally distinguish". Then you gave 2 pictures which according to you distinguish the Egyptians (light skin)from the Nubians (dark skin). Your intention, according to me, was clear: Egypt as a mixed society is reprensented by people with light skin. But I showed you that the man you took for a Nubian was actually an Egyptian. You turned your argument another way round as to say that Egypt could have both light and dark colors because it was a mixed society! Your intention clearly deviated. But know that the light skin is part of the black race. It was found in Nubia, in Egypt and it is still found among today's Black African people. For this mix of light and dark among Nubians, please find this through google: "Nubians: Nubians on fresco from tomb of Huy, Thebes. 14th century BC". You can also go to www. homestead.com/wysinger/tomboflhuy.html and to www.osirisnet.net/tombes/nobles/houy/e_houy.htm

I actually have to say I was misled because you know more than me. I just looked at the pictures and assumed it was from an a scientific journal. But it's from a discussion posted by this professor to a yahoo group! I take back what I said based on that site. Please provide scientific evidence from a peer reviewed journal, that is capable of correcting mistakes. I made a mistake in accepting this evidence, I was misled. Neither of the links you provide just now are peer reviewed. They may have enormous errors that a layman like myself can't identify.--Urthogie 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Muntuwandi when he states that "I believe mixed race hypothesis is oversimplication because of the timeline involved. The dynastic period began around 3100 BC but even before evidence of habitation and some organized society can be traced to 10000 BC". According to Cheikh Anta Diop, the Semites began to exist at around 5000 BC. They are a mix of the white and the black races. At this time the egyptian civilization had already begun its way in the south, meaning in Nubia! That's why "Ta Seti" (Nubia) is the first nome of Egypt. When the Semites reached Palestine in their move, the pyramids were already built! Let me quote this in French about the Semites (I am sorry because I found it in this language): "Vers l'an 3000 on repère une de leurs migrations vers la Syrie actuelle... au début du deuxième millénaire, une autre vague déferle sur la Mésopotamie... quelques clans s'en détachent vers la Palestine où ils s'incorporent à la civilisation urbaine de Canaan... les migrations se poursuivent dont celles où seront incorporés ceux qu'Israël présentera comme ses ancêtres" (Cf www.perso.orange.fr/avaljb/5Bible/clannomad.htm).

Diop is simply wrong in saying in saying "the semites began to exist at around 5000 BC", assuming hes saying that. There is evidence of plants that were domesticated in the fertile crescent being brought to Egypt before 6000 BC! And remember, Diop is not right in every regard.--Urthogie 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• If one follows closely what remains of the book of Manetho, the egyptian priest and historian, the most significant contact between the kemetic (black) populations and what we can call the Semites took place during the second intermidiary period, around the second millennium BC. This is conform to the quotation above. At this time dynastic Egypt was one millennium old at least!

How could a historian of that time know what his people looked like thousands of years ago? We already have trouble figuring that out with all of our modern tools!--Urthogie 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Another thing. If the Egyptians were a mixed populations of Europeans, Asians and Africans from the start, meaning before the dynasties, the hieroglyphs would reflet this reality. But according to Erik Hornung, the hieroglyphs, all of them, are taken from african environment and culture.

Please provide a source.--Urthogie 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ancient Egyptians were just Black African people. The "mixed-society" theory is philosophically or ideologically motivated. It has no solid ground neither ancient nor modern.

No, its not ideologically motivated today. They even go out of their way to not tell people who they are analyzing. For the National Geographic reconstruction they didn't tell the researchers who it was or where they were from!

Peace to you Urthogie, and thank you very much for the sharing of ideas. (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.110.156.38 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

You said earlier that there were traces of sub-saharan africans in egypt. This study and others found no such traces. Yet, strong semitic traces can be found in ashkenazi jews who are basically white, and have been conquered an assimilated by dozens of cultures.

I have a few requests to make of you in continuing this discussion:

• Please source all of your claims, so I can check them.
• Please try to use peer reviewed sources, so that errors are pointed out by other scientists, rather than posts to yahoo groups which noone will correct scientifically.
• Please don't state opinion as fact. This misled me on the issue of the Nubians, which, after reviewing I found to be simply a post by this professor to a yahoo group, not fact at all.--Urthogie 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Urthogie.

• If it is true that we are dealing with science, we must try to be coherent. In science examples are given to support or to reject a theory. In the article, it is writen: "The Egyptians considered themselves part of a distinct race, separate from their neighbors. Most modern Egyptologists believe the Egyptians thought of themselves as Egyptian people, not African, Mediterranean, White, or Black people. They discovered wall paintings that contrast Egyptian [2], Nubian [3], Berber [4], and Semitic peoples [5]". Here is a theory: "Egyptian people (are) not African, Mediterranean, White, or Black people". Examples are provided to support it. Number 2 is said to be an Egyptian because is brown. Number 3 is said to be a Nubian because is very dark. Number 4 a Berber, and number 5, a Semite, are very light. I showed you that there is no Nubian in those pictures. Number 2 and number 3 are Egyptians. As one of the pictures does not support the theory, this theory falls by itself and has to be abandoned. This is to be coherent, to do science.
• Among Blacks, the brown skin is not limited to the Egyptians. Even some Nubians have that colour. Ernest Chantre a French anthropologist, speaking about the mummy of the queen Nefertari wrote: "La momie de cette reine qui fut la femme d'Ahmosis, le libérateur, et la mère d'Aménôthès Ier, était admirablement conservée (...). La peau de son visage noircie par le temps, ne peut donner aucune indication sur son teint primitif qui - au dire des égyptologues - devait être brun, puiqu'on lui attribue une origine éthiopienne" (Quoted by Aboubacry Moussa Lam, "L'affaire des momies royales. La vérité sur la reine Ahmès-Nefertari", Paris: Khepera / Présence Africaine, 2000, p. 67).

Scientific theories don't fall apart because one piece of evidence doesn't work. If one piece of evidence doesn't work the evidence is eliminated, not the entire theory (which may be modified). Secondly, the link you provided to prove your point, as I pointed out, was posted to a yahoo group, which is not a scientific forum. If you plan to prove that none of them were nubians, then please provide a scholarly source, not a yahoo group source. If you prove your point here, we will remove the flawed sentence.--Urthogie 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• The German egyptologists Erman and Ranke think also that the Egyptians look like the Nubians: "Il semble que les peuples qui se rapprochent le plus des Egyptiens soient leurs voisins du Sud, les Nubiens" (Erman et Ranke, "La civilisation égyptienne", Paris: Editions Payot et Rivages, 1994, p. 46).

If someone disagrees with consensus, that doesn't make the consensus wrong. If they have research, we can present it.--Urthogie 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• The egyptologist Maurizio Damiano-Appia denounce the racist and Anglo-Saxon mentality of the egyptologists: "Si è molto discusso circa il popolo egizio e la sua civiltà, ma in generale nella mentalità comune, ed anche in quella di molti egittologi sino a pochi anni fa (e spesso ancor oggi) è data per scontata l'idea di un popolo de razza bianca, che creò una cultura mediterranea che poco aveva a che fare con l'Africa se non una quasi casuale collocazione geografica. A la base di tali edee si poneva la cultura occidentale, di orientamento prevalentemente anglosassone, che vedeva il Vecchio Continente al centro, o meglio ancora alla guida, della cultura mondiale. Ancor più precisamente, con mentalità razzista, la civiltà doveva essere bianca per definizione" (Maurizio Damiano-Appia, "Egitto e Nubia", Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1995, p. 8). In other words, as put it Cheikh Anta Diop: "dès qu'une race a engendré une civilisation, il ne peut être question qu'elle soit nègre" (Quoted by Aboubacry Moussa Lam,"L'affaire des momies royales", p.27).

