Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

Table of Nations

This is now in the article twice. Not sure what to do about this. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

My personal guess would be that the second appearance is probably the better one. Placing it as the first discrete section seems to my eyes to give it too much prominence in the article. The article as per the first paragraph is about a controversy which arose in the 18th and 19th centuries. Including the Table as the first section doesn't seem to follow from that premise. Also, yeah, it makes it appear that the Table is somehow a matter of primary importance to the topic, and I'm not sure that the evidence really supports that. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree that having a separate section for the Table of Nations is inappropriate, and even more so when the interpretation chosen is that of Champollion – surely a twentieth-century interpretation would be more appropriate? I would support deleting this section, and mentioning the Table only in the “Ancient Egyptian art” section, where it fits into the context. Wdford (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Images in Modern Scholarship section?

Can anybody remember why we have these two arbitrary images in the Modern Scholarship section? Who are they, and how are they relevant to the topic? Wdford (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I can only guess that they are included to show what Egyptians today look like? Stupid, maybe, but that's the best I can think of. The 2011 Egyptian revolution in which they took part have no particular bearing so far as I can see on this article, or at least I don't see it or them mentioned in that section. That being the case, I can't myself see a lot of clear reason not to remove them, or at least perhaps place them elsewhere if they are to be included. Any images of some of the scholars actually mentioned in that section, like Diop or Keita, would probably be more relevant. John Carter (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed them. John's right, see [1]. Happened while I was on a break. We don't need images of modern people, scholars or whatever here. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was the one who originally added them. They were put in the modern scholarship position section, which details the view that ancient Egyptians are largely represented by modern Egyptians. Many people in the West don't actually know what modern Egyptians look like. With that in mind, I thought it would be helpful for readers unfamiliar with modern Egyptians to see what they looked like (I was originally going to put up Egyptian presidents, but I figured that would be distasteful considering modern events, so I chose protestors). Is that so bad? I don't see the harm. (I don't intend to re-add them without a discussion here though)--Yalens (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, but the problems are basically relating to SYNTH there. We would have to have some sort of evidence that the individuals chosen in some way meet some sort of "standard" regarding what modern Egyptians look like. If they didn't, there would be no clear reason for selecting any individual pictures for inclusion. And, unfortunately, I don't know of any kind of formal academic view of what the "standard" Egyptian looks like, so any images chosen would basically be selected based on some form of POV as to who should be included. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I did take care to avoid Egyptians who are considerably lighter than average (Fayza Abol Naga for example) or darker than average (Anwar Sadat, though he's ancestrally Nubian). --Yalens (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Today's egyptians are 100% Arabs who look they are straight out of the Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Ethnically they are pure arabs. Except the Copts who , even if arabized a lot, are maybe the closest thing to former egyptian, even if it is very distant.--Bakimsin (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the sources on the page, the modern consensus is that Arabic-speaking Egyptians (be they Christian or Muslim) are for the most part descended from the indigenous population and were simply linguistically Arabized (with limited genetic influence), similar to what occurred in Turkey (a Turkified population that is mostly descended from the pre-Turkic invasion peoples of the peninsula). --Yalens (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I have seen a lot of egyptians, they look like standard Arabs. You won't make the difference between an Arab from Gulf and between an arab from Egypt , Syria or Jordan if they are dressed the same. Only Morrocans look a little different because they have many color skins. As for the Turks, I would like to know your sources, because they are the easiest race to distinguish in my opinion as they have very unique morphology.--Bakimsin (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally I would disagree (in my view, Egyptians typically have smoother faces than Middle Eastern Arabs), but in any case usually genetics is used to determine descent, rather than physical appearance (Swedes and Finns look just like each other but have huge genetic differences, for example). You can find information on that (and other more reputable sources rather than your own opinion) on the wikipedia page that actually deals with that, Population history of Egypt, or the various Y-DNA haplogroup-by-population pages here...--Yalens (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
And as for Turks, this is hugely off-topic and it is good to note that the talk page is not a WP:FORUM. However, we also have a page on this on wikipedia: Genetic history of the Turkish people. If you want one study, just go with Cinnioglu's 2004 study. Knock yourself out. In summary, the mainstream consensus is that the Turkish-speakers of the Republic of Turkey are primarily descended from the region's pre-Turkic inhabitants, due to the high population density of Anatolia and the low population density (or just low population) of nomadic Turkic invaders (many of whom had already mixed with non-Turks by the time the arrived). --Yalens (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion leaves me more convinced than ever that the images were a bad idea. Dougweller (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Why?--Yalens (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The current version of this article is heavily biased and not objective

First and foremost, the historical fact is that the many of the early Europeans who created the "science" of anthropology were racists. That includes many Americans who were using "race science", as anthropology was often called, to justify the slavery and subjugation of Africans. Those facts therefore are the basis for the arguments of those identified as "Afrocentrists". However, the problem is these arguments are not new. Not only that but many Europeans even in the 1800s called the ancient Egyptians "negroes" or "black Africans". Therefore trying to pretend this is simply the view of some "Afrocentric" scholars is again a biased argument.

African Americans have been arguing against not only racism in general but racism in science since the 1800s and Egypt was often a big part of those debates. The reason for this is because subsequent to Napoleon's expedition to Egypt documenting the monuments, America experienced a wave of Egyptomania. That identification with all things Egyptian caused many to want to downplay the idea that ancient Egypt had anything to do with Africa.

All those reasons are the basis of the "debate" or "controversy" to begin with. The core of the controversy is racism pure and simple and it did not start with any scholar of African descent, just as racism did not start with any African in the first place. Racism was the controversy. Therefore to try and equate the arguments of those African descended scholars with the racism of the European scholars is very biased and downplays the whole point which is that racism was and is the whole core of the controversy. And then the article tries to make it seem as if "skin color" as the basis for race came from scholars of African descent. That is highly offensive to say the least. Skin color was used as the basis for race since Europeans created the concept. It isn't something "made up" by "Afrocentrists" to "claim" ancient Egypt, which is what the current article tries to push and is an offensive and biased POV. No. Scholars of African descent were arguing against the racism of the European scientists who were determined to make ancient Egypt into a civilization built by whites and not by blacks. And this "controversy" continues to the present day because modern science has simply chosen to avoid the discussion of skin color all together. And the reason for that is because the controversy boils down to skin color because racists have historically wanted to make ancient Egyptians into people of the white race, meaning people with white skin. Therefore, trying to claim that race is "anachronistic" is dishonest because even though modern science does not believe in race, skin color is still a fact of human existence. Therefore, by trying to downplay and avoid the issue of skin color modern science is trying to avoid the issue. It is not simply "Afrocentrists" trying to resurrect old models of "race" as they did not invent those models to begin with. They are simply documenting and describing those things they believe support their views on the predominant features and characteristics of the ancient Egyptian population. That does not mean that they are trying to uphold some antiquated notion of "race" by any means. But again it is offensive to suggest that such notions of "race" as mentioned in this article are purely something made up by scholars of African descent. If the article is going to discuss the controversy then the article needs to be objective and state the facts and not rely on a handful of opinions or one liners from one book in order to skew the POV one way or another. Racism is simply part of American history and race science is a part of it. Period. There is no need to try and equivocate it with those who were fighting against racism in order to somehow try and make it seem as if it wasn't really a bad thing. Big-dynamo (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

[citation needed]? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid

Modern studies on ancient egyptian dentition clusters them with Caucasoids (Europeans, Western Asians) who have small teeth, as opposed to Negroids (Western Sub-Saharan Africans) who have megadont/large teeth.

Sources:

  • Irish J.D. (1998). "Diachronic and synchronic dental trait affinities of late and post-pleistocene peoples from North Africa". Homo. 49(2) 138-155
  • Hanihara T and Ishida H. (2005). "Metric dental variation of major human populations". American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 128. Issue 2. pp. 287-298.

Onion hotdog (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the history of the controversy, not the discussion about who the AE were. This study might belong at Population history of Egypt but not here. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


Please do no alter quotes or misrepresent the words in very popular and widely read books

When citing books, please do not insert your own words and views within the quotation marks. Please do not alter the text that can be found in the actual source that is being citedRod (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


In the case of Herodotus' quotes, the most popular version of the Histories is cited. This version is by Penguin classics publishing and well respected translator, Selincourt. There is no reason for lay people on wikipedia to rewrite Selincourt's words, as Selincourt is the expert on translating from Greek into English. Editors are deliberately confusing the readers by spending entire paragraphs explaining a non-issue (the use of black or dark). In Merriam-Webster's dictionary, the first definition of black is dark. In the thesaurus, black and dark are synonyms. Therefore, if one is trying to convey the meaning of a Greek passage to a an English speaking target audience, either black or dark or adequate. It doesn't require a paragraph of explanation, as the words are equivalent in English. Furthermore, one of the authors (Lloyd) that purportedly disagrees with the translation of melanchroes as black, is quoted as saying melanchroes can mean any color from "bronzed to black." Doesn't this concede the point to Selincourt's original translation of melanchroes as black? Lloyd just admitted that he would be okay with the translation as black (along with other dark hues). In summary, please do not alter Selincourt's quotes and insert words that are not there, especially if the inserted words have the exact same meaning according to every English dictionary and thesaurus. It is confusing for the reader, as the reader has no way of discerning what words are part of the actual quote and what words were inserted into the quote by Wiki editors (unless you own the actual books, as I do).Rod (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, Selincourt's translation uses the word black. This version of the Histories is the best selling and most popular version on the Western world's preeminent online retail site. It is the most logical choice when choosing a version of the Histories to cite. For the record, I disagree with your assertion. In the USA, dark skinned versus black skinned would carry the same meaning.Rod (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you on this (at least, not now), but it's quite obvious that while "black" and "dark" may have similar meanings in some contexts, in this context, they are quite different, as 'black' carries a double meaning for an English-speaking audience that 'dark' lacks. --Yalens (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2012 (UT
As for "In the USA, dark skinned versus black skinned would carry the same meaning"... that isn't true. Dark just means of relatively dark(er) skin, and could refer to someone as light as an Italian or even a German, given the context (i.e. "compared to Scandinavians, Germans are darker on average", a completely factually plausible sentence). Black specifically means someone of Sub-Saharan extraction. So yes, there's a huge difference, and I'm a little surprised by the idea that you don't know this. --Yalens (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


There is no point in continuing the debate on this topic, as we have entered an upside down world where Germans can be called dark. There is no reasonable English speaking person that would refer to a German as "dark skinned." English speakers would refer to Germans as White. Everyone knows this. I would also refer to some polynesians and dravidians in India as black skinned. It's not exclusive to Africa (and recent descendants of Africa). What I would never do is use the word dark (synonym for black and definition of black) to describe a European. It's not reasonable.Rod (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Considering as "dark" or "dark-skinned" is a relative adjective, calling a German "dark-skinned" in comparison to a Swede is completely plausible. As I'm sure you can tell, I speak fluent English myself. And Dravidians (I know a handful, mainly Telugu-speakers) don't call themselves "black", but "brown" (as do most inhabitants of the Indian sub-continent), and may correct you if you call them "black". But now we are getting off-topic: the point is that "dark" and "black" in this context obviously aren't synonyms. --Yalens (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Yes, they are synonyms in this context and in everyday language people commonly refer to black people as dark skinned. In everyday language, people never refer to whites and Germans as dark skinned. People might say that they got a tan, which is a temporary darkening of white or pinkish skin. People might call Southern Europeans olive skinned, but English speakers do not call white people dark skinned.Rod (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some English speaking people do call other white people “dark skinned” – all the time. This mostly applies to people with Mediterranean origins, but is not limited to them. English speaking people also often call other Middle Eastern people “dark skinned”, just for completeness. However they never call any of the above “black”. Hope this helps you a bit. Wdford (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Nominating this sentence for deletion as it's anachronistic

Alan B Lloyd states that “melanchroes could denote any colour from bronzed to black”, and that “there is no linguistic justification for relating this description to negroes”.

