Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Created new spin-off article

I have spun off the material in the Asiatic Race Theory section, to a new article called the Asiatic Race Theory. It was done to remove the WP:UNDUE resulting from the amount of material which had accumulated in that section. Please assist to tidy up the new article. Wdford (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yurco material

Tracing this back, it appears that it first appears in Afrocentrism last March[1] when it was added by EddieDrood (talk · contribs). I can't see, at least at a glance, any reason to think it wasn't added there in good faith, nor that it's move to other articles wasn't in good faith. It probably should have been checked first and any copy/paste needs attributing in the edit summary, but this sort of thing happens and it's no big deal normally. I can't verify it as I don't have the book. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "DNA studies have indicated that ancient Egyptians had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians, which would make the current population largely representative of the ancient inhabitants." This statement may well be accurate, I can't say, but it certainly does not appear in the Yurko article cited (Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review" in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, eds. Black Athena Revisited. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. p. 62-100). I have the book. I've just read over the article. He does indeed discuss race, but only through skeletal analysis, not DNA. In fact the word (or rather acronym) DNA never appears in the article. There is a discussion of DNA in the last article in the book by C. Loring Brace et al, but even that one emphasises that it is very difficult to make judgements about DNA with ancient skeletons (of course that was in 1996. Things may have improved since then). The clearest summaries of the relevant discussions are as follows:
Yurko: "The resulting Badarian people, who developed the earliest Predynastic Egyptian culture, already exhibited the mix of North African and Sub-Saharan physical traits that have typified Egyptians ever since ( Hassan 1985; Yurco 1989; Trigger 1978; Keita 1990; Brace et al., this volume). The drying climate also impelled other peoples into the Upper Nile Valley. ... The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East African Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions/" (p.66-67)
Loring Brace: Attempts to force the Egyptians into either a "black" or a "white" category have no biological justification. Our data show not only that Egypt, clearly had biological ties both to the north and to the south, but that it was intermediate between populations to the east and the west, and that Egypt was basically Egyptian from the Neolithic right on up to historic times. In this, our analysis simply reinforces the findings of other recent studies (p. 158)

Paul B (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I should have verified the citation before copy-pasting it, and I'm sorry for not doing so... since it apparently doesn't show up anywhere in those 39 pages as per Paul Barlow owning the book and checking (?), I think there's no reason to restore that phrase. --Yalens (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
What's the question mark after "checking" for? Paul B (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Nothing important- just that I didn't know whether you know the book thoroughly and didn't have to check or if you did check. It didn't mean that I doubted your testimony (now I see how it could be interpreted like that, sorry). --Yalens (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I read it ages ago, so I don't have it by heart! I read over the Yurko chapter just this afternoon - admittedly rather hurridly. There's no discussion of DNA, but there is in the Loring Brace one. Paul B (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, that the claim of genetic similarity between modern and ancient Egyptians appears no where in the source cited. In fact more recent genetic evidence however confirms that their is in fact genetic distinction between ancient and modern Egyptians:

"It is possible that the current VII and VIII frequencies reflect, in the main, movements during the Islamic period (vs. the Neolithic) and the effects of polygamy (Salem et al., 1996; Nebel et al., 2002), as well as some of the impact of Near Easterners who settled in the delta at various times in ancient Egypt (Gardiner, 1961), and even more recently in the colonial era due to political events. Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times." - Keita (2005), pp. 564

Considering the fact that this is consistent with other contemporary genetic and anthropological studies and that Keita is considered to be the authority on the bio-cultural origins of the Nile Valley this should be reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.97.33 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the populations of modern Paris and London are particulary representative of the ancient peoples of Britain and France either. Also the quotation says "possible", and also refers to population movenents in ancient times. Why are ancient movements from the south somehow 'real' but movements from the north don't count as part of the real ancient population? Paul B (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
In general, modern scholarship has come to the viewpoint that total population replacement (by which the old population is completely replaced by the new) in areas that are very densely populated (such as the Nile river valley) are extremely rare. In fact, in most highly densely populated areas (such as Iraq, Egypt, Turkey), the view is that the newcomers pretty much never even come close to outnumbering the natives whom they eventually assimilate (in order to do so, they'd have to commit a pretty massive genocide). In the case of Egyptians, genetic studies (such as Arredi's and Manni's) have shown that, surprise-surprise, their genetic affinities match their geographic location: North and Northeast African, with an additional proximity to the Near East, and have supported the view of the Egypt's population being largely continuous to the modern day. --Yalens (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are more sources which verify that there are significant biological distinctions between the early ancient Egyptians and post New Kingdom Egyptians, due to gene flow from the Middle East and Europe:

"Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."

-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528

or A comparison of regional levels of diversity (i.e., Upper and Lower Egypt) reveals a greater average distance to the centroid among Lower Egypt dynastic populations (Table 7). This increased level of diversity is likely the result of greater extraregional in-migration during the dynastic period relative to that in Upper Egypt, and/or genetic drift, or differences in group sizes. When we mapped levels of diversity onto an MDS plot of geographic distances, we were able to identify a clinal pattern of increasing group structure from predynastic groups in Upper Egypt to dynastic groups in Upper Egypt and to dynastic and Greek period groups of Lower Egypt (see Fig. 4). ...Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose.Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians. Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009

All indicate morphological distinctions between early and later Egyptians, which is consistent with what Keita's genetic analysis states. This however does not mean that modern Egyptians are not the descendants of the ancient's, but for anyone to assert with all of this evidence to the contrary that modern Egyptians (especially those in the urban northern areas) are the splitting image of their original "tropical African variant" ancestors is only doing so for ideological (hence not the truth). More points issues and points will be brought up later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.97.33 (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Keita's statements

First let's acknowledge that Keita's statements on the National Geographic's page is representation of the mainstream positions of the key issues on the bio-cultural origins of ancient Egypt. His statements in regards to biological affinities are largely based on his own past, still relevant, respected and heavily cited works. [2] (the source in dispute)

For some reason or another his statements are being blatantly misconstrued on the modern scholarship section to state the exact opposite of his actual positions on the issues. Here are the misstatements of those facts (where they are cited) in the article

1. Demic Diffusions of farmers/agriculture/cattle and peoples from the Middle East is cited by the source in question when in reality the source clearly negates almost all of this:

"In the case of food procurement, ancestral Egyptians living on Lake Fayum added to their tradition of foraging by raising Near Eastern domesticated plants (wheat and barley) and animals (sheep and goats). Domesticated cattle came from the Sahara but may also have come from the Near East. Considering that wheat and barley agriculture was practiced in Asia (the Near East) 2,000 years before it was in Egypt, it is important to note that the early Egyptian way of life did not change abruptly at this time (around 5000 B.C.), which is what one would expect if Egypt had simply been peopled by farmers migrating from the Near East. These early Egyptians incorporated the new food stuffs and techniques—and likely some people—into their culture and society on their own terms."

In more recent interviews the likelihood of cattle and a mass migration of peopels coming from the Middle East during pre-dynastic Egypt is refuted thoroughly in his 2009 lecture at the University of Manchester [3] (7 mins for agriculture) (8:20 for cattle). Also the food products and domesticates which were incorporated "on their own terms" into the in place Nilotic foraging strategy of Lower Egypt are specified as being "wheat, barley, sheep and goats"...why then is their an issue with this very short specification in the article? There was no mass migration of farmers into the Nile Valley as Keita states that their is NO evidence to suggest that this was the case and especially considering the fact that these early Lower Egyptians did NOT speak Semitic as migrating populations from the Levant most certainly would have been speaking.

2. The notion that Pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt was an offshoot of Levantine cultures or that there was mutual influence from both Africa and the Levant in the region is again cited by the same source in which this same notion is refuted:

"he Neolithic (food-producing) cultures after 6000 B.C. in the Nile Valley became a part of the foundation for the ancient Egyptian way of life. The archaeology of early Egypt indicates continuity with local cultural traditions along the Nile as well influences from the Sahara, Sudan, and Asia (the Near East). The Neolithic cultures in northern Egypt show evidence over time of varying contacts, with Saharan influences the most dominant."

The Saharan cultures which Keita and every other archaeologist and linguist labels as belonging to Nilotic African was the dominant culture of Pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt. While there was certainly influence from the Levant during this period and LIKELY pockets of people from the Near East in Lower Egypt, the dominant element was Saharan African.

The true statements from the article and Keita need to be reflected in the article, not simply what certain people want to read. Asante90 (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Who's the new IP helping 99.2.97.33 force their edit in?

Suddenly a new IP comes in and reverts me. No other edits. What a coincidence. I've given 99.2.97.33 a 3RR warning, but looks like 99.2.97.33 doesn't need to revert again if other IPs are doing it for him/her. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please address my points about the blatant distortions on this page of what sources really state.Asante90 (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Again - this is the HISTORY of the controversy, not the place to argue the controversy

People easily forget this. 99.2.97.33- you seem to be arguing the controversy. Very recent stuff is hardly history. The article is meant to be descriptive of the history of the controversy. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic for Lay Readers

I am not a wikipedia writer or editor. I visit this site for information. The content and syntax of this article, poor grammar, rampant use of scare quotes, and awkwardly and deliberately placed counter arguments strain its utility as a credible reference, and makes it appear as little other than a debased debate society for internet frequenters with one or another ideological chip on their shoulders. Inserting every hair-brained counter to the African-origin academics immediately after quotes or even mere mentions of those researchers' work does not make this article appear balanced or neutral. Balanced and neutral would be to allow those academics' work to speak for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.42.244 (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

No one disputes that Egyptians had an "African origin", though of course there was input at various times from elsewhere. You are equating the origin of the population with the classication of it. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Almost everyone agrees that Egyptians are Africans by origin- just like Zulus but also like Swedes, Koreans, and Mayans. What we call "race" is merely the result of adaptation to different climates. Because the Egyptians live at the same latitude and in a similar climate to Arabia and the Maghreb, they look somewhat like Arabians and Berbers. Conversely, something would definitely be bizarre if they looked peoples from a much more southern latitude who lived in a humid jungle, because the latter evolved in a very different climate (and by the way, it would be equally weird if they looked like Northern Europeans, who also evolved in a very different climate).--Yalens (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


They looked like other Nile valley (such as Nubians) and East African (such as modern Ethiopians) inhabitants and they surely would have been classified as black/brown/African using today's social constructs. I agree with the statement to lead this section that the point/counterpoint style makes this article ridiculous. As I've said before, all pro theory x statements should be together and all con theory x statements should be elsewhere.Rod (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

C Loring Brace

The inclusion of this ONE INCONSISTENT study in the section dedicated to the MAINSTREAM and modern view scholarship, while desperately trying to hide the conclusions of the Oxford Encyclopedia 2001 and the Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt which present the MAINSTREAM VIEW from an AUTHORITATIVE platform idicates that there is a motive other than provided readers with the TRUTH!

