Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy

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

Archive, Plan and Get to Work

I would like to suggest that we archive this talkpage as soon as everyone has finished their 'debates' about specific content (which will only have to be brought up again later, so it's better to just conclude them for the time being and put the energy to better use) and start with a clean, pre-organized talkpage dedicated to constructive discussion with a view towards actually resolving the troublesome issues. As it seems impossible to carry on simultaneous discussions at multiple levels on an article such as this, the topics on this talkpage should be discussed in 'natural' order, i.e. an order which is conducive to building up real, long-lasting consensus unlikely to be overturned upon the appearance of a new editor or two (providing they actually read the talkpage before hitting the 'edit' tab).

In my opinion, the first thing that needs to be discussed is the exact Scope of the article. Some of you disagree, I know, and you should voice your opinions at the appropriate time in the appropriate place. I think that place is at the head of a new talkpage. However, all discussion not directly and intimately related to the task-list set forth on the new page should be postponed until the time comes to discuss it. If we work together, we will get through the whole thing eventually.

If someone agrees with me, archives and creates the new talkpage, please add a section for 'New Additions', 'New Research' or something similar in addition to one on 'Scope' so that editors who are still researching will have a place to note any recent discoveries which might play a role in the deliberations over the organization of the article. Varoon Arya 23:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone please archive this talk page so that we can start over.. Way too much bickering (that I admit to have been involved in) and debating going on that distracts away from progressive conversation.Taharqa 16:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

so, just archive it and start over, eh? How about you stop bickering, Taharqa, and actually address the issues raised up front? This article could be cleaned up and split into two valid article in a matter of hours as soon as you stop trolling. --dab (𒁳) 08:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, there is no concensus on splitting this article. All the sections contain valid informations for helping the readers have a broader picture about the issue of the race of the ancient Egyptians. You are not obliged to like everything written here. There are things in the article myself do not want to see. But they have to be there since they are significant and have been brought by other contributors. Who are you to try to impose your will on other editors? Why do people have to repeat what Wikidudeman explained to you days ago? Be reasonable, move forward, and stop blocking the positive work of editing the article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

that's so many words. Wikipedia is about showing a good faith effort and putting the facts on the table. Then there can be friendly debate between bona fide editors and informed compromise on specific points. What you are doing is just abusing Wikipedia's consensus principle to dodge policy and stall encyclopedic discussion. Show some effort in discussing this encyclopedically and we can have a debate. Wikilawyering without show of encyclopedic editing is trolling in my book, and I am not interested in debating that. Your "broader picture" translates to ideological soapboxing, and Wikipedia simply isn't for that, sorry. I repeat that I am not here to impose "my will", but Wikipedia policy, which asks you to dump all unencyclopedic and unacademic blather from this page, and report strictly on academic debates without further ado. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Then, start another RfC on the subject of the split, to see if you can get support for this idea from a wider audience. So far, I don't see that you have garnered significant support for your position, but in all honesty, an RfC could change that. Barring that, I would ask that you respect consensus.--Ramdrake 11:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's the context?

This article needs a *history* section that explains that there was a time when european scholars insisted that the egyptians were white. Only in the context of the racism of its day do the theories of Afro-centrism make sense. As it stands this article talks about the Afro-centric view out of context and fails to mention Eurocentrism at all.

I do not think it's a good idea to put all of the Afro-centric information in a separate article, it will become a POV fork. Frankly, MOST of the people who discuss the Egyptians in-terms of "race" are either Eurocentric or Afrocentric scholars. Most other people consider them to be "Egyptians" and "Africans" and leave it at that.

The core subject of this article is the history of how this debate became important and the interplay between the people in the debte. The question: "what race were they?" is comparatively unimportant. Right now the article takes the question at face value.futurebird 16:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"there was a time when european scholars insisted that the egyptians were white" -- this is an Afrocentric myth, or at least a gross exaggeration. The theories of Afrocentrism do not make any "sense" academically. They do make "sense" psychologically, from the desire to build a sense of African-American ethnic pride. This has nothing to do with Egyptology, or alleged Eurocentrism therein. If you want to denounce racism in the 20th century USA, denounce racism in the 20th century USA, but don't take your frustration out on Egyptology. --dab (𒁳) 16:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense. futurebird 16:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

what part of "this is an Afrocentric myth" do you find difficult? dab (𒁳) 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's decide the name and actual topic before we argue about content. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm new around here, what's wrong with the title as it is? And why is there a merge tag? futurebird 17:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, because there's been discussion about whether the article and/or title is POV and about whether the existing content might be better merged into the other article. The essential question is about the relative weight to give the theory of ancient Egyptians as white, the similar theories that they were black, the evidence and supporters of each, and the objective scientific evidence. John Carter 17:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The primary significance of this debate is historical. Through viewing the debate on the race of the Egyptians you can see how ideas about race have changed in the history of the past few 100 years. At first it was unthinkable that they were anything but white. Then people questioned this idea and tried to prove they were all black. The current idea seems to reject both-- in the sense that it says that race has a different meaning today than it did in the past. However, the "Afro-centrists" were right about a few things and their work is important. They were right that sub-Saharan cultures and people had interactions with and were able to influence, and be influenced by, the Egyptians. Some of the Egyptians were of sub-Saharan origin. The Eurocentric story of early history that describes sub-Saharan Africa as "tribal", "unimportant" and uncivilized is not taken seriously anymore.

However, saying the Egyptians "were black" or "were white" is meaningless since these are modern social constructs that can't be applied to the past. Afro-centric scholars in America angered some old-school Egyptologists because they suggested that African Americas could be "proud of the accomplishments of their ancestors in egypt" --this was seen as unfairly "claiming" egyptian achievements. But, frankly, it's not that different from the eurocentric habit of describing the accomplishments of the Greeks as "the basis of American civilization. etc." White Americans are no more ancient Greek than African Americans are ancient Egyptian! (well, except for maybe the real Greek-Americans ... but even then....) All of these civilizations are human and we can all be proud of them.