There is not a group of people on Earth that would have been called "negroes" during the time that the Ancient Greek writers were using the word melanchroes (commonly translated as black) to describe Egyptians and Ethiopians. I disagree with other editors extremely vague critique of this line of reasoning. Please explain which Greeks spoke of "negroes" in their writings and how this term could be scientifically juxtaposed with melanchroes in the same sentence. The negroe is a much more recent construct by Eurocentrists and/or Europeans to artificially narrow the definition of Blacks in Africa. Rod (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that the Greeks spoke of "negroes" in their writings - the word is Lloyd's. His point - which is abundantly clear - is that "melanchroes" does not mean "negro" as its used in modern times. Wdford (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The context is the use of the word melanchroes by Ancient Greek writers to describe black or dark skinned people in Africa. What value does Lloyd's anachronistic quote add, since the Greeks never indicated that melanchroes equates to Negroe. Selincourt and Diop did not assert that melanchroes equates to Negro. Why is this statement relevant or necessary for this article? Selincourt, Diop, and others are asserting that melanchroes equates to black skinned, which is an entirely different matter than the loaded and anachronistic (in the context of this article) word Negroe. The point that other editors would like to make is that some scholars translate melanchroes as dark. Isn't it enough to just say that? Rod (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
You've now got 3 editors disagreeing with you - and you are at 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV: Due and undue weight, Equal Validity, Balance,

In the following passage, an editor tries to deconstruct a quotation from the most popular version of a source, Herodotus the Histories. The editor quotes Najovits and states that "dark" is the most common translation for melanchroes. However, in the context of Herodotus' the Histories, black is in fact the most common translation of melanchroes. The Penguin classics version of the Histories is the most popular version in English (verifiable on any major book retailer's website) and it uses black. The editor then quotes Lloyd, although Lloyd concedes that melanchroes could be translated as black. There are NPOV concerns with such a lengthy explanation of the translation of melanchroes. If melanchroes is so commonly translated as dark, why isn't it translated as dark in the best selling version of the Histories by the well respected Penguin Classics publishing house and well respected translator, Selincourt? Furthermore, this is not worthy of such weight, as the word dark is used to define black and the two words are synonyms.
One of the most popular indicators of race is skin color and thus the Ancient Egyptian race controversy often focused on the Ancient Egyptian's skin color. The Indigenous and Black African model relies heavily on writings from Classical Greek and Egyptian historians, as well as Hebrew and Biblical traditions. Several Ancient Greek historians noted that Egyptians and Ethiopians were black with woolly hair, which became one of the most popular and controversial arguments for this theory. The Greek word used is “melanchroes”. While scholars such as Diop, Selincourt and George Rawlinson translate the Greek word "melanchroes" as "black", Najovits states that "Dark-skinned is the usual translation of the original Greek melanchroes", as do Frank M Snowden and Alan B Lloyd. Snowden states that “Diop not only distorts his classical sources, but also omits reference to Greek and Latin authors who specifically call attention to the physical differences between Egyptians and Ethiopians. Snowden also states that Herodotus distinguished the Ethiopians from the Egyptians based on differences in their language, customs and physical characteristics. Alan B Lloyd states that “melanchroes could denote any colour from bronzed to black”. He interprets the Herodotus description as “dark-skinned and curly haired”, and states that “there is no linguistic justification for relating this description to negroes”.Rod (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"Best selling" doesn't mean "most accurately translated", it means "cheapest". That's not quite the same thing. And respected scholars wouldn't make any kind of fuss over this to begin with unless there were good grounds. Let's not go round this circle too many more times please. Wdford (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Sigh, please. And I've restored the Lloyd quote - the rationale for removing it seemed, well, a bit lacking. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I thought I had, must have not noticed that I couldn't undo it and then closed the page thinking it had saved.. But I support its replacement, thanks for doing that. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, on behalf of the lay reader, I must continue this discussion. The Penguin classics version of the Histories has not been deemed "unscholarly" by anyone other than editors on Wiki trying to push their point of view. Selincourt is sound and reliable. Penguin publishing house is sound and reliable. The book states black skinned. None of us are qualified to change what Selincourt has translated. If we were, Penguin would have asked us to translate the book from Greek.Rod (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Snowden and Lloyd are also sound and reliable, and Penguin might just as easily have hired Snowden or Lloyd to do their particular translation. Snowden and Lloyd do however differ with Selincourt on this one issue. Nobody is accusing Penguin of anything, as there is no correct answer here - hence the controversy. Wdford (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Yet, Penguin didn't. Penguin hired Selincourt. Selincourt translated melanchroes as black. We are not qualified to rewrite Selincourt's words.Rod (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

We are not qualified to question Selincourt's translations, but Snowden and Lloyd certainly are, and they certainly did. We merely record that some people translated the word as black, and others did not. The fact that Penguin chose one scholar over another makes little difference to the issue. Wdford (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


Sounds good. We are in agreement that there are different viewpoints on the translation and this warrants no further discussion unless editors attempt to butcher Selincourt's words to make their point.Rod (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Are current day Egyptians representative of Ancient Egyptians?

Editor Yalens states above that the mainstream theory on the race of Ancient Egyptians "stresses Egyptian continuity to the present day modern Egyptians, the majority of whom don't identify as black...and notes Egypt's biological continuity to the modern day." Yalens also states, "The estimate that I've seen most commonly is that Egyptians are around 90% continuous, with the continuity being preserved due to factors including Egypt's high population density, the relatively small numbers of these peoples that actually settled in Egypt, and cultural barriers." To this we add the testimony of well known Egyptologists, such as Volney. Volney states that the Ancient Egyptians were true negroes after observing modern day Egyptians. Champollion-Figeac disagreed, which yields a controversy on the race of Ancient Egyptians that was sparked by observations of modern day Egyptians.Rod (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course there are modern Egyptians who would be called "black" in the USA today, just are there are modern Egyptians who would be called "white". That's true of almost every country in the world these days. There are black Norwegians, but that's not evidence that "the Norwegians" are black, or that the Vikings were black. Having a whole section about one individual Egyptian in modern America is utterly absurd. You could equally easily choose one who was very "white" looking. Of course Egypt is not quite in the same situation as Norway. It would have had some population inflow from the Mediterranean and some from the African uplands throughout its history, so we would expect the population to have had varying skin pigmentations, with a greater number of more "black" looking individuals in the south. We would also expect a natural gradual variation of skin tone, darkening towards the south. This is utterly obvious. Trotting out all the old cliches from afrocentric websites won't change these basic facts. Paul B (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
When did the Detroit News and Times become Afrocentric websites?Rod (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm talking about your trotting out of Volney, use of Herodotus etc. All cliched stuff. The Detroit News and Times is an utter irrelevance. Paul B (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Volney's observations were based on his experience in Egypt with numerous Egyptians. His comments are not based on the case of one person. However, the case of the one person does help to illustrate the point.Rod (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

They are one person's comments, and not remotely scientific. How does his scattergun view of "modern day" Egyptians matter at all, when we can all have a view of that topic? And "modern day" scientists can have an informed one, certainly more useful than some bloke's musings 200 years ago. Paul B (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Cleopatra VII is not ethnically Egyptian. She is Greek (caucasian).

An editor has stated that pictures of the 25th dynasty pharaohs cannot be included in this article because they are from a different ethnic group. However, an entire section of this article has been devoted to a a Greek, Cleopatra VII. Clearly, Cleopatra was from a different ethnic group than most Egyptians. It is unfair and a NPOV violation to remove a picture of the 25th dynasty pharaohs while leaving a picture of Cleopatra. At least the Nubians and Egyptians coexisted in the Nile valley from the onset of the dynastic period until the end of the Egyptian civilization. I'm going to leave time for debate, but if the 25th must go, so must Cleopatra. She was not ethnically an Egyptian either.
She was a member of the Ptolemaic dynasty, a family of Greek origin that ruled Egypt after Alexander the Great's death during the Hellenistic period. The Ptolemies, throughout their dynasty, spoke Greek and refused to speak Egyptian, which is the reason that Greek as well as Egyptian languages were used on official court documents such as the Rosetta Stone.

No one here claims Cleopatra is of exclusive Egyptian descent. However, I believe she gets a section on the page because there are claims in some quarters that she was "black" in spite of this. While we're on the topic though, I do believe the third paragraph of that section might be starting to get into the speculative -and therefore unnecessary and undue-space- realm.--Yalens (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Participants, please weigh in on this debate. Is it fair and acceptable to remove a picture of Egyptian pharaohs from upper egypt in the Nile valley, while leaving pictures of Greeks? The pharaohs of the 25th were culturally Egyptian in every form, while the Ptolemies didn't even pretend to be Egyptian. The 25th are relevant because they ruled all of Egypt around the time that Greek historians were writing about Egypt and calling Egyptians black skinned.Rod (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with the removal of Cleopatra's picture. --Yalens (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course its fair for the 25th Dynasty to be shown here, provided its clearly noted that they were invaders and were not representative of Ancient Egyptians. However, while everyone seems to accept without controversy that the 25th Dynasty were black outsiders, there is a "controversy" (by a small faction) about the race of Cleopatra, hence she is included here in the "controversy" article while the 25th Dynasty invaders are not controversial. Wdford (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Usually, I try to ignore this line of reasonsing, but someone should make it clear for the lay reader. The Nile valley was one culturally and ethnically linked population grouping from predynastic times until the end of the Egyptian society. It is bad science to pretend that the Kushites/Nubians/Ethiopians/Napatans were "foreigners" with respect to Egypt. Modern scholarship has proven that at the dawn of the dynastic age A group Nubians and Egyptians were living side by side and the change to Egyptian style culture/art happened in Southern Egypt (basically Sudan). It is a fact that the Southerners (Naqada and A group Nubians) conquered and controlled most of the Nile valley at the dawn of the dynastic age. It is a fact that the A-group Nubians were genetically and culturally related to most people living in the Nile valley. The Qustul finds and studies by Univ. of Chicago scholars confirm this. Many scholars conclude that there was a significant black element in the Old Kingdom, as exhibited by the controversy over the race of the sphinx. Many scholars agree that the Middle Kingdom (e.g. 12th dynasty) had a significant Nubian influence. Most scholars agree that there was a significant change to Nubian iconography in the New Kingdom and that Egyptians and Nubians were basically indistinguishable during the New Kingdom. All scholars agree that there were close trade ties between Nubia and Egypt throughout this time period. All scholars agree that Egypt colonized Nubia, intermingled with Nubians, and incorporated Nubians into their society and military. Many scholars agree that the Nubians attacked and nearly brought the Egyptian empire to ruin in the 17th dynasty. Those same scholars agree that the Nubians could have held control of the entire Nile valley in the 17th dynasty and ended the Egyptian empire if they chose. All scholars agree that the Napatans completed the circle by recapturing all of the Nile valley as their Southern forefathers had done at the dawn of the dynastic period. All scholars agree that the Napatans (25th) were culturally Egyptian in every conceivable way and that they returned Northern Egypt to traditional Egyptian ways (as true foreigners had led Northern Egypt astray). The Napatans were able to return Lower Egypt to former Egyptian cultural norms because they had been genetically and culturally assimilated and integrated with the entire Nile Valley for millennia. It is a complete absurdity at this late date to continue pushing this nonsense that there was some great dividing line and impassable barrier between Kush/Nubia/Napata and Lower Egypt. It is untrue and you know it.Rod (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Rod

On the subject of bad science, please provide reliable sources for your statement that "modern scholarship" regards the Ancient Egyptians as being ethnically identical to the Kushites/Nubians/Ethiopians/Napatans? Diop certainly believed it, and no doubt a few others too, but what is the consensus please? A-group Nubians and Egyptians were indeed in contact with each other, but this does not make them the same race – Chinese and Pakistanis live side by side today in New York, but they are not the same race. Southern Egypt is NOT “basically Sudan” – Ancient Egypt had a clear southern border, which excluded Sudan. Egypt conquered Nubia in early times, and traders and soldiers and slaves and brides crossed the border in both directions frequently and freely, and thus there was undoubtedly a “Nubian influence” from early times. But that is not the same thing as saying they were “basically indistinguishable during the New Kingdom”. Please provide reliable sources for this statement. The 25 Dynasty were Nubian, who (like the Ptolemies) adopted the Egyptian culture – although it was not originally their own. The dividing line between Nubia and Egypt was as porous as any other border, but that doesn’t mean the people on either side were originally of the same ethnicity. If this matter were cut and dried, there would be no controversy, would there? Wdford (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Professor Massoulard concluded that Ancient Egypt was over one-third "negroid." Falkenburger's anthropological study said that the Egyptians were "36% negroid." Flinders Petrie described the Anu as blacks. Volney called the head of the sphinx, "characteristically negroe." Professor Davisse's iconographic study found "black Egyptians" (especially in the 11th dynasty) and he stated "there remained a variable proportion of Egyptians with negro features." Professors Vercoutter and Leclant highlighted the onset of "negro representation" in 18th century Egyptian iconography. Professor Leclant recognized an "African character in the Egyptian temperament and way of thinking." Professor El Nadury "did not deny that there were black elements in the population of Egypt during the Old Kingdom." Professor Vercoutter "did not dispute that there might have been black elements throughout Egyptian history" and Vercoutter "conceded that there were representations of black people in Egyptian sculpture during the Old Kingdom , and he gave supporting examples." (All quotes in this section from "General History of Africa", Mokhtar, Chapter 1 and Annex to ch.1) I'm quoting authors so don't shoot the messenger about their word choices.
"In the formative years of Egyptian civilization, relations with northern Nubia were strong and reciprocal." "Sudanese tradition strongly influenced the Tasian culture of Upper Egypt" Objects at Khor Bahan point to the "substantial trade" between Nubia and Naqada I Egypt. "Rock drawings in Lower Nubia depict many boats of Naqada type." Egyptians and Nubians had a "thorough knowledge of each other." "Nubian pottery and A-group sites in Upper Egypt indicated that A group Nubians went north" Finally, "Qustul, however, had images associated with the rising Egyptian dynastic culture on unmistakably A group objects, namely royal symbolic facades and sacred boats depicted on A group incense burners...Typical of the culture...unparalleled in type, materials, or workmanship in Egypt, there is no reason to believe they were imported, so they must represent Nubian participation in Dynastic culture in its most complex developments." "The incense burners, seals, painted pottery, and rock art suffice to show that A-group Nubia supported the same emerging culture as Egypt...this participation by Nubia in dynastic culture should come as no surprise, since nubia and Egypt were not only deeply intertwined, they also both belonged to the 'great east african substratum.'" (All quotes in this section from "Before the Pyramids", Emily Teeter, pages 83-90, University of Chicago's Oriental Institute)
"At the same time, the A-group-Kushite tradition remained a major center of Lower Nile civilization. Having a common origin with Egypt in the Naqada I-II, the southern group remained more true than Egypt to the archaic heritage that was passed to its descendants at Napata and Meroe, and, though modified by continuing contacts with Egypt, was revived in dramatic form by the Noubades in the final pharaonic cemeteries at Qustul and Ballana." (Excavations between Abu Simbel and the Sudan Frontier, the A -group royal cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L, The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition, Volume II, page 185, Bruce Beyer Williams, web version)
As I stated before, the Nile Valley was one place. Nubians in the Nile valley and Egyptians in the Nile valley were very connected, intermingled, intermarried, etc. They shared genetic material and culture. They conquered each other and sent troops to fight in each others wars. Egyptians were not all black, but an awful lot of them were. Modern scholarship makes this abundantly clear. We have a controversy because not long ago mainstream scholars used to say that Egyptians were white. The status quo was developed during the transatlantic slave trade when poor scholarship ruled the day and the status quo is not supported by modern and non-racist scholarship.
I just hope that the average reader can see through the hypocrisy in this article. The 25th dynasty is accused of being outsiders, but Greeks, like Cleopatra VII, get entire sections of the article. Another editor agreed that Cleopatra's picture should go, but it remains. Please show me the Greek participation in the formation of the Egyptian civilization. Please show me the Greek iconography in the Old, Middle, and New Kingdom's of Egypt. Greeks, Romans, and Persians are not Egyptians and played virtually no role in the Ancient Egyptian civilization. The civilization was at its end before these groups came to the region. The serious controversy surrounds topics that are debated by serious scholars with opposing views, like Diop and his critics. The Cleopatra "controversy" is the stuff of tabloids and not worth mentioning at all. Rod (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I reverted you again. You can't accuse me of violating WP:3RR if I haven't made 3 reverts of it within a 24-hour period. Which I haven't. Secondly, I'm pretty sure Wdford didn't mean "include the picture please", though he can speak for himself better than I can.
You have said nothing showing Nubians and Egyptians to be the same ethnic group. Tatars and Russians have an intertwined history, as do the English and French, sharing much material (and non-material) culture, and so on... but they certainly aren't the same ethnic group.
And it is probably true that Nubians and Egyptians mixed in border areas, this is acknowledged, and it continued throughout history. But this "lightens" Nubians as much as it "darkens" Egyptians, and this, too, is acknowledged. A side story- perhaps OR, because its personal experience, but I you'll find it interesting. I have a friend who hails from Sudan (black but speaks Arabic, identifying as "Sudanese"), and I once asked him if he identified at all with Nubians in the way that Lebanese identify with Phoenicians, etc. He replied that he didn't, and that (modern) Nubians were "what you get when you mix blacks with Egyptians" (he explained he was proud to be both a black and an Arab, and nothing else).
You misrepresent the stance of those who are skeptical about the Black theory in the modern day. It isn't the view that "developed during the transatlantic slave trade" in which those with lighter skin was considered superior, which it in fact rejects. It also rejects the view that developed in reaction to it, that Ancient Egyptians should be viewed as "blacks" primarily akin to the peoples of tropical Africa. Instead, it stresses Egyptian continuity to the present day modern Egyptians, the majority of whom don't identify as black. It acknowledges blacks in ancient and modern Egypt (including, yes, Nubians, like Anwar Sadat, and those brought to Egypt as slaves). But that's true of France too. The modern "status quo", as you say, rejects the idea that blacks constituted the majority of Ancient Egyptians. In contrast, it defines Egypt as primarily uniquely Egyptian , with sub-Saharan influences noted only alongside other influences, and notes Egypt's biological continuity to the modern day. --Yalens (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


