Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Statement made out of biased ignorance

"Racist remnants of earlier times, such as the one-drop theory, still influence the racial categorization of multiracial individuals. See Black (people)."

Why not see the WHITE people article as well if not especially? The one drop rule wad created and designed for the benefit of maintaining white PURITY, not establishing a pseudo-scientific basis of Black predominance in history. I mean come one the racist remants of earlier times were established by WHITE people, yet the BLACK people article is referenced. Oh thats right I forgot, nowadays, the Eurocentricists and the "mainstream" wants to pretend that black people somehow forced the one-drop rule down the white race's throat while they were enslaved. --Zaphnathpaaneah 18:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the topic is addressed in the body of the article linked? What the hell does the "one drop rule" have to do with the Ancient Egyptians? I suggest you go and contribute to articles on racial politics, if that is the topic you are interested in. This article is nothing but a cheap attempt to recruit an ancient culture for a modern political agenda. The fact that your political opponents have done that in the past does not give you any right to do it as well. People have every right to resent enslavement irrespective of the Ancient Egyptians - get it, you would have more of a point if you attacked injustice directly, from a moral standpoint, rather than attempting a pathetically flawed argument along the lines of "the Ancient Egyptians were black, therefore it was wrong to enslave Blacks". dab (ᛏ) 18:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst them are scholars known as Afrocentricists whom insist that ancient Egyptians were black African peoples

And for the love of god use a spellchecker or ask somebody to translate your ideas into presentable English O_o dab (ᛏ) 18:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just clarify the misspelling, instead of debating endlessly. The One Drop rule is not merely confined to Black people, it was also defined in the context of white purity. The One Drop Rule did not force a native american, or latino, or asian, or arab to become solely "black". What the One Drop Rule did was to exclude any racial group deemed undesirable from Western European purists from noticeably attaching itself to becoming a part of the white race. Read the article yourself. Secondly, I do not apply the principles of the One Drop Rule to Ancient Egypt. I am reverting the areas I feel like reverting because 1. This is an article about the controversy itself, and the information I provided (which was a clarification of the various positions is accurate. 2. Because like it or not, the one drop rule IS a part of the controversy over the race of the ancient Egyptians.

You also erroneously bring issues of slavery into the conversation as a pretext to disrupt the article. Classic straw-man, which YOU, not I, use is that I must be trying to make up for slavery. The issue here isn't regarding slavery, and we all know this. Its regarding what exactly the Ancient Egyptians LOOKED like and the controversy surrounding the race of the Ancient Egyptians. Why can't you stay on topic? I suggest YOU not give me suggestions and you yourself go and take some time to look into racial politics and discuss the stereotype that every black person that supports the idea that Egypt was black must be doing so to get past injustices balanced. Why is it that you are offended that I even present a clear breakdown of the various positions.

But I see another problem. Cquest, as I just told dBachmann, this article is ABOUT the controversy, NOT about finding a result. I certainly believe that the Egyptians were Black, however, this article isn't "are the Egyptians Black or not". The article is about the controversy and thus all of the major positions within it should be highlighted. I personally believe that all of the Arab migrations from the ARABIAN peninsulia since Muhammad's day, and colonialism has changed the demographic to a more Caucasoid one, which DIFFERS from the pharaonic one. DBachmann, I am going to follow the RFC policy TO THE LETTER because I will not let Wikipedia give you an excuse to lock the article with the last edit, or to RFC me out of the contributing process.

Firstly, you have no right to remove the ENTIRE content after 2 back and forths (without removing it initially) with cquest. Basically you are saying "forget it, I don't like it because of the new contributions so I'm taking it all out". No. 2nd. I am going to post and I hope cquest posts also on your talk page as to resolve the issue properly. Because we all know what will happen. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes the moment of truth.

Like I said earlier, it's really wrong to build up a fake edit war (which I predicted would happen) only to make a pretext for a RFC or an article lock in order to unilaterally keep out content that one side does not want to have posted. Now I see it coming and I'm waiting to see how the moderator/who-ever-a-rator will handle this. --Zaphnathpaaneah 02:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the edit war was staged? I assure you it was real. No one is arguing for a lock of the article anymore (one that simply prevents IPs and new users from editing doesn't prevent you from doing anything): the two parties have been dealt with (at least one has been banned for a short while).

Yom 03:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying, good job trashing the article guys. Duplicating footnotes, breaking links, and adding mindless babble. At least it is now readily recognizeable as the worthless polemic it is by any halfway intelligent reader, so I won't waste my time edit-warring about it. dab (ᛏ) 18:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Egyptians are preodminately caucasoid?

I am removing the following from the article because its both and example of scientific illiteracy and also incorrect. Modern geneticists like Cavalli Sfoza cited don't believe in caucasoid,negroid or mongoloid. None of the following have any basis genetically according to most geneticists. I personally emailed Dr. Peter Underhill myself and asked him if such a gene that can be asigned to phenotypes existed and he responded that they cannot.

Also I am curious why studies on modern Egyptians should be used for the ancient Egyptians? Lots of migrants have came into Egypt both during the pharoanic and post pharoanic era

--I don't understand how any of the studies posted in the "genetics" section prove a genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians. To my knowledge, these studies only use modern Egyptians.

Modern Egyptians' Appearance

Just to stir the pot, I'll contribute this link to a video montage of the Egyptian-American Alliance of Youth 2006 Conference so an idea of what modern Egyptians look like can be obtained. Conclude whatever you like. --Jugbo 01:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to some kids in the south (but not Nubian), and here's another of Berbers in the far NW. Egypt is heterogeneous.

Yom 02:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, isn't it? --Jugbo 00:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jugbo, your link to the photos -- as well as what you try to imply by offering it -- is absurd. That's like submitting photos of a U.S.-Israel Alliance conference in the U.S., showing an all-white and Jewish attendance and then expecting people to believe that the U.S. is comprised of nothing but Caucasians/Caucasoid peoples. The fact is the Fellahin, largely poor and dark-skinned, are highly unlikely to be in attendance at an Egyptian-American Alliance of Youth conference. Even if they were so inclined politically (which is somewhat doubtful) or economically able to do so, the subject is not likely one that would be compelling enough for them to take time away from daily affairs to deal with. Further, living in Washington, D.C., I run into a fair number of Egyptians, and they are -- by far -- not so highly Arabized in appearance as the people represented in the photos on the website to which you've provided a link. And then you respond to Yom's comment about diversity as if to say, "Of course!" I find your remarks/contribution to this discussion highly disingenuous/contradictory. deeceevoice 22:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, those Southern kids are not Nubian, Jugbo (in case you thought otherwise). A couple may be, but the majority are just Sa'idi.

Yom 23:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said: "just stirring the pot". People on this page have been concerned with the appearance of modern Egyptians, so I shared what I've found - pictures of young Egyptian-Americans. I thought it was good. By the way, some of those people at the conference looked (at least partly) black to me; and I know not all Egyptians look similar, so my response to Yom was sincere. --Jugbo 01:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to say that Egyptians weren't black

Egyptians were black, there are greater amounts of evidence to support this than any other classification. You can't call them Semitic only based upon their language (I speak English, but I am not English}, and you can't go by skin color(most Egyptians are darker than me in the Hieroglyphs and I'm what you would call black.)You can't talk about features because as we know, Every feature can be found in Africa's "black" people...from straight hair to "hooked noses" You can't change the rules because you want to. No one has a problem with calling ancient Nubian, black, but when it comes to Egyptians "They didn't have those rules back then", which is a good one or "they were mixed" is one of their favorite lines..which is a shifty move to avoid what is obvious in most Egyptian art. I mean I am mixed ( like all blacks in america, to a degree)but I'm still black.

It's high time that people see there are many races of black people, and drop the illusion. Egyptians were black in the past, and the culture of ancient Egypt was a black one( obviously influenced by western African beliefs).

What is a problem here is that no one wants to believe that a race of black people could influence history so much.

The only thing holding the residuals of this argument is semantics, and technicalities, but most evidence favors that Egyptians are "Black", and vertually none says otherwise.

--Vehgah 05:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptians spoke (ancient/old) Egyptian, which is Afro-Asiatic, but not Semitic (it forms its own independent branch of A-A). So you could not classify them as Semitic based on language.

ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 07:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's what a lot of people do. They write ancient Egyptians off as Semitic. --Vehgah 16:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

I made alot of changes to the article, here's a a few problems I saw:

1.The explanation for the difference between ancient Nubian and other sub-saharan crania due to admixture, there's no evidence of admixture in Nubian crania prior to the Mohammedan invasions, if there's evidence, present it, then I will gladly concede.

2. "An elder lady thought to be Queen Tiye among them". i just put Queen Tiye, the evidence seems pretty convincing to me that it's who "The Elder Lady" is.

3. I want to put to rest the myth of Eygpto-Nubian racial wars, that myth still seems to be flying around, even in intellectual circles.

4. It's time we bring in the genetic big guns people, haplotype and maternal lineages should have been the first thing to be put in the genetics section of this article. Jesus christ do I have to do everything?

Got any problems talk to me, bubs.

Playing football on the moon. Teth22 15:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramses II and Ginger

So evidence points out that Ramses II was a redhead [1], and surely this research is just as accurate or inaccurate as the melanin tests described above, what does this mean with regards to the race of the Pharaohs? Is this not evidence that at least the top echelons of the 19th Dynasty were at the very least not Black Africans?

Furthermore what of the earliest 'mummy' discovered in Egypt, that of 'Ginger' now located in the British Museum [2] [3], does anyone here not find it odd that the earliest 'mummy' discovered in Egypt is clearly not of a Black African ancestry?

Naturally there are many other examples of mummies that do not conform to the Afrocentrist viewpoint of Ancient Egypt, why are these cases not highlighted more often? Jameswoolsey 21:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramses was most certainly not a red-head naturally. The color is from chemical changes to the hair due to the embalming process, aging, and perhaps henna. See here, for example. And what does it matter who is found first at a site? It's the frequency that matters, not who/what was found first. The first artifact found at a site in Pakistan might be Greek, but that doesn't mean that Pakistanis used to be Greek. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The French scientists pointed out that studies of the roots of Ramses hair pointed to it being naturally red. However you are wrong to suggest that "Ramses was most certainly not a red-head naturally". As for Ginger, you are right to point out that it does not matter who was found first, but this can hardly be discounted when looking at the race of Ancient Egyptians, and it is surprising to not see it mentioned here. Jameswoolsey 10.11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As it looks to be a controversial point with differing opinions it appears to be a legitimate topic for addition to this page. Justforasecond 00:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

controversy?

I'm not entirely sure I would call this a "controversy" so much as a debate, but I dunno. Just thought I'd interject....

c'mon james, be bold! this is good info (even afrocentrist diop's laughable counter "proof" that this couldn't have been the case because egyptians killed anyone with red hair they came across) Justforasecond 14:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got things to say to both James and JFAS. First off, JFAS, keep your nose out of this article okay, m'kay? You obviously have no experience in the area the article deals with and it's as plain as george clooney's sex addiction. Second, James, you're an idiot with the emotional complexity of a four-year old, and you're wrong about "Ginger" being the oldest mummy, it's actually Uan Muhuggiag, who dates to 3500 BC, who has been confirmed to be BLACK AFRICAN, and whose culture shows links with ancient egypt. And red hair can result from decolorization after death especially in the desert, it's never been confirmed that the mummy had natural red hair. So back off the article. Playing football on the moon. Peace. Teth22 00:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. If you knew the history of this article.... Justforasecond 03:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teth, be polite and civil. Failure to do so could result in disciplinary action by administrators. You have consistently villified people that dare have a contrary opinion to yours - further you have no right to suggest or request that anyone stop editing any article. It is alright to be an ideologue on Wikipedia, but you have to obey the common rules of etiquette and sourced material - both of which, from what I have observed, you seem to have a bit of a problem with. Joey 03:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was my understanding that the redness of the hair was a result of the embalming process. Hardly likely that any redhead would exist, let alone survive long in Africa. Can you say "squamous cell melanoma"? And even assuming there ever was a redhead in ancient dynastic Egypt, the very suggestion that a pale-skinned, redheaded person could be indigenous to the region is utterly laughable -- hysterically so. We don't even have to waste time mocking/debunking such contentions; they are ridiculous on their face. deeceevoice 17:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word Caucasoid

This article should make very clear the uses of the word Caucasoid. Whenever the article may describe "Caucasoid" affinities of Egyptian individuals or mummified skulls, readers might misinterpret this as meaning "White," particularly in America due to the use of Caucasian here to describe people of White European ancestry. It should be mentioned (it might be) that much evidence has suggested that the Ancient Egyptians may have resembled certain modern peoples from the Horn of Africa and surrounding region- namely the Beja of Sudan. Significant evidence has shown that the Beja may represent a more "pure" modern example of what the early Dyanstic Egyptians may have looked like. Many people in Egypt today, particularly outside of the major Northern urban centers such as Cairo and Alexandria, have an appearance similar to the aforementioned Beja. However it needs to be mentioned that the Beja (feature a picture maybe) would absolutely be considered "Black" in America today, although they may have significant Caucasoid affinities. The same is true for Ethiopians- they are generally considered black although they posses many features associated with Caucasoids. See the following pictures- http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/dvo/WOWCalendar/Images/EasternOrthodoxPriestEthiopia.jpg , http://www.somali-gov.info/photos/geedipress.jpg , http://www.sudan101.com/images/bejafuzguy.jpg These pictures show an Ethiopian man, a Somali Man (prime minister Ali Mohamed Gedi) and a Beja man. These may demonstrate the same "Caucasoid" affinities as do some Egyptian skulls, but are nevertheless considered black.

"Semetic"

The article states "light-skinned or "white" people (Semetic people or people of Europe, North Africa, Western Asia, South Asia and portions of Central Asia)." First, a Semite is simply someone who speaks a Semitic language, so no, no one thinks the ancient Egyptians were Semites, second, it's misspelled. The type of Caucasoid they are believed to have been would be similar to that of other Caucasoid North Africans, obviously.

explain revision

deecee has taken out well sourced info and replaced it with nonesense, thisis why i did the rv -ishmaelblues

I deleted the information because it is grossly misleading and over generalizes. I'll deal with it when I have more time/patience. deeceevoice 17:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend ...

Okay, so I'm not involved in this debate in any way. I don't have any knowledge on the subject, either lay or professional. So it's entirely possible that some members of this conversation will object to my injecting my opinion, but hey, that's Wikipedia.

I'm not here to offer an opinion on the racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians. I'm here to ask everyone to take a step back from this article.

I don't have the authority to have anyone stop editing this article, and I wouldn't try to even if I did. I don't have administrative authority to block users or lock articles, and I don't think that would do this dispute any good. I think that this article has the potential to be a fascinating, informative article, and it needs passionate and knowledgable editors to work on it. It's clear to me that it already has passionate and knowledgable editors. So what can be done to make progress in this area?

After seeing this article in Recent Changes, I considered tagging this article for mediation, but then I decided, hey, I'm a level-headed Wikipedian, no need to draw any negative attention this way. So this is the general Wiki-Wisdom that I can offer to this situation. And please remember, these are just my opinions, but they are what I have found works for constructive collaboration.

Try not to post, even on a talk page, when upset, angry, or offended. This article has 'controversy' in the title: of course there will be controversy. But editing in a good mood is always more effective than editing in a bad one.
Try to recognize your own agenda and bias. Every human being has biases, and everyone on Wikipedia has an agenda for the 'pedia. If everyone keeps this in mind, and recognizes that they have some stake in this article, it will be easier for everyone to make their points clear.
Try to recognize the agenda of the other editors. If everyone realizes that everyone else has some stake in this article, it may become clearer why disagreement quickly becomes heated.
Try to remember that Wikipedia is for everyone. With the exception of blocked or banned users, anyone can edit any article on Wikipedia ... and it's made that way for a reason. That means that your text may not stay in an article. It means that your text may be changed when you come back. This is to be expected.
The most important thing: Simply try to be civil. If you have an viewpoint to post, post it, and cite your reasons for believing it. But that is all that need be done -- personal attacks, rudeness, and badgering do not help anyone, and do not help the state of the article.

I would strongly suggest that everyone involved in this disagreement take some time off from this article, however long they think they need to calm down. I have no intentions of bringing this disagreement to the Wiki-authorities, but if this level of incivility continues, someone certainly will, with disappointing and unfortunate consequences. Evaluate the situation here: is this article really worth getting blocked over?

