Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18

The visibly Biased tone of this Article...

There is just a very unequal and biased representation of the different views, and here I am talking about the words used to describe the of the different sides of the controversy.

There is an over abundance of the use of the word "claim" when it come to proponents of a "Black Egyptian". Please recall that "claim" is an absolutely biased verb meaning: "to state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof." or as a noun "an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt." (oxford dictionary). This wouldn't be a bother if that word was equally applied to proponents of the other theories, who instead get the benefit of more neutral if not positive words like: "say", "wrote"/"write", "assert" etc... Just use Ctrl+F and see for yourself.

Hoping changes can be made as soon as possible for the sake of presenting all sides with as much neutrality as possible. No need to exhibit biases so clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.207.61.253 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The article reflects the tone of the majority of sources on the topic; if there generally appears to be more evidence supporting the ancient Egyptians as being mostly non-Negroid, that is how the article should be written. If you have new reliable sources to add, or evidence against established sources, feel free to edit the article accordingly. JordanGero (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

What is 'non-Negroid'? Is that 'not negro-like'? Ramses III's haplogroup is E1b1a, which is connected to the Bantu Expansion. Tutankhamon's dna is most like the people of Southern Africa today. Does that make them 'Negro' or 'Negroid'? MrSativa (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

IP editor, neutrality on Wikipedia simply means reporting what reliable sources say, and the presentation of that information adjusted per the expertise of those providing the information. We do try to present it, as far as the prose, in the most neutral way possible. But sometimes the wording can be a bit more "blunt" when dealing with what are generally regarded as fringe claims. We don't try to give equal balance to all views, or presenting them with vocabulary that would give the impression of all such views being equally credible, plausible, or generally accepted by expert sources.

I pretty much am echoing what JordanGero said: If you have reliable sources that amount to more than a claim, and other reliable sources treat it that way, then you can adjust the weight / wording. The fact is that, with certain exceptions (especially with those Egyptians of Nubian origin), the scientific consensus is that most Ancient Egyptians were not what we would generally describe today as "black", and essentially resembled their modern-day descendants- namely, the Copts. The claims regarding those ancient Egyptians rulers who were of Ptolemaic descent are especially regarded as fringe, as they descended from Macedonian Greeks and we can account for most of their genealogy. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

By doing that we are being arbiter of the validity or truthfulness of the sources one over another. And this is where we are bringing our own biases to the article, because we view as true the sources affirming that the ancient Egyptians were mostly non-Negroid doesn't mean that we are supposed to say so.We can simply write A says/writes "Statement A" but B refutes it with "rebuttal B". The Objective of the article is to state the facts and back them up with sources. That's it. We are not here to personally imply that This Scholar or that Scholar is more or less wrong than another. State the Facts, give the sources. No ? We have to show what side we think is right ? If the a view is not credible, plausible, or generally accepted by expert sources we can simply state so.

Let us remember that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Come on now and tell me that a book published by a University professor gets to not be a "reliable source" as outlined by Wikipedia and hence should not be presented with a NPOV.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.207.61.253 (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Quinto Simmaco answered your most recent objection regarding the article's neutrality. NPOV does not mean allotting equal weight to all perspectives on a given subject, but rather representing such perspectives proportionate to their acceptance by scholars and evidentiary conditions in the field. The reader is thus presented with the prevailing state of research and ideation on the question and is free to formulate his/her own conclusions. There are usually always theories or positions, especially in history, that are contrary to a prevailing perspective, but presenting those positions in the format of "A says X but B refutes X and says Y instead" belies the different levels of support between each perspective. JordanGero (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're interested in seeing why it's written this way, the relevant guiding policies and guidelines are WP:WEIGHT, WP:IRS, and WP:FRINGELEVEL. We don't state the truth. We state what reliable sources say, and present them in relation to one another (or rather, with due weight). That's the cornerstone of NPOV, and really the foundation of how Wikipedia works, to be honest. We generally only state what a preponderance of reliable sources say in Wikipedia's voice. It's not editorialising, as we don't decide what's "true". I'm not sure what you're referring to with the book, but simply being a university professor doesn't make one a reliable source. Notability is one thing; weight is assigned by reliability. We can state notable dissenting opinions from independent sources, of course, but in the context of how reliable sources contextualise such claims. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I still think that there is manifest editorializing in this article. That is a clear lack NPOV because simply from reading one can clearly see what the opinion of the contributors on the matter is, and that is not okay. But let's take an example maybe I will get more clarity on this.

As an example let's look at this portion:"Other points of the hypothesis include claimed cultural affiliations, such as circumcision,[123]" We clearly have a reliable source, it's a book written b a scholar in the field. This particular Hypothesis is not given undue weight, merely a sentence. But there is simply no neutrality because of the use of the verb "claim". "Claim" here is presented as the word of the editor, not the academic community.

Now on the other Hand, when presenting "the Asiatic Race theory", there is no use of the word "claim" or any other wording that puts that theory under a bad light. As erroneous as it may be the Author simply goes on and details the current level of acceptance among the relevant academic as the guideline on fringe theories recommends. And that Theory was dropped altogether by the relevant academic community.

How is using depreciating words when editing the hallmark of a NPOV, I don't get it, seriously though..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.207.61.253 (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. All of the older theories have been debunked, but the article is written in a fashion to make the lay reader believe that only the black egyptian theory is in question and that the older theories are based on sound scientific evidence (which they are not). This has been covered in detail over the last couple of years. I encourage you to read some of the older versions of this article from 2012-2014 when it was more balanced.Rod (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I also remind people that this article is NOT about the race of the Ancient Egyptians. As it says at the top of the article, that's a different article. This article is about the history of the controversy'. Doug Weller talk 05:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Quite true, Doug, and thank you for that reminder. The use of secondary sources, and sources contextually linked to one another, is doubly true in a controversy article in which the arguments develop over time. I would point out that I cited FRINGE as it still falls under that purview, in addition to the IP editor bringing up the thrust of the controversy itself. But I agree, it does start to veer into the WP:NOTAFORUM territory after the user's editing concerns have been addressed. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, It is almost common sense that egyptians were populated by Arabs and Africans. Niether of these groups are white. Although in America, the whites claim that north africans and middle easterns identify as white for ethnicity, like when doing a standardized exam in school. The arabs sometimes do this, sometimes they put Asian, even if they put white, most of them never identify as white, as they are usually enemies of the whites. Whites shoulds strictly be restricted to Europe, with the exception of maybe the Berbers and the Lebanese. If anything, Egyptians range from dark brown to tan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daspd (talk • contribs) 14:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Common error. The article isn't about the 'race', it's about the controversy, ie a history of the controversy. We have an article on the demographics of Egypt. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Two common errors. It's typical for an American to assume that there are only two races, black vs white, and that anybody who is not pure white is thus automatically black. Outside of America, people self-identify with a much larger range of "races". In Africa, Egyptians do not self-identify as either black or white in the American sense, and neither do Arabs. Wdford (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

UNESCO, The Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of Meroitic Script, January 28-February 3, 1974 (Paris: UNESCO, 1978)

"Although the preparatory working paper sent out by UNESCO gave particulars of what was desired, not all participants had prepared communications comparable with the painstakingly researched contributions of Professors Cheikh Anta Diop and Obenga. There was consequently a real lack of balance in the discussions.” (Peopling Page91)This article makes it seem like Diop's and Obenga's argumentation was successfully refuted at UNESCO when it was not as this quote from the Official UNESCO report attests to. Like always bias and obfuscation in another Wikipedia article ho hum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmouktar (talk • contribs) 02:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We've covered this ground in the older versions of the article from 2012-2014. I would encourage you to review them. Many of the scholars at the conference agreed with many of Diop's points and cited examples were given in the older version of the article. In my opinion, it's POV pushing to write the section in a way to make the lay reader believe that no one at the conference agreed with Diop or even that people at the conference could mount a credible defense, since they were woefully unprepared.Rod (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Gebelein

The notion that ancient Egyptians inhabiting Upper Egypt were markedly darker than those in Lower Egypt is speculation. In actuality, old notarized contracts from the Gebelein nome indicate that most in that southern nome were of a honey complexion [1]. Soupforone (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

From a peer reviewed secondary source: The British Africanist Basil Davidson stated "Whether the Ancient Egyptians were as black or as brown in skin color as other Africans may remain an issue of emotive dispute; probably, they were both. Their own artistic conventions painted them as pink, but pictures on their tombs show they often married queens shown as entirely black, being from the south (from what a later world knew as Nubia): while the Greek writers reported that they were much like all the other Africans whom the Greeks knew.Rod (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Davidson was alluding to the conventional hue range within the ancient Egyptian art. As to actual racial origins, based on cranial analysis, he believed that predynastic Egypt was multiracial, with "Negroes" constituting around a third of the population [2]. Guessing aside, what is certain are the legal testimonies within the Gebelein notarized contracts. Soupforone (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Soupforone: 'Rod' is topic banned from this subject, shouldn't be posting here. And knows it. Doug Weller talk 19:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213002414/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iB6u3XEMp9IrJfl-kH6FHNgZCg_A to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iB6u3XEMp9IrJfl-kH6FHNgZCg_A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204042121/http://www.robertschoch.net/Great%20Sphinx%20Controversy.htm to http://www.robertschoch.net/Great%20Sphinx%20Controversy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213002414/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iB6u3XEMp9IrJfl-kH6FHNgZCg_A to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iB6u3XEMp9IrJfl-kH6FHNgZCg_A
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://books.google.co.za/books?id=AR1ZZO6niVIC&pg=PA194&dq=Qustul%20burner&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Lo7-UITgFYqa0QWNnYDYDA&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBQ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Ancient Egyptians weren't from Africa.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/30/scientists-map-the-genome-of-ancient-egyptian-kings-and-they-werent-from-africa/

90.184.72.43 (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Curious

I do find it curious that not much talk is being made out of DNA studies, including this most recent one. I think the scientific section here should be a lot bigger since it really is the deciding factor given that all else is based on conjuncture from images or shapes of head, etc. I will add a DNA section if no one objects. It will be brief as the main article, DNA history of Egypt, will be linked to. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

{re|Aua}} How is this part of the history of the controversy? With emphasis on the word 'history'. This isn't about the population of Ancient Egypt. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aua: 14:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Definitely a fair point if this were solely about the history of the controversy. However, it's about the controversy itself. I think the reader deserves to see where modern scholarship falls on this beyond 18th-early 20th century opinions on this (which is the way it is right now in the article). I only bring it up because there are few DNA studies on this topic, so including that bit of evidence wouldn't be too onerous. Wouldn't you agree readers will be interested in this? Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Were the Egyptians black, white, or indigenous Africans?