wdford left the 25th dynasty picture and added the caption himself. Therefore, he must have been okay with the picture, as he could have deleted it instead of adding a caption.
The entire first paragraph above lists Egyptian entities and mainstream professors that describe the Egyptian entities (sphinx, artwork, etc.) as having features that are identical with a black person's phenotype. Thus, many Egyptians were ethnically black. We all agree that the sphinx is Egyptian. If Volney said that the head of the sphinx looks like a negroe, that implies that the person portrayed in the Egyptian sphinx must have been ethnically black. Does the continuity that you speak of imply that Egypt's population was unchanged by the waves of Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Turks that invaded and settled Egypt? Let's assume that it wasn't, many Egyptians living in present day Southern Egypt would fall in the black category (by most reasonable people's account and yes I've been there), or mixed with the black category. As you move into Sudan, the percentage of the people that would fall into the black category would increase dramatically (especially in South Sudan). I don't need the people that live there to tell me this, I have good eyesight. Diop, others, and I don't subscribe to narrowly defined definitions of black people (limiting blacks to people that live in a small portion of West Africa). Black/Dark skinned people from Africa with kinky/curly hair are black (West Africans and South Africans). Black/Dark skinned people from Africa with straight-ish hair are black (Nubians). Black/Dark skinned people from Africa with intermediate hair are black (Ethiopians and many East Africans). Reasonable people will conclude that the aforementioned groups cannot be successfully included with Whites or Asians. It would render the racial classification system meaningless (as when dark skinned people from Africa magically become whites). Diop believes that Arab is not an ethnic group, but rather a mix between the white and black ethnic groups. Diop believes that Arab is a cultural group.
We will have to disagree on some points, hence the controversy. One such point is when editors try to convince readers that left is right and up is down. Nubians are black, period. What more would it take to be characterized as black? Nubians have lived in Africa from the beginning of time. Nubians have jet black skin. Nubians have a hair type that is very dissimilar from a white or Asian person's hair. What else does one need to be classified as black? There are a lot of black people that are in denial and claim that they are not black. The best example would be some Ethiopians that claim that they are not black when it is clear to anyone with good eyesight and any experience with the racial classification system (as flawed as it may be) that modern Ethiopians best fit in the black category. The steatopygia that can be found in the modern Ethiopian population is one great indicator that they belong amongst the blacks.Rod (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The estimate that I've seen most commonly is that Egyptians are around 90% continuous, with the continuity being preserved due to factors including Egypt's high population density, the relatively small numbers of these peoples that actually settled in Egypt, and cultural barriers. As for the rest of this discussion, you should be reminded that isn't a forum. The exact borders of who is black in, say, Ethiopia, isn't at all relevant, and we should stay on topic. Wdford can and should speak for himself, but I still reject the notion that the image's presence, even with a caption, is a good compromise, as considering that the depicted people are Nubians, their presence only serves to deceive readers, serving no other clear purpose on the page. --Yalens (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Similarly, the picture of Cleopatra deceives readers, as readers will assume that the Greek (ethnically white) Cleopatra VII was Egyptian and representative of the Egyptian population's race.Rod (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The plethora of sources quoted do not say that the Ancient Egyptians were black - they merely say that some blacks lived among them, which nobody disputes. Similarly blacks live in France and the USA today, but that does not mean the average person in France and the USA is black, and nor does it mean that the construction of modern New York can be credited to black people. The problem is also in the definition of "black" - Diop seemingly believed in the "one-drop test", and because he assumed that Arabs were a mixture of blacks and whites rather than a race in their own right, everyone that wasn't a pure-blood Nazi was classified by Diop as also being black. Not at all helpful, and not supported by the bulk of scholars then or now. Please note that we do NOT all agree that the Sphinx was black - quite the contrary. Volney - who was a tourist rather than a reliable source for judging the race of a damaged statue - does not represent the consensus. I am happy to keep the pic of the Nubian pharaohs, provided it is clear that these were alien occupiers and were not representative of the rest of the Ancient Egyptians. Cleopatra is included in her own section because a lot of black people have heard that she was black - not because anybody is claiming she represented the average Ancient Egyptian. The content of the article makes that quite clear. I am happy to add a small section on the 25th Dynasty, provided it makes it clear that they were not representative either. However there is no real controversy over the race of the 25th Dynasty. Wdford (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


We are in agreement again. No section on the 25th needed, as they have their own article on wiki and you are correct (everyone agrees that the 25th rulers were black).Rod (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


Small point of clarification, the modern consensus is that the Ancient Egyptian population and civilization was indigenous to the Nile valley. The modern consensus is that large scale migrations did not alter the ethnicity of Egyptians from the neolithic period until Egypt lost its sovereignty (to Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Turks). (See the annex to Ch. 1 of the Gen. History of Africa). Therefore, Arabs didn't play a big role in the race of Ancient Egyptians as Arabs are not from the Nile valley. The impact of recent settlement (by Arabs and Turks) is controversial, but it stands to reason that it has altered the racial make up of the region. Even after this recent (7th century AD until present) large scale settlement by Arabs and Turks, we can still find many people in Egypt that would be classified as black (as admitted by several editors on this page).Rod (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Arabs conquered Egypt, but except for the Sinai, an utterly peripheral area with a miniscule population density, they never settled in numbers that would significantly change the dense local population. For note of comparison, it is also believed that this is consistent with Iraq (Mesopotamia), a similarly very densely populated area that the Arabs conquered. Arab language and culture were acquired by language replacement via elite dominance, paired with Arabic's religious prestige, while the profile of the population was largely unchanged.
Turks also never settled in Egypt in significant numbers. It is notable that in fact the Turkification of Anatolia and Thrace was itself mainly done by language and cultural replacement rather than large scale migrations. Baedeker estimates that there are about 0.1 million persons in Egypt with some Turkish roots- a negligible part of Egypt's huge population of 90 million.
But let's get back on topic- Could someone please provide me one good reason why this picture of Nubians somehow improves the page? Otherwise, there is utterly no reason to keep it, while there are reasons for removing it...--Yalens (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


Glad you asked. There is considerable evidence to support the assertion that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was indigenous to the Nile Valley. There is considerable evidence to support the assertion that after the neolithic period, the race of the Egyptians was unchanged by migrations from those outside of the Nile valley. There is considerable evidence that A-group Nubians were there when the Ancient Egyptian civilization started and the A-group Nubians contributed very heavily to everything that we think of as dynastic Ancient Egypt (see Qustul finds and Univ. of Chicago research). This means that Ancient Egypt was founded, at least in significant part, by people that would best fit into the black racial category. There is considerable evidence that Nile valley blacks were there (at all levels of society, including pharaoh) in Ancient Egypt during the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms. There is considerable evidence that Egypt colonized and absorbed the Nile valley blacks, incorporated them into the military and Egyptian society, etc. There is considerable evidence that Nile valley blacks provided a leadership role in Ancient Egypt's New Kingdom and black iconography was prevalent in Ancient Egyptian art during this time. Therefore, the Nile valley blacks that conquered all of the Nile valley in the 25th dynasty could best be described as Ancient Egyptians. They are descendants of the A-group Nubians that started Ancient Egypt. They were Ancient Egyptians in every aspect of their culture (religion, art, architecture, etc.). They ruled the entire Nile valley. They were pharaohs in the proper sense of the term (as they controlled the two lands). They were nearly indistinguishable from Ancient Egyptians, because they were Ancient Egyptians. Napatans are certainly much more Ancient Egyptian than Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Turks. They may not be representative of the race of all Ancient Egyptians (as many scholars believe Ancient Egypt had a mixed population), but they certainly represent the race of a large percentage of Ancient Egyptians (see my paragraph from above to see the percentages as quoted by several preeminent Egyptologists). The bottom line is that you cannot take Niley valley blacks out of the story of Ancient Egypt (and its race) because they were there from the beginning, during the middle, and at the end. The Napatans (and later in Meroe) carried the torch of Ancient Egyptian culture after Lower Egypt fell to foreigners (Persians, Greeks, Romans, etc.).Rod (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel like we are going in circles. I asked whether anyone had a good reason to keep the picture on the page. You wrote another text blurb about your views on the Nubian-Egyptian relationship, with which nobody else agrees. It's all very interesting to discuss, but you didn't even mention the picture. I repeat myself: does anyone have a good explanation for how having the picture improves the page? (please post below) --Yalens (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Because otherwise, here are my various reasons for removing it:
1. Readers will wonder why pictures of foreign peoples not directly relevant to the discussion of the page are there, and might doubt the page's quality as a result (i.e. it's either irrelevant or POV). This isn't necessarily the case with the Cleopatra picture, because its clear why the picture is on the page, as it is relevant to the discussion. It's not so clear why the Nubians picture is on the page.
2. It contributes to the picture imbalance. We have three cherry-picked photos adorning the black theory, and none for all the other five. You could hardly call that equal treatment.
3. Less well-versed readers might not know what Nubians are, and it won't be clear that the picture is of a foreign-origin dynasty. Hence the caption doesn't solve everything. On this note, perhaps "foreign, Nubian, origin" could ameliorate this particular problem, but not the other three.
4. It seems, based on Rod's response when I first asked the question, that his main reason for keeping it up is his own views that the Nubians depicted are the ones who "started Ancient Egypt"... which unfortunately makes me wonder if the reason the picture is here is to promote that particular POV... --Yalens (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
These are the views of Diop, Chancellor Williams, Obenga, Bernal, Van Sertima, Volney, Snowden, etc. They are not mine. I am just the editor that has added the aforementioned scholar's views to wiki. All of the aforementioned scholars agree with the text that I have added. Some other scholars disagree, hence the controversy.
Cleopatra's picture is also a picture of a foreign person not relevant to the discussion, as none of the serious scholars assert that she is black. Basically, one tabloid style article is cited as the genesis of the entire Cleopatra controversy. It isn't much of a controversy and it certainly didn't come up in the UNESCO symposium.
Two of the three pictures in the black theory section are of quite famous Egyptians that are agreed by all to be counted among Egyptians proper. Furthermore, Queen Ahmose-Nefertari's offspring comprised one of Egypt's most heralded dynasties, the 18th. The picture of Ahmose-Nefertari and her son Amenhotep_I shows the diversity of colors used to depict Ancient Egyptians. It also shows that Ancient Egypt had quite a few rulers that were phenotypically identical to the 25th rulers from the southern part of the Nile valley.
Queen Tiye gave birth to both of King Tut's parents and logically she is King Tut's grandmother. King Tut is likely the most famous of all Ancient Egyptians (due to the treasures found in his tomb), so it is rather astounding that you are calling the pics of Ahmose-Nefertari and Tiye, "cherry picked." They are giants in the family tree of Ancient Egypt and they contributed a lot of genetic material to the pharaohs that are household names today. The last picture is also of Egyptians, but some may disagree. Those that do agree, would note that the race of the Egyptians is the same as the race of the larger Nile valley population (including those from Nubia) which founded, built, and sustained (even after lower Egypt fell to true foreigners from outside the Nile valley) the Ancient Egyptian civilization and culture. Those that do agree would conclude that there was just one race in the Nile valley, which included both the Nubians and the Northerners, the Egyptians. Those that do agree would note that these populations (North and South Nile valley) have been so mixed and intertwined that it is impossible to distinguish between the two. If some scholars say that Egyptians were red and Nubians were black, I can point out statements from Snowden and Univ. of Chicago scholars that states that Nubians were also depicted as red. I can also point out the paintings from the tomb of the Egyptian Huy, which clearly depict Nubians that are red, brown, and black colored. This is why the picture of the 25th should stay as it is representative of those that ruled all of the Nile valley, including Egypt (in the 25th, 18th, 11th (according to some)), and it is representative of the one Nile valley racial group, to which the Egyptians and Nubians belonged.Rod (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't ask for another POV debate on the issue (and yes, you happen to share Diop's and Van Sertima's views, so yes they are yours too). This isn't a forum. We are talking about the picture of Nubians. Does anyone else have any thoughts?--Yalens (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


The title of this section indicates that we should be talking about Cleopatra. Let's reframe the discussion. Yalens agreed to delete Cleopatra's image, since she is a Greek and a foreigner. Why is her picture still in the article, if multiple editors are okay with deleting it? If we delete Cleopatra's picture, I am okay with deleting the picture of the 25th rulers from the Nile valley.Rod (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't agree to delete Cleopatra's photo... I merely said I wasn't bothered by it at the time. But Cleopatra's picture is, indeed, relevant to the page. --Yalens (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


Due to your repeated requests, I already deleted the picture of the 25th. That should end this discussion.Rod (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Cleopatra VII had Red Hair

I think that is clearly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.34.210 (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


Great! She's Greek. It's the exception proving the rule. If you can't state that the entire Nile valley population, or a significant percentage of it, was red-headed, then it's irrelevant. Furthermore, you will need to prove that statement by citing some peer reviewed secondary sources.Rod (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

We owe it to the readers to shorten the section on the use of dark versus black

Other editors tried to use Snowden to demonstrate that dark should be used instead of black while translating melanchroes into English. However, Snowden wrote an entire book on the race of Ethiopians and Egyptians, as viewed by the Greeks and Romans. In "Blacks in Antiquity", Snowden uses the English word "black" on nearly every page to describe the skin color of the Ethiopians and Egyptians. On nearly every page, Snowden is attempting to explain, in English, what various Greek writers originally said in Greek. If Snowden truly believed that melanchroes should be translated as dark, this was his time to use dark. Alas, most of the time, he didn't. Even when speaking of Herodotus and Diodorus' famous quotes concerning the Egyptians and Ethiopians, Snowden still used the words "black and woolly."