Same as I said above.--Urthogie 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• For Maurizio Damiano-Appia, in contrast with the affirmation of the article, Egypt is African: "L'Egitto è africano, e il suo popolo fondò le basi di schemi culturali ancora in uso tanto in Africa che in Occidente" (p. 9).

Egypt is in Africa. The question of this article is not one of geography though. There is no such thing as an africoid. Such terminology has been proven flawed.--Urthogie 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Egypt, according to Maurizio-Appia, has its roots in the Sahara, in Nubia and in the southern part of the river Nile: "I vecchi schemi facevano cominciare l'avventura egizia dalle civilizzazione protostoriche nilotiche. Oggi sappiamo (come abbiamo visto più sopra) che bisogna guardare piuttosto all'area sahariana e in particolare al Deserto Occidentale egiziano, all'area nubiana e all'alto Nilo per ricostruire le radici delle culture della Valle del Nilo in Egitto e Nubia" (p. 22). It is clear from this perspective that Egypt and Nubia go together.

Yes, I'm not denying that the view exists. What I'm saying is that mainstream view in science is to disagree with it, and that there is strong evidence for the mainstream view, and weak evidence for the afrocentric view.--Urthogie 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The actual scientific consensus you were speaking about, Urthogie, according to which Egypt is a mixed society, meaning Mediterranean, Asian and African, is very weak. (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka).

Wait, so you think presenting me with several people disproves that there is a consensus? Look how many scientists don't believe in the obviously proven fact of humans causing climate change. Global warming is still mainstream, and the mixed-race hypothesis is still mainstream.--Urthogie 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mixed race

I believe the statement needs to be removed or rephrased since the mainstream consensus is disputed.

"Mainstream consensus is that ancient Egypt was a mixed-race gestalt of African and Middle Eastern ethnicities, with varying skin tones and other physical characteristics.[3][4][5][6] "

furthermore the external links make no reference to a mixed race societyMuntuwandi 22:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

They do make reference to it, and this is the consensus.

[3]

The biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians were tested against their neighbors and selected prehistoric groups as well as against samples representing the major geographic population clusters of the world. Two dozen craniofacial measurements were taken on each individual used. The raw measurements were converted into C scores and used to produce Euclidean distance dendrograms. The measurements were principally of adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similarities based solely on genetic relationships. The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World. Adjacent people in the Nile valley show similarities in trivial traits in an unbroken series from the delta in the north southward through Nubia and all the way to Somalia at the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selective forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur. An assessment of race is as useless as it is impossible. Neither clines nor clusters alone suffice to deal with the biological nature of a widely distributed population. Both must be used. We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well.

This is what a gestalt is: a configuration, pattern, or organized field having specific properties that cannot be derived from the summation of its component parts; a unified whole. (Dictionary.com)

[4] Page 42: "...the Egyptians were of mixed race"

[5] Slavery in ancient Egypt encompassed a wide range of skin colors, as did the Egyptian population itself, at all social levels...

[6] Look at the title :)

This proposal is somewhat ridiculous. You clearly haven't looked at the sources in depth. The most notable Afrocentrists have even gone out of their way to point out how the mixed-race hypothesis "unfairly" dominates science. That is to say, even the opposition acknowledges that these views are mainstream in science.--Urthogie 22:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream consensus sounds like a weasel word. Who is the mainstream.

It's not a weasel word-- its a word used by afrocentrists, eurocentrists, and plain old scientists to describe what the mixed-race view is. There is noone in the scientific literature, afrocentrist, eurocentrist, or whatever adjectives you want to apply to them, who thinks that the mixed race hypothesis isn't the mainstream view. There's nothing weasely about stating it as such. In fact, its bold an direct and factual and based on sources. The complete opposite of weaseldom.

[4] - One sentence in the whole book is insufficient to be considered mainstream

Your criticism of this source is that it doesn't repeat itself. You don't need something said twice in a book to cite it. Please read Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Nowhere in there does it say something must be said twice to be cited to a given source.--Urthogie 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[5] - the book is about race in general not about ancient egypt.

Yes, its about race, and discussions of race include discussions of race in Egypt. This is like saying a book about mammals can't be cited for saying anything about bears because its about mammals, not bears.--Urthogie 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it can be cited but does it fit the criteria of being mainstream.

[6] - The book presents a counter argument to afrocentrism and therefore cannot be considered mainstream.Muntuwandi 23:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so despite this book being cited by at least 34 other scholars, you are somehow able to a priori deny that its mainstream because it is opposes afrocentrism (a view that is not part of the scientific mainstream).

If someone dedicated a whole book solely with the intention of trying to dismiss afrocentrism they are not mainstream but eurocentric.

Like I said, it's ridiculous to push this issue. Even the afrocentrists call this view mainstream, even hough they disagree with it. --Urthogie 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not necessarily disagree with the mixed race hypothesis but I believe it has been oversimplified. food for thought.

• what is implied by mixed-race. The Mestizo population of the americas started about 400 years ago with mixing of europeans and native americans. After 3000 years or 10000 years would the population still be considered a mixed-race.

• Mixed race and having varying skin tones are not the same. Black africans have varying skin tones so do caucasians and asians.

• Throughout ancient from the pre-dynastic period to the end of the civilization did the egyptians look the same. During the 10000 years it is likely that their appearance did change.Muntuwandi 04:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

These are specifics that will be made clear as we add more research. The lead is not meant to discuss specific, only a general summary of the article.--Urthogie 14:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Dear Urthogie, I would like first of all to come back to the issue of the picture number 3 of the article. I told you that this man is not a Nubian, but an Egyptian. You are questioning the reliability of the picture I indicated you.

• Actually the picture of the article and that what I am mentioning are from the same wall. You can notice it very easily. To be convinced, go to another site which has the reputation of not being afrocentric, but whose purpose is to distroy afrocentrism. The site is www.geocities.com/enbp/ Go to section ""Black" Africans in Egyptian Art". And once there, widen the picture "Foreign "races" from Ramesses III tomb". You will see in the middle 2 Blacks beleived to be Nubians. There are the last 2 of the series of 4. The one of the article is number 1 as I told you already. Now, look carefully to those 2 Blacks. Above them you can read the word "rmT" which means "man", "Egyptians" as indicated Faulkner, "A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian", p. 149). You can also see the determinatives between the 2 and after the 2nd. They are part of the name "rmT" written between the 4 Blacks. This picture is a great testimony of the racist mentality denouced by the egyptologist Maurizio Damiano-Appia. "Ancor più precisamente, con mentalità razzista, la civiltà doveva essere bianca per definizione" (Maurizio Damiano-Appia, "Egitto e Nubia", p. 8).

Ok, I did my research and I think I can prove you wrong on this point. Description of this picture from the Theban Mapping Project: "Book of Gates, fourth division (P)/fifth hour (H) lower register, scene 30: Nubian, one of the "four races of mankind," erroneously labeled as an Egyptian."[19].

De façon exceptionnelle, dans le tombeau de Ramsès III où une vignette identifie une figure de Nubien comme égyptienne, l'image des Ret et des Nahasu est identique en tous points, y compris les vêtements. Les tenants de la thèse afrocentriste y voient une preuve que les Égyptiens étaient identiques aux autres Africains. Les autres égyptologues considèrent que les artistes ont mal étiqueté les images parce que les vignettes sont également inversées pour TMHHW (les Libyens) et AAMW (les Asiatiques/Sémites).[20]

English translation from Google Translate:

In an exceptional way, in the tomb of Ramsès III where a label identifies a figure of Nubian like Egyptian woman, the image of Ret and Nahasu is identical in all points, including clothing. Holding of the thesis afrocentrist see a proof there that the Egyptians were identical to the other Africans. The other Egyptologists consider that the artists badly labelled the images because the labels are also reversed for TMHHW (Libyans) and AAMW (the Asian ones/Sémites).