This entire debate is a response the the systematic denegration and denial of the existence of black culture and the personhood of black people. --And the article fails to reflect this. futurebird 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to disagree with you on any of the points, except for, maybe, to a slight degree, say that it is possible that the moderns who champion the "continuations" of earlier cultures could take some pride in their "ancestor" culture. But even I think that's probably a small point. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much any of what we've said really is very helpful to defining what the stated scope of this article, and possibly related articles, should be. Personally, I rather favor maybe a series of articles relating to color/race, with one central article about the "colors" and modern scientific views of them, and some individual articles on things like Ainu/Japanese relations, adding that the Ainu are now seen as being more direct descendants of the Japanese ancestors, much to the dismay of the Japanese, the Aryan race theory and its numerous flaws, Tamil/Hindu relations, and so on. Just one opinion, of course. John Carter 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to outline the sort of changes this article needs to make to become neutral. The article makes it seem like Afro-centrists were just crazy and came up with these ideas out of the blue for no good reason. But, you need to understand that that at the time there was a hypothesis, called "Hamitic hypothesis" that said that in sub-Saharan Africa the evidence found for ancient civilizations was due to "people from the north" not from the black African people who live there! And this idea was taken seriously because white scholars just couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that Africans could have a civilization. It's only because of the work of Afro-centric scholars that it is gone. When you live in a racist society and discover one instance of flat-out lies designed to degrade your person-hood-- there is no reason to trust ANY of the other existing scholarship. That was the Afro centric perspective. And even if they took it too far at times we all owe them a great debt for uncovering the truth in some areas.

So, I'd rather not see their work treated as if it was "just some crack pot fringe theory" --They had valid reasons for reaching those conclusions. Just as Galileo had good reasons to think that a hanging chain made a parabolic arc rather than a cycloid. futurebird 18:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I note that the Hamitic article could use some work. Having said that, this article could certainly link to it to establish the "prehistory" of the existing debate. So that would be one way to "start" the article. I'm afraid I still don't personally feel sure as to what the content of the article should be though, or how to relate it to other subjects in the same general field, if at all. John Carter 18:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Who's "fringe"?

I may have missed this in the extensive discussions in the archives, but I'm still not clear on who's considered a fringe source for this topic. For the benefit of me, and anyone else who was drawn in by the posts on the fringe theory noticeboard, could someone concisely say which sections of the article cover the "fringy" material, and which sources the fringe theories come from? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Afrocentric parts arguing that ancient Egyptians were "black". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is not a fringe view, it is a socio-political one. We're not pushing a racial agenda here in that one particular subjective view on race is to be shunned over another. "black" is a relative and subjective social term, completely separate from science, it is not a theory. A fringe theory is more along the lines of diffusionist ideas or far-fetched migration hypotheses..

Thanks, but I'm looking for something more specific: are you talking about the entire "controversies" section, or what? Is Cheikh Anta Diop a fringe source? --Akhilleus (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Essentially all of the arguments about the Sphinx, Everything in the controversies section as well as everything in the "other views" section would be considered fringe. The sphinx arguments are presented as being mostly historic though. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to clarify specifically what is and how according to wikipedia? I see a few historical observations and one opinion from an Ortofondist in the Sphinx section, but what is this "fringe" you're referring to?Taharqa 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

the entire topic is presented along the lines of fringe "controversies". The truth of the matter is that there is no "controversy" at all, not outside Afrocentrism (and Afrocentrism works on a priori knowledge). The topic is valid. It should be presented along the lines of genetic and anthropological studies, without resorting to "black" and "African" at every other turn. The only people for whom the question of "Black Egypt" is even meaningful are the Afrocentrist ideologists. Afrocentrism is notable in itself, and has it's own article. This is perfectly simple. Rewrite the article factoring out the continual afrocentrist begging the question, and move Diop and friends to Afrocentrist Egyptology where they belong. People keep arguing about this for pages on end just on grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Apart from that powerful impediment to encyclopedicity, there is really nothing here that would require further debate. dab (𒁳) 15:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well let's start with the name of the article and get a consensus on that, then we can move onto the actual topic of the article and then determine what content should go where. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann does not know the history of Egyptology! Egyptology began by negating the Black race as being the race of the Egyptians. Maurizio Damiano-Appia is an Italian Egyptologist. He is the one who denounced racism in Egyptology. Just read Egitto e Nubia, Milano, 1995, p. 8: "...è data per scontata l'idea di un popolo di razza bianca, che creò una cultura meditarranea che poco aveva a che fare con l'Africa se non una quasi casuale collocazione geographica...con mentalità razzista, la civiltà doveva essere bianca per definizione". Is this man Afrocentrist? Where are you going to put this? In Afrocentric Egyptology? Actually, I am not happy with the title of the sub-section Cheilh Anta Diop. There is more than Diop there. Even Diop. This man presented the results of the melanin test on mummies at the Cairo Egyptological Conference in 1974. Then, Nobody contradicted him. Dbachmann, you need to learn more and stop insulting African Americans. Jean-François Champollion, the father of Egyptology has to put things in order about the origin and race of the ancient Egyptians. It is a controversy in Egyptology from the beginning of this field. It was in 1828 that Champollion wrote in Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens, p. 455: "Mais ce n'est point à l'histoire seule de l'Egypte proprement dite que les études hiéroglyphiques peuvent fournir de précieuses lumières; elles nous montrent déjà la Nubie comme ayant, aux époques les plus reculées, participé à tous les avantages de la civilisation égyptienne. L'importance, le nombre et surtout l'antiquité des monuments qu'on y admire, édifices contemporains de tout ce que la plaine de Thèbes offre de plus ancien, sont déjà, pour l'historien, des faits capitaux qui l'arrêtent en ébralant les bases du système adopté jusqu'ici sur l'origine du peuple égyptien". For Champollion, p. 456: "les Egyptiens seraient une race propre à l'Afrique". Don't you see here a controversy about the origin and the race of the ancient Egyptians? Is Champollion Afrocentrist? In many Dictionaries, ancient Egyptians are said to be Caucasians or Whites. Dbachmann, how do you call this? Stop amusing people with your rethoric. We are many here to study the history of Egyptology. I can give you more facts without quoting any African or African American. The issue is not about Afrocentrism, but about the race of ancient Egyptians.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"In many Dictionaries, ancient Egyptians are said to be Caucasians or Whites." I have heard this too. I think we should add some sources to the article that show this. Can you suggest any? futurebird 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Hamitic Hypothesis" was widespread in the 19th century and early decads of the 20th. Light-skinned people (perhaps even Aryans) were supposed to have created Egyptian civilization and supposedly had spread oveer Africa where they were a small ruling class. A major proponent was Grafton Elliot Smith , who was also a hyperdiffusionist and claimed that the Egyptians had influenced all the other civilizations. Afrocentric diffusionists make the same claims and cite Grafton Smith, except that now, the Egyptians are black. Itzcoatl 22:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The folks who reconstructed King Tut's face described his features as "Caucasian". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The difficulties in forensic reconstruction addresses this problematic issue and also that is false.. The American team, or namely the leader, Dr. Susan C Anton, based on Alveolar prognathism, crania, among other things lead her to conclude that he was African as she notes that these traits aren't consistent with Europeans. She also states in a letter that she guessed North Africa based on the peculiarity of the nose, with north Africa simply meaning "above the equator" and not necessarily Morocco, etc. and that the nose alone in no way suggests that he'd had any non-African ancestry (paraphrasing).. We've went over this a while ago -

"In the words of Susan Antón, a member of the American team, "Our group did not, in fact, find Tut to be a 'Caucasoid North African.' We classified him as African based on many of the [skull's facio-cranial] features...."