C.Loring Brace's study has been criticized and REFUTED (10 folds) by people who are considered authorities and is NEVER cited amongst contemporary Egyptologist. Therefore that one study is completely irrelevant to this article. It's inconsistency (meaning no later study corroborate it's findings) and down right fallacious claims is reason enough that it should not only be excluded from the article but that it should not even be put in the population history of the article. This is by no means representation of mainstream view points! Asante90 (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC) — Asante90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So Doug rather than trying to refute any of my points (which you seem to have such a hard time accepting) you attack me because I'm focusing on one article at the moment? Asante90 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt

This article is about the history of the controversy of the race of the ancient Egyptians. There is a subsection dedicated to the position of modern scholarship which is supposed to reflect the mainstream view in regards to current research which should help indicate the biological affinities of these ancient Africans. Therefore this FULL statement:

"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' [i.e in a social sense] while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28 " "

Is completely relevant to the position of modern scholarship section. This is especially true when there were completely unsupported statements such as "there were certainly blacks present in ancient Egypt" (trying to throw the truth a bone) plastered throughout that subsection (which I cleaned up according to the sources cited). Like it or not this is the position of modern scholarship, not that the ancient Egyptians were the exact same as modern Egyptians (every single genetic analysis that was actually conducted on ancient Egyptian/Nile Valley remains completely negates this claim) or that they were the result of some unsupported mass migration on lighter skinned non Africans into the Nile Valley during pre-historic times. Asante90 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Asante90's assertions. I think that he has presented a factual and reasonable position and his edits should remain in the article.Rod (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
You aren't bothered by new editors suddenly appearing? In any case, we Americans call all sorts of people 'Blacks'. And we do not interpolate quotes to give our interpretations of what the quote maeans - why are you supporting this? Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


The new editors have injected a lot of energy and bold edits into the article. I think that the formatting could be better. There are a lot of words on the talk page, but to summarize this is what I'm hearing:
  • Modern scholarship has concluded that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was indigenous to the Nile valley and there were no significant migrations from anywhere else prior to the Dynastic period. I have tried to state this repeatedly in this article, because it was controversial when Diop/DuBois/Williams and others said it. When I tried to add the word "indigenous" to the Black theory section, it was constantly deleted by other editors. This censorship tries to hide the fact that "mainstream" scholarship tried to persuade the world for a couple of centuries that Egypt's genesis came from outside of Africa. It was controversial when that position was refuted and modern scholarship has vindicated Diop and others once controversial position. More importantly, modern scholarship has proven that dynastic Egypt started in Southern Egypt/Northern Sudan and the "Egyptians" were living side by side with A-group Nubians. Then the A-group Nubians vanished. Later Egypt colonized Nubia for centuries and later still Nubia colonized Egypt. This yields the obvious conclusion that there is not much difference between Nubians and Ancient Egyptians. The indigenous discussion should remain in the article.Rod (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Mainstream" scholarship talked about race for centuries. "Mainstream" scholars misused and abused the social construct of race to further their interests. It was controversial when scholars like Diop/Williams/DuBois/Bernal started to challenge the "racial" nonsense. It would be convenient for "mainstream" scholars to now abandon the concept of race, as they are done doing centuries of damage using the social construct. However, the controversy is alive and well because "mainstream" scholars from various fields (archaeology, genetic studies, etc.) keep publishing works that would have led to the Ancient Egyptians being classified as Black using the criteria that we've used for the last 200 years. I'm hearing a lot of talk about using America's or maybe Europe's viewpoint, but the Western viewpoint is the viewpoint that characterized the first half of this controversy (19th and 20th century). For symmetry we're stuck with using the Western viewpoint of race for the second half of the controversy (recent scholarship). We can't change the rules in the middle of the game. We can't, for example, start using rules where mixed people are considered white. If we use that approach, most black people in the Western hemisphere would magically become white although they are mostly NOT descended from Europeans, don't have white skin, and have a noticeably different phenotype than white people. The Western viewpoint is characterized by scholars from majority White countries and in those countries a mostly black/brown person of African descent would best be grouped in the Black race. The other races are White and Asian (and possibly Native American, as they split off from Asia so long ago and lived in isolation). Using all of the facts that modern scholarship has provided us, if we had to place the Nile valley, Saharo-tropical variants into the Black, White, Asian, or Native American group they would best fit into the black group (like Nubians and modern Ethiopians). One variant of the African/Black race is the tropical type, but that is only one variant. The tropical type isn't any more black than Nubians or modern Ethiopians, although these groups don't look exactly alike. Steatopygia, course hair, and other clues let us know that these variants are from the same mold and are not sufficiently differentiated to bother placing them into different races.
  • Previously, I would add studies, such as the DNA Tribes genetic study, that prove that Ancient Egyptian mummies are most closely related to sub-saharan Africans and somehow editors would view this DNA study as NOT "modern scholarship" or unworthy of this article. Conversely, any unsubstantiated statement by a "mainstream" scholar that disagrees with the black theory should be taken at face value. I think it's clear from the recent bold additions that the "mainstream" is occupied as much by scholars (e.g. Oxford Encyclopedia, Emberling, etc.) that agree with the black theory, as those that don't. The only difference is that editors are attempting to skew this article to silence the voice of "mainstream" scholars that support the black theory in favor of "mainstream" scholars that don't. The best example of this censorship is when the UNESCO conference results are mentioned in this article. I have the books that recount the UNESCO conference and most of the "mainstream" scholars agreed that at least 1/3 of the Ancient Egyptian population was unquestionably black/negroid. They give another 1/3 of the population as some mysterious dark reddish/brown indigenous African group, without admitting the obvious (which is that using the Western paradigm of race, that would mean black). There are clear images of Libyans, Asiatics, and Europeans in Ancient Egyptian iconography. In non-intermediate periods, the Egyptians NEVER portrayed themselves as Libyan/Asiatic/European (please show me the image of a pharaoh with the Libyan, Asiatic, or European style of dress and beard). Conversely, there are images of jet black Egyptian queens, like Ahmose-Nefertari. What race makes the most sense for the Ancient Egyptians?
  • In conclusion, there is nothing fringe about the black theory. It's actually the mainstream.Rod (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I've said elsewhere that we shouldn't use DNA Tribes studies in our articles so I'll mention that again. But my main problem with it is how this is part of the history of the controversy. It's part of the controversy, but not the history. It's an example of how this article is used to further the controversy. Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


When I first started editing this article, I would see quotes from Hawass stating that there is no element of truth to assertions that the Ancient Egyptians were black. He didn't try to prove or demonstrate his statement. He didn't provide any corroborating evidence, he just flatly asserted it and the public was supposed to take his word for it. We are presenting DNA evidence, which I consider conclusive, that concludes that mummies from one of Egypt's most heralded periods are most closely related to black Africans. Why would that be less relevant than Hawass' unsubstantiated assertions.


Switching topics: When lay people think of Ancient Egyptian society they think of two periods, the Old Kingdom and the New Kingdom. Lay people think of the Old Kingdom because of the great pyramids and the sphinx. These structures were built immediately after people from the South (that were living side by side with A-group Nubians) unified the Nile valley. European visitors saw the sphinx and concluded that Ancient Egyptians were negroes, like all other black Africans. This was controversial and many books were written about the sphinx's appearance (on both sides of the argument). I think it serves the article well to have a block quote about that subject.


Lay readers associate Ancient Egypt with the New Kingdom because of the spectacular finds from Tut's tomb. The New Kingdom is the same kingdom where "mainstream" scholars FINALLY admit to the Negroid element in Egyptian iconography (including the rulers, like Ahmose-Nefertari that were obviously jet black skinned). Now that we have DNA evidence to corroborate the iconographic and archaeological evidence, at what point do we admit that some "mainstream" scholars are not being reasonable if they can't admit that the Ancient Egyptians would be classified as Black today using the Western world's criteria. Asante90 and others are stating that the critical mass is shifting in the "mainstream" and the Wiki article is failing to represent that "mainstream" shift that can be so easily found in printed books on this topic.Rod (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


The block quotes seem to make the article more difficult to read. You don't see many block quotes in other articles on Egypt, Nubia, etc.

Doug this is Wikipedia why are you trying to keep tabs on editors, when there are millions that come and go? No one is "interpreting" the quote! It is simply being presented to the public without any further commentary. This is the MAINSTREAM position based on a collection of evidence (hence NOT just one study) from a contemporary authoritative source (OXFORD). This belongs in the modern scholarship section, and there is no logical reason to justify it's exclusion when deals directly with this article. Asante90 (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The section 'Position of modern scholarship' is currently problematic. As I understand it the mainstream position today is that Egyptian civilisation was developed independently by the Ancient Egyptian population in the area near to present day Luxor (possibly influenced by foreign trade with Sumeria) - see Naqada III. The now non-mainstream position is that a band from the Sumerian sphere of influence hauled their boats from the Red Sea to near Luxor, overcame some native Egyptian tribes there in a battle and became the elite of a state which went on to conquer all of Egypt - see Dynastic Race Theory. But this section only mentions a third theory that Ancient Egyptian civilisation was developed by Nubians in the area that later became known as Kush and was then picked up by, or possibly imposed on, the Ancient Egyptians. There are other theories, but these three are ones which are consistent with genetic testing and have some archaeological evidence. This article is supposed to document the controversy, not present one theory over another. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the mainstream position on the biological origins of ancient Egypt is stated right below:

"Conclusion To sum up, Nubia is Egypt’s African ancestor. What linked Ancient Egypt to the rest of the North African cultures is this strong tie with the Nubian pastoral nomadic lifestyle, the same pastoral background commonly shared by most of the ancient Saharan and modern sub-Saharan societies. Thus, not only did Nubia have a prominent role in the origin of Ancient Egypt, it was also a key area for the origin of the entire African pastoral tradition." [4]

A recent publication from Maria Gatto (Yale) details the origins of both Nile Valley civilizations. These are the consistent statements of contemporary researchers on the subject of ancient Egypt's bio-cultural origins. Asante90 (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What does "Nubia" mean here? The same as Egyptian "Wawat", i.e. the land between the first and second cataracts, or the the same as Greek "Aethiopia", i.e. all Africa outside Egypt, or Latin "Nubia", i.e. the land south of Egypt, i.e. the Kushitic/Meroitic realm(s) ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for the link. Meantime I'm puzzled by the quote "by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' [i.e in a social sense]". What does this mean? My naive reading of it is that Americans divide people into whites, Hispanics and blacks; since the Egyptians (ancient or modern) clearly aren't either Hispanic or white, they must be black. But such a broad division doesn't say very much at all. Can we settle this controversy right now by agreeing that the Ancient Egyptians were neither Hispanic nor white? Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Modern American standards are irrelevant to the subject of this article. Ancient Egypt existed long before America was re-discovered by Europeans and before a "race" named Hispanics (i.e. native Meso- and South-Americans mingled with Europeans) existed and US-Americans could apply some simplistic racial classification on the world. Very ancient Egyptians (before 2500 BCE) were already an amalgam of the original inhabitants of the Nile valley and people(s) from Arabia and Mesopotamia (which unfortunately leads into the similar race controversy about Sumerians). Ancient Egypt of the pharaonic age also had an alternating but steady influx of people (individuals and groups, not necessarily whole ethnicities) from Kush, Libya and the Levant, due to ancient Egypt's unrivaled economic power (based ultimately on her abundant grain production). Egyptians were a mixture of a multitude of peoples and "races". This whole black vs white discussion is weird.
In fact, this whole Ancient Egyptian race controversy is rather a symptom of modern US race issues than one of ancient Egyptians. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see now this article is about the history of the controversy, not about the race question itself. In that case I would raise the question of notability. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The whole issue of race is weird, but lots of people froth over it, so its notable. We can easily agree that the Ancient Egyptians were neither Hispanic nor white, and nor were they black. What most Americans fail to appreciate is that there are more races than just those three, assuming there is such a thing as race to begin with. Modern Egyptians don't all consider themselves to be of the "Arab race" either, assuming there is such a thing. However Afrocentrists work on the "not-white-nor-hispanic-thus-black-we-win" mentality. Weird doesn't begin to cover it. Nubia is wherever the Nubians lived, and the borders were different at different times. Wdford (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is whole avoidance of the biological evidence which lead these authorities to conclude that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans is Eurocentric childishness and not genuine concern of the facts. When knowing good and well for centuries who is considered "black" in our society when presented with the evidence they would rather degrade this discussion into a petty argument of semantics revolving around "who is black". Consistent biological evidence (both anthropological and genetic) proves that the original ancient Egyptians were comprised of a variation of indigenous tropically adapted Northeast Africans (largely Nilotic Saharans in the earliest stages):


Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans. Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans." (S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)


So what else are Nubians, Kushites, Nilotic Saharans and modern Sub Saharan East Africans (hence indigenous tropical Northeast African diversity)generally labeled as (from a sociological perspective) if not black? The Nubians especially are who the ancient Egyptians were biologically indistinguishable from and formed a biological continuum in with. This recent article in the Nytimes accurately summarizes the racist distortions of this fact:


"More recently, our own Western prejudices — namely the idea that geographic Egypt was not a part of “black” Africa — have contributed to the dearth of knowledge about Nubia. The early-20th-century archaeologist George Reisner, for instance, identified large burial mounds at the site of Kerma as the remains of high Egyptian officials instead of those of Nubian kings. (Several of Reisner’s finds are in the show, reattributed to the Nubians.)

In one of his catalog essays the archaeologist Geoff Emberling, who conceived the show along with Jennifer Chi of the institute, examines some of these historical errors.

“We now recognize that populations of Nubia and Egypt form a continuum rather than clearly distinct groups,” Mr. Emberling writes, “and that it is impossible to draw a line between Egypt and Nubia that would indicate where ‘black’ begins.” [5]

As the first statement in that quotation asserts it is nothing more than Western prejudice why certain people try to dismiss all of these consistent facts and cherry pick inconsistent pieces of evidence to deny that the ancient Egypt was black just like Nubia. This is consistent with the relevation from Maria Gatto that I posted above which confirms that pre-Dynastic Egypt started off as essentially a northern extension of Nubia which in turn was descended from earlier Saharan Nilotic pastolist cultures.Asante90 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Pictures in this article. Cherry picked? Let the public decide.