I would also suggest that, if anyone believes that he or she cannot approach this article with a level head and a civil attitude, that he or she refrain from coming back to this page before changing his or her attitude. Of course, I am not saying "Do not edit this page". I'm simply saying "Remember that incivility and anger can have negative consequences". Nobody wants that.

Editing and discussing with a level head and a civil attitude is good for the Wikipedia community, and it makes the likelihood of your point being heard and understood much better. When we're all nice, everybody wins!

Peace. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 19:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we've gone international!

our work has not gone unnoticed -- the french have picked up this page! strangely they have not found the need to include links to "returntoglory" and the freeman institute, etc.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origine_des_anciens_%C3%89gyptiens

Justforasecond 00:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The lack of links to that website are probably owing in part to the language difference. As well, they seem to have been able to find several photos free of copyright problems (where we haven't) -- which obviate the necessity for links.

I also note they did not include the ridiculously POV section on the purported "inaccuracy" of cranial analysis -- which I've worked on here to make it more balanced. As much as the writer would like to portray it as a technique used by Americans, that is simply not the case. And it is a practice with tremendous usefulness and with a great deal of credibility in the forensic community. The problem is racial classification in discrete categories, particularly when dealing with mixed populations -- not of its proven accuracy in determining approximate or likely ethnicity and/or point of geographic origin. The classic Africoid black characteristics of the King Tut skull, for instance, are what led Anton (who, unlike the memers of the French and Egyptian teams, had no clue about the specimen skull) to immediately conclude it was African. The only aberrant thing (vis-a-vis the classic "Negroid" phenotype) was the nasal index, which led her to the group of blacks with pronounced alveolar prognathism, buckteeth, receding chin, dolichocephalic head with a pronounced sagittal crest, large incisors, rounded eye sockets: (Nilotic) North Africans. (She never said "Caucasoid.") She pinpointed the exact point of origin of the specimen by examining just the skull. If the methodologies of the practice were so flawed, she could not have done that.

The French showed good judgment in ignoring such blatantly POV text. deeceevoice 05:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page history

The history for this article is impossible to follow. Please use edit summaries, and try to make all edits to the article at the same time. (If you need, you can copy and paste the wikicode into an outside text editor, make your changes, then copy and paste it back.) This will help people following the development of this article greatly. Thanks! - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 14:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move request: Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians

It seems to be that a lot of the problems surrounding this article have to do with definitions of race. Why not move the page to a more neutral sounding name? I think it would help. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the problem is that editors attempt to prove the unprovable: that a cultural/social construct exists biologically. Or, to use the words of Cavalli-Sforza, the problem is that "the classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise."

The only thing this article about the "race" of Egyptians proves is that any "evidence" provided by afrocentric racialists can be dismantled with "evidence" provided by eurocentric racialists, and vice versa. Being aware of this dilemma, editors try to give their position more weight with original research, POV wording, misquote or quote out of context, and even go so far to declare outdated racist pseudo-science as factual accurate.

We can either continue this futile exercise, or we can try to approach the topic from a different angle. For instance, we could concentrate on the social/political ideologies and motivations that led to this Egyptian race paradox rather than reinforce social constructs which lack a clear cut scientific basis.

We could select the most prominent afrocentric/eurocentric egyptologists, elaborate on their ideologies and motivations and add some examples for methods they used to "prove" their point of view. As a third, balancing party, we could include statements which discard both positions as equally unprovable, including treatises about Phrenology and Race [4], the American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race", [5], and, for instance, the writings of Cavalli-Sforza. CoYep 21:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you entirely. (Including the bits about race as social construct.) That's why I thought "racial characteristics" would be a better term -- it does not engage race as an absolutely.

Unfortunately, I am completely unqualified to write on this topic, knowing next to nothing about the studies quoted here. I would be willing to check the stuff out for apparent POV, though. -Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 08:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21995-2004Sep14.html is not about the race of Egyptians, it comments, IMO, a similar discussion as the one we have here CoYep 21:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} that a first step away from biologist discussions that lead into populist relapses to the 19th century rather than representing current scholarship is to rename the article. It will not solve the problem, but it might move the focus. I also agree with CoYep that references to and reliance on current findings in the history of egyptology would be helpful. The controversy needs to be represented and contextualized (and revealed as based on racist or racialist ideologies that ultimately have nothing to do with Egypt) from a NPOV -- it is absolutely counterproductive to carry it out here. --Jottce 09:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, then let's try it CoYep 08:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

What's with the sudden image flood? They're indiscriminately light-skinned (with the exception of deecee's deleted and now restored image) and add POV to the article. They should only be used when relevant to illustrate a point. They are, for instance, inappropriate in non-artistic arguments in the article. I am going to remove any that fail that criterion now. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How very convenient to remove the images you don't like, but keep the ones you want because they support your POV. Sorry but this is not allowed on Wikipedia and constitutes vandalism and edit warring. --This unsigned comment was made 08:22, 1 July 2006 by a contributor at IP 130.94.134.166

I noted that they added POV but note I didn't remove any images that didn't fit my description above or leave any that failed it. Note that I left all of the artistic images, whether or not they were light or dark-skinned. I also replaced an ancient Egyptian statue in the "modern Egyptians" section with a light-skinned modern Egyptian, and left the colorless statue of Akhenaten as he may be Tut's father, so it's relevant to the section. I accidentally did a partial revert thinking it was a remnant left out by my earlier revert in the same section, but now I see that it's because you have reverted again. This is over the 3RR limit, and you should not do it again. Again, note exactly what my edits have constituted regarding the images (removing irrelevant ones, not ones that don't fit my standards) and please stop edit warring and reverting. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 08:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all you kept doing a mass revert of all previous changes, so you were not just removing the images. You also felt more comfortable leaving behind the images added by the user who keeps inserting afrocentric POVs. You only removed the other images. These images are not irrelevant. They show ancient Egyptians faces which is what this page is about. --This unsigned comment was made 08:57, 1 July 2006 by a contributor at IP 130.94.134.166

You're right in that I didn't realize that I was removing other info, but that's not all you changed, so the question on images stands. The other user (Deeceevoice) only added one image and in a section about the representation of Ancient Egyptians, so the image was relevant and could stay. Your images, however, were in areas unrelated to the Ancient Egyptians' artwork of themselves and therefore not useful for those sections. That they were all of a specific type (i.e. light-skinned) added POV, but the primary reason I removed them (As opposed to balancing out the images with others of dark-skinned Egyptian artistic representations) is because those images don't belong in those sections. By the way, I am reporting you for reverting the 3RR, but it's good that you are now willing to talk. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 09:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about that, Yom, does that fix the problem of the images? — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 20:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks for participating in the discussion. I'm not sure if the Skin Color image is a good one, though. A better image would be one of modern Egyptians in all shades, if we can find one. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 20:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image of a random man in the king Tut section is not relevant to the section. Firstly, the eyes of the man are barely visible (so it doesn't illustrate the "hazel eyes" like you claim). Secondly, having Hazel eyes like a single reconstruction is not a reason for inclusion. It's like adding an image of an ancient Egyptian portrait with black hair because King Tut was reconstructed with black hair in one reconstruction - totally irrelevant. If the image were one thought to represent King Tut (or a relative), however (e.g. the funeral mask), then the image would be relevant — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 21:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the afro-centircs were mainly opposed to Tut's eyes being hazel, so I think it helps to show that an ancient Egyptian has hazel eyes. The article is heavily afro-cenrtic so you should not delete the counterview point to the criticism. The article deals with a CONTROVERSY, it is not a tool to advance one side of the argument. Keep that in mind. -- This unsigned comment was made 21:20, 1 July 2006 by a contributor at IP 130.94.134.166

If you wish to show a depiction of a man with hazel eyes, then the eyes must be visible. What? Are we supposed to simply trust that they are? The photo is not illustrative of the point the caption is trying to make -- not even when the image is left clicked for a larger version. It makes no sense to include it here. I say it goes. (Excellent points, Yom.) And the same thing with the flat-out erroneous captions asserting "tan" skin, when it is obvious the figures once were covered with reddish ochre, the remnants of which are clearly visible. deeceevoice 23:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced reproaches against Hawass & Egyptian Government

In order to avoid legal actions against Wikipedia I removed these unsourced reproaches against Hawass & the Egyptian Government:

These critics contend that a foreknowledge of their subject's identity and certain biases inclined the French to assign lighter eyes and skin and, as well, prompted acceptance of the selections by the Egyptian government. ^{[citation needed]}

Afrocentrists long have charged Hawass and the Egyptian government with mounting a campaign to "destroy" evidence ^{[citation needed]} of what Afrocentrists claim was a "black" civilization. The Egyptians themselves have in turn accused the usually West African descended Afrocentrists (often black Americans) of attempting to appropriate and bastardize Egyptian culture which has nothing to do with West Africa.^{[citation needed]}'' CoYep 07:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Egyptians

Is the section on modern Egyptians really necessary? The title of the article is "race of ancient Egyptians", so why an entire section on Egyptians today? — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 20:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where in the studies cited does it mention that Egyptians are "caucasoid" or are described as southern European? — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 20:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add those studies so I can't say anything about how it describes modern Egyptians. I do believe it's pertinent to the discussion and one section on it isn't excessive. Modern populations are descended at least in part from ancient ones and those who believe Ancient Egyptians were relatively light-skinned often point to modern Egyptians as evidence for their claims. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 20:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I wasn't actually calling for the total elimination of that section. Nor was I questioning that modern Egyptians are descended from ancient Egyptians. I accept the mainstream Egyptological/anthropological view that population continuity largely maintained its integrity since the dynastic period. But if Egyptians are simply Egyptian, then there would be no "controversy" and no need for this article, and no need to fit Egyptians into discrete categories like "Caucasoid" or "Africoid". The controversy exists because the mainstream view, I assume, is put to question. If this is the case, and proponents of the controversy on either side don't feel that the modern population is representative, then why rely on that as "evidence"? If the intention is to prove that ancient Egyptians were either black or white by looking at their descendants, then it will turn out to be a futile exercise because Egyptians, being mostly a range in the middle of the two, can fit both in different contexts. In any event, I don't intend on editing that section, but if it were up to me I would change the wording that puts modern Egyptians squarely in an African or Caucasian genetic profile, and also the part about southern Europeans! I understand if there is an affinity with southern Europeans, but I have never heard Egyptians being classified as European which the section currently states. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 03:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about that particular section is there is no indication what the population samples were like -- for instance what percentages were from the north, as opposed to the south. I do not accept that Upper Egyptians grouped as Caucasoid and had European haplotypes. It's impossible to know from the information presented, and for this reason I'm not certain if the info should be included. Unless such things regarding methodology can be clarified, I'm exceedingly suspicious of the studies cited. Further, there must be a better way to present the information. As it is formatted, it reads like plagiarism. It's footnoted, but the bullets don't make it clear that the material is block-indented.

I tend to agree with Zerida in that modern-day Egypt has changed considerably from ancient times. It's like testing modern-day Americans and trying to extrapolate from that data who the Anasazi were. After all, Arabs have been there since the 7th century, and Egypt is now considered the seat of the Arab world. It's become, geopolitically and in some ways culturally and demographically (at least in major population centers), in some ways more Middle Eastern/Arab than African). And, frankly, I seriously doubt the researchers who came to the conclusion that Egyptians clustered with Europeans and Caucasians went out to the boonies and tested the Upper Egyptian Fellahin out in the countryside in their huts. But there's no way to tell from the information provide -- and therein lies the problem.

Rather than provide possibly misleading information as truth, unless and until it can be clarified, I'm for deleting it altogether. deeceevoice 23:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more photos needed

this article is getting pretty extensive. long passages go on without single images...making it boring. could we get some more omages? or stop removing the images we DO have.

Justforasecond 00:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy and NPOV is more important than being a little bit boring because it doesn't have images. Images are included in Wikipedia to add to the encyclopedic content and demonstrate something explained in the article. There's no need to have more images than necessary or to have them in sections where they are not explained. They are meant to be a demonstration or explanation, not decoration. If you can find images for a highly deteriorated mummy, for instance, then that would work great for the "Condition and availablity of remains" section. Maybe a small (and localized to show relevant areas) version of the Afro-Asiatic languages map or one for Semitic languages would work for the "Geography and linguistics" section. Better yet, a blank map with just names of ancient languages spoken in nearby areas in the relevant time period would be good. I don't see how we could include an image for melanin tests (unless there's an image of one in process). The Cultural and Religious section probably should have that fellahin girl's image restored, as I see now that the section is badly named and the fellahin picture does illustrate something in the text (instead of being a lone image for decoration). Perhaps "Comparisons to neighboring peoples?" "Textual evidence" could only be represented the actual text, obviously. "Geographic evidence" - same as above for the "Geo. & ling." section under problems, and that's about it. We don't need to put a bunch of representation of Egyptian art out of laziness; we should actually use pertinent images. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 01:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I've never read that images need to be section-specific. Can you point me to some policy that says this? Anyway it is POV to delete images that don't match your POV....Justforasecond 01:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be as a matter of Wikipedia policy, but if all the images only illustrate a single section, then beyond the first few sections, the images become redundant and unnecessary. The best way to use them would be to have a variety of different types of images to illustrate each section. I'm not deleting images that don't match my POV, by the way. If Deeceevoice or another editor added dark images of Egyptians throughout the article outside of the relevant sections I would delete them as well. Note how I haven't deleted any additions to the "artistic" or "problems with artistic representations" sections (also the "problems with skin color" one, but I do believe that one should be replaced with an image of modern Egyptians with varying skin color). The addition of all those images does add a POV, whether or not I agree with it (as would the addition of a bunch of dark-skinned images), which should of course be avoided, especially considering the article's subject. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 08:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted lengthy Gaston Maspero passage

Maspero croaked in the second decade of the 20th century. He belongs to that class of "scholars" who tried to find white people in everything Egyptian, as was the fashion of the day. Nofretari came from southern Egypt and is widely considered by scholars these days to have been black. Just Google her. The passage was an overly lengthy missive ostensibly placed there to illustrate the uses of color in Egyptian art, but in actuality a thinly veiled attempt to insert another contention of a non-black Egypt. Heck. Even Petrie, the Father of Egyptology, recognized that Nefertari was "black" -- his words. Maspero was a hack. It is kaput. deeceevoice 07:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Biasutti map

When I first glanced at the map, overall, my immediate, gut reaction was, "This can't be correct!" I googled "Biasutti native populations," and the first thing I came up with was this.[6] It would be nice to find something suitable in the way of illustration for this segment -- but, man. This is so gone. deeceevoice 07:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Edits

I removed the picture for melanin because the linen-wrapped mummy doesn't show any skin first of all, and that skin would be invariably dark if it did because of the effects of being embalmed for 3 thousand years. I removed the hair image because ancient Egyptians wore wigs, so it's not really useful to have that image unless the text makes clear that it is of an ancient Egyptian wearing a wig. The skin color map we've already gone over. It's for 1940 populations with extrapolations for many areas where he didn't actually collect data. Ignoring the extrapolation part, we're dealing with ancient Egypt here, not 19th or 20th c. Egypt, so the map isn't very useful. I deleted the Maspero quotation as per DCV: it represents an older view no longer held by Egyptologists (symbolism still exists, but it isn't thought to be symbolism in this case). I didn't reinsert Petrie's characterization of Nofrati as "black" because it had nothing to do with the section. The addition to the WEB Du Bois quote was to clear up his beliefs, since the addition of text by the Anon made it seem as if Du Bois believed that Egypt was light-skinned in its early stages. I moved around the images in the art section just because I think it's more aesthetically pleasing to have images on alternating sides. The moving up by one of the fresco was to reduce POV, which I coupled with moving the light-skinned man to the top; the bust I included just for variety (instead of having 2 men in the same position). — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't object to W.E.B. du Bois's quotation then what do you object to? Who's a former clerk and service coordinator? I notice you removed the section reported by the NYT. Why aren't the opinions of a dentist (note it's regarding prognathism) and a forensic scientist not relevant? And if you said "if these can be included, then this should be too," then why did you remove them? Also, note that if the Maspero note reflects past but not current thought, then it shouldn't be included in the article unless current thought is articulated. I do believe a note about color's symbolism should be included, but using Maspero (or non-current writing on Nofrîtari) isn't the way to go about it. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 20:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Egyptians wore wigs.
Skin color map: See talk Talk:Human skin color and the 2000 version "The evolution of human skin coloration",Department of Anthropology, California Academy of Sciences
If the Maspero note reflects past but not current thought and shouldn't be included then I'm going to remove Drusilla Houston, Herodotus, Constantin-François de Chassebœuf and Gustave Flaubert as well. Further more, the whole "Typical Africoid/Caucasoid skull" discussion is not a "current thought" either.
If the dentist would have had a chance to analize the skulls, he would be included. And since he voiced his opinion in a letter to the editor without any further personal information, we can't even check his identity
I didnt remove the DuBois quote

CoYep 20:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoYep, were those edits by the Anon yours? &mdsah; ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E

What difference would it make if he were? Justforasecond 04:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would prevent me from talking to two different accounts (i.e. on user talk pages) that are actually just one. Plus, it let's me know who to address for the Anon's concerns. If the Anon is CoYep, then I can just talk to him rather than trying to talk to an Anon, who are generally less cooperative and talkative in their edits. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 05:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yom, it's a given that there's some sock puppetry going on here. It's how people get around violating the 3RR.