With regard to any finding of European origins, Antón further commented that she "determined the statistical association was very low and, therefore, based on the nonmetric characters, was not likely to be accurate."

The team refused, however, to assign a specific racial designation to the specimen, citing inherent problems with the concept of race.

Further, the Americans did not assign skin or eye color. Referring to the skull's pronounced dolichocephalism, alveolar prognathism, "large teeth," receding chin and sloping cranium, Antón stated she was "in general agreement that, based on the cranial skeleton, an estimate of African is appropriate." - [1]

Also, what does this matter? Scientists also have studied the Sphinx' supposed "negro" countenance, along with one of Tut's ancestors, Tao the brave, among other 18th Dynasty royalty in Harris and Week's "X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies" (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980). These labels are subjective which is why they're restricted to media reports and not peer reviewed studies and which is why Saleh and now even Hawass can easily disagree with the results, including the American team. Btw, Anton was the leader of the American team who were the only ones to do a blind study. I don't want to link to any forums, but she also has an open letter addressing this that is widely available on the net.

Also please see the [http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"] since even IF it were applicable, "Caucasians" don't exist, and neither do "Negroes". I just don't see what point you were trying to make with this response.Taharqa 06:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikidudeman was just trying to give an example of what I asked for above... that is "In many Dictionaries, ancient Egyptians are said to be Caucasians or Whites." as an example of Eurocentrism. (???) Now I'm confused. futurebird 07:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

^I'm actually confused also now so I may have wrote that for nothing and only confused you.... or not. We'll see I guess. It's inane..Taharqa 08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird, for now I can give texts in Italian. I will have to find also something written in English in some old dictionaries. Encyclopedia Universale 3, Milano, 1984, p. 465: "Per l'evoluzione della civiltà egizia si rivelano quindi di fondamentale importanza, in correspondenza con il naqadiano secondo, l'arrivo di un popolo straniero culturalmente più avanzato, verosimilmente di stirpe semitica e proveniente dall'Asia anteriore attraverso il Golfo Persico e il Mar Rosso, e la sua fusione con la preesistente popolazione camitica. I nuovi venuti esercitarono un profondo unflusso su tutti gli aspetti della vita nella valle del Nilo, elevandone notevolmente il livello". Dizionario encyclopedico italiano, Roma, 1956, p. 284: "E. Smith ha descritto come prevalente un tipo da lui detto Proto-egiziano, piccolo di statua (...), a cranio allungato, stretto e piuttosto alto; i capelli erano lisci o ondulati, di color bruno scuro come gli occhi, la pelosità poco svulappata, la pelle brunastra, la facia ovale, con grandi occhi e naso a dorso rilevato e pinne un po' larghe. Questo tipo, che rappresenta evidentemente una delle razze medi. degli Europeidi, continua nelle età successive a formare il nucleo essenziale della popolazione dell'Eg.". Hotep!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 09:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"In many Dictionaries, ancient Egyptians are said to be Caucasians or Whites." I have heard this too. I think we should add some sources to the article that show this.: futurebird, I trust you have "heard" this. I have heard it dozens of times, on this talkpage, and in afrocentric rants all over the internet. That doesn't make it encyclopedic. Early Egyptologists were no morons. There may have been the occasional Nordicist in the 19th century, but these people were lunatic fringe even back then. It will not do to contort Egyptological mainstream, even early Egyptological mainstream, to serve some sort of afrocentric "we were wronged, so now we're wronging you back" ideology. The "Hamitic Hypothesis" doesn't equal "Caucasoid" or "Nordic" Egyptians, and in any case, by the New Kingdom, Egyptians certainly were just as "Hamitic" as Egyptians are today. Your famous "African crania" concern the pre-dynastic period back in the 4th millennium, fully 2,000 years before Ramesses or Tutankhamun. Afrocentrist Egyptology, briefly, goes like this: "hey, we found an 'African cranium' dating to 4000 BC. Hence Egypt was Black, qed." This is not serious, and it is beyond me why we are still debating this. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Name of article