Note:This was originally posted as an edit to archived discussion at: Talk:Race_and_ancient_Egypt/Archive_10#Were the Egyptians black, white, or indigenous Africans? I have moved it here to protect the integrity of the Archive, and so it will be seen. Agricolae (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• The earliest modern human remains found in Egypt are that of the Nazlet khater Man. He was an Upper Paleolithic European (Cro-Magnon. This fits in with the fact that modern Berbers carry Mid East MTDNA going 30 000 - 20 000 years.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/24701394.2016.1258406?journalCode=imdn21 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19144388

• Majority of recreations of ancient Egyptians by Scientific Forensic Experts, shows Egyptians looking just like Copts and Middle Eastern people:

http://www.themuseum.ca/blog/unwrapping-secrets-ancient-egypt-justines-facial-reconstruction

Hair analysis of Pre-Dynasty Egyptians shows they were Caucasians: http://www.egyptorigins.org/ginger.htm

• Studying crania from these same periods, Zakrzewski found continuity stretching into the early dynastic and also noted a relationship between Badari and later Egyptian groups

DNA taken from Egyptian mummies in central Egypt, dated from 1400BC to the Roman era, shows they were closely related to Middle Eastern peoples and Neolithic Europeans. They were NOT related to black Africans and carried no invader DNA. They would have looked just like modern unmixed Palestinians and Copts. https://www.nature.com/news/mummy-dna-unravels-ancient-egyptians-ancestry-1.22069

Ancient Pre-Dynasty skulls found at Maadi and analysed, shows that these ancient Egyptians resembled Middle Eastern people: http://ehrafarchaeology.yale.edu/ehrafa/citation.do?forward=browseAuthorsFullContext&id=mr60-018&method=citation

Other skulls found throughout Lower Egypt shows the people resembled Middle Eastern Caucasians: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/11008.full.pdf

The Badari and Naqada Culture of Upper Egypt resembled modern Kabyle Berbers and they had no black African affinities: https://www.docdroid.net/A4OSCYj/dental-morphological-analysis-of-roman-era-burials-from-the0adakhleh-oasis-egypt-haddow-2012.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timesummer0 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"Indigenous African" is not a synonym for black, as Africa is the most diverse continent in the world historically (no surprise as that's where we all came from). This was even recognized by the putridly bigoted "racial scientists" of early modern Europe. Within the obselete racial classifications of scientific racism, the continent was the sole native home of "Capoid" Bushmen types as well as pygmies, both of which are so different from what you call "blacks" physically and genetically that "blacks" ("Negroids"/"Congoids") are more similar to "whites" ("Caucasoids") and "Mongoloids" than they are to either "Capoids" or pygmies. In addition to those three groups you also had "Mongoloids" that came from Indonesia living in Madagascar, "Caucasoids" living in North Africa (i.e. Berbers), and whatever people classify Somalis and Ethiopians as (as they've occasionally been they're own thing).

Of course, nowadays, people have realized that all this race bullshit based on phenotype is not only ethically wrong, it's not even scientifically sound as two groups of people that look similar often have very different DNA, they simply had convergent evolution due to living in similar environments -- hence Papuans despite "looking" a bit like blacks from Africa are actually more closely related to people in Asia, and similarly there are blond haired and blue eyed peoples in Northeastern Europe that are in fact more closely related to native Siberians (who look like Mongols) than they are to Germans (who "look more similar"). Anyhow I myself am probably already violating the fact that these talk pages are not supposed to be forums, but just wanted to point out that the entire paradigm of this question is dumb. --Yalens (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Randomly placed quotation marks?

Numerous Afrocentric scholars, such as Du Bois,[53][54][55] Diop, and Asante[56] have characterized the face of the Sphinx as Black, or "Negroid".
Are the quotation marks needed here?--Adûnâi (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who placed them but my guess is that they're there because of the outdated nature of these "scientific" classifications, which although the classifiers themselves oft came from marginalized groups, were still based on scientific racism. But I can't speak for whoever placed them.--Calthinus (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptians were Middle Eastern/European

DNA taken from ancient Egyptian mummies at Abusir el-Meleq. Middle Egypt and dated 1380 BC to the Roman era, shows they were more closely related to Middle Eastern people from the Levant and Europeans from the Neolithic era including Israel and Jordon. They were not related to black Africans. Black African DNA is said to arrived in Egypt after the Roman period probably with slavery.

The mummies DNA shows a continuation from 1380 BC to the Roman era with no invader DNA. Egypt was conquered by Libya,Nubia,Persia, Assyria and Persia, but none of the mummies tested showed any invader DNA. Ancient Pre-Dynasty skull remains found in Egypt shows there was a migration of the Middle Farmers about 6000 years ago. Places like ancient Maadi, the Fayum A Culture, Merimde and Tasian Cultures were all Middle Eastern in origin. This could mean the ancient Egyptians retained their Middle Eastern DNA going back to the Neolithic Middle Eastern Farmers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timesummer0 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

https://www.mpg.de/11317890/genome-ancient-egyptian-mummies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timesummer0 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I definitely would include the DNA study here. Anyone objects?

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps with a sentence or two would be good, I think it should be added, maybe in the Position of Modern Scholarship section. I would argue no more. Last I heard, this page was supposed to be about the controversy, not the evidence. --Yalens (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Done!

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yalens, as per Template:Editnotices/Page/Ancient Egyptian race controversy, this page is indeed on the controversy itself, not the raw data ("this is not the article for discussing actual evidence pointing either way in this debate. This is a "history of controversy" article: please discuss it in this way, bearing in mind academic consensus, this is not a referendum on Afrocentrism or Eurocentrism"). As Doug Weller explained, "this is not a page to argue the "race", it's an article about the controversy over the "race" of Ancient Egyptians. As it says on the top of the page, "For discussion of the scientific evidence relating to the race of the ancient Egyptians, see Population history of Egypt."" [3] That is why the earlier genetic studies on the Amarna royal mummies and the first metagenome analysis aren't mentioned; the study above is therefore offtopic here too.

Also, please note that the population affinities of a sample do not necessarily equate to geographical origin. That is how Lazaridis was able to postulate African origins for the ancient Natufians despite their Near Eastern population affinities. By contrast, this Schuenemann analysis doesn't indicate anything about the origins of the Merimde, Tasian or any of those other prehistoric Nile Valley cultures above. The only thing related to the origins of the ancient Egyptians that the scientists do indicate is actually that it is as yet unclear from the haplogroup distribution whether the paternal origin of their three ancient Egyptian mummies lay in Northeast Africa or the Near East [4]-- :"The current distribution of E1b1b1 in North Africa could also be caused by the back migration from the Near East to Africa that have already been proposed by several authors (77-79). The high frequencies of haplogroup R1-M173 in Cameroon also supported the back migration from Eurasia to Africa (80). Since it’s still unclear whether E1b1b evolved in Northeast Africa or the Near East, we were deciding against attempting to conclude whether the two haplogroups provide information about different paternal origin information in our three Mummy samples." In other words, the scientists don't rule out the possibility that (paternally at least) their three ancient Egyptian mummies may have evolved in the Nile Valley itself. Soupforone (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it again and explained in my edit summary that "Bold" means X makes a major edit, Y reverts it, then discussion. We are discussing and I still don't think it belongs. There's no consensus here to keep it in the article, and we need to be very cautious that this article doesn't become the actual controversy. I think it belongs where the hatnote says: " For discussion of the scientific evidence relating to the race of the ancient Egyptians, see Population history of Egypt." Doug Weller talk 16:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: the only three people who commented as of yesterday did not oppose the inclusion (myself, Yalens, and Timesummer). I still believe it deserves a quick mention in the position of modern scholarship, although I am cognizant of the risk this becomes the "controversy" vis-a-vis its history. If the consensus swings to not including it, then that's fine as well as long readers can find that piece of evidence elsewhere on Wikipedia. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aua: Timesummer has only ever made one edit, it's a new account, and that was just to mention the existence of the study, User:Yalens seemed a bit ambivalent. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I was "ambivalent", that's accurate. So you have a 2 v 2. I'd recommend putting it in Population history of Egypt, and listing haplogroup frequencies rather than claimed origins.--Yalens (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, since there will likely be many eventual ancient DNA analyses on dynastic/predynastic Egypt, a haplogroup frequency table there would make sense. Soupforone (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how anybody can really believe that the Ancient Egyptians were WHITE red heads. You have to be some kind of stupid. But if the data points to that. Please include all the other data such as Ramses 3 e1b1a and DNA tribes. Thank you. Allanana79 (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't presume to know what other editors think, and don't engage in personal attacks and WP:SOAP. --Yalens (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The red hair is just wrong, but I haven't had time to fix it but I have sources saying the hair color was from henna. This is an article about the history of the controversy, not one to argue about the race of Ancient Egyptians. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The scholarly position seems now to be that he was indeed a natural red-head, and when his hair turned white with age it was died reddish again with henna. Per Bob Brier, Egyptian Mummies: Unravelling the Secrets of an Ancient Art, 1994, p. 153. See also Ramesses: Egypt's Greatest Pharaoh, by Joyce Tyldesley, 2001, here [5] Wdford (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, please take a look at the mummy analysis [6]. I've rephrased it per the finalized wording [7]. Or should we instead keep it on the other page as we agreed above? Soupforone (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Soupforone: I still don't think it belongs here, this isn't about the controversy. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, okay per the above, I have removed the passage. Soupforone (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hilke Thür is female

I can't edit the article myself, can someone edit the sentence "He identified the body as that of Arsinoe" to "She identified the body as that of Arsinoe"? Thanks. Cutnyakdhien (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing out the error! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Modern Scholarship