Thanks to whomever lengthened the Du Bois quote. It's marvelous. I didn't include the entire thing, because I wanted to cut to the chase. But if no one objects, hey, I'm fine with it. He states the black African origins of Egyptian civilization and maintains that it remained black through the millennia. I may differ with him about the "mulatto" crap, but I won't quibble. As the song goes, "Black is black." :p
I thought the notion of Egyptian headbinding was pretty much a discredited one, but the quote seemed fairly recent, so I did some searching and came up with something recent that gives a nice overview of the issue. I switched it out with the previous, rather lengthy, one-sided treatment of the issue. Hope that's fine w/everyone. (Probably not, but I think it's a fairer treatment.
And I've reinserted the bust that was there before all the other images in the section. It repeatedly has been deleted without justification. I'm glad the additional text was added to the section. It makes inclusion of the first image (the seated guy) possible. Believe it or not, I didn't want to delete it, but I felt, for the sake of balance, the bust of the woman needed to be there -- and, with the shorter text, it was too crowded to have both. Further, my reordering of the images allows the fresco image to be next to the text that introduces the issue of head shape. This way, it all works out pretty well, I think. deeceevoice 11:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated info?

deeceevoice just remarked "Removed outdated and now contradicted speculations of Maspero re Nofritari andmoved up stray info under "Notes," as it reads better in this section treating art". Well the problem with removing this is that the notion of race as a biological concept is outdated itself. It would be hard to find a learned individual who believed otherwise. We also have speculations from novelists and dentists here. If we remove all the unfounded/outdated/politically motivated stuff we won't have an article. So what sort of ground rules do we want for removals? Justforasecond 19:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the non-professional stuff should probably go, but I don't see why the opinions of a dentist on prognathism aren't relevant: they're perfectly so as a dentist has studied what causes prognathism and should be able to differentiate between natural and unnatural prognathism. Either way, the outdated info has been replaced with current thinking regarding color symbolism for all ancient Egyptians rather than just a single person, which is better, as what applies for one person doesn't necessarily apply to everyone else unless we make that clear. Also, when did this get moved to "racial characteristics" instead of "race"? I don't remember a discussion about this (though I saw the notice at the top of the page). Also, please note editors by name (also I noted you didn't sign your name, but I'm guessing this was from an oversight where you added an extra tilde ~ on accident), it's more useful that way for discussion. ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 19:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about controversy I don't see why any of it should go, be it Afrocentrists such as Diop or Eurocentrists like Toynbee(?)....but they should be stated in a way that makes it clear how much weight the pro's give them and where they were coming from intellectually. Hmmm sorry about putting on the extra tilde. I think CoYep might have requested the move a while ago, but it didn't look like people were all that interested in discussing it? Justforasecond 21:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinserted the section on comparison to modern Africans and the comments by the dentist and Herodotus for the reasons noted in my edit summary. CoYep hasn't provided a reason why they are outdated and, in fact, they are not. Herodotus lived much closer in time to the ancient Egyptians than past historians, so his comments are worth noting. Even if there existed a Roman comment (in AD times) noting their blonde hair or something similar, it would be worth noting, contrary to Maspero who reflected a past hypothesis proved wrong, rather than a contemporary comment. The dentist's comment is just as important as Schoch's, I believe, as it is related directly to dentistry, in which prognathism has to be noted as either natural or as a result of a disorder. Of course, he wasn't looking directly at a human, but his opinion still carries weight. I don't know why the section on "Comparison to modern Africans" was deleted. Forensics regularly makes use of cranial analysis for determining race and it is an important part of this debate. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 00:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make your mind up YOM. You can't delete info's claiming that they are "outdated" or "proven wrong", and then object to deletions which were done because of the very same reasons.

Herodotus observation was proven wrong by studies done by Titlbach and Lisa Parks.
That racial categories can be determined by measuring the facial angle, jaw structure and the shape of the head of humans is a 19th century notion which isn't accepted by modern forensic scientists and anthropologists anymore. (See external links)
Do you seriously suggest that everyone who eyeballed a picture in a newspaper and claims to be a dentist is a reliable source for an encyclopedia?

I'm going to revert your edit. Reinsert all deleted informations or none. CoYep 02:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herodotus made an observation of the Egyptians he saw at the time. He didn't make a hypothesis that was proved wrong but commented on what he saw was the case at the time. That's a significant difference from the interpretation proposed by Maspero. If Maspero had lived in BC times and made that observation then it would have been pertinent, but his was just a modern guess.
That's not true. While more than facial angle, jaw structure, and the shape of the head is used to determine race, the use of cranial measurements in determining race is still used by forensic scientists. See Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Australoid, Capoid and Craniofacial Anthropometry, where it is noted to still be used in the first paragraph. It is not used genetically, but it still has plenty of forensic use.
If you really object to the quotation, then fine, remove it. There are many more less reliable sources throughout the article right now, though.

Please consider before reverting, however (and please keep a level head, no need to use all caps for my name). The use of Craniofacial Anthropometry is not outdated and is still used, however. That all outdated information should be removed is generally true, but not so in the case of Herodotus as I noted above. Herodotus's statement is still of interest today regarding the ancient Egyptians despite the findings of Titlbach's and Lisa Park's studies, while those of Maspero regarding Nofritari are outdated (though not those on the symbolism of color - his notes on color are directly tied to his hypothesis on Nofritari, however, so his info on color symbolism unfortunately cannot be used). — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 03:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually kinda like the dentist quote. It shows that we're pretty much at the limits of evidence if we have to resort to someone digging up a letter to the editor from a dentist to prove anything. Justforasecond 03:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it's thought of as substandard evidence, why would it have that implication rather than the implication of bad research? I think it's a bit of reach. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 03:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification: You claim that the Maspero quote is outdated and "contradicted" - contradicted exactly by what and by whom? CoYep 03:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicted that Nofretari didn't have dark skin. He contrasts "black" Nubia with Egypt indicating that Egyptians didn't have dark skin, yet paintings of her natural color are a red-brown (as Deeceevoice notes, Petrie said she was "black"). His ideas on color aren't outdated or contradicted and I'd have no problem including a quotation of his on color that doesn't directly concern a single person who is thought to have dark skin. There's an interesting link here on the subject matter as well. Perhaps Deeceevoice could further shed light on the matter as I don't have access to the Petrie quote or characterization. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 04:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As Deeceevoice notes, Petrie said she was "black"" It's quite interesting that Petrie "contradicts" already in 1896 a statement which was written 10 years later, namely 1906. One could assume that a book written in 1906 outdates a book written in 1896, and one could further come to the conclusion that when Maspero wrote that "she was taken for a negress" but "later discoveries have not confirmed these hypotheses", he rather contradicts the 10 years older writings of Petrie. But since Deeceevoice notes it's the other way around ... oh well CoYep 05:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I wasn't aware of that. Are you certain that the 1896 book (btw, which book specifically?) is the only one in which he made such a statement? I believe he wrote after 1916 and deeceevoice might be referring to a later writing, but I can't really speak for her. Still, Maspero's comments aren't necessarily accurate. "Negress" is pejorative and the effect of his comments (regarding color in Ancient Egypt) are currently well explained by the extant text (without referring to a specific person where current thought on color could change). The Maspero quotation implies that Nofretari's skin wasn't black but rather light (the implication, mind you), rather than red-brown. Either way, if you can find a quotation by him simply on color I'd have no objections to including it. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 05:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Craniofacial Anthropometry is still used is not going to turn it into a valid or still accepted tool. Or do you think that because some people still claim that there is "black" and "white" blood and still apply the one-drop rule to categorize people means that it's a valid notion?CoYep 04:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one-drop rule isn't a scientific categorization but rather a personal one and social one. Craniofacial anthropometry is still used by forensic scientists in determining the race of deceased individuals. While it does have problems regarding the classification of Africans (e.g. Horn Africans), it is still helpful and useful in categorization. It is especially used in the analysis of ancient populations and population movements when acquiring genetic information is difficult or impossible. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 04:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what about categorizing people by "black" and "white" blood types? It is true that Craniofacial anthropometry is still used by "some" forensic scientists but it is NOT accepted as a valid scientific tool to categorize people anymore. Did you take the time to check the links?CoYep 05:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Who's talking about blood types? What links are you talking about? I'm confused. The categorization of black and white based on the existence of black blood was a social categorization that existed (and to a degree still does) in America. It was not a scientific one unlike craniofacial anthropometry, and that makes all the difference. It would impossible to say what "racial group" Egyptians would identify with today as race is today more based on social standards. We can make some assertions regarding their genetics and skull and skeleton types, however. That Craniofacial anthropometry is still used by forensic scientists for the classification of skeletons into different races is certainly relevant. In fact, it's really used for no other purpose. If it's primary use is to classify skeletons into races and is the primary tool used by today's forensic scientists, then why shouldn't it be used? — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 05:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Race is a "social categorization", and not a scientific one. That some people still think otherwise doesn't make it true. Just like "black blood" and "white blood" is a "social categorization", and that some people actually think otherwise and classify humans into "racial categories" by blood type (e.g. like Diop did: Africans type B, Whites type A2) doesn't change it either. This discussion is leading nowhere. I recommend that we apply for neutral mediation. out for now. CoYep 06:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First you are telling me that you removed informations because it was allegedly "outdated" by Petries "contradicting" statement, and now you are telling me that only information about color, but not about "race" can be included??? See, I'm losing my patience here. CoYep 05:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say anything about excluding info on race regarding Maspero? I said that we probably shouldn't use anything by his regarding the color of a specific person due to the age of his comments, as current thought could have changed. If your referring to my comment regarding "negress," it's not the characterization but the wording that I disagree with. The primary use of the quoation was to demonstrate the symbolism of color in Egyptian art, was it not? That's why I said I wouldn't object to a quotation regarding color. I didn't say it to the exclusion of a quotation regarding race, but unless that quotation directly concerned Egyptian portrayals of themselves, it wouldn't fit in that section. That's all. Relax, no need to get angry. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that, since you are editing this article intensely, you already checked the links and sources. Well, here is the link to Petrie: http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/seqenenra.html CoYep 05:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that all people's information was coming from just websites. I had assumed that everyone else had access to the actual books (which I do not have access to). Thanks for the link. It says nothing about craniofacial anthropometry, though, so I'm note sure what you're talking about. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E

Further recommended reading addressing outdated pseudo-science:[7][8]

CoYep 05:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to post those links. Of course race is a made up human concept to a degree. However, genetic lineages do exist, which races are meant to reflect (though without a doubt imperfectly). Forensics, while certainly imperfect regarding the categorizing of genetic lineages, does have some use, especially regarding the categorization of people in current socially determined races. However, while the one-drop rule is generally not used and is based on subjective looks (i.e. whether someone "looks" black), forensics uses measurements. So, while it's based socially defined convention to some degree, it's widely accepted and probably one of the better ways we have today to determine "race." If we remove that section, though, then why shouldn't we remove all the other sections regarding race? Why are skin color, hair type, eye color and the like better determinants of race and less subjected to social constraints rather than craniofacial anthrometry? They're not, because race is a social construct, and there's really no logical reason (socially because it's the most visible part of the body) why race should be determined on facial features, when limb proportion, hairiness and the like all have "racial" connections. For instance, craniofacially Horn Africans are deemed to be Caucasoid, but when it comes to limb proportions we're "super-negroid." Despite this, some people consider us less black than Central Africans with more "traditional" (i.e. tropically adapted) facial features, despite being less "negroid" in limb-ratio aspects. You can't use the AAS's statement on race to simply remove the section on craniofacial anthropometry unless you basically remove all of what this article is about right now. And to a degree, I agree that it should be done. It basically needs a total rewrite to be more geared to historical population movements and cultures for pre-dynastic times (and later) as well as genetic information, rather than having all these comments on a subjectively determined subject like race. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just seeing this back and forth about Maspero. Petrie's research is far more reliable than Maspero's. re[9]s a link to a book published in 2001 titled In Praise of Black Women, Volume 1: Ancient African Queens. Nofretari (Nefertari) is one of the monarchs featured. The book received good reviews and met with no controversy. Library Journal recommended it for black studies and women's studies collections. There is no debate among modern scholars that Nofretari was black. Here[10] is another link, with photos.

From the stele of Iufi it is certain that Aahhotep was mother of Aahmes I, and hence Aahmes and Nefertari were of the same mother. But yet we cannot suppose them to have had both parents alike; Aahmes is always (except once) shown of the same colour as other Egyptians, while Nefertari is almost always coloured black. And any symbolic reason invented to account for such colouring applies equally to her brother, who is nevertheless not black. As Nefertari was specially venerated as the ancestress of the dynasty, we must suppose that she was in the royal succession appears to have been reckoned, and hence her black colour is the more likely to have come through her father. The only conclusion, if these points should be established, is that the queen Aahhotep had two husbands: the one black (the father of Nefertari), namely, the celebrated Seqenenra, who was of Berber type (Ms. M. 528); the other an Egyptian, the father of Aahmes and his elder brothers, Kames and Skhentnebra, which explains why those three kings are separated from the other children of Aahhotep by her husband Seqenenra, and placed in a different line in the tomb of Khabekht."--Petrie, 1896

A description of Seqenenra Tao, Ahmose-Nefertari's father, James E. Harris and Kent R. Weeks's X-raying the Pharaohs (1973):

Seqenenra Tao: "His entire lower facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian--that is, non-Egyptian--origin for Seqenenra and his family, and his facial features suggest this might indeed be true. If it is, the history of the family that reputedly drove the Hyksos from Egypt, and the history of the Seventeenth Dynasty, stand in need of considerable re-examination".

Further, here is a pic of Ahmose.[11] While not "black" in the Nubian sense of the word, he is clearly an Africoid Egyptian. This is the man Maspero says it was thought he married Nefertari "to secure the help of the negro tribes in his wars," not mentioning (or not knowing) the two were (half) brother and sister and that Ahmose I himself was clearly also black, the son of Theban (Upper Egyptian/black) Queen Ahhotep/Aahotep (17th Dynasty). deeceevoice 13:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, note that Nefertari reigned during the 18th Dynasty, a period widely acknowledged (along with the 17th Dynasty) by scholars, "Afrocentric" and mainstream, as being a period of Nubian rule. deeceevoice 13:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved

I moved this article, as there seemed to be no objection to it, and several active editors have checked in on this page since I opened the conversation. The implications of this move are the following:

The article title is about racial characteristics and not race. Thereby the discussion of "race is not a clear-cut genetic issue" is a relevant note in the article, but shouldn't be the subject of the article, because it's pretty much universally accepted as I understand it. This means that a sentence like "Critics accuse Anthropologist X of using a purely genetic / over-simplified definition of race" is a legitimate sentence, but more than that should probably be redirected to an article about race as an area of study.
The aim of this article should no longer be to "prove" that the Egyptians "were" a particular race, but to compare the characteristics, both physiologically and culturally, to those of other groups with "established" races. The article is entitled "controversy" -- don't expect the end result of the article to be "The Egyptians were black/white/Arabic/Asian/men from Mars."