As you can see, your point is addressed in the literature, and the mainstream view is that it was mislabeled. (Do the guys on the right look Libyan to you??)--Urthogie 17:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Egyptians are just part of Black people who joined the Nile valley following the climatic change in the Sahara. "In seguito al lento dissecarsi del Sahara (fra il V e il III millenio a.C.), le bande di raccoglitori-cacciatori (e, per il Neolitico, pastori e proto-agricoltori) cominciano a convergere verso le oasi e verso la Valle del Nilo, uniche fonti d'acqua perenni dell'Africa nordorientale" (Maurizio Damiano-Appia, "Egitto e Nubia", p. 17).

Please put the quote in context. "le bande di raccoglitori-cacciatori". Which hunter-gatherers are we referring to here? Please put it in the full context. Also, remember that this is one man, and after you provide the quote we'll see what other scientists have to say... But first provide the full context of the quote.--Urthogie 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Black Africans had had deep and varied contacts between them since the remote past. "Senza arrivare ad estreme conclusioni quali origini dall'Africa Occidentale degli Egizi o dall'Egitto per i popoli occidentali, e senza fantasticare di immani migrazioni, è tuttavia evidente un commune substrato culturale in popolazioni lontane nel tempo e nello spazio. La spegazione sta in una serie di eventi e processi che comprendono cambiamenti climatici, piccole migrazioni successive, scambi culturali, vie commerciali ed altri fattori" (Maurizio Damiano-Appia, "Egitto e Nubia", p. 16).

This passage doesn't seem to disprove the mixed-race view. Noone disagrees that there was trade and contact ongoing. By the way, friend, I know you are from Italy by your IP address, but you must know I am very weak in speaking Italian and French. Translator tools on the internet only work to a certain degree. Please translate what you can (being honest as possible, of course :)).--Urthogie 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• According to the anthropologist Ernest Chantre, all the human remains found in Egypt may not represent the true Egyptians. "mais ces matériaux anatomiques constituant ces nombreuses suites (...) parmi lesquels les anthropologistes ont choisi les éléments de leurs études, sont-ils bien véritablement les anciens sujets des pharaons?" (Quoted by Aboubacry Moussa Lam, "L'affaires des momies royales", p. 62).

This is an issue of a certain degree of error. Chantre doesn't seem to be saying that all of the remains are historically unrepresentative/inaccurate, but rather that possibly some of them are.--Urthogie 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• For better investigations into the Egyptians, says Chantre, one has to turn towards the south. "Mes recherches anthropologiques sur les peuples anciens, comme sur ceux des temps actuels, ont porté presque exclusivement sur la Haute-Egypte (...). C'est donc à dessein que j'ai laissé de côté l'étude de la majeure partie des habitants d'Alexandrie, de Tanis, de Bubaste et du Caire. Dans tous ces grands centres, dont la rivalité passagère des princes a fait des capitales, ont afflué - à toutes les époques - des flots de population de toutes origines. Et de nos jours - comme dans l'antiquité - Juifs, Arméniens, Arabes, Turcs, Grecs et Européens finissent par y constituer une population plus considérable que celle des autochtones. C'est donc au sud, et jusqu'au frontière du Soudan, qu'il faut aller pour étudier les véritables Egyptiens, Coptes et Fellahin, ainsi que leurs voisins et parents les Bedjah" (Quoted by Aboubacry Moussa Lam, "L'affaire des momies royales", p. 63). Your maintream scholars, Urthogie, maybe have done their investigations in Lower Egypt where there is little chance to do a good job on the race of the ancient Egyptians. So I begin to understand the reason why they speak about anthropological links between Europeans, Indians...and Egyptians! That's what your "mainstream consensus" is about.

As much research as possible is done-- the historical record is of course limited. But evidence from both higher and lower egypt support the mixed race hypothesis. Here is a google search on "Lower Egypt" to show you some skin tones from the art of the region: [21]. Notice how they are mainly brown, but none of them blue black as we would expect. This is what Chantre would call ";es véritables Egyptiens, Coptes et Fellahin". --Urthogie 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• To make a comparison. People from Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece are made of Black Africans, White Europeans and White Asians. Are they no longer white? Do they form a particular race? Eurocentric scholars are writing a lot of absurdities about African people and their morphologies. These absurdities will turn one day against Europe and America. Judging from the growing awareness of Black people around the world, it is just a matter of time.

These are mixed societies that are mainly white Europeans. However, Egypt was not just a mixed society. It was a society where most individuals were of a distinct Egyptian type-- a type influenced by North African, Mediterranean, and some other Asian and European ancestries. In The entire idea of race is not scientific-- that's why we use "racial characteristics". As far as racial characteristics, the average egyptian was in some ways similar to his north african neighbors, and in some ways similar to his mesopotamian neighbors.--Urthogie 20:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the appearance in the photo their complexion is akin to many sub-saharan africans.Muntuwandi 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I readded the photo from before, this time with even lighting throughout, without the grayness towards the edges. The photo is not modified to make it lighter, it is simply uniform and clean now.--Urthogie 00:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Appearance

Four peoples of the world: a Syrian, a Nubian, a Libyan, and an Egyptian. An artistic rendering, based on a mural from the tomb of Seti I.

Based on this picture the egyptians had a brown complexion. By standards of today would be considered a person of color. Basically if King Tut were alive today and were to go for dinner at a restaurant in New York, he would be served late and they would get his order wrong.Muntuwandi 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture has pretty bad lighting on the edges, but you're basically right. Then again, couldn't a dark enough (Asian or Indian or Arab) also be thought of as black in race-retarded America-- a land where the one drop rule has a huge history?

Afrocentrism is essentially cultural appropriation at its worst-- claiming that the pharoahs and almost all of the citizens of ancient egypt were of predominantly of sub-saharan african ancestry goes against mainstream science.

Though some may feel Afrocentrism is too extreme, it serves a necessary control over the cultural bias that is inherent in the scientific community. The images in western media of ancient egypt were always very white. eg the mummy, or liz taylor in Cleopatra (1963 film). This is contrary to "mainstream consensus" that egyptians were dark to medium tone.Muntuwandi 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Science is the antidote to flawed portrayals, not ideology. This is why the most influential afrocentrists haven't been talking heads who write book on cultural theory, but rather actual researchers like Diop.--Urthogie 21:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I went and added a picture with better lighting, which shows 4 egyptians, meant to represent the Egyptian race. They're from the same place as the previous image: The Book of Gates. --Urthogie 19:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look at a statue (and when I find the photo I will upload it) of a husband and wife pair from Dynasty III. The wife has stark white skin, while the husband's is a darker brown - presumably because he spent most of the day outside and developed a tan in the hot egyptian sun, while the wife stayed indoors and kept a fair complexion. This would suggest that the "dark-skinned" Egyptian in the above photo could also just be very tan. Or that Egypt had multiple "races" of people in it. Like America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chiwara (talk • contribs) 06:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

I think it might be because of the fact that the Egyptian style was to always drew women lighter.--Urthogie 18:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Its Rahotep. He very much resembles an african and his wife looks european.[22], [23] Muntuwandi 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Urthogie. Egyptology is profoundly rooted in its racist origins. “Egypt will be studied considering the passage of the human spirit from the east to the west, but it does not belong to the African spirit (L’Egypte sera examinée au passage de l’esprit humain de l’Est à l’Ouest, mais ne relève pas de l’esprit africain)” said Hegel. (Hegel, “Leçons sur la philosophie de l’histoire”, Paris: Vrin, 1954, p. 93). Egyptologists feel obliged to reject every proof of the blackness of the Egyptians.

