Actually, the text here is perfectly appropriate here, but the problem is that it is duplicated elsewhere. It's actually a word-for-word version of something I wrote earlier for Afrocentrism which the no-name contributor has excerpted and placed in this article. There has been some discussion about relocating the "Egypt and black identity" section of Afrocentrism elsewhere. And until I (or someone else with appropriate sensibilities) decides how best to do that, I think it's probably best for now to more heavily edit that information, but to keep its essence in this piece. While the text I've inserted here addresses the issues I raised in Afrocentrism, it could stand more detail.
Perhaps, when the matter of the "Egypt and black identity" matter is settled, it may be appropriate to include even more information here, but worded somewhat differently. Again, I think the material is perfectly appropriate, but it might be best to wait a bit until the overlapping of information is settled and what (more) goes where can be sorted out. deeceevoice18:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i've added a separate RfC section with a template for the various proposed versions. is there at least agreement on what the rough versions are? the edit history seemed to have many side issues mixed in with the reverts. would a proponent for each version mind adding the version (wikified) in the new section for people to comment? for the benefit of keeping the section pure RfC comment from outsiders, current editors please refrain from commenting/advocating there, but instead create a new section or add to this one to reply to any RfC comments or argue for your version. remember though: they're just comments (opinions), not argument from existing editors just itching to modify the article. thanks.SaltyPig19:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of the difficulties is that the political controversy re Nat Geo's reconstruction, which is pretty minor and of no lasting historical interest, overshadowed the actual issue of Tutankhamun's racial background. Perhaps it would be better to separate the two - put factual discussion of Tutankhaten's origins (well he was born Tutankhaten!) in a different section, to do with his family, and cut the political controversy bit to a minimum. That said, I still think any discussion of the factual aspects of origins should be kept short and sweet and non-speculative - a short para, not an essay. Rd23219:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No real controversy here
There is no real controversy that needs settling here. As I've already stated (in the previously, IMO, improperly and precipitously archived discussion), some anonymous contributor began to insert copy I wrote some months back (in June, probably) for Afrocentrism. Personally, I think the subject matter of those edits is perfectly appropriate here, but some of it was out-of-date and virtually all of it is duplicated elsewhere -- which is precisely why I edited it out.
The real back-and-forth was with User:Petrograd, who had been engaging in a series of ad hominem attacks and who charged me with using the anonymous contributor as a sockpuppet. The accusation is typical of Petrograd's shrill attacks and over-the-top approach to editing this piece and to his/her comments on this page.
I inserted a photo of a close-up of the death mask of King Tut, which shows more detail, across from the National Geographic image. It was a perfectly reasonable insertion. This juxtaposition of images also appears in the Afrocentrism piece. Petrograd immediately deleted it and inserted a black-and-white shot of the death mask shot from another angle, but which showed no more detail and added nothing to the article -- and included a nasty edit note complaining about "Afrocentrism," blah, blah, blah. I have reverted Petrograd's mindless insertions of an inferior image, because I see it as an attempt at censorship.
I also inserted text about the noted Egyptologist Petrie and a short sentence or two regarding the facio-cranial characteristics of Tutankhamun, which have a direct bearing on the issue of "skin tone" -- which existed as a sub-topic before I began editing this piece. This, too, Petrograd continued to delete, with no substantive objections -- just more rantings about "Afrocentrism," etc., etc. The text I inserted is brief, to-the-point and on-point.
User:Petrograd, in typical over-the-top fashion, then flounced petulantly off to the RfC page. And here is where we are.
My earlier suggestion (which should have been one huge, honking clue to User:Petrograd that the anonymous contributor is not my sockpuppet) about leaving the article pretty much intact as is until the matter of "Egypt and black identity" in Afrocentrism is resolved is, I think, a reasonable one. But this inane back-and-forth and childish name-calling and nastiness and bytchiness on the part of User:Petrograd and others[1] should stop. deeceevoice20:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This tirade is absolute hypocrisy. Practicing name-calling while ridiculing it of others in the same breath.
: . . . But this inane back-and-forth and childish name-calling and nastiness and bytchiness . . .
So, clearly, words and logic have little effect on Deeceevoice. Discarding all the spiteful words, let's examine some substantive objections. I'll begin by posting the one Deecee consistently pretends does not exist:
Thank you for stating your opinion. (Petrograd 22:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)) + What is "Pharlap"?? I searched around and all I could find was stuff about a race horse and a Korean convenience store ("Phar Lap"). Am I missing the reference? Please educate me. (Petrograd07:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
RfC
Withdraw RfC request, and consider investigating/branding User:Petrograd, a sockpuppet if ever there was one (accusing another here of using sockpuppets; ludicrous). i don't think i've ever agreed with Deeceevoice before, but the edit history supports that she was chilled out on this (big shocker!), and that compromise is just around the corner, assuming no Petrograd. SaltyPig21:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please investigate me. You'll find that I am the most significant contributor to the Tutankhamun article of anyone posting here, including the contribution of personal research such as the Tours (now Exhibitions) section, much of the introduction, significant additions to the Discovery of Tutankhamun's Tomb, many of the photos and photocompilations (done personally), almost every source link past the "2005 controversy" section, and in general what is being resisted here -- an attempt to preserve the article's neutrality and veracity. (Petrograd21:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
helluva an accomplishment for someone whose first wikipedia edit was apparently 23 August2005. no sandbox. no worries. no floundering — just straight to talking like a wikipedia pro, uploading pics, etc. SaltyPig21:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One doesn't have to be a total "Wikipedia pro" to know how to edit photos and contribute content. Not at all. The methods are fairly well laid out and not difficult to pick up. Insinuating that by knowing how to do these things one must have had an account already and be fairly well-seasoned is contrary to the concept of Wikipedia -- "the free encyclopedia" -- where anyone is supposed to be able to edit anything. So your comments do not reflect reality. (Petrograd22:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
please forgive me for stating the obvious, and doing so in a way that... what was that i did? i insinuated a reality "contrary to the concept of Wikipedia"! bwaahahahaha! obvious, ridiculous sockpuppet. no growth whatever reflected in your contribution history; you were a seasoned wikipedia guy when you started this account. SaltyPig23:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Sockpuppet" has apparently metamorphosed from a useful analogy into a negative propaganda buzzword. As such, though, it has very little meaning or weight. You'll find that the Sock puppet article even says there are "legitimate uses" for "sockpuppets," and further quotes the term's originator as stating: "There is no official policy against it."[2]
All, of course, considered quite apart from the fact that I am not one of them. There have been times I've edited a page without signing in, but I've never taken advantage of that anonymity to perpetrate devious ends.