Queen Ahmose-Nefertari
Tiye, King Tut's grandmother
Nofret, 4th Dynasty

I would like to ask the objective public, what is more reasonable? Should we have pictures of:

  • Ahmose Nefertari - A queen of Egypt and progenitor of the heralded 18th dynasty (which includes King Tut and the Thutmosid pharaohs). She's famous. Her children are famous. She gave birth (literally and figuratively) to one of Egypt's most glorious periods.
  • Tiye - Great royal wife, matriarch of the Amarna dynasty, and King Tut's grandmother. Much of the recent controversy over the race of the Ancient Egyptians has surrounded King Tut. Therefore, it stands to reason that the public would be interested in a bust of King Tut's grandmother.Rod (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

or

  • Nofret - Parents unknown. Children are unimpressive. Most don't have wiki articles or their lives can be summed up in one sentence. She is a virtual nobody in Ancient Egyptian history. Why is her picture so necessary for this article. There hasn't been any widespread controversy over this lady.Rod (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Rod (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


Also, is it not pushing a POV to prominently display a picture of a Greek, Cleopatra VII, in an article about the race of Ancient Egyptians? This is misleading to the uninformed. Greeks are not Egyptians and they aren't even Nile valley inhabitants.Rod (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that they're cherrypicked when you choose to use pictures that look "black" when, being familiar with Ancient Egyptian art and whatnot, we know that is only the case for a small minority of samples- specifically the ones you picked out (not to mention your frequent use of Nubians, who aren't even Egyptian, on this page and on the Black Hypothesis page). In addition, some scholars theorize that Tiye might have been at least partially of foreign origin (and for the record, I never supported having Cleopatra here)... can we please get back to constructive things, rather than picture wars? All they do is waste time. I'm starting to think we shouldn't even have ANY pictures in these articles at all. --Yalens (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Tiye only looks "black" because that's the colour of the wood, just as you look "white" if you're carved out of marble. It doesn't mean anything more than the fact than the fact that Tutankhamun is black, white, brown and gold in different images. Paul B (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not obvious to me. It's an indisputable, unquestionable fact that Ahmose-Nefertari and Tiye are considered as Egyptians by any reasonable person familiar with this subject. In the opinion of many, the majority of Egyptians (with their famous reddish brown color) would best be classified with Black people. The definition of Black is large enough to accommodate them. Especially, since paintings (such as that of Ramses II at Beit el-wali) clearly show Nubians (in leopard skins) painted the exact same reddish brown color as the Egyptians (in the same painting). We all know that there is absolutely no proof that Tiye is a foreigner. That's conjecture. It's unscientific.
There is no picture war. That's misdirection and a straw man being built up to discourage good faith editors from challenging the dictatorship of pictures showing Greeks and inconsequential Egyptians in a really important article for humanity. The bottom line is that any and all pictures would be accepted in this article as long as the sculpture or picture showed a fair skinned person (e.g. Nofret and the Greek Cleopatra VII). For balance we must show the EGYPTIANS that were painted as jet black by Egyptian artists (e.g. Ahmose Nefertari).Rod (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
RodDailey, choosing a handful of pictures of black-painted figures to represent all Egyptians is clearly biased, and that is why your choice of pictures is being rejected. Mainstream scholarship, supported by DNA, says that the ancient Egyptians were the same as the modern Egyptians, although some black people lived among them. However having some blacks in the population does not make the population black, any more than the USA or the UK are "black countries". In addition, most surviving ancient Egyptian art is of deities or royalty, and as the article itself states quite clearly, the representativeness of ancient Egyptian art is questionable. Cleopatra is specifically described by some Afrocentrists as being black, and thus she has a specific section dedicated to her in which her statue is specifically included, as does the Sphinx. However sprinkling the article with cherry-picked arbitrary pictures is not neutral or balanced.
Similarly unbalanced is your insistence on repeatedly dumping a long rehash of Diop's discredited theories into the article. Diop's theory has been discredited by mainstream scholarship, as the article clearly states. Diop's theory thus has no greater credibility than any of the other discredited theories, and dumping in a tedious rehash of the handful of Greeks who used the word melanchroes gives this section undue weight. In order to give Diop's discredited theory a full airing while avoiding undue weight in this article, we created the Black Egyptian Hypothesis article, with a summary and a link in this article. Please respect the rules, and stop dumping the discredited Diop detail into this article. Wdford (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


We have resolved this matter by removing the cherry picked pictures of the Greek Cleopatra and Nofret. Thanks for restoring balance to the article. The USA is only 13% black and mainstream scholars list Ancient Egyptians as at least 33% black (see the summary in the General History of Africa about the UNESCO conference). You can review the older versions of this article and see the numerous mainstream scholars that list Ancient Egypt as being at least 33% negroid. That's a significant difference between Egypt and the USA. If the USA was 33% black and another 33% dark reddish-brown, Americans would say that it is a majority black country. While trying to make your point, please keep in mind the reality of the concept of race in the USA. In the USA, if you are even partially black, then you are black (e.g. Obama. He's only 50% black, but he is black to Americans). We all know from the historical record, Egyptian art, etc. that there was rampant miscegenation between Northern Egypt and Nubia. Have we forgotten that the A-group Nubians and other Souther Egyptians started dynastic Egypt, Egypt colonized Nubia for centuries, and then Nubia colonized Egypt? These mixed breeds and blacks certainly would not pass as white in the USA today.Rod (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


Wait a minute, why are we using American cultural definitions here? Isn't that cultural imperialism?
Anyhow, regarding these claims... I'm not so sure even of your claims about American culture. Back in the olden times in that country, the "one-drop-rule" applied, but now it isn't so. People who are born of mixed race in the modern day are called "multiracial", and President Obama is classed in this category, as simultaneously being both black and white (indeed, many Americans don't even view him as half-black, but rather as "half-Kenyan", of a totally different- and foreign- cultural heritage than "African Americans"). African Americans are proud to call him their own, but so are members of the newly emerging multiracial social group. As a side-note, because of the one-drop rule, many "blacks" in the US have substantial non-African blood (dating back to the , and indeed if they went to Africa, many would be told they don't look completely African... but why are we even talking about the US? --Yalens (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)




It's just an example. I gather from your statements that you don't live in the USA. Yes, we have a multiracial category on our census forms, but trust me Obama and anyone like him will be treated as if they are 100% black throughout their lives in the USA. Not so long ago (50 years ago), there were all white institutions and places in the USA. Obama would not have been admitted to any of these all white places, because he IS viewed as black in the USA. We have agreement that we should not be talking about the USA and we have agreement with the removal of all pictures. Let's move on with our lives.
I want to focus on Ancient Egypt.Rod (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rod! This entire controversy page has been ran like a dictatorship. No matter how valid the argument in favor of and how flimsy the rebuttal the black African hypothesis gets the short end of the stick, because enough racially biased people barge in and say that they don't like it! It's like a lynch saying well the MAJORITY of us find this black guy guilty without the verdict of an objective court of law so we must be right. If the U.S. was still ran by this system put in place on Wikipedia then blacks and most other minorities will still have second class citizenship. Make no mistake racism is the key factor behind certain people (in the states and Europe) fighting tooth and nail against the black African theory EVEN when every mainstream contemporary scholar verifies it (Oxfords, Fitzwilliams, Cambridge, or Manchester anyone). They feel that acknowledging the fact that ancient Egypt was originally black is a threat to the racial hierarchy that they put in place, and that's part of the forbidden truth folks. Don't believe me? Here's some scholarship affirming the belief:

"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....."

"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' [i.e in a social sense] while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28 "

Those "Afrocentric" scholars at Oxford are at it against I see. See how it was put in a point blank context? Gee now I wonder why information like this is not presented in the position of modern scholarship section...could it be that it confirms that "DREADED" theory and completed rejects the other racist LIES..I mean OTHER "scientific theories". Yet for some reason the conclusions of lingering racist Egyptologist who caught an intellectual ass beating by two African scholars from over a quarter century ago is presented as the end all on the subject. Let's get real here folks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.97.33 (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

IP (who are you? You seem familiar), it is wonderful to read about how you think we're running this page like a "dictatorship", but you've done nothing to justify your deletions of sourced material (including that of Brace, Mokhtar, Edwin, Redford, and even, in one instance, Keita) other than saying in various ways, that you don't like it, without providing sourced criticisms of all these sources you loathe. In other cases, such as deleting Mokhtar, you offer utterly no justification, not even that one. And then, on the other hand, you replace it with a variety of sources whose info you twist to support your point (in particular, I find the sourcing for this statement ["In layman's terminology several contemporary authorities have described these physical variations as those which are consistent with variations seen in ancient and modern people who are generally deemed black Africans"] pretty dubious)...
It is totally your right to have your own point of view that Ancient Egyptians were somehow closely related to African Americans and every single person who doesn't think so is a vicious racist. But it's not your right to impose that view on the page. Here at wikipedia, we strive for a balanced POV. If you want, you may opt to make a blog where you can express your opinions unhindered by the "dictatorship" of wikipedia's rules. --Yalens (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok well Yalen, that is first of all a straw man argument. Where was it asserted by me that ancient Egyptians were closely related to African Americans? If you're going to argue then argue then why not address the points that were really made. The ancient Egyptians were most closely related to Nilotic Africans and Sub Saharan East Africans. We all everything from anthropology, linguistics, archaeology, culture and NOW genetics to seal the deal on this argument. But since you seem to be so against African Americans why don't you take a look at the new study released about Ramses III [6]. Here is what was concluded:

"Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies (table 1⇓); using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a. The testing of polymorphic autosomal microsatellite loci provided similar results in at least one allele of each marker (table 2⇓). Although the mummy of Ramesses III’s wife Tiy was not available for testing, the identical Y chromosomal DNA and autosomal half allele sharing of the two male mummies strongly suggest a father-son relationship."

Gee now in what population is that genetic marker most common...[7] West and Central Africans who are the primary ancestors of African Americans. Dnatribes also showed close genetic affinity between West Africans and the Amarna period pharaohs (with the primary affinity being Nilotic) [8]. Funny how every genetic test on actual ANCIENT Egyptians all prove to have primary affinities with various Sub Saharan African populations. Oh and trust me one Hell of a genetic study is going to be released this year (2013), to put a complete end to all of the Eurocentric/racist naysaying (wink) Asante90 (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


Exactly. That's two editors agreeing that the DNA tribes study is relevant, modern, mainstream scholarship. Please stop removing it from the article, as it is relevant. The ANCIENT EGYPTIAN AMARNA MUMMIES are best classified with black africans according to modern DNA studies (read mainstream modern scholarship).Rod (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Black African Hypothesis censorship

Now everyone of the edits that I've put forth in that section (and all others) are verified by the sources which are cited. The following was added to the section:

"The current position of modern scholarship is that the original inhabitants of Nile Valley were primarily comprised of a variety of indigenous Northeast Africans from the areas of the desiccating Sahara and more southerly areas, who are described as being of a "Saharo-tropical African variant" and that overtime gene flow from the Near East and Europe added more genetic variability to the region.[90][91] In layman's terminology several contemporary authorities have described these physical variations as those which are consistent with variations seen in ancient and modern people who are generally deemed black Africans.[92][93]"

1. Claim number is that the ancient Egyptians were primarily comprised of various indigenous Northeast African populations, who came from the regions of the ancient Sahara and more southerly areas. SOURCES CITED STATE:


Archaeological evidence suggests that the ancient Egyptian Nile Valley was peopled in large part by immigrants from the Sahara and more southern areas, who brought neolithic traits there (Hassan, 1988). Some movement from the Levant is also postulated. Possibly the earliest indigenous African full neolithic tradition (called Saharo- Sudanese or Saharan) is found in the Western (Nubian) Desert of Egypt, near the Sudanese border (Wendorf and Schild, 1980; Hassan, 1988) and is dated to the seventh millinneum BC. Common core cultural traits are noted in the Saharan neolithic and Nile Valley predynastic sites, with some Near Eastern influence in the north (Arkell and Ucko, 1965; Hassan, 1988). Predynastic Egyptian culture is most parsimoniously explained by a fusion of Saharan and Nilotic peoples (Hassan, 1988>. The predynastic cultural sequence of southern Egypt is accepted as leading directly to the dynastic culture. The sequence is as follows (after Hassan 1988): early predynastic (Badari; 4000-3900 BC), middle predynastic (Nagada I; 3900- 3650 BC), late predynastic (Nagada 11; 3650- 3300 BC), terminal predynastic (Nagada 111; 3300-3050 BC). However, 4000 BC is a minimal date for Badari; 4400-4500 BC is probably more accurate (Hassan, 1988). However, 4000 BC is a minimal date for Badari; 4400-4500 BC is probably more accurate (Hassan, 1988). Ttherefore, Badari and later predynastic cultures stand chronologically and culturally between the Saharan Neolithic and dynastic culture. S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48) and more recently and STILL CONSISTENT with this earlier conclusion:

"There has been scholarly interest in the biological variation and genealogical relationship of the ancient Egyptians to other populations outside of the Egyptian Nile Valley. There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa." [9]

2. The second claim is that the early ancient Egyptians were comprised of peoples who represented a "Saharo-tropical African variant" and that overtime gene flow from the Near East and Europe added more genetic variability to the region. SOURCES CITED STATE:


"Actually, it was always biologically wrong to view the Broad phenotype as representative of the only authentic "African," something understood by some nineteenth century writers. Early Nile valley populations are best viewed as part of an African descent group or lineage with tropical adaptations and relationships. This group is highly variable, as would be expected. Archaeological data also support this position, which is not new.