This move will, I hope, allow for all reasonable viewpoints on this issue to be included in the article. Of course, the credibility of sources is still an issue, but since the article is about the controversy, critique of the sources can be included in the article itself. I hope this helps a little. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 19:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lack of objection was probably more silence because of a lack of debate begun, but how about changing the title altogether? As noted earlier, the "controversy" over the race/racial characteristics should refer specifically to biased scientists' opinions on their race/racial characteristics. What the article currently discusses is the debate. The best title might be the French one, "Origins of the ancient Egyptians," which would also set up the article to include information on earlier pre-dynastic populations and population movements. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 19:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Race was sort of the key notion here -- the page began as an overly long section in the Afrocentrism article that insisted the Egyptians were, so to speak, "black". In spite of the constant debate, the article being hacked to pieces every day or two and the "great egyptian image battles of 2006", I'm pretty pleased with how its grown. I think we've given this issue a lot of attention, brought together and weighed information from many sources. Unfortunately wiki doesn't tell us how many people have viewed the page but we've undoubtedly been a stopping off point for many curious folks. I'm game to go with a more extensive article but I hope we can retain the racial aspect. Most of us agree that race is sort of an odd concept to apply to the Egyptians but there are entities out there that think otherwise, and this article covered described that phenomenon. Justforasecond 21:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented earlier in this discussion, I wouldn't mind to cut the whole "evidence" sections and rather elaborate on the ideologies/motivations behind this whole "controversy". Editing this article feels like trying to explain to people why the sun is a triangle and not a quadrangle, or vice versa. CoYep 22:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Justforasecond 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution}. The move is a first step toward making the article more neutral, and having it focus on delineating the "scientific" debate about the racial characteristics of the ancient Egyptians rather than carrying it out here. An article on the "Origins of the ancient Egyptians" would have a completely different focus. Such an article would not represent the history of an ideology in scholarship, but would try to represent as accurately as possible what the current findings are in respected recent scholarship. It might help to start such an article, to keep this article, which I understand to be on the history of this debate (as the title suggests) free from attempts to "prove" one or the other position in the debate. For example, a reference to Nott and Gliddon's Types of Mankind of 1854 would be completely out of place in an article on the origins of ancient Egytians, but it would have a prominent position in the article on the debate. The two articles would capture the scholarship of two entirely different disciplinary fields: one the history of science (and related fields of history and cultural studies) and the other physical anthropology and/or perhaps archeology. The two articles would also be about two different cultural and historical domains: The first would mainly deal with debates in Europe (and later other Western countries) starting in the late 18th century (perhaps moving to a more global perspective as colonization came to an end in the 20th century), and the other would go back to the deep time of ancient Egypt and talk about Egypt and the physical genealogy of the people who lived there. Two entirely different projects--and it seems to me that keeping them separate would untangle much of the argument around what should be in this article and what shouldn't. Much of what is now here should probably move to the other article, here I agree with ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E (if I understand you correctly). --Jottce 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points and duly noted Jottce. Thank you for you comments, they really help focus further editing of the article. I think I have an idea of how to procede in ameliorating this article. Right now it's a big fight over the presentation of evidence for or against certain viewpoints. Focusing more on the history of the debate to the present time would be an excellent way to reduce POV and adequately cover the subject. You're also right that an Origins of the ancient Egyptians article would be still differnetly focused, though I do think that the current thought reflected in that (hopefully) future article would probably be incorporated somewhat in the more recent portions of the history of the debate of the race of the ancient Egyptians.

All in all, I think we may have to basically scrap the current article and start over with the basic facts we have from the article, structured completely differently as per Jottce's comments. Perhaps someone should create an outline at Talk:Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians/Draft. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 07:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(response to addition about agreement) While some of the information here could go to the other article, I was thinking most would probably stay here, as a lot of the information is from the early 20th century and therefore reflects past debate, or is by Afrocentrist scholars and therefore reflects more current debate. The "Origins" article would refer more to archaeology and population movements, along with associated genetic and forensic studies when applicable. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 07:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thinking about your points, I think you are right about where the information would fit. Does the chronological structure that I suggested at Talk:Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians/Draft work for you? BTW: I am sorry for going back to change my contribution above. We must have been at it simultaneously. --Jottce 09:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks excellent so far. Seeing your user page, I have to complement you on your English as well. I couldn't tell at all that you weren't a native speaker. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 09:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jottce, I think both your suggestions and your execution of those suggestions are excellent. This is just the kind of level-headed thoroughness that an article like this needs. Great job. By the way, keeping in mind my own complete ignorance on the subject, is there anything I can do in this particular instance? - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 11:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we need the racial element. If we want something about human migrations without afrocentrist pseudoscience, why not just use the human migration article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justforasecond (talk • contribs) 4 July 2006.

Justforasecond, I don't quite understand your comment, I'm afraid. I need some more explanation. How does human migration come in here? And I am not aware anyone suggested leaving out the racial element. This is what the article is about. As I understand it, the article should present the controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians. Afrocentrist scholarship has taken part in this controversy, so the article needs to talk about it. In fact, without a position that claims ancient Egypt for Africa, there wouldn't be much of a controversy. This article to me is an attendant to articles that record the historical development (and cultural specificity) of the notion of "race," but it also links up with articles that talk about the cultural meaning ancient Egypt has had, particularly in Western cultures. --Jottce 07:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Che Nuevara and Yom for your comments. I think the next step would be to try to move parts over to the draft to see how the chronological structure might work. It seems to me that much that would be moved still needs attribution and contextualization (see my comment about "Ethnographic murals" below). Also, the bibliography I put up is still very rudimentary and one-sided. We need to find scholarship that specifically talks about this controversy. Would it make sense to move the outline from Talk:Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians/Draft to Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians/Draft? I have ever worked with sub-pages to articles, and I don't know what the protocol is. --Jottce 08:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages are generally not allowed in the article (main) namespace, because they turn up in things like Random Article. So the draft is fine where it is for now. Putting the draft in the article namespace would probably get it speedied. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 09:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melanin Dosage Test

Question: Can someone provide a source to the results of the test, the numbers of mummies he tested and what kind of mummies he tested? Diop mentions "mummies from the Marietta excavations in Egypt", but I can't find any informations about the "Marietta excavations". I'm also interested to know how many "white" mummies "with non-existent melanin level" and how many "Black" mummies he tested. Infos appreciated. CoYep 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extra-terrestrials

This is regarding Justforasecond's recent edit As far as I'm aware, Schoch doesn't believe in extra-terrestrials. The link for the quotation refers to him defending the scientific claims of a New Ager regarding the age of the pyramid while distancing himself from the New Ager's (West's) views regarding Atlantis and the use of certain ancient Egyptian buildings. I'm going to put a fact on that until an appropriate link is provided. Also, Just, can you please provide edit summaries? It makes browsing changes to the article easier. Thanks. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 07:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I lookid it up and he doesn't believe in ETs (he was quoting someone else that does). He did however have an enounter with "phantasms" when he was in Peru Justforasecond 14:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel eyes

The Anon editor is back, this time under 207.195.243.51 instead of 84.178.222.241. Please get consensus and explain yourself before adding that image. This is what I put on his talk page:

I'll just comment here since the new (207) IP seems to be the same person. Firstly, are you a puppet of CoYep? I'm trying to figure out which IP is whose so that I can just comment at the talk pages. Regarding the image, you are the only one who has pushed for its inclusion, while both deeceevoice and myself object to the image's inclusion because of its limited relevance and failure to demonstrate the hazel eyes noted in the caption. Please go to the talk page and get consensus before adding controversial information.

ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 07:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can agree that you're not kidding anyone else besides yourself here. You have have been edit-warring on this article for days throughout the day everyday judging by your contributions, trying to fight the inclusion of any pictures that don't support your POVs, which you just as obsessively have been trying to push into the article and exclude most of the information that doesn't match those POVS. The image is valid. it's an image of an ancient Egyptian. This article is about ancient Egyptians. It's not my problem that none of the sculptures look anything afro-centric. Why? Because the ancient Egyptians were not blacks, and were NOT like Ethiopians like you seem to be under the illusion. All the ancient writers distinguished Egyptians from Ethiopians and other black Africans. The fact that you and other afro-centircs want to keep fighting a losing battle is your choice. Maybe you need to keep that in mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.195.243.51 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. This page is for the discussion of the improvement of the article. I have gotten in an edit war with you, CoYep, but I'm not trying to push my POV on the article. The images I have deleted all have been at most tangential to the section they were included in. I have not removed relevant images, as I do not object to the images in the art sections or in the melanin tests or of modern Egyptians (whose Image I put myself, actually). Thinking back on the geographic map and hair image, I was probably wrong to remove those, however, though I did believe both of them to be of limited use due to the use of wigs and the modernity of the skin color map. Either way, the image of the Egyptian you are trying to include in the King Tut section is barely relevant to the section. Your only basis for its inclusion is the sharing of the same eye color as with King Tut. If the afrocentrist position is that hazel eyes didn't exist in ancient Egypt then it's better to put a textual citation than a tangential image that inadequately displays hazel eyes. I don't know what you mean about a sculpture looking "afro-centric" (how can a sculpture look like a school of thought), but you're way off on your POV accusations. I'm not an afrocentrist, and, unlike you, I recognize that Egypt was multiracial and multiethnic, some of which probably comprised ethnic groups that looked like modern N. Sudanese and Horn Africans, while others may have been Nilotic, or others like the Baggara, as well as some Semitic bedouin tribes in the Delta and Sinai. Either way, you are mixing up what ancient writers said. "Ethiopians" in those text were Nubians and, when used generally, probably referred more to "stereotypical" black Africans. Greek contacts with the area that is now Ethiopia were minimal back then. If you're so sure of your opinion's truth and mine's fallacy, then take it to a user talk page or message board, as the article isn't meant to determine who's wrong or right but to simply describe the debate. I don't understand why you are so antagonistic, though, as I've written with nothing but courtesy, something that you need to keep in mind, along with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 09:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put it up on the admin notice board. They'll figure out if it's a sock puppet. deeceevoice 09:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the second time that you accuse me of being a sock puppet, I advise you to follow DCV's suggestion and request a sockpuppet check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser I will accept your apology here or on my user page after you got the results.CoYep 14:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, CoYep. It's not an accusation, I'm just trying to figure out who's who, since there are at least 5 IPs that have edited this article exclusively or almost exclusively efore disappearing. That doesn't mean that it's your sockpuppet, but there is certainly at least one sockpuppet. I assumed it was yours because you didn't deny when I asked if the edits by the other IP were yours. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 19:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

take easy on the conspiracy theories man, will ya? What you call "sockpuppet" are the hundreds of thousands who edit articles without bothering to register. You have no right to censor anyone's contributions.

I'm as cool as an ice cube, which is obviously inferred from my posts. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's very unlikely that over 5 IPs would come to simply edit one article and then leave. I'm not censoring anyone, by the way. I never said the IPs couldn't edit the article, just that if they have an account that they should use it to avoid confusion. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 20:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess for some it's easier to delute themselves in believing that there is only one opponent with sock puppets than to accept the obvious, that indeed several editors are disagreeing with their edits. I often just click on the edit button and start editing, not because "I intentionally want to confuse" you, I simply forget to sign in first. Most of the time I realize it only when I'm leaving a note on the talk page, and my IP shows up instead of my sig. I then sign in and correct my signature, as I did several times on this talk page. So in a matter of fact, one just needs to look at my IP here to get an idea which article edits might be mine. To me, the identity of the editors is irrelevant. Reviewing the edits and sources thoroughly, and to spend time to check the validity and Verifiability is IMO more constructive than to waste time to check user ID's and then blindly revert or accept edits simply because "it was editor x who did it". Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could either a) chill with your false accusations or b) provide the results of a user check so we can put this tiresome discussion ad acta. CoYep 02:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe only one person disagrees with my views, as plenty of edits to this article against my position were by people other than you. I didn't say that the confusion was necessarily intentional, either, but I do think that, whether or not you mean it, it confuses others and any edits under IP don't reflect on your user name. The reason I like to know the identity of the editors is so that I can avoid posting discussions all over the place as I had to when there were numerous IPs editing the page. It's unlikely that so many IPs would edit the article as soon as they got here and then not continue to exist or edit other articles. I'd be happy to be proven wrong as I don't like the idea of numerous accounts, but realize that I am chill. I haven't lost my temper during this discussion, and realize that most of the edits (in fact almost all) weren't about verifiability or validity but the relevance of including some images. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 04:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Propose a change from "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "the encyclopedia only registered users can edit"

There is no need to chase after editors all over Wikipedia to discuss article edits - thats what the article talk pages are for

* It's quite normal for a controversial article to attract a lot of unregistered contributions CoYep 04:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that anonymous IPs shouldn't edit, but if that IP belongs to someone with an account, then they should use their account.
IPs tend not to look at talk pages but a comment on their talk page will be at the top of the page as they edit, so I know they'll get the message.
True, but it's unlikely that they would immediately jump into an article knowing all the terminology and debate that the IPs did.

Look, CoYep. I have absolutely nothing against you. The only reason I filed the suspected sockpuppet case is because I simply wanted to know which edits were yours so that I could sort the contributions and discussion out. You said above that you occassionally forget to sign in and edit with IPs, and that's fine, but I would like you to acknowledge them. If you tell me exactly which IPs you have used to edit this article, then I'll gladly accept those as yours and the rest as not yours and drop the sockpuppet case. That's all. I'm not trying to create hostility or antagonism here. I just want to sort out whose edits are whose. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 04:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said above that you occassionally forget to sign in and edit with IPs, and that's fine, but I would like you to acknowledge them. (Yom)

What do you think I was doing when I respondend to your note concerning some of my edits? Who do you think I was referring to when I said: "I" didn't object to the Dubois quote? Or do you expect that people talk about themselves in the third person? And by the way, my comment was even posted with an IP number as a signature till I signed in to sign it properly, so what exactly IS your problem here??? And no, Im NOT user "207", you don't need to be a genius to figure that out, just some rudimental knowledge about IPs. CoYep 05:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed those were yours, but you seemed to be angry that I would accuse you of editing from any of those IPs; plus, you didn't respond to my question, which was confusing if you didn't deny that those edits were yours. That clears up a lot, then. One final question and we can be finished with the whole mess, then, as I really don't like accusing people. Are the other 84.178.2 edits yours as well? — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 05:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

man..... that's just sad.{{subst:untitled2|17:23, 5 July 2006|207.67.145.219}}

This isn't an advertisement of the case but simply a notice that I have filed a suspected sockpuppeteer case against User:CoYep here (see also here). — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 01:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comment for the anonymous contributor with the IP 207.195.243.51: I think your assertion that "This article is about ancient Egyptians" points to what I see as a misconception. As the title suggest, this is an article about a controversy that takes place mostly outside of Egypt. The decision of whether to include an image or not should be based on whether this image has been important in the debate and the caption should indicate where and how the image was used to make which point. This is not the place for performing the controversy by adding yet another piece of evidence for one or the other position. --Jottce 10:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the anon is coyep. Lets all try to get along here. DCV, you cannot do a checkuser unless the user is persistently vandalizing. Justforasecond 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the images go, I think its ok to include a fairly large number. Originally we just had a handful and one looked, according to DVC, "just like gwendolyn brooks". With those images a casual observer might think artifacts were pretty evenly distributed between light skinned and dark skinned. But if the true breakdown of artifacts is different, we should show that, even if it takes 15-20 images to give readers a feel for it. 16:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And that description of the photo of Queen Tiye wearing a Nubian (Afro) wig was accurate. You may recall that another, white Wikipedian concurred and produced a link to portrait of Brooks when she was younger that was strikingly similar. They looked like twins. I have no problem with several images, either, as long as the presentation is balanced and there are no "fake," trumped up captions claiming "hazel eyes" where they aren't at all visible (assuming they're there at all), "tan" skin when the object clearly was once covered in red-brown ochre which is still visible in spots, and "light skin" when the "skin" is actually (and very clearly) linen wrapping. Diversity in images is fine, but let's not make this a circus. deeceevoice 16:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that the bust looked like Bridget Bardot with dark skin and not so much Gwendolyn Brooks. But yes it did appear to be a rendition of a black woman. It was one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that the any of the Egyptians were dark skinned in the article (though some editors claimed it was just because the material used was a dark unpainted wood). Come to think of it, where is that image now? Justforasecond 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethnographic Murals" as example for the origin of the debate

Illustration from *Types of Mankind*, which shows an engraving of an Egyptian wall painting. It was used to 'prove' that there were different 'types' (or 'species') of humans as far back as ancient Egypt. *Types* uses this as support for its theory of polygenesis.