• So Herodotus is wrong when he says that the Egyptians have black skin and woolly hair; so Aristotle is wrong when he says that the Egyptians and the Ethiopians are very dark; so the Hebrews are wrong when they say that Egypt and Nubia are sons of Ham, the ancestor of the Blacks in the biblical literature; so the Arabs are wrong when they state that the Egyptians and the Nubians are part of the Sudan, the black race. These are neighbouring and almost contemporary sources to the ancient Egyptians. Egyptologists are puting the sources of the European culture (Greece, Rome and Israel) in danger of being considered as useless and meaningless in any field because of the way they are treating the traces of black history found in them.
• Egyptologists are going so far as to teach the Egyptians the way they have to understand themselves. When the Egyptians write that they call themselves KMT, meaning “the Blacks”, Egyptologists say on one hand that it can be a mistake, and on the other hand that it has to be translated as “people of the black land” (even if there is no determinative of the land in the hieroglyphs), or as the “Egyptians”, knowing well that the word “Egypt” is Greek and that it does not derive from the Egyptian “kmt”.
• Not only Egyptian scribes are crasy. Egyptian artists are crasy too! They drew four Nubians and they wrote that they were Egyptians! Egyptologists are more intelligent than the Egyptian scholars. So, correcting the Egyptian artists, because they know better than the Egyptians themselves how they have to look like, they drew an “artistic rendering” of the Egyptians. The same thing happened with the people of the tomb of Seti. The Egyptians of the “artistic rendering” are brown. Yes, it is not easy to make falsifications. With their brown color, Egyptians are still part of the black race! Commenting the translation of the "Book 2" of Herodotus, Ki-Zerbo writes: “The term mélanokroes is translated for example by Legrand: “having brown skin”. This does not change anything because many Blacks have brown skin (Le terme mélanokroes est traduit par exemple par Legrand : “ayant la peau brune”. Cela ne change rien puisque bien des Noirs ont la peau brune)” (Joseph Ki-Zerbo, « Histoire générale de l’Afrique Noire, d’Hier à Demain, Paris : Hatier, 1972, p. 80). Western Egyptologists depreciate the black race, and of cause the black people. Now their racist mood is being denounced by scholars like Maurizio Damanio-Appia in its book “Egitto e Nubia”.
• Actually, Egyptology is not an objective, descriptive, analytical, critical discourse, but a subjective, normative, prescriptive, discriminative discourse. It is not a science but a philosophy. It is time to study carefully the epistemology of Egyptology, one of the racist discourses still existing in colleges and universities.
• Dear Urthogie. Afrocentrists are not saying that the Egyptians are offspring of Africans who inhabit the south of the Sahara. Can you mention some? It is the other way round. The Nubians came from the Sahara. The Egyptians are from Nubia, and many black societies found south of the Sahara are from Egypt. Africans brought in the Americas are from these societies, heirs of the Egyptians. (Read Théophile Obenga, « Pour une Nouvelle Histoire », Paris : Présence Africaine, 1980 ; Aboubacry Moussa Lam, “De l’origine égyptienne des Peuls”, Paris: Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1993 ; Aboubacry Moussa Lam, « Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l’Egypte ancienne et l’Afrique Noire », Paris : Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1997).
• Why do the we have to read in the section “The great sphinx of Giza” of this article the following warning: “An editor has expressed the opinion that this article or section is unbalanced”? Is it because it shows how honest people like Volney spoke of the blackness of the Egyptians?
• One has also to see if some Egyptians identified by Egyptologists like Caucasians are not just albino. Because among Blacks albino look like Whites.
• An "Egyptian race" doesn’t exist in the classification of the races found in the world. This strange invention of the Egyptologists must be denounced. Egyptians, "with their varying skin tones", are just part of the Sudan. They are just black people.

Best regards! (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka).

• On kmt/"the black land":

Based on your logic, should we assume those living in the surrounding desert (the "red land") were of Red skin color?

• On supposed racism of modern Egyptology and Egyptology's qualifiaction as science:

Your argument is weakened by appealing to racism. If we prove that you are right about the race of Egyptians, then we will prove the Egyptologists of today must be racist. But you continue to appeal to racism. You say "It is not a science but a philosophy." But pure philosophy is not guided by the gathering of evidence. It is not guided by genetic studies, and archaelogical expeditions. By historical analysis of demographics. That is not philosophy, that is science. Much of early Egyptology was grounded in racism, ethnocentrism, etc, but today the work of those such as Diop is openly requested by science journals. Afrocentrists serve major roles at all of the major US universities. Egyptology is science.

• On being part of the "black race":

There is no such thing as race. The Egyptians, with their brown color, are a mix of ancestries from Northern Africa and the Middle East. You say: "An "Egyptian race" doesn’t exist in the classification of the races found in the world." Neither does a black race, in science. All that matters is geographical ancestry, scientifically speaking. And that is what we are discussing now. Not how to group them, but what there origins are and whic origins they are most similar to and branched from, and what phenotypes they had.

• On your view that "Nubians" weren't mislabeled:

Four "nubians"? We only discussed one that Egyptologists thought was mislabeled. Where are the other three? And how do you explain the Libyan being mislabeled??

• On connection to Nubia:

You say: "Afrocentrists are not saying that the Egyptians are offspring of Africans who inhabit the south of the Sahara. Can you mention some? It is the other way round. The Nubians came from the Sahara. The Egyptians are from Nubia, and many black societies found south of the Sahara are from Egypt. Africans brought in the Americas are from these societies, heirs of the Egyptians." I agree with this partially. There surely were nubians in Egypt-- it was a mixed-race society. There surely was some Egyptian mixing influence-- but not much-- on West Africans

• On Herodotus and other secondary sources:

Scientists don't ignore these sources. I was reading a book today, a mainstream Egyptology book, which said part of the reason so much investigation was done into race was because of the doubts laid on by the Herodotus and Aristotle quotes. But it is very biased to simply pick the secondary sources that backup your view and not consider all of the other evidence that may adjust or even counter it. Secondary sources are not as authoritative as primary sources-- thats important to remember I think.

• On the Sphynx of Giza section in the article:

It has the unbalanced tag on it because we have not added views from both sides. I've been putting much time into discussing your points and I will add other sources to that section when I get a chance.

• On albinos:

There probably were some albinos, although as you can see from the article the consensus is that Egyptians were varying shades of brown, with minority populations of the very light and very dark.

• On connection to Sudan:

I will have to research this further. Please provide evidence for now, and I'll do research in the mean time.

• A general note to you:

I do not want to be cruel by arguing against this belief which is very important to you and other Afrocentrists. I understand that it is more than just science to you-- it is also a response to the evils of racism and the actions that have followed as a result of it. But it is my honest belief that it's actually utilitarian to not defend such a point of view for the following reasons:

• A mixed race society being so great will be a reminder to people of a past not of seperatism but of working together towards greatness.
• It is unfair to the modern day Egyptians to culturally appropriate all they did, if it is not scientifically proven.
• The proper response to racism is not to look to the past but to the present. If people can cope with the reality of their past, they can become great in the present.
• When people recognize Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism to not be true they wll be in a world that denies the value of group membership and focuses on the accomplsihments on creative individuals.
• The scientific idea that race does not exist will become more popular among blacks.
• and other reasons, perhaps...

So I do not mean to be cruel, and I would be much happier to argue with a Eurocentrist or a racist. But it is out of my respect for your opinion, not out of disrespect, that I disagree. I just want you to know that, --Urthogie 05:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Urthogie. In your last intervention, you raised a certain number of questions.