Over time, gene flow (admixture) did occur in the Nile valley from Europe and the Near East, thus also giving "Egyptians" relationship with those groups. This admixture, if it had occurred by Dynasty I, little affected the major affinity of southern predynastic peoples as illustrated here. As indicated by the analysis of the data in the studies reviewed here, the southern predynastic peoples were Saharo-tropical variants." SOURCE: S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54 The other source that is cited for this statement is the Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt. SOURCES CITED STATE:


"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)[10]

3. The tail end of the new edits states that the anthropological evidence proves that the "Saharo-tropical variant" which is used to describe the ancient Egyptians is biological translation for black Africans: SOURCES CITED STATE


"Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid)."(Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)[11]

and of course the Oxford Encyclopedia quote from Donald Redford shown further up the page is cited. In that quote it is put in point blank language that the consistent biological evidence indicates that the ancient Egyptians were in fact black Africans.

4. (Which really should have been number one) States that racism is the primary was the reason why early Egyptologist outright refused to consider the evidence that the ancient Egyptians were black. SOURCES CITED STATE:


"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....." Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28 "


Verification by authoritative sources that these statements are correct! Therefore the edits are valid and relevant to the sectionAsante90 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


I am glad to see that I am not the only editor trying to bring common sense and truth to this article. For the past couple of years, I have been fighting censorship in the Black theory section. I agree with Asante90's statements and they should remain in the article. That's two editors in agreement, so please stop removing his edits. This is a history of the controversy article and in the history of the controversy two of the biggest controversies are over origin of the Egyptians and race (in most modern societies, a social construct based on phenotype). It was controversial when scholars, such as Diop, refuted years of sloppy scholarship and informed the world that Ancient Egyptians were indigenous to the Nile valley (read Africa). Modern scholarship has confirmed this position. It is now an irrefutable fact. It should remain in this article because that was not the consensus 100 years ago, hence the controversy. Similarly, 100 years ago "mainstream" scholars were trying to convince the world that Egyptians were White, or at least mostly White. Modern scholarship has soundly refuted that outdated theory, hence the controversy. The modern scholarship section has been improved by Asante90. The Black theory section has been improved by Asante90. I support his edits.Rod (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
How dissapointing: I thought that you, although you have the same viewpoints as Asante, would at least disapprove of his (her?) emotional ranting and uncivil attitude. It's sad to see that I was wrong- and sad for the page too. --Yalens (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert Bauval "Black Genesis"

Doug makes the claim that his book represents fringe scholarship. Here is his interview about his book on "Just Energy Radio" [12]

Here are some reviews of his article on Amazon:


“Readers of Black Genesis will never think of ancient Egypt in the same way again. Bauval and Brophy make the case that this venerable civilization was originated by Black Africans from the Sahara Desert and that the pyramids, the statues, and the hieroglyphs were the result of their knowledge and ingenuity. The authors trace the series of errors and misjudgments that have obscured the origins of this remarkable civilization. It is time for the record to be set straight, and Black Genesis is the book that may well do it. This is an authoritative, excellent, well-written book.” (Stanley Krippner, Ph.D., professor of psychology at Saybrook University and coauthor of Personal Mythology )

“Black Genesis offers astounding new insights as Bauval and Brophy forcefully support, with hard data, the radical idea that Egyptian civilization was the outgrowth of a sophisticated Black African culture that existed thousands of years prior to the earliest known pharaohs. Their book is a must read for anyone interested in genuinely understanding the true origins of ancient Egypt and the dynamics of how civilizations develop.” (Robert M. Schoch, Ph.D., author of Voyages of the Pyramid Builders and Pyramid Quest )


His assertions in his book (as far as archaeological and anthropological evidence) are consistent with that of S.O.Y. Keita and Maria Gatto's (of Yale) recent publication, which proclaim that the Nilotic Saharan pastoralist cultures of Nubia are was the primary ancestor of ancient Egypt.

Doug if this "fringe" and you feel that it should not be mentioned in the black theory section then that means that every other theory which is now clearly DEBUNKED (hence "fringe") should not be mentioned for that very fact. Bauval is a best selling author and his recent works deal directly with this article and the section that it is put in. The claims that he asserts in the book in regards to the origins of the ancient Egyptians are backed contemporary research (see above)Asante90 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually own this book. Bauval gives lots of info about black people living in the desert, and he demonstrates that the Egyptians made trips to those oases and met with the local black people, but nowhere does Bauval manage to produce actual evidence that even vaguely supports the theory that these black people were the ancestors of Ancient Egypt. It was a very disappointing read - I expected more from Bauval. Wdford (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

From Bauval's own mouth [13]

Both the long form interview in the first link and this shortened version above Bauval ADVOCATES that the ancient Egyptians were originally black Africans and that overtime admixture from the Levant and later Europe created a mixture of people. This is coming strictly from the interpretation of Bauvals' work and beliefs in regards to the subject.

Also why are your interpretations of the book so different from all of the reviews from professors and authors? They all agree that the book clearly states that the ancient Egyptians CAME FROM the black Africans of the ancient Sahara, and were not as you are suggesting distinct people (the black Saharans AND the Egyptians).Asante90 (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the book, or did you just read the back cover and get excited? Please quote me the chapter and page number where Bauval presents evidence of a racial ancestry. Wdford (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I've read the book! Also please answer why are your interpretations of this book's main contentions so different from the scholars and other authors who left reviews for the book and from Bauval himself? He clearly feels that the ancient Egyptians were originally black Africans who descended from earlier advanced Nilotic Saharan communities, he states this explicitly from his own mouth in the interviews that I've linked you too....So it is YOU who is misinterpreting Bauval. You seem to want to desperately make "egyptian" and "black" mutually exclusive terms and you are doing so through dishonesty and blatant denial. You refuse to accept even the clearest contemporary statements from the most respected scholarly institutes on the issues, because they confirm what you simply don't want to admit to. Wikipedia has no room for this. Asante90 (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither Schoch nor Kripner have the qualifications to comment on Ancient Egyptian civilization. And Bauval has no qualifications for determining the ancestry of the AE. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Bauval certainly does "feel" that the ancient Egyptians were black, but the evidence he presents in the book does not actually uphold that conclusion. Not at all. Re the scholars who commented on the cover - I can only assume they didn't read the book before commenting. Please quote me the page numbers where the actual connection is made? Wdford (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issues

I'm sure there are many, this article is one of the most fought over ones we have. The most obvious is the use of block quotes. IMHO they should be avoided as much as possible, especially in controversial articles. As I recall we got rid of them at one point, but now they are creeping back. In this case both obviously are putting forward the same pov. Cherry-picking in this way is never a good idea, and of course using a block quote for a short sentence is against our MOS. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The block quotes should be removed immediately, as all they do is make it painfully obvious how biased this page has become. Cherrypicking at its worst. If we had a block quote we could all agree on (i.e. one that epitomized the issue in some neutral way) we could use that, but that's unlikely to exist anywhere. --Yalens (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Worse still, the section starts off with this: "It is now recognized by mainstream academia that anti-black racism played a key role in the development of the understanding of ancient Egypt in the Westernized world"... really? I honestly can't think of a bigger way to violate NPOV in the first sentence of a section. --Yalens (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It's probably unsourceable anyway. Plus I don't think it belongs there. I've removed it and the block quote. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree When a key piece of evidence or official statement by authoritative sources is provided then it should be at the forefront of other statements (i.e. Oxford Encyclopedia). Asante90 (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

We seem to have identified that this "authoritative source" is an "encyclopedia" in the sense of being a collection of individual articles, and that the quote is from a single article which is merely the opinion of a single author - not even Redford himself, and by no means a consensus of the "mainstream". Wdford (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Who is the mainstream?

Editors of this article have tried to make the case that the mainstream is against the Black theory. Let's ask ourselves, just who are these mainstream scholars? In an instrumental example from "The Rescue of Jerusalem" by Henry Aubin, I will DEMONSTRATE using a mainstream Egyptologist's own words why the lay reader should not equate the mainstream with the truth.


In the 19th and 20th centuries, Archibald Henry Sayce was a foremost scholar from Britain. He was a cleric and holder of the chair in Assyriology at Oxford. His credentials are impeccable and he studied and traveled extensively in Egypt and Nubia (he spent 17 winters in the Nile valley). He was described as "a genius that could write prose in 20 or more ancient and modern languages." For all of his admirable qualities, you will see that he was completely incapable of consistently telling the truth about the race of people in the Nile valley. In fact, the subject of the race of Nile valley inhabitants turned this genius and mainstream scholar into a pathological liar.


  • Sayce said that the greater the projection of the jaws from the line of the face, the more animal like is the face. He then concludes that because the jaw of Negroes often protrudes from the line of the face that they are not far above monkeys and certainly much lower than Europeans. Following his logic to its natural conclusion, the sculpture of the great sphinx, due to its prognathism, would be that of a negroe (as noted by many European observers of the Great Sphinx). You can't only hold these racist views when they are convenient. You have to be consistent.
  • Sayce said the Egyptians were members of the white race.
  • Sayce then said (in 1891) that two black races inhabitated the Southern Nile Valley, the Nubians and Negroes. He said the Nubians, in spite of their black skins, were among the handsomest of mankind. AMAZINGLY, Sayce concluded that Shabako, Taharqa, and other Kushite Kings belonged to the White race.
  • Four short years later, Sayce said in the book "The Egypt of the Hebrews and Herodotus" that the Kushite Kings possessed "all the physical characteristics of the Negro." He now concluded that the Kushites were Negroes.
  • Sayce reaffirmed his belief that the Kushites were Negroes in 1899 in another book.
  • After saying that Negroes were subhuman in the 1890's, by 1911 he marveled at the sophisticated civilization and high culture that he found in Meroe (a negroe society). He stated that "the Ethiopian king and his black levies saved Jerusalem and the religion of Judah from destruction by the powerful Assyrian Sennacherib...The Negroes of Africa had saved the city and temple of Jerusalem."
  • Also in 1911 (THE SAME YEAR), Sayce no longer considered Taharqa to be a negroe.
  • In 1925, his book "Races of the Old Testament" was republished. In that book he let stand the statement that Kushite Kings were White.
  • Due to this subject, this man appears in need of admittance to the insane asylum. He is all over the place. Are Kushites black or white?


Public, is this the "mainstream" scholarship that you want to see represented in this all important Wiki article. If Sayce couldn't decide from day to day if the Kushites were black, can we trust his statement that the Egyptians were white? Of course not. There is no one more mainstream than Sayce, but a wise person would not believe a single thing that he has to say about the race of Nile valley inhabitants. Clearly, his scholarship in this area was sloppy and tainted by his hatred and racist views. This is but one example. Many other mainstream scholars present equally absurd arguments in an attempt to prove that which can not be proven.


A wise person would be much better served to believe DNA tribes, Diop, Keita, or others. At least their arguments are coherent.


A wise person would notice that even in the works of the most racist scholars, one can rarely find an instance when Egyptians and Nubians/Kushites weren't mentioned in the same breath. They were one continuous biological grouping of human beings. They are the Nile valley racial group, the Saharo-tropical variant. If they were alive today, people would call them black (like modern Nubians even after years of pressure from Greeks, Persians, and Arabs that entered the area at a considerably late date or modern Ethiopians).