The article as it stands now uses a (cropped) 19th-century drawing of an Egyptian mural as evidence for the "ethnographic" awareness of ancient Egyptians. It is an excellent example for what I think is wrong with the direction of this article. The image has no attribution, which is a significant omission. It looks very much like the paintings of Ippolito Rossellini which were published in Monumenti dell’Egitto e della Nubia (1832-1844) and may well originate from a reprinting of this work. Rossellini had travelled to Egypt with Champollion (the famous decipherer of the Rosetta Stone); these 19th century explorations of Egypt were important milestones in the history of Egyptology, but they are also part of the history of colonization and ultimately served European colonial interest. Moreover, there are other revealing instances where these drawings were used in the 19th century. The illustration to the right here shows a similar rendition of the wallpainting in Types of Mankind (1854), a classic example for 19th century scientific racism. The caption reads: "The ancient Egyptian division of mankind into four species--fifteenth century B.C." It is interesting to note that the controversial recent publication Race: The Reality of Human Differences (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2004. ISBN 0813340861) by Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele uses the self-same image (p. 34) with the following caption: "Egyptian wall painting showing four races." The image in Sarich and Miele serves as "evidence of the Egyptian awareness of racial difference" (p. 34).

To me, this example shows that it is absolutely indispensable to historicize the controversy. It certainly does not start with 20th-century Afrocentrism. It is very revealing to see that much of the controversy points to racial tensions in the West, and particularly in the United States, starting with the slavery debate. When Enlightenment philosophy, as put into practice in the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, brought up the notion of equality, and African Americans began to claim it as their right, it became necessary for the apologists of slavery to collect evidence against the humanity of black people. If they were not human, they could be excluded from human rights with impunity. Ancient Egypt, its artifacts and human remains have been instruments in this debate and seeing historical interconnections makes it easier to reveal "evidence" as ideology. I put up a rough outline of a more historically aware version of this article here: Talk:Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians/Draft. --Jottce 11:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more searching and found a site that attributes the painting used in this article under "Ethnographic Murals" to the Prussian explorer and early Egyptologist Heinrich von Minutoli (1820)[12]. It is a site devoted to a "rebuttal to Afrocentric exaggerations about a "black" ancient Egypt," so not entirely neutral, but the attribution seems trustworthy. Nevertheless, the original question, why a 19th century European drawing of an Egyptian wall painting has circulated in the debate around the racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians, remains interesting. --Jottce 07:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

completely uncited

"Brace's study has faced some criticism, however. It had a greater number of samples from Europe and each sample represented a specific ethnic group whereas his samples from the "sub-Saharan" region were very small and were not specific since each sample represented a country ^{[citation needed]}. Doing this exaggerated Europe's cranio-facial diversity to be greater than that of sub-Sahara, even though African populations possess far greater biodiversity and sub-Saharan African is much more vast, with thousands of ethnic groups. Even India, which has hundreds of ethnic groups, was represented by just one plot on his map. Further, the samples that Brace chose to represent sub-Saharan Africa consisted of those peoples who represent the stereotypical "true-Negroid" phenotype, with broad features and woolly hair. Even so, there are black, Nilotic populations in sub-Saharan Africa (as well as North Africa) who have narrower features and relatively straight hair and who, thus, have been classified by some as Caucasoid, as in the case of some Ethiopians, Nubians and Sudanese. In the case of the indigenous peoples of the Nile Valley, Caucasoid does not mean Caucasian, or white. The result of such classification was that Egyptians as well as Nubians and even Somalis clustered closer to Europe because of certain similarities, while Melanesians and Australian aborigines clustered closely to the sub-Saharan sample because of certain similarities shared between them."

This should probably be deleted outright as it has no citations and sounds like original research. 155.91.28.232 21:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the language cited above. This was an attempt at clarifying the wholly unfounded, erroneous -- and uncited -- conclusion in the paragraph that extrapolated from the "Caucasoid" classification of some (black) Northern Egyptians and their consequent grouping/clustering with Europeans that Dynastic Egypt was "biracial." It was necessary to distinguish between indigenous, so-called "Caucasoid" (black) Africans and Cauasians, or whites. If the misguided, erroneous text about "biracial" and the business about Northern Egyptians grouping with Europeans and being called "Caucasoid" is removed, then there's need for the explanation. But as long as it's there, it's needed -- because people will see "Caucasoid" and think "Caucasian"/"white." deeceevoice 21:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DCV, I'm more lenient than the average wikipedian when it comes to original research, but when you say "Brace's study has faced some criticism" we need to have someone that was criticizing. Given his resources, I'm not really sure Brace's approach was incorrect. It's also not obvious your conclusions are correct. Why would we expect Egyptians to cluster with Europeans if what you say about diversity is the case? I think we'd only expect this if they were in fact closer to Europeans than Sub-saharans.

If you want to say (breifly) that some Ethiopians are listed as Caucasian that is alright, but to say "black Nilotic populations" is misleading, we've already agreed that black is not biologically meaningful. It becomes even more confusing to a reader when you refer to "black" people that have straight hair, narrow noses, and who are called Caucasian. Justforasecond 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DCV, you are the one who talks ad nauseam about "Typical Africoid skulls" = "Black Africans" and "Typical Caucasoid skulls" = "White Folks". You even added skull pictures to the article to "prove" your point, and almost all your edits are about eyeballing pictures and to declare them to be "black" because they allegedly have "Africoid" head shapes. Brace's study was based on cranial measurements, and now, since he came to the conclusion that the skulls are rather "Caucasoid" than "Africoid", you all over sudden flip the script and claim now that "Caucasoid" skulls are the ones which are characteristic for "black Africans"? Furthermore, you stated in your "criticism" section that "each sample represented a specific ethnic group whereas his samples from the "sub-Saharan" region were very small and were not specific since each sample represented a country." This assertion is incorrect. Brace's 1,282 samples didn't represent "specific ethnic group", they all represented countries and different specific periods, such as Neolithic, Mesolithic, Bronze age, etc. for European as well as for African countries (and Middle East). I also wonder how much "woolly hair" a skeleton might have. I really would like to see your source. Please post it. CoYep 06:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"arabized"

Given, however, that the ethnicity of Egypt's population of Egypt varies from urban to rural areas, with more Arabized populations

This is a bit racist and presumptuous. Can we steer clear of language like "Arabized"? Reminds me of the "Africanized" killer bees...Justforasecond 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thosee are your value-laden presumptions -- what you bring to it, and not the language itself. deeceevoice 17:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how? I really don't see the racism in it. Any one that considers him or herself an Arab and lives outside of the Arabian peninsula and is not a descendent of people from the Arabian peninsula, from the Maghreb to Iraq is an arabized Arab (Adnan or al-'Arab al-Musta'ribah). The real Arabs (al-`Arab al-Aribah) or mixed with arabs (al-'Arab al-Muta'aribah) are a minority. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 20:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as if being arabic is a disease. It is also uncited and begs the question: saying Egypt is now "arabized" implies that it wasn't before and -- that it was previously something else ("black African" as DCV puts it) Justforasecond 20:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being arabized means that they didn't speak Arabic or consider themselves Arabs (something that's a bit of a new phenomenon, beginning mainly in the 20th century, actually) in past times, which is obviously true because they spoke Egyptian and Coptic. Being arabized has nothing to do with race as it only affects Ethnicity. Northern Sudanese are Arabized and I would say they are black (they generally look no different from Ethiopians), but people in the Maghreb and Syria are also Arabized, but very few of them (there are some black Berbers) could be classified as black. Relax, Justforasecond. Besides, this has nothing to do with the article at hand. Please address it at Talk:Egypt or request an arbitration or comment on it if you think it's important. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note but I think we should try to keep "arabized" out of here. It sounds just like those "africanized" killer bees which many african-americans thought was racist. if it's a 20th century thing then it doesn't effect skin color tests anyway so is sorta irrelevant. Justforasecond 23:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

everyone hates hawass

There's this: According to a widely publicized press release dated May 10, 2005, Zahi Hawass of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA), announced that "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)."

Then a paragraph later about Susan Anton supposedly objecting to this. Only thing is, elsewhere in the article it is explained that Ethiopians and Sudanese are sometimes Caucasoid. So what is the big deal about Hawass saying the skull is Caucasoid?

Justforasecond 23:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hawas claimed the teams (plural) involved in the reconstruction proclaimed the skull specimen as that of a "Caucasoid North African." He lied. Anton flat-out refused to use any such terminology. The problem is plenty of scholars don't accept the term "Caucasoid" when referring to black Africans. It's absurd. It shoehorns certain Africoid peoples into a narrow, "Negroid" category (with a crappy name unrelated to their origins) and then assigns another category to other Africoid peoples -- Caucasoid -- associated with white Europeans and a European point of origin -- when, in fact, the "Caucasoid" Africans are simply another manifestation of the tremendous biodiversity of African peoples -- a branch of which migrated out of Africa and is responsible for the white folks who exist today. We object to the term "Caucasoid" to describe black people. It's utter b.s. and a way to artificially differentiate among black people -- and also a means, in the hands of those who continually twist history to the service of white supremacy, of whitewashing another high civilization; because, as with the "anonymous" edit warrior, people make the ridiculous assumption that "Caucasoid" means white, or at the very least not black -- when, in the case of indigenous African peoples (Maghreb Berbers notwithstanding), the very notion is laughable. That portion of humanity which mutated into Caucasians sprang from that population of black Africans with a modified or absent alveolar prognathism. Therefore, it is Caucasians who resemble certain African peoples -- and not the other way around. (It would make more sense to refer to blacks as Africoids and call "Caucasoids" "Ethiopids." After all, you don't name the father after the son.) No one in their right mind would assert that some Kenyans, Ethiopians, Eritreans, Sudanese and some Nubians are not black people simply because some of their population have little or no prognathism and fairly straight hair. And you'd have to be completely insane to call them Caucasian/white. In fact, some of these same "Caucasoid" peoples are among the blackest human beings on planet Earth, having an almost purple cast to their skin. deeceevoice 00:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually emailed Susan Anton and ask her whether Hawass lied. She said no. So....stop slandering the man. But anyway, my question is, when you in one place say Sudanese and Ethiopians are "Caucasoid", and you seem to be trying to prove that King Tut was Sudanese (remember the time you said you saw Tut workig at Rite Aid?) then its not reasonable to indict Hawass for saying King Tut was a Caucasoid.

And ya know, I think you might reconsider your views on who is black. Educated people have studied this in a lot of detail, and found out that there is no biological basis for breaking the world into white and black (or black and everyone else). There is really no standard you can provide....you're willing to call medium-skinned people with straight hair, narrow noses and lack of "prognathism" black and you dismiss any study by real experts that clusters people in a way you don't like. Justforasecond 04:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I traded several e-mails w/Anton and would be more than happy to forward anyone a copy of the e-mail in which she flatly denied ever having used the term "Caucasoid" to describe Tut. My God, JFAS. Do you know anyone from Ethiopia? How 'bout Sudan? You cannot credibly pick and choose a few characteristics, take them completely out of their continent of origin and call them a name related to the Caucasus Mountains, a place to which they have absolutely no connection or relation. These indigenous, black, African peoples are no less black, no less Africoid, than the Bakongo, the Ndebele, the Akan, the Dinka. The biodiversity represented among African peoples is simply a fact. It is thought that both the Cushitic peoples and the Khoisan are the two oldest branches of humanity, with the Khoisan being the older of the two. Ethiopians, like Nubians, are not themselves homogeneous peoples. Some are brown-skinned, others are more of a medium tone, some have kinky hair, others have straight hair. The same is true of Nubians and Somalis, but such variation can be seen within the same families, and this is true among unmixed populations.

Hawass is widely known in archaeological circles as an egomaniac and a tyrant. I don't know what Anton wrote to you, but if she tried to soften my language (she never used the term "lied"), it doesn't surprise me. Hawass punishes researchers and scholars who don't toe the party line. He's the gatekeeper to Egypt's archaeological past, the Grand Pubah of the "Supreme Council of Antiquities." You talk about a black Egypt, he's been said to get positively apoplectic with rage, and you don't get the kind of access Anton got -- ever again. deeceevoice 21:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:African Ceremonies bookcover.jpg

African man with alveolar prognathism, dolichocephalic head, receding chin line. (Alas, the profile shot of him was not on the cover, but the prognathism is apparent, as is his elongated head.)

The term "Caucasoid" when applied to certain Nilotic blacks is nothing more than another attempt by Europeans to claim what they do not own. Let us examine the matter of King Tutankhamen.

Fact: For years, scholars have speculated that Akhenaten, Tut's presumed father, had Marfan's syndrome. Why? Because of his strikingly elongated limbs.
Fact: A striking feature of the Nilotic phenotype is their slender, longer-than-the-human-average limbs. The term "gracile" is often used to describe Nilotic peoples (like the Dinka) in comparison to other groups of humanity.
Fact: Tut was described as "slightly built (gracile or gracefully slender)."
Fact: Akhenaten had other distinctly Africoid characteristics: pronounced maxillary and alveolar prognathism, extreme dolichocephalism, full lips. As the father of Tutankhamen, it is expected they shared other traits in common, as well. Akenathen was a black man, the son of the Nubian Queen Tiye.
Fact: Tut's head. Ridiculously, "extremely dolichocephalic" with a sagittal ridge.
Fact: And, no. Head binding among the Tutmosid line has been a discredited theory for some time, confirmed by the latest CT scans of Tut's skull. And, no, Tut was not diseased or genetically "deformed" -- more silly theories also disproven by the examination of his remains in ~~1995~~ 2005(!). Thank goodness for modern medical technology. Otherwise, like the fictional, utterly fabricated "Queen of Punt syndrome" (the queen had the hallmarks of a Khoisan woman) they'd have made up something else to try to rationalize Tut's blackness, too.
Fact: Africoid peoples (as well as the classic "Negroid" phenotype) are distinguished from the two other racial groupings by dolichocephalism. The only nonblack peoples known for this trait are Nordics -- not likely present in Dynastic Egypt.
Fact: The sagittal ridge is also typical of dolichocephalic Africoid peoples. It is, in fact, what African Americans call a "peanut head."
Fact: Tut's teeth. Majorly big incisors paired with a pronounced alveolar prognathism (his mummified head with the lips pulled back -- the poor kid looks like a gerbil), with the result being a receding chin.
Fact: Three more characteristics (large incisors, prognathism and receding chin line) of the classic Negroid phenotype.
Fact: Nilotic peoples are also known for large incisors and the same type of prognathism, producing a bucktoothed appearance and a receding chin line. These features are exaggerated among certain Nilotic groups (e.g., Somalis) -- as they were in King Tut.
Tut's eye sockets: Clearly rounded.
Fact: Negroid/Africoid peoples have rounded eye sockets, whereas Caucasians have more squared/ovoid sockets.
Fact: The entire Tutmosid line available for study has evidenced these same characteristics, including Princess Meritaten, who is clearly and obviously black African. Further, the Father of Egyptology himself, Petrie, described Meritaten's mother, Nofritari, as "black," and likely two-thirds black.
Fact: The only characteristic of Tut which falls outside the narrowly defined classic Negroid phenotype is his narrow nasal index. It does, however, easily fit within the parameters of some Nilotic peoples, who are (also) black.
Fact: The images of Tut in his everyday life -- those without symbolic significance -- all show him with deep, red-brown/brown skin and dark eyes. The French team completely ignored this fact -- something which defies logic.
Fact: I also traded e-mails with and also telephoned with the guy on the French team. (After realizing he spoke only a little more English than I do French, we returned to e-mails.) He evidenced a shocking and complete lack of knowledge about the indigenous peoples of the region and seemed utterly out of his depth on this matter. Communicating with him was a complete waste of time. Anton, who recognized the Africanness of the skull specimen right away, knew far more than he did -- without knowing the specimen's identity.
Fact: Conflating a singular characteristic, which happens to be part of a specific cluster of Africoid traits characteristic of only one known ethnic group on the planet, Nilotic blacks -- one which allowed Anton to reconcile the apparent contradiction between an "obviously African" skull in all other respects with the narrow nasal index and pinpoint the African skull as "North African" (not "Caucasoid," but "North African" as opposed to equatorial/sub-Saharan African) -- to such a degree as to then call Tut a "Caucasoid" is absurd. Tut's skull and physique exhibit the classic Nilotic phenotype in spades. He was nothing other than a black African pharaoh.