I've archived a lot of the older discussions including some newer ones that seemed to have been repeating themselves over and over. I think that after I rewrote the article last week it was a lot easier to determine the direction of it and I think that we need to do that again right now. I previously asked this question but now I want to start a straw poll for the name of the article. Everyone who agrees to a specific name please just sign your name under it as I will demonstrate. You can sign under more than one if you are ok with either name. Also feel free to introduce a new name for the straw poll. Some of the names are previous names of the article and have bad grammar and phrasing, but I'm introducing them anyway. Do not add comments. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the initiative to contact some of the projects which might be interested in this article, including Discrimination and Anthropology. I hope that we hear from some of them as well. And I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have worked on this article. I am aware that it can be a very controversial subject, and that the work to improve it is almost always going to be controversial. The work to improve the article, controversial or not, deserves our recognition and thanks in any event. John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you John!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the "no comments" rule for now to point out that this article seems to forma continuity with Category:Origin hypotheses of ethnic groups. Perhaps we could go with a name along the those lines of those article titles.--Pharos 20:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe like "Origins of the Ancient Egyptians"? John Carter 20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is clear scientific facts concerning the "origin" of the ancient Egyptians. The real controversy seems to be over their skin color or tone and physical characteristics along the lines of race. Also, When I said "do not add comments" I meant not in the area where you signed your name under the article title, just so it doesn't get muddied up with debate. Commenting here is fine. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for all the additional work here, dude. Knowing that this is probably idle speculation, is there any evidence of the characteristics of the pre-dynastic upper and lower kingdoms? It might just be a guess, but I get the impression that they may have themselves possessed differing "racial" characteristics. John Carter 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely "origin" includes "racial origin". It's basically the same issue as in all the Category:Origin hypotheses of ethnic groups articles. I'm going to add this as an option.--Pharos 08:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they were essentially the same as indigenous Egyptians from other periods, though the populations then had more homogeneity. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true only in that the populations of Upper and Lower Egypt were somewhat isolated prior to the unification and the onset of dynastic Egypt, so *each* was independently more homogeneous up to that point. The distinction is not as clear afterwards and the entire population essentially becomes more like each other, and eventually more homogenous as a whole. BTW, the article is looking good, but it is still structured in the manner of the controversy about the topic, which perhaps seems inevitable. I made my choices for the title based on that. — Zerida 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also time for Dbachmann to make his choice for the title. He is making too much noise elsewhere in the talk page. He has not to come later and say I don't like the title. It will mean to go angainst the concensus. Dbachmann, wake up! (just laugh!).--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 10:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't usually feed trolls, but how about you make clear what the article is supposed to discuss before we decide on a fitting title? dab (𒁳) 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That is generally the best way to go. Otherwise one potentially faces the problem of deciding on a title, finding that it doesn't match the later agreed upon content of the final article, and then having to decide on a different title later. John Carter 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann and John, is the introduction of the article not clear enough?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 21:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It has already been said that the content of the article, potentially including that of the introduction, will be determined after the title is arrived at. On that basis, yeah, it could happen that the content of the article ultimately be determined to be different than it now is, which would possibly necessitate changing the title again. That's I think the reason both dab and I think we might be putting the cart before the horse a little here in trying to determine the title first. John Carter 21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I also find it a bit puzzling that the desired scope of the article is not being discussed prior to deciding upon a name. By picking a title at this stage of what is to become a major edit, we are only inviting unecessary disagreements later on... Varoon Arya 23:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Race of ancient Egyptians (current name)

• Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• futurebird 17:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Muntuwandi 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Captmondo 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• --Ramdrake 21:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Yahel Guhan 23:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• SenseOnes 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Taharqa 06:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Varoon Arya 23:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity of ancient Egyptians

• Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Appearance of ancient Egyptians

• Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Race of Ancient Egyptians controversy

• John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Itzcoatl 20:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• — Zerida 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians

• John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 14:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Captmondo 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Itzcoatl 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Ramdrake 21:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• — Zerida 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Egyegy 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians

• John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Itzcoatl 20:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• — Zerida 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over appearance of Ancient Egyptians

• Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• John Carter 14:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• — Zerida 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt and race

• — Zerida 01:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the ancient Egyptians

• Pharos 08:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Racial affinities of ancient Egyptians

• I suggested this shortly before the poll but someone deleted the comment. 70.15.116.59 15:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

all of these titles will invite the discussion of afrocentric material. I don't care which title we choose, just as long as it is either about afrocentrism, or free of afrocentrism, but doesn't indulge in WP:SYN. Can I take it for granted that all people voting here are agreed to chuck the "Afrocentrism" material completely, then? dab (𒁳) 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No synthesis of a position C is being made just because sources A and B are added together. A synthesis is constructing a new position based on the various sources. No such thing occurs just by mentioning both the Afrocentric views and the mainstream views in the same article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't a separation of viewpoints called a "POV fork", a Wikipedia no-no? Besides, there's obviously going to be some amount of migration both by land and by sea, so the truth has to lie between the hypothetical extreme viewpoints. 70.15.116.59 02:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bosch and Newman

The population characteristics state.

In summary, ancient Egypt is thought by many scholars to have been a melting pot of various Nile Valley, North African, Saharan and Levantine peoples since earliest times.[9][20] Some theories have postulated that the ancient Egyptians received significant demographic influence from the Near East, and with minor demographic effects from regions further south.

File:E3b1.jpg

The distribution of haplogroup E3b1 according to Semino et al. 2004, represents the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages

This statement is allegedly sourced from this article Population history of North Africa: Evidence from classical genetic markers. Firstly this article refers to North Africans in general and not to the ancient egyptians. So the discussion is also about Tunisians, Libyans,Morrocans and Algerians. There are several problems with the article. It claims that Proto-Afro-Asiatic originated in the levant, when the weight of evidence has currently shifted to an African origin. The second quote is insufficient, it just states Newman, 1995. there is no way to verify the information. The general consensus among scholars is that the Ancient Egyptians were an indigenous african population. Whether they were black or white is controversial, but they were very much an African people. Muntuwandi 03:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While the race of the Ancient Egyptians has no interest to me (and per definition this article), my curiosity has been arisen over the constant battle going on here. It is quite interesting to watch.

In summary, ancient Egypt is thought by many scholars to have been a melting pot of various Nile Valley, North African, Saharan and Levantine peoples since earliest times. Some theories have postulated that the ancient Egyptians received significant demographic influence from the Near East, and with minor demographic effects from regions further south, while others postulate that the ancient Egyptians belonged to a primarily African descent group, with relatively little significant outside influences from the Near East. Recent demographic analysis done by some anthropologists has led to the conclusion that there was an overall population continuity stretching from the Neolithic into dynastic times, with small amounts of foreign admixture.

In summary, ancient Egypt is thought by many scholars to have been a melting pot of various Nile Valley, North African, Saharan and Levantine peoples. Scholars generally believe that the Ancient Egyptians were an indigenous African population and would only receive significant influence from the near east after the establishment of the Egyptian civilization. Jared Diamond states: "local hunter-gatherers simply added Southwest Asian domesticates and farming and herding techniques to their own diet of wild plants and animals, then gradually phased out the wild foods. That is, what arrived to launch food production in Egypt was foreign crops and animals, not foreign peoples" Recent demographic analysis done by some anthropologists has led to the conclusion that there was an overall population continuity stretching from the Neolithic into dynastic times, with small amounts of foreign admixture.

In just a few hours a paragraph received a completely different meaning. This is just an example, and by no means the only one, in fact it goes on all this time, with no side being better than the other. Here presumably the editor did not like the wording of the original paragraph nor the sources for it – which by the way is locatable in a matter of minutes (Newman is used multiply times on wiki). A nice example of the hopelessness of this article, and yet the fun to watch the talk page. The latter version is in my opinion the more POV one. Twthmoses 05:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• James L. Newman, The Peopling of Africa: A Geographic Interpretation, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1995.