What is the purpose of the Modern Scholarship section please? If we cannot include the most modern developments, why have this section at all? It currently includes a personal opinion from Keita, who is far from objective - and now we have actual reliable scientific evidence that contradicts Keita's musings, but it is deleted. Why is Keita included but the more recent and more scientific Max Planck study is not? Surely a controversy is a series of to-and-fro arguments, each based on evidence supporting one or other positon as it arises? I agree with the position that this article is about the history of the controversy and not the scientific evidence itself, but the controversy is on-going, with Keita not alone in expressing views on the subject. Since the Max Planck study is simply the latest plank in the long-running debate, and since it directly contradicts the opinions of persons such as Keita, surely it deserves to be mentioned too? If it is "too recent" to be considered part of "history", then should Keita's opinions not be deleted as well? Wdford (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Drosou et al. (2018)'s study of the mummies from the Tomb of Two Brothers is actually the latest ancient DNA analysis of Egyptian specimens, and it doesn't exactly jibe with the Max Planck/Schuenemann et al. (2017) study's sweeping claims (the brothers carried the M1a1 mtDNA subclade, which is much more common among modern Afroasiatic speakers in Africa than in the Near East [8]). Schuenemann et al.'s interpretations are also somewhat misleading in that they did not include a Copt sample in their analysis, yet they claim that their ancient Egyptian specimens are more closely related to modern Near Easterners than to even modern Egyptians. A glance at their own supplementary file data actually shows that the primary ancestral component borne by their ancient Egyptian sample is the same Natufian-related ancestral component that is the primary ancestral component borne by their Afroasiatic-speaking samples from the Maghreb and the Horn of Africa. Fregel et al. (2017) have since found that ancestral component at highest frequencies among Early Neolithic specimens from Ifri n'Amr or Moussa in Morocco [9]. This finding supports Lazaridis et al. (2016)'s postulation that the Natufians may have migrated from the Nile Valley to the Levant, bringing the Basal Eurasian component with them [10]. Anyway, Molto et al. (2017)'s Roman period Dakhla Oasis mummy analysis [11] as well as the earlier Zink lab analysis of the 18th dynasty Amarna royal mummies [12] are not included either, so the Max Planck situation isn't unusual. Soupforone (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all this interesting information. The Two Brothers were only two samples, compared to the 150-odd of the Max Planck/Schuenemann study, so on balance they don't exactly net off. The 12th Dynasty was well known as a time when Egyptian kings colonised Nubia, and some of them even had Nubian wives such as Kemsit (seen here [13]). Also, the M1 apparently occurs in the Near East as well as Africa, so it is no real indication either way. I'm not sure that the Copts are a distinct race as such, and the Copts I have met looked the same as all the other modern Egyptians I encountered, so I don’t know if that makes any difference to the analysis. The Natufian people were East Asian rather than African in origin, and may have spread into East Africa in ancient times from the Levant, so this supports the findings of Max Planck/Schuenemann. Morocco is neither Egyptian or sub-Saharan, is it? The Roman period is not really "ancient Egypt" anymore, but Schuenemann et al do mention that, in the Roman Period, veterans of the Roman army settled in the Fayum area but that they were not Egyptian people. Nonetheless Molto et al found that, "Surprisingly, these ancient inhabitants were more closely related to those from the Near East than to contemporary Egyptians." This directly supports the findings of Max Planck/Schuenemann as well. The Zink paper doesn't seem to identify the actual DNA at all, thus is not really going to contribute to a race-based debate at the DNA level, but it did find that both Tutankhamun and Akhenaten had brachycephalic skull shapes, which is not normally an indication of African ancestry. I added it to the Tutankhamun section, but I am happy to add both of these to the Modern Scholarship section as well.

My main point is that the article currently quotes Keita saying that "There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa." In the 11 years since he wrote that statement, a lot of scientific evidence has arisen to potentially contradict that statement. If we take out Keita then fine, but if we leave Keita's out-of-date statement here as a sample of "history", then we should at least add the really "modern" evidence which contradicts him as well. Wdford (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Wdford on this one (despite having taken a different stance on this one in the past). Modern scholarship should be summarized and point to Genetic history of Egypt where most things can go. Additionally, blockquotes by specific authors can give too much weight to their specific views -- I'm talking about Keita. Personally I happen to tend to agree with Keita but I don't see why his specific view gets a block quote, with no other block quote in the section, and none of the studies in the ten years that have passed since that statement included. Looks bad.--Calthinus (talk)

Wdford, M1 is indeed found among modern Afroasiatic speakers in the Near East, but not at the frequencies found among those in Africa. The M1a1 subclade is also rather specific to Northeast Africa. Further, M1 was found among the Abusir mummies, so it is unlikely that this was primarily because of marriage to Nubian wives. What makes the marriage suggestion even more doubtful is the fact that the Ifri n'Amr or Moussa fossils from Morocco entirely belonged to the M1 and U6a mtDNA clades. As regards the Abusir mummies, only three of their genomes were analysed (the rest were typed for uniparental lineages/haplogroups), and it's largely this that Schuenemann et al.'s sweeping claims are based on. Molto et al.'s analysis of the Dakhla Oasis mummy does support Schuenemann et al. claims, but not as expected. Unlike Schuenemann et al., Molto et al. attribute the presence of the haplogroup U1a1a in the Nile Valley to religious settlers with established homelands in the ancient Near East rather than to native Egyptians ("In the context of ancient Kellis, U1a1a suggests close association within the history of the ancient Near East. The Iranian and Iraqi Jewish populations are the oldest non-Askenazi Jewish communities outside the Levant, dating to approximately 600 BC. During this time, groups were driven out or fled as refugees of their established homelands in the Levant by either the Assyrian capture of Israel (722 BC) or the Babylonian conquests of Judah (597 and 587 BC). U1a1a is cited as one of six haplogroups possibly dating from these events, attesting to the presence of this lineage in the ancient Near East as early as these military-driven political events."). Per Dobon et al. (2016), Copts have their own ancestral component, which they attribute to ancient Egyptian ancestry [14]. It is doubtful that the Natufians arrived from East Asia (typo? perhaps you meant West Asia?). Anyway, it's not yet clear where they originated since both their uniparental lineages (Y-DNA haplogroups CT and E1b1b; mtDNA haplogroup N1) and primary ancestral component are common among modern Afroasiatic-speaking populations in both Africa and West Asia. What does, though, suggest that they may have dispersed from Africa is the fact that the Early Neolithic specimens from Ifri n'Amr or Moussa in Morocco appear to share that same ancestral component, but apparently without any extraneous influences.

As regards the Zink lab, the scientists' objective was to determine whether the mummies were relatives. This is why they typed the Amarna dynasty mummies for both autosomal STRs and Y-STRS. Based on this analysis, their conclusion was that the mummies were indeed relatives rather than that the mummies originated outside Africa simply because they had brachycephalic/broad skull shapes. Since some native populations in the Nile Valley have high cephalic indices in the brachycephalic range (e.g. Hadendoa, unlike most other Beja and Egyptians) whereas some native populations in West Asia have low cephalic indices in the dolichocephalic/narrow range (e.g. Jordanian Bedouins, unlike the Mehri), cephalic index values alone would not be able to pinpoint their origin anyway. Also, Habicht et al. (2016) reanalysed the Zink lab's Amarna mummies and found their Y-STR and autosomal values to be authentic [15]. The royal mummies apparently belonged to the Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1a [16]. This clade is today uncommon among Afroasiatic speakers in general, so the ultimate derivation of the Amarna royals is uncertain. With that said, the Keita passage is rather tautological since it is noted above it that the Dynastic Egyptians are now generally believed to have been indigenous to the Nile area. Soupforone (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the Keita quote.

My comment about Nubian wives was actually about the 12th Dynasty "Two Brothers", as the 12th Dynasty did indeed have Nubian wives and concubines – and presumably these ladies brought their retinues north with them.

The Abusir mummies they tested started from the Late New Kingdom, when trade with Nubia had been going on for hundreds of years, and it stretched through the Kushite period to Ptolemaic times. The presence of some M1 genetic material is thus hardly surprising, but the experts concluded that the results indicated primarily a Near Eastern origin, and we are normally supposed to accept that the sources know best what underlies their conclusions. Since the experts have been prepared to consider that all these Near Eastern sources may have been foreigners, surely we should be prepared to similarly consider that the M1 people may have also been foreigners?

Dobon et al. actually stated (pg 5) that the "Copts share the same main ancestral component than North African and Middle East populations (dark blue), supporting a common origin with Egypt (or other North African/Middle Eastern populations). They are known to be the most ancient population of Egypt." This once again indicates that the genetic material points to a common origin with people from the Middle East, rather than with the sub-Saharan populations.

I agree that we should have a separate article for all the genetic studies. However should we not at least have a sentence or two that summarises the current understanding from all these recent genetic studies?Wdford (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Wdford, yes, that is what I thought you meant about the Two Brothers tomb. Nubia during the 12th dynasty was inhabited by diverse populations of different ancestral origins. Some of these inhabitants were Afroasiatic speakers related to the ancient Egyptians (viz. Kerma and C-Group populations), whereas others were Nilo-Saharan speakers ancestral to present-day Nilotes, Darfurians, etc.. Ergo, while it is indeed possible that the brothers’ father had married one or perhaps more Nubian wives, their M1 mtDNA haplogroup suggests that those women hailed from ancient Nubia’s Afroasiatic-speaking communities since this maternal clade is not common among unadmixed Nilo-Saharan speakers. This shared inheritance is presumably also why Dobon et al. found that their other modern Afroasiatic-speaking populations from the Nile Valley and Horn of Africa as well as their Nubian samples bore the Coptic element as their primary ancestral component [17]-- "Our analyses revealed a genetic component for Sudanese Nilo-Saharan speakinggroups (Darfurians and part of Nuba populations) related to Nilotes of South Sudan, but not to otherSudanese populations or other sub-Saharan populations. Populations inhabiting the North of theregion showed close genetic affinities with North Africa, with a component that could be remnant ofNorth Africans before the migrations of Arabs from Arabia.[…] Copts show a common ancestry with North African and Middle Eastern populations (darkblue), whereas the South-West cluster (Darfurians, Nuba and Nilotes) share an ancestry component(light blue) with sub–Saharan samples. The North-East cluster (Beja, Ethiopians, Arabs and Nubians)shows both components, although the main component (~70%) is that detected in North Africa and Middle East (Fig. 3).[…] Copts lack the influence found in Egyptians from Qatar, an Arabic population. It may suggest that Copts have a genetic composition that could resemble the ancestral Egyptian population, without the present strong Arab influence."

At some point in antiquity, it is quite probable that settlers from abroad would have brought the M1 haplogroup to Africa because this lineage is phylogenetically downstream to/younger than various other haplogroup M subclades, and all of these subhaplogroups appear to have originated in Asia. However, this migration(s) would have to have begun well before the 12th dynasty since Early Neolithic fossils from Ifri n'Amr or Moussa in Morocco already bore the M1 clade. These are the oldest skeletons that have been found to carry the haplogroup, although further osteological analyses may eventually find more ancient M1-bearing specimens elsewhere. With that said, I agree that a table perhaps summarizing the various haplogroups/ancestral components that have been identified would be useful. However, from my discussion with Yalens, Doug Weller, Authorityofwiki and others, there doesn’t seem to be much enthusiasm for this. It was decided that the material was instead more appropriate on the ancient Egypt population page. Soupforone (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, the E1b1a paternal haplogroup is not really common among contemporary Nilo-Saharan speakers. It is instead primarily found among modern Niger-Congo-speaking populations, as well as among groups that either intermarried with Niger-Congo speakers or originally spoke languages from that family. However, the fact that the 18th dynasty Amarna royals apparently bore the haplogroup doesn’t necessarily mean that they were of non-Egyptian origin since more upstream haplogroup E lineages have since been found among other ancient Afroasiatic-speaking populations with no apparent Bantu-related ancestry (viz. the Berber-speaking Guanche), as well as in the Near East among both the Mesolithic Natufians and the later Pre-Pottery Neolithic makers. Cabrerra et al. (2018) suggest that the unusual current distribution of the Y-DNA haplogroup E as well as the mtDNA haplogroup L3 is due to ancient migrations from Asia, where both clades' initial carriers likely originated and dispersed from. The haplogroups would subsequently have been introduced to the populations ancestral to modern Niger-Congo speakers, who the scientists postulate originally bore instead other haplogroups. This would explain why the autosomal DNA of modern haplogroup E-carrying Niger-Congo speakers is generally different from that of modern and ancient haplogroup E-carrying Afroasiatic speakers [18]. Soupforone (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Soupforone sorry I took a month. You are correct about E1b1a, and thanks for the info on E-lineages in general, as well as the link -- interesting. Anyhow, regarding your initiative to include some of this issue on this page, I actually have changed my mind -- an abbreviated version would be appropriate here as it shows the current position of the scholarly community. As in, one paragraph. It is useful actually, it just shouldn't take up too much space on a page that is mostly about a controversy. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I suggest a small table with all the uniparental lineages that have been found, these clades' assumed places of origin, and the excavation areas and dates of the ancient fossils. Soupforone (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It might not be as useful to talk about this in the abstract, as to write up a section and propose it for inclusion. --Calthinus (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Only three paternal clades have so far been observed, but various maternal clades. It's a rather simple table. Soupforone (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have noticed speculative WP:OR appearing on this article and it is not acceptable. We had a totally uncited "genetics" paragraph which I just removed. Among other things it said Ancient Egyptians resembled sampled from "Turkey and Arab lands", which is surprising as Turkey has a quite different profile from North Africa, which is in turn quite different from places like Syria or Yemen.--Calthinus (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Upper Paleolithic North African Populations