Finally, Tut's case is important not because he was a great king or his reign of great consequence, neither of which is the case. His is a classic example of the ridiculous extremes to which Zahi Hawass, Egypt's Arab government and other Europeans have gone, and continue to go, to appropriate the fundamentally black African identity of Dynastic Egypt. deeceevoice 09:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't address my question at all. In one section you claim that Sudanese, Ethiopians, etc are called Caucasoid. You call Tut Sudanese (remember you said you said he was working at Rite Aid?). Then when Hawass suggests Tut is Caucasoid you call him a liar. Why? I am positive Susan Anton never said anything of the sort.

And communicating with the French team was a waste of time because they don't agree with your preconclusions? I have to wonder about the everyday non-symbolic renderings of Tut you speak of...I'm really not aware of them. And FYI I speak to a Sudanese fellow on a daily basis. I asked him about the Egyptians (the Fellahin), according to him they aren't black and never have been.

BTW, you still haven't explained why you dismiss clusterings done by EXPERTS that group Egyptians ("Nilotic Blacks" as you and no one else call them) with Europeans. Justforasecond 15:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never called Tut Sudanese. I said ran into a Sudanese man who bore all the classic Nilotic characteristics as Tut. But did he look like Tut? Nope. In case you didn't notice, yeah, it was tongue-in-cheek.

No. Communicating with the guy was a waste of time, because he seemed befuddled by my questions. He seemed to be utterly clueless. If he had disgreed with me, I wouldn't have been surprised. That he seemed to have no grasp whatsoever of the matters that Anton and I discussed in detail was not only surprising but truly disappointing. Granted, the guy's specialty is criminal forensics (he's part of Paris' agency that deals w/law enforcement), but I would have expected at least some broader knowledge on his part related to forensic anthroplogy or some other related field that would have better qualified him for the effort in which he was involved. He was clearly out of his depth. He's different from, say, a Hawass, who knows damned well what he's doing. deeceevoice 16:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what country you're talking about and, in the case of Egypt, what part of Egypt. I've presented plenty of informed opinion and quotes on this website which provide ample evidence that the Fellahin of Upper Egypt are darker-skinned and noticeably Africoid/Negroid in appearance. That your friend would say such a thing doesn't surprise me. There are Egyptians who will swear up and down Egyptians aren't black Africans. And then there are others who readily acknowledge that they are Africans and black people (even when they're very, very mixed. There are African Americnas who will swear we have nothing in common with Africa, too. Neither knowledge nor ignorance is a given, based on ethnicity or point of geographic origin; it's about what you know. But you can bet that no Ethiopian or Somali in his right mind going to tell you they're white, or "Caucasian." :p deeceevoice 16:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, no. "Egyptian" is not synonymous with "Nilotic," (though Egypt is, of course, in the Nile Valley). The region also has Cushitic black people and blacks of the equatorial type. In fact, the Khoisan, before they were pushed south, inhabited the region. Cushitic blacks are the population most commonly associated with the ridiculous "Caucasoid" classification. Nubians in the popular imagination are often thought of as being solely of a sub-Saharan type -- but, in fact, Nubians are a mixture of Nilotic amd sub-Saharan types, some with broad features full lips and nappy hair, others with straight hair and narrower features. Again, it's simply a matter of naturally occurring biodiversity among Africoid populations. deeceevoice 16:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, but "Cushitic" and "Semitic" are ethnic terms. There is little difference genetically between the Cushitic and Semitic peoples in Ethiopia (with the exception of some Cushitic-speaking groups in SW Ethiopia with gene flow from S. Sudan). Cushitic people tend to be darker because they're generally at lower latitude (except for the Afar, who live in the NE desert); same altitude Cushitic speakers like the Agaw and Bilen are the same color as Semitic-speaking groups. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 16:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deeceevoice response

"Caucasoid" is different than "white" as you well know. You've claimed Sudanese are caucasoid yourself. "Africoid" does not appear to be a scientific term (neither is Afro-Semitic). Anyway, you asked if I knew any Sudanese and it just so happens I talk to a Sudanese man regularly and he says your claims are bogus (he actually giggled at them). Sure, he might not be an anthropologist by trade, but I wonder sometimes how you are privvy to this privileged info that it seems neither scientists nor locals nor truly anyone has other than perhaps the late Diop.

I'm thinkin of mailing Hawass to see what his take on it all is. I'm guessing he'll reply with the info that scientists and academics and locals use and not "King Tut was a white Arab!" or anything similar. I saw him on TV and he wasn't an extremist of any sort.

As for DNA that Hawass won't let be studied, you might be interested to know there is no DNA test for "blackness". Any DNA test would come down to clustering a number of samples and predetermining how many "races" to break the world into. If you tell the computer that you believe there are 3 races you'll get 3 races. If you tell the computer that you believe there are 50 races the computer will group people into 50 races. Anyway, when scientific tests have failed to lead to your pre-determined conclusions in the past you've criticized them.

Anyway, the reasons Egypt won't permit any DNA testing is twofold

the tiny bit of DNA present in egyptian mummies requires extracting their teeth, thereby damaging the mummies
DNA testing hasn't worked on Egyptian mummies that are in the U.S., etc.

Oh and btw, my Sudanese friend considers himself black. It's the Egyptians that he says are not. Justforasecond 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't claimed the Sudanese are "Caucasoid." I've said there are some who classify them that way. I would never characterize black Africans as "Caucasoid." It's a misnomer.

I don't claim to be privy to any special information. Your claim that no one else seems to be aware of the info I presented above on Tut is absurd. It's easily available to anyone who takes the time to do their research.

The opinion of your Sudanese friend means nothing to me. There are Africans who don't consider African Americans black.

You can try e-mailing Hawass, but my bet is he won't respond. He doesn't like being questioned. I e-mailed him at the same time that I e-mailed Anton and the French guy and -- no surprise -- received no response. But, hey, whatever floats your boat. His e-mail addy is: Hawass@sca.gov.eg deeceevoice 01:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt to the Sudanese man, which claim? The long list posted by DCV, or the part about Fellahin? I don't know about Fellahin in general, but I know an Upper Egyptian (who considers himself black) who is very knowledgable about Ancient Egypt, population movements, genetic studies, and the like, who considers most Upper Egyptians black, and believes that there were both "Classic Negroid" and "Ethiopid" types, along with some Levant populations in the eastern Delta and Sinai. Either way, none of this has to do with the development of the article, either in its current state or in its future state as per Jottce's proposal, so I suggest you continue the conversation on a talk page or elsewhere. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 22:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DCV asked me if I knew any Kenyans, Ethiopians, or Sudanese. I know people from all three nations (the only Egyptian I know is what DCV would call "highly miscegenated" or "highly arabized"). Anyway, the one I asked about "black" Egyptians said it was all wrong. Justforasecond 01:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one quick, easy example of the kinds of dialogues that, in my experience, regularly take place between African Americans and Egyptians around this issue from my talk page right here on this website. The Egyptians I've known and associated with consider themselves black. [13] deeceevoice 01:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the link: "Fellahin are not dark skinned in general...we dont identify as being black or white simply....My sister passes for black in the american sense I don't though i don't pass for white either...my family has decendants from Ethiopia.Zakaria mohyeldin".

Nice try, but I guess desperation does that.(some unsigned comment)

So now we've got a Fellah saying Fellahin don't consider themselves black and you are telling him he's wrong? Huhhh? C'mon, what will it take? Scientists, Sudanese and Fellahin themselves all agree.. Justforasecond 03:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And African Americans for the longest time also shunned the term black. It is common for people of color to deny their true heritage and to aspire to be something other than who/what they are when confronted with, raised under a racist, color-conscious regime. See below for a description of the "average" Fellah and note that, as I repeatedly have said, those of Upper Egypt are darker.

FELLAH (pl. Fellahin) , Arabic for " ploughman " or " tiller," the word used in Arabic-speaking countries to designate peasantry. It is employed especially of the peasantry of Egypt, " Fellahin " in modern English usage being almost equivalent to " Egyptians." In Egypt the name is applied to the peasantry as opposed to the Turks and the townsfolk. Fellah is used by the Arabs as term of reproach, somewhat like the English " boor," but rather implying a slavish disposition; the fellahin, however, are not ashamed of the name and may pride themselves on being of good fellah descent, as a "fellah of a fellah." They may be classified as Hamito-Semites, and preserve to some extent the blood of the ancient Egyptians. They population of Egypt and are mainly Mahommedan, though some villages in Upper Egypt are almost exclusively Copt (Christian). Their hybridism is well shown by their great divergence of colour, fellahin in the Delta being sometimes lighter than Arabs, while in Upper Egypt the prevailing complexion is dark brown. The average fellah is some-what above medium height, big-boned, of clumsy but powerful build, with head and face of fine oval shape, cheek-bones high, forehead broad, short flattish nose with wide nostrils, black but not woolly hair. The eyebrows are always straight and smooth, never bushy. The mouth is thick-lipped and large but well formed. The eyes are large and black, and are remarkable for the closeness of the eyelashes.[14]

See also an archived section at Talk: Egypt under a bolded, informal subhead (it does not appear in the page table of contents) The Fellahin of Upper Egypt - a Response here.[15]

And here[16] is another link, to a discussion board (with photos) moderated by author Kola Boof. deeceevoice 08:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cmon DCV -- really, what is the standard for when someone is "black"? If experts and the folks themselves don't believe they are, then can we stop calling them "black africans", "nilotic blacks", etc? Justforasecond 18:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justforasecond 17:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you credible, recent, reliable mainstream sources. I provided links. I'm done. deeceevoice 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deeceevoice, that is is an excerpt from a book review. a book review of a novel. you even said so yourself: "Consider this book review of Shahhat, An Egyptian, by Richard Critchfield". And as for the racialist Kola Boof? Sheesh, the woman claims the was Osama Bin Laden's mistress! But thanks for the link. Justforasecond 18:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant stuff

looks like the little afro-centric warrior is famous [17]. The regurgitated processed bovine food and vitriol are hard to miss. ROFLOL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.67.145.219 (talk • contribs) 01:03, July 6, 2006 (UTC)

Nothing better to do than Google me on the Internet, huh? (Did you read where the author corrected himself?) You have neither the guts nor the integrity to sign your own posts and seemingly lack the intellectual wherewithal to debate the subject matter at hand in an intelligent fashion. And for a diversion this is the best you can do? Kinda sad/pathetic, frankly. If I cared, I'd be embarrassed for you. Instead, I just gotta shake my head. Poor dear. deeceevoice 02:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here's another one. the afro-centric warrior asking black people to come and joing her edit warring on Wikipedia [18]

Greetings, my sisters (and brothers).

I'm an African American woman living in the U.S. capital. I've just now happened upon this wonderful place and would like to invite those who read this message to wikipedia.org. The website needs proud, black, knowledgeable contributors -- and it needs you BAD! While writing skill helps, a discerning eye to correct dis/misinformation and racist bias, and knowledge about Africa and the diaspora are even more important. It's an opportunity to write about whatever interests and moves you and to learn from others.

I hope to see you there. Please stop by my user page if/when you come, so I know you were there and let me know your impressions.

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Peace 2 u. -- deeceevoice

Man.... some people are DESPERATE. LOL—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.67.145.219 (talk • contribs) 01:38, July 6, 2006 (UTC)

A post made long ago, when I actually believed in the project to combat systemic bias on the website. These days, I would never, ever invite anyone to this website. deeceevoice 10:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read what Wikipedia is about. The more contributors the better. Especially of an underrepresented group, as we're doing our best to counter systemic bias. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. It is a bannable offense. You have been warned. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please, I don't see preaching to the queen of incivility here. That's right because you're both biased and your views on this topic lack honesty, which is why you both have been furiously edit warring on this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 02:08, July 6 (talk • contribs) 2006 207.67.145.219.

Has deeceevoice called anyone "DESPERATE" or an "edit warrer" on this page? I don't see any such edits. You should learn to assume good faith, as it is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. Do not accuse me of being intellectually dishonest. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 03:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Yom. I have referred to the "anonymous" editor as an "edit warrior" in my edit notes. They repeatedly have reverted edits without a good-faith attempt at explanation or discussion. I'd say it's an accurate characterization. deeceevoice 08:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But remember, receiving personal attacks still does not give the right to make them back at the attacker. It's clear that you're frustrated, and I would be too, but refraining from phrases like "neither guts nor integrity", "lack the intellectual werewithal", and "kinda sad/pathetic" is probably a better course of action. The anonymous 207 editor is out of line, I agree -- don't let him/her bait you into stepping out of line as well. You don't want to expose yourself to the risk of getting in trouble because of one person being incivil to you. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 09:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is "clear" to you isn't the case. I'm not frustrated. Just engaging in some plain-speak. deeceevoice 10:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People, I think it is best to ignore the comments of 207, even though they are completely unacceptable. This page should be about improving the article. There is a saying in German that goes something like: "What concern is it to the strong oak tree when the sow rubs against it?" Someone who posts his/her comments without signature and without signing in is not worth the energy of people genuinely concerned with improving the Wikipedia. --Jottce 11:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal email from Dr. Brace Northern Egyptian samples

I personally emailed Dr. Brace asking him why his Giza series clustered with Europeans. What he told me personally was that the sampled populations he had for the Northern Egyptian series does not date back to the pre-dyanstic era but around the Late Dyanstic period when foreign mercenaries were settled around Giza. Also, I am curious why that nobody here is citing Brace's new study published in 2006? How about the work of Dr. Keita on North-eastern African remains?

Also people need to stop using Dr. Brace for a proof of a caucasoid northern Egypt because Dr. Brace himself does not believe in any of the races such as caucasoid,negriod,or mongoloid.

Can somebody tell me how I can add citations to the article? (unsigned post)

Very interesting. Then guess that the 52 skulls from the Egypt Bronze (Naqada) (3300 BC: Predynastic Period) he is referring to in his list of samples and his study are just a persistent typo ... CoYep 11:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoYep, can you provide sourced quotes from Brace's study that specifically contradict the post above? If so, it would be helpful. This is precisely why I deleted the faulty and uncited conclusions inserted in the last paragraph of that section. The person who wrote it conflates "Caucasoid" to mean "Caucasian," writing about a "biracial" Egypt. Without being familiar with Brace's study and having no direct quotes, I could tell immediately that it was faulty and suspected the author had no proof of Brace's purported finding. The author repeatedly has edit warred the material back in, with no citation, no explanation. It should stay gone until this matter is resolved.deeceevoice 11:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your interest. :) Unfortunately, one of the tenets of Wikipedia is "no original research." If your "citations" involve the insertion information from an e-mail, then they cannot be included in the article. For instance, I cannot use my e-mails with Anton on Wikipedia. If the information you wish to include appears in print or has otherwise been copyrighted, published, recorded, disseminated, then it can be used. Also, if Dr. Brace would like to comment, he is, of course, more than welcome to do so. If you would like to include Keita's information, then by all means do. Peace. deeceevoice 10:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new article structure

For anyone who hasn't seen it, Jottce has outlined a new structure for this article, which can be found here. The reason for it is the following: Being as the article is called "Controversy over ...", it sould not attempt to determine actual the origins and characteristics of the Ancient Egyptians. Strangely enough, that belongs in the proposed article Origins of Ancient Egyptians, like it is on French Wikipedia.

The article is dangerously bordering on original research as a few editors attempt add to and remove from the article as suits their beliefs on the topic. The article, as mentioned above by Jottce, ought to discuss the studies themselves, and the established criticisms on the studies. I think Jottce's outline on the subject is great.