I don't think the meanings of paragraphs are supposed to remain the same. They should be changed if the information is not an accurate reflection of the source. Muntuwandi 05:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And how would you know that, that this is not an accurate reflection of the source? You apparently have not read Newman! Yet another excellent example of the fun of this article. Twthmoses 05:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• One problem with inadequate footnotes is that one cannot be sure exactly what is being referenced. In any case, here is a quote from Newman "Agriculture seems to have reached Egypt through contact diffusion rather than through immigrants or invaders. The material cultural continuity from preceding times is considerable, and cemeteries have yielded comparable skeletal remains . Consequently , a fairly safe conclusion is that the language spoken was the immediate ancestor of the Egyptian branch of Afroasiatic represented in the hieroglyphics. it evolved into the demotic script, which in turn became Coptic." Itzcoatl 17:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Any sources that are not about ancient Egypt need to go. It's off topic and original research to keep them in. Based on what you have said we need to remove this. futurebird 03:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Valid opinion. A lot of stuff in the article needs to go I believe, if that was to be carried out. Some of the sources in the article, are they even about ancient Egypt? I saw you mentioned the Hamitic hypothesis above on this talk page, which is connected to ancient Egypt in what way? Twthmoses 05:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Twtmoses, you keep saying that you have no interest in the article, but you keep making contributions to the talk page. Isn't that a contradiction. Muntuwandi 05:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No not at all, I kind of like the fast moving of this talk page (finger pointing upon finger pointing) – and I also am interested in the Sphinx, which got me here in the first place (and the section is totally crappy) Twthmoses 05:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Twthmoses, please don't take this the wrong way by I find your tone condescending and some of your comments on the talk page are unhelpful.futurebird 05:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What way should I take it? You seem more interesting in my person, rather than the context of the discussion (btw this is general theme across all talk pages for this article, not specified you). You made a comment, I address it – what is the problem? Twthmoses 06:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course if the sources don't reflect what is being said then it has no business being there. Seems pretty clear cut..Taharqa 06:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently I’m a little slow today, so I’m just going to ask instead. Who has read Newman? Muntuwandi?, futurebird?, Taharqa? Now if nobody has, and that is only if nobody has – how is it possible to make a statement that the information is not an accurate reflection of the source? How is this article going anywhere if sources are disregarded, based on nothing –well, other then you don’t like them? Come on!! No wonder there is a neutrality and factual accuracy tag on this article. And note, for reference, I did not say Newman was relevant, I asked how do you know he is not? (the editor that removed him, did not even know what book it was). Twthmoses 06:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• I just posted a direct quote from Newman above. I have the book and if there is another specific dubt about what it says ask.Itzcoatl 19:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• It'd help if you indicated exactly where above. This page is getting complicated enough to confuse anybody, and I don't think it would be a good idea for anything to be overlooked simply because it can't be easily found. John Carter 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If the quote is the one that says, "Agriculture reached Egypt...", I note that it seems to make reference only to "Cultural continuity", which isn't necessarily the same as genetic continuity. Acknowledging my own lack of real expertise in this field, I have to say that that doesn't look to me like it's saying anything about the racial/genetic patterns of ancient Egypt. If there is a statement which does indicate that "Cultural continuity" does refer to genetic continuity in that book, I would welcome seeing it. Otherwise, it seems to be referring to strictly cultural, not racial/genetic matters, and I'm not sure how much that relates to the genetic/racial/color makeup of old Egyptians. John Carter 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me copy the paragraph I referred to that I posted "above"-- I don't know how to make it more specific given the nature of these talk pages.

• James L. Newman, The Peopling of Africa: A Geographic Interpretation, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1995.

I don't think the meanings of paragraphs are supposed to remain the same. They should be changed if the information is not an accurate reflection of the source. Muntuwandi 05:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And how would you know that, that this is not an accurate reflection of the source? You apparently have not read Newman! Yet another excellent example of the fun of this article. Twthmoses 05:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• One problem with inadequate footnotes is that one cannot be sure exactly what is being referenced. In any case, here is a quote from Newman "Agriculture seems to have reached Egypt through contact diffusion rather than through immigrants or invaders. The material cultural continuity from preceding times is considerable, and cemeteries have yielded comparable skeletal remains . Consequently , a fairly safe conclusion is that the language spoken was the immediate ancestor of the Egyptian branch of Afroasiatic represented in the hieroglyphics. it evolved into the demotic script, which in turn became Coptic." Itzcoatl 17:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

First-- The complaint that "some" Newman might have published in 1995 is invalid. Mutuwandi clearly stated the book to be "The Peopling of Africa A Geographic Interpretation." My objection is that no pages were cited.

Second-- The import of the paragraph by Newman is that claims have been made that people from the Near East brought agriculture to Egypt. Thus, Newman's "cultural continuity" has the genetic connotation that the genetic composition of Egypt (what ever that may be) was not altered by Near Easteners bringing agriculture.

Third- These are Newman's words and he cites no one else for this. Itzcoatl 01:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this seems rather hopeless. Itzcoatl do you even know what we are discussing here, and maybe more important why we do it? A good idea was actually to read the initial posts. Muntuwandi removed some text, replacing it with something else that gives an entirely different meaning. I found that rather funny, since both sources was hands down dismissed by Muntuwand, one of them (Newman) on the account that it was “impossible” to find. All that is in the initial post of this section. It was me who located the book, in a couple of minutes. Then Muntuwand states that the information was not an accurate reflection of the source, as a reason for the removal (instant supported by Taharqa), which I found even more funny, since apparently none of them had even read Newman. This has nothing to do with agriculture – the essential is “’’Some theories have postulated that the ancient Egyptians received significant demographic influence from the Near East, and with minor demographic effects from regions further south’’”, which Newman is listed as source for. Is this an accurate reflection of the source? Either way, Newman correct or not, the whole point of the discussion is to highlight the absurdity (POV) that Muntuwand just removed something he did not like, clearly without knowing the correctness of it, but solve for the fact that he did not like the meaning. This goes on all the time in this article, just happened to notice Muntuwand this time. This is why this article is hopeless. Twthmoses 01:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. The onus on verifiability lies with the person who adds a source. I have no problem with using Newman as a source as long as it is correctly cited. Maybe you are fortunate enough to know which article newman referred to, but I did not. A name and a number with no other context is not sufficient, especially for controversial articles. WP:PROVEIT states:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.

WP:CITE states

All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used.