The matter that should be under discussion here, however, is Tutankhamun. I'd prefer it if the photo Deecee re-inserts, the closeup of Tut's mask at Cairo Museum, were edited so as not to include an obvious link to "Return to Glory," which of course would not be permitted in an actual encyclopedia. I don't think there's anything unreasonable about my request. I do find some of the accompanying text to be of dubious intention, on occasion, but am willing to deal with that as a separate issue, later on. (Petrograd07:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
[[Image:Carlb-sockpuppet-02.jpg|thumb|150px|Libelous slander.What you'd "prefer" isn't going to happen. No can do. When I inquired and obtained permission to use this photo, I specifically asked if I could be provided a "clean" digital copy of it without the superimposed copyright information. No dice. The photo was provided with the specific proviso that the copyright info remain superimposed. It's the name of the copyright holder (a Jewish professor, not some rabid, "radical Afrocentric cult") and the name of his website. And that's his way of protecting what's his. Get over it, Pharlap. You wanna deal with the content? Gee, you're welcome to try. But we both know you can't. Fact is fact, and all your ad nauseam, ad hominem sniping won't/can't change history. deeceevoice07:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am the anonymous contributor and why I puin all those text, is because I use to think the Ancient Egyptians were white people and had nothing to do with the rest of Africa. That is until I began looking into Egypt and asking Black And White people and looking at the statues. I am an honest guy who just wants the truth. The truth that I have seen is that most people who say that the Egyptians are White look at the dynasty 19 and people who say they are black look at dynasty 1-4 12 17 and 18. So for me who thought they were White people I now believe they are Black. The evidence that most Blacks and some Whites put forth to prove the Blackness of Ancient Egypt is hard to ignore or refute. So I am sorry if I caused any problems but when see more proof that they were White than I will Edit the exact same way. Most Egyptologist that I spoke to say they were not Black or White but then show me evidence that they were actually Black. So from what I see I find it hard to believe that The Egyptians were white. All I want is the Truth. One thing that gets to me is why so many statues have their noses broken off and why in books most statues are shown from the sides and not from the front. This bothers me when all I want to do is learn about Egypt and I find stuff that make me believe that their is some sort of cover up. Which I would laugh in the face of any Black person who would say this to me. Now I see that their maybe something to it. Why do we see the same statues over and over again in the books and different ones like they have in Egypt. So in closing I am sorry for all the problems I have caused but I JUST WANT THE TRUTH. IF THEY ARE BLACK THAN THATS THE TRUTH. IF THEY ARE WHITE THAN THATS THE TRUTH. I JUST WANT TO LEARN ABOUT EGYPT. (unsigned post)
First of all, there's no need to be defensive, and there's no need to apologize. But let me explain something to you. I am the person who wrote the information you inserted. Using someone else's material without giving proper attribution is plagiarism. The information was obtained from an earlier permutation of the article Afrocentrism. I have absolutely no problem with the appropriate related information being inserted here -- at the appropriate time. However, because that material is already available on this website in another article, it wasn't appropriate here -- at least not at the present time. Got it?
Normally, it wouldn't be much of a problem. But there are issues between User:Petrograd, (a sockpuppet of User:Pharlap), and me which go way back. He tries to pick fights me wherever he goes and gets the azz whenever the point he's pushing is contradicted or his contributions are corrected. He doesn't know how to be civil with me. He goes ballistic. Pharlap has embarrassed himself so frequently in the past in his irrational tirades against me, that I guess he decided to disappear (at least temporarily) and come back as a sockpuppet and continue in his twisted mission. But his shrill, nasty modus operandi was immediately recognizable, and he gave himself away.
So, don't worry about it. You did nothing terribly wrong. In the future, though, when someone edits your contributions, pay attention to the remarks in the edit notes and on the discussion page and respond accordingly. Don't just simply reinsert the same information repetitively without trying to dialogue with others.
Also, in the future, please sign your contributions. Anonymous contributions cause confusion. You can't tell who's written what. If you don't want to join Wikipedia formally, fine. Just affix some kind of signature so we know where your post ends and another begins. Peace 2 u -- and welcome to Wikipedia. :) deeceevoice15:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one last thing. You say you always assumed the ancient Egyptians were white. Yes, there're a lot of people in your shoes. But it seems that what you read was convincing enough that you wanted to insert it here. It's to your credit that you were open-minded enough to ascertain the truth. My hat's off to you, and I'm glad something I wrote made a difference. Again, peace. :) deeceevoice16:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that this information was already available some place else. I got most of the info off of Answers.com. I have been learning alot about Ancient Egypt and it just bothered me that people who agree that the Ancient Egyptians were at least for the most part Black, is automatically an Afrocentric and has some kind of agenda. When I first came to wikipedia I would read stuff that made me wonder why people got so worked up over Egypt. Now I know it has most to do with the U.S. debate because most people in Europe seem to be coming around to believing that The Egyptians were for the most part Black. What I want to know is why do so many of the statues are missing noses and lips? And why do most of the pictures of the statues are shown from the sides and not from the front? This is something that keeps coming up when I take a look into Ancient Egypt. Some people say it is erosion but that seems to easy a answer to me. Some Black people say it's to hide the Blackness of the statues but even this is hard to believe. I also want to say that the reconstrution of King Tuts face does not look anything like his death mask or of his busts. Also the only people who have that kind of head shape is Nilotic people and the are all dark skinned, so how come they made his skin so light?
To anonymous poster above:
Firstly, examine your sources. You'll find that whoever wrote or told you "most people in Europe seem to . . . believ[e] that The Egyptians were . . . black" was not telling you the truth. The best remedy for this is probably to read books by notable European Egyptologists. Even Howard Carter -- who discovered Tutankhamun and his KV62 tomb. The first thing you will notice is a very obvious distinction between Egyptians and "black Africans." Though some here might try to confuse you by saying the "black Africans" in question are "simply Nubians," understand that the two are in fact one and the same. And black Africans did not only appear in Nubia.
Again, when you ask about statues missing noses and lips, you should examine your sources. You will find that this complaint simply has no basis in reality. Here is an excellent place to start: http://www.virtual-egyptian-museum.org/
Similarly, the complaint that "most of the statues are shown from the sides and not the front" is simply inaccurate. See the above link for assurance.
It should be remembered that more likely King Tut's death mask doesn't closely resemble King Tut. The facial reconstruction is based on Tut's skull. The mask is an artist's interpretation. There are actually striking similarities, but certain nuances made possible by the direct skull-model reconstruction are not (and should not be expected to be) present in the idealized gold likenesses.
The shape of Tutankhamun's skull has little bearing on his coloration. The shape may have been artificially imposed, as with other cultures, as a mark of royalty and divinity. (Petrograd10:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Protected
I have protected this page because of an on going edit war. This is not an endorsement of a particular view but merely a forced cease fire in an ongoing edit war. Please keep in mind the tenets of wikilove and wikiquette in dealing with each other and please try to understand each others postions even if you cannot agree with it. Thanks. -JCarriker 20:00, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
They are all the same mask. (Hm-m-m. Maybe not. The ears look different -- don't they?) Anyway, depending on the lighting, certain features can be flattened or made to essentially disappear. I like the photo that is already there, because the way it is lit clearly shows the projection of the upper lip -- the very pronounced alveolar prognathism -- as well as Tut's full lips -- though I must say I love the last photo. It just doesn't show as much detail. Pharlap's complaints about the copyright notice are flimsy and downright ridiculous. It's the name of the copyright holder and his website -- nothing more. deeceevoice23:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck. I'm willing to compromise. I'll accept the third pic. It's gorgeous -- and the man is still obviously black. :p Thanks for taking the time to find acceptable alternatives. deeceevoice23:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some research, I concluded that there was only one mask found in the tomb. These pictures must be under different lighting conditions. From most of the pictures I've seen, the darker conditions are those under which the mask is displayed in the museum.
I suggest we display both images. If that's ok with you, deeceevoice, I'll ask JCarriker to make the change for us, bringing us one step closer to unlocking the page. Jim Apple16:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're suggesting one of the other images be presented in addition to the one at the beginning of the article, along with the third one, I'd say no. That's overkill. Just as with any photo on Wikipedia, an enlarged, more detailed version is available by simply clicking the photo. Substitution of the third photo, in lieu of the one with the superimposed copyright info, however, is acceptable and, I think, reasonable. deeceevoice18:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deecee, I now understand that you mean to insinuate I am a user named "Pharlap." This was not immediately clear to me. However, I have never operated under that name, here or elsewhere. You are wrong in accusing me of being "Pharlap." So, please, stop. It's unfair and offensive -- I don't have to know who or what Pharlap represents to feel such.