To give some background, we can include the genetic affinities of Upper Paleolithic North Africans to the Near East and their continuity into the Nile Valley subsistence populations (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6388/548). As well, a section can be devoted to the similarities between the Qadan culture andNatufian culture of Upper Paleolithic Egypt and the contemporary Near Eastern cultures, which includes such technologies as blades and spear throwers.64.250.92.143 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Wrong article. This is about the controversy, I think you want Population history of Egypt or DNA history of Egypt. Doug Weller talk 19:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2019

I do not know if there is proof pointing either way to the genetic identify of ancient egyptians. this article should really point to the cradle of civilization page for that. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization however, citing modern egyptian genetics as proof of ancient egyptian genetics is a logical fallacy of not p therefore not q. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent just because modern egyptians have these traits It doesn't mean ancient egyptians hadn't moved during the massive span of time between ancient times and today. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The article doesn't just explain that, though. Did you read the whole article? Even in the lead section it is explained that we have recovered the genomes from the DNA of ancient Egyptian mummies spanning over a thousand years, from the New Kingdom of Egypt all the way to the era of Roman occupation. It is obviously incomplete in terms of only offering sampling from Lower Egypt, not Upper Egypt, and excludes Early Dynastic, Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt, but it's still ancient, not modern data. In fact the modern genetic data is mentioned because it is being directly compared to ancient DNA samples, as relayed in that 2017 Nature Communications article cited in our encyclopedic entry here. Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

PericlesofAthens Indeed the general scientific consensus has been that Egypt, despite language replacement (not complete until the later Ottoman era -- Coptic was still spoken in the Middle Ages in many regions and by Christians), Egypt is one of the most genetically continuous regions, due to its exceptional high population density. This doesn't mean diversity has not been added to the pool, as continuous absorption of peoples from both Sub-Saharan Africa, Berber North Africans and Semitic Middle Easterners has indeed occurred, but it has not replaced the native stratum in dominance. However this discussion would belong at Genetic history of Egypt not here.--Calthinus (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DannyS712 (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Spelling issue

At the end of the first paragraph of the English language version: "fociusing" should be corrected to "focusing". Have a good day. MaelKeu (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Done, thank you for noticing. The same sentence also linked to the obscure Cleopatra VI of Egypt, instead of the famous Cleopatra VII. Dimadick (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Two problems with the lede

First, The "national geographic study" is not a study. But a blog post on national geographic's website based on findings from commercial DNA test. It does not belong in the lede and probably not in the article. It also contradicts the actual DNA tests cited in the lede.

Second, only three mummnies in the Abisur study were tested for black admixture, and all of them had such ancestry: between 6-15%. The current version of the lede misleadingly implies that only 3 of the 83 mummies had such admixture. GergisBaki (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the first problem - perhaps it has been fixed already?

I have fixed the second problem, by reporting the source more closely.

All three samples that were able to be tested for admixture came from very late in the history of Egypt - when the population was very different to those who had built the monuments we know today. The three samples came from the Third Intermediate Period and the Late Period - all of which follow the period when Egypt had been invaded by Nubian kings, and which includes the time when things fell apart following the collapse of the Nubian kings. Talk about non-representative.

However I'm sure that the Americans who cling to the "one-drop principle" are thrilled.

Wdford (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"Myth of Stolen Legacy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Myth of Stolen Legacy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Ramses 3 DNA results VS Tutanchmun IGNEA results

It seems like someone is purposefully hiding the fact that Ramses 3 dna results came out E1b1a, when you already have the king Tut dna result on here from IGNEA, why would you do that? Either provide both dna results or remove the King Tut results, which are not R1b1a by the way. but anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allanana79 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The IGNEA results were controversial and are only included because of the controversy - are you saying that the article doesn't make it clear enough that they were dismissed? I've clarified that by adding the quote that they were "simply impossible". They are there to be debunked. Note that they are not included in his main article. You seem to like fringe stuff - I note that you think CNN is fake news. You prefer a conspiracy reason to the idea we might just be following Wikipedia policy. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I just don't understand why people wish to hide the fact that they were Africans of black complexion? I mean, I am probably more racist than you, but I accept that the Ancient Egyptians were black. And it makes me wonder what happened to then to go from the founders of human civilisation to now the dregs of our society. Allanana79 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Saying, and I quote, I am probably more racist than you, would imply you probably have no respectable business here, frankly. Wikipedia is not about righting great wrongs. We have been over this a gazillion times. Respectable RS accept that applying American racial categories to an ancient society is mindboggling, and that Egyptian civilization experienced demic and other influences from a variety of regions (Middle East, Mediterranean, and yes also Nubia). --Calthinus (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, recent DNA tests done on Ancient Egyptian mummies from 1400 BC found that the black African input was less than 1% in the population at that time. Furthermore, the closest related populations to Ancient Egyptians were people in the nearby Levant - Israel, Syria - and South Eastern Europeans - Greeks and Anatolians. Those populations are very much Caucasian. It was only in remains that were dated after the Islamic conquest in 641 AD, that the black African ancestry began to rise in the general population to what it is today, around 20% in many areas. That increase was due to the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade, the Arab Muslims brought more black slaves to North Africa and the Middle East than were taken to the Americas. So the black ancestry in Egypt today is not old, but new, unlike the Caucasian ancestry.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/health/ancient-egypt-mummy-dna-genome-heritage/index.html 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:355D:5F62:C65A:14A4 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2020

This post talks about the Ancient Egyptian Controversy. Never write about Egypt without posting dates.

1. When you say ancient, it is best to include a time span or year, otherwise the term is meaningless. Archaeologists divide the ancient Egyptian timeline into three distinct categories, the Old Kingdom, the Middle Kingdom, and the New Kingdom. Each kingdom has its own specific time period as well as pharaohs, constructions, and culture. 2. Egypt experienced many conquests, colorizations and mass immigration across all of its extended history. Its complexion and ethnicity changed because of this. There were black and white Pharaohs during different time spans. That is why it is so important to post dates. 3. You need to post dates about this DNA study 4. Mummy DNA STUDY BY Scientists KRAUSE

and https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/health/ancient-egypt-mummy-dna.../index.html https://wtkr.com/2017/06/22/dna-discovery-reveals-genetic-history-of-ancient-egyptians/

This study does not go back to the Old kingdom. ( 2686–2181 BC) or the Middle Kingdom (2040-1782 BCE) It only goes back to the New Kingdom (1570–1070 BC). 5. The mummies only go back to 1400 BC. This is very important to know. 6. • Between 1640 BC – 1532 BC, a dynasty of invaders, called Hyksos, probably Semite shepherds, conquered the north of Egypt. The indigenous African kings withdrew to their original bastion, the south. • Scientists Krause did a study on mummies that only date back to around 1400 BC. The study does not go back far enough in History to the Old Kingdom. All those bodies were from one specific location known to have been popular to the foreigners especially the Greeks and Romans, but also other Near Easterners called Hyksos. • The Hyksos were a people of mixed Semitic and Asian descent who invaded Egypt and settled in the Nile delta c. 1640 BC. They formed the 15th and 16th dynasties of Egypt and ruled a large part of the country until driven out c. 1532 BC. • Naturally you would expect Eurasian DNA • This is made clear by written documents of the time and Krause (the scientist behind the report) even specifies this in the report. Krause literally states The team's findings do come with one obvious caveat: "All our genetic data (was) obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt," the paper concedes. • He even clarifies that further south in Egypt though the people were probably more affiliated (genetically) with Sub-Saharan Africans. and guess what? where did the Egyptians go when foreign conquerors came? To the south where their brother’ tribes lived.Valvacious (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC) Valvacious (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Cleopatra section is too long

This article is supposed to be about the history of the ANCIENT Egyptian race controversy. However, it now has 5 long paragraphs about Cleopatra from the period when Greece and Rome colonized Egypt. That's not Ancient Egypt. All aspects of Egyptian culture, religion, architecture, and civilization preceded Cleopatra by thousands of years. The Greco-Roman rulers were not Egyptians at all, but full blooded Greeks and Romans. This article admits that sources claiming that Cleopatra was Egyptian and/or black were not scholarly sources. It's unbefitting of an encyclopedia article to discuss tabloid topics at length. The Cleopatra section needs to be shortened. EditorfromMars (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Except that it was not a mere "tabloid" topic, it was a serious aspect of the controversy.--Calthinus (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Greek and Roman Egypt was still ancient Egypt.★Trekker (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2020

This article needs a new section labeled DNA. Because, the article fails to mention the 2017 DNA test results of 151 ancient Egyptian mummies that concluded that they were of Middle Eastern descent and that they became more African in modern times. I think this would help to settle the biased opinions detailed in this article. You could also reference the study here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_history_of_Egypt#:~:text=2017%20DNA%20study,-Drift%20shared%20by&text=A%20study%20published%20in%202017,el-Meleq%20in%20Middle%20Egypt.&text=Modern%20Egyptians%20generally%20shared%20this,more%20Sub-Saharan%20African%20clades. Armyguy573 (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It's a bit too much making an edit request which expects us to wade through studies and write-up something on that. If you want to suggest a change, suggest how it should be added, as the edit request kindly informs you, ""Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." ​ RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Additionally one problem we have is keeping to the subject of the article, which is "This article is about the history of the controversy about the race of the ancient Egyptians. For discussion of the scientific evidence relating to the race of the ancient Egyptians, see Population history of Egypt." That information belongs in the latter article. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleting section in lead about a primary study from 2017

I am deleting the lead paragraph about a 2017 study. It is inappropriate to give a single study so much weight in the lead, and in particular to give so much detail about the study that really wouldn't inform an average reader about the topic. Primary sources are often less reliable than secondary sources, and to devote 40% of the topic summary to a single study from 2017 makes no sense. We should instead be summarizing the current scholarship on the issue in the lead. Summarizing current scholarship means including information about recent studies, but does not mean emphasizing a particular study such as to make it seem inappropriately authoritative.