I was able to find Bosch because the full article was hidden in the references but not Newman. These are the basics of editing on wikipedia. Muntuwandi 01:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a valid question which arises from the above. What specific definition of "ancient Egyptians" do we use? "Ancient Egypt" according to our article covers a period of 3500 years. The ethnic characteristics of the population at the beginning of that period were almost certainly changed by the end of that period, and it probably contributes to the questions raised by the article to not at least try to draw distinctions between at least the beginning and end of that era. John Carter 14:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm yes!! You know, the reason why we are having this discussion in the first place! "Some theories have postulated that the ancient Egyptians received significant demographic influence from the Near East, and with minor demographic effects from regions further south [Bosch et. al, 1997] and [Newman 1995]" – removed (rather rewritten with lovely weasel wording “Scholars generally believe”) by Muntuwandi on account that Bosch et. al, 1997 apparently is not a valid source and Newman was “impossible” to find. Is Newman a source for this statement, or rather is this an accurate reflection of the source? Twthmoses 21:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In controversial articles, just saying "Newman 1995" is insufficient for verification. There could several Newmans who published works in 1995. Citations should be unambiguous and easy to verify.Muntuwandi 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

this is the main problem in the part of the article that actually discusses scholarship:

"would only receive significant influence from the near east after the establishment of the Egyptian civilization." (emphasis mine)

this is the "Pan-Africanist" spin given to the findings, betraying that to Pan-Africanists, "Ancient Egypt" is really pre-Dynastic Egypt. The exact same fact expressed in opposite spin:

"while pre-dynastic period was still characterized by primarily African descent groups, Egypt from the Old Kingdom saw significant influence from the Near East". (note the omitted "only" which was used to dismiss Bronze Age Egypt as merely an uninteresting sequel of late Neolithic Egypt)

go figure. It is sound to discuss 4th millennium population history, but this is not generally what we usually mean by "Ancient Egypt". Ancient Egypt generally refers to the 3rd to 2nd millennia (you know, the pyramids, the sphinx, Tutankhamun, Ramesses, things like that). If you want to find a "Black African" Ancient Egypt, you have to go back to the 5th and 4th millennia (and then to the southern fringe). This will be easy to straighten out, in intruducing an article structure that is actually historical, with separate "pre-dynastic", "Old Kingdom", "Middle Kingdom" and "New Kingdom" sections. People will then be able to look up the period they are interested in. Discussion of pre-dynastic populations is perfectly on-topic, and should remain in the article, but it needs to be isolated from discussions of [Classical, Bronze Age] "Ancient Egypt" proper. dab (𒁳) 14:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Dab, this goes to show that you're truly pov-pushuing your nonsense and imposing your own original research. You say that "black Egypt" goes back to the 5th millennium B.C., yet why would they change from black to non-black in a matter of of a couple of thousand years given no notable displacement of the population? Continuity is noted by various anthropologists so if you were to impose this label on early Egyptians, the same would apply for later material, of course also with a slow process of amalgamation. Your views are obviously fringe, socio-political, diffusionist nonsense.

The introduction of new individuals, with the attendant changes in genetic material, is, so far as I remember anthropology and genetics, standard in basically every population, and actually the idea has never been challenged that I can remember. This would be particularly true in a case when we're talking about 100 or more generations, which is the case here. John Carter 20:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or \Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material, (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972) - Zakrzewski (2007) (cited already)..

Also please see the consensus view on the now discredited dynastic race near east invasion theory..

Though invasion theories would persist among a few Egyptologists for some time, and even see a resurrection in popular works as late as the 1990s, most scholars abandoned their search for the foreign origins of Egyptian civilization. Today, we look instead for indigenous development and the roots of dynastic Egyptian culture within the Nile Valley itself and the immediate territory surrounding this cradle of civilization. - The Origin of Egyptian Civilization

The fact that you attribute this to "pan-Africanism" exposes your own agenda and not anyone else's. Hopefully you can look more introspectifively instead of making these baseless, far flung accusations towards others.Taharqa 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that "abandoned" and "we look instead" to not necessarily mean that the ideas were false, however, but simply that attention has shifted. John Carter 20:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

progress

in spite of the surreal ado on talk, the article has made slow progress. the present version mostly isolates the fringe material in a "Controversies" section, where it can remain for the time being. The actual topic is addressed under "Population characteristics". Further development should focus on giving a clearer diachronic structure to this "Population characteristics" section. The "Controversies", ceterum censeo, are WP:UNDUE and belong merged elsewhere. dab (𒁳) 17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Fine.. But in the meantime do not drastically alter or rearrange content without gaining consensus.. We've already reached this agreement on the talk page.. Your point of view is not priority, which is why we discuss things on the talk page and go through a consensus process.Taharqa 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh to be a part of history.

You people must have heard of that game telephone. You tell one person a phrase and by the time it reaches the last person in line the phrase has changed. Wikipedia will no doubt be referenced some day, some how, so through very carefull manipulation you all may very well be an important link on the chain of turning paraphased references and POV summeries into the complete opposite of what the original research claims. There-by allowing POV's validitiy in the eyes of readers of newly published material's. Twthmoses's observations seem to be leaning toward this point but not fully addressing the magnitude of what is being undertaken on this page.--207.14.131.239 20:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Pan-Afican really appropriate?