I propose, again, that we simply state for the lay reader that melanchroes is sometimes translated as black and sometimes as dark. We only need to say that once in the article. For every quote that is added trying to assert that the Ethiopians and Egyptians were vastly different from each other, I can find 10 quotes asserting the opposite (often from the same author). Let's all stop deconstructing each other's sentences. It makes the article very difficult to read.

Editors mentioned that Lloyd said melanchroes can be translated as bronze to black. That means Lloyd is okay with black as the translation. Snowden, Statius, and others state in Snowden's book that African negroes range in color from red, copper-colored to black and that there are red Ethiopians. Therefore, Lloyd's comments could just as easily be applied to Ethiopians that are agreed by all to be ethnically black.

The bottom line is that we don't need to expound on this subject. We can just state that there is a controversy concerning the translation and that it is commonly translated as dark, black, or dark AND black (as Snowden did in several sentences in "Blacks in Antiquity", which furthers my point that the words are interchangeable in this context)Rod (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, that sounds sensible in theory. How about you present a draft of what you think the greatly-trimmed-down Black Hypothesis section should say, in this talk page, and let's work on that? It is starting to look like the whole Black-hypothesis is based on an uncertain translation of the opinions of a handful of people who lived after the bulk of Egyptian culture, and who encountered a handful of Egyptians of the post-25th Dynasty period. Perhaps it would further clarify the controversy if that could be included in the revised section as well? Wdford (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


See current article for the original paragraph. I am only proposing altering one paragraph. Here is the proposed revision:


One of the most popular indicators of race is skin color and thus the Ancient Egyptian race controversy often focused on the Ancient Egyptian's skin color. The Indigenous and Black African model relies heavily on writings from Classical Greek and Egyptian historians, as well as Hebrew and Biblical traditions. Several Ancient Greek historians noted that Egyptians and Ethiopians were black[91] with woolly hair,[92] which became one of the most popular and controversial arguments for this theory. The Greek word used is “melanchroes." There is considerable controversy over the translation of melanchroes, as some scholars translate it as black, while other scholars translate it as dark. Supporters of the Black theory saw the Ethiopians and Egyptians as racially similar, while others felt that the different colors used to represent Egyptians and Ethiopians (in some paintings) were proof of ethnic differences between the two groups.Rod (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Reminder that this article is under probation

This article is under probation under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann. Big Dynamo has in fact collected a bit over 2 years worth of bans for breaking the probation so is aware of this, but other editors may not have noticed the probation notice at the top of this page. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Misuse/Abuse of the term anachronistic.

In the current article the following passage is supposedly an attempt to represent the modern "scholarly" consensus on race but it does not.

Modern scholars who have studied Ancient Egyptian culture and population history have responded to the controversy over the race of the Ancient Egyptians in different ways. Since the second half of the 20th century, most (but not all) scholars have held that applying modern notions of race to ancient Egypt is anachronistic. The 2001 Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt states that "Any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study.” The focus of some experts who study population biology has been to consider whether or not the Ancient Egyptians were primarily biologically North African rather than to which race they belonged.

The problem with this statement is that it misrepresents the whole issue of race as an evolution of modern scientific thinking not ancient culture. Race is purely a concoction of modern science, created over the last 200 years or so by European scientists. It is the basis of what later came to be called anthropology. Anthropology still exists and still has a role in the study of ancient Egypt. The following statement from the American Anthropological Society is a better reflection of the modern "scholarly" view of race:

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective. Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.

American Athropological Association statement on race

The point being that the current passage makes it seem as if the debate over the physical features or characteristics of the ancient Egyptians is synonymous with a debate over race. It does not. It only means that the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians are part of a larger area of anthropological research and therefore subject to various interpretations. Modern science does not view human features and variation as anachronistic as that is the fundamental basis for and purpose of anthropology which is to understand and document those features and characteristics found in various population both in the past and in the present.

Again, if you are going to talk about race and the controversy surrounding race you have to start with the Europeans who created the concept as a way of categorizing populations relative to Europeans on a scale of more superior to inferior with Europeans being the epitome of superiority in the human species. This did not start with African scholars and does not mean that the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptian population is not a valid area of debate or scholarship. The controversy goes back to the fact that European "scholars" and "scientists" as part of the beginnings of the development of early Anthropology and Egyptology, have spent a lot of time and effort to separate out ancient Egyptian populations as a separate "race" or having features distinct, separate from and not like other Africans. Though today "race" is not considered valid by many scholars, it does not change the debate over ancient Egypt as being about the predominant features of the population and the relationship of those features to populations nearby both inside and outside of Africa.

The passage does not quite accurately represent the relationship between race and anthropology and almost suggests that anyone who questions the physical appearance of the ancient Egyptians as not being "scholarly" or "racist" which is quite incorrect. Big-dynamo (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, it's virtually impossible to make sense of what you are trying to say here. Your last sentence is very unclear indeed. In addition, the American Anthropological Association is not the dictator of "truth" on the subject of race. Whether or not race "exists" depends in great part on how the word is being used. Of course scholars from the 19th century on have used various means to model distinct ethnic and racial identities, as part of an attempt to map human development, migrations etc. There's nothing specially unique about Egypt in that respect, but because of its importance in cultural history it has certainly been examined more fully. As for Egyptians being not like "other Africans", are you perhaps unaware of the fact that Africa is very very diverse (are they unlike Berbers?), and indeed that "Africa" itslf is in some sense as much of a fiction as "race" - it's a word we use to cover a huge mass of land? Egypt is very close to places that are not defined as "Africa" - even though they are just a few miles away from it - and very far from others that are. The ancient Egyptians had no concept of being "in" Africa as opposed to somewhere else. Paul B (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
What I am saying is that the passage above is not truly clear in terms of how the concept of race originated and how it has evolved in the scientific community and specifically in terms of ancient Egypt. The study of the distribution and variation in human features in any population either in the present or past is not "anachronistic". It is called physical anthropology. Second, the more important issue is not the distribution and variation of such physical characteristics which have always existed and will forever exist among humans, but it is how these characteristics are labeled and characterized which is the root issue. That is where the AAA statement on race comes into play to point out that many modern anthropologists do not think of race as a pejorative when it comes to human features. That does not mean that all anthropologists agree on this. What it does mean is that the variability and presence of features and characteristics among human populations are not "anachronistic". The ancient Egyptians themselves identified in their own way the features and characteristics of various groups they encountered and while we may not consider it as "scientific" it does mean that human variation in features and characteristics are measurable and a good way of understanding human populations. Third, and most important of all, the primary controversy, going back to the beginnings of Egyptology and Anthropology is what characteristics were most predominant in the ancient Egyptian population and the physical relationship of those features to other peoples in region around Egypt. The distinction being between being closer to populations elsewhere along the Nile from Upper Egypt to Sudan, Ethiopia and the Horn, like Somalia or closer to populations in the Levant and elsewhere like Europe.
Since some anthropologists do not agree on dismissing the concept of "race" all together, then it is likewise misleading to use the term "anachronistic", because none of this has anything to do with ancient Egypt. How the ancient Egyptians viewed the world is not the basis of the debate. The basis of and reason for the debate is how modern scholars and scientists have characterized the features and characteristics of the ancient Egyptian population. Calling it "anachronistic" suggests that the viewpoints of the ancient Egyptians are of primary concern, when they are not. It is the viewpoints of modern scholars and modern definitions of the variation of human features that are the basis of the controversy, which are still evolving and are not static. Therefore, it cannot be said that such concepts are "anachronistic" because they exist in the here and now and this is where the debate lies, not with people who died thousands of years ago. The passage is inaccurate and doesn't convey the actual views of modern science in terms of "race" and is limited in scope and therefore cannot be said to represent a consensus, because in science there is often no consensus.

Big-dynamo (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Including a debate on the definition of race vs anthropology in this intro would distort the article, and make it unreadable. We already have other articles on that subject matter. I have blue-linked the phrase "racial identity" to an existing article. Please would you add you anthropology material there, if its not there already. Wdford (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not debating the definition of race. My point is that the passage I quoted is incorrect and should be reworked or removed. Studying the ancient Egyptian population to determine their overall physical affinities with other populations is not "anachronistic". It is called physical anthropology. And there are many anthropologists who study ancient Egyptian remains and have made conclusions about their overall physical affinities. That has not stopped and is still on going no matter the controversy over race. That therefore makes the passage misleading and incorrect. Either you should quote some of the current views of modern anthropologists and other scholars concerning the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians or simply refer to the population history article. The point being is that whether you call it "race" or not, there are anthropologists who would lump the ancient Egyptians with other populations in Africa as "black Africans" and there others who may disagree. Likewise, all scholars aren't physical anthropologists, which means that all of their opinions don't really count in terms of the hard sciences of analyzing physical remains and determining ancient features.
And bottom line, the truth is that the debate still continues and is typified by the fact that the same people who have historically defined black in America and elsewhere as being a person with any amount of blood from "black Africans" turn around and go to Africa and say that, in the case of Egypt and other cultures they like, no amount of African blood and no amount of dark skin makes these populations black African. All of this comes straight out of the writings and statements of Europeans themselves who have spent the last 200 years creating the concept of race and using it to characterize populations all over the world, especially ancient populations like the Egyptians because of a need to base their schemes of "racial" superiority on a historical antecedent. All of that is historical fact and to say it is a contradiction in terms is an understatement. And because of that fact, most "modern scholars" have tried hard to avoid the issue, not because they have fundamentally stopped trying to claim that the ancient Egyptians were a population physically separate from other Africans in the Nile Valley, but because they want to avoid the controversy over such views and backlash that is based on the historical basis of such views in the racist writings and science of the founders of anthropology and Egyptology itself. Many want to say that their views on the subject are not racist, even if they exactly match the views of those racists who have historically gone to great lengths to create a whole new category of people for the ancient Egyptians separate from other Africans. Whether they want to call it race or something else, the fundamental core of the controversy has not gone away.Big-dynamo (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
It's interesting that in these essays you write for us, you repeatedly refer to America, African Americans, the one-drop rule and so on... all of which should have nothing to do with Ancient Egypt. You make a lot of claims that those who are skeptical of the Black theory are so because they are allegedly racist Europeans. That's unfair (many of the critics aren't "white Europeans", notably including Zahi Hawass), but it also happens to be revealing... and it saddens me. African Americans (which you keep referring to) lost their original ethnic identity and languages because of centuries of oppression and slavery. In the modern day, many of them look for their roots before they were enslaved, and they want to identify with something. In some cases they have claimed that various ancient peoples were black, including Egyptians as well as Ancient Israelites and Olmecs. Perhaps its just my opinion, but I can't help but wonder if these claims aim to associate African Americans with those people, considering that the defining factor of African Americans' identity (unlike other ethnic groups) is physical appearance; notably, a group of blacks actually do claim to be descended from Israelites. Both claims play into identity politics in subtle ways. The claim on Israelites being black is probably of more religious significance, but it is notable that African Americans often symbolically compare their emancipation from slavery to the Israelites' flight from Egypt. Egyptians were an African people that were part of the same Mediterranean group of civilizations that spawned Western culture, similar to African Americans' view of themselves being an African people within a Western culture. Diop, even though he wasn't American, also tried to relate Ancient Egyptians to himself, claiming that his Wolof language was related to Ancient Egyptian (by the way, linguists say they have no special relation at all). As I said, all of this makes me a little sad, because the irony is that in trying to associate themselves with Egyptians or Israelites or whatever, they do a disservice to their coastal West African roots (as descendants of Kongo, Igbos, Yorubas, Wolofs, and so on), which should be no less prideworthy, as these peoples had long histories, many states and numerous accomplishments. Unfortunately, the heritage of these peoples was unfairly derided by colonialist Europeans who enslaved them, and while this sort of racism has now been repudiated, children in the Western classroom still don't learn much of the great Sub-Saharan kingdoms, because they aren't considered relevant to Western culture. Forget Egyptians and Israelites, I would still say its sad for AAs to associate themselves with Nubians, even though Nubians are "black" like they are, because Nubians have nothing to do with the West African cultures they actually hail from (Scots shouldn't claim Russian history as there's either). Ironically, despite being reactions to colonial racism, these theories repeat its unfair dismissal of West African cultures... Perhaps I shouldn't have posted this. I'm really sorry if this rubs anyone the wrong way, but I just felt the need to comment on the matter. --Yalens (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yalens you are not addressing my point. Europeans created the science of "race". Europeans created "race science" which later became anthropology. Europeans became obsessed with Egypt in the 1800s after the discoveries of Napoleon. Europeans practiced slavery and racial oppression all over the world via colonization. Those facts themselves make it clear that European scholarship has a history of racial bias and not objectivity. Therefore, they are not above reproach and can and should be questioned on the facts. Don't try and pretend that somehow Africans are being "racists" when correcting the distortions of the real racists. That is simply insulting and ignorant. Africans from no part of Africa need Europeans to label them and tell them who they are. They are Africans and don't need validation by Europeans anyway, which is indirectly related to this controversy. That is what happens when you have Europeans going around the world creating racial categories and boxes to put everyone in. Nobody needs Europeans to define them. So please stop pandering as if somehow you and "Europeans" are somehow victims of something, when you aren't. It is European scholarship that in question because it deserves to be in question and the facts support it. It is insulting to hear you suggest that somehow only West Africans are black Africans. Since when? And if you don't believe in race why are you pointing out West Africans as the only "true blacks" on the continent? That is exactly the whole point of the controversy, which is Europeans trying to put populations into different boxes, whether it be creating the one drop rule in the U.S. or creating all sorts of races in Africa to subdivide Africans in order to support a racist view of history. All of it comes from the same source: racist European thinking not objective facts. The objective fact is that the ancient Egyptian population was a subset of Nile Valley people. 99.9% of the people along the Nile are black Africans. Therefore, insinuating that one is talking of West Africa when it comes to the features and characteristics common to ancient and modern Nile Valley is simply nonsense. African Americans are simply Africans and have features similar to Africans across the continent. Trying to imply that there are discrete boundaries between African populations and limits the variability and diversity in African features is simply a problem of European racial thinking that needs to be demolished. Africans across the entire continent share many features and traits in common, just as Europeans do. It isn't even scientific to suggest otherwise.
My views on where the Ancient Egyptians originated are irrelevant. Just as Your views on where the ancient Egyptians originated are irrelevant to the facts. You can believe what you want, but I am concerned about the views of anthropologists. Therefore, to that point, the passage is misleading and not correct because it does not reflect the views of anthropologists, namely because anthropologists do not all have the same views, which have not been mentioned. Saying that "race" is anachronistic to Egypt does not address what population affinities current anthropologists assign to the ancient populations of Egyptians along the Nile.
And none of that has anything to do with what I said. Anthropology as a science, is not "anacrhonistic" because human features are not anachronistic. Therefore, I suggest that the passage which tries to play off any discussion of the ancient physical traits of the ancient Egyptians as being anachronistic be removed. It is simply erroneous and nonsensical. Big-dynamo (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Big-dynamo (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