This is particularly apt in this case where we have a single study whose authors admit that

However, the study's authors cautioned that the mummies may not be representative of the Ancient Egyptian population as a whole,[6] as the tested mummies were recovered from a single site, and they dated from the late New Kingdom to the Roman Period, with no mummies from the earlier Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom periods present in this sample.[6]

Why on earth should we then make 40% of the lead a description about this one study on a particular group of mummies that might not be reflective of Ancient Egyptians when the topic is "Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy"? (when the same information is provided in even more detail than is appropriate later in the article--next topic to address) Answer: We shouldn't.

My original position was to leave a short sentence at the end of the lead describing the study, but as I tried to come to the shortest sentence possible, I realized that even a single sentence was inappropriate. The best accurate sentence that concisely conveys the extent of the study I could come up with was

A 2017 study of the mitochondrial DNA of a group of New Kingdom mummies found in Middle Egypt showed a closer similarity to modern Near Easterners than to modern Egyptians, but the authors admit the study is likely not representative of Ancient Egyptians as a whole.

This is the best summary I can come up with, and it is within itself practically an argument against inclusion; the study's own authors don't think their sample is representative of the group they wanted to test.

In summary, I am deleting the paragraph of the lead dealing with the 2017 summary because it is not representative of scholarship on the issue and makes the entire lead misleading to an average reader by over-emphasizing the study's importance (which would be the case even if the authors thought their sample actually was representative). Ikjbagl (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this rationale and the study is receiving too much weight in the leadEditorfromMars (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2020

Guy12354 (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

YES. Cleopatra was in fact dark-skinned. (A black person.)

Yes.

Guy12354 (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Cleopatra was in fact dark-skinned. (A black person.)

We follow WP:RS – Thjarkur (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

History section rewrite proposal

Currently, the History section of the article has 6 sentences supporting the theory that Ancient Egyptian's race was not black and only 3 sentences supporting the theory that Ancient Egyptian's race was in fact black (as judged by modern constructs of race). The section is imbalanced and is also hard to read.

My proposal is to open the section with a statement that the controversy raged in the 18th - 21st centuries with both sides making various arguments to advance their position. Then, move into a few sentences with examples to illustrate the arguments for a non-black Egypt. Group all of the sentences for a non-black Egypt together.

Next, have a few sentences to list examples of controversies and arguments for a black egypt. Group all of the pro-black arguments together. Keep the balance with the same number of examples and overall paragraph length between the two camps.

If this proposal is not accepted, we will need to add more examples of the pro-black controversy and position to restore balance in the history section.EditorfromMars (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@EditorfromMars: The purpose of Wikipedia is to represent all views with the same proportion they recieved in reliable sources. a minority view should be represented as such. Also, the history section should represent 19th and early 20th century views (most of which are considered obsolete, such as the unfounded view that copts are a mixed people and not the descendants of Ancient Egyptians) Mohamed^Talk 01:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The history section should give general info about the origin of the controversy and the views and reasons behind the sides of the controversy in 19th and 20th century, especially in light of the racial theories back then, rather than giving random qoutes. Mohamed^Talk 01:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

After reading many of these primary sources, it's clear that the view that Egyptians were Africans (and/or black) is the majority view throughout history, could be found in libraries all over the world, and was the widespread belief before the racist historians of the colonial age. Numerous examples have been provided by proponents of the black Egyptian view from classical, as well as 18th-19th century writers. The volumes of books from those sources will easily fill any home library.EditorfromMars (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That's far from true. The sources in this article and Black Egyptian hypothesis article both make it very clear it's a minority view maintained by Afrocentric scholars, which isn't taken seriously by mainstream scholars. The amount of afrocentric pseudoscientific publications doesn't change that. Mohamed^Talk 03:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Champollion-Figeac from a memoir for the Pasha of Egypt in 1829 "The opinion that the ancient population of Egypt belonged to the Negro African race, is an error long accepted as the truth. Since the Renaissance...have helped to spread that false notion and geographers have not failed to reproduce it...A serious authority (Volney) declared himself in favor of this view and popularized the error. Such was the effect of what the celebrated Volney published on the various races of men that he had observed in Egypt. In his Voyage, which is in all libraries...the sphinx...a distinctly Negro head...ancient egyptians were true Negroes of the same species as all indigenous Africans." It's pretty clear from this Champollion quote that the view that Egyptians were black Africans was 1) widespread 2) easily found in libraries all over the world from the Renaissance until 1829 3) supported by celebrated thought leaders concerning Egypt's history 4) contested by others leading to the controversy, which is the subject of this articleEditorfromMars (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

that was merely the beginnings of the controversy, the Egyptian language itself was still in the phase of being deciphered at that time, and Egypt's direct contact with france and the west only started 20-30 years before that date. The main part of the controversy began with diop and his afrocentric followers after him. to measure the proportion of each view in the 19th and 20th centuries, there are modern mainstream sources that discuss that, not original research based on primary sources. Mohamed^Talk 04:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

+modern Mainstream scholars generally reject 19th and early 20th century scholars' arguments especially with regards to their racial view of the world (which actually wasn't pro-black Egypt, that's how Black Egyptian hypothesis came to be.. read Diop and his followers about that, they certainly didn't think Black Egyptian view was popular before them.) Mohamed^Talk 04:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that you reread the articles. The controversy did not start in the 20th century. There were plenty of books written on both sides of the argument in the 18th and 19th century. Many of them are actually excerpted in these Wiki articles. You are incorrect in your assertion that the controversy started with Diop. It started with people like Champollion and Volney saying that Egyptians were black, quoting classical Greek authors that said Egyptians were black, and then having other authors take a differing position.EditorfromMars (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth please, I said "that was the beginnings of the controversy", didn't say it started in the 20th century. Trying to create an imaginary consensus based on primary sources in the very beginnings of a +200 year old controversy and ignoring the current consensus can't be accepted. Since there clearly is a fundemental disagreement, I'll mention the other editors interested in the controversy-related articles for third opinion per appropriate notification. @Wdford:, @Doug Weller:, @Calthinus:. Mohamed^Talk 06:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It's obviously correct to state the background and development of the controversy. It is NOT correct to "weight" these old-fashioned and discredited comments to create the appearance of a solid case to support a thoroughly-discredited POV. All of this needs to be balanced out by a simple statement along the lines of "the population history of Egypt has been studied in detail, using the most modern scientific methods and techniques, and it has been determined that the Ancient Egyptians were neither black nor white as per modern American social and racial definitions." Wdford (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Wdford and thank you Memelord0. Upon consideration after reading this discussion, I categorically oppose any revisions at this time. --Calthinus (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

About the [[WP:3O|Third Opinion request: The Third Opinion request has been removed (i.e. denied) because more than two editors are now involved in the discussion and 3O is only available for disputes with exactly two editors. See Dispute Resolution for other DR possibilities if DR is still needed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

@wdford doesn't your proposal conflict with the following statement from the article? Since the second half of the 20th century, most anthropologists have rejected the notion of race as having any validity in the study of human biology.[22][23] Stuart Tyson Smith writes in the 2001 Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, "Any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'black', while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans."[24]

and conflicts with the UNESCO finding to keep using race when discussing Ancient Egypt:

"Mr Glele, the representative of the Director-General of Unesco,...it had not been the intention of (UNESCO)...to give rise to tensions between peoples or races...but rather...clarify..the question of the peopling of Ancieng Egypt from the point of view of ethnic origin...What was needed, therefore, was to compare the alternate theories, to assess scientific arguments...drawing attention, where appropriate, to any gaps." He then goes on to mention all the racial terms that have been used in scientific studies and states, "it remained true that these words, as used in both scholarly and popular works, were not devoid of meaning and were inseparable from value judgements, whether implicit or otherwise." ..."UNESCO had not repudiated the idea of race;...the Organization had drawn up a special programme to study race relations and had stepped up its efforts to combat racial discrimination." ..."It was therefore out of the question for the symposium, in studying problems bearing on the peopling of Ancient Egypt, to reject out of hand, and without proposing any new system, the generally accepted classification of peoples as white, yellow and black - a typology which had traditionally been used by Egyptologists to classify the people of Egypt.

EditorfromMars (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

According to the reliable sources, the 2017 study included also the New Kingdom period. The study was performed by experts, who know what they are doing, and it was published in a respected journal. They do not have a POV to push, unlike some - they just report the scientific facts.

Mr Glele's 1970's views on race are not binding on modern scholars. I can understand that he might like to change the racial definitions of the entire world, but that doesn't mean that everyone else needs to continue being wrong until he gets his way. He wanted the races to be limited to three choices - white, yellow and black. If the Egyptians were not white or yellow, then they had to be black. This deliberately made no allowance for "arab" or middle-eastern peoples, who do not consider themselves to belong to any of those three categories. Indian, Indonesian and Native American people etc do not fall into any of those three categories either. The experts at the conference told him where he was wrong, but he persisted in trying to force the square peg into the round hole. I wonder why? We note that he was from Benin. Glele did not have the authority to order everyone else to be ridiculous, and his personal POV remains merely that.

I can understand that you would like to remove any scientific evidence that undermines your POV, leaving only the unscientific and debunked material which supports your POV, but that would not be appropriate. The inclusion of this material already states the caveats of it being a single sample etc, which is more than sufficient. Diop's pseudo-scientific melanin sample was even less representative, and who knows which people the ancient Greek commentators were actually looking at? Perhaps we should expand on those shortcomings as well? Wdford (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• That's a bit harsh, but I take the point about Glele. The problem with the DNA study is that it was only a single sample, so it's interesting but I don't think it should be included unless someone can show me some reliable sources discussing it. There's been plenty of time for that. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a POV. I only seek balance in these articles. When I first observed these articles on race of the Ancient Egyptians, they were covered with pictures of Greeks and Romans, which is POV pushing. Greek and Roman civilizations have their own articles. Greeks and Romans contributed nothing to Ancient Egyptian culture, religion, architecture, worldview, etc. They came too late. The AE civilization was already thousands of years old. Greeks and Romans are ethnically/racially distinct from the Nile valley inhabitants that 'mainstream scholars' agree are responsible for the AE civilization. Again, I'm requesting that we move long passages about DNA studies to the population article. Please stop misrepresenting my position. Since other editors feel that the 2017 study is so important to the controversy that it should remain in the article, let's treat it in a fair and balanced manner and post alternative interpretations, refutations, etc. That will at least make it a genuine controversy, like the hotly debated back and forth books between Diop and his detractors, Bernal and his detractors, etc.