Finally, some editors keep trying to draw this parallel between modern Egyptians (maybe Copts) and Ancient Egyptians. However, when I tried to add content describing a modern Egyptian national's quest to be classified as a Black man (after moving to America), the censors deemed it not worthy of the article. The guy clearly looks like he best fits in the black racial group. If after all of these years of domination by Persians, Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, and Arabs we still have people that are phenotypically black throughout Egypt, how much more black must they have been in the beginning?Rod (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's plenty of black people in modern Egypt: Nubians and the descendents of slaves. Since when were authors such as Diop, who thinks that Caucasus Georgians' ancestors were black and that Ancient Egyptian was related to Wolof reliable sources? Of the same vein, seeing as the page doesn't even use Sayce as a source, why are you talking about him so much?--Yalens (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


The point that I'm trying to make (and probably could have made more succinctly} is we can't trust the mainstream on this subject, unless the mainstream provides convincing evidence. It's not enough (in this article) for an editor to state that the mainstream disagrees with this or that statement. It's more important to talk about each side's demonstration of their point when discussing the history of the controversy.Rod (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Mokhtar and Snowden

Apparently, this citation is also questioned by the Asante here ([[14]]). Can anyone verify it? --Yalens (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither the Mokhtar or the Mukhtār books actually state that something is believed broadly, I'm guessing that's an interpretation. Mukhtār does say on p,39 "The peopling of Ancient Egypt was a considerable problem and it would be very premature, at this stage, to adopt a synoptic approach as a means of solving it. The problem should be approached through separate, precise studies. For this purpose, the collaboration of specialists in disciplines not represented at this symposium was indispensable. All the participants were 'general historians*, qualified to compile and

synthesize data supplied by specialists; such data were, for the moment, very inadequate. In any case, it was retrograde to have recourse to authorities who were today completely outdated, such as Lepsius or Petrie. They might be recognized as having 'historical* importance but Egyptology had made great progress since their day."

Snowden mentions what he sees as "failure of many Afrocentrists to give proper attention to Nubians and their experience in Egypt, Greece, and Italy, although Nubians were the only Africans whose physical characteristics, according to the ancient evidence, most closely resembled those of peoples described as blacks or Negroes in modern usage." and comments that Bernal "uses "black," "Egyptian," and "African" interchangeably as equivalents despite copious ancient evidence to the contrary." But that's all. I seem to have access to Black Athena via Questia. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
In light of this, say reinstate it where it is appropriate, but attribute the statements specifically to Mokhtar and Snowden and, until/unless we can get a source that says so, don't state that most other scholars adhere to that view. --Yalens (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems that these edits commonly take statements out of context, as was blatantly done with Gatto as well. Wdford (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
If you look at some of the hyperlink sources the IP/Asante posted, oftentimes its much of the same story... they only quote things they like, completely out of context, and leave out everything in it that doesn't suit their argument. The Mokhtar/Snowden one was from a long time ago, and wasn't IP/Asante though. --Yalens (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Snowden also said this:


Frank Snowden describes at length the terminology used by Ancient Greek (e.g. Homer, Diodorus, Herodotus) writers to describe the appearance of Egyptians and Ethiopians in the Nile valley. In his book for English speakers, Frank Snowden ubiquitously uses the terms "black skinned" to convey the meaning of numerous originally Greek texts concerning race in the Nile valley. [1] In one section, he mentions Diodorus' claims that "black, flat-nosed, and ulotrichous" Ethiopians were "originators of many customs practiced in Egypt", "for the Egyptians were colonists of the Ethiopians." [2] While summarizing Herodotus' work, Snowden states "240,000 Egyptian deserters" settled among and "influenced the customs and manners"[3] of the "black and woolly haired Ethiopians" [4] of the Nile valley. In a different passage Snowden admits that Herodotus believed that "Ethiopians learned Egyptian customs" [5] and other Greek writers noticed "similarity in Ethiopian and Egyptian culture."[6] Snowden also indicates that Statius spoke of "red Ethiopians" and Romans had accurate knowledge of "negroes of a red, copper-colored complexion...among African tribes." [7]


In conclusion, Snowden like everyone else can't seem to stop mentioning Ethiopians and Egyptians in the same breath, while at the same time trying to pretend that they are so different. In your quote, Snowden complains about Bernal using black, African, and Egyptian interchangeably, but he is guilty of the same thing in his books (240,000 Egyptian settlers among black Ethiopians, Egyptians are a colony of Ethiopia, black Ethiopians originated Egyptian customs, red Ethiopians and negroes, etc.)Rod (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Snowden, Frank (1970). Blacks in Antiquity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. pp. 101, 104–106, 109.
  2. ^ Snowden, Frank (1970). Blacks in Antiquity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. p. 109.
  3. ^ Snowden, Frank (1970). Blacks in Antiquity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. p. 105.
  4. ^ Snowden, Frank (1970). Blacks in Antiquity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. p. 106.
  5. ^ Snowden, Frank (1970). Blacks in Antiquity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. p. 119.
  6. ^ Snowden, Frank (1970). Blacks in Antiquity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. p. 119.
  7. ^ Snowden, Frank (1970). Blacks in Antiquity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. p. 3.

Redford quote

Has anyone got this book and has read this chapter? Is the quote accurate where it says "[i.e in a social sense]"? Asante90 claims that isn't an interpretation, so either the quote includes that or he hasn't read it. And can someone verify that Redford is the author? I imagine he is but it also wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't and his name is attached as he's the editor. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently this "encyclopedia" is a collection of many articles by various authors, so we can't attribute it to Redford (a recognised scholar) and we need to find out exactly who the actual author was. It may well be yet another Keita or Diop article. On the subject of Redford himself, take a look sometime at "From Slave to Pharaoh", at [15] I haven't read it all, but the opening few pages speak volumes about how the Ancient Egyptians themselves regarded the "ancestor" Nubians. Wdford (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't have it, but it's in the library over the road, so I will look later today. I can access the Amazon version of the page [16] which does indeed include the line on page 28 column 1. I am less than impressed by it, I must say. It says that scholars in the late 19th century said that Egyptians were "defined the Egyptians as either non African (ie as either near Eastern or Indo-Aryan) or as members of a separate brown race (as opposed to black) race". One wonders if the authors have any clue what the word "Indo-Aryan" actually means"! Still, by the rules it is a "reliable source". Paul B (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Do we know the author who wrote that section? --Yalens (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry for accidentally reverting you when we edited at the same time earlier.
Yup. It was written by none other than Stuart Tyson Smith. Paul B (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice how all of you all wait until I'm temporarily blocked to raise issues with my contributions....where was all of this at two days ago? Anywho Doug you are correct on that it was my mistake for not directly copying the statement from the encyclopedia myself and rather relying on another person's upload. After double checking my own copy of the encyclopedia of ancient Egypt the "[i.e. in a social sense]" is in fact additional commentary. Anyway I copied the text image from my own copy [17]. This takes away Doug's concern over the validation of the source which was his reasoning for taking this vital statement (in relation to the article) out of the quote box. Therefore with the proper corrections made the quote box should be reinstated immediately. (cheers) Asante90 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No, block quotes are not for short statements - using them in this way highlights them and can violate NPOV - why is x in a block quote and not y? I'm not objecting to using the quotation at the moment although I'd like to see the context. I am questioning who actually wrote it - we really should have the name of the chapter - is it definitely Redford? Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That being said this entire issue will be solved by replacing Redford's name with "the encyclopedia" or "the reference". Rather or not Redford directly wrote this statement is a dubious argument for the simple that it is HIS NAME that is on the cover. He authorized those statements and the others. Asante90 (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Redford's the general editor of the encyclopedia. The author of the passage in discussion is Stuart Tyson Smith. Paul B (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

New discussion at Neutral Point of View noticeboard

See WP:NPOVN#Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed block quotes, claim as to what modern scholarship says, attributed a quote

As a matter of principal and to achieve NPOV we should avoid block quotes in this article. I note that the edit summary when one of these was replaced said he "reinstated the box quote for this important authoritative statement". It's exactly this we need to avoid, editors saying 'This box quote should be here because I think it's important'.

We never attribute a quotation to anyone other than the actual author. The only attribution for the Oxford quote was to Donald Redford. That's clearly wrong.

And we need to be extremely careful when claiming that modern scholarship says something, especially if it might be contentious. It's better to show what eminent scholars have to say about a subject.

Finally, I see no consensus for the edits I reverted and am asking the editor who added them to not reinstate them without consensus. Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Doug no one is preventing you or anyone else from block quoting pivotal statement from other theories. The problem that you seem to have is that you don't have any contemporary pivotal statements supporting other theories, and due to your own emotional attachment to this subject you simply don't want it to be acknowledged that one theory has more mainstream support then the others. If block quotes were a problem then block quotes would not be an editing option in wikipedia. The block quoting page does not caution anyone from using this feature, so you have no reason to either.
A consensus is not needed to add a box quote. [18] (hence it doesn't mention it anywhere on the quotebox page). It's just some that you and a few others with a clear POV don't want attention given to. I already explained why the most authoritative contemporary source in relation to this article should be given extra attention above. Asante90 (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
A consensus isn't need to add one initially. But you don't have a consensus now. I love the bit about others having a POV - does that mean you don't have one? It isn't up to us to decide what is important and thus deserves a block quote. The idea that we should all add our favorite quotes as block quotes it something we really need to avoid. Wikipedia:Quotations rightly says "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it. Instead of using quoteboxes to highlight its notability, explain its importance before introducing the quote or in an introduction to the quote." And our manual of style makes it clear that you don't use block quotes for anything less than about 40 words. Block quote are very appropriate at times, eg a verse from a poem or some bits of text from an ancient Sumerian tablet. In a controversial argument they are usually a problem.
To make things worse, when you reverted me while logged out a few minutes ago, you again had the quote attributed to Redford despite the fact that you know he didn't write it. In fact, since you seem to have the book, you've always known he didn't write it.
By the way, you don't seem to have the slightest idea what my POV is. My impression is that yours is that the Black African hypothesis is true and that everyone who disagrees or questions it is bad, but I could be wrong. Mine is probably summed up by the quote "Any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study.”
I also don't see the logic of starting off the Black African hypothesis section with a statement about racism although I certainly agree that racism is part of the history of the debate - but it is more related to the other ridiculous hypotheses and is in part a cause, if we can use that word here, of those hypotheses. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


The block quotes are not aesthetically pleasing, although I agree with Asante90 on the content. I disagree with Dougweller on the racism point. Racism is the entire reason that this article is necessary. Prior to the creation of racist schools of thought (to support colonialism), Europeans (Greeks, Romans, etc.) typically referred to the Egyptians as black and negroes. After the racist scholarship of recent centuries, Egyptians magically became white (or in some cases Asian). The entire controversy revolves around recent scholars refuting the racist, sloppy, and inaccurate scholarship of the past.Rod (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

De'Volney Quote

PREVIOUS DISCUSSION HERE [19]

Doug challenged my contributions on the POV neutrality page, and offered no contest to the sources present. IN FACT Doug agreed that two of the sources citing the statement were authoritative. Doug did nothing more than nit pick with only one of the sources (NYTimes) and had no response to my explanation there after. Simply NOT LIKING what is contributed and rallying up a of your Klan members to say that they don't like it, does not negate the merit (proven by the sources cited) of the statements. I've clearly proven my case over on the other page, and now you're acting as though no discussion already happened. My contributing statement is legitimately source and completely relevant to the sources in question and now you are simply trying to BULLY them out of the article. Asante90 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The word is Bull. I contested some of your sources and said that two of them could be used, but not to back a general statement. Statements by them, not necessarily quotes, can be used if attributed. Claiming those who oppose you are KKK members is pretty desperate, a tactic usually used by those who have nothing better to offer. You are just ignoring the fact that you don't have consensus and your articles have NPOV problems. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly your contest for the Nytimes article was BS and I my rebuttal exposed that BS. The also remains that there are TWO more other sources and authoratative at that, validating that anti-black racism played a key role in pre-mid 20th century scholarship in regards to ancient Egypt. These sources are cited behind the statement and it should be read as such. As far as the racial biased is concerned I calls as I see's em, NO ONE IS STUPID SIR!Asante90 (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


I agree with Asante90's posts and the Volney quote. That's at least two editors supporting the addition to the article. Why can't everyone be more civilized about this? Volney, like many others (Greeks, etc.) thought the Egyptians looked like black people. There's no reason for this to be contentious. Really there was a consensus on this matter for all of history until recent racist scholarship tried to mislead the world.Rod (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
If you want people to be "more civilized" about this, why are you supporting an editor who among other things calls everyone who doesn't agree with him a KKK member? Before, I thought you were at least possible to negotiate with. --Yalens (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Yalens, we should not use personal attacks against other editors because we don't agree with their POVRod (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The idea of starting to add block quotes to our favorite povs makes me shudder. It's a terrible idea. Ditto large quotes like that anyway. We don't need it and it's emotive. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


I think there is broad agreement not to use large block quotes. The excessive formatting makes the article harder to read. Just put reasonably sized quotations into the paragraph as normal text in quotes (e.g. "quote here")Rod (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Modern analysis moved to the top