Big dynamo there are two actions that will lead to movement on this topic. One approach is to "be bold" and rewrite the paragraph in the actual article and see if you can reach consensus on your rewrite. The second is to try to reach consensus first (by typing a rewrite on the talk page and asking for input) and then post the rewrite to the article later. Otherwise, you'll just waste a lot of time "boiling the ocean" and talking about every topic under the sun with other editors that disagree with your position.Rod (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I would rewrite the paragraph but my opinion is that it is best to just link to the population history of Ancient Egypt. The point being that trying to come up with simple one word phrases and passages from odd authors here and there does not address the issue. Studying the physical anthropology of any civilization and populations over time is quite complex and has various technical concerns and details that can and should be discussed, which therefore should be discussed at length. Suffice to say, it is not "anachronistic" to study the physical characteristic of any ancient population no matter whether you want to describe those characteristics in terms of "race" or not. Those are two totally different and separate things. One is about objective facts, ie. cranial measurements and discrete indices whereas the other is subjective, ie. assigning arbitrary labels to those discrete values based on a scheme of non overlapping subgroups based on such characteristics. I will think about it more but before I did anything I wanted to discuss it.
Suffice to say, this article is based on a controversy that is entirely modern and based on recent historical facts and has absolutely nothing to do with ancient Egyptians directly. Hence it cannot be anachronistic because the controversy itself is purely a result of thinking and beliefs that came about thousands of years later, which is what the article is trying to document.Big-dynamo (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The page does not say it is anachronistic, it says that scholars hold that view- "Since the second half of the 20th century, most (but not all) scholars have held that applying modern notions of race to ancient Egypt is anachronistic"- and then has three citations. Whether we as editors think its anachronistic is irrelevant. The point is that this represents much of the modern view of scholars- i.e. a view separate from that of the others. --Yalens (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
All I am saying is that skin color is not anachronistic to human populations in history. The passage is therefore misleading. While they may not use "racial labels" or the "racial hierarchies" or "overt racism" when referring to ancient populations, modern scientist do indeed still consider things like skin color and other characteristics when studying them. It is still part of modern anthropology. I am saying that there is a difference between such gathering such statistical data and racism or the ideas of "race" from the early 19th century. The passage seems to imply that any discussion of physical characteristics for an ancient population is somehow a discussion of "race" which is incorrect. It also implies that all scholars have a consensus on what those physical characteristics were in ancient Egypt and therefore how the ancient Egyptians looked, which is also not necessarily correct either. Which means there may still be some debates in scholarly circles on the issue. Suffice to say most of the modern scholarly views on the physical characteristics of ancient (and modern) populations of Egypt are addressed in the population history article. Big-dynamo (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Whether you think it's anachronistic or not doesn't matter- it's what scholars think that matters.
And also, anthropology usually deals with modern populations, though sometimes the traits of their ancient predecessors are inferred by aspects of known descendents. And furthermore, its important to note that outside certain circles, there's much less interest nowadays in the physical characteristics of ancient populations than there was in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Back then, there were large numbers of whole treatises written on that subject. Now, if it's mentioned at all, it is usually mentioned as a cursory side note. There is much less interest now in that topic, not least because people have grown tired of hearing arguments over topics like whether Olmecs hailed from Sweden, Congo or China, and have settled for the obvious answer that they hailed from Mesoamerica, and that they are related to the native populations (Maya, Mixtecs, etc) that inhabit regions near where their civilization was. That's not to say that the practice of arguing over the "races" of ancient populations is dead- it survives in certain circles- but in mainstream scholarship, it's become unpopular. --Yalens (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Anthropology deals with ancient and modern populations and their characteristics. To this day there are anthropologists who openly discuss the features and characteristics of various populations including those of ancient Egypt. There are scholarly articles published every year on the subject of ancient populations, their characteristics and relationships. So, whatever circles you are referring to, it isn't circles related to anthropology. You are confusing "race" with anthropology. Which is why I believe the passage is misleading. Modern anthropologists do indeed discuss and study physical characteristics of ancient populations. It is not anachronistic. Now whether they are "tired" of arguing their theories and ideas about those characteristics is a moot point. Which brings me to my next point, which is that in reality scholars within Egyptology, who are not necessarily anthropologists, may have decided to stop discussing the issue, but that does not mean anthropologists have stopped studying these things. And it does not mean that the disagreements over said characteristics have gone away. They just stopped talking about it. Which is precisely my whole point about the passage. Big-dynamo (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Yalens, that was thought provoking. Don't feel sorry for posting it. People focus on Egypt because it is the foundation of African civilization (shared matrilineal organization, totemism, divine kingship, circumcision, etc.), as Greece is the foundation of European civilization. Those supporting the Black theory would argue that populations migrated throughout "sub-saharan" Africa to escape pressures from Europeans and Near Asians in the Nile Valley, Arabs in the East, etc. Thus, populations from the Nile valley could have easily made it to West Africa to participate in the Songhai, Ghana, Mali, Benin etc. empires. Also, those populations could have made it to the South to participate in Great Zimbabwe and South African kingdoms. There are considerable portions of Diop and Chancellor Williams books devoted to these migrations.Rod (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been rather busy lately. Sometime it would be nice to talk to you, Rod, about the "origins of civilization" but not on a talk page here-maybe on your user talk page, when I'm not as busy. Anyhow, this topic is a red-herring in my opinion. The statement that it's anachronistic is cited with three scholarly sources, and it should be obvious that modern racial definitions didn't exist during the time of Ancient Egypt, so it doesn't really do much for history to discuss them endlessly. That was what the "anachronistic" statement was about. --Yalens (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
This statement: "Europeans who created the concept as a way of categorizing populations relative to Europeans on a scale of more superior to inferior with Europeans being the epitome of superiority in the human species. This did not start with African scholars" is completely false. The earliest known racial classification comes from the African Khoisanids!. See Sarich & Miele (2004). The Khoisanids created the earliest known racial division, ten's of thousands of years old seperating the Caucasoid North Africans, "whites" and "Blacks" to themselves. They had racial colour terminology for these three races (including their own) in click languages. Folk biology is largely in agreement with modern racial classification because we can clearly identify these "white" africans as north african caucasoids, and "blacks" as Negroids. The Khoisanids believed they were neither and a 3rd race. OrangeGremlin (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This above post is... rather off-topic. This isn't a forum, you know. --Yalens (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Strange that you've allowed an anti-white racist afrocentric to post huge off topic rants at Europeans, and not in the slightest claim his are off topic. I was merely correcting his lies. OrangeGremlin (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You can find Big-dynamo's pseudo-scientific afrocentric blog here: [2] He is one of these black supremacist afronuts who claims all world civilizations and peoples, even cro-magnons were "black". These are the sort of nutters wikipedia allows over these pages, clearly breaking NPOV and yet never disciplines them. OrangeGremlin (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who looks above can find a whole string of off-topic anti-white racist abuse posted by Big dynamo:

"Yalens you are not addressing my point. Europeans created the science of "race". Europeans created "race science" which later became anthropology. Europeans became obsessed with Egypt in the 1800s after the discoveries of Napoleon. Europeans practiced slavery and racial oppression all over the world via colonization. Those facts themselves make it clear that European scholarship has a history of racial bias and not objectivity."

  • See the demonising of white europeans and appeal to emotion fallacy. This is despite the fact, slavery has been practiced by all races. Negroids have enslaved Pygmies. Slavery was not invented by whites. Big-dynamo is a black supremacist crank who is only here to attack white people. OrangeGremlin (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


Let's all get back on the topic of the Ancient Egyptians and the race controversy and stop the personal attacks. Shouldn't some administrator keep all editors, from all points of view, in line?Rod (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Afrocentric bias of entire page

The page sets up the fallacy that those who are/were proponents of a Caucasoid Egypt are "outdated". Hence the page only deals with very old sources from the 19th century: "The Egyptologist Samuel Sharpe (1846)" "1894 by the Egyptologist Gaston Maspero" "included Charles Lenormant (1842) and Reginald Stuart Poole (1851)." etcetc. It then skips to the Afrocentric sources, which are mostly all modern. All the modern sources which verify a Caucasoid Egypt are omitted. OrangeGremlin (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Also note how the "Black" section has cherry picked photos, but none for the other race section. More bias. OrangeGremlin (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Lastly observe how the classical reports or quotes are also only in the "Black" section. Despite the fact there are many classical sources which clearly disprove the idea the egyptians were Negroid:
  • Manilius, Astronomica 4.724. Here the term Ethiopians (= Greek “burnt face”, denoting very dark skin) refers to Africans inhabiting latitudes south of Egypt (Snowden, 1989).
  • Classical writers, as exemplified by Manilius’ quote above, differentiated the Egyptians from Negroid Sub-Saharan Africans.
  • Greco-Roman authors likened Egyptians’ appearance to that of northern Indians, who do not look like Negroids (Arrian's Indica 6.9). Strabo confirms in Geography 15.1.13, in almost identical wording.

-These classical sources describe the egyptians as non-woolly haired and light brown skinned, clearly not Negroid ("Black"), but North African Caucasoid. OrangeGremlin (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I note that OrangeGremlin appears to be a BNP and Metapedia supporter. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I read your note on his talk page too... I agree mostly with your stance, that while Orange makes a point in the cherrypicked photos and whatnot (albeit, a point that has already been stated), I'm not so sure of his motives for coming on to this page, and I'd rather he be more civil. The worst thing that could happen to this page is to become the subject of an edit war between black and white nationalists, while the silent majority of editors who only edit for factual (i.e. non-political) reasons are squeezed out. Nationalists have forums and blogs to rant/argue on. Please don't do it on Wikipedia.
As for the title topic, there is stuff we could (and should) do about the page's balance, especially with the pictures...--Yalens (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


There is already a Caucasian race hypothesis section. Why don't you guys expand that section and demonstrate (using peer reviewed secondary sources) that the Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid? The position would be very controversial, so it should be easy to relate your findings to the history of the controversy (the purpose of this article). The photos in the Black section are of some of the most important figures in Ancient Egyptian history (Tutankhamun, his grandmother, Ahmose-Nefertari - the lady that gave birth to the 18th dynasty, etc.). It's unfortunate that these pictures of Ancient Egyptians don't fit everyone's point of view. It can be easily proven that classical writers referred to Egyptians as black skinned and woolly haired. This is already well documented in the article. Finally, starting the Afrocentric vs. Eurocentric war will take this article and talk page to an ugly place. The scholars, with extensive scientific documentation supporting the Black theory, will likely find the "Afrocentric" label a slur. Especially, since some proponents of the Black theory, like Bernal, are not even of African ancestry.Rod (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Caucasoid race update

Anthropologists of the 19th century came to identify the ancient egyptians as Caucasoid affiliated, largely based on the wavy hair texture of ancient mummies, which sharply contrasts to the woolly hair texture of Negroid ("Black") Sub-Saharan African populations.[1][2][3] In 1907, Grafton Elliot Smith with Frederick Wood Jones in their "The Archeological Survey of Nubia" after analysing hundreds of ancient hair samples from early burials from Upper Egypt, discovered the vast majority were cymotrichous (wavy) haired. Modern studies do not challenge these findings, for example Egyptologist Joann Fletcher in 2002 writes:

"The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the site were cynotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard through dynastic times."[4]

Craniometric analyses of the 19th century also clustered ancient egyptian crania with Caucasoids, particuarly Europeans, based on their tendency towards thin nasal aperture, and mostly orthognathic faces. Pettigrew, a surgeon who analysed ancient egyptian crania as early as 1834 remarked in his opinion that none showed "the slightest approximation to the Negro character".[5] Multivariate statistical analysis for craniometry were invented in the early 20th century, with Karl Pearson in 1926 applying his "Coefficient of Racial Likeness" (CRL) to a series of ancient egyptian crania, which clustered them with South Asians, loosely Caucasoid affiliated, noting a clear cut seperation to the "Negro type".[6] However the CRL is no longer considered valid, after its statistical flaws were pointed out. It was later replaced by more efficient disciminant function programmes, some of which have continued to cluster the ancient egyptians with South Asians.[7] Later anthropologists such as Carleton S. Coon (1962) and Alice M. Brues (1977) continued to identify the ancient egyptians as Caucasoids, while some modern anthropologists continue to do so.[8]

  1. ^ Cuvier, Georges.(1817). "Extrait d’observations faites sur le cadavre d’une femme connue à Paris et à Londres sous le nom de Vénus Hottentotte,". Mémoires de Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle. 3. pp. 259-274.
  2. ^ Granville, A. B. (1825). "An Essay on Egyptian Mummies". Phil. Trans. Vol. 115, pp. 269-316.
  3. ^ George, Rawlinson. (1881). History of Egypt. p. 50.
  4. ^ Fletcher, Joann. (2002). "Ancient Egyptian Hair and Wigs", The Ostracon: The Journal of the Egyptian Study Society, xiii. 2.
  5. ^ Pettigrew, Thomas. (1834). A History of Egyptian Mummies. Princeton University Press. p. 166.
  6. ^ Lefkowitz, Mary R. (1996). "Black Athena Revisited". University of North Carolina Press. p. 157.
  7. ^ Lefkowitz, 1996, p. 157; cf. Stoessiger, 1927; Wiercinski, 1965; Strouhal, 1971, and more recently Brace et al, 1993.
  8. ^ Pearson, Roger. (1996). Heredity and Humanity: Race, Eugenics and Modern Science. Washington, D.C.: Scott-Townsend.

OrangeGremlin (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Roger Pearson is not a 'some', he is one anthropologist, and at 85 you really can't get away with calling him modern. I guess you can say that there were still racist anthropologists writing in the 1990s. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
As much as we're skeptical about the editor who wrote this section... most of the sources here (not the Eugenics one though- but for comparison the page uses Van Sertima, who thinks Olmecs were black, as a source without mentioning his bad reputation) could actually be useful for the page. As long as there's no POV infractions or any other violations, I don't see a problem with adding it. We might as well add them, unless there's a good reason not to.--Yalens (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


Craniology has been discredited and is no longer considered a scientific approach to grouping humans into races. However, feel free to add to the Caucasoid theory and expound on its craniometric analyses. There is plenty of evidence debunking everything above and during the history of this controversy, this subject matter certainly was discussed at length.Rod (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Black Hypothesis cont

The various excerpts added recently from the UNESCO symposium records have been used out of context. The delegates (except Diop and Obenga) rejected the hypothesis that the ancient Egyptians were black. If you read the record this is plain. Its also plain that many of the delegates accepted that black people were present in Egypt, in varying percentages throughout its long history, but that these black people were in contrast to, not the same as, the "actual Egyptians". This has not been reflected by the highly-selective wording of the excerpts, which are unbalanced as a result. Wdford (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The current status of the section looks like a poster-case of POV cardstacking, whether intentional or not. It's quite informative that the opinions of various scholars who opposed the black theory are twisted there to make it sound like they are conceding one thing after another, while more or less all the statements against the theory are omitted. I think we all agree mostly on what happened: the majority of scholars rejected the theory, while some did state that there were some blacks living in Ancient Egypt at times, but they were certainly neither a majority of of Ancient Egyptians or their ethnic core. The section should either be rewritten to state this or it should just go back to the way it was before: Obenga and Diop say so-and-so, most others reject them, period. --Yalens (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I tried to remove some obvious pov stuff but probably the best thing is to go back to the way it was before, unless someone wants to rewrite. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The Black theory section was written very well before and would have been very easy for the lay reader to understand. It was written at a somewhat high (summary) level and admitted that some points were controversial. However, some editors continually insert detailed statements into the Black theory section, which attempt to deconstruct the Black theory. This forces proponents of the Black theory to insert numerous detailed statements in support of the Black theory. The article becomes: one sentence for the Black theory, two sentences against, three sentences for the Black theory. Why don't we just stop? This article will be 100 pages long soon if editors keep trying to deconstruct every sentence in the Black theory. For each point that the detractors make, a counterpoint will be added, as there is extensive evidence to pull from in support of the Black theory.
I would like to remind everyone that the page is full of other theories. Wouldn't it be more logical to group all of the Black theory deconstructions into one of the other sections, or theories?Rod (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you see this article as a place to show the arguments rather than the history of the controversy. So far as I'm concerned, that's off-topic. Your edits are also often pretty clearly written in a pov way. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


There is really no need to list Diop's arguments point by point. We didn't wallow in all the individual (and valid) evidence Petrie put forward to support his dynastic race theory, so why here? Its enough to summarize the Black Hypothesis as follows:

  1. Diop claims the ancient Egyptians were black;
  2. He bases this largely on a disputed translation of Herodotus etc, which is supported by some and refuted by others;
  3. He also points to melanin samples from a handful of mummies known to have been black people, and claims they were representative of all ancient Egyptians, which plank is refuted by most;
  4. He makes some generic and undisputed claims about cultural affinities, which prove nothing;
  5. Almost all modern mainstream scholars reject this hypothesis.

That should do it. There is no need to list every one of the small handful of times where ancient Greeks (who lived after the end of ancient Egypt) used the word melanchroes, and there is no need to list all the Unesco delegates who disagreed with Diop - namely everyone except Obenga. Wdford (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


There are plenty of details in the Asiatic section. The Black theory section isn't written any differently than the Asiatic section.


There are plenty of scholars that support Diop's hypothesis. When the "mainstream" scholars don't support Diop's hypothesis, they offer pitiful deconstructions of it and can't provide a demonstration that supports their point of view. For example, there are plenty of examples of Whites and Semites in Egyptian iconography (as prisoners of war). These types are certainly not shown as the pharaohs (or majority of the population) from any of the important dynasties. However, that didn't stop "mainstream" scholars from boldly asserting that Egyptians were white (for decades, if not centuries). "Mainstream" scholarship has proven itself untrustworthy on this topic.Rod (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, they aren't that similar. The Asiatic section isn't written in a way that serves solely to promote the theory in question, as the black theory is...
I don't know how many scholars support Diop's hypotheses in its entirety, which includes various points including, but not limited to, that Ancient Egyptian is closely related to modern Wolof and that Ancient Colchians as well as the ancient Southern Levantines (Israelites and their neighbors?) were also black. That's pretty far on the fringe or anyone with decent historical or linguistic knowledge.
I would reiterate Dougweller's point- the point of this page is not to present evidence or a list of scholars who support one theory over another (which is what takes up a lot of space here) but rather to show the histories of the various "theories".
With that in mind, I would support Wdford's proposal to deal with the section. If we want to shorten the Asiatic section, perhaps we can do that too. --Yalens (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


It is clear that several editors are completely opposed to the Black theory and yet these same editors are constantly trying to rewrite the Black theory. The POV of the editors that are opposed to the Black theory prevents them from making good faith edits in the Black theory section. Every statement that is added to the Black theory section by the aforementioned editors is from books which were written solely for the purpose of debunking the Black theory. The source material is not neutral and objective and therefore the statement gleaned from the source material pushes a POV. It's not mainstream scholarship. It's scholarship with a political agenda. It's a given that we will find some controversial and politically motivated scholarship in an article of this type, but let's not pretend that it's all from one side.Rod (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually we are REQUIRED to endure Diop's absurd claims along with all the other absurd claims, because that is what this article is about. However we DON'T need to wallow in the detail, and we DON'T need to fight Diop's corner for him - this article is not a Diop blog. The Black theory is as discredited as all the other racial theories, and so while we need to record that the theory exists, and that some are still happy to cling to it, we also need to record that mainstream scholarship dismisses the black theory just as it dismisses the dynastic race theory etc. What we don't have to do, is quote every single instance Diop could find where somebody once used the word "melanchroes", or list every person who is happy to accept the translation "black" - we merely need to record that this is the basis of the theory, and that the translation (and its implications) are disputed by respected scholars on both sides. If Snowden says "Diop is wrong, melanchroes doesn't mean black", then so be it - it is not appropriate to try to prove that Snowden didn't really mean what Snowden clearly states that he means. Further, I see that you have copied your melanchroes blog into the Racial identity of Tutankhamun article as well - not cool. Wdford (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


It's also not cool that some other editor copied Snowden, Llyod's, and other detractor's statements from this article to the King Tut article. That's not cool, as well. Conveniently, you've overlooked copy/pasting between articles when it supports your point of view, but highlighted copy/pasting when it does not support your point of view. The two copy/pasted sections (from different viewpoints) are literally right next to each other in the King Tut article. Originally, there was just a statement from a popular and widely disseminated version of Herodotus the Histories. However, other editors continually tried to prove that this common translation of melanchroes as black was somehow an anomaly or mistake. It's clear from the numerous citations that you can find this translation literally anywhere that you look (including in Snowden's work). As stated previously, all of these articles will become much easier to read and less wordy when editors stop trying to use the Black theory section to record every statement made by authors that do not believe in the Black theory. More often than not, these statements against the Black theory are easily deconstructed using secondary peer reviewed sources and so the articles grow and grow.Rod (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, not really. I added some balance, after some other editor loaded in some totally one-sided POV excerpts to "prove" a point of view that is rejected by mainstream scholarship. So once again, we can be mature about this and agree to limit the entire comment to "A minority of scholars hold that the ancient Egyptians were black, based largely on a contested translation of the word "melanchroes" as used in a handful of places in ancient Greek writings." Then we can eliminate all this POV waffle, and future users of the article will quickly and easily understand the true position at a glance. What do you say? Wdford (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
You are doing a disservice to the Black theory. The Black theory arose because mainstream scholars lied to us for decades, if not centuries, about this topic. Assertions were made without any proof and we were supposed to believe these "authorities" just because they were "authorities." Well modern and non-racist scholarship has debunked nearly every claim that would have been considered "mainstream" just 60 years ago. Many of us are not that impressed with a "mainstream" that can conclude (for centuries) that Egyptians were dark skinned white people from outside of Africa (because it is a fact that they weren't). The "mainstream" was absurd for a really long time.
Here are some of the main points of the Black theory (you seem to be overlooking them): Modern humanity is from Africa and Gloger's law states that these people would have been necessarily dark skinned (which means they best fit in the black racial category). The Ancient Egyptian civilization was indigenous to Africa and received its genesis from the indisputably black A-group Nubians (see Univ. of Chicago scholarship). These A-group Nubians lived alongside other Nile valley inhabitants. At least 1/3 of these Nile valley inhabitants would be classified as Black by most anyone today (using anthropology, craniology, melanin tests from mummy samples, DNA testing, blood grouping, or any other means). At least another 1/3 (the brown/dark red group) would also be classified as black by most objective people today (those of us that don't believe in black/dark skinned white people). The summation of these two groups is sufficient for the whole Nile valley grouping to be classified with the Blacks (as opposed to Whites or Asians or Semitic peoples). The Greeks and Romans were not racists and simply stated what they observed, which is that the Egyptians and other Nile Valley inhabitants were black to them. The Greeks and Romans couldn't decide if the Egyptians came from the Ethiopians or vice versa. What they knew is that these groups settled among each other, intermarried, and had similar cultures. The Greeks believed that Egypt had a colony, the Colchians (is that so far fetched? Egypt was an imperial power). Egyptian art shows unquestionably black people (e.g. Ahmose-Nefertari) in prominent and royal positions, while Libyan/White/Semitic types were never shown in positions of power during non-intermediate periods (show me one pharaoh with the long beard/sideburns and appearance of a Libyan/Semite/White person). Mainstream scholars define the black racial grouping far too narrowly. There are straight haired blacks. There are blacks with straight noses. There were dark red blacks (see the tomb of the Egyptian Huy and Snowden's quotes of Greeks and Romans) and thus the dark red color is not exclusive of the Black racial group. The Ancient Egyptian civilization was culturally similar to other African civilizations (totemism, divine kingship, circumcision, etc.). Egyptians have a B blood type, like other Africans. Egyptian mummies have too much melanin in their skin (all levels) to be classified as white. These positions stand in stark contrast to the unfounded assertions of the other theories that the Ancient Egyptian civilization came from outside of Africa and/or that the Ancient Egyptians were white/asian/etc.Rod (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
As stated before, this page isn't about presenting evidence. But since you make a lot of claims here, we might as well clear some things up.
1) Modern humanity is from Africa, yes this is true- all of it. In this sense, not only are Egyptians African, but so are Swedes, Bengalis, Japanese and Aztecs.
2) "..received its genesis from the indisputably black... Nubians"? That Nubians were the ones who founded Egyptian civilization (rather than Egyptians?), despite their enormous linguistic differences (completely different language families), is your POV as well as that of some scholars, but it is definitely not a widely-held view.
3) Yes, many "Nile Valley" inhabitants are considered black, as the Nile Valley extends much further south than core Egypt.
4) "At least another third would be classified as black by most anyone today"- not if they identify themselves as non-black (and this seems to simply be your POV again).
5) The word black didn't have the same racial meaning in Ancient times that it does today in English. In fact, in many languages, it refers to various non-black peoples. Russian racist slang calls Circassians and Chechens black. Some of these peoples have skin that's as white as chalk. If you were to translate the English "black (person)" into many other languages, the racial connotation would be completely lost in translation, and the interpretation could be anything, perhaps that the person was wearing black clothes, was darker than average or even liked the color black.
6) Is Colchis being an Egyptian colony far-fetched? Of course yes! To most people who've studied it, Colchis is considered an indigenous Caucasus development as well as the foundation of modern Georgia (nation) (the nation, as in Tbilisi, not Atlanta). There is no evidence that it was founded as an Egyptian colony.
7) Nubians are known to have conquered and ruled Egypt for a period. Mongols conquered and ruled Iran and Russia. That doesn't make Iranians and Russians equivalent to Mongols.
8) On the indigenousness of Egyptians, since this has come up in edits- technically, we now know that all people ultimately come from East Africa, so "indigenous" is a relative term meaning "there before other peoples". Nonetheless, this wasn't the point of view of the scholars who cooked up these theories. Yes, some of the theories claim a non-Egypt origin for Egyptians (the Asiatic theory), while others explicitly don't. The Black theory meanwhile, holds that they're indigenous to Africa... but not necessarily to Egypt, as some strands of this theory claim they came from further south. So it's inherently incorrect to call that theory "the indigenous theory" in comparison to the others.
9) We shouldn't even have to talk about this, but your view of "blackness" is your own, and perhaps that of some Afrocentrist scholars. But it is not the accepted definition for the word in the English language. Many of the peoples you (and others with that view) consider black would reject it themselves, such as "Dravidians". And as we all know, race is a social construct.
10) Since this has been dealt with elsewhere, I'd refute the idea that it was necessarily racism that caused European scholars to define "black" (or "Negroid") the way that they did. The territory covered by people designated as "Mongoloid" embraced parts of five continents (N. & S. America, Asia, Europe (Nenetses), Africa (Malagasys) and 6 if you count Oceania), and more than the "native territories" of "Negroids" and "Caucasoids" combined. Does that mean they were "racist" in favor of "Mongoloids"? Of course they weren't.
11) Circumcision means a people are black in origin? No. Does totemism? No. Many peoples from all over the world practice these traditions. That it is is your POV and Diop's, but hardly anyone else accepts this.
12) As we all know, Egypt is at a similar latitude and has a similar climate to both the Maghreb and to the Arabian peninsula.
Now, despite me refuting you, I believe you're completely entitled to your own opinion on this, don't get me wrong. But this page isn't to promote one theory or another. As you said yourself, the Black theory should be handled just like all the others. That is: this scholar says this for these reasons, others disagree saying that for those reasons, the end. No cherrypicked pictures, no excessive citations on every other word, no listing of every last scholar who supported it. All these latter things do is make our page look biased. --Yalens (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