Next, as a Wiki editor are you qualified to critique Doctor Diop's peer reviewed work on melanin samples? Do you have a ph.D. in a field relevant to melanin samples in human skin? Do you have peer reviewed books that we can review on melanin in human skin? If not, your accusations of 'psuedoscience' on the part of Paris trained DOCTOR Diop highlight your own POV pushing. EditorfromMars (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Moving all discussion of the 2017 DNA study to the DNA study section on this Talk pageEditorfromMars (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Black Queens from the South, Pics in Article

Pictures of Ahmose-Nefertari and Queen Tiye "look to the text", as they illustrate the central argument by supporters of the black egyptian hypothesis, which is that Ancient Egyptians were phenotypically black and would be characterized as black using modern constructs of race. This is highlighted in the text by Basil Davidson's statement and citation. Just as the sphinx section needs a picture for lay readers to know what the sphinx actually looks like, the black egyptian section needs pictures for lay readers to know what the scholars are referencing in their numerous quotes about black skinned egyptians and in the case of Diop Egyptian sculptures that he interprets as having a black person's appearance.

The British Africanist Basil Davidson stated "Whether the Ancient Egyptians were as black or as brown in skin color as other Africans may remain an issue of emotive dispute; probably, they were both. Their own artistic conventions painted them as pink, but pictures on their tombs show they often married queens shown as entirely black, being from the south : while the Greek writers reported that they were much like all the other Africans whom the Greeks knew."EditorfromMars (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Added the following example (typical) of Queen Tiye's prominence in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. It clearly demonstrates supporters of the black egyptians hypothesis calling out Queen Tiye as a black woman with sculptures that look like a black woman. It then discusses the refutation of this point by Yurco after reviewing her mummy. You have both sides contesting Queen Tiye's race and adding to the controversy.

Queen Tiye is a central figure in the controversy, as many describe her sculpture as that of a black woman, while Yurco describes her mummy as having 'long, wavy brown hair, a high-bridged, arched nose and moderately thin lips."

Queen Tiye; Grandmother of Pharaoh Tutankhamun

EditorfromMars (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Contributor Memelord0 talk please allow time for public feedback (via the Talk page) on the addition of multiple articles highlighting the controversy around the race of Nefertiti and Queen Tiye, as well as a picture of her sculpture. Queen Tiye's pic "looks to the text" and provides context to the raucous debate over the bust/sculpture of Queen Tiye. Queen Tiye is not nearly as popular as her grandson King Tut or Nefertiti or Cleopatra. Therefore, most lay readers will have never seen an image of her of any kind (painting, sculpture, etc.) and need this encyclopedia to help them learn about the person behind the controversy. Further attempts to remove the pic will be construed as engaging in an edit war.EditorfromMars (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @EditorfromMars:, I removed the pic earlier because I think it gives undue weight to one of the views, there is for example the pic of her mummy which is used by the other side of the debate but isn't used here. Also the section is mainly about colors and artistic presentation in Ancient Egyptian Art, so pics should be more focused on the broad subject. Mohamed^Talk 00:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I placed Queen Tiye's cited controversy statement and quotations in the sculpture section, as it's about a sculpture. A sculpture is also art, so either section is appropriate. Queen Tiye's bust is now held in an art museum in Berlin, due to it being art. EditorfromMars (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Addressing the subject of undue weight, in these articles we have Basil Davidson's 'married queen shown as entirely black', Petrie's 'black queens', and the American journalist's and revisionists' assertions that Queen Tiye's sculpture is a black woman. Queen Tiye actually deserves the weight, as the notion of black queens in Ancient Egypt comes up quite often in the controversy.EditorfromMars (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't argue about the paragraph, I'm talking about the pic. It seems to be cherrypicking to support one of the sides, while ignoring other artistic presentations or mummy pics that are used by the other side. It may be alright to use it in Black Egyptian Hypothesis article, but doesn't seem right here. Mohamed^Talk 05:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Including this photo is blatant POV-pushing by the "Black Egyptian" franchise. The only reason the photo has any traction in the controversy is because the statue is carved in dark wood. If it had been in lighter wood, or ivory, or limestone etc, then the person depicted could easily be thought of as Persian, e.g. Nazanin Kavari see [19] or Kim Kardashian see [20] or [21], or maybe Iraqi such as Huda Kattan, see [22], or maybe Chilean, such as Paloma Mami, see [23], or maybe even British, such as Cara Delevinge, see [24]. This particular statute certainly is part of the controversy, but a bit of context is required to achieve a bit of neutrality. Wdford (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This is your original research. The articles I cited stated quite clearly and emphatically that the journalist, scholars labeled as 'revisionists' in the article, and millions of Black Americans describe Queen Tiye as a black woman after reviewing her sculpture. The articles then go on to mention the opposing views and discuss how Queen Tiye's and Nefertiti's race is controversial. These are not my words, or my research. This is the position of journalists, scholars/revisionists, and millions of Americans. It's cited. To follow Wikipedia policies, you need to cite articles and/or peer reviewed books where they discuss some group taking the position that Queen Tiye was not black and the counter arguments by detractors to produce a controversy. You cannot deny that there is a raging controversy around Queen Tiye's race and that there are millions of people that take the position that she's black. I cited two articles to both demonstrate the controversy around her race and highlight the position of both camps. Furthermore, you are misrepresenting the position of adherents of the Black Egyptian hypothesis. Diop has entire sections of his books where he uses sculptures and statues to demonstrate that Ancient Egyptians have facial features that resemble black people living in Africa. He does not use color photos. He's relying strictly on the appearance of the sculpture, facial features, etc. to draw the conclusion that Ancient Egyptians look like Black Africans. He has side by side photos of a modern black African and an Ancient Egyptian sculpture (not colored painting), so that the reader can compare facial features between the two. He brought up this point at the UNESCO conference.

So Diop would disagree with your original research and state, as he has in his peer reviewed books, that Queen Tiye's facial features look like the facial features of a black African and this would be true in a black and white photo with no color. EditorfromMars (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

why did this turn into a wide discussion about diop and the broad controversy? It's all about the image. It should be removed because it's POV pushing and gives Undue weight to a specific topic that is only discussed in the article in 2 lines. According to Barbara Mertz, one reason for the belief by some that she had Nubian origins is her statue in Berlin that was carved of black wood. She thinks it constituted "succumbing to obvious fallacies". Mohamed^Talk 07:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the Talk page to prevent further reverts of a pic that is supported by several articles and peer reviewed books describing the controversy around this very bust/sculpture. The articles and books are not using some other painting of Tiye to highlight the controversy and describe the positions of the two opposing sides. They are in fact using the very bust/sculpture that has been added to this article to describe the controversy and the two opposing sides. Diop is cited repeatedly in this article. Diop epitomizes the controversy as he controversially disagreed with and argued with a lot of mainstream Egyptologists at the UNESCO conference. He also wrote the books that laid the groundwork for the hypothesis described in this article. Further evidence of the raging race controversy regarding Ancient Egyptian sculptures and not only paintingsEditorfromMars (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's more evidence of the raging controversy and the ubiquitous use of Queen Tiye's bust as the image in posts, articles, discussions about the Egyptian race controversy. Queen Tiye's bust is the featured image in this post about the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. https://anthropology.msu.edu/anp455-fs14/2014/09/18/ancient-egyptian-race-debate/ EditorfromMars (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's an example of how any discussion of the AE race controversy immediately turns to Diop to articulate the position of people that believe AE's were black. It's also a good example of how Wikipedia is misrepresenting the actual position of Diop and others, as their position for English speakers in books and articles translated into English is "Greeks called Ancient Egyptian's black." English speakers don't use the word melanchroes in any of their books translating the Greek text concerning Greek views on Ancient Egyptian's appearance. If you speak English, it's best translated as "Greeks called the Ancient Egyptian's black." That's what you will find in any best selling, English language book on the topic, unlike this Wiki article. https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/3chapter5.shtml EditorfromMars (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is a well-known photo from the tomb of the Queen Kemsit, a secondary wife of the 11th Dynasty. [25] She was known to have been Nubian. The servant girls are shown in the style invariably used to portray Egyptian women. The difference in portrayal between the Nubian queen and her Egyptian servant girls is dramatic.

The 11th Dynasty re-conquered Nubia. It is highly probable that dynastic marriages with Nubian princesses would have been part of that "unification" process.

Kemsit was buried at Deir el-Bahari, as were many other mummies. It is probable that other Nubian retainers would have been buried near her as well.

Mariette excavated at Deir el-Bahari extensively. Some of the mummies he recovered here ended up in the Musée de l'Homme in Paris. Diop used these very mummies for his "melanin test".

I wonder if Diop chose these samples at random, or if he chose them because everyone already knew that some of these mummies were Nubian rather than Egyptian?

Wdford (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

According to Diop, his melanin test "is perfectly suitable for use on the royal mummies of Thutmoses III, Seti I, and Ramses II in the Cairo museum...no more than a few square millimeters of skin would be required" He invited the other scholars at the UNESCO conference to use his melanin test on any mummy that they chose. A better question to ponder is why didn't all of the 'mainstream' scholars accept Diop's offer to examine other mummies using the melanin test, so that they could disprove him once and for all???EditorfromMars (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, thanks for providing another picture of a black/nubian queen that looks to the text and supports the numerous references to black queen from various authors of the last 200 years. I have a question for you to ponder. These Wiki articles and the peer reviewed sources on which they rely, note that the 'dark red' color and frequently lighter (tan/yellow?) color of the 'Egyptian' women implies a different race than their southern nubian/kushite/napatan neighbors. Why are the 25th dynasty pharaohs still using this color scheme in their art, although we all agree that the 25th dynasty leadership was unquestionable black (using modern constructs of race)? Maybe, as is so often noted when it's convenient, the dark red Egyptian man, tan Egyptian woman color scheme is symbolic and not a true reflection of their actual skin color. Maybe it highlights the diversity of colors in the Nile valley. All good questions and why there is a controversy.EditorfromMars (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

No, nobody was the "same race" or a "different race" because race did not exist. It is a concept that only emerged later. Sources make this very clear: Egyptians could often be virulently "racist" against foreigners of all sorts, regardless of skin color, whether they be Nubians, Semites, "Libyans", Hittites, Greeks or whatever. They had zero attested concept of some sort of kinship with certain foreigners but not others based on physical appearance alone. Foreigners whether from Nubia (who would be often called "black" today and were darker than the average Egyptian), or from the Middle East or Greece or Italy or Persia or Hatti ("white" if you will, they were probably lighter skinned than the average Egyptian) did however contribute significantly to Egyptian civilization, and to date there is no evidence that their descendants continued to be segregated or considered a separate "race" or anything that even remotely resembles race in the modern Western context. So questions about what the "skin color" of Egyptians was miss the point -- and also obscure the fact that from day 1 Egypt likely had internal variety (esp of a north/south distinction that persists today) and given Egypt's historically consistently high population density and historically high lower class birthrate as well, this idea that foreigners could really have such a huge impact (as I've seen you say elsewhere) is really very dubious. [could many Egyptians pass as Black Americans? Very possibly but that's a group that some people consider to include people as pale as Mariah Carey and Ilhan Omar, which is not the case for who is considered "black" in Africa itself, so go figure] --Calthinus (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as you say, "According to Diop". Diop was not correct about everything he claimed, and this claim is also suspect. The general position is that the skin of mummies is damaged and cannot show melanin levels with reliability. It has been 50-odd years since that claim was made, and despite the huge advances in technology since then, no Afrocentric scientist has ever "proved" that the melanin test is valid - perhaps we should ponder that too?