Photo Distortion -- The effects noticeable in some of the photos posted here, mostly a difference in the way the "face" of Tutankhamun appears, is a result of optical physics. The first "main mask" photograph was taken with a normal, orthographic lens, which represents exactly what our eyes see. The second was taken with a macro lens, which distorts and exaggerates the frontal projections of the object photographed. Macro lenses are often used in the photography of jewelry, tiny electronics, etc. , to make the main portion easier to see, and in the case of jewelry, more prominent. This is why the ears appear "pushed back." The lens is VERY close to the front of the mask, but with an aperature wide enough to capture the whole thing (hence "macro"). It is not a fair representation of Tutankhamun, and sets up an incorrect expectation for people wishing to view the mask themselves. When you see the mask in person, you will notice immediately that it shares no resemblance to the exaggerated macro photographs shown here. It will look unfailingly like it does in the main photo, and every other photo ever taken of it.
Many things can be accomplished with macro or other forms of "perspective" warping photography (really wide angle lenses do this also). However, the results of such should never be used to portray actual items in articles outside of ones on "macro photography" or "forced perspective photography," because they do not represent the actual appearance of the items depicted. The dim lighting of the distorted photo is also unfair, as it is a preservative effort on the part of the museum, to keep the mask at low temperature and with minimum exposure to incandescent rays. Ancient Egypt was an empire of the sun. Aten, the visible image of the sun; Amun-Re, the sun-god. The gold was meant to glorify the king in its brightness and brilliance. Not the dim luster shown in the macro photos. Those are my main issues with the "Return to Glory" photo, outside of its origin. Encyclopedias should not mislead. (Petrograd20:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Assuming we can resolve the picture issue (see above), what's the best way to resolve the text? I was thinking that we could have a short section here, with a full separate page, like in country pages: Appearance, Main article: Appearance of Tutankhamun. This wouldn't necessarily resolve the dispute, but at least it would hem it in.
A new page may also defuse criticisms like "this isn't the right place". It would also allow conflicting viewpoints to be put on the page, rather than just sparking revert wars.
There is no text dispute. Read Pharlap's final comments on the matter. His gripe is content -- which he says he'll "deal with" later -- assuming he can. :p And, heck, no. We don't need a separate article on the matter. This is getting ridiculous. deeceevoice18:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By "text" I meant "content", so I don't think I understand your comments on Petrograd's comments. Why not make a separate page? Do you think it will reduce the quality of this article? Do you think it will fail to end the edit war over this article? Jim Apple19:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, a while back I moved the whole issue to an external link. Titled something like, "Face of Tut" or "Tutankhamun's Appearance" -- it went to a non-Wiki page. NPR, I think. It really cleaned up the page, I thought, but the whole "Appearance" section was soon brought back in. I've always felt it was a burdensome section. An encyclopedia would make very brief mention of it then post something like "See:Relevant Article," not allowing it to practically dominate the whole article, with more text overall than any other section. The problem is that the issue isn't resolved, and can't be. Not until someone makes a time machine. So the only real feasible option I can think of is a separate page openly acknowledging the subject's touchiness, supplying people with a forum to discuss it. Otherwise it becomes vandalism, using an encyclopedia article as a vehicle to supply opinions and convictions. (Petrograd21:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
There isn't even an edit war over this issue, so the subject is moot. Read the comments of the anonymous poster whose repeated inserted set the touchy Pharlap off. An article on King Tutankhamun is the perfect place to deal with the issue of who and what he was. One of the great things about Wikipedia is it isn't like other encyclopedias and covers interesting aspects of subjects not addressed elsewhere. It is the perfect venue for presenting facts and letting the reader come to his/her own conclusions. The subject of Tutankhamun's ethnic identity is a subject of great controversy. There's absolutely no reason to skirt the issue here -- and every reason to treat it in depth, either here (later) or elsewhere. Presently, the matter is treated very superficially with a link to a more in-depth discussion in Afrocentrism. That may change in the future, but for now, that's where things stand -- and without complication until Pharlap went off. This entire matter obviously could have been resolved with the anonymous poster, who seems like a reasonable enough person with good intentions, without going to the RfC page. There's absolutely no point to changing/restructuring the piece as it now exists.deeceevoice21:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A survey of this article's edit history does not support your assertion that "there isn't even an edit war over this issue." Clearly, there is...
Tutankhamun's ethnic identity is not in dispute and never was. As I mentioned before (in a since deleted post), the emphasis of Afrocentrism should be geography, not skin tone. Tutankhamun was African; Egypt is an inextricably African state. His absolute skin tone cannot be determined even with the best forensic evidence, but that shouldn't matter -- that shouldn't be a "sticking point" with Afrocentrists, because, of course, it changes nothing about the fact that ancient Egypt is IN Africa. It's unfair to the whole of Africa to wrongly favor the darkest skin shades possible there. The SCA and NGS together chose to select a mid-range, as it reflects the one true unknown about Tutankhamun. Opinions abound, but fact in this is unobtainable.
AND DEECEEVOICE. MY NAME IS PETROGRAD. PLEASE STOP REFERRING TO ME AS "PHARLAP." I DO NOT CALL YOU "ELIJAH MUHAMMAD". GRANT ME THE SAME RESPECT. (Petrograd01:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
The edit war -- a recapitulation of a possible outstanding issue
Because of the precipitous archiving of the discussion page, this might be useful.
Again, there remains no real edit war. The so-called "edit war" was about your repeated and arbitrary deletion of an image that is perfectly legitimate and useful and replacing it with something that added absolutely nothing to the article. JimApple's contribution of an alternative image without the copyright information, IMO, the only truly antagonisms were the additions of the unnamed contributor, who clearly is no longer an issue.
But there is one remaining item. A recap:
I added: "Others scholars insist that at the time of King Tutankhamun, dynastic Egypt remained substantially black African in nature, with an influx of Nubian blood into the royal line during the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties. (See Afrocentrism#Egypt and Black Identity.)" as, in your words, "acceptable alterations."
But Paul Barlow objected, challenging the veracity of the claim and my use of "other scholars" as being unsubstantiated. I responded with several links on the discussion page and tweaked the sentence to read: "However scholars, notably the 'Father of Egyptology' W.M.F. Petrie among them, contend that there was an influx of Nubian blood into the royal line during the seventeenth and eighteenth dynasties. (See Afrocentrism#Egypt and Black Identity.)" I then copied and pasted the entire paragraph to the end of the quote by Terry, because it seemed fitting to do so. I felt the reference to respected scholarly opinion closed out the section more effectively than the quote from someone whose background is political science and lobbying. (Unfortunately, I apparently forgot to delete this text from its earlier position, though, but returned later and did so.)
I then added: "Further, forensic examinations of King Tutankhamun's skull reveal that he shared a precise cluster of distinctive physical characteristics specific to the indigenous, black, Nilotic and Cushitic peoples of the region— factors used to bolster criticism of the light-skinned National Geographic-sponsored reconstruction. (See Afrocentrism#Egypt and Black Identity.)" It is a logical follow-on to the comment regarding the reintroduction of Nubians into the Egyptian royal bloodline. And you deleted it, with the somewhat curious, and typically antagonistic, edit note: "Bypassed malicious Deeceevoice 'Afrocentric' edits. AFROCENTRISM IS IMPROPERLY NAMED: *OF COURSE* TUTANKHAMUN WAS AFRICAN, EGYPT IS *IN* AFRICA. SKIN TONE DOES NOT EFFECT THIS.)"
Of course the influx of Nubian bloodlines into the Egyptian royal lineage has quite a bit to do with skin tone. And whatever you feel about Afrocentrism is totally irrelevant to the text." I reverted your deletion of this perfectly factual and useful information.
So, let's leave the insertion of text from Afrocentrism out of this. You're saying you stand prepared to repeatedly excise: "Further, forensic examinations of King Tutankhamun's skull reveal that he shared a precise cluster of distinctive physical characteristics specific to the indigenous, black, Nilotic and Cushitic peoples of the region— factors used to bolster criticism of the light-skinned National Geographic-sponsored reconstruction. (See Afrocentrism#Egypt and Black Identity.)"?