Very interesting viewpoints. Let's get back on topic. We will never convince each other on these points.Rod (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I think (or hope?) that we can agree on at least these following points regarding the page:
1) Cherrypicked photos applied only to the Black theory section blatantly jeopardize NPOV.
2) Same as above for descriptions of the hardworking [cite] scholars'[cite][cite][cite] copious [cite] eternal [cite] painstaking [cite] research [cite][cite][cite] undoubtedly [cite] proving [cite] blablabla. It even looks ugly too.
3) Speaking of the black theory as if it is the only one of the many theories that accepted that the Egyptians could be "indigenous" is just false.
Resolve these three issues, and at least the section will look somewhat respectable. It's fairly simple, I think. --Yalens (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Also the translation part is quite inflated. It should really just say Diop and so-and-so interpret the word melanchroes in Greek texts to mean blablabla, and others dispute this. There's no need to go into the bloody details. --Yalens (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yalen's you claim to be "not biased" like Rod who is Afrocentric, yet are guilty yourself for inserting all your faith viewpoints into this talk page. Claiming "we all came from Africa" and "Race is a social construct" are not facts, those are your mere personal viewpoints, which seem to be rooted in politics than anything else. OrangeGremlin (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This is not a forum. We aren't talking about the E.African-origin hypothesis or race as a whole. --Yalens (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Yalens black is not a "race". Black is a color and a reference to the skin color and phenotype of populations with dark skin. That is how it has been defined for hundreds and thousands of years. Calling someone black is no more of a reference to "race" than calling a cat striped or a car blue. The fact is that this debate is at its core about phenotype and whether the ancient Egyptians had pale skin, ie. skin colors similar to Europeans or skin colors and phenotypes similar to other Africans who are black. Big-dynamo (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Asian Hypothesis

Writing in point/counterpoint fashion renders this article incomprehensible. Editors continually attempt to add numerous statements to the Black theory section which contradict the previous assertion in support of the Black theory. Let's follow the same logic and apply it to the Asiatic section. As you can see, it will become incomprehensible. This is why we should stop the point/counterpoint approach:

...the most dominant view was that the ancient Egyptians were the lineal descendants of Ham, through his son Mizraim.[18] A theory which subsequently became known as the "Asiatic Race Theory".[19] The native Egyptians, by a literal interpretation of Biblical chronology, were believed to have arrived in Egypt from South-West Asia, usually between the 4th or 3rd millennium BC after the flood and dispersal of man at the Tower of Babel.[20] The descendants of Ham were traditionally considered to be the darkest skinned branch of Humanity, either because of their geographic allotment to Africa or because of the Curse of Ham.[21] However it became disputed at least by the 18th century whether Mizraim’s descendants, the Egyptians, were Negroid or in contrast a dark skinned Caucasian race.[22] {{{{{{{Here a sentence would be inserted stating that supporters of the Black theory argue that if most of Ham's offspring (Cush, Phut) are accepted as Black, all of his offspring should be accepted as Black}}}}}}}}}}

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a proponent of the Asiatic (Biblical) origins of the Egyptians in 1776 argued that the ancient Egyptians were "degenerated" (darkened) Caucasians, a theory also supported by Georges Cuvierwho in 1811 conducted one of the first scientific analyses of Egyptian mummies, writing: "I have examined, in Paris, and in the various collections of Europe, more than fifty mummies, and not one amongst them presented the characters of the Negro.[23]{{{{{{{Here a sentence would be inserted stating that supporters of the Black theory argue that the idea of a black Caucasian is absurd and a clumsy way of avoiding calling the Egyptians black}}}}}}}}}}

Thomas Joseph Pettigrew, a surgeon and antiquarian who became one of the earliest experts on mummies, also agreed with Cuvier that the ancient Egyptian mummies were Caucasian, showing "not the slightest approximation to the Negro character".[24] Very few Egyptologists or scholars of the 19th century argued against the Caucasian identification of the Egyptians through the Asiatic Race Theory,[25] among them however was the anthropologistJames Cowles Prichard who although agreed the ancient Egyptians were not 'proper' Negroid, maintained they were a "black race", more connected to the Negroid than the Caucasian race.[26]{{{{{{{Here a sentence would be inserted stating that supporters of the Black theory argue that the melanin content in mummy skin samples indicate that they were black and that recent DNA studies of the Amarna period mummies classify them with black Africans }}}}}}}}}}

The Caucasian racial identification of (Biblical) Mizraim and the ancient Egyptians was popularized outside scholarly literature, for example in travel books e.g. by William George Browne in his Travels in Africa, Egypt and Syria(1806).[27] Theological proponents of the Asiatic Race Theory such as John Kitto further argued that the Curse of Ham only afflicted Canaan, not Mizraim, asserting the Egyptians were racially dark Asiatic Caucasians and not Negroid.[28] {{{{{{Here a sentence would be inserted stating that supporters of the Black theory argue that if most of Ham's offspring (Cush, Phut) are accepted as Black, all of his offspring should be accepted as Black}}}}}}}}}}

...reddish-brown' branch of the Caucasian, but sharply distinguishable from the Negroid.[32] Wilkinson, after analysing several ancient Egyptian crania concluded: "the formation of the skull, which is decidedly of the Caucasian variety, must remove all doubt of their valley having been people from the East."[33] Rawlinson after studying the hair texture of several ancient Egyptian mummies considered them to be non-Negroid, writing in his History of Egypt: "The hair was usually black and straight. In no case was it ‘woolly’, though sometimes it grew in short crisp curls."[34] He further proclaimed that the ancient Egyptians were culturally Asiatic in origin.[35]{{{{{{Here a sentence would be inserted stating that Snowden (while quoting Greeks and Romans) indicates that there are known red/reddish brown negroes. Another statement would indicate that there are black people with straight hair.}}}}}}}}}}

The Asiatic Race Theory was only first seriously challenged as late as 1894 by the Egyptologist Gaston Maspero, who wrote: "the hypothesis of an Asiatic origin however attractive it may seem, is difficult to maintain."[36] In response to the increasing skepticism of the Asiatic Race Theory, various alternatives were proposed, albeit related. In his treatise Der babylonische Ursprung der ägyptischen Kultur ('The Babylonian Origin of Egyptian Culture') published in the 1890s, the Professor of Semitic languages Fritz Hommel argued that the ancient Egyptians were the descendants of the Akkadians and Babylonians. Hommel’s Babylonian theory was not popular,[37]but received some support by the archaeologist Jacques Rougé, the son of the Egyptologist Emmanuel de Rougé who argued the ancient Egyptians were Chaldeans.[38] By the 20th century the Asiatic Race Theory and its various offshoots were abandoned but were superseded by two new theories: {{{{{{Here a sentence would be inserted stating that practically every mainstream scholar agrees that the Ancient Egyptian civilization was indigenous to the Nile valley. If the proponents of the Asiatic theory could get the predynastic homeland of the Egyptians so wrong, how can they be trusted on any other point?}}}}}}}}}}

This seems silly, but this is exactly what editors try to do to the Black theory section each and every day. For every point given in support of the Black theory, a detractor is found and immediately quoted. We already know that the Black theory is controversial and that some don't agree. The rest of the article gives balance with other theories. We don't need to hear from every person that disagrees WITHIN the Black theory section. Group those statements in a different part of the article.Rod (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there is a pretty big difference, because you're forgetting the cause. The Asian section isn't full of bizarre claims of proof and cherrypicked pictures intended to advertise the theory. The reason the black theory section got so long was the placement of these pieces of "evidence" all over the place as well as these pictures, and then it got longer when the quotes of authors countering these claims were added to maintain nPOV. None of the other theories have so much of this. A good example would be the melanchroes translation. It really shouldn't even be there at all, obviously the only reason it was placed there in the beginning was to advertise the theory (its actually totally irrelevant, since the Ancient Greek language, just like most languages of the world, and unlike English, doesn't have the word "black" meaning Sub-Saharan). All that should've been mentioned was "Diop says so and so and his critics say so and so", the end. It's about the history of the controversy, after all. Just like the Asiatic theory does. --Yalens (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


Nofret's and Cleopatra's (A Greek) pictures are cherrypicked. They aren't representative of the Egyptian populace.Rod (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I can appreciate that the controversy is alive and well. I also appreciate all editors doing their best to fairly represent all sides of the controversy. This should be very informative for those that don't have time to dig into this subject in great detail. For those casual readers, it is important to note that most every book written in support of the Black theory spends a considerable amount of time quoting Greeks (concerning their views on the race of Nile valley inhabitants). This inevitably leads to a lot of rebuttals from other authors expressing a different viewpoint on the translations. There has been considerable controversy around these translations and this article commendably highlights that controversy. Supporters of the Black theory would indeed find the claims in the Asiatic theory as bizarre (hence the controversy).Rod (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed. And so we have two bizarre theories, both of them rejected by mainstream scholarship. We can all agree on that. The issue actually is that your constant POV additions are a transparent attempt to "prove" Diop's bizarre theory, and in the process you are drifting away from the point of the article. Few if any still punt the "Asian Hypothesis", and thus it is a historical oddity rather than something to be defended. Sadly some people are continuing to punt the "Black Hypothesis", for reasons of their own, and are determined to pack wikipedia articles with all the scraps of so-called evidence they can find in this effort. The "truth" is whatever is the latest mainstream opinion, and other theories are oddities - interesting oddities, but oddities nonetheless. I think we are reaching the point where we need to seriously consider creating an article dedicated to the "Black Hypothesis", where you can list all your shreds of "evidence", and then we will load a big statement into the intro that says "modern scholarship holds that this theory is as much bunk as the equally-discredited Asian Hypothesis, although some scholars continue to cling to it nonetheless". That should solve all the needs and issues, in an encyclopaedic manner. Should I create the new article for you quickly? Wdford (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see how creating a different article would make things better. Then, instead of having one problem article, we have two problem articles to deal with...--Yalens (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Trust me, I feel just as strongly that the article is a problem without my contributions. The lay person will think that Egyptians were the same race as Greeks.Rod (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
We already have two problem articles - please check out Racial identity of Tutankhamun when you have a chance. My idea here is to have a focused article wherein Rod etc can expound on the Black Hypothesis, laying out every single contested translation is copious detail, without contravening the "History of the Controversy" theme of this article, and then we can have a single para in this article with a link to the Main Article. Ditto the Tut articles - a short para with a link to the Main Black Hypothesis article. It will make the encyclopedia more complete, and also make these other articles more readable. The Black Hypothesis already provides 21,000 characters out of 84,000 so it already makes up a quarter of the article, and some editors would clearly love to make it even bigger. We already have articles on the Dynastic Race Theory, the Hamitic hypothesis etc, so why not move this detail elsewhere as well? Seems like a win-win solution? Wdford (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate everyone's passion around this topic, but there is considerable evidence that the mainstream scholarship in this area has been sloppy scholarship for a couple of centuries. This is one area where the mainstream has been proven to push a political agenda and not further science.Rod (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, we have a separate page for the Dynastic race theory, but the Hamitic page is for the idea of "Hamites" in general. I honestly don't see how this would relieve POV issues, as illustrated by the page for King Tut's race. It's looks like just another page for people to edit war on :(. --Yalens (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Most of the Racial identity of Tutankhamun seems to be OR, using sources that don't mention Tut to argue for Tut's racial identity. I've tagged it as OR and started a discussion. Dougweller (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
"{{{{{{{Here a sentence would be inserted stating that supporters of the Black theory argue that the idea of a black Caucasian is absurd and a clumsy way of avoiding calling the Egyptians black}}}}}}}}}}" WHAT? Cuvier et al examined the mummies and found "no Negroid traits", how the heck does that translate as them being "Black"? OrangeGremlin (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Please reread the UNESCO conference chapter of the General History of Africa. Many mainstream scholars agree that at least 33% of examined Egyptian skeletons should be classified as negroid. I'm not talking about Diop. I'm talking about the mainstream scholars. It's right there in the General History of Africa.Rod (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