Speaking of advances in technology, the 2017 DNA tests directly contradicted Diop – and yet you are trying to have that info removed from the article?

It is well known that some Egyptian kings had Nubian secondary wives – usually for political/diplomatic reasons. It is also well known that the Kushite dynasty were Nubian rather than Egyptian, and were thus probably "black" as well, although they may well have had a lot of Egyptian blood, especially among the ruling elite. Regardless, they represent a very small percentage of Egyptian history, and they lasted less than a century. What IS rejected by scholarship is the claim that "ALL Egyptians" were black. That Kemsit panel clearly demonstrates that the Egyptian women were very different in appearance to the Nubian women.

Obviously there are variations is skin color across all populations - even within a "race". White people can vary greatly in "skin color", from Tilda Swinton to Ariana Grande etc. Ditto Indian women, oriental women, black women etc. I am sure that the same applied to the people of Ancient Egypt. I am also sure that the men of Ancient Egypt were not really physically darker than their mothers and sisters. Clearly there was a degree of artistic convention at work in Egyptian art. However the significance is that the Egyptian people and the Nubian people were shown to be dramatically different to each other. If tan was a "standard female color", then why were Nubian women shown to be drastically different to (and much darker than) Egyptian women - unless they were understood to be drastically different in actual physical appearance?

The reason why there is a controversy is NOT because women were painted with a different standard skin tone to their fathers and sons. There is a controversy because some people are trying to affirm their own (perceived) race by claiming that the Ancient Egyptians were black, despite all the scholarship to the contrary. Wdford (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. The reason there is a controversy is using modern constructs of race, which have been applied to humans all over earth in the last several hundred years, Ancient Egyptians would have to be forced into a couple of predefined races (Black, White, Yellow). This discussion on the Talk page has actually highlighted an extremely important topic that the article is missing. During the UNESCO conference, there was vigorous debate about whether the concept of race should be abandoned when discussing and writing about the Ancient Egyptians. I will quote the annex at length from the General History of Africa:

"Mr Glele, the representative of the Director-General of Unesco,...it had not been the intention of (UNESCO)...to give rise to tensions between peoples or races...but rather...clarify..the question of the peopling of Ancieng Egypt from the point of view of ethnic origin...What was needed, therefore, was to compare the alternate theories, to assess scientific arguments...drawing attention, where appropriate, to any gaps." He then goes on to mention all the racial terms that have been used in scientific studies and states, "it remained true that these words, as used in both scholarly and popular works, were not devoid of meaning and were inseparable from value judgements, whether implicit or otherwise." ..."UNESCO had not repudiated the idea of race;...the Organization had drawn up a special programme to study race relations and had stepped up its efforts to combat racial discrimination." ..."It was therefore out of the question for the symposium, in studying problems bearing on the peopling of Ancient Egypt, to reject out of hand, and without proposing any new system, the generally accepted classification of peoples as white, yellow and black - a typology which had traditionally been used by Egyptologists to classify the people of Egypt. Furthermore, if the traditional vocabulary currently used by historians needed revision, it should not be revised merely for the history of Africa but for the entire world;" ..."Pending the introduction of new terms, the terms black, negro, negroid and Hamitic, which were currently used, should be more clearly defined." ...Then the participants debated this topic.

• Vercoutter said "more specific criteria" were needed "to provide a scientific definition of the black race." He suggested blood criterion.
• Some participants hoped that race "would be used with circumspection." Obenga said, "the notion of race was recognized as valid by scientific research..."
• Some experts pointed out that "basic answers on this issue could not be expected to come from historians and archaeologists, but only specialists in physical anthropology."
• Diop did not support the criteria used by physical anthropologists to characterize the black race...
• Mr Glele said, "if the criteria for classifying a person as black, white or yellow were so debatable, and if the concepts which had been discussed were so ill-defined and perhaps so subjective...this should be frankly stated and revision should be made of the entire terminology of world history in the light of new scientific criteria, so that the vocabulary should be the same for everyone and that words should have the same connotations, thus avoiding misconceptions and being conducive to understanding and agreement."

In summary, 'mainstream scholars' in fact did NOT disavow race at UNESCO in 1974, but instead reaffirmed their commitment to continue using race and racial terms when studying the peopling of Ancient Egypt. The only other option provided was to abandon race for all societies all over earth in all historical writings. Therefore, according to the 'mainstream scholars' at UNESCO it's actually NOT anachronistic to talk about race in Ancient Egypt. Using race is the 'mainstream' and accepted way of writing about history. If you don't want to talk about race in Ancient Egypt, then there cannot be an Asian/yellow China, or white Europe in Wiki history articles, or history books. Just a location, a geography, with no respect paid to the appearance of the people living there.

My proposal is not to debate all of these points in the article, but simply to add a sentence or two near UNESCO references highlighting this discussion and how the participants were told by Mr. Glele that in UNESCO publications they would continue to use race when discussing the peopling of Ancient Egypt.EditorfromMars (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm advocating to move the 2017 study to the population article, not delete it from Wiki. It's not a part of the controversy (yet) and it doesn't include any Old and Middle Kingdom specimens. It considers the Persian, Greek, Roman periods as part of 'Ancient Egypt' and drawing racial conclusions from Persian, Greek, and Roman mummies would violate the 'mainstream scholar' belief that the Ancient Egyptian society is an indigenous development and peopled by humans indigenous to the area (not from Persia, Greece, or Roman Italy).EditorfromMars (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

According to the reliable sources, the 2017 study included also the New Kingdom period. The study was performed by experts, who know what they are doing, and it was published in a respected journal. They do not have a POV to push, unlike some - they just report the scientific facts.

Mr Glele's 1970's views on race are not binding on modern scholars. I can understand that he might like to change the racial definitions of the entire world, but that doesn't mean that everyone else needs to continue being wrong until he gets his way. He wanted the races to be limited to three choices - white, yellow and black. If the Egyptians were not white or yellow, then they had to be black. This deliberately made no allowance for "arab" or middle-eastern peoples, who do not consider themselves to belong to any of those three categories. Indian, Indonesian and Native American people etc do not fall into any of those three categories either. The experts at the conference told him where he was wrong, but he persisted in trying to force the square peg into the round hole. I wonder why? We note that he was from Benin. Glele did not have the authority to order everyone else to be ridiculous, and his personal POV remains merely that.

I can understand that you would like to remove any scientific evidence that undermines your POV, leaving only the unscientific and debunked material which supports your POV, but that would not be appropriate. The inclusion of this material already states the caveats of it being a single sample etc, which is more than sufficient. Diop's pseudo-scientific melanin sample was even less representative, and who knows which people the ancient Greek commentators were actually looking at? Perhaps we should expand on those shortcomings as well? Wdford (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

See below. 2017 DNA study has a section on this Talk page. For the record, the entire 200 year history of racist, eurocentric Egyptology was published in 'respected' books and journals. Ending discussion of it in this section.EditorfromMars (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

And 200 years ago, Wikipedia if it followed its own policies would be a racist piece of shit, because Wikipedia is not about changing the world, it is about reflecting what established RS say. Period. WP:ACTIVISTs have better and more productive ways to fix the very real problems of this world than editing this page. --Calthinus (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I support @periclesofathens reintroduction of the Fayum mummy portraits. Seems odd that this is the one article in all of Wikipedia, where you can't post pictures that "look to the text" and illustrate the text. All sections of the text. Has anyone considered adding a picture gallery where editors can add additional pictures that "look to the text?"EditorfromMars (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

King Tut's pic looks to the following statement in the text: "In a November 2007 publication of Ancient Egypt magazine, Hawass asserted that none of the facial reconstructions resemble Tut and that, in his opinion, the most accurate representation of the boy king is the mask from his tomb.[58] The Discovery Channel commissioned a facial reconstruction of Tutankhamun, based on CT scans of a model of his skull, back in 2002.[59][60]" This pic covers: 1) the raging controversy around modern reconstructions with their arbitrarily chosen skin tones 2) statements in the article about interpretations and controversy around AE art using authentic Egyptian art from King Tut's tomb walls 3) Hawass' statement about the mask being the most accurate representation. EditorfromMars (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The improved Table of Nations pic looks to the text excerpted below and addresses the following concerns:

• The prior pic gives undue weight to the last group by showing 4 images from the last group and only one image from the other 3 groups
• The most common version of the Table of Nations painting found in actual Egyptian art on Egyptian monuments has 4 persons from each group. Not one person from the first 3 groups and 4 persons from the last group, as in this Wiki article.
• The text refers to Lepsius' drawings at length and in Lepsius' drawing, there are 4 people from each group, as shown in the new/replacement pic

However, Manu Ampim, a professor at Merritt College specializing in African and African American history and culture, claims in the book Modern Fraud: The Forged Ancient Egyptian Statues of Ra-Hotep and Nofret, that many ancient Egyptian statues and artworks are modern frauds that have been created specifically to hide the "fact" that the ancient Egyptians were black, while authentic artworks that demonstrate black characteristics are systematically defaced or even "modified". Ampim repeatedly makes the accusation that the Egyptian authorities are systematically destroying evidence that "proves" that the ancient Egyptians were black, under the guise of renovating and conserving the applicable temples and structures. He further accuses "European" scholars of wittingly participating in and abetting this process.[139][140]

From Giovanni Battista Belzoni- Egyptian race portrayed in the Book of Gates.jpg Ampim has a specific concern about the painting of the "Table of Nations" in the Tomb of Ramses III (KV11). The "Table of Nations" is a standard painting that appears in a number of tombs, and they were usually provided for the guidance of the soul of the deceased.[132][141] Among other things, it described the "four races of men" as follows: (translation by E.A. Wallis Budge)[141] "The first are RETH, the second are AAMU, the third are NEHESU, and the fourth are THEMEHU. The RETH are Egyptians, the AAMU are dwellers in the deserts to the east and north-east of Egypt, the NEHESU are the black races, and the THEMEHU are the fair-skinned Libyans."