Any discussion of "The Ancient Egyptians were ..." belongs in a different article. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 16:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The French article is just a translation of this one. Justforasecond 17:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read French, I was just informed that that's the name of the French article. But this article right now leans more towards "origins" than "controversy" anyway, so it's a valid comparison. Take a look at the outline, you'll see what I mean. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 18:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the french article -- it's got the same structure as this one (broken down into linguistic, geographic arguments, etc). They might have a better soccer team but we're a better source of Ancient Egyptian controversy! Justforasecond 20:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to check out the French version of this article, if I could read French :) - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 21:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad -- there are actually two french articles but they look pretty similar. TOC:

1 Obstacles in the determination of the race
2 Thesis afrocentrist

O 2.1 Kemet: “black cotton soil”

3 linguistic Arguments
4 geographical Arguments
5 artistic Arguments

O 5.1 sphinges of Gizeh O 5.2 ethnographic Murals

6 Analysis of mummies

O 6.1 Tests of mélanine O 6.2 Analyzes cranial and medico-legal rebuilding + 6.2.1 Comparison with the modern Africans + 6.2.2 Reconstitution of the appearance of king Toutânkhamon

7 religious and cultural Arguments
8 old Authors
9 Appendices

O 9.1 Notes O 9.2 References and translation http://64.233.179.104/translate_c?hl=en&langpair=fr%7Cen&u=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_over_race_of_Ancient_Egyptians

Dear all, I checked out the French article -- and its discussion page. It seems to me it was indeed translated from English at an earlier point (in fact in March of 2006 if you check the history page) and people have edited it from there. It is interesting to see how the discussion progresses differently as well. The first entry talks about renaming the article using the English example (rough translation courtesy of google):

"I do not agree completely on the title of the subject! indeed there is the word discusses [debate/controversy] which was omitted, it would be necessary to re-elect the subject, the English title being Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians"
"I agree with you, but I have [the] funny [strange?] impression that the article of the wiki EN [has been] written by a guy of the black nationalist movement (of the sort of fr:Parti Kémite or the fr:Tribu Ka)." (fr:Discuter:Origine_des_anciens_Égyptiens).

This doesn't mean we shouldn't use the title "Origins of ancient Egyptians" for a new article that represents current research on the physical genealogy of ancient Egyptians. But the French are perhaps not the best model for such an article. As I see it, the different development of this article also points to cultural differences. I haven't found anything resembling the controversy of the "race" of ancient Egyptians on the German Wikipedia. It is, I am convinced, not a coincidence that the greatest expertise in this area is found in the United States. I am afraid, that such a project may loop back into controversy again. --Jottce 09:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted per discussion?

deeceevoice, a quote was deleted today as "per discussion" -- was this really discussed? i don't see it on this page.

Justforasecond 19:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[19]
[20]

The assumptions of Maspero are contentious, contradicted by other scholars (including the most prominent Egyptologist of the time, Petrie, the Father of Egyptology) and, frankly, just not essential to the points being made -- that colors often were used symbolically in Egyptian art and often don't reflect actual skin tone. This article is rife with controversy. And as Yom stated, there's no point in introducing something contentious that isn't even critical to the discussion -- precisely my rationale when I made the edit. I think, though (I haven't gone back and checked), I recall noticing that the information that once was at the bottom of the article under "Notes" a while back that treated the issue of the use of color in Egyptian art (that I moved up to that paragraph in place of the lengthy Maspero missive) ended up getting deleted at some point by the same "anonymous" edit warrior.Pe I think it should probably be restored. It fit there and looked kind of dumb at the tail end of the article all by itself. I think it had to do with the black guardian Tut statues (if I recall correctly). I think it was useful info and should be restored. deeceevoice 10:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petrie was contradicted by Maspero, and not the other way around.
This article is called "Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians", if there wouldn't be any contradicting statements, it would simply be an article about "racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians"
It would be great if editor Deeceevoice and Yom would stop to remove perfectly sourced text because it doesn't fit their POV.

[21] [22] [23][24] [25]

It would be also great if editor Deeceevoice and Yom would stop to remove pictures because they deem them to be "not black enough" [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]
I further recommend to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them. In the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment, and there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking" and "Self-published sources as secondary sources Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly."

Double checking the sources I realized that there are many personal websites cited as "reliable source". In order to avoid removal, editors might want to replace them with acceptable sources. CoYep 14:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CoYep that it is best to refer to scholarly sources, which in most cases are still print sources or refereed online journals. As I see it, there are different types of sources, primary sources (texts that engage in the debate, e.g. Frederick Douglass' "Claims of the Negro Ethnologically considered" or Types of Mankind, or their 20th-century equivalents), and secondary sources (texts that study the controversy itself). Since the article is about the controversy, it should, I think, take an outside perspective and historicize the controversy, which means it should present the different positions, but be guided by secondary sources. The article should represent the controversy from a perspective as much outside it as possible, which to me means that if images are used, they should not serve to "prove" one or the other position in the controversy, but to illustrate the different positions as equally as possible. Another article that would present findings on the Origins of Ancient Egyptians, as suggested by Yom, would present current research in the area.

About quotations from primary sources: I think extensive quotations go beyond the scope of an encyclopedia entry. I feel we should stick to paraphrase and summary here. --Jottce 15:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the possibility to create a gallery rather than to illustrate the sections. Might be a way to end the edit warring and the claims that pictures do not fit the sections or that there would be too many pictures if the pictures of both sides would be included. CoYep 15:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous edits labled "rv vandalism"

I noticed that there was an anonymous user (207.195.241.51) who reverted the good-faith edits of deeceevoice labeling them as "vandalism." I think that is completely unacceptable. On a controversial subject such as this, I think major reverts such as this should be discussed. Anonymously going through the article with an ax to eliminate sections you don't agree with will not improve anything and does violence to the Wikipedia process. --Jottce 09:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to read the edit history? CoYep 13:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please play nicely. Jottce is one of very few people working on this article article who has not engaged in provocative, uncivil, or abusive language. Being nasty to her is completely uncalled for. If you have something to point out, please do so, but don't bite at people who did nothing to you. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 14:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but asking her if she checked the edit history is far from being "nasty". It would be fine if she could chill with biting people without double checking. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers CoYep 14:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoYep, I did read some of it, not all; it's a frustrating read. I assume you are asking this to suggest I would come to a different assessment of the situation if I had read the history more thoroughly. But my point is valid even if I had never taken a look at the edit history. Even if someone has performed edits 207.195.241.51 felt were wrong, all the more reason to discuss them openly. Anyone interested in improving the article to a point where the dispute can be resolved should attempt to de-escalate the conflict rather than aggravating it. For this reason, I also think editing anonymously is not a good idea at this point. --Jottce 14:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I assume you are asking this to suggest I would come to a different assessment of the situation if I had read the history more thoroughly.(Jottce)

Indeed, especially re: "going through the article with an ax to eliminate sections you don't agree with"

"But my point is valid even if I had never taken a look at the edit history."(Jottce)

No, it's not. I agree that checking the edit history is quite tiresome and frustrating, but it's not acceptable to attack someone because you assume things without checking the situation thoroughly. There need to be at least 2 parties for an edit war, and assuming simply because someone edits with an IP instead of an username s/he is automaticly the "bad guy" is also unacceptable. You just need to check the diffs I provided above (and these are just the ones of the last week) to see who actually kept on removing informations from the article, and who were the ones who restored them.

"Anyone interested in improving the article to a point where the dispute can be resolved should attempt to de-escalate the conflict rather than aggravating it."(Jottce)

Agreed, but taking sides based on assumptions is not a way to cool this article down.CoYep 14:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deeceevoice blanked a fairly long passage. at least on the face of it it seemed to be in furtherance of a pov. i think 207.... said "rv blanking vandalism". i guess you could say 207 is not assuming deeceevoice's good faith, but then you wouldn't be assumignt 207's good faith. ;) Justforasecond 15:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YoCep, and Justforasecond I concede that it was wrong for me to criticize 207.195.241.51 the way I did before double-checking whether deeceevoice's edits were in fact "good faith" edits as I assumed they were. I wrote too quickly. If I appeared to take sides, that was not my intention, and (if you are reading this, 207.195.241.51), I apologize for the wording of my criticism. I would criticize similar behavior in anyone if I noticed it. But, being wary of vandalism, I do pay particular attention to edits by anonymous users. I did not assume 207.195.241.51 was the "bad guy" though. What I criticized was clearly defined behavior, behavior I consider counterproductive in any edit situation. And I stand by the content of the criticism, to whomever it applies. My appeal, then, goes to both 207.195.241.51 and deeceevoice and anyone else involved in circular edits-reverts to take a step back from carrying out the controversy in the article and moving it to this talk page. What are your main grievances? Perhaps we can resolve them collectively. The issue seems to be larger than the inclusion or exclusion of individual passages or images. --Jottce 16:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey man, no big deal. this is just wiki after all ;) Justforasecond 19:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey woman, actually. ;) — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 19:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethnographic Murals" - the question of the "real thing"

An editor inserted a question next to the drawing of the ethnographic mural, "Why not show the real thing?" which Yom reverted, and rightly so since the question belongs to the talk page. I haven't seen "the real thing" nor do I know whether it was not just as faded in the early 19th century when the original of the drawing shown here was made. The reason that I am bringing this up here is that the image sorely needs an attribution that clearly contextualizes its origin. The different versions of the drawing are filtered through 19th century racial sensibilities. The image is a small selection from a room covered with human figures, and the image as it is shown here is again cropped from the drawing. The image does indeed adequately illustrate the controversy since it is a recurrent element in it, but it is definitely not a reliable source for "ethnographic" conceptions that existed in ancient Egypt. And as it is placed in the text right now, it deceptively appears to illustrate precisely those conceptions: "As can be seen from the adjacent painting, ancient Egyptians usually portrayed themselves differently from both the Nubians and the ethnically Semitic Middle-Easterners/North African Bedouins." It would be much more appropriate in an article on the controversy to use this image as well as its equivalents in Types of Mankind (1854) and in Race: The Reality of Human Differences (2004) to illustrate its function in the controversy. This function, as I see it, has been to suggest that in terms of racial thinking, there is not much difference between the ancient Egyptians and contemporary culture, the conclusion being (as faulty, in my opinion, as the premise) that "race" is an unchangeable category, either in human biology or in human culture. What do you think? --Jottce 11:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the "real thing" the editor is referring to is what Afrocentrists love to bring up as "evidence" that Egyptians and Nubians are identical: the image of the one Nubian erroneously labeld as Egyptian in the book of gates [47] which was addressed by Lepsius in his book "Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien" [48][49]. I didn't like the drawing either, so I added some time ago some links to the original tomb images (Nubian [50], Asiatics [51] Egyptian [52] Libyan [53]) I agree with you that the text should emphasize that the distinguishing criterion wasn't "race", as we know it today, but nationallity/cultural affiliation. CoYep 13:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links to the images. From my perspective, what needs to be done in the article is to explicitly address the ways in which the different images have been used in the arguments of one or the other side of the debate. The article should not suggest one or the other side was right or wrong, because right or wrong are always relative to what counted as knowledge at that particular historical moment. --Jottce 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say something.......

Um, I haven't been to this article in quite a while, and I could barely recognize it. What the hell happened? I have many problems with the article in its current state, deecevoice and yom, the only two editors who have an ounce of sanity and objectivity, this is not applied to you, so please excuse my impending tirade.

1. "racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians" WTF? Is that an appropriate title for the article? Shouldn't it be "Racial affinities of ancient egyptians?" That sounds more logical, but "logical" is a little too much to ask at this point since the article has fallen to hordes of ideologues, isn't it?

2. Large parts of the article have been illogically deleted, like a good part of the OBJECTIVE cultural analysis of Ancient Egypt. Once again, WTF?

3. I know you guys did not just DELETE the part about the cranial analysis of the new kingdom royal mummies. That section did not need to be removed, it was fine as it was. Somebody put it back please.

4. What the hell is up with the damn art show, what the fuck is the person who did this trying to prove, many of those portraits are idealistic, so if you were looking to prove that the egyptians were "caucasoid", you failed, and made an ass of yourself, whoever you are. Why don't put up a picture of Menes, Djedefre, and Amenemhat just to even things out? Hmmm.

5. I notice alot of my data, which was from EXPERTS in the field of craniometry (SO keita) or Egyptology (Frank Yurco) were deleted. That wasn't even right.

6. Just for a second, you need to stay away from this article, you're not contributing anything positive, in fact, you're exacerbating the situation. Sorry, bub.

That's all I gotta say, I might try to salvage this mess, and make the article decent, but then again, sometimes you just have to say "fuck it."

Peace. Teth22 16:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that deeceevoice is the only editor with an ounce of sanity could be construed as less than civil, Teth. Justforasecond 17:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not to mention as rather surreal. Also, "racial affinities"?(??) dab (ᛏ) 17:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of a feather flock together. CoYep 13:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teth22, I am sorry you feel this way. But it is the nature (and the strength) of Wikipedia that it is in a perpetual state of transformation. One person cannot and should not control this process. This article is relatively active, as, I guess, all articles relating to race will be. I have so far only contributed to the discussion and refrained from editing the article itself because there is so much contention around it. I have, however, as of Yom's suggestion, put up a draft outline of an alternative structure for the article that would take on the issue from a historical perspective. What is important to me is that the article now performs the controversy that it should represent and historicise (the title is "controversy over ..."). Yom suggested to start another article that would deal with current scientific findings on the genealogy of ancient Egyptians and reference the article on the controversy, but not deal with it. --Jottce 16:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the draft. --

Jottce 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks nice, you could be on to something yet, peace. Teth22 19:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like again, rock solid evidence that shows the Egyptians were more black than the current climate is willing to accept... that was removed from the article... Yet then people will say we need cited proof of that position. Who is the editor doing this? I put images of Tutankhamun, Queen Tiye, I put information about settlement patterns in antiquity, and I also described very clearly the issue regarding the recent forensic variations in the 3D reconstruction of Tutankhamun. Why is that not here? --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd noticed, too, that large sections of the article have been deleted -- mostly by an anonymous editor. I've made a quick attempt to restore the information I wrote under the "forensic/cranial analysis" portion, but I'm not even certain that version hasn't been messed with. But, inexplicably, the section on cultural and religious evidence (along with the great photo of the Fellah child) has been deleted. This is important stuff. I recommend that the old section on cultural evidence be reconstituted, incorporating the section on "art" and whatever other aspects of culture are addressed herein, such as language. I haven't been paying serious attention to this piece for some time -- just dealing with the art business. It needs a good onceover. The article has been hijacked and shamelessly Bowdlerized --with no attempt whatsoever at justification. deeceevoice 10:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deecevoice, I can't help but congratulate you for restoring alot of the old material back into the article, in other words, thank you for putting the FACTS back in. I have one question though, who is the author of the website you linked to under the cranial analysis section, it can't be from Atlas of the Royal Mummies, since the page cites studies past 1980, the book's publication date. Can you help me out there? Thanks. Peace. Teth22 17:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Complete and Utter Lack of Objectivity

1. This article should not a be a propaganda piece to either get people to say, "Those egyptians are black," or "Those egyptians are white."