While it may seem a bit chronologically out of order, I've moved the "Position of modern scholarship" section to the top of the article, because I think that the historical perspectives on the matter are best view through the lens of what's actually known about the matter. Speaking of which, I'd suspect there's been much more scientific analysis done on the nature of the ancient Egyptian population than what's in that section...hopefully we can find some more of that. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This page is actually supposed to be about the history of the controversy though, not the evidence, I believe...--Yalens (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
You beat me to it. I noticed it this morning but have been busy. We aren't trying to look at the issue of the AE race here, just the history of the controversy as Yalens says. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
This section is supposed to be a short summary of the main article, which is Population history of Egypt. I believe that it should thus be a few paragraphs summarizing the wealth of info on that article? Wdford (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes. There's a tendency for such section to change over time so that they only vaguely resemble the main article, and this needs to be avoided. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. But even while trimming it down a bit, or at least avoiding massive expansion, I think it could do a better job of summarizing the main article, including the more conclusive stuff like from DNA history of Ancient Egypt. In regards to the move - I think that some of the neutrality issues it's been tagged for probably stem from readers' mounting frustration as they read through a series of hypotheses which are clearly wrong before they reach any kind of conclusion. And I thought the bit about "applying modern notions of race to ancient Egypt" being "anachronistic" would be a nice preface for the following descriptions of historical arguments. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Qustul burner

Noting that some editors have demonstrated a tendency to misinterpret sources to suit their POV, I took a closer look at the Qustul Burner, an icon of the “Nubian-origin” theory. I note that one source quoted in the article is a blog. I couldn’t get the Teeter source, but I found some very interesting points elsewhere. Firstly, the conclusions of the University of Chicago Oriental Institute:

  1. Qustul was excavated by the University of Chicago Oriental Institute in 1960-64 as part of the UNESCO salvage project in advance of the flooding of the Aswan High Dam. The project was directed initially by Prof Keith Seele, and after his death the interpretation and publication was managed by Dr Bruce Williams. [20]
  2. This incense burner is considered by Williams of the University of Chicago Oriental Institute to be “distinctively Nubian in form”, carved in the technique of Nubian rock art, it is decorated on the rim with typical Nubian designs. It was found in the tomb of a Nubian ruler at Qustul and incorporates images associated with Egyptian pharaohs. One interpretation is that Nubian A-Group rulers and early Egyptian pharaohs used related royal symbols. Similarities in rock art of A-Group Nubia and Upper Egypt support this position. Another view suggests that the decoration was carved by Nubians in imitation of Egyptian art and rituals. In this perspective, A-Group Nubian rulers would have emulated the symbols of Egyptian pharaohs, whose prestige and power were evident. [21]
  3. The Nubian A-Group traded for Egyptian products. A-Group rulers employed symbols that were used by Egyptian pharaohs of that time. [22]
  4. Tombs of rulers and officials often contained Egyptian imports, which Nubians obtained by trading gold from Nubia and other products like ebony and ivory that they had acquired from regions to the south. Made of materials or by techniques not available in Nubia, imports from Egypt included faience and vessels made from Egyptian alabaster. A-Group rulers also imported pottery stands and ceramic objects. [23]
  5. Upper Egypt soon grew wealthy and its culture expanded again into Nubia, where renewed southern contacts gave rise to the first of Nubia's trading cultures, called the A-Group. Incense, copper, gold, objects of shell, and semiprecious stones were traded northward in return for manufactured articles and probably agricultural produce. Qustul in Nubia "could well have been" the seat of Egypt's founding dynasty. [24]

Apart from the speculative closing comment that "Qustul in Nubia could well have been the seat of Egypt's founding dynasty", what we glean from this material is that the incense burner is decorated with “typical Nubian designs”, that it “incorporates images associated with Egyptian pharaohs”, that these Egyptian symbols may have been "shared" with Egypt or may have been imitated from Egypt, that Egypt expanded into Nubia in that period and traded manufactured goods and other things for local products.

Then I looked at other sources, and found a slightly different picture:

  1. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, by Ian Shaw , at [25] -- Pg 63: It has been suggested by Williams that the Nubian tombs at Qustul were of rulers who conquered and unified Egypt, founding the early pharaonic state, but most scholars do not agree with this hypothesis. The kind of socio-political complexity that was evident in Egypt at that date is “unlikely to have occurred in Nubia”. The fact that evidence of the Naqada culture has since been found in northern Egypt with no Nubian elements in it would seem to argue against any Nubian origin for the unified Egyptian state.
  2. African Connections: An Archaeological Perspective on Africa and the Wider World, by Peter Mitchell, at [26] -- Pg 69: The suggestion that kingship originated at Qustul is rendered unlikely by earlier examples of royal iconography found in Egypt proper.
  3. Ancient Egyptian Kingship, by David O'Connor, David P. Silverman, at [27] -- Pg 105: The Qustul rulers adopted and adapted many features of Egyptian iconography and ideology – it seems less likely that these rulers were the ideology’s originators.
  4. Early Dynastic Egypt, by Toby A. H. Wilkinson, at [28] -- Pg 39: Based on the Qustul burner, the excavator argued that Egyptian kingship had originated in Lower Nubia. However earlier Egyptian examples of the same iconography make this theory unlikely. The Qustul rulers had adopted symbolism from Egyptians.
  5. Between Two Worlds: The Frontier Region Between Ancient Nubia and Egypt - by László Török [29] -- Pg 42-44: At Cemetery L in Qustul were found a large number of imported stone vessels and pottery, from Egypt and from Syria or Palestine. The iconography of the royal crowns of Egypt found on the burner are also found much earlier at Abydos and at Hierakonpolis, so they originated in Egypt not Nubia – the Qustul rulers adopted these Egyptian symbols. A-Group graves show the influence of Egyptian funerary practices.
  6. Daily Life Of The Nubians, by Robert Steven Bianchi, at [30] -- Pg 38: The Qustul burner is an Egyptian product imported into Nubia. Attempts by some to describe the more lavish tombs as royal tombs are “ill-advised”.
  7. The Archaeology of Early Egypt: Social Transformations in North-East Africa, by David Wengrow at [31] -- Pg 167: Arguments by Williams for the Nubian origin of Egyptian kingship, based on the Qustul material, have not been widely accepted, and are difficult to reconcile with growing evidence for the emergence of local elites within Egypt during the early Naqada III period.

Sort of puts the Qustul burner into a different perspective, doesn't it? Wdford (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite. --Yalens (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


It certainly does NOT. I own the Teeter book, "Before the Pyramids" and it states:


First, in my own words and to paraphrase what I've read in "Before the Pyramids":


  • Sudanese tradition influenced the Tasian culture. The Tasian culture was located in Upper Egypt and the influence was strong.
  • Naqada style boats were found in Lower Nubia. The rock art drawings provided the key evidence.
  • The A-group was known for their pottery. This pottery was found well north of Hierakonpolis.
  • It is known that the A-group Nubians went North to Upper Egypt. This is known because some A-group sites are located in Egypt and also their pottery has been found there.
  • The pre-dynastic Egyptians had several lands. There is conclusive evidence that Nubia/Ta-Seti (the part ruled by the Qustul dynasty) was one of those lands. The conclusive evidence is the bow (symbol of Ta-Seti) found on Naqada serekhs.


Now to quote the source, mostly Chapter 9 by Bruce B. Williams, pages 83-92:Rod (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  • "In the formative years of Egyptian civilization, relations with northern Nubia were strong and reciprocal." page 83
  • "The rock art already showed that much symbolic culture was shared between the A-group and Upper Egypt. Qustul, however, had images associated with the rising Egyptian Dynastic culture on unmistakably A-group objects,... Typical of the culture and unparalleled in type, materials, or workmanship in Eygpt, there is no reason to believe they were imported, so they must represent Nubian participation in Dynastic culture in its most complex developments. page 87
  • "The incense burners, seals, painted pottery, and rock art suffice to show that A-group Nubia supported the same emerging official culture as Egypt, ...This participation by Nubia should come as no surprise, since Nubia and Egypt were not only deeply intertwined, they also both belonged to the 'great east African substratum'." page 90
  • "The incense burner...rock art images that were part of the emerging formal religious culture of Upper Egypt that was shared with A-group Nubia."
  • "The Qustul burner is the premier A-group object, it also stands at the head of early monumental objects in the Nile valley that have been called the documents of unification. It represents the pivotal change from the art of Naqada II, especially as seen...at Hierakonpolis, to the great series of carved stone palettes, mace-heads, and even statues that mark the emergence of Egyptian monumental art." page 162-163Rod (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
We allow about 220 words from a book, I've reduced the above to a bit over that. Rod, if you want to remove some of what is still above and replace it with material I deleted, feel free, but please don't increase the word count. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


Doug. It's an official wiki rule that you can't delete other editors content from the talk page. Furthermore, your biased approach is amusing because you did not apply the same rules to wdford as he copy/pasted entire pages from the Univ. of Chicago's website into this talk page. How sad for you that you can't be even handed and reasonable.Rod (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
It must be really hard to try to prove that which canNOT be proven. It is a scientific fact that Nubians were there alongside other Nile valley inhabitants when the Ancient Egyptian civilization began. A-group Nubians (Sudanese) are just as much (if not more) responsible for the dynastic civilization that we know of today as Ancient Egypt as anyone else living in the Nile Valley. This is the mainstream opinion supported by the world's foremost scholars on this subject. Purchase and read the books, as I have.

What you should "glean" from these books is that Nubia and Egypt are an inseparable continuum.Rod (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not what most of the mainstream sources seem to be saying. Obviously Nubians were present in the Nubian section of the Nile Valley at that time, but the Nile Valley is a very long thing, and the Egyptian dynastic culture was developing at the Egyptian end while numerous other cultures developed at their own pace at various intervals all along the thousands of miles of the river - from Uganda to the 1st cataract. Wdford (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Et moi aussi. --Yalens (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

^^^ It is mistaken to think that the Ancient Egyptian culture an the 'Nubian' cultures were as different as the last 3 editors suggest above. MAINSTREAM scholarship now indicate that these cultures, esp as the predynastic stages, were a CONTINUUM; in fact, the EARLIEST Egyptian cultures in the Upper Egyptian Nile Valley (Tasian, Badarian, Early Naqada) are now regarded as northernmost and younger VARIANTS of a larger Culture Group that extended from beyond the 6th Cataract in the Sudan to Middle Egypt, including most of the deserts East and West of this area. And the culture Group originate south of what became Egypt.

"[b]The relationship between the Early A-Group,the Final Neolithic of the Western Desert, and the Badarian already came to light in the recent past(Gatto 2002). All of them are the northermost regional variants of the Nubian Group, which of course include also cultures from the south, such as the Abkan, the Neolithic of the Kadruka, and the Middle and Terminal A-Group.[/b] It is interesting to note that the aforementioned cultures are dated to two different millenia( V and IV millenium BC).Following this, and because of the strong regional variations brought to light, the necessity to change the term A-Group is here suggested again, as it already was years ago( Gatto and Tireterra 1996). [b]In fact we are dealing with different units of the same culture group(as described by Clarke 1968), which most certainly was present in the Kerma region, as the affinities with the later Pre-Kerma Culture seem to confirm(Honneer 2004)[/b]." The Early A-Group of Upper Lower Nubia, Upper Egypt and the Surrounding Dearts by Maria Gatto, 2006 by Maria Gatto{Archaeology of Early Northeast Africa Studies in African Archaeology 9, Poznan Archaelogical Museum}pg. 232 Onwo (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Onwo. The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive. It cannot be more clear. The A-group Nubians (e.g. the Qustul dynasty) and Egyptians had a nearly identical culture and it was the A-group Nubian culture that overwhelmed the Nile valley and led to the Dynastic age. This is the mainstream position. Anything else is highly suspicious.Rod (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

^^^^^

is a SUMMARY of the above viewpoint an links to sources espousing it (I wold be willy to debate any person who may have any problem with any of the points):

The relationship between the Early A-Group,the Final Neolithic of the Western Desert, and the Badarian already came to light in the recent past(Gatto 2002). All of them are the northermost regional variants of the Nubian Group, which of course include also cultures from the south, such as the Abkan, the Neolithic of the Kadruka, and the Middle and Terminal A-Group. It is interesting to note that the aforementioned cultures are dated to two different millenia( V and IV millenium BC).Following this, and because of the strong regional variations brought to light, the necessity to change the term A-Group is here suggested again, as it already was years ago( Gatto and Tireterra 1996). In fact we are dealing with different units of the same culture group(as described by Clarke 1968), which most certainly was present in the Kerma region, as the affinities with the later Pre-Kerma Culture seem to confirm(Honneer 2004). The Early A-Group of Upper Lower Nubia, Upper Egypt and the Surrounding Dearts by Maria Gatto, 2006 by Maria Gatto{Archaeology of Early Northeast Africa Studies in African Archaeology 9, Poznan Archaelogical Museum}pg. 232 Onwo (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Attributions