Deecee, the reason I have not replied is that I am in Germany and I have very limited access to the internet. So far you have quoted a very old souce - Petrie - to say that Tiye was Ttut's gran. Well we don't really know who was his father or mother, so it's guesswork. Nevertheless it's still the best guess we have. However, as far as I am aware, we have no evidence that Tiye was Nubian, so asserting this as fact is simply unwarranted. There is no skin pigment on the scupture. It looks dark because of the colour of the wood. We cannot say that there was "an influx of Nubian" blood at this time. We have been over this before. You have never provided any actual evidence that Tiye was Nubian, just asserted it. Must go. Paul B07:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also included a link which speculated that Kiya was Tut's mother. Who cares? Who gave birth to whom is far more speculative than the origin of the monarchs of the 17th & 18th Dynasties. Virtually every source I've consulted identifies Tiye as a Nubian -- and she is clearly Africoid (a dead ringer for black poet Gwendolyn Brooks), as is the mummy that is strongly expected to be her -- a tentative identification the certainty of which has only increased over time. Other mummies of the two dynasties in question are also pronouncedly Africoid/Nilotic/Cushitic. deeceevoice22:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can 'speculate' that she was Tut's ma too. We can equally speculate that his ma was the Mitanni princess sent over to Amonhotep III and IV's courts. But the fact remains that it is speculation, nothing more and nothing less. We don't know who his parents were. If virtually every source you have consulted says that Kiye was Nubian then I can only assume you have 'consulted' nothing but Afrocentric websites. You have provided no evidence of this assertion at all. As far as I know, there is no evidence. Her father was Yuya, who has been widely speculated to be Asiatic/Semitic. There's not much good evidence for that either as far as I can see, but nevertheless anyone who types in Yuya to Google will find pages of stuff pursuing this speculation. Her mother was a descendant of Ahmose-Nefertari, queen to Ahmose I. None of this suggests that she was Nubian. If you have actual evidence that she was, please present it.
I can't see any resemblance to Gwendolyn Brooks at all, apart from the fact that in these photos they are both middle-aged and female. The shapes of their faces are wholly different
I wish I could find the portrait of Gwendolyn Brooks facing forward that used to be on the Internet. She wore a green sweater, I believe, and sported an afro of relatively the same proportions of Queen Tiye's. Unfortunately, I cannot; I believe the website is no longer there, or the image has been removed. For a long time, I kept returning to the image of Tiye. Her face looked really -- I mean really -- familiar. One day it finally dawned on me, and I mentioned it in a very early discussion thread in Race. Another Wiki contributor (a white guy) found the portrait and posted it with a comment saying basically I was right. The bust of Queen Tiye is a dead ringer for Gwendolyn Brooks. I'd bookmarked the site, but long ago the link became inactive. I've searched the Net. Unfortunately, there seems to be but a handful of the same of Brooks available on the Internet. I kept finding the same ones over and over again -- but the portrait is nowhere to be found. deeceevoice16:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
File:Brigitte and Tiye.JPGThe problem with this look-alike game is that you can conclude almost anything you want to by adopting this method. I can "proove" that Tiye was a "dead ringer" for Brigitte Bardot, by juxtaposing images. Look – there they are, with the same pouty expressions and similar profiles, noses, eyes and eyebrows. Yes, Tiye looks a little grumpy in comparison to Brigitte, but she probably has a lot on her mind. Otherwise, they are remarkably similar!
This dead-ringer method has no scientific or historical justification at all. It's the stuff of dumb websites and blogs, not of encyclopedias. Paul B08:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brigitte Bardot? You're kidding -- right? I won't get into what cannot be ascertained from a strictly frontal photo. But I will say that Barodot's chin gives her away as being Caucasoid. It's bilobate. And the classic Africoid phenotype isn't; it's straight. No way her facio-cranial type is archetypically Nubian/Africoid. I mentioned the striking resemblance between Gwendolyn Brooks and Queen Tiye not as "proof" (I've presented enough evidence on this website to support the contention that the ancient Egyptians were predominantly black African), but as a means of putting a real face on the artifact. And Brooks most definitely was a dead ringer for Tiye. deeceevoice12:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I apologize for my old school summary; it's true though that macro lenses are constructed intentionally to amplify natural perspective distortions. (Petrograd10:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Precisely. I selected the Harry Burton black and white photo mostly because it showed the mask at an off-angle, different than the main image. It also showed the mask without a goatee, giving a slightly different visual interpretation of the face. But most importantly: you can more clearly see that the lips and nose do not project in an exaggerated way. (Petrograd10:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
From the image discussion page
With regard to claims of possible image "distortion," I draw your attention to the fact that the photo is provided as an example of Tut's facial features -- not his ears, or anything else peripheral to the face. (I've changed the caption -- which I thought I had already done -- to conform with that in Tutankhamun.) Note that the same characteristics of the nose and mouth of the mask, as well as the prominent alveolar prognathism, are also visible here[3] and [4], as well as in numerous other photos -- including the one you provided. Quite clearly, they are not all extremely close-angle shots. It can be argued that the secondary image of the mask[5] you inserted in juxtaposition to the National Geographic shot doesn't look anything like the images of the mask on these pages, either. Again, it's all about lighting. Any experienced photographer knows that the brighter the light, the flatter the image. If you really want to see the contours of an object, then you use a filtered or dimmer light source. These potographs show the actual contours of the mask much more accurately -- as, again, does the photo you took the time to find and, which, incidentally, I prefer because it shows the buzzard/cobra crown and is simply a more beautiful, very moving photograph. Further, it also does not have the Freeman Institute copyright information superimposed on it, which makes for a "cleaner" image. It cannot be charged that the "wallpaper" shots are on the website of a "radical Afrocentrist cult," either. (Freeman is a Jewish professor specializing in cultural diversity training.) Further, here's a link to a photo of the mask on the Discovery Channel website.[6] The image looks very black African -- and not at all like the image you inserted. Note that the ears are not flattened, and the lighting is such that the contours of the mask are clearly visible. deeceevoice12:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Was skin tone related to facial structure?
Petrograd, you keep claiming that it's impossible to tell what color Tut's skin was. deeceevoice's implicit claim is that we can tell by his facial structure. If you disagree with him, why not let the text and references support your point, rather than just continuing to delete his text?
There already are parts of the text indicating that some people think it's not possible to determine what his skin tone was. If that doesn't make your argument for you, you should add more text not delete deecee's. Jim Apple21:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, Jim. It's fair to say that I deleted Deecee's text, though I'm not sure it was originated by her. The process of deletion/substitution, however, was mutual, as it often is in edit "wars." My intent was not so much to strangle Deecee's point of view as to BALANCE the article overall. I tried to include, in my own text, references and links to the alleged skin-tone controversy. I found Dee's entries excessive and shamelessly weighted toward one side, her side. I think, frankly, a lot of what she inserted was little more than thinly veiled propaganda. So I tried to show the best evidence against it without digging through my library of books, searching for the exact references -- the hallmark of someone's whose main job is not lexicography. I remembered, in The Discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamen, that near the end Carter included plates of photographs by Harry Burton. Some of these showed closeups of "black Africans," depicted as enemies of Egypt, and the sculptural work was unmistakable. The sculptors really knew how to distinguish races from one another. So I found these images online and uploaded them. They are closeups and clearly show that, had 18th Dynasty sculptors intended Tutankhamun to look like a black African, he would look like a black African. Instead, he looks like Jaye Davidson.