2. This article should give people :

a. a history of the controvery from its roots to its modern state

b. the afrocentrist claims

c. the eurocentrist claims

d. the mainstream opinion on these claims and the debate

People should come away from this article understanding the conflict, the different perspectives, why they exist, and how everything got to be the way it is now. To be honest, this article would be better if it's current state was scrapped and it was started over from scratch. I do not need six paragraphs to tell that Diop was wrong.Altarbo 02:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not think Diop was wrong, but I agree with you, that there should be a greater clarity in this article, with the distinctions you were talking about. This article feels biased in favor of the eurocentric point of view, but more importantly, it fails to frame the controversy within the political context. It refers to so-called afrocentrist concerns, but it does not address at all (IMHO) the centuries' old (apparently intentional) efforts from eurocentrists to ensure that the debate disappear, and that everybody simply accept the fact that Ancient Egyptians had nothing to do with either Axumite, Kushite or Bantu Africans, because it was, at the time, politically, socially unacceptable, considering the racial politics of the time. The afrocentrists are attempting to counter the effects of the eurocentrists past (proven, or perceived) misdeeds. And that is the debate I was expecting to see here. And it is nowhere to be found. Thus it creates a situation where the Afrocentrists are presented as misguided passionate fools, that are opposing an unexistant opponent, in an unnecessary argument. Which IMHO, is the farthest thing possible from the truth. I am just saying.Themalau 10:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. As it is, this article effectively serves as /dev/null for polemic noise nobody is going to read anyway. No intelligent reader is going to be swayed by rhetorics they read on Wikipedia. It would indeed be best to scrap it all and reorganize as a clean presentation of the 'controversy' as suggested by Altarbo. Afrocentrists ("AEs were black") and Eurocentrists ("AEs were white") are passionate fools alike, the difference being that we have no direct evidence that the Eurocentrist claim is in fact proposed. I object, of course, to the implication that mainstream scholars pointing out that such Afrocentrists as do claim "AEs were black" are passionate fools are labelled "Eurocentrists". Saying "the question is moot" is not identical to saying "AEs were white" after all. dab (ᛏ) 16:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point, but allw me then to object in this way: It is quite easy to say that the point is moot, when one (and I don't mean you) is from a Western ountry, that has the position of power that we witness. It makes much less sense whe one is black, and one has been systematically taught - direcly or undirectly - by the Euro-West that one's race is worthless, and never amounted to anything. Then the possibility of one's race having spawned (one of) the oldest civilizations in the world becomes a very potent symbol, and a possible source for redemption and vindication. In these conditions, this is definitely not a moot point, or an unnecessary debate. And any person from the West who cannot see that is, IMHO, being if not somewhat eurocentrist, at least not objective. Furthermore, even the fact that the term afrocentrist is used in this page several times, in a fairly pejorative and dismissive way (like Deeceevoice said a bit further down), that insunuates a radical and negligible agenda (at least that is ow it comes out), is already a testimony to the subjectivity in this very article. I mean seriously, is it really that radical for people to conjecture, and seek confirmation, for the fact that a people who lived and developed in Africa, may actually look at other Africans? And when people believe they have found such undeniable confirmation, and publish it, is it necessary for them to be faced with blanket resistance, and animosity? The answer to this last question would be no... if the discussion were truly in the interest of knowledge. But it seems hard for some to conceive that Black people (or their cousins) could ever accomplish what the AE's did. Thus it is important that this dialogue occur, and that the question be resolved. These are not moot points. They are far from moot. Themalau 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has done point b credibly well. What you are reacting/objecting to is a lack of credible evidence/information with regard to point c. The so-called "afrocentrist" arguments have been fairly well put forth here (and in other permutations of the article, some of it expunged), though considerably more could be, and will be, added. That the article lacks more information on the eurocentrist side is, IMO, reflective of the fact that there are precious few credible modern-day scholars who successfully can argue the eurocentrist viewpoint -- and certainly not the tradtional, old-line "dynastic Egypt was Semitic (or white/Caucasian)," or some other such utter nonsense. The racist/eurocentrist "scholars" of the nineteenth and early to mid twentieth century have largely died off and have been replaced by those with a more balanced view of the past, harkening back to the scholarship of the ancients and of Petrie, the Father of Egyptology, who knew the truth.

If people have respected, scholarly information, then let them bring it forth here. After all, those who wish to advance theories/information supporting a eurocentrist viewpoint are certainly perfectly capable of contributing -- as much so as those who do not. The "problem" is the eurocentrist paradigm is itself a largely discredited one. What you have here is a case of "common knowledge," presumptions and assumptions colored by racist historians and the ignorance of whitewashed, pop-culture images, as well as a calculated campaign of disinformation that has yet to catch up to even the true scholarship of Petrie's time. The "problem" is what is being labeled (often dismissively, pejoratively) "afrocentric," certainly at least with regard to scholarly investigation and study in that vein, is simply nothing more than the truth. deeceevoice deeceevoice 08:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Question

Why was this taken out (is it factually incorrect or what?):

Approximately one-third of so-called "white" Americans have detectable African DNA markers or craniofacial traits that would forensically categorize them as "Negroid."^[1] And about five percent of so-called "Black" Americans have no detectable "Negroid" traits at all, neither craniofacial nor in their DNA.^[2] In short, given three Americans, one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. White, another one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Black, and one who self-identifies and is socially accepted as U.S. Hispanic, and given that they have precisely the same Afro-European mix of ancestries (one "mulatto" grandparent), there is no objective test that will identify their U.S. endogamous group membership without an interview.^[3] In practice, the application of such forensic criteria ultimately comes down to whether the skull appears "Negroid," "Caucasoid," or "Mongoloid" in the eyes of the forensic practitioner. [unsigned post]

I substantially rewrote the earlier portion of this section a while back, because it painted an inaccurate and incredibly POV and grossly misleading picture of the usefuless, accuracy and scope (of utilization, which is worldwide) of the use of faciocranial analysis, characterizing the methodologies as being used by only Americans, and solely to shoehorn specimens into strict racial classes or categories. The fact of the matter is the use of faciocranial analysis in forensic and criminal anthropology is alive and well -- and a well-respected and time-tested discipline that more often than not yields highly accurate results.

I removed the section to which you refer because it was simply TMI and not directly relevant to the matter at hand. The current language succinctly states that there are complicating factors with faciocranial analysis when examining mixed populations. Studies citing African-Americans and Carol Channing, yadda, yadda, yadda, are not immediately germane here. This information may be appropriate to an article on forensic anthropology, or forensic methods, or some other such subject -- but not here. It's simply too far off the point/extraneous.

Finally, and less importantly, but particularly with regard to the case of King Tut, the examination of whose remains is discussed in the article at length, this information is particularly irrelevant, because there is no indication whatsoever that Tut was mixed with anything. In fact, it would be extremely difficult to find a more by-the-book, exaggerated example of the classic Nilotic (black) phenotype, which Tut's remains clearly show him to have been. The precise cluster of faciocranail attributes exhibited by Tut's skull belong to no other ethnic group on the planet. (Coupled with the information known about Tut's physical stature, "gracile," longer and more slender than the human norm -- like the Dinka, like the Tutsi, their strikingly long limbs an adaptation to extremely hot climates in order to disperse heat more efficiently, Tut's racial/ethnic identity is not even open to question.) There is absolutely nothing in his faciocranial structure (or physical stature) that would indicate he was mixed with anything (not even another Negroid/Africoid phenotype) -- which is what allowed Susan Anton of the American reconstruction team (the only team of the three who collectively were unaware of the skull's identity), even absent the information about physical stature, to accurately pinpoint the specimen's origin first clearly to Africa (it belonged to a black man) and then to North Africa, as opposed to sub-Saharan/Equatorial Africa. And, again, the expunged text is simply an (unnecessary) elaboration of the already-stated difficulties of faciocranial analysis in ascertaining "racial"/ethnic identity (or geographic origin) of human remains in racially/ethnically mixed populations.

The next couple of paragraphs are a bit off-point, but let me take the opportunity here to say:

Further, not only is faciocranial analysis useful in determining racial/ethnic identity, but in some cases (particularly when the specimens adhere point by point to certain phenotypical models/criteria), it allows not only for accurate reconstruction of facial features, but for extremely accurate racial/ethnic/geographic assignation and designation of eye, skin and hair color, as well. For example, a skull exhibiting all the hallmarks of the classic Mongoloid phenotype would be highly unlikely to belong to a person with blonde or red hair and grey, green, blue, or hazel eyes, nappy or curly hair and "black" or dark brown skin. Because of the absence of any feature that would indicate mixed ancestry in populations which possess fairly uniform skin and eye color and hair texture, such features can be fairly accurately extrapolated from the faciocranial evidence. The same can be said for a specimen exhibiting all the hallmark characteristics of a classic Negroid/Africoid (Equatorial) phenotype with regard to the inappropriateness of assigning straight hair and fair skin, or for a skull possessing the characteristics of the classic Nilotic phenotype with regard to assigning blue, green, grey or even hazel eyes; fair/white or light brown skin and blond hair. Many Nilotic peoples are among the blackest on the planet, some so dark, they have a blue-black or purplish cast to their skin.

In the last instance -- that of Nilotic populations -- which is directly germane to the Tut specimen, it should be quite clear to any objective observer that the specimen should have been assigned dark brown or nearly black skin and dark eyes -- and particularly by the two teams who were aware of the skull's identity, given the abundant examples of artwork showing Tut with precisely such attributes, dark brown/red-brown skin and dark eyes. There is absolutely no example of contemporaneous artwork of which I am aware where Tut is portrayed in everyday life (i.e., non symbolic contexts) in any other way -- and never with hazel eyes. And therein lies the basis for the voiciferous -- and, IMO, thoroughly justified -- criticism of the French team's model. There was clearly a thinly veiled agenda afoot to whitewash the result, which has been Zahi Hawass' track record. Any professional worth his/her salt would have used the contemporaneous depictions of the king as the basis for such making such decisions in producing a credible reconstruction. And, to their profound discredit (and I would say "shame" if they had a conscience, which they apparently do not), they did not. deeceevoice deeceevoice 08:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization

I tried to reorganize the article so that it flowed more logically. I haven't added much, and I tried not to delete the more relevant parts of the article. The History and Origins sections are mainly from Jotce's draft article; they should definately be expanded.

I tried to split the controversial eurocentrist and afrocentrist claims into two sections. With the subsections I was trying to follow a pattern of explaining each claim, and then explaining if it's a mainstream belief, and if not, why not.

The last section was just because I felt those two parts of the article were good, and wanted to keep them. Something like a summary of the modern egyptologist perspective should be added that incoporates the material in them.Altarbo 23:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you haven't, take a look at Jotce draft page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Controversy_over_racial_characteristics_of_Ancient_Egyptians/Draft I think the way the history is laid out there would good way to organize it.Altarbo 23:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian represented as true negroes in the tomb of Ramses III

Look at this photography representing races on the wall of Ramses III Tomb: http://www.geocities.com/enbp/images/races3.jpg

The Negroes on this picture are Egyptian, called Remetou, in mdw-nTr: http://www.africamaat.com/IMG/jpg/G1E-s-2.jpg

This fact is more emphasized in this picture: http://www.africamaat.com/IMG/jpg/RACES33.jpg

N.B. Remetou, in mdw-nTr: http://www.africamaat.com/IMG/jpg/G1E-s-2.jpg, was the generic appellation for the kemets.

Caid--84.130.54.45 09:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bowdlerization of the article and the reasons for my revert to original

And who decided the article should be mutilated in such a fashion? Where is the substantive discussion regarding such drastic changes? I'm only just now discovering the existence of Talk:Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians/Draft -- and, looking at the edit history, other than User:Jottce, who opened the draft, there were only two other contributors weighing in on it before such drastic changes were made. Apparently, I'm not the only editor who missed the existence of the page altogether, given the scant mention of it here. There are problems with this version, as well, with the explication of Afrocentrism, IMO, incredibly condescending/inadequate. I've restored the original, admittedly flawed version until some sort of rational discussion and more participation cah be had regarding a proposed redraft. The article as it is framed now, in a sort of false dichotomy of views, is unacceptable. Further, much of the supporting information of the earlier version has been deleted wholesale, which is utterly unreasonable/unjustifiable. And who decided which images to use? The redraft is not only mind-numbingly uninformative, but a total snore. deeceevoice 08:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to remain civil, deeceevoice. It isn't OK to describe other editors hard work as "mind numbling" and "a total snore". Justforasecond 16:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it obvious?

Isn't it rather likely, almost certain that Egyptians, like all current North African peoples, represent a transitional group between the 'white' peoples of the Middle East and the 'black' peoples of sub-saharan Africa, with (probably) skin becoming darker the further south you go? This whole article seems rather pointless to me. BovineBeast 16:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "transitional group," but you are so incorrect. What? "... like all current North African peoples"? Like the purple-black Sudanese? Like the blue-black and brown Nilotic blacks of the region? The brown-skinned Cushites of the region? The fact is the original peoples of northeast Africa all the way to the coast were black Africans. The archaeological evidence supports that fact -- as does the huge, honking statue of the Great Sphinx located where? At al-Jizah -- Giza -- a little more than 100 miles from the North African coast. Furthermore, there is no single Egyptian type. They have been Arabized culturally and genetically over the centuries. (The Arabs didn't even arrive in great numbers in Egypt until quite late and didn't assume power until the seventh century A.D. The farther north one goes, the more Semitic/Afro-Semitic the people look. The Fellahin of Upper Egypt are clearly Africoid, with darker skin and woollier hair. deeceevoice 14:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "evidence" supports this fact so strongly that we can't find a single scholarly reference (unless you can't dyed in the wool afrocentrists) that says so. "Afro-Semitic": a term that didn't exist until the above editor coined it. Google and you'll find a band. The "clearly africoid" fellahin to the right. Justforasecond 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-1500 BC Whites and the Last glacial period

Until -1500 BC the negroes dominated the whole region. White people born - 20 000 years ago, were trapped in europe a long time by the Last glacial period, So while Negroe built big civilizations like Ta-Seti in nubia 10 000 years ago and later kemet and the big kushite empire. The whites lived in caves, sometimes eating their own children if there was nothing else to eat.

References: - Lenormant. - The African Origin of Civilization, Cheikh Anta Diop.

Caid--84.130.28.57 06:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

omg, I had no idea it was that bad :p dab (ᛏ) 07:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the time, was it that bad, but it was bad enough. Those people have to understand something. It is impossible to come out of your cave, and then start building a civilisation like kemet. It is impossible to come out of your cave, travel back in time 2500 years and then went to africa, to build a civilization like kemet there not in europe. It is impossible to come out of your cave, and then create a writing system with animals from the savannah. It is impossible to come out of your cave, .........

Caid--84.130.28.57 08:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Layout of the Article

Deeceevoice, I gave an explanation of my changes to the layout of the article already. If it's the content you object to, feel free to add and edit. Your contention that the article should be changed back to the old layout, because nobody asked for your approval is ridiculous.

I'm not trying to create a false dichotomy. The reasons I divided it into Euro and Afrocentrist sections were: [a] it provides a format to present the claims of each side without having them pile on top of each other. (as in the old Diop section) "I was trying to follow a pattern of explaining each claim, and then explaining if it's a mainstream belief, and if not, why not." I thought this gave a greater objectivity and clarity to the article. [b] Afrocentrism was a response to a eurocentrism.

In the future, it would be more than fine with me, if someone moved the content from the two claims section into the history section and put it into historical context.

Instead of simply reverting the article and making subjective statements about it as your reason, give specific examples of things you object to, propose a new layout altogether, or if it's the contents (not the layout) you object to, feel free to add to the article.Altarbo 17:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not misrepresent my objections, Altarbo. deeceevoice 18:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinserted the general information about difficulties in ascertaining "race" because I thought it instructional; it informs the rest of the article. I also have reinserted much of the highly relevant information hacked out of the new "draft." More to come. deeceevoice 19:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep trying to take things out of historical context?Altarbo 19:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As in? deeceevoice 06:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the renaming to "craniometry," the lead language and hacking up of the section on forensics/faciocranial examination are all blatantly POV. If someone wishes to refute information therein (and the information which will be restored), they can do so under the Eurocentric section. I'll address that later when I have more time. deeceevoice 06:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To do

To be included later in the Afrocentrist (of course) section, a subsection on skeletal remains, including the (now excised) info by Houston re Petrie and the Badarian skulls; editing and also reinsertion of deletion info under "ethnographic murals." deeceevoice 07:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ Heather E. Collins-Schramm and others, "Markers that Discriminate Between European and African Ancestry Show Limited Variation Within Africa," Human Genetics 111 (2002): 566-9; Mark D. Shriver and others, "Skin Pigmentation, Biogeographical Ancestry, and Admixture Mapping," Human Genetics 112 (2003): 387-99.
^ E.J. Parra and others, "Ancestral Proportions and Admixture Dynamics in Geographically Defined African Americans Living in South Carolina," American Journal of Physical Anthropology 114 (2001): 18-29, Figure 1.
^ Carol Channing, Just Lucky I Guess: A Memoir of Sorts (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002); Gregory Howard Williams, Life on the Color Line: The True Story of a White Boy who Discovered he was Black (New York: Dutton, 1995)

[1] Heather E. Collins-Schramm and others, "Markers that Discriminate Between European and African Ancestry Show Limited Variation Within Africa," Human Genetics 111 (2002): 566-9; Mark D. Shriver and others, "Skin Pigmentation, Biogeographical Ancestry, and Admixture Mapping," Human Genetics 112 (2003): 387-99.

[2] E.J. Parra and others, "Ancestral Proportions and Admixture Dynamics in Geographically Defined African Americans Living in South Carolina," American Journal of Physical Anthropology 114 (2001): 18-29, Figure 1.

[3] Carol Channing, Just Lucky I Guess: A Memoir of Sorts (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002); Gregory Howard Williams, Life on the Color Line: The True Story of a White Boy who Discovered he was Black (New York: Dutton, 1995)

[1]

[2]

[3]

Archives

Summary of Archive 1

Summary of Archive 2