We need to stop using phrases such as "University of Chicago scholars" when we don't know who they are, or 'some scholars' without naming them. And we need to be accurate when we attribute material. Here I'm talking about the book which an Oriental Institute research associate, Emily Teeter, edited. Among other things, it's a BLP violation to attribute to her something she didn't actually write, not just a failure in scholarship (our scholarship). Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Dailey's posted to my talk page but hasn't said he's willing to cite properly. Teeter is not the author of the book and certainly not of the pages cited. Edited books should show the editor, the chapter title, the author of the chapter and the page numbers used to back the text added to the article. And the statements should be attributed to the author of the chapter. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Doug, this is just getting silly. I have said in numerous places on the talk page that chapter 9 (pages 81-93 of the Teeter book) was written by Bruce Williams and that Chapter 16 (pages 149-267) was written by David O'Connor. Read the talk page.Rod (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:INDENT. Who cares what you've written here if the article still attributes Teeter? Readers aren't expected to think "I wonder if Teeter really wrote this, gee, I'd better check the talk page". All you are demonstrating is an unwillingness to fix a problem. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Why didn't you just change it yourself, as opposed to badgering me about something so simple? Can't you edit the article?Rod (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Since I haven't read the book, then I can't add the references, especially during a dispute. That should be obvious. If I add them that would suggest I'd read the book. And why the extra blank lines and indents? Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I use WikED to edit these pages and it has a nasty habit of adding extra line breaks whenever I add text. I have to remember to preview first, delete the auto-added line breaks, and then save in order to prevent the extra spaces. I already made the changes so we can move on to more productive matters. I think that many editors add material from books that they haven't read (especially in this article). I am not one of those editors, as 98% of the material that I add is from books that I've read and own. A recent exception was pointing out that the David O'Connor book evenly presents both sides of the Qustul/Naqada debate. I only read those pages from a web preview.Rod (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Teeter: Before the Pyramids

She's a research associate, if this was a book she'd written I'd be dubious about using it, but it's not. It's a catalog for an exhibition with essays by leading scholars. We need to cite chapter, author and page number, 162-163 is ok, but 8–272? Here's the list of chapters and contributors.[32] but someone's going to have to go through the book and find the source for "these artefacts provide evidence that the "pivotal change" from predynastic to dynastic "Egyptian monumental art" happened in Africa and by Africans" - sorry, as I read that again I realised that I don't think that's what we are trying to say, as no one has suggested it didn't happen in Africa, and I'd call everyone in Africa at that time Africans myself. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have the Teeter book. It's chapter 16, page 162-163. The Teeter book primarily references Bruce Williams' work "Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan frontier: The A-group royal cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L" from 1986. It's in part 1, page 140-143. You should be able to download the Williams paper from the University of Chicago's website. http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/oine3.pdf and http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/oine/oine3.htmlRod (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying she wrote chapter 16? And - not asking you in particular - why the other 2 citations which aren't about the book she edited? Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
No, I am saying that she is listed as the primary author of the book. The chapter is written by David O'Connor and pages 162-163 are signed "BBW", which most likely means Bruce B. Williams. There are citations provided on page 163 and one of the two citations is Bruce Williams' work that I posted above.
The other citations in the wiki article are from other books dealing with the exact same subject matter. Most of the words in the wiki article have been taken almost verbatim from the Teeter book (BBW pages and David O'Connor chapter).Rod (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't have the Teeter book, but in Ancient Egyptian Kingship, by David O'Connor and David P. Silverman, they wrote at pg 105 that the Qustul rulers adopted and adapted many features of Egyptian iconography and ideology, and that it seems less likely that these rulers were the ideology’s originators. This sounds like it contradicts what you say O'Connor wrote in the Teeter book. Strange. See at [33]
Also, you are quoting Teeter extensively in the article as though she has a direct hotline from the ghosts of the Qustul scribes, and you are treating the many scholars who contradict her as a mere footnote. That's not very balanced, is it? Wdford (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
We all have to make an effort to not take author's words out of context. In most books on the A-group Nubians, the author will try to inform the world that the A-group Nubians had a unique and indigenous culture. Their motive is usually to promote the history of Nubia (as the author's generally feel that Nubia has been neglected in favor of Egypt). However, the authors consistently state that the pre-dynastic Egyptian culture was being developed simultaneously by Egyptians and A-group Nubians. They shared much and differed little in their expression of dynastic culture and art. Just read the quotes from Bruce B. Williams (Ch. 9, pages 83-92 of the Teeter book) that I posted above. It's a great book. I suggest that you buy it and read Ch. 9 where Bruce Williams goes on at length about how similar the Egyptians and A-group Nubians were (page 91 is particularly interesting). He caps off the chapter by saying that when the Nile valley changed from predynastic to dynastic culture/art, it was the Southern/Nubian model that was followed, as opposed to the highly similar model that was employed a little north in the Nile valley. The "deeply intertwined, great east african sub-stratum" was the same place, with the same people, and the same culture.Rod (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Williams does indeed mention that the Nubian culture is quite similar to that of Egypt. Nobody claims otherwise, but there are arguments about how this similarity came about. Williams does indeed suggest that Nubia was the originator, although he very professionally sprinkles his work with words like "possibly" and "may well have" etc. Many other authors contradict his conclusions, and state very specifically that the similarity arises because Nubia copied Egyptian motifs and iconography. They refer to evidence uncovered post the Qustul excavations which indicates that this iconography existed in Egypt much earlier than Qustul. Williams is certainly entitled to have his opinion mentioned, but the many other scholars cannot be relegated just because they contradict him. I again mention my concern re WP:UNDUE. Wdford (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Another thought occurs. The language of Egypt was an Afro-Asiatic language, similar family to that of the Arabians, but completely different to the Nilo-Saharan language family of the Nubians. If the Nubians originated the ancient Egyptian race, dynastic culture and iconography, how come their languages don't reflect any commonality? What am I missing here? Wdford (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Because you don't know anything about language and the relationship to phenotype. Any person of any phenotype can speak a language and therefore speaking a certain language does not constitute being a certain phenotype. Speaking Arabic does not make anyone more Arab than speaking Mandarin makes a person Chinese. But more importantly, Afro-Asiatic isn't a language itself but a family of languages which means it is a broader collection of various languages with a common derivation but has absolutely nothing to do with phenotype. And much of Afro-Asiatic is suggested to have originated in the Horn of Africa which also has many Afro-Asiatic languages.Big-dynamo (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I ask this because Diop and others have made a big deal about the "cultural similarities" between the ancient Egyptians and neighboring black races, and have used shared circumcision and cattle farming one of the meager planks in their hypothesis. There has also been much debate recently on this page about the relationship between Egypt and the Nubians, claiming as evidence a carved incense burner that turns out to have been copied from the Egyptians. So my point is, if Diop thinks that cultural similarities indicate racial similarity, and Teeter et al think that Nubians "may have" colonized Egypt, then we have a contradiction. Either Diop is wrong about most of his so-called evidence (probably), or Teeter has misinterpreted her evidence (seemingly), or they are both wrong (most likely). Wdford (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We concluded earlier that this work belongs to Williams and O'Connor and that Teeter likely just arranged the book. Adding her name to sentences in the article is undue. She likely didn't originate these ideas.
Other than Semitic, every language in the Afro-Asiatic originated and remains in Africa. Semitic is the only language in the group that is not from and still in Africa. Therefore, it is quite a stretch (although predictable for you) to characterize the language group as Arabian. In fact, it is an African language group (spoken by millions of black people) with an Arabian/Semitic off-shoot. The material that I've read on the Afro-Asiatic language group concludes that it must have started in East Africa because Omotic and other Ethiopian languages appear to be the oldest in the group. Therefore, I think your conclusions on the Egyptian's language are erroneous and what you should conclude is that some people from East Africa were the creators of the language group to which Ancient Egyptian and Nubian belongs. This is consistent with the indigenous and black tenets of the black Egyptian hypothesis. How many different languages are there living side by side in Europe? Should we conclude that because there is a difference between the Romance languages in the South and German/English in the North that Western Europeans are not all white???
I understand that it is standard practice to try to discredit anyone that believes that Ancient Egyptians were black and/or substantially similar to Nubians, but the evidence is overwhelming. Furthermore, the Univ. of Chicago scholars are the world's foremost scholars on this subject and matters dealing with Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia. I trust what they say more than 100 detractors with a different viewpoint. How many years did these detractors spend in the Nile valley researching Upper Egypt/Lower Nubia. Where is the museum that the detractor's created so that I can go there and review their work? You can go to the Oriental Institute at the Univ. of Chicago and see the work of the preeminent Univ. of Chicago scholars for yourself. Why do you think that they have funding to have a museum full of Nubian and Egyptian artifacts? It's because investors and philanthropists believe that their work is superior to the detractors.
I agree with the sentiment that 100 people against 1 person does not decide what the truth is - truth is not a democratic construct. However, this is an encyclopaedia and is trusted to reflect not what the truth is, but what the majority of authoritative people say is the truth. And that's not necessarily the same as what the majority of people believe. Hence it can become pretty tricky. There is little limit on the amount of material that can be included in Wikipedia as opposed to a book, so it is an excellent feature of Wikipedia that it gives space to minority views too. Wikipedia must make clear to all readers what the current consensus is, but having made that clear, it can and should explain alternative theories and views. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
In the real world, there is no consensus against a southern origin for dynastic Egypt. On Wiki, there is fraud and sloppy scholarship that tries to create this non-existent consensus. Editors take statements out of context from previews of books that they don't own. Therefore, we cannot take the "mainstream" and "consensus" statements as good faith edits. As an example:
The misinterpretation states that the Egyptian iconography and culture did not originate (or coexist) in Nubia. The editors state that the book " Ancient Egyptian Kingship" (by David O'Connor, David P. Silverman, pg 105) supports this position. However, the book actually states: "Bruce Williams has proposed...the unification...Naqada III...unification...proceeded from...rulers were of the Nubian A-group culture and buried in cemetery L at Qustul in southern Lower Nubia." You can read this for free on the internet.
The consensus cannot be proven (even in books cited to prove the consensus). The A-group Nubians and Egyptians were from the same continuum and "great east african substratum." THAT IS THE CONSENSUS. That is the truth.Rod (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, the book states, "Whatever the stimuli for the unification of Egypt may have been and wherever they came from..." Does that sound like a definitive consensus that they were not from Nubia, or does it sound like a misinterpretation of what can be found in the book?Rod (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The Qustul burner is important because it's the "premier A-group object" and "stands at the head" of the "documents of unification."Rod (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The areas of Europe invaded by the Roman empire speak Romanesque languages. Germany was never invaded by the Roman empire, and thus retained its indigenous language roots. However the Nubian language is NOT Afro-Asiatic at all. If Nubians from Qustul indeed drove their culture though Egypt, then their language should have dominated Egypt. However this is manifestly not the case, so clearly the Nubians never invaded Egypt in pre-dynastic days, or in the A-Group time-frame. Ergo, the Qustul hypothesis is severely undermined. Your only possible defence would be that Qustul was in Nubia (as per today’s boundaries) but perhaps it was NOT A NUBIAN CULTURE!!! Perhaps Qustul was an Egyptian colony after all! Are you prepared to accept that interpretation? If not, then how do you explain the language contradiction?

Thank you for making your POV abundantly clear – that scholars who support the “possibility” that blacks created Egyptian culture are to be believed, even though their conclusions have been contradicted by subsequent evidence, but all those multitudes who contradict them are to be ignored. Williams does not constitute a mainstream consensus all by himself, and the fact that their artifacts have a museum does not make their conclusions about those artifacts correct, far less a consensus. I vaguely recall that there are wikipolices about editors who consistently push a POV long after it has been contradicted by reliable sources ......

Re the book "Ancient Egyptian Kingship" by David O'Connor, David P. Silverman: At pg 104 they do indeed quote Williams’ conclusions. However at pg 105 they contradict his conclusions, with the statement that the Qustul rulers adopted this iconography from the Egyptians. Another classic case of selective quoting, yes?