I just went to the Pan-African page. Just as the African Deaspora page the page deals only with "black" Africans. A racist page to say the least no mention of any of the other native ethnicities. The placement of the article withing such a catigory seems only a thinly vieled attempt to continue the article within the African Deaspora section for later validation without merit. Much like a squatter within the modern american escrow laws.--207.14.131.239 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume the page you refer to is Pan-Africanism. "Racist" might be a bit strong, but it would seem to violate NPOV, but it describes a sociopolitical view which is itself at least somewhat inherently POV, so that's not completely inappropriate. John Carter 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The continuation of such practices proliferates certain editors in their beliefs that they are flying under the radar. In essince replacing a scientific term of African, which includes more that just "black" africans, subersivelly and not to covertly with "black" which is not always the intended definition of african when utillized by scienetis and egyptologists. I my opinion the placement within such a section creates the racist problem which I have just attempted to describe. --207.14.131.239 21:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your grammar is somewhat hard to follow at times. I believe you're saying his matter. Also, there are some rules regarding how pages should be titled, and the most common usage of a given word, even if not necessarily the most correct one, is generally considered in determining article's titles. I acknowledge that that article would benefit a lot from having general definitions of "White", "Red", "Black," "Yellow" in terms of race included, however. It would also help if the book The Seven Daughters of Eve were referenced even once in the article on race in humans, although it isn't yet. If you can produce good evidence of Pan-Africanism or equivalents being used in scientific jargon, however, I would welcome seeing it. I'm not sure this is necessarily the best place to make such comments however. John Carter 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tripoli is a city in Africa, Johanasberg is a City in Africa, Africa is a geographical scientific term. My arguement is not in favor of such descriptive terms as "Black" and "White" but the recognition of such terms being used inappropriatelly even when presented in a context where-by a footnote is required for identification, even if, as-per my prior staement, used incorrectlly or inconsistently with the desired definition of references authers. Unfortunatelly mitochondrian dna has created more opportunity for con people and opportuntist to cause,or hope to cause even without tests backing their claims, striff and scam for the world. Unfortunatelly far short of any true philladelphian (brotherlly) hope to the world, As per you reference to the seven daughters of eve.--207.14.131.239 21:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the "color" terms are extremely difficult to define, and that they should probably be used as infrequently as possible for that reason, and defined at least once in wikipedia so that it can be made clear exactly how the terms are used here. And manipulation of any scientific data to benefit "the cause" is something I too think is to prevalent in the world, although I can't think of a time when it wasn't common. Unfortunately, several "theories" of race, like Aryan race, are notable enough that we are more or less forced by circumstances to have at least something on them. This article falls in the same group. These "ideas" ("theories" is the wrong word), strange as some are, are independently notable. Also, unfortunately, this theory seems to be a rebuttal of the earlier Hamitic theory, which wasn't any better. I agree that the article might be better structured as one of a series of articles dealing with these related ideas and facts, but the older editors of the page consider the name of the page of primary importance, and that's what's being decided now. John Carter 21:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

People name their countries after their people and tribes. German is phonetically similair to Aryan, China to Chin. Color is hard to define, yes especially in a world where more than "white" people can get tans. HOWEVER, Africa IS a geographical scientific term, As such the term does not refer to only "black" africans. To protected the page as it is from subversive and innappropreate inuendo, or as you put it "ideas", the unttilization of the Pan-Afr*ican catagory should be removed, the placement within the catagory is subversive to referenced materials and the intended definitions of researchers, the placement is a footnote that does not allow the quotation to speak for themselves. Unless of course the Pan-African page recieves a MAJOR overhaul. As per you belief about replacing the present page with , as you put it, ""idea"s" in a series. I belive that would be innappropreate. That would further POV referencing from wikipedia itself in an inappropreate maner. Did you even read the section " Ahh to be a part of history"? --207.14.131.239 22:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did, and think that your assessment of this article there is probably dramatically overrated. Right now, the idea of the ancient Egyptians being black seems to me to already be a complementary idea to the Hamitic article, and I believe it could be presented as a separate article, as that Hamitic theory is. This is in perfect accord with wikipedia policy, as long as the article referenced makes it clear that it is discussing one viewpoint on an issue, and adequately discusses the opposition as well. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming already does that and is considered to be an NPOV article. There is no real inhibition to having such content, as long as the article states it is presenting only one viewpoint, even a minority viewpoint, on an issue, and links to the other content. Creating a navigation box between this article and other related articles would make it clear that they were all directly related, and the average reader would realize, depending on the phrasing of the introduction, that a separate article on the modern theory, linked with an article on the consensus scientific theory on Egyptians and other related articles, is perfectly in accord with wikipedia guidelines and policy. John Carter 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why, mind you, John Carter (is that your real name or a refernece to Buckaroo Banzie?) did you through the course of this discusion prove the very point of "ahh to be a part of history". Your referencing my part of the discusion, as per serial articles, concern with identification of color, as opposed to my concern with inderectly identifiey color through subversive means, when I made NO such statments or claims validate the very argument I am discusing in that section. As a "junior"? editor (which you are arn't you?) your approach to the discusion has been, in my opinion, closed minded and uninterested in hearing, even at least, a valid point. That point is not everyone that was/is in africa is "black" African/n is a geographical scientific term, and to inappropriatelly reference the term Africa/n to "black" is detrimental to the success of this article and inderectlly detrimentally to the wikipedia project.--207.14.131.239 23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am a junior editor, who actually bothers to let people know how much experience he has. Do you? Also, as repeatedly noted by me, how is your discussion here relevant to an article about Egyptians? I would love to hear an answer to that question, which I frankly have yet to see. And please do not vandalize articles by moving sections of content, as you have just done. Thank you. Regarding your point, yes, it might be relevant to the article in question. Why are you making those comments here? How are they even remotely relevant to this article? And the name was Buckaroo Banzai and my user page makes it clear what the source was in fact John Carter (character). Do you even have a username, by the way? And you're commenting about others, who have at least created an account to make it clear their statements are all from the same person? John Carter 23:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes Mars needs women. That egyptian were black is not a concensus. Your "blind" uttilization of the word/s Africa/n to mean black is the very thing that is subversive to the authors being referenced's deffinitions of the scientific use of the word Africa/n. And as such on a page such as this that is an issue that needs to be addressed.--207.14.131.239 23:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I will refrain from guessing whatever planet you came from. You have made your comments. And, if you read my own comments here, you would note that I came to this page to make the same point you made above. Your points have been noted, and several of us will work to change the article so that those changes are noted. For a person whose first edit was yesterday, you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself. That is, if that was your first edit. Otherwise, repetition of such comments as you have made violates several extant wikipedia guidelines and policies, and can be cause for action of one sort or another. As your points have clearly been noted, there is no real need for you to repeat them, particularly as several editors, including myself, came to this page to ensure that the very points you raised are observed on this page. Thank you. John Carter 23:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You said any evidence of subversive jargonism would be welcome. I appreciate that my concerns have been noted I mearlly attempted to bring the conversation back to the point at hand I had no intention of repeating myself. I mean "seven daughters of eve" where did that come from. If I now seem mean or vindictive it is only because of possible action being taken against this address. Well I was tested as a genious more than once I try not to come accross to oddly If I did I did not intend for that. Pardon my spelling never had a passion for that mind you.--207.14.131.239 00:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. As noted before, your interests are being addressed. There is now a section below which I think is very relevant to the current discussion, and I think we would welcome the input of all interested parties in deciding that matter. We all have problems with spelling, I know I do, and I tested at a high level myself. I just hope that we can all focus on the content of this particular article, rather than bringing in outside matters which will probably only complicate issues. John Carter 00:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Racism in Egyptology