"Another statement would indicate that there are black people with straight hair.}}}}}}}}}}" Since when have Negroids had "straight hair"? They are uniformly wooly haired. The only Sub-Saharan Africans with wavy hair are Horners who have recieved substantial gene flow with Caucasoids. Show me a Western or Central Sub-Saharan African with natural straight hair. OrangeGremlin (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Nubians have straight hair. Some Ethiopians have straight hair.Rod (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


I take a short break from contributing to this article and look at the results. The pictures remaining are of a Greek foreigner (Cleopatra VII) and a historical nobody, Nofret. You can pretend that this isn't POV, but it is. When lay readers open an article on the race of Egyptians and see Greeks, that is misleading. The Greeks conquered Egypt at a very late date in the civilization and aren't representative of the race of the Egyptian populace. Also, why is the Asiatic theory so much longer than every other theory? I will make a spin off article and restore balance to the page.Rod (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Spin-off article

I am busy preparing a new article to be called Black Egyptian Hypothesis. Thereafter the bulky, POV and off-point Black Hypothesis sections in various other articles can be reduced to a relevant paragraph or two, with links to this new article for the detail. All comments and suggestions most welcome please. Wdford (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can't persuade you... sigh... I wish you good luck in making that page more balanced than the section in this one. I would have two alternative suggestions to how to go about it: one is the timeline, the other is by category. The timeline would be breaking it up into the various "stages" of the controversy. The category method, on the other hand, would see the page broken into various sections, one for each of the various elements of the controversy: language (Diop claims Egyptian is related to Wolof, modern scholars disagree, etc, etc), ethnic affiliation, mummy reconstructions, artwork, writers in antiquity, claims about certain cultural customs being black (circumcision, totemism), and so on. --Yalens (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the second option, as the first approach will be largely incoherent. The main idea is to concentrate the problem in one article, rather than have to correct it individually in half a dozen different places, and then to ensure the material is accurate, verifiable and balanced. What do you think of the proposed article name? Wdford (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Good luck with the page, remember to put it in obsolete scientific theories though. OrangeGremlin (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the name. --Yalens (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Another suggestion: a no-pictures policy for the page, to avoid the sort of picture warring that occurred here. --Yalens (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Both this article and the new article are still POV and biased. Who invented the concept of the "black race" in modern science? White Europeans. Who created the notion of race and racism? White Europeans. Who invented the concept of "caucasoid" or non black African ancient Egyptians? European scholars. Therefore, the idea that African scholars studying the history of Egypt and saying the people were black, using the same terminology created by white European racists are somehow being racists themselves is simply asinine, nonsensical and offensive. Both this article and the other article are trying to rewrite history and down play and omit the outright fact of white racism in their scholarship, society and culture throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th century, precisely the time when Napoleon conquered Egypt. European scholarship and racism is the core of the controversy and there are no end of documented writings from Europeans that will readily support this fact. Trying to make Africans who were the victims of this racism and racist scholarship into the racists is simply insulting. It is no coincidence that the beginning of the modern science of anthropology started with European scientists examining Egyptian mummies and assigning them to a particular "race" (most often close to Europeans). But even with that, many of these same scholars also noted quite clearly that in their analysis of the ancient Egyptian mummies, they placed closest physically to Ethiopians as specimens of the "black races". Case in point the following writings from Blumenbach, who invented the concept of "races" and was one of the first athropologists, which shows the many contradictions and outright falsehoods put forward in this article in portraying the facts surrounding this "controversy":

It appears to me that we must adopt at least three principal varieties in the national physiognomy of the ancient Egyptians; which, like all the varieties in the human species, are no doubt often blended together, so as to produce various

shades, but from which the true if I may so call it, ideal archetype may however be distinguished, by unequivocal pro- perties, to which the endless smaller deviations in individuals may, without any forced construction, be ultimately reduced.
These appear to me to be, 1. the Ethiopian cast; 2. the one approaching to the Hindoo; and, 3. the mixed partaking in a manner of both the former.
The first is chiefly distinguished by the prominent maxillae turgid lips, broad flat nose, and protruding eye-balls, such as Volney finds the Copts at present;* such, according to his description, and the best figures given by Norden, is the countenance of the Sphinx; such were, according to the well-known passage in Herodotus on the origan of the Golchians even the Egyptians of his time ; and thus hath Lucian likewise represented a young Egyptian at Rome. ( See Tab. XV 1. fig, 1. )
The second, or the Hindoo cast, differs toto ccelo from the above, as we may convince ourselves by the inspection of other Egyptian monuments. It is characterized by a long slender nose, long and thin eyelids, which run upwards from the top a short and very thin bodily structure,* and very long shanks. As an ideal of this form, I shall only adduce the painted female figure upon theback of the sarcophagus of Capt.Lethieullier's mummy in the British Museum, which has been engraved by Vertue, and which most strikingly agrees with the unequi- vocal national form of the Hindoos, which, especially in England, is so often to be seen upon Indian paintings.
...
Adopting, as I think it conformable to nature, five races of the human species, viz. 1. the Caucasian ; 2. the Mongolian; 3. the Malay; 4. the Ethiopian ; 5. the American ; I think the Egyptians will find their place between the Caucasian and

the Ethiopian, but that they differ from none more than from the Mongolian, to which the Chinese belong.

— John Frederick Blumenbach, Observations On Some Egyptian Mummies Opened in London, http://archive.org/details/philtrans05951465

Note the references to Greek authors, Volney and others which has absolutely nothing to do with so-called Afrocentrics. And note the fact that this man placed the ancient Egyptians closest to Ethiopians in terms of physiognomy, but also groups them with Europeans. This makes the whole idea of Africans pointing out these exact same relationships with other Africans as somehow a "theory" or "controversial" simply unfounded and biased POV nonsense. In fact, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach who created the concept of "races" was not a racist per se(even though his idea that all humans descend from the caucasian race is often critiqued as racist) and it was later scientists who used the concept of "race" to justify and reinforce social and economic structures of exploitation. Big-dynamo (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

More of your off-topic ranting about how the page is biased for not sharing your POV really isn't welcome. And fyi, the term Sudan referring to "black Africa" south of the Sahara (Arabic, from bilad-as sudaan, land of the blacks) and the Berber term "aginaw" (referring to "blacks") who lived in "akal n'Iguinawen" (land of the blacks, etymology for the English word Guinea) go more than a millenium back in origin, dating back to the Middle Ages and originated with non-Europeans... --Yalens (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Yalens, please cease and desist with the off topic ranting of your own and address the facts. You are pushing a POV. I don't need you to teach me anything about Africa and certainly do not try to tell me an "Africans place" in Africa, because it is offensive and racist. And since you want to spout off your own POV why do you not address the fact that Ethiopian also means burnt face African and black? Stop trying to push that nonsense that Africans created racism when everything about racism in the modern sense of the word comes from European society, culture and scholarship. Big-dynamo (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
When exactly did I tell you an "Africans place" (whatever that's supposed to mean) or that "Africans invented racism"? No, that's not a question -- I never did. Clearly, seeing as I seem to irk both OrangeGrimley and you, I must be doing something right. --Yalens (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Races are not limited to Humans. You need to stop with the personal emotions and political correctness. Races are a biological reality of all polytypic species, including plants. Therefore when Humans are studied, the same zoological laws should apply. OrangeGremlin (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Impartial administrator review needed

A couple of editors are acting like dictators concerning this article. It's obvious that their POV does not support the Black hypothesis, but they want to have complete control over the content in the black hypothesis section. They don't leave any time for the public to weigh in or consider the facts presented by editors with opposing viewpoints. These editors are making patently false claims, which we are supposed to endure, but the public will not endure these falsehoods. A few examples:

  • Some editors are trying to push the viewpoint that melanchroes is most frequently translated as dark. In fact, in practically every book on this subject English speaking translators have translated it as black (see the citations in my version of the article). This is a major point of contention in the history of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy and is not to be glossed over. Entire books have been written on this subject.
  • Cleopatra VII is a Greek foreigner and we have to see her picture in an article about the race of Egyptians and yet the editors keep removing pictures of some of the most famous Egyptians in history (Ahmose Nefertari and Tiye).
  • The editors removed a couple of sentences about Martin Bernal's books and rebuttals. I cannot think of a more lively exchange in the history of this controversy than the exchange between Bernal and his opponents. This is a major event in the history of the controversy and even that is being deleted by the articles dictators.
  • The other editors state that "mainstream scholars have rejected all of Diop's points", which is patently untrue. Any person that reads the account of the UNESCO conference will see that Diop could not convince the participants to endorse his theory in its entirety, but they agreed with Diop on many points. It was also noted by all that Diop's points were painstakingly researched and that the scholars in disagreement were seriously ill prepared for the conference. As an example from this article, you cannot disagree with Diop's assertions about cultural similarities between Egyptians and Ethiopians (who are unquestionably black), because even mainstream scholarship agrees that they were culturally similar. Will you try to argue that both Egyptians and Ethiopians didn't both practice circumcision, which was not a widespread practice in antiquity? That is a major point of Diop's theory. Do mainstream scholars disagree with that point?

We will not stand for a watered down Black hypothesis section (written by people that are clearly opposed to the theory), while the article rambles on for paragraphs about an Asiatic theory that is outdated and disproven. As stated in the last paragraph, if the Asiatic theory was only seriously challenged in 1894, then there was no controversy before then. Why do we need four paragraphs talking about all of the non-sensical theories from the 18th and early 19th centuries? This is a history of the controversy article. Without a challenge, there can't be a controversy. There was a challenge to Bernal and there was/is a very large controversy concerning Bernal's work. Stop removing this very relevant information from the article.

Finally, we will remove the pictures of Egyptians (Ahmose Nefertari and Tiye) when you remove the pictures of Greeks (Cleopatra VII).Rod (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

RodDailey, the UNESCO conference agreed with Diop on certain points, but thoroughly rejected his contention that the ancient Egyptians were black. The Diop Hypothesis has thus been rejected, it is dead, it is not valid, it does not live on. It matters not that one editor felt Diop’s work was “painstakingly researched” – the delegates rejected the Hypothesis. Fin. Flogging that dead horse here is thus WP:UNDUE.
Cultural similarities are not the same as racial similarities, as any intelligent person knows. A white family in New York City may live an identical lifestyle to a black family next door and an Asian family across the hall, with identical education, religion, language, voting preference and taste in cheese and alcohol, but they will still not be of the same race (assuming that race even exists to begin with). A white Irish Catholic family can live down the hall from a white Polish Jewish family, with seriously different cultures, religious views, education, language, voting preference and taste in cheese and alcohol, and still be of the same race. Egyptians and Ethiopians did indeed both practice circumcision, but so did the Jews and the Arabs. If circumcision is the basis of your argument, then the ancient Egyptians were as likely to be Arabs as Ethiopians.
The melanchroes issue has been discussed in detail in the Black Egyptian Hypothesis article, which has been linked here. It is indeed a major point of contention in the history of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, but it doesn’t matter how many or how few Greeks mentioned melanchroes in their work, and the contention will not be decided by how many copies were sold of each translation. The issue is unclear and undecided, and that’s where it stands.
Bernal’s contentions have likewise been thoroughly rejected by mainstream scholarship. Bernal gets a hearing in the Black Egyptian Hypothesis article, and he has his own articles as well at Martin Bernal, Black Athena and Black Athena Revisited. Rehashing Bernal here is again WP:UNDUE.
See my response in the above section re Cleopatra. There is a specific controversy about Cleopatra, but not about Tiye.
The Asiatic theory is indeed utter cr*p, but Diop’s theory is no less discredited. The Asian theory gets a few more lines here purely because it doesn’t have an article of its own, unlike Diop or Bernal or the Black Egyptian Hypothesis. I am personally in favour of trimming it still further.
Wdford (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Administrators don't arbitrate on content disputs. And yes, remove all the pictures. I said that already. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


We have regained balance with the removal of Nofret and Cleopatra's pictures. I will not repost Ahmose Nefertari's and Tiye's pictures. We have agreement on this point.


Just as you are saying that there is a specific controversy over Cleopatra, there is a specific controversy over the translation of melanchroes and Bernal's works. Those two subjects created enough of a controversy (and long lasting controversy I might add) that they should always be mentioned in an article about the history of the controversy. In most Greek books that I own, the English translator goes through the trouble of adding a footnote outlining the melanchroes controversy (after translating melanchroes as black). You can find these footnotes in the Penguin publishing editions of Ancient Greek texts. It's a specific and well documented controversy and it should be mentioned in the article. I don't need to expound on Bernal, as we all know there is a RAGING controversy over his works concerning the race of Egyptians. This article would be incomplete without specifically and explicitly referencing that controversy.


Let's agree to disagree with the cultural similarities argument. During this period, practically no humans on Earth practiced circumcision. Most of the people that did practice circumcision were Nile valley inhabitants (what I would consider a racial group. My definition is as broad as the approach that allows blond/blue eyed Northern Europeans and olive skinned, brown eyed Southern Europeans to be in the same racial group), such as Ethiopians and Egyptians (a difference in nationality and not race). Others that practiced circumcision and were racially different (e.g. Hebrews) shared a border with the Nile valley and were in captivity for 400 years in the Nile valley, were they learned the practice from the Nile valley racial group.Rod (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy/Archive_10&oldid=926780067"