There are many other examples of black Africans appearing in contrast to light-reddish Egyptians in ancient art, but I have had little luck securing them to show here. I know for certain you can see several such comparisons in the excellent PBS documentary "Egypt's Golden Empire." So my main omission was a failure to be diligent, to seek out definitive sources and references. In fairness, though, the sources I did provide would have been more than satisfactory in any other circumstance. Deecee's fervent refutations have made this one anomalous. (Petrograd09:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
+ Realize I didn't address your question: was skin tone related to facial structure. Every orthopedic opinion I've read has said positively "No." In some cases skin color can be inferred by facial or bone structure, but it is always and only inference. Unfortunately the specific references have evaporated in my mind... Give me a few days. (Petrograd09:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
The process was not mutual in the sense that deeceevoice stopped deleting your text. "I'll find references later that refute it" is a bad excuse. Some of the reverts by deeceevoice were unfair, like removing the quote from the National Geographic spokesperson. Nonetheless, the edit war at the end, for which this page was protected, was you deleting her text.
King Tut looks like Jaye Davidson? ROTFLMBAO. Yeah, sure. This[gallery/ss/0111282/Ss/0111282/ScanImage33.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Davidson,%20Jaye] looks just like this [7], this[8], this: [9] or this [10]? (Note the alveolar and maxillary prognathism of the last image in particular -- and the receding chin.) Looks like someone's been o.d.-ing on Doritos and "Stargate." Perhaps "Petrograd" also would like to offer a theory on the alien origins of dynastic Egypt? :p
I just realized the link to the photo of the mulatto Jaye Davidson is defective. Went on the internet and found this photo gallery.[11] Gawd. Is this bwoi a freak, or what? :p Actually, Davidson's nose is closer to the classic Negroid/Africoid phenotype than Tut's. But his lips are much thinner, and his skin tone is likely wa-aaay too pale. Ha! Not even close. deeceevoice13:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But seriously, folks:
While not exact, of course there is a correlation between facio-cranial characteristics and skin tone. Miscegenation between blacks and whites or Asians results in not only changes in skin tone, but also in altered facio-cranial characteristics. I see it in my own family, among my parents, my siblings and myself. It stands to reason that extremely dark-skinned black people are likely to be less (or not) miscegenated with, say, whites than are fair-skinned black people. It is a fact that as generations of blacks (or members of any "racial" or ethnic group become miscegenated with other groups with different physical features, the distinctive "racial" characteristics they possess are mitigated/blurred or disappear altogether over time.
The more archetypical the cranial phenotype, the less likely it is to be possessed by a member of a diferent "racial group" or a miscegenated individual. Whenever I've seen a starkly archetypical black phenotype with fair skin, it's been the result of vitiligo or albinism -- and it's really striking/odd-looking. Why? Because it's not normal. Just think of the old Michael Jackson (original nose, lips, chin, hair, etc.) with vitiligo having completely destroyed the pigmentation in his face. He's white-skinned. How odd would that look? Such is not the case with white albinos I've seen. They may be creepily, deathly pale, but they don't look strange.
King Tut had the classiccluster of Nilotic phenotypical features, not one or two here or there; he had all of them -- and he had them in spades. Tut's mummy is so bucktoothed and the teeth so large, the poor kid looks like a freakin' gerbil. He's got the prominently recessive chin. His head is so dolichocephalic, that for decades white scientists automatically assumed a genetic deformity. And placed in the context of the widely accepted (new) infusion of Nubian blood into the Egyptian dynastic line during the 17th and 18th Dynasties and the results of similar studies conducted of the skulls of other royals preceding and succeeding him, it is quite likely that Tut was pretty close to pure Nilotic. Other royal mummies during different times exhibited signs of miscegenation -- less pronounced prognathism; considerably mitigated dolichocephamism, even to the point of almost globular skulls, etc. But if one were to search for a near-perfect, even extreme, example of the Nilotic Africoid phenotype among the Egyptian royal line, King Tut is the man.
Given all these factors, and given the fact that Tut is most commonly represented in contemporaneous images as having dark, chocolate-brown/deep red-brown skin, it is highly unlikely he was anywhere near as fair as the scandalously racist French reconstruction. And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in any of the images contemporaneous with Tut's life that he had hazel eyes or that his nose was anywhere near as thin as it is in the reconstruction. And these people knew the identity of the specimen they were dealing with! It is quite clear what the intent was: typical whitewashing.
The resulting image looks downright strange: [12]Every black person I've spoken with who's seen it either laughs out loud or curses at the deception. We recognize the cranial shape immediately -- not as a possible "genetic deformity," but as a "peanut head," a common ghetto term for Tut's pronounced type of dolichocephalism. Without fail, they've said the reconstruction looks damned abnormal. It's white skin and a skinny nose on what should be a dark-skinned black man. deeceevoice13:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is what gets to me about the King tut image. People who say he was white cannot use the death mask and show it in any light because to be honest the mask looks like a black guy. Why the controversy over tut he was black. Now was most of the dynasties black that is the questionWhat I said earlier was that unlike in the U.S. Europeans seem to be more ready to accept that Egypts roots are in Africa and that it was maybe started by Black Africans. Petrograd how can you look at the mask of King Tut or his skull, and the paintings on the wall and see something other than a Black guy. I find it hard to believe anyone who is unbiased can say he is not black it is just too obvious. Like I said earlier I now believe that most of Ancient Egypt was black. The evidence is just too much to ignore. Those who try to convince me that they were white show me evidence that still points to them being mostly black. I now need people to prove to me that the Ancient Egyptians were white people. Some people try to now convince me that the Ancient Egyptians were mixed. This seems to be what allot of egyptologists are now trying to say now that "White Egypt" is dying out. So now the debate seems to be if the Egyptians were Black from the beginning or came from diffrent races. This is what makes me confused. From what I have learned of Egypt. People first thought they were Black than White and now Mixed. Do Black people have a point when they say it is a conspiracy or what? (Anonymous post)
Since no one else has responded to your entry, I will. It deserves a response. The answer is yes, we do. The megalomaniac head of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities Zahi Hawass flat-out lied about how the reconstruction teams all agreed that Tut was a "Caucasoid North African." I traded several e-mails with Anton, the person charged with making a geographic and "racial" determination regarding the skull of Tut. And she told me she pointedly avoided using racial classifications because professionally she doesn't believe in it. She said she never uses racial terms. Further, she told me that the cluster of Africoid characteristics is what caused her to designate a "North African" origin to the specimen -- despite the narrow nasal cavity. Here is an earlier version of what I wrote which details my exchanges w/Anton. The quotes are absolutely accurate, but they were deleted because, under wiki policy, the information is "original research."
Apparently, the "Caucasoid North African" terminology has emanated from only Hawass, who has been accused by some of orchestrating an ongoing campaign to Arabize ancient dynastic Egypt, when the Arab conquest of Egypt dates from only the 7th century CE. In an SCA press release dated May 10, 2005, the agency reported, "Based on this skull, the American and French teams both concluded that the subject was Caucasoid (the type of human typically found, for example, in North Africa, Europe, and the Middle East)."
However, in the words of Susan Antón, a member of the American team, "Our group did not, in fact, find Tut to be a 'Caucasoid North African.' We classified him as African based on many of the [skull's facio-cranial] features...." Antón noted that this was done regardless of the fact that the nasal cavity was relatively narrow, because the metrics were within the range of probability for the Nilotic peoples of the region. With regard to any finding of European origins, Antón commented that, in light of the cumulative evidence, she "determined the statistical association [with Europeans] was very low and, therefore, based on the nonmetric characters, was not likely to be accurate." "... it would have been less confusing," Antón added, "if that terminology ['Caucasoid North African'] had not been used." "I think his features are consistent with him being African."
Antón refused, however, to assign a specific racial designation to the specimen, citing inherent problems with the concept of race.... Referring to the skull's pronounced dolichocephalism, alveolar prognathism, "large teeth," receding chin and pronounced sagittal ridge [13] (an indentation in the skull, forming what African Americans commonly refer to as a "peanut head"), Antón stated she was "in general agreement that, based on the cranial skeleton, an estimate of African is appropriate. What that implies in terms of skin color," she added, referring to the [French] team's reconstruction, "is an inference."