• I have the impression that because of the “mixed race society” of Egypt of today, we have to accept that Egypt has always been “a mixed race society”. That’s what I am calling doing philosophy. We have to arrange the results of ours findings to adapt them to the need of our today’s world. The Egyptologists can dig the Egyptian soil as long as they want. They can read the hieroglyphics and look for paintings as long as they want. It is the way the interpret that makes them being nothing more than philosophers.

You are correct to say it would be unscientific philosophy to use modern day egypt as unquestionable evidence. That would be illogical, as the current day look of egyptians is not necessarily what they used to look like. But this isn't my argument, and neither is it the argument of serious scientists of today. If it was, they wouldn't bother gather evidence. Your claim that Egyptology is philosophy is therefore extremely questionable.--Urthogie 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• You are saying that scientifically speaking, race does not exist. But you are speaking all the time in term of Egypt being a “mixed race society”. Does it make sense to you?

When I say "race doesn't exist" what I'm saying is the strict distinctions between races, like black, white, asian, etc. aren't scientific. I was exaggerating by saying it doesn't exist scientifically. In science, it's useful as a vague description, similar to someone being tall or short, etc. I was just saying that it's a concept that can't be pinpointed. My mistake for overstating that point, I recognize that might make me look foolish.--Urthogie 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Egypt has been often invaded by people from Europe and Asia. When these invasions took place, Egypt was already a nation called KMT, literally the black nation. This KMT is feminine. The land in the sense of soil is masculine in the Egyptian language. The invasions did not certainly modify the racial and cultural foundations of Egypt. Such a way that the neighbours of the Egyptians without exception put them together with the Nubians in the same group following their phenotype: black skin. This is not my invention. I even found it in an article you asked me to read. The one on “Early Jewish and Christian Views of Black”. I think that you knew well that article before asking me to read it. It is said inside that Islamic literature also range the Copts, i.e. the Egyptians among the Sudan. Please read it well if you have not done it.

Early in the discussion I was somewhat in an immature rush to provide sources. To be honest I don't think anything religious can be used as proof. The bible is not scientific, and neither is the Torah or the Koran.

• If the Egyptians are a mix of Semites and Africans, why according to you does the Semite literature put the Egyptians among the Blacks? Mizraim with Cush are sons of Ham, of Sudan. And why according to you, did it put so closely Egypt (Mizraim) with Nubia (Cush)? You will say: “The ancient religious sources are not at all scientific”. This literature is used by historians to study the successive occupations of the lands in Palestine, Syria and Arabia. You will not tell me the contrary. So these sources become only “non-scientific” when they deal with the race of the Egyptians. There is something wrong here!

You fail to recognize a key distinction: the occupations of Palestine, Syria, and Arabia could have been recorded in real time, while knowledge of where groups are descended thousands of years back cannot be known with exactitude--especially with the tools of the time in which these religious documents were written. This is why scholars rely on religious documents for events recorded soon after they happened, but don't rely on them for histories that occured much before their writing.--Urthogie 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• You asked me if people living in the “red land” are “Red people”. I don’t want to do philosophy like some western Egyptologists. I am speaking about hieroglyphics. Go to Adolf Erman und Hermann Grapow, “Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache”, Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, vol. 5, 1931, pp. 487-494, or to Rainer Hannig, „Die Sprache der Pharaonen“, Mainz; Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1995, pp. 987-988, or to Raymond Faulkner, “A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian”, Oxford: Griffith Institute, 2002, p. 316, you will not find such hieroglyphics as “dSrt” followed by seated man and woman plus the three strokes indicating the plural. So I cannot discuss about something which does not exist. I am discussing about something which exists, “kmt” followed by seated man and woman plus the three strokes indicating the plural. You find this word in Erman und Grapow, vol. 5, p. 127, or in Hannig, p. 883, or in Faulkner, p. 286. It is translated by “Egyptians”. Egyptian is not Kemetic, it is Greek. “Kmt” means literally “the Blacks (les Noirs)” (Aboubacry Moussa Lam, « De l’origine égyptienne des Peuls », Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1993, pp. 181, 262 ; Aboubacry Moussa Lam, “Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l’Egypte ancienne et l’Afrique noire”, Paris: Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1997, p. 82).

"you will not find such hieroglyphics as “dSrt” followed by seated man and woman plus the three strokes indicating the plural." Why is this necessary to prove anything? Why does a word have to appear with a seated man and a woman plus a three stroke plural to be deemed by you to be a valid consideration? Deshret is used several times to refer to the red land, and yet there were no red people living in the egyptian desert. How does your response address this exactly? The only real point I saw here was that you refused to do "philosophy". Linguistics-- looking at what people mean by words, is not philosophy. Its the science of language.--Urthogie 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• The qualification of Egyptology as being a racist discourse, mostly in the Anglo-Saxon world, is not mine. It came from Maurizio Damiano-Appia. You know already his book. And I think that this accusation can be well documented. Cheikh Anta Diop also spoke about it at the Cairo Conference in a gathering of Egyptologists and in his interview in Guadaloupe.

First let's deal with the evidence. If it turns out the afrocentrists are completely right, then I'll agree with you that there must be some serious prejudice in the scientific community. Until then, I think bringing up racism and calling egyptology a philosophy is just a way of sidetracking the main conversation of the evidence.--Urthogie 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• You wrote: “There surely was some Egyptian mixing influence – but not much – on West Africa”. “some…but not much”. Who told you that? They are many and varied (Aboubacry Moussa Lam, “Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l’Egypte ancienne et l’Afrique noire”. Read all the book), and in many parts of Africa (see “Les chemins du Nil”, especially p.65, 125). Speaking about the king of Congo in Central Africa who bears the name “Mni” (Menes) and who conducts the war like the kings of Egypt, Lam said : “the Mani-Congo is really one of the heirs of the great Méni, first pharaoh of Egypt (le Mani-Congo est bien l’un des héritiers du grand Méni, premier pharaon d’Egypte)” (“Les chemins du Nil”, p. 122). This common culture between ancient Egypt and the rest of Africa is another proof that Egypt belongs to black Africa. That is what Sauneron meant when he wrote: “For Egypt, it (the Mediterranean see) marks the end of a world – an African world (Pour l’Egypte, elle (la Méditerranée) marque la limite d’un monde africain – d’un monde africain)” (Serge Sauneron, “Les prêtres de l’ancienne Egypte”, Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1998, p. 11).

I will have to read about this. It would be an exciting fact to learn and spread if it is true!--Urthogie 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am convinced, dear Urthogie, that truth will liberate the world. Best regards! (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka).

you too, and if you want to present the evidence for the connection with sudan at any point that'd be great.--Urthogie 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

these might be helpful.

http://archaeology.about.com/library/glossary/bldef_khartoummesolithic.htm

Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badri by Professor S. O. Y. Keita (2005) National Human Genome Center at Howard University Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution

The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians Professor S.O.Y. Keita Department of Biological Anthropology Oxford University Professor A. J. Boyce University Reader in Human Population Oxford University

Viola76 04:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)viola76

What does he look like

Rahotep

Muntuwandi 07:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Libyan mislabelled?