The archaeologist Richard Lepsius documented many ancient Egyptian tomb paintings in his work Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien.[142] In 1913, after the death of Lepsius, an updated reprint of the work was produced, edited by Kurt Sethe. This printing included an additional section, called the "Ergänzungsband" in German, which incorporated many illustrations that did not appear in Lepsius' original work. One of them, plate 48, illustrated one example of each of the four "nations" as depicted in KV11, and shows the "Egyptian nation" and the "Nubian nation" as identical to each other in skin color and dress. Professor Ampim has declared that plate 48 is a true reflection of the original painting, and that it "proves" that the ancient Egyptians were identical in appearance to the Nubians, even though he admits no other examples of the "Table of Nations" show this similarity. He has further accused "Euro-American writers" of attempting to mislead the public on this issue.[143]

The late Egyptologist, Frank Yurco, visited the tomb of Ramses III (KV11), and in a 1996 article on the Ramses III tomb reliefs he pointed out that the depiction of plate 48 in the Ergänzungsband section is not a correct depiction of what is actually painted on the walls of the tomb. Yurco notes, instead, that plate 48 is a "pastiche" of samples of what is on the tomb walls, arranged from Lepsius' notes after his death, and that a picture of a Nubian person has erroneously been labeled in the pastiche as an Egyptian person. Yurco points also to the much more recent photographs of Dr. Erik Hornung as a correct depiction of the actual paintings.[144] (Erik Hornung, The Valley of the Kings: Horizon of Eternity, 1990). Ampim nonetheless continues to claim that plate 48 shows accurately the images that stand on the walls of KV11, and he categorically accuses both Yurco and Hornung of perpetrating a deliberate deception for the purposes of misleading the public about the true race of the ancient Egyptians.[143]EditorfromMars (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Recent edits

• @Doug Weller: I mentioned an article below that connects the 2017 study to the controversy. @EditorfromMars: There's supposed to be a consensus before adding controversial info, not the other way around. Your last edits of images are not agreed on by any editor here, so how is it wrong to revert to the stable version untill there's actually an agreement?

About the Tutankhamun pic, How is a low quality pic from the tomb better than the most characteristic and relevant pic about him (his death mask, which was also found in the tomb)? Mohamed^Talk 04:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The talk page has discussed Queen Tiye's pic at length. Then the Fayum mummy pics. The consensus has been if the pics "look to the text" they are okay. I actually added info on the Talk page when adding/changing pics. The book of gates / table of nations pic is not representative of the scene as found in most Egyptian tombs. It looks more like a pastiche or other corruption of the actual AE art. It is well known from Lepsius and other sources that the most common table of nation art has four persons per group of humans. Not one, one, one, four. That's a misrepresentation of the majority of table of nations scenes as shown in Egyptian art.

Showing a gold mask doesn't do a lot to illustrate the dark red color that is so often mentioned in this controversy. I put my rationale on the Talk page. That is not a controversial pic. It's a pic from King Tut's tomb to illustrate text about King Tut's appearance.EditorfromMars (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Looking to the text doesn't mean only including pics used by one side of the controversy and ignoring all other representations and arguments against the misuse of them. Plus, you're clearly contradictiong yourself, adding the new tut pic because of Hawass's view about the mask being the most representative and then saying now it's because of the dark red color on the walls (which has nothing to do with the text) Mohamed^Talk 04:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Also the new subsection about "Black queens" clearly has POV problems, the name implies they are indeed black per modern definition, and ignores the other arguments against both being black, as yurco explained, and as modern scholars indicated the sympolism of the black color in the other case.Mohamed^Talk 04:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• The "condensation of singer's view does no good, as the section already recognizes that "In most depictions of Ahmose-Nefertari, she is pictured with black skin", so there's no point of repeating that. Mohamed^Talk 04:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the King Tut pic that I posted and replaced it with the pic added by Memelord0, per suggestions on the talk page.EditorfromMars (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Also, please stop claiming "not a good faith edit", the only point was summarizing, and I'm not against including his view about her being 'black'. Mohamed^Talk 05:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not a good faith edit when quotes from books are altered so that they no longer reflect the text in the book. I think all editors will agree with that statementEditorfromMars (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Singer, I do not agree with the comments regarding the quotes. The majority of images/art/statues covered in Singer's work show Ahmose Nefertari with black skin. There are actually pictures in the paper. However, in this Wiki article there are two separate and complete sentences highlighting the exception to the rule, which is Ahmose Nefertari art where she is not shown as black from head to toe. That is the exception. The rule is she is shown with black skin from head to toe. Even Singer's report admits this and demonstrates it. Therefore, since the majority of images of Ahmose Nefertari show her with black skin, it is POV pushing to have four or five sentences discussing the few images of Ahmose Nefertari that aren't black. Furthermore, the theory that the color is symbolic is impossible to prove and hotly contested by numerous authors.EditorfromMars (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• It does reflect his view, and I said I'm not against including the black part as long as his view doesn't recieve too much weight, that was the point of the summary.

"Black Queen Controversy in Ancient Egyptian Art" is too long and not very accurate, it should be just "specific controversies" or "specific examples", and the part of The British Africanist Basil Davidson should be included in the beginnings of the bigger section.

The text already made it clear that "In most depictions of Ahmose-Nefertari, she is pictured with black skin", the statement about "a statuette of Ahmose-Nefertari at the Museo Egizio in Turin which shows her with a black face, though her arms and feet are not darkened" is the main point behind Singer's view, thus it's important, unlike the many examples of her with black skin which are only repetitions and already discussed. The part about the red skin could be summarized. The section's purpose is analyzing her skin color and what it means, not how many times it happened Mohamed^Talk 05:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Davidson uses the phrase "married queens shown entirely as black" and then describes the controversy "issue of emotive dispute." Petrie uses the phrase "black queens" repeatedly on page 155 of his work and highlights the opposing camp's view with the "possibility of the black being symbolic has been suggested." You do not have to agree with any of these statements to admit that there is a raging controversy around "black queens" and stated as "black queens" in the books. This controversy continues today, as Singer and others show multiple images and provide multiple examples of black skinned queen Ahmose Nefertari before making a point that the color is symbolic (a point that is contested, as it was in Petrie's day, or Davidson's day. This is a well written subsection highlighting an aspect of the AE race controversy that gets plenty of attention in the news media, journals, and books.EditorfromMars (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• The only thing in common between Tiye and Ahmose-Nefertari controversies is their relation to artistic representation (the section) and being about one person, including them in one section called "Black Queen Controversy in Ancient Egyptian Art" implies they are related, or discussed in relation to each other, which isn't true. I can agree to a subsection about Ahmose-Nefertari called "black queen controversy", that would be accurate. But including Tiye is inaccurate. So, either make the subsection only for Ahmose-Nefertari (which would leave Tiye in the main section, not very accurate either) or change the heading to "specific examples" or "specific controversies" and include both Mohamed^Talk 05:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree, at all. Tiye is an AE Queen. I posted two different news articles discussing Queen Tiye's race and describing the controversy around her race. The articles explicitly mention her sculpture/bust/art. On the talk page, I added further examples, when justifying the pic of Queen Tiye in the article. There's an abundance of examples in the articles of authors discussing black queen, discussing opposing views (a controversy), and Queen Tiye is one of the Queens in that controversy. There are no weaknesses in this positionEditorfromMars (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ahomse-Nefertari is far more connected to "Black queen controversy" than Tiye, and she's clearly what comes to mind when discussing that label. Anyway, I don't maind including Tiye in the subsection, but I prefer the other subheading. Mohamed^Talk 06:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is your opinion. I've posted examples of Queen Tiye in the AE controversy. It's indisputable.EditorfromMars (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue of images was discussed before and IMHO it was agreed they were a problem. I hadn't looked at this article carefully for a while and my edits were in accord with the earlier discussions. You could even say they were a revert to the stable version if there ever was such a thing. Doug Weller talk 06:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@dougweller there was discussion on the Talk page about the addition of the Fayum mummy photo. The conclusion of that discussion was the Fayum mummy photo was okay because it 'looked to the text.' I supported another editor in that viewpoint. If it is okay to add the Fayum mummy photos using this logic, it would naturally be okay to add other photos using the same logic. We either have to go back to the stable version with no pictures, or allow pictures to illustrate topics that are explicitly called out in the text of the article, per the Fayum mummy discussion on the Talk page.EditorfromMars (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@memelord0 and I have agreed upon a new version of the table of nations (book of gates) pic. It's an improvement upon the pic that was in the stable version of the article, which misrepresented the scene as shown in the vast majority of tombs/art/paintings in Egypt.EditorfromMars (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the current original pic from Richard Lepsius's Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, which is far clearer than previous versions and relevant to the text is the right one. Mohamed^Talk 06:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I also agree to the current version of the table of nations picEditorfromMars (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

2017 DNA Study section should be removed

The 2017 DNA study now has a section in the article. Are there any peer reviewed sources that 1) tie the genetic findings to race of the Ancient Egyptians 2) demonstrate a race controversy around this very recent study.

As agreed in the previous discussion on the Talk page (to remove the 2017 DNA study from the lead), there is no controversy in peer reviewed sources around this study. It belongs in the Population article and not in the race controversy article until people start arguing about it's impact on the race of Ancient Egyptians in peer reviewed books, news articles, etc.EditorfromMars (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No. There is no controversy around this DNA study, because it is based on SCIENCE rather than race-obsessed straw-clutching. However it is clear that you are pushing a POV which has been discredited by modern scholarship, and it is not appropriate to skew the article by deleting all evidence which contradicts your POV - merely on the basis that this evidence is not discredited pseudo-science. This DNA study does belong in the Population History article, and it is already present in the Population History article. What is reported in this article is largely the discredited postulations of colonial-era "explorers", on which are precariously perched the rantings of race-obsessed revisionists, with a total disregard for all the facts which prove the contrary position. This needs to be balanced out by also including the modern scholarship which actually answers the questions, shows that the Ancient Egyptians were neither black nor white as per modern American social and racial definitions, and thereby defuses the controversy. Since the DNA tests linking the mummies to Asia rather than to sub-Saharan Africa are the latest - and strongest - evidence in this process, neutrality and factual accuracy would require that the DNA tests should also be mentioned here. To delete all the scientific evidence on the basis that it is solid rather than speculative, leaving us with only the one-sided pseudo-scientific POV-pushing speculation, would not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wdford (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, also apparently some sources connect it to the controversy, see here for example. Mohamed^Talk 10:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Pinging other editors interested in the controversy-related articles for third opinion per appropriate notification. @Wdford:, @Doug Weller:EditorfromMars (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Similar to the discussion in the history section above, we either have to 1) remove 2017 DNA study passages from controversy articles, as there is no controversy, or... 2) Actually highlight the controversy by posting the refutations, alternative interpretations, and peer reviewed rebuttals. This is exactly what has been done for all other controversies in the article (Volney vs others, Diop vs others, Bernal vs others, Cleopatra afrocentrists vs others, etc.)EditorfromMars (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Memelord0:, you've been around for a few years so I'm surprised that you think that Big Think is a relevant source, let alone the author[26]. And of course you mention several and that's just one. I meant discussed by experts as I think EditorfromMars is saying, not amateurs. So it doesn't belong as that doesn't seem to have happened. Doug Weller talk 06:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: hmm, I didn't check the source as it seemed reliable to me from the first look, thanks for letting me know. if there aren't reliable sources that connect the two then it should be removed of course. Mohamed^Talk 06:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I support relocation to the population article. If it must remain, I've posted a rebuttal by four authors (same report/paper). Three of four are ph.D's and one is MD and Phil.D.EditorfromMars (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)