Unfortunately, Anton's reluctance to play the game of racial classification left ample room for the French team, working in conjunction with Hawass, who long has been on a crusade to Arabize dynastic Egypt, to perpetuate the lies. Why is it that only the Egyptians and the French knew the identity of the specimen? And isn't it interesting that the team who knew the least about the skull came up with a dead-on accurate location for the skull's origin? I've explained that in the text.
To answer your question: yes, it is a conspiracy. The wholesale destruction of the archaeological record of black dynasties along the Nile has been underway since at least the flooding of ancient Nubia in 1959 or 1960. What they cannot claim, they destroy. It's that simple. And the inability and unwillingness of individuals to see beyond the blatantly white spremacist appropriation of African culture, their amazing obtuseness when it comes to thinking critically about this matter, have allowed the lies to stand -- and to be repeated in the mass media generation after generation.
The curious thing is the Mediterranean scholars of antiquity readily acknowledged the black skin and woolly hair of the ancient Egyptians, and no one ever has successfully debunked these claims -- nor can they. The Eurocentrists just act like the written historical record doesn't exist; they ignore these ancient scholars. They simply continue to heap lies on top of lies.
Fortunately, more people -- like you -- are awakening to the truth. Stay inquisitive and analytical. As the old, white historians die out, new, highly educated, highly principled, highly determined historians of color, their vision unclouded by racism and the lies of white supremacy, are looking for the truths of their own histories with new eyes and sharp minds.
So, keep your eyes peeled. New discoveries and new connections are being made, and old scholarship and old evidence is being revisited with new eyes. Stay open-minded. "The truth will out." Peace 2 u. :) deeceevoice13:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Early in my editing there was a clause omitted from later versions of the Tutankhamun article. It went something like, " . . . a radical African roots-empowerment group [link to Return to Glory], heavily influenced by some of Alex Haley's Afrocentric additions to The Autobiography of Malcolm X . . . "
I don't know if Afrocentrism is everywhere a misnomer, but in the sense that it's been employed here it is. I think there's something deeper going on. It's a bit like trying to sift truth from testy articles on Christianity or Islam; someone's joined the edit party and is insidiously veering the article away from neutrality. Alarming as it sounds, I suspect some of the people editing "Tutankhamun" with POV information meant to appear "irrefutable" are in fact secretly (not-so-secretly?) impassioned, on a mission or crusade. "Fighting the good fight," etc. etc., the farthest thing from an objective editor. Absolutely refusing to be satisfied with satisfactory encyclopedic data from other, not-similarly-impassioned editors is something I suspect to be indicative of this behavior. Supplanting text that explained the same but did so with fairer regard for other points of view. (Petrograd09:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
"... a radical African roots-empowerment group...." And I deleted that garbage. The passage shows precisely how off-base this all is, and that you somehow still think it was appropriate is extremely telling. "Return to Glory" is a website originated by a JEWISH professor who specializes in diversity training, who traveled to Egypt and was struck by the black images he found there. This is a typical ignorant, knee-jerk response of the highly opinionated and abysmally ill-informed when presented with information they cannot, or refuse to, absorb: utterly baseless ad hominem attacks. deeceevoice12:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jim.
Wow...
It's like you didn't even see anything I wrote! Deecee's snarly absolutisms are pretty simple to defeat -- it doesn't require a direct onslaught. Logic is logic; science is science. Deecee practices neither. (Note that the "Discovery Channel" photo of Tut's mask is also done close-in and at a low angle, exaggerating prominences).
All this vituperation has highlighted, for me, Wikipedia's fundamental flaw: user egos. With that now acknowledged and understood, I leave you to your war. Goodbye, Wikipedia.
Right. If the problem of "distortion" is the same, then tell me: why are the ears not flattened? So, you're telling me the Discovery Channel doesn't have the good sense to present a decent, accurate photographic representation of Tut's death mask? Or, perhaps it's a conspiracy from the "Jew-controlled" media -- like, say, www.returntoglory.org?? Worse still, is Discovery Channel the tool or co-conspirator of "a radical Afrocentrist cult"? Uh-huh. And "vituperation"? You seem to forget you're the one who was admonished about your snide, nasty, ad hominem attacks -- not I. Bye, Pharlap -- uh, I mean Petrograd. Don't let the doorknob hitcha.... deeceevoice18:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First up, I removed three images that are tagged as potential copyright violations.
Secondly, the "close up" image is extremely misleading. We have thousands of depictions of what the mask actually looked like, and it does not look like it appears in this image. I glanced at the above conversation and have to agree with those who feel that it was either taking with a lens that distorted the features quite dramatically or was modified in photo manipulation software. The coloration also is supsect but could be from poor lighting. Not to mention that it is also a copyright violation.
I certainly would not object to an image like that being included as an example of why some people claim Tut was Nubian, but it absolutely needs to have a caption specifying that the dimensions have been distorted trough use of a lens and the color being dark from low lighting conditions, referring to the image at the top of the article (or elsewhere if we add a comparison of the two) as a more accurate rendtion.
Furthermore, the claims in the caption that the mask is shown on th National Grographic cover to the left is misleading, as that image is clearly of the accurate and undistorted dimensions and coloration. Claiming that the "close up" version is on the cover is simply false.
To top it off, it is clear from the comments that the close up image is being advanced here specifically to take a POV that Tut had Nubian features. This sort of thing should not happen. Editing decisions should be made to cover all important sides, and then explain which sides the experts come down on. The idea that Afrocentrists are trying to sneak their agenda into this article is quite disturbing, especially as it is such a minor part of the scholarly view and generally only held by lay persons. DreamGuy21:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
.....riiiiighhhhhttttt.....
my word, this place is a regular adolescent pissing contest! ease up on the egos a bit and throw in a pinch of egyptology, wouldja? real science.
the nubia/africa thing cracks me up!
i mean, arguing by the artefacts?! pscha! take a stroll through cairo museum!
No one disputes that Egypt and Nubians engaged in military conflict. The same artist who accurately depicted the Nubians as black-skinned, depicted Tut as having chocolate-brown skin. Now, what does that make Tut? It makes him a brown-skinned black man. Egyptian art is extremely detailed. Note the obvious, virtually ever-present prognathisms when the Egyptians depict themselves -- and the absence of prognathism when they depict others in the same piece of artwork. Prognathism = black people. Tut's phenotype is classic Nilotic black African -- nothing else. The science doesn't lie. deeceevoice03:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Chocolate brown skin? The skin coloration typically used is not chocolate brown but reddish, which is actually more in line with Mediterranean skin tones. Also it was quite typically to depict males as having tanned skinned to contrast with the whiter skin of the women, an artistic style that went all the way to the Etruscans in Italy. Using your argument we should wonder why all the Etruscan men were "black" Africans and the women were Nordic pale white. We know from DNA evidence, comparative art styles, anicent records and half a zillion other ways that most of the Egyptians had Meditteranean skin tones, which shouldn't be surprising as that's where they lived. DreamGuy04:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bull. I say "chocolate brown" to differentiate between people who might be simply tanned. Red? Hell, lots of black people have reddish brown skin. Even an old Encyclopaedia Britannica from 1911 (cited below) describes some black people as having reddish brown skin. The website of a white makeup artist describes brown skin as having red undertones, which is true. It is why when white companies first started making cosmetics for black women, their flat brown colors looked terrible -- turdy, ashen, like death. It was evident in the old days of television when blacks were relative newcomers to the medium. Any everyday cosmetologist or African American woman will tell you that the brown skin of "black" people typically has red undertones. Lots of African Americans, for instance, turn a deep red-brown in the summer sun -- myself included. Need more proof?
A summary according to somatological principles has been given lately by J. Deniker (cf. The Races of Man, p. 225), a Frenchman, who has selected the divisions of the earth as the principle of classification in the description of the several races and tribes.