According to the picture the scientific consesus is that the libyan was mislabeled, would people mind expanding that topic because I don't know what that is suppose to mean. Does that mean that the Libyan is really the guy with the very black skin or is the libyan the guy from syria, or is the libyan the guy with brown skin? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.138.142 (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

It means the Libyan was probably meant to be marked as an Asian/Middle Easterner, but the hieroglyph was off.--Urthogie 01:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, the brown skin Egyptian is an authentic black man. As Joseph Ki-Zerbo put it, "many Blacks have brown skin (bien des Noirs ont la peau brune)" (Joseph Ki-Zerbo, "Histoire générale de l'Afrique Noire, d'Hier à Demain", Paris: Hatier, 1972, p. 80). This brown skin color is also found among the Nubians (Cf the image of Nubians in the tomb of Huy published by Georges Posener, Serge Sauneron, Jean Yoyote (Redatto), "Dizionario della civiltà Egizia", Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1961, p. 297) (Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka)--195.110.156.38 09:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hooknose sentence

This sentence doesn't make sense. The implication of this is that only caucausians/whites have hooknoses. This contradicts everything known about biological anthropology. We know that people with the so called hooknoses are simply people who have lived in high elevations. For example, Persians have hooknoses, but so do Ethiopians, many south africans and sudanese people, as well as even native americans who come from the andes or other mountain ranges. The shape of your nose is indepedent of race and totallly dependent on elevation. Ie. people from the chinese lowlands have flatnoses but this is because they come from dry desert climates like many africans. Of course we would never say this makes chinese black. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.138.142 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Good eye... the guy who added it used geocities as his source!--Urthogie 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

no more discussion

It was nice discussing this with you two. Unfortunately it's against the rules for us not to discuss the article for such a lengthy period of time. Anyways, best regards, --Urthogie 02:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

o.k since we both have a interest in ancient egypt we can continue to discuss it on our personal pages ive left some questions on yours

                  194.176.105.40 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)viola76

No more discussion! Is it because I brought a chronological argument? This is unfair. If it helps the readers to make a scientific evaluation of the article, I think my contribution is worth mentioning. You are free to respond to it or not.

• First, let’s be clear that the Semitic people are not involved in the genesis of the Egyptian people. This following the birth of the Semitic people (2500 or 2400 BC with the Akkadian) which took place later after the unification of Egypt (3150-2700, cf Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford UK, Cambridge USA: Blackwell, 1992, p. 389) . To state otherwise is to fall into anachronism.
• Second, let’s put Obenga aside. For me is of cause credible. But we can still quote another source. For now I am referring to the article found in the site www.herodotus.net/motEurope2005politique.htm This site is not afrocentric, as far as I know. If by Europeans, we are thinking about people we call “Indo-Europeans”, according to the article, their migration from central Russia took place during the second millennium BC. “The continent was essentially peopled during the II millennium BC by successive waves of Indo-European immigrants (let us remember that at the same epoch the city of Babylon was prospering in Mesopotamia!) (le continent a été pour l’essentiel peuplé au deuxième millénaire avant JC par plusieurs vagues d’immigrants indo-européens (songeons qu’à la même époque prospérait en Mésopotamie la cité de Babylone !)) ». This correspond in Egypt to the second intermediate period (1674-1553) when Egypt was invaded by the Semite people. Actually Egypt enters into relationships with Indo-European people during the New Kingdom: the Hittite kingdom and then the invasion of “the people of the see”. If this site is credible, and if in our minds white Europeans mean Indo-European people, one can say that it is impossible to find them at the genesis of the Egyptian people because they were still absent from Europe.
• When the article states: “Mainstream consensus is that ancient Egypt was a mixed-race gestalt of African and Middle Eastern ethnicities”, it is wrong if this means that Egypt is formed by a mix of Semites, White Europeans and Black Africans as Urthogie once said. At the time of the birth of Egypt, there were only Black people around the Mediterranean see. The Bible is right when it says that Canaan is a son of Ham, the ancestor of the Blacks. So I agree with Muntuwandi who questioned in the past this consensus.

Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 14:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Our discussion was removed not because of what it said but simply because all discussion must be not for the readers but for the editors of the article. This is the rule of Wikipedia. Also, noone is saying that Ancient Egypt in the very beginning had semites. I never said this, only you said this in misquoting me. The first dynasty was already a mix between Mesopotamians and Northern Africans. This is my view. Please don't misquote it.--Urthogie 17:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Urthogie. Am I misquoting you? Who wrote this: "My point isn't that the Egyptians were as light as the semites, but rather that they were a mix between the semites and the Africans. If we divide the world into three groups, we'll have very rigid guidelines, and of course group people incorrectly. The Egyptians were a unique mixed race, and a three-way division doesn't address this fact. The ancient religious sources are not at all scientific. You are trying to argue a basically scientific point with a history given by religions, which are not scientific in nature. If we accepted religion as scientific we'd say we're all descended from Adam and Eve, materialized by god, when the scientific reality which proves this myth wrong is evolution. This is an example ofwhy modern science is more powerful than ancient religious myths in answering questions such as the one this article deals with.--Urthogie 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)"? Best regards! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 18:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The very first Egyptians weren't mixed with Semites (Narmer, for example). Later ancient Egyptians who interacted with Semites were. Make sense?--Urthogie 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

you are wasting your time with this discussion nkuka what ever evidence you bring urthogie will not accept it. look on his personal page and look at the discussion i am having with him regardsViola76 21:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)viola76

Good!

Mainstream consensus is that ancient Egypt was a mixed-race gestalt of African and Middle Eastern ethnicities.[3] There are alternative views, however. Afrocentric scholars such as Martin Bernal and Cheikh Anta Diop claims that dynastic Egypt was from its inception--and remained throughout several millennia-- a primarily black, African civilization.

I think this part is fair and shows both sides of the story in a balenced way. Let's keep it like this. futurebird 20:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

fair enough futurebird but can we really say martin bernal is afrocentric? it seems to me from the paragraph that any one who reckons the original A.E were black african are labelled afrocentric and i mean the negative terms that the label entails.Viola76 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)viola76

« The first dynasty was already a mix between Mesopotamians and Northern Africans. This is my view. Please don't misquote it.--Urthogie 17:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)”. Was there a Mesopotamian presence in Egypt before the genesis of the Egyptian civilization as Urthogie states? Based on logical and chronological arguments, this is difficult to prove. Because,

• The Egyptian civilization is better known than the Mesopotamian civilizations, in such a way that it might be more convenient to explain Mesopotamia by Egypt than the contrary! “The Egyptian history extends in a period of time of more than three thousands of years and – thanks to a written and monumental documentation which is surely the most rich of any other civilization of these times – can be studied, at least in the main lines, with much more accuracy” (La storia egiziana si stende su un arco di tempo di oltre millenni – grazie a una documentazione scritta e monumentale che è certo la più ricca fra quelle di ogni altra civiltà di quei tempi – può essere tracciata, almeno nelle grande linee, con sufficiente sicurezza » (La storia, 1. Dalla preistoria all’antico Egitto, Novara: Istituto Geografico De Agostini SpA, UTET, 2007, p. 621). Egyptian history ignores any ancient connection with Asia. But it shows that Egypt is rooted in the south, in Ta-Seti. "Tз-Sti, Nubia, properly Ist nome of Upper Egypt; Styw Nubians" (Alan Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar. Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, 2001, Third edition, p. 593)
• Egypt inaugurates his first dynasty in 3185 (La storia, p. 733). In Mesopotamia, the first proto-dynastic period takes place in 2900-2800. “2900-2800. Proto-dynastic period I: it is a period of insufficient archaeological documentation (2900-2800. Periodo protodinastico I: è una fase di scarsa documentazione archeologica)” (Storia, p. 615).
• Let’s be more realistic. The African cradle can in itself explain the emergence of the Egyptian people in continuity and in conformity with its leading role in the birth of humanity. It is not necessary to go as far as Asia (Mesopotamia being in Asia), which is younger than Africa (Egypt being in Africa) in the line of History for explaining the genesis of ancient Egypt. “Africa not only gave origin to humanity, but also was a melting-pot of civilizations (as are demonstrating Saharan Studies) (L’Africa, oltre ad aver dato origine all’umanità, fu un calderone di civiltà (come stanno dimostrando gli studi sahariani)” (Maurizio Damiano-Appia, Egitto e Nubia, Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA, 1995, p. 8).