I changed the title of the sub-section Cheikh Anta Diop into Racism in Egyptology, because it deals with racism, and Cheikh Anta Diop is not the only scholar quoted in.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Scope

Please describe in as few words as possible your views regarding the scope of this article, i.e. what you consider as falling within the domain of the topic as it should be discussed in this article. (There is no need for direct confrontation with other contributing editors at this point. Simply state your case and wait until at least 4-5 individual editors have done the same before attempting to work with them towards a reasonable compromise.) Varoon Arya 00:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: The eventual goal here is to formulate a reasonable, 1-3 sentence 'thesis' of sorts which should serve as a kind of mandate for all future deliberations. Varoon Arya 00:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S.: I think it would be best if contributing editors actually took the time to formulate their own description of the scope in a few sentences before any kind of 'voting' is attempted. If you think otherwise, someone has prepared a few suggestions below for you to sign your name under or add to as you like. Varoon Arya 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the color of the ancient egyptians is too narrow and we should focus on race. Among black africans there is tremendous variability in skin color[2]. Therefore we should focus on race, which includes skin color, physical appearance and ethnic origins. Muntuwandi 01:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This article should present an organized documentation and intelligent differentiation of the methodology that has been applied to solving the primary question, i.e. the race of the ancient Egyptians, in qualified studies and the theories that have come about as a result, both past and present. In the absence of a more qualified article, it should also present those aspects of the non-academic controversy which have cropped up as a result of this research. Varoon Arya 02:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

A few suggestions below. Please feel free to add more.

1

• The proposed scope of the article is the current theories relating to the "color" of ancient Egyptians.

1. John Carter 00:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC) - Preferred choice for me, as it gives the greatest amount of space to include all relevant information, pro and con, regarding the theories currently being discussed in the article.

2

• The proposed scope of this article is the current theories, and extant historical evidence, relating to the "color" of ancient Egyptians.

1. John Carter 00:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC) - Acceptable, but less welcome, alternative, given that the extant Hamitic article would also probably deal with much of the same historical material as it is potentially improved, and we try to prevent duplication of content.

3

• The proposed scope of this article is the current and historical theories, without including extant historical evidence, of the "color" of ancient Egyptians.

4

• The proposed scope of this article is the current and historical theories, and extant historical evidence, related to the "color" of ancient Egyptians.

1. --Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 08:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Maybe you should just turn the page into a quote page with subdivisions, or without, of schools of thought. No original content not even an intro or summary, with an amazinginly large bibliogrophy section people can add to it and readers can find informational refereneces to the texts. As it is right now to many people are concerned with futhering their own POV via this page. And having originally come to this page as a lark I find that really odd.--207.14.131.239 03:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

I have noticed that when the article has consensus Muntuwandi quickly inserts controversial material or makes deletions without much discussion. He then disappears and edit wars follow. This is unhelpful in maintaining consensus. If you're going to make a lot of pov changes like that, you need to use the talk page. Muntuwandi didn't even work on the consensus draft. Egyegy 02:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the material on the orientation of Egypt as being controversial and I haven't disappeared. The draft was a good effort at restoring some neutrality, however a lot of information from the article is still missing. The problem is the article has been protected for so long, that the draft was essentially cleaning up an older version. As we stumble across relevant information, we will continue to add to the article, if it is reliably sourced. Yes I did not work on the draft, I was tied up in a dispute at Origin of religion. However if you recall it was my suggestion to use a draft in the first place to try to resolve this dispute[3]. I think the problem is that your editing style is sometimes too aggressive that it provokes other editors into edit wars. What happened was regrettable and unnecessary. Muntuwandi 06:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

To say the truth, it is Egyegy and Dab who are problematic here. They keep changing things without reason. Is the orientation of the Egyptians meaningless information? Dab put all that is written by Africans in a single section. This is racism. It cannot be said that African means Afrocentrism. Afrocentrism has nothing to do with color. It is an orientation. Jean-François Champollion studied Egypt in its African context. He is Afrocentrist even if he is q white man. When Diop studies the melanin composition of the skin of the mummies he is doing pure science, not philosophy. Dab stop this behavior of belittling Cheikh Anta Diop. Read the report about the 1974 Egyptological Cairo Conference to know who he was. Your racist behavior is becoming too obvious. You cannot chose a tittle. Worse, you cannot say the scope of the article. What do you want, Dab?--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 10:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian orientation

I believe this information is relevant to the identity of the ancient Egyptians. It is to give information on whether the Egyptians thought of themselves as being African or Near eastern. Of course currently North African countries are currently divided as to whether the are more oriented to the Middle east or to Sub-Saharan Africa. North African countries are members of both the Arab league and the African Union(sometimes reluctantly).However it seems that it was clear that the ancient Egyptians were oriented towards inner Africa. They viewed themselves as African. this does not say that they were black, but they viewed themselves more as African than Near eastern. All the scholars acknowledge this, so it is not inherently controversial. Of course I expect some resistance to this, In the eurocentric world we are so accustomed to focusing on the North that we find it difficult to comprehend that the Egyptians thought otherwise. Muntuwandi 06:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is clear to me that this information is important to the article. Many sources mention it: I quoted Cheikh Anta, Nations Nègres et Culture; Edouard Naville, "L'origine africaine de la civilisation égyptienne"; Muntuwandi is quoting David Silverman,Ancient Egypt, 42. ISBN 019521952X. “Oriented in their geopolitics towards the south and Africa, the Egyptians turned their backs on the north”. Who does not want this information has something to hide. But we are not here for that scope. This must be clear to Egyegy and Dab. I know that "facts are bitter", but they remain as they are: "facts". We have to rely on them.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka 11:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

population characteristics

The statement: In summary, ancient Egypt is thought by many scholars to have been a melting pot of various Nile Valley, North African, Saharan and Levantine peoples since earliest times. Is not supported by the sources as claimed[4][5]. Both sources both claim that the ancient egyptians were primarily an indigenous group from the earliest times. It is true that Ancient Egypt would later become a melting pot but not from the earliest times. Hence I will proceed to rephrase the information. Muntuwandi 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Some theories have postulated that the ancient Egyptians received significant demographic influence from the Near East. Donald B. Redford apparently is a controversial scholar. However this theory should be classified as fringe because the consensus among scholars is that ancient egypt was primarily indigenous. Muntuwandi 07:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)