*Frizzly hair, broad nose
yellow skin: the Bushman races, comprising Hottentots and Bushmen -- yellow skin, steatopygous, small stature, dolichocephalic;
dark skin:
Negrito races, comprising both very small, sub-brachycephalic or sub-dolichoceplhalic;
Negro, comprising the Nigritian and Bantu stocks -- black skin, dolichocephalic;
Melanesians, comprising Papuans and Melanesians -- blackish-brown skin, medium stature, dolichocelphalic.
Hair frizzly or wavy, dark skin
Ethiopians -- reddish brown skin, narrow nose, large stature, dolichoceplhalic;
aboriginal Australians -- chocolate brown skin, broad nose, medium stature, dolichocephalic;
Dravidians -- black-brown skin, broad or straight nose, small stautre, dolichocephalic;
skin dirty white: Assyrioids -- nose narrow, and convex with thick end.[13]
Further, from the (racist), 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica:
The relation of the negroids of Africa to those of Asia (southern India and Malaysia) and Australasia ... [are] dispers[ed] from what seems to be a single stock. It will be sufficient to say that the two groups have in common a number of well-defined characteristics of which the following are the chief: a dark skin, varying from dark brown, reddish-brown, or chocolate to nearly black; dark tightly curled hair, flat in transverse section,1 of the "woolly" or the "frizzly" type; a greater or less tendency to prognathism; eyes dark brown with yellowish cornea; nose more or less broad and flat; and large teeth. Sharing these characteristics, but distinguished by short stature and brachycephaly, is a group to which the name Negrito (q.v.)
The expression "jet black" is applied by Schweinfurth to the upper-Nilotic Shilluk, Nuer and Dinka, while the neighboring Bongo and Mittu [of southern Sudan] are described as of a "'red-brown color' like the soil upon which they reside" (Heart of Africa, vol. i. ch. iv.).[14]
What "we know" is not what we know. When you can find me a group of Mediterranean peoples with the same facio-cranial characteristics as King Tut and the royal mummies cited in the Afrocentrism article, when you can contradict the writings of Herodotus, Petrie and scores of other non-"Afrocentric" scholars, then I might consider taking the trollop you've written here with a grain of salt. Let's start with what they knew:
From Diop:
Before examining the contradictions circulating in the modern era and resulting from attempts to prove at any price that the Egyptians were Whites, let us note the astonishment of a scholar of good faith, Count Constantin de Volney (1757-1820). After being imbued with all the prejudices we have just mentioned with regard to the Negro, Volney had gone to Egypt between 1783 and 1785, while Negro slavery flourished. He reported as follows on the Egyptian race, the very race that had produced the Pharaohs: the Copts.
... all have a bloated face, puffed up eyes, flat nose, thick lips; in a word, the true face of the mulatto. I was tempted to attribute it to the climate, but when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says: "As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair. ..." In other words, the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native-born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood, mixed for several centuries with that of the Romans and Greeks, must have lost the intensity of its original color, while retaining nonetheless the imprint of its original mold. We can even state as a general principle that the face is a kind of monument able, in many cases, to attest or shed light on historical evidence on the origins of peoples.
The opinion of all the ancient writers on the Egyptian race is more or less summed up by Gaston Maspero (1846-1916): "By the almost unanimous testimony of ancient historians, they belonged to an African race [read: Negro] which first settled in Ethiopia, on the Middle Nile; following the course of the river, they gradually reached the sea. ... Moreover, the Bible states that Mesraim, son of Ham, brother of Chus (Kush) the Ethiopian, and of Canaan, came from Mesopotamia to settle with his children on the banks of the Nile." {endnote 8: Gaston Maspero, Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'Orient. Paris: Hachette, 1917, p. 15, 12th ed. (Translated as: The Dawn of Civilization. London, 1894; reprinted, New York: Frederick Ungar, 1968.)} ...
The Egyptians themselves traced their origins to Punt, surmised to be present-day Eritrea or southern Sudan -- whose indigenous inhabitants are black Africans.
The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians are one of their colonies which was brought into Egypt by Osiris. They even allege that this country was originally under water, but that the Nile, dragging much mud as it flowed from Ethiopia, had finally filled it in and made it a part of the continent. ... They add that from them, as from their authors and ancestors, the Egyptians get most of their laws.
Herodotus in Diop:
To show that the inhabitants of Colchis were of Egyptian origin and had to be considered a part of Sesostris' army who had settled in that region, Herodotus says: "The Egyptians said that they believed the Colchians to be descended from the army of Sesostris. My own conjectures were founded, first, on the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair. ..." {endnote 3: Ibid., p. 115.} Finally, concerning the population of India, Herodotus distinguishes between the Padaeans and other Indians, describing them as follows: "They all also have the same tint of skin, which approaches that of the Ethiopians." {endnote 4: Ibid., p. 184.}
Now, if the classical Egyptians were dark-skinned with woolly hair, imagine what they looked like 4,000 years before. Light-skinned? Hazel eyes?ROTFLMBAO. Yeah. Right.
Egyptian women. Note the prognathisms, receding chin lines and nappy/wavy hair.[15], [16] Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye.[17] and [18] And, yes, the Egyptians knew full well how to distinguish themselves from other peoples. Check the ethnological "portraits" from the Book of Gates[19] and notice the pronounced maxillary prognathism and receding chins of the sub-Saharan and West Africans (and, perhaps, other Nilotics, with the yellow and black leopard aprons), the maxillary prognatism and receding chins of the Egyptian (the first figure), the flat faces of everyone else. This isn't a coincidence. Maxillary and alveolar prognathisms are omnipresent in Egyptian art. King Tut profiles:[20] and [21] And this is not some "stylistic" affectation of the Amarna or any other period. Prognathism: a tell-tale racial trait used by forensic scientists to assess Africoid origin/ancestry. It's everywhere.
So, don't presume to talk about "what we know," because when it comes to in-depth, scholarly consideration of all the evidence (not a regurgitation of the mindless pap designed to perpetuate the myths of white supremacy and black inferiority) -- archaeological evidence, indisputable classical historic record and modern forensic science -- you don't know jack.deeceevoice09:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hey, ddv, you're just stirring around the elements emphatically, making an awfully lengthy show but proving nothing. you can't call an ancient egyptian a black man and keep a straight face. can you? have you studied it at all? (and i mean outside of the propaganda site bibliographies). egyptology is a respectable field but people like you make a circus out of it. your arguments are shifty, imbalanced and halting. trying to prove your point, for example, by indicating an article as if it should be taken for sooth, in an encyclopedia you openly proclaim "racist," not to mention published before world war I, is ridiculous. in the real definition of that word: worthy of ridicule. the same with referencing historical commentaries long removed from actual events, to prove egyptians were black men, when we have real egyptian records and artifacts to examine. herodotus a reliable source on eighteenth dynasty egypt? hello.
i can't say i understand the impulse. egypt was a repetative place; always the same sculptures, always the same rituals, always the same supplications, always the same monuments to egos in stone. its colonnades inspired later architects in greece and rome, but for all its monumentality egyptian architecture wasn't worth much more than that. is it because you suppose egypt was the first real civilization? look up ancient sumer.
all the while . . . the heart of the world is africa. we evolved there as a species. erectus to sapiens. after that, we diverged. biodiversity. environmental adaptation. and now we're a little differently hued standing next to each other and of slightly different skeleton. why should that not make us brothers? (Dark droid00:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
(Wiping a tear.) Oh, gee. That was so eloquent. :p
This discussion hasn't got jack to do with brotherhood; it's about historical accuracy. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for all its racism about the presumptive inferiority of blacks, is dead on and extremely detailed in its descriptions of the physical attributes of blacks vis-a-vis skin color. There are numerous other places where blacks are described as having red-brown skin. (Have you googled it? Obviously not.)