Thank you Viola76 for your knowledge and for your wisdom. Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 14:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would discuss this further with you here, but we can't discuss anything unrelated to editing the article. If you want to contact me directly, use my talk page, thanks.--Urthogie 21:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha!!! I never thought of "afro centric" as negative before. I mean ... unless they are lumping it together with extremist stuff like black supremacy, which is negative. Guess that's what I get for living in Harlem for two years. :P

I think it's pretty clear that egyptians were mostly "brown people" of mixed african ancestry and that there were people of other races around in egypt. As long as this article isn't strictly denying that egypt was an african civilization I don't think there is any big problem. futurebird 22:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

add image

Rahotep

Rahotep looks like my uncle, can we add him back? :) futurebird 22:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess... I'm just worried that all of the pictures being art will give people the idea that Egyptians actually looked the same color as the art... The best scientific evidence isn't from art: there's plenty of Egyptian art with green people in it. The art indicates very much less than is commonly supposed:

"It is apparent that the ancient Egyptians did not make racial distinctions themselves, but rather ethnic distinctions based on nationality. Tomb paintings depicting captive Nubians may show them as being very dark, but this is an artistic convention stereotyping a nationality, and to conclude there were therefore no very dark Egyptians would be a non sequitur. Similarly, the skin tones in art depicting the Egyptians themselves adhere to convention rather than an absolutely accurate description of reality. Tutankhamun is variously shown as being black as in the guardian statues found in his tomb, and brown or beige as in the lotus bust."[24]

I won't revert you though.--Urthogie 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Following Eurocentric Egyptologists, this article is trying to show that ancient Egypt was a « mixed-race society ». To prove this theory, the article affirms that ancient Egyptians had “brown skin”. In their tentative of falsifying the black history, Eurocentric Egyptologists are multiplying errors. Actually the fact that many ancient Egyptians had brown skin is a prove that Egypt was a Black country.

• In the past, I quoted Joseph Ki-Zerbo who said “many Blacks have brown skin (bien de Noirs ont la peau brune)” (Joseph Ki-Zerbo, Histoire générale de l’Afrique Noire, d’Hier à Demain, Paris: Hatier, 1972, p. 80). Eurocentric Egyptologists are incapable in African Studies while Egypt is an African society! They even ignore Nubia or they try to ignore it. But they are wrong.
• The brown skin colour is also quite normally found among the Nubians. I have already referred to the image of the Nubians in the tomb of Huy published by Georges Posener, Serge Sauneron, Jean Yoyote in the Dizionario della civiltà Egizia (Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1961, p. 297). Yes, Eurocentric Egyptologists are making people laugh! When are they going to begin doing science? This is a big question!
• Aboubacry Moussa Lam studied this question closely. He wrote: “If we get interested to individuals, we notice an interesting phenomenon: some Egyptians were called so-and-so the red and so-and-so the black. These cases are present in all the periods of the long Egyptian history. We saw, from the census we did thanks to the works of Ranke on the personal names, that the Egyptians who added the qualification “black” to their name were more numerous than those who added the qualification “red” (…). / In our investigations, we came across two brothers who bore the same name, the first rname of their great father ; one was called Hapi-the–black and the other Hapi-the-red. These two Egyptians belonged to the high nobility of the end of the Old Empire. To distinguish them, their neighbours chose a significant element: the difference of the colour of the skin. / The analysis of these facts (the use of km and of dSr for distinguishing the Egyptians) brought us to make a sensible question: is it possible to make such a distinction in a race other than the black race? Without excluding totally that possibility, let’s recognize simply that it is within the black race that we meet skins which vary from very dark to very light, giving thus real possibilities of differentiation. Within white races, it is the hair which is exploited. There also one encounters a vast range which goes from very dark to golden blond. Then, it seems that the fact of encountering Egyptians with the qualifications of km and dSr for distinguishing them , is another prove of the belonging of the Egyptian people to the black race. The skin of other races do not obey easily to such a distinction (Si nous descendons maintenant au niveau des individus, nous constatons un phénomène digne d’intérêt : certains Egyptiens se faisaient appeler Untel le rouge ou Untel le Noir. Ces cas s’étalent sur toutes les périodes de la longue histoire égyptienne. Nous avons remarqué, à la suite du recensement que nous avons opéré essentiellement à partir des travaux de Ranke sur les noms de personnes, que les Egyptiens qui avaient ajouté l’épithète « noir » à leur nom étaient plus nombreux que ceux avaient ajouté l’épithète « rouge » (…). / Dans nos investigations, nous avons eu la chance de tomber sur deux frères homonymes, qui portaient en fait le prénom de leur grand-père ; l’un s’appelant Hapi-le-noir et l’autre Hapi-le-rouge. Ces deux Egyptiens appartenaient à la haute noblesse de la fin de l’Ancien Empire. Pour les distinguer, leur entourage a tout simplement retenu un détail significatif: la différence de carnation de la peau. / L’analyse de ces faits (l’utilisation de km et de dSr pour distinguer les Egyptiens) nous a amené à nous poser une question de bon sens : peut-on utiliser ce genre de distinction dans une race autre que la race noire ? Sans exclure une telle possibilité, reconnaissons tout de même que c’est au sein de la race noire que nous trouvons des peaux qui varient du noir charbon au brun le plus clair, offrant ainsi de réelles possibilités de différentiation. Au sein des races leucodermes, c’est surtout la chevelure qui est exploitée ; là aussi on trouve une gamme assez vaste, qui va du noir de jais au blond doré. Ainsi, selon toute vraisemblance, le fait de trouver des Egyptiens avec les épithètes km et dSr pour les distinguer, est un autre indice de l’appartenance de la population égyptienne à la race noire, la peau des autres races humaines ne se prêtant que difficilement à ce type de différenciation) » (Aboubacry Moussa Lam, Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l’Egypte ancienne et l’Afrique Noire, Paris : Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1997, p. 83).
• Despite the fact that Eurocentric Egyptologists often hide the pictures of the Egyptians who are found to be very dark or call them depiction of Nubians, they forget that the presence of the brown skin in a given population is an indication of the existence of the dark skin in the same population, and vice versa. The days of the Eurocentric Egyptologists are being reckoned. This type of Egyptologists is clearly doomed to failure in face of the amount of mistakes they have been intentionally making in order to discredit the achievements of the Black race. These mistakes are bit by bit coming to light thanks to the works of honest scientists like Maurizio Damiano-Appia and Francesca L. Nera (cf. Egitto e Nubia, Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1995).