Wdford (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Incredible. How long do we put up with this sort of thing? RfC/U time? Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You have to put up with it for as long as Wiki wants to stay fair and balanced and not only represent your viewpoint. Nilo-Saharan languages (like Nubian) are completely surrounded by Afro-Asiatic (in the region of Egypt/Sudan). Nilo-Saharan languages "are not found elsewhere", "may have spread out before the 1st millennium BC", and "it seems likely that the ancestral form of this language arrived in the Nile valley no earlier than the Meroitic resettlement of Lower Nubia (from "Africa in Antiquity", ch. 2, pages 29-31 with map of the language groups and their distribution). Egyptian records only begin to speak of Nubian around the New Kingdom.(Priese 1973) Therefore, there would not have been any such language as Nubian during the Qustul dynasty.Rod (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's reality: The book presents Williams case and then presents the other case and finally leaves the matter unsettled by stating, "Whatever the stimuli for the unification of Egypt may have been and wherever they came from..."Rod (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in the book “Ancient Egyptian Kingship” O'Connor says that the rulers of Qustul “adopted and adapted many features of Egyptian ideology and iconography,” and “it seems less likely that these are the tombs of the ideology’s originators.” That is relatively clear and unambiguous, and certainly does not support your other quotes re Qustul. The other authors I cited reject Williams’ conclusions even more clearly. 41.133.86.145 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The book presents the Qustul side of the story when they could have chosen to leave it out completely. The book said "Whatever the stimuli for the unification of Egypt may have been and wherever they came from." You can call that a consensus, if you like. I call it a debate. People can read this for themselves. It's on the internet for free.
Let's move on and stop talking past each other. Where was Abydos and where was Hierakonpolis? They were both in Southern Egypt (not Libya, not the northern delta). It doesn't change much for the race debate if Egypt's genesis was in Southern Egypt or Northern Sudan (using modern states as a point of reference for the geographic location). We can rest assured that the people living in Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan would have been dark skinned people. I'm not conceding the point on the origin of dynastic Egypt. I'm just stating that either Abydos/Hierakonpolis or Qustul area would have been populated by people that were biologically nearly identical and phenotypically very similar.Rod (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
No, O'Connor could NOT have "chosen to leave it out completely" - that's what POV-pushers do, while scholars give all the sides of the story. However, having explained Williams' conclusions, O'Connor then states quite clearly that he disagrees with Williams - as incidentally do most scholars, and for good reason. Second, there is no evidence that the people of Abydos etc were the same race as the Nubians, as that controversy is on-going and your continuum theory is far from accepted. Third, since you admit that the people currently living in an area are not necessarily the same race as those who lived there 5000 years ago, the possibility that the Qustul rulers were an Egyptian people rather than a Nubian people is still on the table. Fourth, as most scholars contradict Williams' Qustul conclusions, it is inappropriate to give Williams UNDUE weight in the article. Wdford (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of Herodotus as a source

Please see [34], which I have just finished researching. I propose to add a summary of this material into this article, as a counter-point to the on-going fixation with Herodotus by Diop and others. Wdford (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Strabo's comparison of Ethiopians and Indians

It is original research to claim that Strabo implied that Egyptians and Ethiopians were of different races because (in his words) Egyptians looked like Northern Indians and Ethiopians looked like Southern Indians. I have Strabo's book (volume 7, book 15, page 21) and he doesn't mention race. He only mentions their appearance, but does not draw a racial conclusion. If we follow the parallels in your original research, Northern and Southern Indians would be of two different races because they have slightly different pigmentation. Surely, you don't believe that Northern and Southern Indians are of two different races. If so, are Southern Indians Black? If not, wouldn't Egyptians and Ethiopians be allowed into the same racial group (Saharo-tropical variant) although they have slightly different pigmentation? Are not pale Scandinavian whites and olive whites from the Mediterranean grouped into the same race? Keep in mind Strabo lived around the start of the Christian era and Egypt had been ruled by foreigners for about 600 years before he would have visited the country. He likely met Greeks, Persians, and Assyrians there.Rod (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course Strabo wouldn't speak of 'race'- it didn't exist (at least in its modern form) during his times! The quote should be reinstated, but with "appearance" rather than "racial appearance" next to it... --Yalens (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Rod, the point is that human phenotype varies across populations, and there have been many scholars through history who have noted physical similarities between populations in North East African and those of India. The point being that discussing phenotype does not equal discussing race. Notwithstanding that fact, it must be reiterated again that the concept of race in its modern context as being related to phenotype is strictly a phenomenon of European scholarship and science of the 19th and 20th century and the root of this controversy which is more about phenotype than race.Big-dynamo (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


Of course, I agree that phenotype is not enough to characterize race (I think DNA is a better indicator). I agree with population continuums, like the Nile valley continuum.Rod (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


I'm still interested in the conclusions drawn from the original research. Are editors positing that Northern and Southern Indians are of different races because they don't look exactly alike? This is typically the approach that is used when dealing with the Nile valley racial group.Rod (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
No, of course nobody is saying that about Indians. They're actually not identical situations, but we shouldn't let ourselves be dragged off topic yet again. We're talking about Egypt, not the US or India or anything else. This isn't a forum. What we think as editors is for the most part irrelevant. What matters is which source says what. --Yalens (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOVN

Trying to argue NPOV language issues here seems futile, raised at WP:NPOVN#Herodotus & the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I just updated that page with a long list of scholars that have cited Herodotus in their work on the Nile Valley.Rod (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The reliability of most Eurocentric authors of the 18th-20th century as a source

To provide symmetry and balance to this article, I will begin countering every claim in the Hamitic/Caucasian/Asiatic/Hamitic theories and discrediting the authors of those debunked theories. This will provide balance with the incessant attempts by some editors to undo/counter/retort/rebuff anything that is added to the black theory section, although this article is about a controversy (meaning it is a given that people will disagree with anything written in any section about any theory).

It is a well documented fact that Eurocentric authors of the past 200 years were wrong on nearly every point concerning the race and geographic origins of the Ancient Egyptians. Furthermore, it is well documented that racism and imperialism were the main motivations for their work.Rod (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The "old" theories are all debunked already - including the Black Hypothesis. Are you perhaps displaying a hint of your POV again? Wdford (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
It is only your POV that the Black Hypothesis is debunked. I consider it the most compelling theory, because it is supported by a preponderance of FACTS (as opposed to debunked and outdated research or blanket statements by 'authorities').Rod (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
If those "old" Eurocentric theories are debunked then why are many of you claiming that modern science has the exact same views as the Old theories? The old theory said that the ancient Egyptians were everything but black and, guess what? According to some on this same page, the "mainstream" says the same thing. If those "old" Eurocentric theories are debunked then of course that means the Egyptians were black Africans. But of course, you will simply try and convince everyone that Africans calling people in Africa black is racist. Big-dynamo (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Rawlinson and Seligman said Caucasian brought agriculture and civilization to East Africa. This has been debunked. They are not reliable.
  • Morton said Egyptians were white men. This has been debunked. He is not reliable.
  • Sharpe said Egyptians were Mongols. This has been debunked. He is not reliable.
  • Hawass said Egyptians are not Africans. This has been debunked. He is not reliable.Rod (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree Rod but you should stop dancing around the edges of the issue. All of these theories were put forward by scholars who were most often openly racist in their views on human history. This is readily documented in no end of works written by these authors. There is no real debate about this. The problem is that some folks here are pushing a biased POV that tries to slander Africans calling other Africans in Africa "black" as racist, while pushing the notion that all these theories put forward by blatant racists are simply "honest scholarship". So calling the Ancient Egyptians brown whites, whites, mongols and hamites is fine but calling them black is racist? Sierously? Since when? That is an insult and nobody serious about this issue should tolerate it. Not to mention that this debate is about phenotype as there is no such thing as race, because "race" as we know it is a construct created by racist scientists from Europe 200 years ago. That is a key part of this whole issue which continually gets lost because those with an agenda have tried to bias the conversation with the notion that calling ancient Africans "black" is somehow racist and controversial. Yet none of the overtly racist documents and writings of Europeans are supposed to be considered racists, including those that try to take obviously black African people and lump them with Northern Europeans.Big-dynamo (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Let's not turn this into a forum again...--Yalens (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Not my intent at all. The page can and should be condensed. Bottom line, the issue became controversial in the last 200 years primarily because of 3 things: racism, colonialism and the rejection of both of these things by African scholars. This article isn't really about science it is about social agendas and how they impact the study of history and science. It is about the social conflicts caused by the construct of race in the 18th, 19th and 20th century, which originated with European expansion and conquest in Egypt and Africa. But I notice that over time the sections dealing with scientific racism and writings of David Morton and others have been removed in order to make it seem as if this is all just about "science" and objective scholarship. And by moving the modern response to the top of the article it tries to just completely ignore the history of colonialism and racism as the origin of the controversy to begin with. Big-dynamo (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
You did good to remove the phrase "scholarly consensus". Articles with the word "controversy" in the title should refrain from going around making reckless claims of "scholarly consensus" here and there. The words "controversy" and "consensus" are antonyms, you see. If there is a consensus, there is no controversy... and vice versa. Now, why do people often try to assert that there is a "consensus" in what is actually a "controversy"? I think it is just a psychological technique to make a weak position sound stronger by claiming it has "consensus". If someone who disagrees reads that the "consensus" feels the other way, they are supposed to just shut up and keep quiet, and be afraid of being thought a fool for disagreeing with this supposed "consensus". In other words, it's the same story as "the emperor wears no clothes"... (but, nothing to do with true neutrality, or allowing both sides of a controversy to be explained impartially.) That psychological technique was often used during the cold war, but I predict that as time goes on it will become more and more impractical in the wikipedia era, when it only takes one person in a crowd of millions to be first to say 'the Emperor wears no clothes' without fear. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is often still controversy in issues of general consensus. For example the consensus is that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attack on New York City, but a vocal minority still believe it was a CIA false-flag attack to provide an excuse to invade Iraq and steal their oil. These people are labelled "conspiracy nuts" in most of the world. The consensus is that Winston Churchill was the greatest Englishman ever, but a vocal minority still believes that he was lying, incompetent alcoholic who deliberately fanned the flames of World War 2 and in the process accidentally destroyed the very British Empire he was trying to reinvigorate. These people are labelled "revisionist nuts" in most of the world, (although they have a very strong case.) The consensus is that the Ancient Egyptians were NOT BLACK, but a vocal minority still asserts that they were, relying heavily on the discredited blogging of Herodotus and using every other scrap and morsel from the proximity of Nubia (ignoring that the Nubian language is completely unrelated to the ancient Egyptian language) to the red color of men in their ancient paintings (ignoring that the women were all lightly-tanned white people, who looked just like very pale modern Arab and Italian women of today.) These people are labelled "Afrocentrist nuts" in most of the world today, although they are as adamant as any other "victims of conspiracies".
As has been repeated countless times already, this article exists to describe the history of the controversy, not to thrash it out afresh. For that reason we have the article Black Egyptian Hypothesis, where you can list all your "evidence", and where the counter-points can be aired as well. This is not the place for regurgitating all the scraps that Diop was able to scrape together.
Wikipedia says at WP:CONS that "Consensus ... does not mean unanimity." The dictionary defines consensus as "general agreement or accord" [35]. The majority of scholars have indeed generally agreed that the Black Hypothesis is nonsense, and they no longer bother to debate it, while a tiny minority continue to scratch around for some particles of hope to keep their POV alive. Sometimes there really is a mass-conspiracy for ulterior motive, but sometimes the emperor is dressed just fine, and the lonely voices calling out to the contrary are just plain wrong. Wdford (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately the emperor has no clothes refers to the fact that all the racial theories put forward about Egypt originated in the writings and thinking of white scholars. However, there are folks here who take great pains to try and turn history upside down and pretend that those are just "objective" ideas from "honest" scholarship? Really? And the Africans claiming that Africans along the Nile Valley are and were black is the first time "race" was introduced into the debate? Not only is it dishonest but it is an insult. To suggest that black Africans in and along the NIle Valley at any point in history is so far fetched and absurd that it needs to be treated as a separate topic that is "fringe" to the discussion of ancient Egypt suggests a POV and bias in the debate. If you can sit here and treat racist theories about black Africans as "honest" scholarship and not controversial but somehow talk about the African rebuttals against the same racist scholarship as RACIST then you are taking sides in the debate and not practicing TRUE objective documentation of the controversy. So yes, the emperor has no clothes and likes to run around naked flaunting it in everyone's face. Big-dynamo (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Neither Wdford nor mainstream scholars ever said that "black Africans in and along the NIle Valley at any point in history is... far- fetched and absurd." Only you said they say that. --Yalens (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy/Archive_11&oldid=926780182"