No one here has said a damned thing about assigning any subjective value or rank whatsoever to Egyptian civilization vis-a-vis other world civilizations, but since you raise the subject, Sumer came nowhere near to Egypt in terms of power, duration, advancement and influence. And who do you think the Sumerians were, anyway? White people? :p But I will not be drawn into that discussion. It's not germane here.
More to the point -- what? No comeback to Herodotus, Petrie, Volne or Didodorus? The evidence in the face of the Great Sphinx at Giza and countless other artifacts, monumental and diminutive, of dynastic Egypt? Modern forensic science? Just some weak-ass comment about the obvious interrelatedness of (hu)mankind. Ha! No surprise there. You waste our time. deeceevoice11:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
you can't invoke the sweeping generalities of ptolemaic "historians" to stand as indisputable support for a black ancient egypt. that's just dignified ignorance, and it tarnishes nearly all of your entries. (Dark droid23:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
And you've "evoked" absolutely nothing. And all the rest? Again, you waste our time. I'm done with you. You've offered absolutely nothing concrete -- nothing. deeceevoice23:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
haughty and cryptic. ddv, when i offer anything "concrete" it does not come in magazine-like abundance because it is not strip mined backfill from propaganda sites. such as your "egypt-women" 1 and 2 pictures, which don't show egyptian women at all but royal concubines gifted to egypt's pharaohs by neighboring sovereigns. this is basic egyptology twisted to fleece the undiligent. disingenuous to the core. (Dark droid00:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
What? And concubines, or female musicians were necessarily not Egyptian? Take the body of images of the human form of Egyptians as represented in their bas reliefs, their monuments, their sculpture, and you'll find a predominance of the same striking profiles -- maxillary and/or alveolar prognathism accompanied by receding chins (hallmarks of Africoid peoples). It's how Anton identified Tut's skull's origin as clearly African -- not European. You'll see wigs with dreadlocks and braids in the African fashion. There is no way a "Caucasoid" civilization is indigenous to black Africa.
Still, you have no substantive comeback to the clear, indisputable historical or archaeological record or to modern forensic science. It is widely accepted by credible sources that the ancient Egyptians came from the south -- not the north -- and settled the Nile Valley. There is no way anyone other than black peoples would originate in southern Sudan (which is and always has been a black nation) or Eritrea, which are where Punt, the land of origin of the Egyptians, is surmised to have been located. If the ancient Egyptians were characterized as a whole as having black/dark skin and woolly hair in Herodotus' time, they certainly were that way in the dynastic era -- and even more so. The populace lightened -- not darkened -- as time progressed. All objective data points to a heavily and predominantly black, Africoid predynastic and dynastic Egypt.
You're a textbook byproduct of "historical scholarship" twisted to the service of white supremacy, slavery and imperialism of the 19th century, and of the pop historical swill and whitewashed Egyptomania of the early 20th: racism, deception and ignorance which ignored the clear archaeological evidence and impartial scholarly observation, both classical and contemporary. Pavlovian conditioning. The opinionated, hidebound ignorant are so comfortable with the lies of their upbringing, they return to their familiar comfort despite clear evidence to the contrary.
I'm not here to convince you. I've written what I've written based on facts. It's there to edit, excise, change, based on any solid evidence you (or anyone else) can present. As with anything on Wikipedia, you're free to do so -- if you can back it up. With all the knee-jerk Eurocentrists on this website, all the white male geeks, do you really think Afrocentrism would have remained substantially intact for the last several months if the information presented there (and here) weren't' accurate?
All you (all) do is bytch and moan on the discussion page. Read the Afrocentrism archives. Everything you've not said has been not said before. You're yesterday's news. You're "déjà vu all over again."
Winifred Brunton (Wikiquette, good faith, be nice...)...
Winifred's painting technique for the pharaonic portraits:
. . . I turned to the statutes and reliefs. These would show me how the sitters impressed the artists of those days, and the work of an artist's chisel or brush is at least as good evidence as the sworn word of a witness in a court of law, at any rate when the artist is as literal-minded as were the Egyptians. Do we not know the honest mistakes a man in the witness-box can make? And shall we not concede the difference between a trained and an untrained observer?
The ancient artist was a trained observer; I would examine his trained evidence on what he saw, and compare it with what I could see today of the Pharaohs. This done, discrepancies appeared which could not be disregarded. And besides, the various artists who portrayed a Pharaoh did not all agree in detail among themselves. This added to the difficulty! It was evident that some detailed and perhaps laborious comparing would have to be done. I had recourse again to the mummy, and took the face carefully back through the process of mummification.
Certain confirmations appeared of the artists' evidence; these I accepted and retained, especially as they seemed to me to agree with the king's known character. Discrepancies on the other hand could be partly accounted for by the changes in the subject between youth and old age, and partly by the deference due to kings. Finally I did construct a firm scaffolding on which to build my portrait, and so the picture of Sety I was begun.
The costume was a simpler problem. One had only to consult the monuments and the jewel-room of the Museum, and to be careful to avoid howlers such as a dinner party parure with a field-service helmet, and so on. Ramses II was next attempted, and I was greatly cheered by the recognition of my resuscitated kings by several eminent archaeologists. Not all the Egyptologists who recognised my portraits realised the method in my madness, the slow sifting of evidence and the laborious brick-making. To many they seemed flights of a fancy only slightly, if at all, controlled by research.
But one of the most famous of them all, namely Professor Breasted, gave me enormous encouragement. Whatever was to be thought of these particular portraits, he admitted that this was a line of research not hitherto tried, but perfectly legitimate and which might conceivably yield valuable results. His kind words so stimulated me that I made similar attempts with other defunct royalties, and gradually completed the series of kings and queens which appear in these pages. [22]
I was just telling Dark Droid that he's wasting his time asking you to be nice. If you disagree, that's fine, but I don't think you do. I'm not criticizing you or calling you out or casting any votes about your behavior. I'm just trying to tell Dark Droid to spend his time in more productive ways than asking your for some courtesy. Jim Apple15:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. You ain't nevvuh lied. :p My apologies for my earlier language banning you from my user page. I'd read your comments (elsewhere?) too hastily as typical piling-on/troll behavior. You've shown yourself to be a good-faith actor on the site, though we may not always agree. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice11:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Elvis ... uh, I mean King Tut has left the building (and is working at Rite Aid)
Last week, I went to the neighborhood Rite Aid in search of a few things. As I was rounding an aisle near the vitamins section, I came upon this tall, lanky brother. He was black -- or about as close to it as I'm ever likely to see in the human form. His skin was mahogany with blueish, reddish undertones (purple?). He had a very pronounced alveolar prognathism and really large (somewhat yellowed) front teeth. Classic Nilotic. I said to myself, "This brother's got to be from Sudan." (He didn't quite look Somali; I know the general look of Somalis quite well.)
"Excuse me," I said. "I hope you don't mind my asking, but where are you from?"
"Sudan," he said with a toothy smile, "East Africa."
"Oh," I said simply. "I was thinking Sudan."
We smiled at one another, and that was that. As I passed him by, I noticed his head: definitely dolichocelphalic.
As I walked away, I chuckled and said aloud to myself, "Nice to meetcha, Tut, my brutha." Aw, yee-ah, bay-bee. A gen-yew-wine Tut sighting. Somebody alert the media! :p deeceevoice14:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page would be more helpful if you stuck to discussing the article instead of using silly anecdotes as if they showed anything useful. DreamGuy21:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
![[3]](http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Travel/MiddleEast/MaskAngledView.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Travel/MiddleEast/MaskFrontView.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](/wiki/Image:Tutankhamen_Mask_Zoom.png){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp340_big_copy.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp337_big_copy.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp348_big_copy.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp343_big_copy.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/egypt-women-2.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/egypt-women.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp017_big_copy.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp011_big_copy.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](/wiki/Image:Tomb_of_Ramesses.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp341_big_copy.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/Egyp038_big_copy.jpg){kind=link}