Peace! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is poor

I just skimmed the article and I can't figure out what the controversy is about. Doesn't it just depend on how you define black? What exactly do Afrocentrists mean when they say Egyptians were primarily black? Do they just mean they had dark skin or are they claiming a genetic relationship with the peoples of sub-Saharan Afica? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TVismute (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

You have the response here :

• « Dear Urthogie. Afrocentrists are not saying that the Egyptians are offspring of Africans who inhabit the south of the Sahara. Can you mention some? It is the other way round. The Nubians came from the Sahara. The Egyptians are from Nubia, and many black societies found south of the Sahara are from Egypt. Africans brought in the Americas are from these societies, heirs of the Egyptians. (Read Théophile Obenga, « Pour une Nouvelle Histoire », Paris : Présence Africaine, 1980 ; Aboubacry Moussa Lam, “De l’origine égyptienne des Peuls”, Paris: Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1993 ; Aboubacry Moussa Lam, « Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l’Egypte ancienne et l’Afrique Noire », Paris : Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1997) ».
• « You wrote: “There surely was some Egyptian mixing influence – but not much – on West Africa”. “some…but not much”. Who told you that? They are many and varied (Aboubacry Moussa Lam, “Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l’Egypte ancienne et l’Afrique noire”. Read all the book), and in many parts of Africa (see “Les chemins du Nil”, especially p.65, 125). Speaking about the king of Congo in Central Africa who bears the name “Mni” (Menes) and who conducts the war like the kings of Egypt, Lam said : “the Mani-Congo is really one of the heirs of the great Méni, first pharaoh of Egypt (le Mani-Congo est bien l’un des héritiers du grand Méni, premier pharaon d’Egypte)” (“Les chemins du Nil”, p. 122). This common culture between ancient Egypt and the rest of Africa is another proof that Egypt belongs to black Africa. That is what Sauneron meant when he wrote: “For Egypt, it (the Mediterranean see) marks the end of a world – an African world (Pour l’Egypte, elle (la Méditerranée) marque la limite d’un monde africain – d’un monde africain)” (Serge Sauneron, “Les prêtres de l’ancienne Egypte”, Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1998, p. 11) ».

To these quotations, one can add the following taken from Aboubacry Moussa Lam:

• « Cheikh Anta Diop who understood earlier that on a sensible subject like this, one needed a irrefutable proof, studied more closely the skin of the ancient Egyptians; these are his conclusions: « Egyptians had black skin exactly like the Negroes of today, statistically speaking. I say this on the basis of my own investigations. For that, I took samples which I carefully numbered. These samples came from the Egyptian mummies found by Mariette. They are kept in our laboratory in IFAN and are at the disposal of any researcher who will be interested on that issue. The scientific examination of these samples proves easily, beyond the so-called differences of representation of the « Negro type » and of « the Egyptian type », that the pigmentation of these two races is the same. It is possible « to clean » the skin of the mummies, even the most ancient, and find the pigmentation of the skin if this really exists. That what I have effectively done with all the samples I had on my disposal. But all of them reveal, without exception, a black skin of the species of all the Negroes we know today (Cheikh Anta Diop qui a compris très tôt que sur un sujet aussi sensible, il fallait une preuve décisive, a étudié de très près la peau des anciens Egyptiens; voici ses conclusions: « Les Egyptiens avaient la peau noire au même titre que les Nègres actuels, statistiquement parlant. J’affirme ceci sur la base de mes propres investigations. A cet effet, j’ai fait des prélèvements dûment numérotés, sur les momies égyptiennes trouvées par Mariette ; ils sont conservés dans notre laboratoire de l’IFAN et à la disposition de tous les chercheurs qui s’intéresseraient à la question. L’examen scientifique de ces échantillons prouve aisément, par-delà les prétendues différences de représentation du « type nègre » et du « type égyptien », que la pigmentation des deux races est la même. Il est exact qu’on peut « décrasser » la peau de momies, même les plus anciennes, et retrouver la pigmentation de la peau si celle-ci existe vraiment. C’est ce que j’ai réalisé effectivement avec tous les échantillons dont j’ai pu disposer. Mais tous révèlent, sans exception, une peau noire de l’espèce de tous les Nègres que nous connaissons à l’heure actuelle) » » (Cité par Aboubacry Moussa Lam, Les chemins du Nil. Les relations entre l’Egypte ancienne et l’Afrique Noire, Paris : Présence Africaine / Khepera, 1997, pp. 83-84). At the Egyptological Cairo Conference of 1974, Cheikh Anta Diop presented these results to the best Egyptologists of his time, no one dared to contest him. Diop said explicitly that as long as no body will prove the contrary to what he found, one can say that we have here the latest result on the issue of the race of the ancient Egyptians. But maybe you are not aware of this findings. All these happen because the Western Media to which you are used cannot publicise them. These results go against the Western education and mentality which think that whatsoever is great in the world belongs to the White race, or at least cannot be the product of the Black race. But science does not function like that. And for the moment, on the issue regarding ancient Egypt, science is on the side of the African Black people, as Cheikh Anta Diop put it in a TV interview in Guadaloupe. Compared to other sciences, Western Egyptology has created and accumulated too much contradictions and misinterpretations. Western Egyptologists are really not doing science, but some ideology or philosophy.

I tried to answer to your question which is actually tendentious. Can one really ask if the ancient Greeks and Romans share the same White race with the people from north Europe of today? Racism is not always too far! Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka--195.110.156.38 13:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am having a really hard time to figure out what the characteristics of the ancient egyptian were from this article. OMG why are we talking about black/white here????? They didn't care , they were doing business with everyone then!!! It was a multicultural state, and after all ended up with nubian and greek rulers. I learned NOTHING from this article and wish someone could delete it and start over. February 2007

What I removed/Who's writing this article?

Well excuse me, but this is a very controversial topic, and if you're to provide an argument, please make sure that your sources agree or at least acknowledge the argument being present. For example, I deleted the genetics section because it was extremely biased and was absolutely irrelevant to the argument on rather the Ancient (not modern) Egyptians were native to Africa and can be deemed as "Black African". You also didn't bring up the issue on what exactly a "Black African" is. Is it only exclusive to sub-saharan Africans, or any native dark skinned African? Also, how does a DNA chart clarify anything? These are modern studies and results and there's been a period of over 5,000 years since the inception of Egypt to present day.. According to Dr. S.O.Y Keita (P.H.D, biological Anthropology) a lot of today's descendants can trace a lot of their recent genetic heraitage most likely back to the Arab invasion (as can be seen in the V haplotype), and to a lesser extent Greek and Roman occupation, among other things. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.html

I also don't see why the writer assumes that Ethiopians are mixed with "Caucasoid", which is a misnomer, though he doesn't make a point that possibly modern day Egyptians are also mixed, or explains why he thinks they were mixed, and when did the majority of "mixing" go on. His sources did not back his statements, these were his opinions. And if all of this "mixing" has been going on, what does that tell us about the racial characteristics of the ancient Egyptians (this doesn't prove them to be a mixed people from its inception)? If we're to talk about racial characteristics, and when race gets problematic, talk about origins and lineage. mtDNA tests on the oldest populations in Egypt (those with some of the oldest cultures) shows that they can be linked with people from Ethiopia and Eritrea.

"The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14748828

^So somewhere down that line these people must of been predominantly East African in ethnicity, or to be conservative (even though this is the same opinion of my source), at least a lot of their ancestors were. So imo that whole gentic table and section was a distraction and in no way brings clarity to what the racial characteristics of the ancients were, it's just biased to someone's opinion and is irrelevant to the facts and method that should be taken to answer these questions. Also, quoting a non-qualified psychologist (Arthur Jensen) doesn't help that argument either because what does Jensen have to do with the "racial characteristics of the ancient Egyptians"? It's almost absurd that he was quoted; he is in no way qualified to answer that question. Taharqa 16:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No matter how you define a black person, ancient Egyptians couldn't have been black. If you define a black person based on genetic clusers, then you need to define the geographic barrier that divided people into different genetic clusters, and that's the Sahara desert. If instead you define a black person based on skin color, then still no way were the indigenous inhabitants of Egypt black because the climate of Egypt does not produce dark skin. If you define black based on craniofacial anthropology, ancient Egyptians had white skulls not black ones. So the only way ancient Egyptians could have been black is if a population of sub-Saharan descent somehow ended up North of the Sahara (and this happened prior to ancient Egypt but recently enough for them to have not had enough time to evolve into a different race, since all humans were originally negroid) The Sahara desert is such a geographic barrier that it's unlikely blacks were there in significant numbers. Influencey

Exactly. There's no evidence that any black person lived outside of sub-Saharan Africa prior to the slave trade. TVismute